Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

[Egg]

Words are not laws of physics that govern the universe. They are merely means of conveying information or ideas and concepts.

You're kinda teaching egg to suck grandmothers here.

Lennox is conflating two different things. One is an intuition based on evidence and subjective feelings. The other is simply based on indoctrination and feelings.

The problem lies with Lennox not me. It is Lennox that is conflating two different things. The word "faith" is used in different ways. "Blind" faith, the kind promoted by Jesus when he scolded Thomas is baseless.

I don't think Lennox is conflating anything. Surely, the feelings are cited as evidence behind the faith and anyway, what the faith is based on just isn't part of the definition which Lennox refers to.

I'd disagree that Thomas was scolded, but yes that passage could appear to promote "blind" faith, but the very fact that we use the word "blind" indicates that faith is not necessarily blind. Thomas was shown evidence and yet still had faith.

Having served a mission and having graduated Mormon seminary (*a 4 year high school course) I'm quite familiar with the chapter.

The problem you face is that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons etc., etc. all have "known" but unseen beliefs. I can direct you to many decent and sincere Mormons who will look you in the eye and tell you in all sincerity that they KNOW that Joseph Smith is a prophet of god. There are at least two of them on this forum.

Here's the hitch, just because you believe you "know" something doesn't mean that you do.

Agreed, believing you know and knowing are not the same. I don't see how what you suggest is a problem is any problem at all. I'm not saying faith can't be misguided. That would be "misguided faith". I'm not saying faith can't be blind. That would be "blind faith".

What I am saying is that Dawkins' definition does not reflect what is usually meant by the word "faith" (standing on its own) in a religious context.

With your biblical knowledge I would imagine you would be familiar with the Greek word "pistis".

See also:
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/wordstudy.html
and
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

It's odd, thousands of years ago the ancient Greeks realized that there was a problem when it came to finding truth due to human bias. They started to come up with ways to remove human bias from the equation so that we could more confidently come to a consensus as to the truth and this directly lead to unlocking the mysteries of DNA, the Atom, carbon molecules, travel to the moon, modern medicine, personal computers, geocentric orbiting satellites that rely on the theory of relativity as advanced by Einstein to accurately give us directions. Thanks to these Greeks we have accumulated hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientific concepts. Still, here we are, thousands of years later many of us still can't seem to understand the significance of that discovery and so we avoid black cats that cross our paths.

Will we ever grow up?

With the definition I believe Lennox is referring to, there is not necessarily any conflict between science and faith. As pointed out in the debate, modern science has religious roots.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think Lennox is conflating anything.

He is. If he wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's the entanglement that has led us down this path. Lennox brought up the point about love. Why? It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It only obscures. It doesn't clarify at all.

Surely, the feelings are cited as evidence behind the faith and anyway, what the faith is based on just isn't part of the definition which Lennox refers to.

If you take away the feelings and internal, fallible intuitions you've got nothing. Again, Lennox brought up an emotion and trust in his love for his wife as proof of something. It's rather disingenuous of you to now say that is not what he meant.

I'd disagree that Thomas was scolded...

I think it is pretty clear but that's fine.

...but yes that passage could appear to promote "blind" faith, but the very fact that we use the word "blind" indicates that faith is not necessarily blind.

With all due respect this is absolutely nonsensical. You might as well say the very reason we call Ray Charles "blind" indicates that he is not necessarily blind.

Yes, yes it does.

Thomas was shown evidence and yet still had faith.

Dude, thats like saying the jury was certain that the defendant was guilty but after seeing the video of the defendant killing the victim they still had certainty.

Agreed, believing you know and knowing are not the same. I don't see how what you suggest is a problem is any problem at all. I'm not saying faith can't be misguided. That would be "misguided faith". I'm not saying faith can't be blind. That would be "blind faith".

We are in agreement.

What I am saying is that Dawkins' definition does not reflect what is usually meant by the word "faith" (standing on its own) in a religious context.

