What's the harm in belief?

[HaysooChreesto!]

I have my own opinions on why blind faith is damaging and they're probably similar to most people's here, but I want to know what other's opinions are.

I don't think that believing is really all that bad of a thing as long as it doesn't impose itself on others through law, education, etc.
Most of the time it seems to be a fairly benign thing that people fall back in times of distress.

[Heathen Dawn]

Belief is bad when it is at the expense of others(--Yahzi--Planes--Buildings--Yougetthedrift ;)). Otherwise it is all right. Enough said.

[Stephen T-B]

Like so many things which humans use, Belief is a big mixture of the good, the bad and the indifferent.
Good when it encourages people to do good things, like run hospitals and provide food in parts of the world where hospitals and food are needed, or helps them come to terms with very damaging personal experiences; bad when it encourages people to do awful things, like flying airliners into crowded skyscrapers, kill their children because they believe they’re witches, circumcise women, propagate ignorance and superstitions, denigrate their fellow human beings etc; indifferent when it doesn’t really affect anything at all.

The balance?

Who knows?

[Godless Wonder]

Religions are just one more way for people to divide themselves into camps. We don't need more ways to be divided. How many couples have broken up for no other reason except that one person was not relgious enough, or was in a different camp than the other? That is real harm that happens every day. I think it is these little everyday things, even more so than the big things, like war, terrorism, etc. that really make blind faith bad, because these little things happen on such a broad scale, and are inescapable.

[wildernesse]

I believe I have asked this question on occasion when some posters here have declared that my faith harms me--and actually all of humanity. When I have asked what about my beliefs actually harms me or all of humanity, all I 'hear' is spluttering and wild accusations that bear no relation to my actual beliefs. I find that interesting.

--tibac

[Goliath]

Faith is not inherently harmful. However, in a huge number of cases it is.

Just like installing a wired in light socket in the floor next to a floor drain in a basement that regularly takes water isn't inherently harmful, but it often is.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[reprise]

Originally posted by wildernesse
I believe I have asked this question on occasion when some posters here have declared that my faith harms me--and actually all of humanity. When I have asked what about my beliefs actually harms me or all of humanity, all I 'hear' is spluttering and wild accusations that bear no relation to my actual beliefs. I find that interesting.

--tibac

Without knowing your specific flavour of faith and how you personally observe it, it is difficult to comment on whether or not it is harmful to you (which, provided you're an adult really isn't my business anyway) or to others. Do you vote based on your faith? Would you like to see the "rules" of your faith imposed on those who don't share your faith? Do you believe that what is best for you personally is by extension best for everyone else in your nation and on the planet?

[christ-on-a-stick]

I composed a super-duper-long reply to this complete with examples and everything. Lost it. GRRR. :mad: So I'm going to post the bare bones of it now and address them each in more depth later:

Setting aside the obvious "harms" that have already been mentioned - atrocities committed in the "name of God(s)", encouragement of superstitious thinking, etc. :

1) Belief in an omnimax and interceding deity prevents people from understanding that they and they ALONE are, indeed, the "masters of their own destiny". Instead of making decisions and taking action based on their own reasoning and desires, they in essence waste precious time poring over the words of ancient myths, making "vain repetitions to any empty sky", and often seeking "counsel" from others who claim to speak for God.

2) The repugnant doctrine of "Original Sin" that accompanies many faiths is one of the most fundamentally damaging things that I can think of - to teach children from their earliest years that they are inherently bad, sinful, tainted, and worthless, in need of "redemption".

3) Unnecessary guilt (for a myriad of things).

4) False hope (more on this later - ties into #1 to a degree).

5) "Passive" support of a false belief system that *does* inspire others to actions that cause overt harm to society at large.

[wildernesse]

Originally posted by reprise
Without knowing your specific flavour of faith and how you personally observe it, it is difficult to comment on whether or not it is harmful to you (which, provided you're an adult really isn't my business anyway) or to others. Do you vote based on your faith? Would you like to see the "rules" of your faith imposed on those who don't share your faith? Do you believe that what is best for you personally is by extension best for everyone else in your nation and on the planet?

I should have been more specific--those comments towards me are usually in the context of discussions over what "Christians" believe. Of course, "Christians" means evil, bigoted, and very conservative.

As for your questions: Yes, I do vote based on my faith, in the sense that it informs my worldview and I want people in the government who will work toward those goals. I'm sure that you vote based on the same principle, although your goals may or may not be the same as mine.

I don't believe that anyone has settled what all the rules of Christianity are yet, so I'll wait until that day to decide whether they should be imposed on others. But I won't hold my breath--and, to tell the truth, I don't think that there is much value in imposing beliefs on anyone. Imposed beliefs can be nothing more than hollow shells, IMO. There's enough hollow, shallow living in this world already.

As for the third question, my answer is absolutely not! I have a personal faith based on things that are relevant to me. I can only make choices for myself (at this time, I one day might have children that I will have to make shared decisions for)--other people have to make their own choices.

--tibac

[livius drusus]

Lamma, I'm a little unclear on your terminology. Your title mentions beliefs, your OP blind faith and several people have replied to your question as if you were questioning the harm in religions, or a religion.

What do you mean by belief and blind faith exactly? Are they synonymous? Are they the same thing as religion (as in a faith or a religious belief)?

[reprise]

livius, I assumed that the OP referred to blind faith in a religion or a deity rather than in medicine or telekinesis or political doctrines orsome other thing non-religious purely because the thread was started in GRD.

[McNamara]

Taking belief in this case to be referring to blind faith, I know a very personal example of why it can often be harmful. Say this hypothetical atheist has Christian parents with very strong faith. They are not idiots, but their minds are closed to anything outside their beliefs. This leads, in my experience, to an imbalance of respect. The atheist respects his/her parent's beliefs out of a desire to be loving and tolerant, but the parent's faith demands that they NOT respect their child's opinions. They may still love the child, but will not listen to anything he/she has to say because, to them, that child is going to hell because of a fundamentally flawed world view. Not a very healthy relationship, is it? This happens quite frequently, I think, and I know several instances of it in my life.

Additionally, blind faith can be self-sustaining. When you suscribe to a belief system that says, "all other opinions are wrong, and I may be punished for considering them," you fall into a hole out of which you may never ascend. Not only does this cut you off to new and different ideas (which a true freethinker will always be open to, if skeptical towards) but it also cuts you off from loved ones who do not occupy the hole with you.

[capsaicin67]

This, in my mind is a fairly important question to consider. My pov would be very much in line with Goliath and christ-on-a-stick.

The rub, in the big picture, is that ultimately superstition and reason are mutually exclusive ideas, I think? And that's what it ofttimes boils down to, and where the sparks of conflict can ignite even amongst fairly considerate people. I often advocate for tolerance and moderation. I also am opposed to superstition. Which is where it gets complicated.

