Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

[Invictus_88]

Faith is intellectual suicide.

Well said, and so true.

Just because it's pithy doesn't mean it's true.

[dparrott]

Faith is intellectual suicide.

Well said, and so true.

Only if you don't have any would you view it in this manner.

[CatchyTitle]

Well said, and so true.

Just because it's pithy doesn't mean it's true.

When the 'faith' in question (faith in a God, creationism, life after death, etc) is based upon a complete absence of evidence, in favour of something no more concrete than a 'hunch', I would certainly consider it anti-intellectual, especially when this 'hunch' is treated with more value than actual, corroborated evidence provided by experts within particular fields of knowledge.

As an example, do you place more credence in the story of Noah's Arc than you do in the archaeologists and palaeontologists who've found very contradictory evidence?

When you fill in the gaps of human knowledge with your own personal, and collective desires, you are reducing your ability to think for yourself, along with stripping away essential human traits such as inquisitiveness and reasoning.

Just look to muslim children, who're forced to memorise and recite the Koran verbatim by the age of 8 years old, despite the fact that they (understandably) do not grasp the concepts.

-- Updated April 2nd, 2012, 10:39 am to add the following --

Well said, and so true.

Only if you don't have any would you view it in this manner.

See previous point

[dparrott]

Just because it's pithy doesn't mean it's true.

When the 'faith' in question (faith in a God, creationism, life after death, etc) is based upon a complete absence of evidence, in favour of something no more concrete than a 'hunch', I would certainly consider it anti-intellectual, especially when this 'hunch' is treated with more value than actual, corroborated evidence provided by experts within particular fields of knowledge.

As an example, do you place more credence in the story of Noah's Arc than you do in the archaeologists and palaeontologists who've found very contradictory evidence?

When you fill in the gaps of human knowledge with your own personal, and collective desires, you are reducing your ability to think for yourself, along with stripping away essential human traits such as inquisitiveness and reasoning.

Just look to muslim children, who're forced to memorise and recite the Koran verbatim by the age of 8 years old, despite the fact that they (understandably) do not grasp the concepts.

So you are saying "only believe something if there is evidence to back it up,"? How much evidence do you need before you can believe something? Do you need evidence to not believe something?

[CatchyTitle]

When the 'faith' in question (faith in a God, creationism, life after death, etc) is based upon a complete absence of evidence, in favour of something no more concrete than a 'hunch', I would certainly consider it anti-intellectual, especially when this 'hunch' is treated with more value than actual, corroborated evidence provided by experts within particular fields of knowledge.

As an example, do you place more credence in the story of Noah's Arc than you do in the archaeologists and palaeontologists who've found very contradictory evidence?

When you fill in the gaps of human knowledge with your own personal, and collective desires, you are reducing your ability to think for yourself, along with stripping away essential human traits such as inquisitiveness and reasoning.

Just look to muslim children, who're forced to memorise and recite the Koran verbatim by the age of 8 years old, despite the fact that they (understandably) do not grasp the concepts.

So you are saying "only believe something if there is evidence to back it up,"? How much evidence do you need before you can believe something? Do you need evidence to not believe something?

Too often faith is not tempered with sensibility, or swallowed whole rather than taken with a pinch of salt. Science, too, is guilty of making bold statements which can later be proven false, just as theism/religion is.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be too eager to believe in something simply because it comforts you, such as living on after clinical death, or being the child of a being which created the whole universe as a playground just for your species. Always be wary of concepts that sound too good to be true, or which tap into the collective fears and desires of an entire species, and always try to be your own judge of what is and isn't real, not just a follower of someone else's word. Don't take my word for it either.

How much evidence? when we're talking about wild claims such as living after death, or the universe being created in 7 days, or man being formed from a rib? Quite a lot, actually. The grander the claim, the more evidence that should be required. That's my biggest bug-bear with theism - the fact that many people, such as the muslim community in general, have never actually questioned their beliefs. This is tantamount to delusion on an individual and societal scale.

How much evidence to disbelieve? When contradictory evidence greater than that you already have emerges, it's time to revise the belief. This tends not to happen in religion, leaving people clinging to their beliefs in a stance of self-defence, for fear that they may be wrong.

I don't believe that religious people can ever be turned around, such is the indoctrination and the need of their own personal desires over the harshness of reality. In a way, I suppose I shouldn't be trying, for in taking away a person's crutch, you are leaving behind a unstable person.

No disrespect intended, dparrot.

[Fanman]

CatchyTitle,

You are obviously anti-theism. I feel that you should at least get some of your facts straight though. God made the world / earth in 7 days; not the universe. He also made woman (Eve), from the rib of a man (Adam). It becomes alot more plausible to the mind if you get those facts straight i.e. it is more reasonable to believe that God made the world in 7 days than he made the entire universe in 7 days.

Also, I think that it requires complete scepticism and denial to believe that the universe and all of existence was created by chance, therefore making chance capable of making decisions and having the power of creation, if you believe in evolution and natural selection.

Atheists therefore make chance their god, and have faith in chance, that chance is the reason we exist. How is having faith in chance, any different from having faith in God? What evidence is there to suggest that chance created the universe?