And I'm saying this is nonsense. I don't mean to be rude but there is no basis for this. I honestly don't think that most people of "faith" even know what it is they mean by "faith". I'm not honestly sure you do. But that's fine, I'm happy to let you use the word anyway you like. I'm happy for you to dismiss Dawkins entirely. At the end of the day it has no meaning or it means that you believe in things you have no evidence for. If you did then I would believe it too.

With your biblical knowledge I would imagine you would be familiar with the Greek word "pistis".

I think I vaguely remember the word. I don't pretend to be a biblical scholar and that is why I noted that my seminary education was high-school level. I have a very good background of the bible but my mission and education were nearly 30 years ago.

That said, the definition doesn't help anything. Sincerely convinced that you know the truth doesn't mean that you do. One can be sincerely wrong.

With the definition I believe Lennox is referring to, there is not necessarily any conflict between science and faith. As pointed out in the debate, modern science has religious roots.

The last sentence is a non-sequitur and it's truth value adds nothing to the discussion.

Tell me this, what "definition" do you believe Lennox is referring to? Is it "pistis". If so then neither you nor he have advanced anything and the bit about Dawkins' wife was pointless.

Egg, I don't mean to be overbearing and rude. I really don't. It's just that I spent two years of my life explaining to others what faith was. I paid for my mission. I gave up that two years of life because I was sincerely convinced. I was happy, sincere and ernest in my calling.

In the end there is nothing there. Faith is a trick of the mind. If Mormons can be sincerely wrong then so can Lennox and bringing up Dawkins' love for his wife doesn't resolve anything. It tells us absolutely nothing about human psychology and epistemology that would lead one to accept that religious faith has any validity or can resolve the gross contradictions between people of different faiths.

 

[articulett]

Indeed, it's a tangent--designed to distract Dawkins and make denial of god on par with denying that Dawkins' loves his wife.

It confuses feelings (love) for factual claims (god(s) exist). What does it mean to say that something invisible, undetectable, and unknowable exists? It's a lot different than saying love exists that's for sure. How can you begin to even talk about a something that is the identical to "no thing"?

 

[Beth]

Claiming that the sky is purple doesn't make it so.

No, but it's not necessarily wrong either. I've also seen the sky pink, blue, lavendar, white, gray, black, and even, on one stormy occasion, a lovely aqua-marine.


Dawkins was arguing that particular kinds (blind and misguided) of faith are bad and that other sorts of faith are also bad because they can lead to blind and/or misguided faith in leaders who direct them to do bad things - like fly airplanes into office towers.

Dawkins is arguing that faith in general is bad because it can lead to those types of faith which can lead to very seriuos problems. At this point in his argument, he is using the meaning of faith in a much looser sense, more general sense. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be America's faith in Obama rather than his faith in his wife, but I think it's a fair point to call him on.

While I happen to agree with his point that blind faith can lead to very bad outcomes, I disagree that faith of other sorts, including the faith he has in his wife is somehow 'different' from religious faith and doesn't have same potential of leading to blind faith. Many a man has believed his wife faithful in error. Sometimes even when it is obvious to everyone around him, as if he is somehow choosing not to see. Or choosing not to reveal that he sees.

When people have faith in those they consider their leaders, whether they be religious or not, whether they be real or fictional, it's possible that their faith will be exploited and lead to the problems he's complaining about with blind faith and misguided faith. If such ultimate ends are possible with faith in anyone or anything, why should should religious faith be singled out as bad?

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

Is doesn't mean "with evidence" either. It's a word like "trust" or "loyalty" that says nothing of the evidence behind it. I refer you again to the Wiki definition.

And I refer you again to the dictionary definition.

Also, from the wiki article: "A certain number of religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticize implicit faith as being irrational, and see faith as ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence." and "As such, they may believe that there is no need for "faith" in God in the sense of belief against or despite evidence". It seems the wiki article also uses "faith" as "belief without evidence".

