Is the problem faith itself or the imposition of faith?

Thoreau

Thoreau

Valued Senior Member
I've found that many people have spoken out against having faith itself.

One of my much respected authors, Christopher Hitchens, was notorious for nailing religion to the wall. Dawkins has done so as well. And Sam Harris, though more moderate in his approach, is still known for challenging the ideas of faith.

But what is so wrong with faith itself? I completely understand taking a stand against someone of faith who imposes thier beliefs on others, unwantedly. But I don't understand why people challenge different religions without having been instigated.

This concept has been applied across the board. Christians condemning Muslims, Muslims condemning Christians, Christians condemning Atheists, and Atheists condemning Christians. Of course, condemnation is by no means limited to my provided examples.

But why is faith in one belief or another, or in any belief, so widely condemned and challenged?

What does it matter to you if one believes in God, an afterlife, etc, so long as they are not harming or affecting you in any manner?

For example, I have faith. I'm not Christian, Muslim or Jewish. But I do beleive in a higher power of which I have no knowledge of specifics... hence, "faith". But I don't dare proclaim that I am right or that others are wrong. And I have no reason to impose it upon others. To each their own. But yet I have still been condemned and challenged by non-believers and believers alike as to being 'disillusioned' for having such beliefs.

What is the problem with faith? Why is it NOT okay for one to have beliefs in one's own mind?

To me, it is the imposition of faith that I view should be condemned. I have no desire or need to tell others what to believe. Yet, I am being told by all sides what to believe, by Atheists and Christians alike.

Having faith means to hold beliefs in mind. (Example: The belief in a God).
The imposition of faith means to impose it upon others (preaching, condemning, infantile circumcision, flying planes in to skyscrapers, etc).

One affects another, and the other does not.

So you tell me. What is the real problem, faith or the imposition of faith? And if you say faith itself is the problem, tell me why.
 
You sound like something of a deist. I have no issues with deists, nor do I have issues with more moderate and liberal religious types. What I take issue with is the portrayal of the world, and our lives within it, as some sort of fallen-from-grace-induced sickness that can only be remedied by worshipping an omnipotent psychopath. A Hitchens-esque sentiment, wouldn't you agree?

I have seen, first hand, the damage that supplanting innate morality with religious morality can do. Grandparents who no longer get to see their grandchildren. Children who alienate their parents. But just generally speaking, the cessation of autonomous conscientious thought. I mean really, how many times have you heard a religious person say something like "well, if there's no God, why don't we just go around murdering, raping and pillaging"? They've become genuinely screwed up. Seriously. Without their consciences jacked in to some sort of messed up religious life support machine, they're psychopaths.

Healthy, do you think? Of course you don't. You seem like a somewhat more reasonable and emotionally balanced individual. But the thing to understand is that such ideas are poisonous even in moderation, and are often still lurking behind the politically correct facade that some of the more moderate seeming religious types present. Believe me, there's a festering contempt lurking back there a lot of the time. A contempt for the world, and for the people in it.

No, I don't want to destroy all faith in some sort of higher power. I don't have a problem with that by itself. I can even relate to it, intimately. But religion? Really, most of it just needs to fuck right off before it destroys more lives.
 
Knowledge91 said:
How is believing in someone, or something delusional?
Click to expand...

If you believe it due to faith and not evidence then you have no idea if it's a delusion. It certainly opens one up to delusion, and I would argue that irrationality tends to extend to other areas of life.
 
MZ3Boy84 said:
I've found that many people have spoken out against having faith itself.

One of my much respected authors, Christopher Hitchens, was notorious for nailing religion to the wall. Dawkins has done so as well. And Sam Harris, though more moderate in his approach, is still known for challenging the ideas of faith.

But what is so wrong with faith itself? I completely understand taking a stand against someone of faith who imposes thier beliefs on others, unwantedly. But I don't understand why people challenge different religions without having been instigated.

This concept has been applied across the board. Christians condemning Muslims, Muslims condemning Christians, Christians condemning Atheists, and Atheists condemning Christians. Of course, condemnation is by no means limited to my provided examples.

But why is faith in one belief or another, or in any belief, so widely condemned and challenged?

What does it matter to you if one believes in God, an afterlife, etc, so long as they are not harming or affecting you in any manner?

For example, I have faith. I'm not Christian, Muslim or Jewish. But I do beleive in a higher power of which I have no knowledge of specifics... hence, "faith". But I don't dare proclaim that I am right or that others are wrong. And I have no reason to impose it upon others. To each their own. But yet I have still been condemned and challenged by non-believers and believers alike as to being 'disillusioned' for having such beliefs.

What is the problem with faith? Why is it NOT okay for one to have beliefs in one's own mind?

