Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[southernhybrid]

I agree that woo can be harmful if it's used as a reason not to take action. For example, my neighbor has all kinds of interesting woo beliefs, but she never used that woo to keep her from going to the doctor when her BP is elevated etc. She burns white candles for peace. Of course burning a white candle won't bring peace into the world, but if it gives her inner peace, I see that as harmless. If a Christian finds peace in believing that prayer is real, that's not harmful unless they use that prayer as an excuse not to take action, when it's action that is needed to solve a problem.

I don't believe that belief in the supernatural will end. It may change over time. New beliefs and religions will arise, but humans seem to have an attraction to believing things without good evidence, and humans often fail to believe things that are backed up by evidence. People deny evolution despite the fact that we it literally continues to happen among microbes, and despite the fact that we share most of our DNA with the great apes. Plus, we look and act like them at times.

Some people believe that the pandemic is a hoax despite the overwhelming evidence that it's causing wide spread suffering and death. As I write this, an ad for Prevagen just came on. There is no evidence that Prevagen prevents memory loss. At best it's a placebo that tampers worry, but people believe it's keeping their memories intact. I suppose one could say that religion and woo are placebos that help people cope. As an atheist who gave up woo over 45 years ago, I can't say that I totally understand why people believe what they do, but I've also found that I often have the same values as some of my religious friends. That's all that matters to me. Character is what matters, not beliefs.

 

[remez]

I do what I can to avoid believing anything unless it is evidently true …..

So do I. Aka skepticism. Can be healthy in moderation.
But…. You run into this self-defeating reasoning every time………….

…… (the way "the sky is blue" and "animals evolved" are evidently true). I don't need conjectural (or what you'd call "plausibly reasonable") answers to anything.

…… you are using reason to proclaim that reasoning is useless in determining our beliefs. This “conjectural” term you dismiss with a hand wave is reasoning itself.
Further……….
You delude yourself into believing that you only believe in propositions that are confirmed empirically, like the sky is blue. But then you extend that to animals evolved which is not empirically evident. Evolution a good theory reasoned as the best explanation from the evidence. Likewise the universe has a beginning is abductive reasoning based upon the evidence that I presented earlier.

Religious or scientific is not the issue for me. Abstracted away from the most evident of things = no good reason to believe. (Which is very different from saying "no reasons" or "no

You are missing your two big contradictions in your reasoning. First your statement “Abstracted away from the most evident of things = no good reason to believe” is itself abstracted reasoning not = most evident things. Secondly, empiricism (most evident things) is also self-defeating bc it has no empirical evidence for it.

You are trying so hard to simply dismiss my reasoning because it is not empirical. But you are using non-empirical abstracted reasoning to do so. Your skepticism of my reasoning is inconsistent and self-defeating. Therefore you have not made the case that my reasoning is weak. Thus this premature assertion of victory…….

All that is needed is to show your premise is weak and therefore it's reasonable to "withhold assent". That is, disbelieve. It's not an obliteration of your reasoning, but that there are good reasons to doubt your reasons.

….is based upon your abstracted reasoning that is inconsistent (not most evident) and completely self-defeating.
You have not made the case that my reasoning for the universe having a beginning is weak.

Probably everyone knows your reasoning already. I for one have answered it adequately in the past,……

That was my point about you earlier. You do this every time. I even referred to you specifically because of your consistent error and blindness to it. Once again you came through for me.

You think just because you can abstractly reason something against my reasoning, that my reasoning is weak. You must defend your abstracted reasoning. Simply believing that it is stronger than mine is delusional. And once again you never directly challenged the evidence. You just abstractly reasoned that I reasoned abstractly, therefore my reason is weaker than your abstracted reasoning.

Have a great summer.

 

[remez]

Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit. Either I don't have the information that I require to make an informed decision and so I just go with the teaching, or I do in fact possess a significant degree knowledge to bring to bear but am afraid to face the resulting conclusion, and so I opt to live a lie, namely that I prefer ignorance to truth. In either case I am living an untruth, however comforting.