When there is nothing particularly important at stake, who gives a proverbial care whether you neighbor is worshipping a deity? Or how he/she does it? Most "reasonable" folks should be able to co-exist in most instances like this. You like ice cream? Great! I like broccoli? Great! But when we start planning meals together and you want more ice cream and I want more broccoli it gets dicey. And if I know you have a high risk of heart disease or diabetes it gets dicier. And if you are a vegetarian opposed to meat and I am a steak man well, it can get tough I think. That's the difference between my "real life" and discussions of a less ambiguous and complex one.

The problem arises from the fact that in some instances there is more at stake. And it's a short trip from "I believe in a god because it gives me hope" to "that person says that god wants X and that god inspires him to share that message with the rest of us and if I disagree then I am against god" sort of manipulation. Now we might say, c'mon, that's not what *I'm* about! But I would argue that that sort of situation happens all the time and it really is a shorter trip between the 2 types of thinking and doing than we would often like to think. And it stems from having a somewhat "dormant" virus of the mind in place and embraced that, essentially, leaves an open portal/weaklink for bad ideas and manipulators to exploit in moments of weakness or times of desperation and tragedy. It's an area of vulnerability. And it doesn't usually matter until it matters. Kind of like any other type of addiction/vulnerability, but with it's own nuances.

Some people enjoy a beer to unwind on the weekend or whatever. Others get trashed all the time and drive. Some folks can stop after a few. Others don't stop until they're a mess--- if then. Where are the lines between the 2? How do you quantify the differences?

People need to have choices. People need to be able to "unwind". Prohibition is not very realistic. How do you maintain some balance? To what extent is any other addiction a "problem"? To what extent is it nobody else's business? Etc.

Supernatural thinking and willingness to accept interpretations of events based on "faith" can easily overlap with forming answers to important policy and ethical questions that affect the society as a whole and how we navigate and set our destination.

When it gets right down to it the supernaturalists feel that the ultimate question is saving "souls" and the rationalist wants to save "sanity"? The extremes of both positions can be incomplete guides for daily living and throw out alot of baby with bathwater depending on how they are expressed. Belief in magical explanations can be a dangerous/harmful thing. Belief that emotional/internal aspects of human life [fun/pleasure/attraction/beauty etc] that are difficult to strictly quantify,or that we may find it's simply not entirely healthy to rigidly quantify and never express or embrace spontaneously, can possibly be harmful as well.

That's probably just the beginning of an even longer discussion. But that's the minefield we're trying to walk through IMHO.

I believe that the current landscape is dangerously, or undesirably anyway, out of balance toward the superstition end of things and our "mission"-----if we choose it----is to try and find a closer approximation of the "sweet spot" for daily living and the human condition: a way of living and being that embraces science and reason, but does not neglect the "legitimate" emotional needs and lives of people. When freethought can offer that, I think we'll have a chance at making some serious progress.

Just ideas/observations. Quite likely I'm neglecting or missing something.

>am I at 500 posts *yet*.....? I can't even see Mageth fromwhere I'm standing....! note to self: break posts into many smaller posts.....< :)

[andy_d]

Faith in itself is not harmful, and in fact can be a powerful motivator for positive activity. For example, generally fathers have to take it as an article of faith that the children that pop out of their partner are theirs. Nobody would berate a father for loving his children simply because he has never carried out the paternity test that would turn his faith in his partner's honesty into solid fact.

However, having faith in a ideas which cause harm to others, is of course harmful.

Turning back to religion, would you say a Christian who felt motivated by their faith to do volunteer charity work was causing harm though their faith? Hell no. Are the Lord's Resistance Army? Hell yes.

So it's not faith which is harmful, it's having faith in harmful things.

[Barcode]

Additionally, blind faith can be self-sustaining. When you suscribe to a belief system that says, "all other opinions are wrong, and I may be punished for considering them," you fall into a hole out of which you may never ascend. Not only does this cut you off to new and different ideas (which a true freethinker will always be open to, if skeptical towards) but it also cuts you off from loved ones who do not occupy the hole with you.

:notworthy

So, so, so true.

Speaking from experience, it's harmful in the sense the believer is simply not prepared to delve too deeply into anything else outside the confines of their belief system, either through fear, or some smug sense of self righteousness that what they believe in is true and therefore they don't need to go exploring.

It's very, very, very limiting.

And it does seperate you from your loved ones. It's thanks to Catholicism that my girlfriend and I will almost certainly break up at some point in the not so far off future.

All Jesus is good for is seperating people -- because it's very difficult to relate to somebody whose entire worldview is based to some degree, upon their faith.

Religious faith in those close to me, has caused me to feel .... estranged, frustrated, distant, thinking they are stupid, intolerant, inflexible, unreasonable, illogical ... you get the idea.

[capsaicin67]

Hi andy d,
This is probably a whole can of worms that may be bottomless. Maybe others with a more strictly academic philosophical bent will be able to make more substantive commentary. But I'll take a primitive stab at what doesn't work for me about the "faith" question.

Faith in things which I cannot possibly, or consciously choose NOT, to know, is distinctly different than faith in the supernatural as an explanation for real-world events, maybe?

Because there are unanswered questions, that does not seem strong evidence for the supernatural. It means there are many unanswered questions. As long as we are conscious that our "faith"[trust?] is based in reality and consistent with what we observe and know about how things work in nature/universe/science, and not magical, I would say that we are in a different realm than if our faith is in in magic/supernatural.

I don't understand precisely how a nuclear reactor works. But I gather that enough people do that I believe them that it sorta does [not endorsing them, just using an example of something complex]. I would call that "trust" more than faith maybe. ANd I amperfectly aware that whatever is going on, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the reactor runs on magic. There might be many other things going on, but likely not that. I further "hope" that the workers at the plant are running it safely. Again, I don't believe that magic enters the equation, and my trust and hope may be misplaced, but I have not left the realm of "reality" IMO.

Religious faith for many people is about believeing that things have meaning or happen for supernatural/magical reasons. Hope founded on magic. Trust founded on magic. Do they ever follow cultural or peer mandates and codes of conduct created by other people, or even "gut feelings", based on believing these are inspired or dictated by magic? Yes. When that's good is that something that I like? Yes. Is magic a good way to make important decisions about reality and safety etc? No. Are people that believe in magic more likely to subscribe to magical interpretations of events generally than people that don't beleive in it? Yes. Is there any evidence that magic exists? As far as I know, no. Do most religions that subscribe to belief in the supernatural/magic encourage people to question the validity of supernatural explanations? Not much. Etc. I do recognize that for many people, coinicidence or improbability *is* their evidence and they feel supernatural explanations are an adequate roadmap henceforth.

A broken clock is right twice a day. Is it a good tool for telling time? No. Is that dangerous. Probably mosty not. Depends on what is going on. But sometimes that might be very important. But unless we are very good at separating those 2 circumstances apart, or at least the majority of folks can openly recognize and endorse the reality that the clock is broken as a tool for telling time, eventually there will be a problem.

And that is not to say that we should outlaw broken clocks. But we do have to be careful about revering them and giving them sacred endorsement and protecting them from scrutiny or evaluation and celebrating them as a culture maybe?