To me, it is the imposition of faith that I view should be condemned. I have no desire or need to tell others what to believe. Yet, I am being told by all sides what to believe, by Atheists and Christians alike.

Having faith means to hold beliefs in mind. (Example: The belief in a God).
The imposition of faith means to impose it upon others (preaching, condemning, infantile circumcision, flying planes in to skyscrapers, etc).

One affects another, and the other does not.

So you tell me. What is the real problem, faith or the imposition of faith? And if you say faith itself is the problem, tell me why.
Click to expand...

I would contend that Sam Harris is one of the least moderate opponents of faith. Believe it or not, Hitchens was actually the moderate of the group. He alone said that he would not have abolished faith if he had the power to, and he alone recognized the singular beauty of religiously-inspired art and poetry, and that there is no such thing as a secular equivalent. Harris' approach is simply a different one, rather than a moderate one. He simply thinks that the transcendent should be explored, and that there's merit to, for example, meditating in a cave for two weeks. But he's arguably harder on religion than any of the others.

As to your question, faith is a problem. Of course, the imposition of it is a much more immediate concern, but the very concept of faith itself is hugely detrimental to society. And not necessarily just because a particular religion might consider its followers to be chosen while condemning to death all unbelievers; faith is ignorance, and from ignorance comes bigotry, oppression. Ignorance stunts growth and degrades culture.

That isn't to say faith always does these things. Think of Islam's contributions to science and mathematics prior to 1000 AD. Now think on how those advancements ground to a halt at the command of Al-Ghazali, who shifted Islam away from science and towards fundamental faith. The only force that can shift an entire culture away from progress in such a way is faith, and Islam is still suffering as a result. Their world went from being on the cutting edge of culture and science to being one stuck in the middle ages a thousand years later.

We should seek to educate, to remove ignorance everywhere we find it. And part of that will be discouraging faith.
 
MZ3Boy84, spidergoat, Rav, JDawg - some or all of what each of you said resonates with me.

I would add that while this is posed as a general question, we can't deny the harsh reality around us - unless we are living in that delusion knowledge91 disavows - which is: that specific controversies exist in the world today due to the imposition of religious policies and/or the attempted imposition of policies that are harmful and destructive.

spidergoat already gave this as delusion, which has to be the most heinous of influences to impose on members of a congregation and Rav spoke to that in terms of harm to individuals and families.

By far the largest international conflicts are those that cater to terrorism under the banner of religion. There are a whole set of local examples of low to high grade terrorism posing as religion that include oppression and atrocities against women, caste and ethnic disparity, actual skirmishes and retaliation against congregations, massacres and bombings, and of course genocide.

All of these might not bring so much hell to pay from members here if so many of us (esp. in the US) were not constantly brow beaten, in the conservative political and media venues, by the particular religious policies that, basically, we're sick and tired of. These tend to cluster into a few elementary fronts: the unfettered teaching of science, procreative rights, gay rights, and cultural diversity, including racial and ethnic tolerance or sensitivity.

If none of those conflicts existed in the US we would still be critical of the impact of religions globally, for the terrorism and human rights aspects I mentioned, but it would not seem so personal. Having to sometimes wade through these same tired local issues is what keeps the pilot lit as far as a sense of resentment goes.

I can't figure out if there's such a thing as faith without the imposition of religious policy. Certainly the vast majority of the major world congregations distance themselves from most of the worst policies. But those policies still exist at least because of their tacit approval and/or the human tendency to behave as creatures of habit, perpetuating the sad, tired, mean policies of tradition. There will always be believers of almost any religious persuasion who we could put up as saintly poster people, but they are not successfully stamping out the bad policies. Instead we see a kind of quagmire of evil that raises its ugly head from time to time in unusual forms whether it's a massacre of Sikhs or a reprisal, or something to do with domination of women, whether it's driving restrictions, or access to education, or genital mutilation, etc. And recently Protestant factions in Africa have enacted capital punishment against homosexuals.

Given all of this I would have to say that you can't have one without the other. Religions will impose policy as long as they can. And the atheist that speaks out against the religion from time to time in one way or another is not living in a vacuum. We are affected and offended by bad policy coming down from religious policymakers. So it's pretty hard to pretend none of this is going on, and speak to religion purely on matters of value.
 
Several things about faith.

It's not all the same type of faith: for Christians and Muslims and Jews, the faith includes exclusion of, disrespect for, and often prejudice against, those who do not share the faith. For Christians, it specifically calls for proselytizing.

Another person's privately-held faith is of no concern to me - and i think, should not be to any of us - but a publicly manifest religious agenda poses grave danger to everyone else's rights and freedoms.