The arguments I'm referring to rely on Dawkins' definition of faith, so actually it does matter if he means what they mean.

They don't rely on the religious people using that definition of faith. Only that religion promotes belief without evidence, whatever they choose to call it. A car is a car, no matter what you call it; a rose will smell as sweet no matter the name.

That you would argue that you have yet to see any convincing evidence is irrelevant to what the religious mean by "faith".

A what the religious mean by "faith" is irrelevant to whether they believe without evidence, and hold that believing without evidence is a virtuous act.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. (Wiki)
Dawkins describes a position that superficially resembles his opponent's actual view with his definition of "faith" and then attacks that misrepresentation.

Again with the straw-man. Dawkins is not saying that the religious mean "without evidence" when they say "faith". Dawkins is saying that they (the religious) believe without evidence. And that the religious people hold the act of believing without evidence to be a virtue.

There: I rewrote Dawkins point without the word "faith". Can you show that as fallacious?

When people have faith in those they consider their leaders, whether they be religious or not, whether they be real or fictional, it's possible that their faith will be exploited and lead to the problems he's complaining about with blind faith and misguided faith. If such ultimate ends are possible with faith in anyone or anything, why should should religious faith be singled out as bad?

Because religion is the one place where faith gets a free lunch. Expressing doubt in the fitness of a political leader is socially acceptable. Expressing doubt in the existence of deities is taboo.

I'm against any ideology that promotes blind faith, theistic or secular. It just happens that theistic blind-faith-ideologies are far more popular than secular ones.

 

[articulett]

And worse-- they claim to have the key to eternal salvation (and if you question this, you are threatened with eternal damnation).

Pretty sick and twisted. The most virulent always cause these sorts of fears in people:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133220

 

[Egg]

He is. If he wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's the entanglement that has led us down this path. Lennox brought up the point about love. Why? It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It only obscures. It doesn't clarify at all.

If you take away the feelings and internal, fallible intuitions you've got nothing. Again, Lennox brought up an emotion and trust in his love for his wife as proof of something. It's rather disingenuous of you to now say that is not what he meant.

Lennox brings up faith in a spouse. It's Dawkins who starts talking about love. Lennox is just pointing out that faith does not require a lack of evidence to be faith.

With all due respect this is absolutely nonsensical. You might as well say the very reason we call Ray Charles "blind" indicates that he is not necessarily blind.

If he wasn't blind, he would still have been Ray Charles.

Dude, thats like saying the jury was certain that the defendant was guilty but after seeing the video of the defendant killing the victim they still had certainty.

Yes, it is a bit like that. If faith, by definition, requires no evidence, then how can the disciples, who, according to the gospels, had plenty of evidence, have faith?

And I'm saying this is nonsense. I don't mean to be rude but there is no basis for this. I honestly don't think that most people of "faith" even know what it is they mean by "faith". I'm not honestly sure you do. But that's fine, I'm happy to let you use the word anyway you like. I'm happy for you to dismiss Dawkins entirely. At the end of the day it has no meaning or it means that you believe in things you have no evidence for. If you did then I would believe it too.

You can go ahead and be rude. It would appear to be a common response to any criticism of Dawkins' arguments, so I was pretty much expecting it.

I'd agree with you that "faith" can be a confusing concept and quite probably many of "faith" don't know what they mean by the word, however I've cited various theologians/apologists, I've cited Wiki and discussions and definitions of "pistis", the Greek word from the Bible translated as "faith", so I don't think it's fair to say there's no basis for it. Dawkins cites nothing and the only citation anyone in the thread has brought up is the dictionary, which I don't see as supporting his definition.

Even if you can successfully argue that there is no evidence on which to base religious faith that doesn't mean that, by definition, faith requires an absence of evidence.

 

[Egg]

Again with the straw-man. Dawkins is not saying that the religious mean "without evidence" when they say "faith". Dawkins is saying that they (the religious) believe without evidence. And that the religious people hold the act of believing without evidence to be a virtue.