I'm not sure what we do with all that, but that's kinda how I see it. And in many respects I am happy for the times that the broken clock has given people comfort, solace, or even coincidental positive direction. But I can't help but think that there is a qualitative difference between trust, hope, the unknown----and magic.

And as I said, I still don't think there is a concrete answer about what we do with all that anymore than there is for alcoholic beverages or opiates or whatever.

OK. I'm maxed out, and well beyond my academic supply lines. Somebody else will have to dissect it further or correct any fallacies I may have unwittingly committed!

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by reprise
livius, I assumed that the OP referred to blind faith in a religion or a deity rather than in medicine or telekinesis or political doctrines orsome other thing non-religious purely because the thread was started in GRD.

I can understand that reprise, but since it seems to be that belief and blind faith are two very different things. Blind faith implies unquestioning devotion; beliefs bear no such burden. I have a wide range of beliefs. We all do.

Lamma describes belief as a "fairly benign thing" that brings comfort in times of hardship. That doesn't really match my definition of blind faith, while it could apply to moral strictures just as well as it does to religious beliefs. I'd like to get clarification of the definitions of terms before I respond.

[Consistent Thinker]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Belief is bad when it is at the expense of others(--Yahzi--Planes--Buildings--Yougetthedrift ;)). Otherwise it is all right. Enough said.

To that, add higher food prices forced on nearly all because of eccentric dietary preferences.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by andy_d
However, having faith in a ideas which cause harm to others, is of course harmful.

So it's not faith which is harmful, it's having faith in harmful things.

:notworthy Amen to that!

[peejay]

Faith unsupported by evidence is a bad thing, period.

Some people say that belief in a God provides comfort, both to the people as they live their lives, and because of the promise of life after death. But God can only really be a comfort if he exists, and he doesn't. If you build your self-esteem with foundations of sand then it can crumble. It is in times of crisis that people are most likely to need their god, but also by definition it is when their god has failed them. Someone facing a crisis may decide that god is punishing them, or that he doesn't exist. Having a crisis of faith at the same time as some other crisis is exactly the wrong timing. Better to have a crisis of faith some other time, preferably in advance. Better to find sources of comfort that are real, and can actually help you when you need them.

I would go further and argue that belief also damages self-esteem. Religion emphasises that we are sinners, inherently bad, only redeemable by god. Plus that god shows no respect for his people. If he did, he'd share a small part of his great plan with us; providing us with some small evidence of his existence would be a start! If your beliefs are squashing your self-esteem, that leaves you vulnerable to exploitation – for example by religion.

Belief also makes people live their lives wrong. You'll waste your time worshipping a god who doesn't exist, waste your energies setting up websites spreading your mistaken view of the world, waste your money by giving it to wealthy churches, waste opportunities to actually learn about the wonders of the real universe, and potentially waste your one chance at life because you’ll be waiting for a life after death that won’t happen.

Belief makes you think wrong. You switch off that part of your brain that deals with the rational world. We only progress as a species through rationality. The more belief there is, the less rationality, and the less progress. Irrational belief has never given us any progress. It hasn't provided us with light bulbs, heart surgery, telephones, refrigerators, antibiotics or printing presses. I would also argue belief has provided us with absolutely no progress in the moral of philosophical spheres. Belief has impeded progress on racial and gender equality and numerous social issues.

People often say that belief in religion is the only way of underpinning morals. This is not just wrong, it the reverse of what is true. Each religion provides self-contradictory and arbitrary collections of rules, which of course differ between religions, with each group insisting that theirs is the right one. Belief is the absolute worst basis for morality you could imagine.

Belief in a god doesn't give us meaning. In fact it is DEmeaning, and dehumanising. Rationality is such a key part of what it is to be human. Anyone denying rationality is denying a major part of what it is to be a human being. Believing in the “meanings” contained in old books that have no bearing in reality denies yourself the chance to find and define your own meaning.

Finally, belief allows religion itself to exist and propagate itself, with the all the problems that entails which I won't go into here!

So, it’s not just religion that’s bad, religious belief is as well. We’ve got to get out there are save some, er, souls (for want of a better word)!

peejay

PS This is my first post. Have lurked a long time. Hello fellow nonbelievers!

[Godless Wonder]

Welcome peejay. Well said. (Reminds me of some stuff I've written on this board.)

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by peejay
Faith unsupported by evidence is a bad thing, period.

Period. Period. PERIOD. Your saying so doesn’t make it so.

But God can only really be a comfort if he exists, and he doesn't.

And this (that He doesn’t exist) you know how?

because you’ll be waiting for a life after death that won’t happen.

And this (that life after death won’t happen) you know how?

Belief makes you think wrong. You switch off that part of your brain that deals with the rational world.

I think the same as most of you here do, with a few conscious exceptions. I assure you, I’m not thinking of flying a plane into a building any time soon.

We only progress as a species through rationality.

Mere assertion.

It hasn't provided us with light bulbs, heart surgery, telephones, refrigerators, antibiotics or printing presses.

Given that science has provided us with the Dawkinsian picture of a blind, pitilessly indifferent, meaningless cosmos, where all are destined to nothingness, I say this was quite a heavy exchange! People of the Middle Ages did not have light bulbs, heart surgery, telephones and all the rest, but at least they had a purposeful, hopeful cosmology.

Belief in a god doesn't give us meaning.

Yes it does, for me. If it doesn’t give you meaning then you’re welcome to do without it. Just stop generalising.

Rationality is such a key part of what it is to be human. Anyone denying rationality is denying a major part of what it is to be a human being.

This ponitification of yours is a gross generalisation, a stereotypical assertion and a mean insult! I’m no less human than you are.

So, it’s not just religion that’s bad, religious belief is as well.

To remind you: the two World Wars were not caused by religious belief. Atheists’ conviction that eliminating religion would bring world peace is just as irrational a messianic belief as Christians’ belief in Jesus’ second coming.

[McNamara]

HD, there's no need to jump on the defensive here. Clearly we are not characterizing you as a close-minded fundy. YOUR particular beliefs do not harm yourself or others. Some of us have plenty of meaning in our finite lives, and you need to believe in a deity and an afterlife to feel okay. There's no problem with that.

What we're talking about is the kind of religious faith that divides families and societies. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen at least one example in your life of a very religious person who refuses to even listen to a different opinion, or if he does, he has an automatic rebuttal for everything he disagrees with.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by McNamara
HD, there's no need to jump on the defensive here. Clearly we are not characterizing you as a close-minded fundy. YOUR particular beliefs do not harm yourself or others. Some of us have plenty of meaning in our finite lives, and you need to believe in a deity and an afterlife to feel okay. There's no problem with that.

OK, sorry.

What we're talking about is the kind of religious faith that divides families and societies. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen at least one example in your life of a very religious person who refuses to even listen to a different opinion, or if he does, he has an automatic rebuttal for everything he disagrees with.

I know all about that. First, I’m an ex-fundamentalist myself, and my fundamentalism (Orthodox Jewish) nearly caused a breakup between me and my family. Second, the factions in Israel are irreconcilably divided by religion: religious and secular Jews don’t eat at each other’s places and don’t intermarry.