So it seems to me that religious faith is largely a myth, hence we hear discussions about "Faith and Reason" owing to the fact that they present opposing methodologies to dealing with a claim. There really isn't any faith, rather ignorance or willful self-deceit that results in an acceptance of a belief.

A child who believes in Santa literally has faith in Santa.

But what if I do have the information to make an informed decision that God exists?

Notice, you are only asserting there is no evidence or good reasoning for God’s existence. I’m sure such reasoning has been presented to you. We have battled over it in the past, Joedad. And you have rejected my evidence with less plausibility than I have to hold it. But you ignore that and deceive yourself to you feel informed enough to assert that theism has no evidence and reasoning. That is the picture of ignorance and self-deceit.

Well, I reject your unsupported premise that I don’t have good reason to believe God exists. Thus it is your burden to show me where my reasoning and evidence is weaker than your reasoning and evidence against it. You don’t just get to counter. You have to make the case that your counter, that your reasoning against is better than my reasoning of support. This is where your assertion above breaks down. Like abaddon, you simply reason that any presented counter eliminates my reasoning. It doesn’t and is a self-delusion. You would need to show your counter is more reasonable than by premise.

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

Also before you start shouting the virtues of “I don’t know” agnosticism. Aka IDKism. You have to stay consistent. If you can’t know something with absolute certainty then you cannot concurrently hold your “decision” as rational. For example…..your assumption….”Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit.”

bump

 

[rousseau]

I'm just going to sit back and enjoy this world I live in through my peep-hole while I still can, without the grandiose notion that I can affect it meaningfully.

I take that to mean you have not given up the discussion but have in deed given up on any expectations. That's pretty safe.

Sometimes I also feel there's more going on with activism than meets the eye. So many of us have deeply held beliefs that we care about, and are eager to express, but we don't as readily consider the impact of the things we say and do. To me this is because there's rarely a risk when we try to 'affect change'. Most of us are usually repeating approved talking points to people who already agree with us - minimal to no impact, but it makes us look good. I'll sound like a cynic but I think there's a bit of dishonesty, and lack of awareness there.

If people really, and truly believed that they could make a meaningful difference in the world, and they truly wanted to, they would be doing more than expressing their viewpoint on the internet.

Don't get me wrong, if that's what you want to do more power to you, but to me there's more power in the realization that the strongest forces of the world are going to do what they're going to do, regardless of what I do. So rather than spending my life in the belief that the world is broken and needs fixing, and that I'm immoral if I don't spend my whole life shouting - moving beyond that and recognizing that the world just is what it is, and that I'm better off if I just accept it.

I believe this is what most people unconsciously already do, and it's really only the wings of the left and right that are actually vocal. Most people are more intuitively rational, in a sense.

 

[abaddon]

So do I. Aka skepticism. Can be healthy in moderation.
But…. You run into this self-defeating reasoning every time…………. you are using reason to proclaim that reasoning is useless in determining our beliefs.

And yet again, as always when any attempt to talk with you is made, you rely on mischaracterizing what I say and then attack that. You think you're drawing the logical conclusion of what I've said but you're so intent on finding what's wrong that you skip the understanding-what-was-said part of the process.

I inevitably, and with awareness, use abstract reasoning to differentiate between what I have thought about to determine as "evident" and what I find too far out there into the realm of fantastical conjecture to assent to believe. Twisting that into a rejection of all abstract reasoning is either dishonest sophistry on your part, or intellectual incapacity, or a mix of both.

Fantastical conjectures become "reasoning itself", in your twisted world. And evolution is conjectural and not empirically confirmed. And you're on about "victory" yet again, as if arguments about things beyond anyone's knowing can for once and all be established.

That you keep insisting nobody's answered your KCA argument, and keep trying to draw people into a repeat, is typical creationist zealotry. Every creationist does it, we know you can't help your "reasoning" self but do that irrational obsessive behavior over and over and over and over and over again too.

