Comments (42)

I saw another post on this site which asked whether or not the panelists here could all respond to the thoughts of Sam Harris. I would add Daniel Dennett and then further state that they are the only two I have seen so far on this site worth reading.

Your post is a perfect example of why.

Your entire post simply assumes that dialogue is going to be taking place between people who have religious fath. Examples:

"A dialogue that Rabbi Zalman Schacter- Shalomi calls "inner-faith" holds promise. In such a dialogue, one is trying to understand the inner life of the other - how the articles of faith and particularly the practices through which they are manifested live out in the lives of individuals. The purpose of the conversation is not to persuade or compete, but simply to talk from the level of soul. They are an invitation to explore each other's religious experiences and their relationship to their own lived lives. The subject is not about my faith versus yours, but how does your faith help you when you are losing a loved one, or worried about war or
celebrating a birth or marriage?"

"The conversation may yield insights that can open up the possibility of glimpsing the One, the Source of all life, coming from the vulnerability of telling one's story to another created equally in the image of God."

I don't see how this leaves room for inclusion in the discussion of atheists. I think you leave them out because unlike people of other faiths who will allow you the freedom to express unjustified beliefs those who hold no belief in a spiritual reality will demand you provide evidence and credible justifications for your claims. Something which religions are utterly incapable of doing.

Moreover if the people in the discussion are not willing to consider the possiblility that their religion has no truth in any way then the conversation will fail because each side will be able to leave still convinced that ultimately the other party is wrong despite never having been forced to rationally engage them.

I could go on but the point is that posts from people with minds like yours and indedd the large majority of the country are destined to be boring, ineffectual, and useless in understanding religious fanaticism because your perspective allows it to continue.

I just wanted to comment here.

Nice one Bill; spot on.

Bill,

How do you see "religious faith" as different than "faith" in general?

Bill:

I thoroughly enjoyed your post. As Nick said, “Spot on”!

Linda:

You ask “How do you define “religious faith” as compared to faith?” I do not speak for Bill, but I’ll attempt to answer your question. The typical usage of faith tends to denote confidence based on past evidence, e.g. “I have faith that my brother will make the right decision in this situation.” The faith in this instance is because of my past experience with my brother and his past actions in similar situations. However, “religious faith” denotes belief absent evidence or, as the Oxford Dictionary defines it; “firm belief, especially without logical proof.”

The problem with words arises when they have multiple meanings which vary depending on context and application. I have “faith,” in the first sense, in certain probabilities; however, as an atheist, I never have “religious faith” in a belief.

Rabbi Cowan,
Perhaps you could answer the following questions, the answers to which my Jewish friends didn't have:
1) Why was the Hebrew Testament closed, i.e., are there not to be any more prophets? In your view, for example, would the writings of Maimonides been included if he had lived earlier and in the Jewish homeland? (Maimonides lived in Muslim Spain until he fled to Egypt to avoid persecution.)
2) Why hasn't a new temple been built in Jerusalem since the first century AD?
3) To what seminal event do the years in the Jewish calendar refer, and are celebrated at Rosh Hoshanah?
Many thanks for any information you can provide.

Matt,
** The typical usage of faith tends to denote confidence based on past evidence... “religious faith” denotes belief absent evidence... The problem with words arises when they have multiple meanings which vary depending on context and application. **

Do you then completely deny the possibility of religious "faith" in the first of your meanings? My own experience with my gods tells me that they exist and that they can be relied on as much as the brother in your example...

This may be related, or at least of interest, from a section called Listening & Kabalah
in Jewish Magazine:

Open Our Ears: Listening for a Change

http://www.jewishmag.com/90MAG/listen/listen.htm

Shalom!

Please visit

The Vegetarian Mitzvah

http://www.brook.com/jveg

and

Jewish Vegetarians of North America
http://www.JewishVeg.com

L'chaim!

Erik:

The difference between my experience with my brother and your past experiences with your gods is that you can not prove they actually acted.

Take this hypothetical for example: I have faith that my brother will pass his upcoming test. This “faith” (as I defined in my first definition, and to further refine, as a probabilistic inference based on past evidence) comes from my brother’s past test scores, the studying I have witnessed him doing, and his high attendance rate. These are all actions which are objectively verifiable through test scores, attendance records, etc. These actions can be verified by other means than solely my subjective experience.