[capsaicin67]

I am beginning to agree that until we have clearer definitions of terms like "religion", "belief", "faith" it's difficult to discuss effectively. It looks to me like these are all getting muddled together somewhat.

I, for one, was not speaking to the divisive issues in relationships----though I agree that is one possible consequence of conflict when 2 mutually exclusive perspectives butt heads. My primary concern with faith in the supernatural is when it leads to compromised safety. When govt begins legislating or forming policy based on irrational superstition or mythology would be one example. When decisions that affect the safety of others are made based on superstition, that concerns me.

I'm going to customize peejay's statement for myself:

*Superstition and faith in the supernatural* makes you think wrong. You switch off that part of your brain that deals with the rational world and solves problems and makes decisions based on reason.

I'd love to say that we can all just mind our own business---and in many instances we can. But I think it's a lot more murky and grey than that. What beliefs people hold about the world around them affects how they make decisions and solve or prevent problems. Some of those people make decisions that affect my safety/quality of life, and/or that of my loved ones at times. It's hard to be neutral about that, really hard.

Superstition isn't a safe way to process information is my basic position. And we should use the least restrictive, most respectful, measures possible in educating or advocating this pov. I sure as hell don't want to tell anyone else what to believe----but there are prices paid for embracing superstition. It can have a placebo effect, sure, but we can't avoid the intermittent nasty side effects entirely if we want to thoroughly examine it's validity or value I don't think.

How do we educate and innoculate against superstition if we think that doing so is pushy or intrusive or intolerant? That is the $64k Question. I don't know how except to say "very carefully". Or to say it doesn't really matter. Maybe somebody else knows a better answer..........

[McNamara]

Well, I applaud you for "seeing the light" Heathen Dawn. One thing we can certainly agree on is that unwavering fundamentalist belief is one of the greatest sources of divisiveness in society. That's the "harm in belief" referred to in the OP, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think faith in a deity such as yours is harmful; even though you know I disagree with it, it doesn't keep us from having meaningful discussions on other things.

[RTS]

I have "thoughtfully concluded" the following link to be one of the most comprehensive presentations on the issue of the problem with beliefs.

Beliefs are a scourge on our human psyches and an unnecessary component of our language.

Respectfully, I am one who "thinks", and I personally have no need for "beliefs" of any kind, whatever your definition or affiliation.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Enjoy, and best wishes in your recovery from belief.

[peejay]

Hello HeathenDawn, I just thought I'd respond to a couple of your points.

I apologise that my post came across as a string of assertions. I should have prefaced my comments by saying that I am writing from an atheist perspective. If you accept that there is no god, then I think my comments all follow. As you don't, you won't.

Basically I suppose I'm saying that if there is a god, then belief is good. If there isn't a god, belief is bad.

I would argue the evidence is very clear that there isn't a god, but that's for another thread.

Whilst I didn't mean to be mean, I did mean it when I said that belief is demeaning. Far better to define your own meaning than to take the meaning given to you by a third party, especially when that third party doesn't actually do a good job of communicating the meaning he has for you. In fact god makes a big thing of his ineffability. But I don't think it shows me much respect if he doesn't tell me what he has mind for the meaning in my life. You may say that I shouldn't be asking god to respect me, but surely if you don't think your god should respect you, then that says something about your self-esteem? You're a great person, definitely worthy of respect. I know this simply because you're a person.

If you're arguing that life was better in the Middle Ages, then we will have to respectfully disagree!

Incidentally, I think that the two world wars were Bad Things - but I don't see how they're relevant to the thread.

Lastly, I do worry for you. Not just you, but all believers. Now I don't know you, and I don't know all believers, so I'll abstract this by talking about "someone". The problem is that if someone relies on god it is a big problem when something goes badly wrong. If someone lost a child, for example, then that someone would go through a terrible time coming to terms with that grief. Since god doesn't exist (remember that's the basis I'm working from), he's not well placed to provide support. There are other, better ways to get support and help. But going further, someone who loses a child may think that god has abandoned them, or is punishing them - very far from being supported by the idea of a god. Or, through the loss of a child, someone may realise that god doesn't exist. This upending of someone's world view could be pretty challenging in itself, and it coming at the same time as having to cope with the death of a child would be immensely difficult and - linking back to the original post - harmful. Relying on support mechanisms that don't support you is very risky.

peejay

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by RTS
I have "thoughtfully concluded" the following link to be one of the most comprehensive presentations on the issue of the problem with beliefs.

I have to disagree. I found it a sloppy piece of work: poorly defined in scope and terminology and, in an ironic twist worthy of O. Henry, riddled with unproven and unexamined assertions indistinguishable from the "beliefs" it decries.

His refusal to acknowledge that he is making an epistemological claim means that he never once bothers making an argument for it. Even if his work weren't full of glaring errors, poorly or un-sourced assertions, conclusion-leaping and confirmation bias, his apparent total ignorance of his own philosophical position dooms his effort to utter failure. Jim Walker needs to read Hugo Holbling's Introducing Philosophy 5: Epistemology (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67629) even more than I did, and that's saying a lot.

I don't have the time at the moment to give a detailed critique, but here are a few examples of problems I had with Walker's essay (http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm):

People have slaughtered each other in wars, inquisitions, and political actions for centuries and still kill each other over beliefs in religions, political ideologies, and philosophies. These belief-systems, when stated as propositions, may appear mystical, and genuine to the naive, but when confronted with a testable bases from reason and experiment, they fail miserably.

For someone who claims that "our language and thought processes may contain errors, delusions and beliefs. It would behoove us to find and attempt to deal with these errors and become aware of their dangers", Walker is remarkably lax at defining terms and ensuring his conclusions follow from clearly stated premises.

Politics and philosophy may appear mystical? In the second sentence he has already conflated the only categories of beliefs he offered in the first sentence. Even more fundamentally, how does Walker know that all propositions are testable by reason and experiment? Empiricism and rationalism have blind spots and stumbling blocks (see Hugo's treatment of the problem of induction in the above-linked thread for an accessible treatment of the basics) which he would have to confront head-on in order to justify his reliance on experience and reason alone.

Some animals have in their DNA a predisposition for imprinted programming. [1] One extreme example of maturation imprinting occurs with newborn greylag geese where they regard the first suitable animal that it sees as its parent and follows it around. <snip heartwarming RinTinTin goslings story>

The footnote providing a source for the claim that some animals are genetically predisposed to imprinting is to pg. 198 of Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. If anyone has a copy of that book, I would be very curious to track down the primary source. Otherwise, I only quote that segment to underscore Walker's penchant for unjustified deductive leaps.

Some young animals have what scientists call "eidetic" memory; they will believe whatever gets taught to them.

He goes from gosling imprintation to eidetic memory and invents a definition that makes em sound just like imprintation. This is a total miscontrual of eidetic memory, which is in actual fact the ability to recall something you've seen in scannable detail, aka, photographic memory.