 

[ronburgundy]

Faith is believing something that you know ain't true. Mark Twain

Is that what the OP is proposing? That people say they have faith but they really know the things they believe aren't true?

I don't think that's the case for most Christians. They really believe the shit they say they believe, but since they don't have the evidence to back up their claims, they say that they believe these things through faith. When they have doubts, friends or ministers tell them they need to have more faith.

Whatever......

But if they know they lack evidence and often know there is much evidence against their belief, then either they fundamentally reject the importance of evidence for the probability of a claim, or on some level they know that by the same standard they use evidence to determine what is true in most of life and when it really matters, their faith-based beliefs fail. That isn't psychologically identical to "knowing what you believe is false" but it has lot's of overlap. The Bible talks repeatedly about how evil doubt is (and how misleading thinking, knowledge, wisdom, and evidence are), because it's writers knew that doubts are always under the surface when there is nothing but faith to support a beliefs. The sectarian violence that religion always has and inherently breeds is likely tied to this deep-seeded suppressed doubt that breed insecurity and fear, which triggers anger and violence at those whose words or actions remind believers of the irrationality of or just alternatives to their views.

 

[abaddon]

It's enough to look at the creationist's posts here for a demonstration of the doubts they suffer. "It's not blind faith! It's not!" And "I have my reasons and you haven't eliminated my reasons!"

A person who's interested in actual truth will try to obliterate his own reasons: "Oh oh, there's a pretty good reason to doubt this belief of mine. Alas, I will therefore not believe it". <-- THAT is what reason demands.

 

[remez]

It's enough to look at the creationist's posts here for a demonstration of the doubts they suffer. "It's not blind faith! It's not!" And "I have my reasons and you haven't eliminated my reasons!"

A person who's interested in actual truth will try to obliterate his own reasons: "Oh oh, there's a pretty good reason to doubt this belief of mine. Alas, I will therefore not believe it". <-- THAT is what reason demands.

Lets reverse the order there.......

A person who's interested in actual truth will try to obliterate his own reasons: "Oh oh, there's a pretty good reason to doubt this belief of mine. Alas, I will therefore not believe it". <-- THAT is what reason demands.

I concur. Within reasonable moderation of course. You can certainly press skepticism too far.

It's enough to look at the creationist's posts here for a demonstration of the doubts they suffer. "It's not blind faith! It's not!" And "I have my reasons and you haven't eliminated my reasons!"

Please explain the doubt I suffer. Because the reasons you just dishonestly attributed to me don't line up with the actual reasoning I gave to counter the blind faith notion of the OP. I gave evidence and reason for my belief that the universe is past finite.
and...
Your dishonest......."I have my reasons and you haven't eliminated my reasons" infers that I simply and arbitrarily chose my beliefs and none of your superior reasoning will ever penetrate my senseless beliefs.
So............

It's enough to look at the creationist's posts here for a demonstration of the doubts they suffer.

....make explicit your implicit assertions.

Be Fair.

 

[abaddon]

So the years of repeating the same basic point (that you're not an idiot blind-faith believer because you have clever reasons and they have not been defeated by atheists) is not to shore up any creeping doubts? It looks like you badly want it acknowledged that you're not just any believer.

But, the dogged persistence... on one single point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... is because you're very sure?

Well, ok then.

BTW, I don't care if I penetrate your senseless beliefs. Like I said a couple posts back, go ahead and believe whatever you want. LOL.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith is believing something that you know ain't true. Mark Twain

Is that what the OP is proposing? That people say they have faith but they really know the things they believe aren't true?

I don't think that's the case for most Christians. They really believe the shit they say they believe, but since they don't have the evidence to back up their claims, they say that they believe these things through faith. When they have doubts, friends or ministers tell them they need to have more faith.

Whatever......