There: I rewrote Dawkins point without the word "faith". Can you show that as fallacious?

What is your basis for the assertion "that the religious people hold the act of believing without evidence to be a virtue"?

Dawkins appears to make such an assertion because the religious suggest that faith is a virtue. It's not a separate point, it's the next logical step based on his definition of faith. If faith is not what he says it is, that is a fallacious step.

ETA. Perhaps you can show me Dawkins is not saying that the religious mean "without evidence" when they say "faith", because it seems pretty clear to me that is exactly what he's saying. If I'm wrong on that, I'll concede that I've misrepresented his position.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

What is your basis for the assertion "that the religious people hold the act of believing without evidence to be a virtue"?

Proverbs 3:5 to 3:6:
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

James 1:6 to 1:8
But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

2 Corinthians 5:7
We live by faith, not by sight.

Dawkins appears to make such an assertion because the religious suggest that faith is a virtue. It's not a separate point, it's the next logical step based on his definition of faith. If faith is not what he says it is, that is a fallacious step.

Dawkins makes such an assertion because religions hold that belief is a virtue, and yet cannot substantiate the claims that are to be believed in. If "faith with evidence" is what is meant, then were is the evidence?

That it is implicit in the use of the words "faith" and "belief". No, I cannot show it to be explicitly so. But then, I haven't been shown evidence substantiating such beliefs, either.

ETA. Perhaps you can show me Dawkins is not saying that the religious mean "without evidence" when they say "faith", because it seems pretty clear to me that is exactly what he's saying. If I'm wrong on that, I'll concede that I've misrepresented his position.

Not what they mean, what they believe. Not that they say it is good to believe in God without evidence (because people don't like admitting their faults). That they believe, and they believe that belief is good, but there is no evidence. That it is taboo to question a person's religious belief.

 

[RandFan]

Lennox brings up faith in a spouse.

Which has nothing to do with what Dawkins is talking about.

If he wasn't blind, he would still have been Ray Charles.

Not a clue dude. That was such a non-sequitur.

Yes, it is a bit like that. If faith, by definition, requires no evidence, then how can the disciples, who, according to the gospels, had plenty of evidence, have faith?

You have answered your own question. Once they had proof of Christ's resurrection they would no longer need faith.

You can go ahead and be rude. It would appear to be a common response to any criticism of Dawkins' arguments, so I was pretty much expecting it.

I don't care if you criticize Dawkins. I've criticized him myself. He's no messiah or prophet. He's a man who is capable of error. I'm just disappointed that you are pushing a cause for something that simply isn't there. Faith in something that you don't even know exists is nonsensical. I could have faith in horse shoes and it would be more rational. I can prove the horse shoe exists.

I'd agree with you that "faith" can be a confusing concept and quite probably many of "faith" don't know what they mean by the word, however I've cited various theologians/apologists, I've cited Wiki and discussions and definitions of "pistis", the Greek word from the Bible translated as "faith", so I don't think it's fair to say there's no basis for it.

You are not being clear. If I understand you right, just because someone talks about unicorns doesn't mean that is a basis for unicorns. Humans are capable of discussing abstract concepts that don't exist. In the end there is no justification for believing in things that one cannot adduce. There is nothing demonstrable about god. Dawkins wife on the other hand is a different subject entirely.

Dawkins cites nothing and the only citation anyone in the thread has brought up is the dictionary, which I don't see as supporting his definition.

?

I don't care what his definition is. It doesn't matter. Definitions are not magical things that make the previously undetected real. Dawkins is responding to a question by Lennox and he is perfectly clear. If you don't understand him then please use a dictionary yourself. You are creating controversy where there really is none.

Even if you can successfully argue that there is no evidence on which to base religious faith that doesn't mean that, by definition, faith requires an absence of evidence.

Egg, You really are missing the point here. It makes no difference what the word means it only makes a difference what YOU mean.