I have found no references whatsoever to such a thing existing in non-human animals young or old, but click here (http://www.gis.net/~tbirch/mi2b.htm) for a good explanation of eidetic images. For a quick definition and an intriguing test of your own eidetic memory, click here (http://www.gis.net/~tbirch/x2.htm).

Apparently this kind of imprinting occurs with humans at an early age. Many people also accept, without question, the religion of their youth.

This is a deeply deceptive comment. In another unjustified leap, he applies the false "imprinting" definition of em to children, studiously avoiding any actual mention of an age range, and then offers up an insidious little non-sequitur to give his readers the idea that imprintation is genetic in people as it is in animals, that children go through a special imprintation memory period that makes them believe whatever they're taught and that this carries over into adulthood like it does with the poor, benighted greyland geese.

It literally makes no sense.

That's just the beginning. His obfuscations and rationalizations dominate the essay. The things that look like graphs but are actually just doodles in a box are particularly bemusing. Who needs data to plot a chart when you've got colored pencils?

Originally posted by RTS
Respectfully, I am one who "thinks", and I personally have no need for "beliefs" of any kind, whatever your definition or affiliation.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I found Mr. Walker's arguments very far from convincing. Do you have any other sources?

[Kenneth]

Do we have the right to our beliefs? Can we really say that our beliefs, even if it is erroneuos, should be tolerated as long as we do not impose on others?

First of all, I think it is naive to believe that there is such a thing as "belief not imposed on others."

Our beliefs influence our actions. There are people who believe that women are inferior to men. But they don't prevent women to vote. Does that make their beliefs benign. No, they may not prevent women from voting, but they will manifest in some other things. They may forbid a women to marry even if she has reached maturity, or something else.

Error in belief must be corrected as early as possible. It must not be allowed to grow and fester.

I believe that the Nazi were nothing more than clown during its early years. But their Jewish "jokes" became more violent as the years passed because of the apathy shown by the German people.

Correcting error of belief however is not something the state can imposed. It is a personal choice. It is a moral one. We alone should judge our beliefs. Place our beliefs on the highest of standard. If it cannot pass by that standard, we do not have the right to believe it--even if it seems harmless.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by livius drusus
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I found Mr. Walker's arguments very far from convincing. Do you have any other sources?

:notworthy

In addition to your excellent analysis, Walker ignores the importance of tenacity in theory formation and the proliferation of strongly defended alternatives, both of which are discussed in some depth in the available literature. Moreover, the methodological advice he offers would have halted Einstein and Millikan - to name only my favourite examples - in their tracks. The inclusion of the term "belief" in epistemic models should also give us pause, even if Walker was not so minded.

[RTS]

Email from Jim Walker:

I have learned a long time ago to stay clear of public arguments as the lowest common denominator can drag the argument down from any minor misconceptions that might take forever to explain (and in some cases, impossible to explain, if the arguer does not have the capacity or will to understand). I simply don't have the time to argue with people who haven't the slightest concern for new (and developing) ideas.

livius drusus' acerbic response gives a prime example of this. He pretends concern about "eidetic" memory as if I had some kind of agenda to connect it to human belief. I don't claim to know, but I do offer up the question, and offer possibilities. The chapter on Origins of belief aims at questions as to how belief began, not an attempt to describe how it "is". The very first sentence opens with, "Very little evidence has yet appeared about how belief arose in humans..." Mr. dursus apparently missed that one.

I also follow the imprinted memory idea with this following sentence: "The degree that humans have imprinted memory or the ability to control their beliefs, or reduce them remains open for further investigation." I guess Mr. dursus decided to miss that one too.

Mr. dursus seems concerned about the scientific validity of the term "eidetic," and perhaps I did overstate the scientific use of this term, but this proves very easy to change, especially since I only used the term in one paragraph (and with a footnote to its source). Good grief! Actually the term "imprinting" describes it better and perhaps I'll add footnotes to the available (and abundant) literature on this. Mr. dursus can then argue with the scientists. Of course, whether or not imprinting in humans proves valid or not says absolutely nothing about the thrust of the article which Mr. dursus never addresses, nor does he offer a clue as to the alleged benefits of belief.

Thanks again and good luck.

Regards,
Jim Walker

Freethinkers:
http://www.nobeliefs.com

Again, I firmly state with enthusiasm ;) :

I have "thoughtfully concluded" the following link to be one of the most comprehensive presentations on the issue of the problem with beliefs.

Beliefs are a scourge on our human psyches and an unnecessary component of our language.

Respectfully, I am one who "thinks", and I personally have no need for "beliefs" of any kind, whatever your definition or affiliation.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Enjoy, and best wishes in your recovery from belief.

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
"...Moreover, the methodological advice he offers would have halted Einstein and Millikan - to name only my favourite examples - in their tracks."

How do you know this to be true? Which logical fallacy have you committed? It seems more reasonable to contend they would have reached the heights of their achievements for which they are remembered and respected much sooner and attained greater achievements in their lifespan without the stumbling blocks of beliefs and the associated red herrings and misconceptions.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by RTS
Again, I firmly state with enthusiasm ;) :

I have "thoughtfully concluded" the following link to be one of the most comprehensive presentations on the issue of the problem with beliefs. RTS,

I hardly see how Mr. Walker's 'rebuttal' of livius' post is any kind of confirmation that your original citation has any more value than it did the first time you posted it, so your new enthusiasm is surprising. Since Mr. Walker was obviously unwilling or unable to address "Mr. Dursus'" argument point-by-point, perhaps you should give it an effort in place of restating your allegiance to the ideas.

vm

[RTS]

HaHaHa vm... My enthusiasm comment was meant to refer back to livius drusus' comment to me in which he stated "I appreciate your enthusiasm,..." In your haste to jump on the bandwagon you must have missed that connection. I stated my opinion and nothing more; just like everyone else on this discussion forum. And you know the ol' saying about opinions, and there are surely a lot of those around here.

Mr. Walker's reply was very appropriate, adequate, and he DID address his position and the salient points and omissions of ld's post.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by RTS
HaHaHa vm... My enthusiasm comment was meant to refer back to livius drusus' comment to me in which he stated "I appreciate your enthusiasm,..." I'm glad I could so easily amuse you. I'll be here all week.
In your haste to jump on the bandwagon you must have missed that connection. As all you've done so far is sing the praises of someone else's work and use his weak rebuttal to strengthen your own non-existent one, I really wouldn't be accusing anyone else of bandwagon jumping here.
I stated my opinion and nothing more; Indeed.
just like everyone else on this discussion forum. Not quite. A number of us venture to include substance in our commentaries.
And you know the ol' saying about opinions, and there are surely a lot of those around here. Is that the voice of experience I hear?
Mr. Walker's reply was very appropriate, adequate, and he DID address his position and the salient points and omissions of ld's post. I see. So once again you'll rely on someone else to make the argument you apparently can't make yourself. What exactly is your point in this exchange? Bonus question: How does your opinion in this instance differ from a belief as described in Mr. Walker's essay, and what makes your belief useful or interesting?

vm

[livius drusus]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email response. It was entirely unexpected and I can't help but be gratified to have earned the pleasure with my meager words above. Although I understand that your statement is a favor you will do us only the once, I am compelled to return it nonetheless.

