Like Sam Harris, I believe one reason religious extremists exist is because of faith â the belief in something without evidence. And the more extreme a sect is, the more faith they usually have.
So I was a bit taken aback when I saw that Stephen Venner, some bishop across the pond, said the Taliban can be admired for their faith and loyalty:
âWeâve been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban,â said Bishop Venner, who was recently commissioned in his new role by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
âThereâs a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because itâs not honest really.
âThe Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.â
We must remember that there are a lot of people who are under their influence for a whole range of reasons, and we simply canât lump all of those together.
âTo blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.â
These are people, as the article points out, responsible for attacking the armed forces and “public beatings, amputations and executions and have launched bomb attacks on the civilian population in Afghanistan.”
And we can, ahem, admire them for how faithful they are to their beliefs and loyalty to one another as they kill people? Oh yes, and while we’re at it, let’s talk about how faithful and loyal the Nazi’s were. Putting all those Jews, homosexuals, and blacks in extermination chambers took a lot of dedication, after all.
The Taliban’s faith is irrational and hate-filled. It is deserving of denunciation and derision, not applause and approval.
This article cause one hell of a fight over here, mostly on the basis that Venner (who is Bishop to the Armed Forces) was not being loyal to British troops. He released this apology the same day.
“The way that the Taliban are waging war in Afghanistan is evil, both in their use of indiscriminate killing and their terrorising of the civilian population. No religion could condone their actions. I give my full support to the British and Allied troops who are engaged in the country, seeking to work with the Afghan government to bring stability, democracy and an enduring peace.
“I acknowledge that long-lasting peace will not be achieved without both defeating the Taliban militants and, over time, by encouraging them to foresake the path of war and to be involved in the future of Afghanistan. Senior military and civilian leaders have expressed similar views and I support their position.
“We have also to distinguish between the militant Taliban, and those of their number who are fighting because they have been coerced into doing so and who fear for their lives if they do not. Clearly, it is only those who reject military action with whom we could talk.”
To me, the whole episode is just another incident of the C of E appearing idiots in a misguided attempt to be conciliatory.
Nothing wrong with some of the points made per se, although I would say that making such comments smack of insensitivity to the political and religious climate towards jihadists. I’m not surprised by the furore it generated. But to address the larger point of having too much faith being a cause of religious extremism, I think that is a stretch. Fundamentalism comes about when faith is mixed with ignorance and a particular mindset, perhaps an appeal to tradition.
On a different note, I would even argue that it takes a liberal christian, for example, more faith to believe in God than a fundamentalist. That is because for a fundamentalist, God is a virtual certainty. How can there be room for faith then?
“That is because for a fundamentalist, God is a virtual certainty. How can there be room for faith then?”
That’s an odd use of the word ‘faith’. We usually use it to mean ‘belief without evidence’. Belief in a God that you have no evidence for is an act of faith regardless of how tightly you hold to that belief.
What exactly do you mean when you wrote the above?
My interpretation of faith is not just “belief without evidence”, but “belief without certainty”. If you think about it, many beliefs are usually based on facts, with further inferences made from them that cannot be proven. Paradoxically, fundamentalist faith seems to be one with no uncertainty, a sort of blind belief without any questioning. On the other hand, intelligent faith considers the evidence, and then maps out what we know and what we do not know.
As for my own belief in God, I do think there are certain signs that might point to it, but I cannot say with absolute certainly that God exists. As such, faith is still needed to believe in God. Intelligent faith weighs the evidence, then derives a judgement. Fundamentalist faith, on the other hand, seems to be much less critical about the presuppositions of belief. That’s how I see it anyway.
Paradoxically, fundamentalist faith seems to be one with no uncertainty, a sort of blind belief without any questioning. On the other hand, intelligent faith considers the evidence, and then maps out what we know and what we do not know.
That’s absurd. A person with faith by definition ignores evidence. If they didn’t they’d be forced to admit there’s nothing that sustains the existence of a god. There is not such thing as “intelligent faith”. Your faith may be more tolerable than the taliban’s, but that doesn’t mean is more “true”, or more “intelligent”. It is exactly as unreasonable and as unsustained as theirs.