But if they know they lack evidence and often know there is much evidence against their belief, then either they fundamentally reject the importance of evidence for the probability of a claim, or on some level they know that by the same standard they use evidence to determine what is true in most of life and when it really matters, their faith-based beliefs fail. That isn't psychologically identical to "knowing what you believe is false" but it has lot's of overlap. The Bible talks repeatedly about how evil doubt is (and how misleading thinking, knowledge, wisdom, and evidence are), because it's writers knew that doubts are always under the surface when there is nothing but faith to support a beliefs. The sectarian violence that religion always has and inherently breeds is likely tied to this deep-seeded suppressed doubt that breed insecurity and fear, which triggers anger and violence at those whose words or actions remind believers of the irrationality of or just alternatives to their views.

Or it could be that they lack the cognitive tools to make sense of all the stimuli. I think this is what happens in most cases, particularly in today's world where one can be scientifically illiterate but still enjoy all the benefits that scientific literacy brings. There's no cost.

Having "faith" is admitting that reality as scientifically measured and quantified just doesn't make sense and I'd rather trust instead in a magical reality like when I was a happy child. It's a heck of a lot easier than trying to reach an unreachable bar given my genetic inheritance.

 

[Learner]

Or it could be that they lack the cognitive tools to make sense of all the stimuli. I think this is what happens in most cases, particularly in today's world where one can be scientifically illiterate but still enjoy all the benefits that scientific literacy brings. There's no cost.

Having "faith" is admitting that reality as scientifically measured and quantified just doesn't make sense and I'd rather trust instead in a magical reality like when I was a happy child. It's a heck of a lot easier than trying to reach an unreachable bar given my genetic inheritance.

I'm not so sure this is a useful argument anymore imo. And the mentioning about repeating over and over the same thing in posts - Seems to be "so yesterday" and also the above is not quite accurate, simply because - there are theists who are also scientists!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Or it could be that they lack the cognitive tools to make sense of all the stimuli. I think this is what happens in most cases, particularly in today's world where one can be scientifically illiterate but still enjoy all the benefits that scientific literacy brings. There's no cost.

Having "faith" is admitting that reality as scientifically measured and quantified just doesn't make sense and I'd rather trust instead in a magical reality like when I was a happy child. It's a heck of a lot easier than trying to reach an unreachable bar given my genetic inheritance.

I'm not so sure this is a useful argument anymore imo. And the mentioning about repeating over and over the same thing in posts - Seems to be "so yesterday" and also the above is not quite accurate, simply because - there are theists who are also scientists!

Kids get along just fine being kids but they also believe that Santa lives at the north pole and that the tooth fairy gives them money for their teeth. That a given scientist can make predictions about what will happen scientifically hardly guarantees he isn't going to also believe in a magical santa-like religious reality. It's no different than a kid brushing his teeth and then sitting down to write a letter to Santa. How else do you explain the same inconsistency in adult human behavior? It can only be because we're different cognitively. A kid who learns that santa isn't real has changed cognitively. Nothing about the santa has changed. Give some evidence that these magic beings you always talk about are real like a toothbrush is real. Otherwise they are real like santa is real to a kid.

I'm trying to explain the phenomenon of human adult brains claiming to have faith in these magical beings. If the beings were real they wouldn't need to proclaim their faith in these invisible creatures. But because they cannot come to a scientific understanding about these magical beings, about how they are real or not real, same as a child and Santa, they keep their faith in them. It seems pretty simple to me.

This is why among persons with higher educations religious faith claims diminish. It's certainly not true for every case but it does correlate. It would be interesting to know how kids come to lose their faith in Santa, be able to make observations of the kids life and experiences and correlate those experiences and knowledge with loss of faith in Santa. In the end a kid believes in a santa because he doesn't know any better, he lacks the cognitive tools.

 

[southernhybrid]

Or it could be that they lack the cognitive tools to make sense of all the stimuli. I think this is what happens in most cases, particularly in today's world where one can be scientifically illiterate but still enjoy all the benefits that scientific literacy brings. There's no cost.