You are wise, I am certain of it, in your choice to avoid public debate. Many's the time when I have bemoaned the masochism that bids me seek open discourse to hone and clarify my ideas or develop new ones based on new information even at the risk of being misunderstood. I must beg to differ with you, however, that time spent in explanation is time wasted. Good teachers are far rarer than good thinkers, and there's a noticeable lack of the latter as it is.

I suppose one could describe my critique of your essay as acerbic, but I assure you my concern about your misuse of the term eidetic memory is no pretense. Since your definition was completely wrong, all speculations based on that premise are groundless and not possibilities but fantasies.

I did not miss your waiver sentences. They are simply of no significance to the material point: eidetic memory is entirely unrelated to the genesis of beliefs; to present it as the possible reason for the persistence of religious belief, even couched in a pair of further research caveats, is inaccurate to the point of fiction.

Just to be clear, you did not overstate the scientific use of this term: you redefined it completely. I'm glad to see that you consider the paragraph is expendable, however. I couldn't agree more.

The footnote, incidentally, pointed to a secondary source for the genetic basis of the instinct to maturation imprinting in greyland geese, not one for the claim about the role of eidetic memory in the development of human beliefs. I would still be curious indeed to see Mr. Sagan and Ms. Druyan's actual source, given that I doubt very much they are personally responsible for mapping the goose genome.

I think replacing the misleading references to eidetic memory and providing sources on the existence and possible role, genetic or environmental, of imprinting on human beings will be an excellent start and am looking forward to perusing the extensive literature on the subject.

I did address the thrust of your article, Mr. Walker, namely: your claim that knowledge can only be attained by empirical and rational means; that all else is a decimation of human intellect, "a scourge on our human psyches and an unnecessary component of our language", if I may sip from RTS' rhetorical chalice for one moment.

I'd rather not delve into the issue of potential social, emotional, or scientific benefits of belief until you've made an attempt to justify the epistemological house of cards on which you've rested the full weight of your argument. Should you wish to expand your own horizons on the matter without having to rely on a presentation from me, do follow Hugo's advice and look up Einstein and Millikan on the value of persistance in the face of experimental adversity.

Before I take my leave of you, allow me to uproot just one more of your presuppositions: you may, if you must employ a gendered honorific, refer to me as Ms. drusus, but I prefer livius.

Thank you,
livius drusus

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by RTS
How do you know this to be true?

The point, if you care to read through both Millikan's and Einstein's work, is that they frequently complained that experiment had outrun theory; they therefore continued to believe in their ideas in the face of direct falsification. In fact, they turned out to be quite correct to do so. Mr Walker's methodological advice is too simplistic to account for the development of scientific ideas.

It seems more reasonable to contend they would have reached the heights of their achievements for which they are remembered and respected much sooner and attained greater achievements in their lifespan without the stumbling blocks of beliefs and the associated red herrings and misconceptions.

It may seem so to you, but Walker completely misunderstands the theory-ladenness of observation languages and hence the a priori impossibility of his ideas. There is no sense-datum account of knowledge and the concept has been in trouble since Bacon. Since terms are theory-laden all the way down it is simply not possible to remove the influence of beliefs from any theory of knowledge formulation. It may be, of course, that Walker has found a refutation of this commonly known result in the philosophy of science, in which case he would be doing many people a public service by presenting it. Otherwise, his theory is doomed at the outset.

To make my point crystal clear: is it possible to provide an account of knowledge formation that does not suffer from the theory-ladenness of terms? You and Walker should both be aware that this is the problem facing the ideas presented of most significance and perhaps less time should be spent talking down to people and more on explaining how you can avoid it.

Additionally, i am happy to defend this point and i will gladly challenge you or Mr Walker to a public debate here. I do not appreciate criticism being dismissed as an unwillingness to consider new ideas when an old concept is precisely where this account fails.

[prometheus bound]

" That is real harm that happens every day. I think it is these little everyday things, even more so than the big things, like war, terrorism, etc. that really make blind faith bad, because these little things happen on such a broad scale, and are inescapable."

I was just wondering where you or any other atheist on this thread get off making value judgements? (please note, this is not a challenge of your right to speak but the grounds from which you speak)

"Blind faith is bad"-- really now? what is the ethical norm that you base that on? please enlighten me. i've found this to be the major chink in so called "rational atheism." you talk about morals and bad stuff like "these little things" and terrorism and war-- why are these things bad? from a nontheistic worldview you really have no right to say that. without an ethical norm all of these are arbitrary assessments.
reason and rationality do not take you to ethics-- if you believe they do, please show me (without making value judgments along the way) i would be very interested to see that line of thought.

anyway, your non-theistic brothers like sarte and nietzsche and the postmodern inheriters of his (nietzsche's) thought like fouccault, and rorty are much more consistent (though not completely)-- they have recognized (admittedly some moreso than others) that their atheism leaves them without purpose, ehtics, or meaning!

nietzche at the end of "the genealogy of morals" having dealt with this issue throughout the book rightly comes to the necessary non-theistic conclusion in the following quote:

friedrich nietzsche "here i touch once more on my problem, on our problem, my unknown friends: what would our existence amount to were it not for this, that the will to truth has been forced to examine itself? it is by this dawning self-consciousness of the will to truth that ethics must now perish."
now in context he was just saying "Christianity as ethics must perish" but the above quote clearly covers all ethics. and he's right, given a non-theistic worldview.

p.s. obviously the book is polemical to Christianity (and religion in general) and i find its conclusion repugnant but at least there's some level of consistency that i'm simply not finding in this forum

[wade-w]

An in depth discussion of morals or ethical systems is not appropriate in this forum. If you wish to discuss this, please do so in the Moral Principles & Foundations Forum.

Edited becasue I can't type

[prometheus bound]

i'm not allowed to challenge the basis for a value judgement that someone makes on this thread?

the topic on the thread is "what's the harm in belief"-- is that not a discussion of ethics

respectfully
pb

[wade-w]

Note the words "in depth" in my post.

the topic on the thread is "what's the harm in belief"-- is that not a discussion of ethics

Actually, it looks more like epistemology to me. And as long as it remains focused on the epistemological foundations for belief and or faith as they relate to religion, then it is appropriate here. If the discussion strays further into a more general treatment of epistemology, then it becomes more appropriate to the Philosophy forum.

[Kassiana]

Originally posted by wildernesse
I believe I have asked this question on occasion when some posters here have declared that my faith harms me--and actually all of humanity. When I have asked what about my beliefs actually harms me or all of humanity, all I 'hear' is spluttering and wild accusations that bear no relation to my actual beliefs. I find that interesting.