That’s by your definition, Bender. You seem to be of the opinion that all religionists are blind to evidence. And I’d beg to differ that there’s nothing that sustains the existence of a god. Correct me if I’m wrong, but would you happen to be a person who would choose only to trust in material facts and scientific empiricism as the basis for you reality?
Well then, please present the evidence that convinced you about the existence of god. Many of us here have said we would believe if there was evidence for its existence.
There is one difference between your “informed” blind faith, and blind faith alone. Blind faith is what the OTHER guy has, you’re different and more “informed”.
Sunny Day — I need to tell you that I don’t believe there is rock-solid evidence for God, but there are certainly indications that raises the possibility, signposts.
To sum it up, I am relying on a non-contingent creator argument, something I’ve mused about personally. Too cumbersome to put it here, because this is not a thread debating about God’s existence, but if you’re interested you may direct yourself to my blog here http://bit.ly/70dabZ and here: http://bit.ly/4ysB8n
Coming from a Christian background, I am seriously reconsidering the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ, and I have not reached a conclusion to that.
Your last quip is interesting, because you seem keen to degenerate into muddled subjectivity.
Would you happen to be a person who would choose only to trust in material facts and scientific empiricism as the basis for you reality?
Yes.
Yoav, would you consider the possibility that even our assumptions about physical laws and empirical facts may not be what they appear to be, especially if we look at them from the angle of quantum mechanics at the subatomic level? I’m not an expert here, but just want to gauge your opinion.
Thanks for your post, Deepak Chopra, but trying to weasel quantum mechanics into the conversation does not demonstrate there is any sort of god or a logically-impossible non-material reality. All it does is demonstrate your complete ignorance about the subject of quantum mechanics. When touchy-feely new-agey theists such as yourself talk about quantum mechanics, what they are really talking about is “the god of the gaps”. The same one that keeps getting smaller and smaller as science learns more and about the real universe that actually exists. You know, the one we live in, not the imaginary one in your mind.
I’m fully aware that our understanding of the world may be horribly wrong and as soon as scientific empiricism will come with a better explanation I will be more than happy to be convinced by it.
@Terence:
Material facts and scientific empirism, as you put it, are the only things we know for sure exist. You’re implying you believe in something else. In other words, you’re believing in something for which there is no evidence. That’s the definition of “faith” I was always taught.
Jenkins, your candour is appreciated. But wait, I’ve never claimed to know anything about quantum mechanics — I’m keen to know more. Instead of resorting to uneducated jibes, I’m sure you can set a better example as an atheist by answering the questions I raised: What implications does quantum mechanics have to empirical science as we know it, and how does it affect the reality as we perceive it?
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: ËfÄth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths ËfÄths, sometimes ËfÄthz
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust â more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
â on faith : without question
So just to be clear:
If I examine the data and based on the probabilities conclude that there is life on other planets – even thought we have no direct evidence and therefor cannot be certain – this is ‘faith’.
If, on the other hand, I hold with absolute conviction that we are currently being visited by little grey aliens who engage in acts of cattle mutilation and anal probing, and nothing can shake my certainty, this is not ‘faith’.
Is that about it?
Vorjack, i think one needs to differentiate between ‘open faith’ and ‘dogmatic faith’. Open faith applies to your first example since it is open to variables and change. Dogmatic faith would describe the latter example.
I suppose my problem is that, as far as I’m concerned, we hold all our beliefs without certainty. As the economists teach us, information is expensive, and we never have perfect information. So every decision we make is without complete – and completely reliable – information. So unless we’re dealing with very simple brute facts – IOW unless we’re doing something interesting – we never have certainty.
Since science is stuck with the problem of induction, there is never certainty in science either. So we’ve adapted, relying on “good enough” data in order to reach conclusions.
All of which means that every belief is essentially ‘faith’. I never act with complete certainty, and every belief I hold is provisional pending further evidence. And so everything I do or believe is based on ‘faith’.
If a word describes everything, then it describes nothing. I just don’t see your definition is useful.