• You have no evidence for god.
• Dawkins has evidence for his wife.

Now, if you want to discuss Dawkin's faith in his wife (if he trusts her fidelity or something else) and whether it is misguided or not, that's fine but that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god and whether or not your "faith" in god is justified. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. You and Lennox are conflating that which ought not to be conflated because it causes miscommunication and error. It obfuscates and doesn't clarify and it most certainly is proof of nothing.

 

[Egg]

Proverbs 3:5 to 3:6:
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

James 1:6 to 1:8
But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

2 Corinthians 5:7
We live by faith, not by sight.

I'll grant that a case could be made from biblical texts that blind belief can sometimes be a good thing. There probably even have been theologians who've argued that point. Then again, there are not many things you can't argue with carefully selected biblical texts and indeed many doctrines which are far from orthodox Christianity have been argued in such a manner.

Dawkins makes such an assertion because religions hold that belief is a virtue, and yet cannot substantiate the claims that are to be believed in. If "faith with evidence" is what is meant, then were is the evidence?

Hang on. Religions hold belief as a virtue? We were talking about "faith". Where pistis is translated as "believe in", it is not using the "accepting as true" definition, but more the "trust" and "confidence" version, like someone might use for their child or President Obama.

Sure, they might hold that certain beliefs which happen to have little or no supportive empirical evidence are beneficial in life or maybe even essential to salvation, but not that just believing any old thing with no evidence is somehow a virtue.

I would imagine that you believe that being kind to your family is a good thing* and that it's probably good to believe that it's a good thing. Do you have empirical evidence for that belief? Would it be fair for me to say then that you believe that belief without evidence is a good thing?
(*If you don't value kindness to your family, then feel free to insert "opposition to slavery", "sheltering the homeless in winter", "not forcing your religion on others" or any number of beliefs not based on evidence which people commonly have)

That it is implicit in the use of the words "faith" and "belief". No, I cannot show it to be explicitly so. But then, I haven't been shown evidence substantiating such beliefs, either.

Well this is pretty much the main point I'm making in this thread. I don't want to get drawn into a philosophical discussion about what counts as evidence or whether the evidence claimed for various religions is reliable or not. It's not part of the Lennox/Dawkins debate, it's not directly relevant to the point I'm making and it has been and will continue to be discussed at length in other threads.

Does faith, by definition, require there to be an absence of evidence?

If a religious person saw some compelling evidence for a loving god, would it mean that he no longer had faith?

As I said earlier, according to the gospels, the disciples of Jesus had plenty of evidence. Should we then say they had no faith?

Using the Dawkins definition, we'd have to answer "yes" to all three questions. If the answer is "no", then the Dawkins definition must be a misrepresentation of what faith is.

If Dawkins is not defining what faith is, but merely pointing out that he believes religious faith is not based on evidence, he has gone about doing so in a very confusing way and his argument against faith is perhaps a non sequitur rather than a straw man (it doesn't follow that if you believe that one thing is good to believe without evidence that anything is good to believe without evidence). I'd have to have a look at his argument again, but I don't think this is what he's saying.

 

[Egg]

Egg, You really are missing the point here. It makes no difference what the word means it only makes a difference what YOU mean.

It makes a difference if you claim that your definition represents what someone else means by the word and then criticise that.

Perhaps the Mormons put a different slant on things, but pistis does not mean belief without evidence and to suggest that this is the concept that religious people hold up as a virtue is at least a generalisation if not entirely false.

We seem to be coming at this from quite different angles and I'm not sure sure either of us is making much sense to the other. You seem to be thinking I'm saying things I'm not saying and completely missing the point of some of the things I do say. You're probably feeling the same way about me.

I'm thinking that I've said my piece on this issue and I'm not sure there's much point me going round and repeating my points.

If someone would like to defend the Dawkins definition with citations and show that despite what various religious theologians/apologists seem to be saying, it is in fact what the religious mean by "faith", then please go ahead.