[Invictus_88]

Just because it's pithy doesn't mean it's true.

When the 'faith' in question (faith in a God, creationism, life after death, etc) is based upon a complete absence of evidence, in favour of something no more concrete than a 'hunch', I would certainly consider it anti-intellectual, especially when this 'hunch' is treated with more value than actual, corroborated evidence provided by experts within particular fields of knowledge.

As an example, do you place more credence in the story of Noah's Arc than you do in the archaeologists and palaeontologists who've found very contradictory evidence?

When you fill in the gaps of human knowledge with your own personal, and collective desires, you are reducing your ability to think for yourself, along with stripping away essential human traits such as inquisitiveness and reasoning.

Just look to muslim children, who're forced to memorise and recite the Koran verbatim by the age of 8 years old, despite the fact that they (understandably) do not grasp the concepts.

...whoa, sorry. I didn't intend for you to go off on a wild tangent there, go steady eh?

If you want to make a legitimate philosophical point, you'll have to address 'faith' rather than your personal prejudices. An inaccurate rant about religion does not constitute a philosophical point.

Edit: Fanman, you could have added the correction that there is no obligation for any Muslim, let alone a child, to become a hafiz.

[CatchyTitle]

CatchyTitle,

You are obviously anti-theism. I feel that you should at least get some of your facts straight though. God made the world / earth in 7 days; not the universe. He also made woman (Eve), from the rib of a man (Adam). It becomes alot more plausible to the mind if you get those facts straight i.e. it is more reasonable to believe that God made the world in 7 days than he made the entire universe in 7 days.

Also, I think that it requires complete scepticism and denial to believe that the universe and all of existence was created by chance, therefore making chance capable of making decisions and having the power of creation, if you believe in evolution and natural selection.

Atheists therefore make chance their god, and have faith in chance, that chance is the reason we exist. How is having faith in chance, any different from having faith in God? What evidence is there to suggest that chance created the universe?

Oh, so God made just the world in 7 days? Well, isn't that far more plausible And a woman from the rib of a man, but of course If you actually believe this, you will believe anything.

And life was not made by chance, as all theists consistently get wrong, but by a long and painstaking process of adaptation to the environment. Perhaps you should look at getting your own facts straight.

Why don't you actually google the formation of the universe, Earth, and the process of evolution yourself rather than ask me to explain it all to you. I'd imagine you'll still cling to the more pleasing dogma of religion, however much evidence contradicts it, for it's much easier to believe a soft lie than a harsh truth.

[Fanman]

CatchyTitle,

you wrote:

And life was not made by chance, as all theists consistently get wrong, but by a long and painstaking process of adaptation to the environment. Perhaps you should look at getting your own facts straight

That the the environment 'settled' in the exact conditions and positions that were suitable for life to develop was what? Logic tells us that it had to be either chance or intention. There is no third option that I am aware of. How would you rationalise / explain it?

[Xris]

CatchyTitle,

you wrote:

And life was not made by chance, as all theists consistently get wrong, but by a long and painstaking process of adaptation to the environment. Perhaps you should look at getting your own facts straight

That the the environment 'settled' in the exact conditions and positions that were suitable for life to develop was what? Logic tells us that it had to be either chance or intention. There is no third option that I am aware of. How would you rationalise / explain it?

So why would god create the universe in billions of years but create the earth in seven days. What did the solar system look like before the Earth was created? Was there a gap between mars and Venus waiting for the magic of god to muster the earth from I dont know where. Why would your god act within the frame work of nature for billions of years and then suddenly turn to magic? All the Earth, all the oceans, all the mountains, rivers and streams. All life just in seven days. O I remember there was no light. What was the sun doing? switched of was it. till god found the switch? The reasoning of the fundamentalist has me giddy.

[Fanman]

Xris, did I say that it took God billions of years to create the universe? No I didn't you said that. Then you attacked that (your own) supposition. I have faith that God created the world in 7 days, if you think that makes me a fundamentalist then so be it.

[Xris]

Xris, did I say that it took God billions of years to create the universe? No I didn't you said that. Then you attacked that (your own) supposition. I have faith that God created the world in 7 days, if you think that makes me a fundamentalist then so be it.

So how long did it take to create the universe? You honestly do not see yourself as a fundamentalist? How strange.

[Fanman]

Xris, there is no record of how long it took God to create the universe in the bible. Also, in another thread you stated that I was "far removed" from the teachings of Christ, and now, in this thread you're calling me a fundamentalist? Which is it going to be, make up your mind.

[Xris]

Xris, there is no record of how long it took God to create the universe in the bible. Also, in another thread you stated that I was "far removed" from the teachings of Christ, and now, in this thread you're calling me a fundamentalist? Which is it going to be, make up your mind.

How are the two not connected. You keep to the letter of the bible and believe everything but are incapable of extracting the message of the man Jesus. You can not differentiate between myth and man.

You want to use the evidence of science to prove an engineered universe but refuse to accept it conclusions.

[Fanman]

Xris, I believe that Jesus Christ is God, not that he was 'only' a man, that is your belief not mine. There's nothing wrong with theists using scientific or physical methods to discuss the existence of God, that is what creationists do, who are theists after all.