--tibac
I was on a largely atheist e-mail list at one point, and asked for specific, empirically supported examples of how my particular religious beliefs harm anyone. (I'm a liberal Pagan theist who attends a UU church, believes in religious freedom for atheist and theist alike, and so on.) No one could give me any tangible evidence that my beliefs harmed anyone, even myself. Yet I was told, even after this, that the mere fact that I was a religious believer meant all sorts of bad things....even though when I challenged, no one could prove it.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Kassiana
I was on a largely atheist e-mail list at one point, and asked for specific, empirically supported examples of how my particular religious beliefs harm anyone. (I'm a liberal Pagan theist who attends a UU church, believes in religious freedom for atheist and theist alike, and so on.) No one could give me any tangible evidence that my beliefs harmed anyone, even myself. Yet I was told, even after this, that the mere fact that I was a religious believer meant all sorts of bad things....even though when I challenged, no one could prove it.

HAHAHAHAHA! Sweet is the irony! :D

Everyone—that is EVERYONE—craves a Devil. Not for nothing did the Zoroastrian and Manichean dualist beliefs seep into so many religions.

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Given that science has provided us with the Dawkinsian picture of a blind, pitilessly indifferent, meaningless cosmos, where all are destined to nothingness, I say this was quite a heavy exchange! People of the Middle Ages did not have light bulbs, heart surgery, telephones and all the rest, but at least they had a purposeful, hopeful cosmology.Science hasn't "provided" us with a worldview. Science is just a methodology for understanding the natural world. That no one has detected a spiritual entity or entity or a purpose for the Universe using the methods and tools of science, is not science's fault.

Anyway, Carl Sagan had essentially the same view of the Universe as Richard Dawkins, but reading Sagan doesn't make me feel that life is hopeless or meaningless. It's all a matter of perspective.

As for the Middle Ages, it's my understanding that most people in that period lived in considerable poverty, misery, and abject ignorance, and lots of them died in plagues due to the overcrowded and filthy conditions in the cities. It's nice that their religion gave them a sense of hope that something better awaited them after death, but it also kept them from getting off their butts and doing something to improve their situation in this life.To remind you: the two World Wars were not caused by religious belief. Atheists’ conviction that eliminating religion would bring world peace is just as irrational a messianic belief as Christians’ belief in Jesus’ second coming. The two world wars were not caused by atheism either. They were caused by nationalism, irrational politics, and such ancient, basic human emotions as greed, territorialism, and distrust/fear of people with different languages and cultures.

And religion is NOT blameless. Centuries of religious wars helped draw the map of Europe and created longstanding feuds and animosities that fueled rising tensions. Centuries of Christian persecution and demonization of Jews helped fuel the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazis may have been pagans, worshipping Thor and Odin if they worshipped anything, but German soldiers went into battle with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.

And if you want to go further back, religion played a big part in causing the American Civil War. Religious leaders on both sides made fiery sermons and fueled passions, and Southern preachers provided Biblical justifications for slavery.

I think you have to be careful not to confuse atheism with rationality. It's really rational thinking, much more than atheism, that has led to improvements in the human condition. During the Enlightenment most rationalists were believers in one sort of deity or another, but were not Christians (since they found Christianity irrational, and regarded the Church as an instrument of the oppression of the human mind).

[Naked Ape]

The problem with belief is it is the opposite of thought.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

[McNamara]

The problem with belief is it is the opposite of thought.

I think you're confusing belief with blind faith, Naked Ape. You're not the only one, though. I'm having some problems with the use of words in this thread. I think people are throwing the word "belief" around without defining it. I use them pretty interchangeably, but belief is stronger than thought, for example, "I think my family loves me" versus "I believe my family loves me."

Belief is a thought strengthened by either faith, reason, or both. I have a certain amount of faith in science, so I don't just think the general theory of relativity is correct, I believe it is. I have faith that Einstein wasn't trying to deceive anybody (before you think that's absurd, I have been told on another board to consider the possibility that science is one big "conspiracy" to fool humanity). I aslo have a damn good reason to believe GR, namely, we used a GPS on our boat last weekend to find a dive site and it was right on the mark. That, plus the fact that I spent a whole semester studying GR, leads me to the conclusion that GR is a good description of spacetime.

Belief could possibly be classified into that which is supported only by blind faith, and that which also has reason to back it up. Of course, many religious people claim they have reasons for their belief; that their faith is not blind. Then they launch into a ridiculous ontological argument, blah blah blah.

I really don't have any problems with blind faith, so long as it has absolutely no negative effect on other people. Too often, however, it does have negative effects. That's when I have a BIG problem with blind faith.

So yeah, stop confusing belief with blind faith! I thought we had already got past this.

[Secular Elation]

But God can only really be a comfort if he exists, and he doesn't.

Irrelevant. As far as the believer is concerned, God does exist. Even though it is not a real comfort, is a perceived, ficitonal comfort--but the believer still feels said comfort in any case.

[McNamara]

That's true. Comfort is a state of mind, so if God exists only in the mind, it can still be comforting. The fictionality of the source of such comfort does not make the state of mind any less real.

Of course, the God that only exists in the mind can't help pay your taxes, get you to work on time, or save your life in times of danger. But the comfort factor still exists. Just look at all the people who are quite happy with attributing their successes to divine intervention.

[BerntRostrom]

Inner reality vs outer reality. If the inner reality get's projected as an outer reality it could be very harmful. Seems that inner concepts acted upon as if real makes them real from a political power perspective.

All this assertion that God exists ot there before time and beign the allmighty and a lot of bragging could be a clever way fo concealign that God actually onlu exists within the head of the believer.

Then God is an illusion you might say but if peopel act on these inner emotional motivators as if real it seems to make them politically "real".

From the legislator perspective they change the Law to comply with peoples inner concepts and not if God exists out there in reality.

As long as they act as if God is real for them they get real political power as a consequence of their "illusion" so it look kind of wordsplay to say it is illusions.

What could we say instead?

Inner concepts gets real if acted upon as if real to the person having faith in them.

Should we ahve three categories then?

Measurable truth. What science deal with.
Social truth that politics and ideology deal with.
Logical truth that math and philosophy deal with

Bernt

PS Michael Shermer ahs written about this on oage 11 in his "How We Believe"

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Belief is bad when it is at the expense of others(--Yahzi--Planes--Buildings--Yougetthedrift ;)). Otherwise it is all right. Enough said.
Holy cow. I actually completely agree with HD on something!

:)

The thing is, even if you are the only victim of your faith, it can still harm me. I reject Libertarinism: I think humans have duties as well as rights. If your faith interferes with your duty towards other people, then that counts as at their expense.

But if you can convince me that your faith is within your personal sphere - akin to a preference for chocolate instead of vanilla, say, or no more harmful than the delusion that country music is actually music - then I completely agree with HD.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Einstein and Millikan on the value of persistance in the face of experimental adversity.
But eventually, it was expierement that proved them right.

I guess I don't equate following a hunch with rejecting all rational standards.

[peejay]

But God can only really be a comfort if he exists, and he doesn't.