Having "faith" is admitting that reality as scientifically measured and quantified just doesn't make sense and I'd rather trust instead in a magical reality like when I was a happy child. It's a heck of a lot easier than trying to reach an unreachable bar given my genetic inheritance.

I'm not so sure this is a useful argument anymore imo. And the mentioning about repeating over and over the same thing in posts - Seems to be "so yesterday" and also the above is not quite accurate, simply because - there are theists who are also scientists!

Yes, I knew a chemist when I was a child who was an evangelical Christian. He was one of the most obnoxious men I ever met during my childhood. There are also a lot of physicians who are also conservative Christians. I guess they just compartmentalize their beliefs in the supernatural while sill believing in the scientific principle. As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves, that's fine. But, I had an atheist patient when I was still working as a nurse who complained to me that her doctor always insisted on praying before she would treat her. The older lady was too polite to say anything but she hated it, so I helped her find a new doctor. But, I'm going way off topic now.

Just because someone studies science doesn't mean that they aren't able to hold supernatural beliefs at the same time. I'm not sure how they do it, but then conservative Christians often tend to think all kinds of crazy things about us atheists. I prefer to appreciate people for their character and good natures, not for the things they believe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

and also the above is not quite accurate, simply because - there are theists who are also scientists!

I guess that depends on how you mean 'scientist.'
There are people who accept evolutionary theory, because of the evidence, but think it's part of God's plan. Not that they have any evidence for that.

The guy that discovered ocean currents was a Christain, said he was inspired by a bible verse that said something about the paths under the sea." But no one paid him any attention until he went out and collected repeatable observations about ship movements from logs. You know, evidence. Thinking this was what the bible verse was talking about is a matter of faith, though.

The guy who suggested continental drift was not inspired by biblical language. In fact, the idea was dismissed at first by people quoting the bible where it says the Earth does not move. Eventually, evidence was gathered that supported the theory so well it's accepted by everyone but nutburgers who have an oversupply of faith in verses.

Creationists like to tout believers with science degrees and accomplishments in their ranks. But it appears to me that thry all gained their 'science' reputations by doing secular work. No bible quoting or attributing results to god, at least in their field of expertise. Then offer their faith opinion about gods and biology and geology without the same evidentiary rigor.

So, by 'theists who are also scientists,' you're not really saying anything more profound than any unconnected facts.
Theists who are also left-handed.
Theists who are also skiers.
Theists who are also bald.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not so sure this is a useful argument anymore imo. And the mentioning about repeating over and over the same thing in posts - Seems to be "so yesterday" and also the above is not quite accurate, simply because - there are theists who are also scientists!

The overused argument is that these santa-like gods are real. Show me one already. If these things were real people wouldn't make faith claims, they'd just ante up.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The overused argument is that these santa-like gods are real. Show me one already. If these things were real people wouldn't make faith claims, they'd just ante up.

I'll have what he's having.
The theist position (or more accurately, whatever the local flavor is) usually relies on an invisible god, his invisible offspring, an invisible soul, an invisible, bicameral afterlife (one house with central air, one without), and an optional supporting cast of invisible angels, demons, saints, what have you. Endless variety to these plot elements can be found in history -- too many to make any of it reasonable. If there are over 5000 known defunct deities, then man's fantasy life is the common denominator. Amazing that religious narratives are still being pushed and, worse, pushed on to children in their formative years. But there's always a priest class or its equivalent: people who can tell you precisely what the invisible god likes, abhors, and desires for us. No matter that the proof texts are full of squalid violence and ignorant notions -- is a list even necessary? A Bible that mandates death penalties for heretics, cocky teenage boys, and brides that can't demonstrate their virginity is so last millennium.

 

[Politesse]

I can see where, having rationalized to yourself that anyone who believes differently than yourself must be brain-damaged, you would come to the conclusion that you are the only party capable of "doing science" since you, having proven yourself as not brain-damaged by virtue of believing the things you do, are free to be objective where all else are subjective.