 

[Beth]

Because religion is the one place where faith gets a free lunch. Expressing doubt in the fitness of a political leader is socially acceptable. Expressing doubt in the existence of deities is taboo.

Aside from the fact that I don't think this statement is true, it isn't relevant to this argument. Dawkins is making the argument that religious faith should be discouraged because it leads to the wrong sorts of faith - i.e. blind faith that can be exploited to evil ends. Why should religious faith be treated differently in that regard than any other sort of faith? Why should the argument that religious moderates be considered as 'providing cover to religious extremists' be given any more credence than the argument that moderate faith in liberal or conservative ideologies provide cover to the political extremists?

 

[True Skeptic]

Is this the debate which forced a rare bit of honesty out of Richard Dawkins when he conceded that a case could be made for deistic God? I saw their original debate from 2007 and Lennox was the clear victor there, so I'd imagine he once again mopped the floor with Dawkins. I'm thinking Richard needs to cancel any future debates with Lennox as one or two more and he may be attending church on a weekly basis.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

Hang on. Religions hold belief as a virtue? We were talking about "faith". Where pistis is translated as "believe in", it is not using the "accepting as true" definition, but more the "trust" and "confidence" version, like someone might use for their child or President Obama.

Belief. Note, however, not "trust/confidence because of evidence".

Sure, they might hold that certain beliefs which happen to have little or no supportive empirical evidence are beneficial in life or maybe even essential to salvation, but not that just believing any old thing with no evidence is somehow a virtue.

Of course not: that would make the hypocrisy obvious. But they do believe without evidence, they do hold that those who believe strongly and do not doubt as virtuous. They do not teach from evidence, and they ask that those who would question the validity of their claims leave them be. They do not teach one to have blind faith in everything they hear, but encourage one to trust them (priest/rabbi/imam/ or sect), even when their claims are unsubstantiated.The act of arguing from trust, and not from evidence, harms critical thinking.

I would imagine that you believe that being kind to your family is a good thing* and that it's probably good to believe that it's a good thing. Do you have empirical evidence for that belief? Would it be fair for me to say then that you believe that belief without evidence is a good thing?
(*If you don't value kindness to your family, then feel free to insert "opposition to slavery", "sheltering the homeless in winter", "not forcing your religion on others" or any number of beliefs not based on evidence which people commonly have)

My own hypocrisies are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Avoid the Ad Hominem.

Does faith, by definition, require there to be an absence of evidence?

Yes. But like many words in the English language, it depends on context. This makes it ambiguous, which allows you the semantic argument.

If a religious person saw some compelling evidence for a loving god, would it mean that he no longer had faith?

Yes.

As I said earlier, according to the gospels, the disciples of Jesus had plenty of evidence. Should we then say they had no faith?

Possibly. They were shown some evidence. I don't think they shown rigorous evidence for all claims that were made. They had faith for the unsubstantiated claims, but not for the substantiated ones. After all, Jesus could have been a Wizard who was running an elaborate hoax.

Using the Dawkins definition, we'd have to answer "yes" to all three questions. If the answer is "no", then the Dawkins definition must be a misrepresentation of what faith is.

If Dawkins is not defining what faith is, but merely pointing out that he believes religious faith is not based on evidence, he has gone about doing so in a very confusing way and his argument against faith is perhaps a non sequitur rather than a straw man (it doesn't follow that if you believe that one thing is good to believe without evidence that anything is good to believe without evidence). I'd have to have a look at his argument again, but I don't think this is what he's saying.

It is a standard part of philosophical discussions to define what certain terms mean, not to redefine your opponent's argument, but to make your own unambiguous. And he's not claiming that religion teaches people to have blind-faith in just anything. He's saying that in defending moderate-religious blind-faith, you end up defending extremist blind-faith. It's a slippery slope argument, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Aside from the fact that I don't think this statement is true, it isn't relevant to this argument. Dawkins is making the argument that religious faith should be discouraged because it leads to the wrong sorts of faith - i.e. blind faith that can be exploited to evil ends. Why should religious faith be treated differently in that regard than any other sort of faith?