As well, established religion is naturally conservative; tends to be rigidly authoritarian; exercises undue (and often aggressive) influence on governance; opposes political change, knowledge, progress, legal reform and liberality in social relations.
Religious zeal extols passion and sacrifice; is unabashed and unrestrained in its expression: immune to reason or compromise; so very easy to inflame and exploit
 
spidergoat said:
How is living within a delusional worldview not harmful?
Click to expand...

We all use faith. When we commit to an action, it is because we have faith in the premise that it will lead to an anticipated result. We all have faith in tomorrow's sunrise.
 
BWE1

I would call that expectation, or some other term, to distinguish it from belief in the supernatural.
 
Aqueous Id,

I agree with you, and considered touching upon that in my own post but opted not to for the sake of argument. I feel like some theists lose the message when confronted with the idea that their own mild form of faith could not exist without the more severe and aggressive strains. So I choose to explain how even that kind of faith is bad for society.
 
There's quite a large difference in expecting the sun to rise in the morning and believing in a present, loving deity. To call them both "faith" is ridiculous. Would it even be possible for the sun not to rise tomorrow?
 
How do you test a liar of what they truly believe? I believe in God, that is definitive position of faith. That I, me, has belief in God. "I believe." I also believe other things. The imposition of faith? What are you referring to?
 
Aqueous Id said:
BWE1

I would call that expectation, or some other term, to distinguish it from belief in the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Language, especially in imprecise usage, can be misleading. When applied to degrees and types of believing, i like to distinguish
faith - absolute belief without empirical evidence (btw this doesn't have to be supernatural or spiritual; it can also be emotional, romantic, or idealistic)
expectation - belief that something that's happened repeatedly will repeat again (like Pavlov's dogs or an employee at payday)
conviction - belief of a principle through reasoning and data
personal experience - believing the evidence of one's senses
knowledge - beliefs acquired through scientific/ academic investigation
 
JDawg said:
There's quite a large difference in expecting the sun to rise in the morning and believing in a present, loving deity. To call them both "faith" is ridiculous. Would it even be possible for the sun not to rise tomorrow?
Click to expand...

Do you know what belief is? Its very personal. Believing in the sun is just as valid as God. You say, "well, look theres the sun. Big orange thing!" I say, "well, look at that antelope, look at that apple tree. God is great! That shinny orange this great too!"

Here is the thing. Just as I believe in the sun, I believe in God. The sun is held as knowledge to general population due to simple observance. If your faith is good then it will lead you to hope, science, and then knowledge. I mean Napoleon didn't nearly take over the world merely because he put it to science, and gained knowledge. No, he started with a dream, and a belief. If he doesn't believe he can do it, then one of two thing. 1. He doesn't try. or 2. He was a fool.

You depicted knowledge of the sun, and no knowledge of God as proof not to believe in God. That is folly, do you see?
 
Knowledge91 said:
Do you know what belief is? Its very personal. Believing in the sun is just as valid as God. You say, "well, look theres the sun. Big orange thing!" I say, "well, look at that antelope, look at that apple tree. God is great! That shinny orange this great too!"
Click to expand...

Saying "God is great" is not faith. It's a value statement that can be made whether one believes in the thing or not. For example, I do not believe in God, but I think he's a dangerous and sadistic character. I would say that he's the opposite of great.

Belief is only personal in that its impact on your life and your reasons for it are your own.

And one cannot "believe" in the sun. The sun is verifiable. Look out you window. See? The sun.

Here is the thing. Just as I believe in the sun, I believe in God. The sun is held as knowledge to general population due to simple observance. If your faith is good then it will lead you to hope, science, and then knowledge. I mean Napoleon didn't nearly take over the world merely because he put it to science, and gained knowledge. No, he started with a dream, and a belief. If he doesn't believe he can do it, then one of two thing. 1. He doesn't try. or 2. He was a fool.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're driving at with the Napoleon stuff. Sometimes you go off on these non-sequitur tangents and lose me.

You depicted knowledge of the sun, and no knowledge of God as proof not to believe in God. That is folly, do you see?[/QUOTE]
 
Knowledge91 said:
Do you know what belief is? Its very personal. Believing in the sun is just as valid as God. You say, "well, look theres the sun. Big orange thing!" I say, "well, look at that antelope, look at that apple tree. God is great! That shinny orange this great too!"

Here is the thing. Just as I believe in the sun, I believe in God. The sun is held as knowledge to general population due to simple observance. If your faith is good then it will lead you to hope, science, and then knowledge. I mean Napoleon didn't nearly take over the world merely because he put it to science, and gained knowledge. No, he started with a dream, and a belief. If he doesn't believe he can do it, then one of two thing. 1. He doesn't try. or 2. He was a fool.

You depicted knowledge of the sun, and no knowledge of God as proof not to believe in God. That is folly, do you see?
Click to expand...

I can see the sun, and everyone that can see can also see it. So, it's very different than an absentee God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top