The faith in the hypothetical above clearly relies on evidence and logic, as opposed to “religious faith” which was belief absent evidence or logic. Do you have objectively verifiable evidence your gods have acted, or do you have subjective, internalized belief that your gods have acted?

I do not deny that “religious faith” can exist; however, I do deny that it represents a means of accurately arriving at objective, valid truth claims.

I think that the one common ground of all people of all faiths - with the possible exclusion of athiests, I guess - is that they - the people of faith - believe that life has meaning. They begin from that. It would be nice if they could end with that, but then they get into the nasty business of why it has meaning and what the meaning is, and then, well . . . you know the rest of the story.

Still, life having meaning is a fine place to start I think. Don't you all? Oh, come on. You must. Don't you ever just once wake up and think, "Life! The grandest trajectory of all!" Or some such? No? Well, all right. Maybe just me.

Bill K

I welcome this OnFaith initiative and I hope that the pundits involved will actually address the issues raised by those posting responses.

Here's my question to the learned rabbi:

You obviously believe in the truth of your concept of God. This implies that you must reject the truth of other conceptions of God (such as the Islamic of Christian conception). So you must therefore think that all non-Jewish believers are wrong. So, you believe that literally 99% of all humans are wrong in their religious beliefs.

Now, I happen to think that 100% of all religious people are wrong about God. So you and I are 99% in agreement. We feel the same way about 99% of religious belief. There's some serious common ground, by the way.

The only other position you can logically take is that other people are right to believe whatever they believe, based on their own upbringing. But this position makes a complete mockery of the idea of 'one true God'. Any God means no God.

There is a third position, not availabe to you as a religious person. That is that there is no god and you are all wrong. This seems like to only safe position to me.

Can you dispute the above analysis?

I think there should be all kinds of dialogue between people of different faiths and people of no faith. But the dialogue should not be about who is right or wrong, but simply how do we eradicate religion from the public domain.

People of "hard faith" are never going to be swayed, because they throw logic and reason aside. But if this world or atleast our country is going to survive, we must seperate church and state. This needs to be the most pressing of issues.

How can people try to legislate a belief for which there is no proof? I live in MO, and have been fighting religion for the last year about Stem Cell Research. People actually invoke an unproven God as the reason for why there should be no embryonic stem cell research. As an atheist I found it rather difficult and frustrating.

The conversation should be simple, how can we totally separate church and state, because it is slowly destroying our country.

Bill, I enjoyed your comments very much.

I also find it very encouraging, that the great majority of responses on this site are from Atheists like me.

We are calling the theists out to respond to Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Sofar they mostly have not.

Bill may be on to something when he says that faith deals with the question of the meaning of life. Of course it didn't start out that way. Originally religions where used to explain natural phenomena. When science came up with better explanations, religion retreated to the question: "What is the meaning of (my) life?".

This question is as unanswerable as it is nonsensical. It is a grammatically correct question, but so is the question: "Why are purple unicorns hollow?".

Alex & Bill:

Bill's question of "What is the meaning of life?" also employs the fallacy of presupposition since it presupposes the question, "Does life have meaning?" and answeres with a yes.

I would argue that my life has meaning, but only that subjective meaning that I invest into it. There is no overarching meaning to life, rather, life is a purposeless, randomly generated natural phenomena which we happen to experience. Is this viewpoint bleak? No, rather it is empowering since it allows a person to create his own meaning and to determine his own path to achieve that meaning.

I'll agree with Matt MCG's response to Linda's question regarding the difference between "religious faith" and "faith in general" and add that it is a useful insight to have when reading Desmond Tutu's post because he obvioulsy muddles the two.

Alos Bill K. seems to insinuate that without religious belief it is impossible to find meaning in life. This is obviously untrue and rather than go into a long discussion I'll say only that it is my contention that religious people are the ones who find no meaning in life. If the purpose of being alive is to live in such a way as to gain some spiritual reward after death it doesn't say much for the value they place on the life itself. Living life in preparation for death is no way to find some life affirming purpose.

Bill,

As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the Word of God, I have to tell you that I find great meaning in life on this earth and in no way live in preparation for death. In fact, my faith causes me to not fear death. I live to bring glory and praise to the God who has saved me from eternal separation from Him.

