That's a different meaning of faith, closer to 'trust and hope'. Not that of religious belief or faith.

That's why I define religious belief (faith), very precisely, as belief without evidence. Beleif in such things as (using Christian examples) god the creator, heaven, the flood, the existence, life and miracles of Jesus and the whole Judeo Christian morality play.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI think you misunderstand me.  Faith is a tool, a tool used to inspire.  To keep you hoping when all looks hopeless, to push you into taking actions that you know are right, but wouldn't have the guts to do on your own.  It took seventy years for Wilberforce to pass a bill to abolish slavery across the British Empire.  Would he have kept pushing on if he didn't have faith in the inherent rights and dignity of all human beings?  He didn't think so

Oh, and as counterexamples take dominionism and manifest destiny.

Quote from: GRIMThat's why I define religious belief (faith), very precisely, as belief without evidence.

I'm sorry GRIM, but you're wrong.  Wrong-diddly-wrong-wrong.  Please name one significant religious figure, particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition who uses the word in this way.

It's what the writer of Hebrews is talking about in Hebrews 11 and what Paul is talking about in the second half of James 2.  Faith isn't passive assent to an intellectual proposition.  Faith is belief in action.

Quote from: GRIMOh, and as counterexamples take dominionism and manifest destiny.

And that's exactly why the action is important.  It's a judgement call - do the beliefs held by an individual lead them to take rational and moral actions?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAnd that's exactly why the action is important.  It's a judgement call - do the beliefs held by an individual lead them to take rational and moral actions?

If I am EXTREMELY generous I might say they CAN lead them to moral actions. They can also lead them to horrendously immoral actions. Moderate Christians tend to pick and choose from the bible, ironically the likes of the Westboro baptists are actually more 'intellectually' honest and complete. Moderates apply their own modern learned value system to the bible and discard what they don't like.

Which is interesting, if somewhat tragic.

Someone who uses the term faith in that fashion? That's one of the dictionary definitions, 'belief that is not based on proof'. Fideism explictly states this in a religious context, there are examples of passages in the bible and talmud that support it (and, as ever, ones that contradict it).

The catholic dictionary defines it from St Thomas' words

"the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God"

In essence the yielding of intellect to supernatural belief by an act of will. Deliberately ignoring and suppressing that which might lead you to question the religious assertion.

1 Cor. 1:21, 25 and Luke 10:21 would be some of the passages cited in support of this idea BTW, at least biblically. Hebrews 11:1 as well.

This blind belief is the most necessary part of it because reality can and will constantly contradict the qualities and attributed deeds of any deity and the supernatural tenets held to by religious philosophies. This isn't necessarily a direct problem until the specifics of those beliefs and the nature of actual reality collide.

Quote from: GRIMModerate Christians tend to pick and choose from the bible, ironically the likes of the Westboro baptists are actually more 'intellectually' honest and complete. Moderates apply their own modern learned value system to the bible and discard what they don't like.

That's not what we're doing, but I can understand why your prejudices would lead you to think this

Quote from: GRIMSomeone who uses the term faith in that fashion?

Not "someone", a religious authority using it in a theological context.  The dictionary doesn't count because theological language is more precise than everyday language

Quote from: GRIMFideism explictly states this in a religious context

I regard Fideism is borderline heresy and it's been explicitly rejected by (among others) the Roman Catholic Church (though I'm not comfortable with the Catholics reasons for rejecting it) and Orthodoxy (though I'd have to do some digging to find the exact Ecumenical Council)

Quote from: GRIM"the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God"

How does this differ from "acting as if something is true"?

Quote from: GRIM1 Cor. 1:21, 25 and Luke 10:21 would be some of the passages cited in support of this idea BTW, at least biblically.

I have no idea what those two passages have got to do with what we are talking about unless you are trying to use the Bible to support anti-intellectualism

Quote from: GRIMHebrews 11:1 as well.

Hebrews 11 is all about how the heroes of the Faith acted as if the truth claims of Christianity were real

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonHebrews 11 is all about how the heroes of the Faith acted as if the truth claims of Christianity were real

Well, that's my point too.
Acting as if they were real, without proof that they were.

Maybe our paradigms are just too different and we're passing like ships in the night.

Quote from: GRIMMaybe our paradigms are just too different and we're passing like ships in the night.

Possibly

Let's back up a bit and try again

If the action is rational and beneficial, is the motivation important?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonPossibly

Let's back up a bit and try again

If the action is rational and beneficial, is the motivation important?

Not for that particular, singular, action - necessarily - though irrational motivation can still backfire.