Secular Elation - you say this is irrelevant, and the comfort that belief provides is real. Well, it's true that the comfort that belief can provide is real. But it's not irrelevant. I was saying that it's a very risky strategy to derive comfort from something that doesn't exist. If you build a house using imaginary cement, then the house will stay up - until there's a storm, and then you'll be left with just a pile of bricks. Far better to use real cement.

[BerntRostrom]

Pee,

"Far better to use real cement."

but compare with our own self or selves. What are they maed of.

Brain tissue or what the name of it. Neuron connections or synapses strength in neuronal networks that are up to changes.

Now if God exists within our brain then it is possible even if a bit weird to think of God as a memory you have. This memory is the narratives about God. but that is an imaginary house you tell me.

Yes and no, it is made the same way your self is made. By living the memory of who you are. As long as the neuronal net within you that recreates the "presence2 of God within you it will be there as a functional motivator. It could look like an illusion but to the believer God is "very real" until they loose faith i nGod as real.

they obey the motivational instructions coming from their understanding of God's will. Only interpretations we say, but it makes a real impact politically cause they vote on this inner sense of "reality". so what does it help us to scream that this God is a wimpy God, it still reign the brain of the possessed person.

They do as God within them tell them, helped by the other believers cheers to obey God.

the only differnece to your own self is that the part of your brain taken over is very small but try to reason with a fudnie and you see how shilded they are to your arguments so it really exists there and protect itself from your anti-virus deconversion tactics.

After somebody loosed faith they end up as either totally non-interested or as aggressive atheist and they ahve no way of explaining how it al lhappend to them.

Do you one former believer who can make use of his or her former knowledge of believe in God to erase the faith in someone infected by it. Pee God within is very real indeed. Not as firmly installed as your own Self but as well protected as a stealth Troan virus worm.

Bernt

[peejay]

BerntRostrom - I agree that since god is an invention of man, then he exists only inside our minds. You are arguing that he is therefore no different to our concept of "self", which also exists within our minds. I don't think that's true at all. I demonstrably exist (please let's not get into a debate over whether this is true!!). My "self" is just what I carry around with me inside my head. Whilst it is easy to point out the lack of evidence for god, it is easy to point out that there is evidence that I exist. I'd suggest that very few people, when that storm comes, are going to conclude that they themselves do not exist!

Oh, and BerntRostrom - the name is "peejay", not "Pee". "Pee" could be construed as derogatory, you know...

[Naked Ape]

Originally posted by McNamara
I think you're confusing belief with blind faith, <snip>
I use them pretty interchangeably, but belief is stronger than thought, for example, "I think my family loves me" versus "I believe my family loves me."
Belief is a thought strengthened by either faith, reason, or both. <snip>
Belief could possibly be classified into that which is supported only by blind faith, and that which also has reason to back it up. <snip>
So yeah, stop confusing belief with blind faith! I thought we had already got past this.
My counter quibble: I don't believe that belief "is a thought strengthened by either faith, reason, or both."

Thinking is what you do when you evaluate facts, Belief is what you have left when you stop thinking. Belief can also be transmitted without the evaluation/thinking phase of the process, via indoctrination etc. This is the primary problem with Belief.

I don't have a problem with using the word as shorhand for "I have thought about it, evaluated the facts available to me, and have come to a (provisional) conclusion." , but often the folks who stridently proclaim belief have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.

My position summarized: Thinking is active, belief is passive. Where thinking stops, belief starts. Thinking is evaluating facts/evidence and trying to find a solution/theory that fits the facts, belief is not.

I think that "blind faith" and "belief" are synonyms (and that the modifier "blind" is redundant).

from Dictionary.com

be·lief
n.
[list=1]
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
[/i]
[/list=1]
Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith


Cheers,

Naked Ape

[BerntRostrom]

Oups, sorry about the too short copy of your name making it look like less noble name.

" My "self" is just what I carry around with me inside my head. "

I guess none know how this we get aware of us as a self. The theories are many I guess. but it appears to us as if it is there in dreams and when we wake up. They have waken peopel up during different phases of sleep and it is not easy to know if it is the wakening that construct the sense of being a self or if it never goes to sleep whil the body is in sleep. We seem to have no memory of us being awake but we always have something to report if waken at any time so ti is confusing. Teh jury is out on that question. To your next assertion

"Whilst it is easy to point out the lack of evidence for god, it is easy to point out that there is evidence that I exist."

But lack of evidence is for teh God outside of the body, the God within there is 100% evidence that it is there as a concept, or have I missed something?

Let us compare with something less alien. Take Elvis. He is dead to you and me i guess. We sidestep the Fan saying he still is alive.

But this Elvis that is in my head is alive within me. I see him whenever I call him forth as a memory. I could ask him things and although I know it is my imagination putting answers in his mouth it still is a fact that the inenr image of Elvis is there in everybody remembering him. We who was his fans during his hay days around 1956 to 1961? We remember many of his songs and the look in his eyes and the moves and his bodylanguage and we ahve heard him answers questiosn and chat with his bandmembers ans soo on. Only memories but we could make them become more alive to us than Jesus is us who are non-believer in Jesus.

But compare to a believer in Jesus as his or her savior. To them Jesus is even more alive within them than Elvis is within me who was only a mild Fan of him. I bought a few of the Lps and no CD while I have two CD with Buddy Holly, CliffRichard, LittleRichard, Chuck Berry and soo on. So Elvis kind of died for me but not so t othe believer in Jesus, they have given up a big part of their trust and faith in him as their deepest Friend and even lover???

Only illusion you could say but have yo ureally spoken at length with a fundie? It is no illusion to them. I sat for 6 hours in vain to get Jesus out of a fundie. No way he would reason about Jesus as less real than his Self. To him Jesus really existed and that it my hypothesis here, I am not hundred on it but say 25 to 50 percent sure that it could be true that Memes is a too primitive way to describe something very close to "possession" not by ghost or spirit but by a second personality. They "take in" the personality of Jesus i na way that is soo much more real compared to Elvis that Jesus actually exists there as a second personlity within them. a kind of distributed social power. Like a Beehive of Christianity where every beleiver have a mini version of the Hero Jesus within them as a seed.

It is all very natrualistic and could be true but not in the criude way I wildguess here but i nthe way they could scan using fRMI or better tech in the future to log. They could log now if you tell teh truth or lie about recognising something on a photo.

"'The brain can't lie'
_
Brain scans can reveal how you think and feel, and even how you might behave. No wonder the CIA and big business are interested. By Ian Sample and David Adam
_
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian"

So it could al lbe more near us than we thought. If they could scan a lie than why not a blind faith in Jesus? What makes it so amazing to you?

Bernt

Sorry about me distoting your name, no harm intended. Call me Bee if it feels better or Be if that is even better

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Naked Ape
Thinking is what you do when you evaluate facts, Belief is what you have left when you stop thinking.

<personal remark deleted - liv>

[Naked Ape]

<personal remark deleted - liv>

[livius drusus]

Kindly take all personal spats to PM. This thread is not about any one individual's beliefs, it is a question about the value or harm of belief in general. Please stick to it or your post is unlikely to last long.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator, GRD