I have been reading all of the threads and without exception, the majority of respondents have not focused on the question that started all of this. Instead they each seek to show how the divergent opinions to theirs are incorrect and aren't they stupid for believing what they believe.

Unfortunately, these responses seem to validate Rabbi Cowan's assertion that "dialogues focused on the truth of faiths are doomed to fail."

My answer to this problem that I posted on another thread was this: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your might." From that flows "Love your neighbor as yourself." When we can live these truths, we can have discussions like this that don't degenerate into personal attacks on beliefs.

What a joy to find a site with a lively and healthy discussion. It was good to see Rachel Cowan speak of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment which sounds like a group which does something useful. But those of us who have no attachment to any formal religion can only assume that such a group functions by ignoring doctrinal differences. I find myself wondering how many of those who belong to this group go on to question the importance of religious dogma -- which seems, all to often, plucked out of thin air.
The bedrock problem for those of strong religious faith is that the mutual incompatibility between their stated beliefs sticks out like a sore thumb.
I am not an atheist but rather an agnostic since my inclination is not to reject the existence of god -- in some sense -- but to reject the concept of God/Allah as espoused by the formal religions.

We would all be much better off if we cut loose from baseless mutually contradictory dogma and allowed ourselves to be unfettered by the quest for truth.

"In fact, my faith causes me to not fear death. I live to bring glory and praise to the God who has saved me from eternal separation from Him."

That is a bold claim Norm C. I'm going to have to ask you for some proof of this before I take you seriously.

Bill & Matt,

Does not an athiest have faith in their beliefs?

Conversly, could not a someone with "religious faith" have that faith based on what God has done for them in the past?

I guess I have a much broader definition of faith than what many others may have. And, to me, a life without faith would cause dispair.

linda marie

With God, all things are possible. God is the God of the living, not the dead. Death is but a door to go through for eternal life is ours, thanks be to Jesus Christ! Knowing all things are possible, life has so much to give and does give us through infinite avenues. We live NOW so others benefit from the gift of knowledge. It is in asking we are given, and in giving, we receive. God's faithful Love abides forever!

Linda,

I have no faith in my beliefs because I have no beliefs. This is the most common misconception about atheism. It is not a belief system.

When someone makes a statement I demand they prove it to be true based on evidence. I see no eveidence for the existence of God and as such I do not believe in one. I do not say that there is eveidence that god(s) do not exist, simply that nothing proves one's existence. The burden of proof is therefore on you to prove the statement that God does exist. I examine all statements of fact on their individual merits not by how they accord with some overriding belief system.

As for the despair part. That is your own opinion.

If you prove God's existence. I will believe in Him/Her/It.

My parents were intellectual agnostics and, until age 25, I also was a good and humble agnostic (I didn't know if God existed, but I would never say that he definitely did not exist). I toed the agnostic/relativist party line: what is true for you may not be true for me. But in spite of my humility, I KNEW that Christianity and other religions were a joke and a crutch for the weak. And even though I had never read it, I KNEW that the Bible was a mildly interesting collection of fictitious stories. (As an aside, I find it fascinating that in our society, a person is expected to have actually read a book before he expresses his opinion about it--with one exception: the Bible.)

When I was 25, the last thing I wanted to be was a Christian--especially a devout, conservative, "fundamentalist" Christian. And yet, when God granted me spiritual life, and when he revealed to me (both intimately and transcendently) the truth about himself--primarily in the person and work of Jesus Christ--I had no choice but to acknowledge that truth, repent of my sins, thank him for the forgiveness that comes through the atoning death of his Son, love him, worship him, and hunger to know him more deeply.

While I am interested in learning what another person believes, the reason for my interest is to learn about who that person really is. In this sense, listening can be a worthwhile and loving act which produces understanding and compassion, and interfaith conversations can happen. But with respect to learning the truth, I am not interested in hearing viewpoints that are contrary to God's revealed word--the Bible. The all-knowing Triune God has spoken, and it is utterly foolish to argue with him or tell him that he's wrong. (I speak from experience.) So in that sense, an understanding of the truth is a conversation stopper.

Jeff you have clearly lost your mind.

You seem a bit defensive, Bill.