Hmmm. still not entirely convinced even with those provisions. Carry on while I think about it a bit more. I need an example situation.

Didn't you already have this argument in that 10 myths about atheism thread?

GRIM hates the religious and thinks they're all mad and murderous, and also he likes Nobilis. Mate, we get it! Can't you just put it in your sig and get on with more productive discussions? How many times do we have to have the same conversation?

Quote from: JimBobOzDidn't you already have this argument in that 10 myths about atheism thread?

GRIM hates the religious and thinks they're all mad and murderous, and also he likes Nobilis. Mate, we get it! Can't you just put it in your sig and get on with more productive discussions? How many times do we have to have the same conversation?

I think you're confusing me with Grimgent.

I think Nobilis is an unplayable but beautiful book.

Due to an eyesight problem reading the spine of the old pink edition, we call it 'Noblins'.

Here's a hint, kids, the meaning of the word "faith" in English has changed as different religious traditions rise and fall in influence. One can define it within a tradition at a specific period of time but not provide a general definition that fits all uses in all traditions.

Quote from: GRIM*snort*

No, but fear based upon a rational examination of the evidence is.

An irrational fear is a phobia.

Nox exhibits an irrational fear of 'Islam', there is plenty to be worried about in that as with other religions, but Nox's fear is that of an uninformed Fox viewer. There aren't 'Jihaddies under the bed' who are going to sneak out and behead us all in the night but in a much broader context the clash between rational and irrational thought has nothing less at stake than the survival of the human species.

I don't fear suicide bombings or screaming scimitar wielders. I fear the undermining of science and education. I fear people voting on important issues based upon what some hallucinating desert wanderer said over 2,000 years ago (or rather what they said after its been put through the historical equivalent of the Google language translator a few dozen times). I fear people who fervently believe in an afterlife and so devalue this life.

I fear ID, I fear 'Creation Science', I fear the incompatibility of religious points of view, I fear nationalism, I fear all this irrationality and the process of non-thinking that threatens us all.

That's a rational fear.

You know... I don't believe in ID, but at worst I only find it silly. I'm curious as to why it should be frightening?

The devaluation of life on the basis of afterlife is one of the scarier sides of bad theology. If there were an afterlife, I wouldn't count on it to resemble this one in the slightest. I'm going to live this one as well as I can with the knowledge that whatever happens when you die, it'll be a pretty fucking big change and not just more of the same.

As for "creation science" are you referring to the Christian attempts to scientifically rationallize creation or the Japanese attempts to create universes in the lab back in June? I see the latter as mildly more alarming than the former.

Quote from: ZalmoxisThanks to beejazz for a great thread.

I'd like to take credit, but this started a WHILE ago. I don't make alot of threads, but when I see three or four all getting derailed in the same direction, I know what to do.

I still don't know if a catch-all "Middle East" thread would be a good idea.

Quote from: GRIMModerate Christians tend to pick and choose from the bible, ironically the likes of the Westboro baptists are actually more 'intellectually' honest and complete. Moderates apply their own modern learned value system to the bible and discard what they don't like.

Which is interesting, if somewhat tragic.

See, I don't see it as remotely dishonest to pick and choose the parts of religion you like. On the one hand, you can say that people aren't thinking any differently than they were prior to exposure to religion, but you'd be giving people too much credit. This is thousands of years of experience talking to readers who don't have thousands of years to figure this shit out. Surely, with study, a person can build up a philosophy of things he likes but wouldn't have thought of on his own. And to say that a person should figure all this stuff out on his own is about on par with saying the same of science. It's simply more convenient and efficient to know the results of past study and experimentation than to have to repeat it all yourself.

And even the obsolete parts can become applicable. We had damned well better know the moral implications of Lamarckian evolution before we start to cybernetically adapt, for example.

Would you hold a grudge if I picked and chose what I liked from Greek or French or Indian philosophers?

Quote from: beejazzYou know... I don't believe in ID, but at worst I only find it silly. I'm curious as to why it should be frightening?

Politicised, faith-based science? You should read up on Lysenko.

It is frightening because it is attempting to destroy the science education of entire generations, to undermine not the findings of science but the scientific process itself and to replace it with completely irrational and unsupported thinking.

How would you feel if English lessons were replaced with Newspeak lessons?
Or if ALL art classes were still life?
Or if mathematics lessons were changed to the idea that pi was exactly 3?

Quote from: beejazzAs for "creation science" are you referring to the Christian attempts to scientifically rationallize creation or the Japanese attempts to create universes in the lab back in June? I see the latter as mildly more alarming than the former.

The Christian side, which I find far more frightening for humanity's future than attempts to understand the universe.