It shouldn't. I don't recall defending secular faith.

Why should the argument that religious moderates be considered as 'providing cover to religious extremists' be given any more credence than the argument that moderate faith in liberal or conservative ideologies provide cover to the political extremists?

It shouldn't.

 

[articulett]

Is this the debate which forced a rare bit of honesty out of Richard Dawkins when he conceded that a case could be made for deistic God? I saw their original debate from 2007 and Lennox was the clear victor there, so I'd imagine he once again mopped the floor with Dawkins. I'm thinking Richard needs to cancel any future debates with Lennox as one or two more and he may be attending church on a weekly basis.

Interesting opinion. I'm sure it's shared by many a woo.

 

[articulett]

Aside from the fact that I don't think this statement is true, it isn't relevant to this argument. Dawkins is making the argument that religious faith should be discouraged because it leads to the wrong sorts of faith - i.e. blind faith that can be exploited to evil ends. Why should religious faith be treated differently in that regard than any other sort of faith? Why should the argument that religious moderates be considered as 'providing cover to religious extremists' be given any more credence than the argument that moderate faith in liberal or conservative ideologies provide cover to the political extremists?

Why should religion be treated differently than any other woo? Why can't we question all religions the way we'd question the extreme ones or the cults or believers in on supposed mystical truths?

Why do we question those things? Shouldn't we be allowed to question your preferred belief similarly. What's the harm

That's all Dawkins is advocating even as you spin the delusion he's doing so much more-- it's just that believers have learned to hear an attack on "faith as a means of knowledge" as a personal attack on them and the magic man they feel special for "believing in".

How does one prove one has faith to the invisible guy except by doing that which they would not do UNLESS they had faith? Don't most gods claim to want faith above all else? How can you put your eternity at risk by not proving your faith.

And how are we to keep people from hearing their god command them to do harmful things unless we are free to criticize faith as a means of knowledge? You dance around these very important points while imagining Dawkins is saying things he never said. Just because you have convinced yourself that someone's comments are not relative to the conversation or point you are trying to sell, doesn't make it so, you know. His point is relevant, because you are protecting faith in a way that you would not protect a political belief or opinion--but you've given no reason why. Instead you are finding fault with those who scrutinize faith in a way that makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Egg]

Belief. Note, however, not "trust/confidence because of evidence".

It's not a definition which is evidence/lack of evidence specific.

They key point here is if religious are holding up "faith" as a virtue, which definition of "faith" are they referring to? Are religous people really making such a blanket statement as "believing things without evidence is good"?

The point I believe Lennox is making (and which I have been trying to show with citations is not a view unique to Lennox) is that when the religious (or Christians, at least in this case) call "faith" a virtue, they generally mean the confidence/trust/commitment definition and not the definition Dawkins uses. Hence the question about having faith in your wife and pointing out that it would be the same reply.

Of course not: that would make the hypocrisy obvious. But they do believe without evidence, they do hold that those who believe strongly and do not doubt as virtuous. They do not teach from evidence, and they ask that those who would question the validity of their claims leave them be. They do not teach one to have blind faith in everything they hear, but encourage one to trust them (priest/rabbi/imam/ or sect), even when their claims are unsubstantiated.The act of arguing from trust, and not from evidence, harms critical thinking.

This probably does describe some religious leaders and some things taught in some religions. As an overall critique of religion, I'd have to call it a caricature based on generalisations and exaggerations.

My own hypocrisies are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Avoid the Ad Hominem.

The point wasn't supposed to be pointing out any individual hypocrisy. The point is that all of us have beliefs that aren't supported by empirical evidence, and often we think those beliefs are good. So, if the argument is that because religious people say that certain beliefs (which happen not to be supported by empirical evidence) are good, how is that so different from what everyone else does? If this is the point Dawkins is making, why single out religion?