Just because I assumed you believe that you have no beliefs... and because I assumed belief and faith are the same thing.

Unlike you, I don't feel either of us have anything to prove. Instead, I'm hoping that I can find the "common ground" of humanity, and gain some understanding of how others see (or do not see) God in their lives.

I can understand why you'd be defensive. I am sure you have been given a lot of flack for being an athiest.

But until we are able to set aside our own thoughts, how can we concentrate on the thoughts of others? That is why you are here, isn't it? Or do you wish to convert me?

;)

linda marie

I don't wish to convert you. I will simply critique your beliefs where I find them to be wrong by offering reasons and justification.

Bill,

Why do you find it necessary to critique my beliefs? I have no problem with you telling me what you believe (or don't believe) and leaving it at that.

I guess I thought this was going to be a place where we would discuss faith -- not debate it...

linda marie

Honestly I can't go into this nonsense endlessly. Read Sam Harris' post. For the sake of expedience I'll let it serve as reply to you regarding why I am debating you, though I do disagree with him on some things.

Linda:

Reread my earlier posts and you clearly see the difference between the “faith” atheists have and the “faith” of theists.

An atheist’s “faith” essentially equates to confidence in a probabilistic inference based on external, objectively verifiable truth claims. Also, usually I, as an atheist, will only use the word faith within the context of predicting a future outcome or within the context of a probabilistic inference. E.g. “I have faith my brother will pass the test” (example given previously) is a prediction about a future event while “I have faith that my brother passed the test” is a probabilistic inference about a past event based on the same exact evidence used to make the probabilistic prediction about the future event. Essentially, I can’t know either statement is true until my brother receives his test grade and then I can determine the relative accuracy of my prediction.

A theist’s “religious faith” equates to belief, not only without evidence (e.g. children who have no rationale for their beliefs other then appeals to authority, which are fallacious in almost every instance), but often against contradictory evidence (e.g. despite the problem of evil). Theists use “religious faith” as an epistemological justification for truth claims equitable with logic or science. A theist believes in god(s) first and the truth claim does not rely on considerations of evidence or rationality.

To put it simply in a statement that fails to include everything mentioned above but is at least succinct: Tautologically, the “faith” of an atheist admits a margin of error while the “religious faith” of a theist is absolute and incontrovertible.

As for finding common ground, I think that the common ground humans need to rest on are objective truths that can be arrived at through logic and science. While we all bring subjective biases that shape are interpretation of these truths, the fact is earth is a sphere whether it makes us happy or sad or contradicts are subjective, unverifiable beliefs. I think that this is the common ground we can build off of, these sort of “axiomatic” (I quote it for fear of them being thought of as faith-based principles as opposed to proven facts) truths from which we can start a rational discussion about ideas of “right” and “wrong.” The problem with religion is that it tends to be entirely subjective and “religious faith” itself is inherently irrational, which undermines rational discussion and the hope of finding common ground. When two people have come to rationally agree on a proposition, a theist can always resort to the idea that the proposition is still wrong because their “religious faith” says so. I think to find common ground we are going to have leave “faith”, at least “religious faith,” out of it.

Bill,

I'm afraid I dont' know who Sam Harris is and am not feeling inclined to hunt around for his post.

I am sorry you see discussion as nonsense, and you can feel more than welcome to ignore my posts if they frustrate you.

*****

Matt,

Thank you for your explanation. Although I seem to look at things in a much more simplistic way than you, I believe I understand what you're trying to say.

I wonder, though, do you really believe that all "theists" really have a faith that is "absolute and incontrovertible"?

If, as an athiest, you are up against such narrow minded people, I have to wonder why you would come to a place called "In Faith" to post.

Maybe more for the love of debate than for understanding?

(Just asking -- not accusing...)

linda marie

BTW Matt, I did not mean to infer that athiests shouldn't be here... There's simply a lot of things I don't understand about athiests and their beliefs...

linda marie

Linda:

Tautologically, theists’ “religious faith,” especially the faiths of the Abrahamic religions, is an absolute epistemological principal that is incontrovertible. “Religious faith” is belief irrespective of evidence and logic, so no matter how contradictions arise they are never considered because “religious faith” enforces the idea that the original proposition you held is true. For example, fundamentalists Christians believe, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is this, because they have a faith-based belief in the inerrancy of a literal interpretation of the Bible. This type of “religious faith” is an absolute, incontrovertible epistemological standard which unfortunately has no objective means of arriving at truth.