But it's almost humorous, certainly ironic, how much that makes you sound, not just like a theist, but like theists of the very worst sort. It's not a virtue to be unable to see the wisdom of someone else's world view, it's a serious handicap.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Uh...if you're responding to me, are you sure it's not you who's not taking the ad hominem road? I referenced the lack of empirical presentation in invisible entities...the multiplicity of gods...my conclusion that multiplicity = unreasonableness...the violence in the Bible. 'Brain-damaged' is your word; you won't find it in my first post.
Otherwise smart, analytical people adopt religions. I know many. And yes, you can go after my use of 'otherwise', but there we are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Uh...if you're responding to me, are you sure it's not you who's not taking the ad hominem road? I referenced the lack of empirical presentation in invisible entities...the multiplicity of gods...my conclusion that multiplicity = unreasonableness...the violence in the Bible. 'Brain-damaged' is your word; you won't find it in my first post.
Otherwise smart, analytical people adopt religions. I know many. And yes, you can go after my use of 'otherwise', but there we are.

Right. I certainly wasn't implying that anyone was "brain damaged." If that was taken my apologies are offered. Persons who think santa or gods are real are not brain damaged anymore than a person who is 5'2'' tall is height damaged compared to someone who is 6'6" tall. That's not my point at all.

But we can certainly conclude that persons that differ in height have something about their genetic makeup and environmental exposure that accounts for their variation in height - or any physical difference for that matter. And the brain is something physical. Mental processes are physical processes, physically determined.

But I think theists look for a spooky hidden reality to explain such differences and to account for stimuli, when in all seriousness it's about the brain and cognitive differences. Faith is a fallback position, a redoubt from reality.

 

[Learner]

Kids get along just fine being kids but they also believe that Santa lives at the north pole and that the tooth fairy gives them money for their teeth. That a given scientist can make predictions about what will happen scientifically hardly guarantees he isn't going to also believe in a magical santa-like religious reality. It's no different than a kid brushing his teeth and then sitting down to write a letter to Santa. How else do you explain the same inconsistency in adult human behavior? It can only be because we're different cognitively. A kid who learns that santa isn't real has changed cognitively. Nothing about the santa has changed. Give some evidence that these magic beings you always talk about are real like a toothbrush is real. Otherwise they are real like santa is real to a kid.

I'm trying to explain the phenomenon of human adult brains claiming to have faith in these magical beings. If the beings were real they wouldn't need to proclaim their faith in these invisible creatures. But because they cannot come to a scientific understanding about these magical beings, about how they are real or not real, same as a child and Santa, they keep their faith in them. It seems pretty simple to me.

I'll just say ...

I am aware of your fascination with human brains and I am wondering if you have thought of doing some psychological profile study of the authors brains, that would be interesting.

It shouldn't matter how long ago it was, so surely, one can determine from so much scripture available, with the techniques in this day and age to gather a good psycological profiling of the writers. Delusional would be the best you could come up with is my best guess (* EDIT: like a professor once suggested in a debate with W.C. Lane) because as far as I know .... no-one claims the writers to be lying.

This is why among persons with higher educations religious faith claims diminish. It's certainly not true for every case but it does correlate. It would be interesting to know how kids come to lose their faith in Santa, be able to make observations of the kids life and experiences and correlate those experiences and knowledge with loss of faith in Santa. In the end a kid believes in a santa because he doesn't know any better, he lacks the cognitive tools.

I get the equating analogy so...

Do you know of ANY grown-ups who still believes in santa? If Santa is no different from a main faith - would people need to give up santa at all, since this is supposedly the same type of belief as one is of the Christian faith? This must be a surprise to see the cognitive tools, somehow seems to be working with ALL people regardless of who, developing along as they grow into adults discarding their faith in santa in which they will discover - the santa faith doesn't look quite the same type of "theology."

Do you know of any serious scholars or historians that study santa? If not ...then I would assume it's because they were able to differentiate between what is worth studying and writing books about and what is not. They don't equate the two.