It is a standard part of philosophical discussions to define what certain terms mean, not to redefine your opponent's argument, but to make your own unambiguous.

Then Dawkins needs to be certain that when he describes what the religious mean by "faith" he is not using his definition instead of theirs.

And he's not claiming that religion teaches people to have blind-faith in just anything. He's saying that in defending moderate-religious blind-faith, you end up defending extremist blind-faith. It's a slippery slope argument, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Stated like that, yes, it becomes a slippery slope argument. It's not necessarily wrong because of that, but then neither would a belief with no evidence be necessarily wrong.

There is the assumption here that extremists believe the same things as moderates though, but are just more committed and zealous. I would disagree with this. A Christian who kills abortion doctors clearly has values that differ significantly from most other Christians.

If we're not talking about blind faith in just about anything then surely what is important is what the blind faith is in.


My biggest worry about such an approach is the "them and us" perception that it encourages on both sides. The non-religious would seem to me to be foolish to lump extremists and moderates into one bag and distance themselves from a powerful potential ally in the fight against extremism.

 

[articulett]

Extremists and moderates ARE in the same bag in that they both believe in "higher truths" and invisible entities that communicate with people. They both believe that faith is the way to know these divine truths and that faith will lead to great rewards. They all find conflicting beliefs about such thing delusional in the other person, but not in themselves.

People who believe that faith is a means of knowledge are all in the same boat when it comes to defending such a claim. They are in essence competing with each other to see who can impress the invisible guy the most by following his nebulous rubric most correct.

But faith is not nor ever has been a means of knowing anything useful or true. It's ridiculous to support this nutty idea that people are "virtuous" because they have made themselves believe unbelievable things and imagine themselves "in on" divine truth. They encourage a weird competition of delusion where everyone claims they are the ones seeing the Emperor's true magical invisible clothing and that all those calling the Emperor naked (the honest folks) are not "good enough" to see the clothes.

But I guess this has all been said to you before, Egg. But you prefer to hear what you imagine others are saying rather than the actual message that threatens the faith you feel so good for propping up.

And no matter how carefully Dawkins speaks or which words he uses or how careful he is with definitions, the evidence shows that believers will twist his words just as surely as you are doing here. Semantics, spin, and vilification of the messenger--it's the way all woo protects the woo from scrutiny.

You can fool yourself about Dawkins flaws and errors in the argument, Egg,--but you cannot fool others here.

 

[Egg]

Extremists and moderates ARE in the same bag in that they both believe in "higher truths" and invisible entities that communicate with people. They both believe that faith is the way to know these divine truths and that faith will lead to great rewards. They all find conflicting beliefs about such thing delusional in the other person, but not in themselves.

People who believe that faith is a means of knowledge are all in the same boat when it comes to defending such a claim. They are in essence competing with each other to see who can impress the invisible guy the most by following his nebulous rubric most correct.

But faith is not nor ever has been a means of knowing anything useful or true. It's ridiculous to support this nutty idea that people are "virtuous" because they have made themselves believe unbelievable things and imagine themselves "in on" divine truth. They encourage a weird competition of delusion where everyone claims they are the ones seeing the Emperor's true magical invisible clothing and that all those calling the Emperor naked (the honest folks) are not "good enough" to see the clothes.

But I guess this has all been said to you before, Egg. But you prefer to hear what you imagine others are saying rather than the actual message that threatens the faith you feel so good for propping up.

And no matter how carefully Dawkins speaks or which words he uses or how careful he is with definitions, the evidence shows that believers will twist his words just as surely as you are doing here. Semantics, spin, and vilification of the messenger--it's the way all woo protects the woo from scrutiny.

You can fool yourself about Dawkins flaws and errors in the argument, Egg,--but you cannot fool others here.

Ironically, you appear to be believing without or despite evidence that religious people believe that believing things without or despite evidence is a virtue.

So, would you say that this belief makes you feel virtuous or not?