Do I believe that all theists hold to this standard? Yes and no to be honest.

No, because the majority of “liberal” or “moderate” theists tend to relinquish views as science offers up naturalistic explanations for them. Thus, lighting no longer comes from Zeus but from a collection of positive and negative charges and sufficiently strong electric fields and the abundant, varied life we witness around us is the result of evolution as opposed to a single creation moment (there are theists who believe in “guided evolution”). Essentially, as science fills in our gaps of knowledge about the naturalistic world, supernatural god(s) tend to withdraw further and further from the world and operate in a narrowing sphere of influence.

However, yes, because they refuse to give up on specific god concepts. For instance Christians who continue to belive despite philosophical principles like Occam’s Razor which would argue that a naturalistic worldview is more simple and therefore better than a super-naturalistic worldview and that the default position towards a proposition is disbelief, lack of belief, until proven. Christian scientists are one wonderful example of the type of cognitive dissonance that can arise within a person due to “religious faith.” The evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller demands rigorous testing before accepting a scientific hypothesis but wholeheartedly accepts a Christian god concept absent any proof. Why does he allow this special exception? “religious faith.”

So why do I bother visiting these websites? I love talking with different types of people, exposing myself to different viewpoints and exploring different philosophies. Also, while “religious faith” is a principal that theists employ to maintain belief despite conflicting evidence they can always choose to relinquish the principle. Am I here to convert people? No; however, I am here to disabuse people of the malicious and fallacious myths they often attribute to atheists and to facilitate a better understanding of my worldview. I’m here to talk about faith on a website named “On Faith.”

Lol, no offense taken Linda and I hope I help you understand at least my atheistic worldview a little better. One thing you should understand is that the only commonality between many atheists is a lack of belief in the existence of god. Some are secular humanists, other’s are objectivists in the style of Ayn Rand, some are existentialists, etc.

Linda, Matt, Bill

I love the conversations, but aren't we really all wanting complete and total seperation of church and state?

Then people can believe whatever they want about an afterlife.

Joe:

Though I do not speak for anyone else, I completely agree with total seperation of church and state.

And, as an atheist and "freethinker," people can believe whatever they wish as long as they aren't imposing their faith-based beliefs upon the population en masse.

Bill said:

>I have no faith in my beliefs because I have no beliefs.

I beg to differ. I offer as evidence the rest of your post:

Belief #1: >This is the most common misconception about atheism.

Belief #2: >It is not a belief system.

Belief #3: >When someone makes a statement I demand they prove it to be true based on evidence.

I could go on, of course. To believe something is to think something is true. It doesn't necessarily imply that the idea was taken on faith. Maybe we're just arguing definitions here...

What strikes me here is the many different thoughts by people who profess the same "religion" (or lack thereof).

What we have come to call "fundamentalists" seem to be rather what I might call "fanatical". The same "fundamentalists" might call someone like me "wishy-washy".

I think when we stereotype -- and also when we assume that we know what "the other guys" think -- it's a big roadblock to finding common ground where we begin our discussions.

(for example, you and I don't agree that creationism -- as opposed to evolution -- is necessarily a fundamental rule of christianity...)

linda marie

(btw -- thanks for not wanting to convert me. And in case you wondered, I am not out to convert you either... ;) )

Joe,

I would agree that I do not want a "state church" -- but, if by total separation of church and state you are talking about no one mentioning or displaying anything about their religion (or lack thereof), I cannot go along with that.

America is supposed to be a picture of tolerance, IMNSHO... but I may be in the minority with my belief...

linda marie

GREAT POST BILL!!!!!
it would truly be remarkable if everyone could respond in an intellectually honest way to Sam Harris' ideas.

Anthony

we do have other books besides what you call the testament

Rabbi Cowan- whatvempathetic and wise sentiments you have expressed. As long as there are lovely people like you expressing yourself- there is hope for common grounds being found. salaams and shalom

Rabbi Cowan,
Any chance of getting an answer to my post of November 16? I just want information, not debate!
Anthony