So that calls into question your definition of faith as “belief without evidence”, doesn’t it. What this means is that every belief we hold to contains a certain amount of uncertainty, thus the need for faith.
But if you talk to some Christians, their notion of faith would be one of “unwavering belief”, which is really quite out of touch with reality. That is the point I’m trying to make. That is dogmatic faith.
So that calls into question your definition of faith as âbelief without evidenceâ,
I don’t really think so. I’m not using ‘evidence’ to mean some sort of absolute confirmation. To take the alien example, the fact that there is life on Earth is evidence that life could exist on other planets, but it’s not the end of the discussion.
If you’re going to function, you have to accept that there’s such a thing a “good enough”. You look over the evidence that you have, try to interpret it the best you can, apply a bit of reason and get on with your life.
When you have a belief where the evidence for has reached the “good enough” stage, you have a justified belief. Operating on justified beliefs is not an act of faith.
It becomes faith when you standard of evidence – your standard of “good enough” – has sunk absurdly low. Where you’re basing major decisions on a few wisps of philosophy, or where confirmation bias means that you’re only examining the evidence you like.
But if you talk to some Christians, their notion of faith would be one of âunwavering beliefâ,
Right, belief independent of evidence. Usually this means your standard of “good enough” has sunk so low that no amount of contradictory evidence will sway you, and any discussion of the reliability of your confirming evidence will be ignored. Your belief will persist as long as there’s even a single crumb of an argument left to hold onto.
Look, lemme ask you this:
1. What is the bare bones definition of “God ” to you?
2. What sort of evidence would you accept as contradicting the existence of such a “God?”
With regards to my definition of God I will consider two:
1) God as creator — this is the bare essential for me, a God who brought existence into being. Perhaps a Deist God.
2) A Theist God — one who is actively involved in human affairs. Note here that I am not imputing the various characteristics often ascribed to God: God as perfect, loving, omnipotent etc.
As for evidence that will contradict the existence of such a God, which I will accept:
1) If it can be robustly proven that Jesus Christ was not God, he did not resurrect from the dead — this arises from my Christian background, and is of great concern to me. This is also the track I’m on right now.
2) If it can be robustly shown that the universe does not require a creator, but only if this argument is far more convincing than the argument that all signs of creation point to a creator. Currently my stand is that there is simply not enough information to make a justified decision.
Perhaps I’ll provide even more illumination by listing out what I do not consider evidences against God:
a) Convincing evidence that religious experiences are merely a product of our minds. I can’t begin to say that we are a long way off from being certain about it, but research continues. But even if it can be proven, so what? We still need to deal with 2)
b) Evolution. It just disproves a dogmatic Christian God, nothing more.
I can see what Terence is saying. A fundamentalist denies the evidence while a liberal believer rationalizes the evidence to fit. The liberal believer has to do more work to maintain their faith than the fundamentalist does.
Then too, the faith of a fundamentalist is usually pretty fragile. The vast majority of the “deconversion” stories you read are from fundamentalists who were confronted by something that proved to them that their beliefs couldn’t be literally true and that confrontation upended their world view and caused them to come to disbelief. Liberal believers, OTOH, get quite good at rationalizing and rarely end up confronting anything that breaks their faith. As an example, look at the writings of probably the poster boy for liberal Christianity – John Shelby Spong. He admits that some of the fundamental tenets of Christian dogma are probably not true at all, and even goes so far as to say that the Gospels are not any kind of reliable biography of a Jesus but rather are worship texts composed long after the letters of Paul were written out of pieces of the Old Testament. And then he goes on to say that this doesn’t matter at all because the story of Jesus reveals a deeper spiritual message that makes the practice of Christianity true even if its stories aren’t historically accurate.
You won’t find a fundamentalist who could come to terms with the Gospels being ahistorical stories cobbled together from various books of the OT – their faith would crumble to nothing if they reached that realization. Yet Spong is not alone on the liberal Christian side of the fence with his belief that the fact that the books are ahistorical does not diminish their truth.
For another take on this idea, you can check out James McGrath’s posting on his blog from yesterday comparing belief in Santa to belief in God.
Thanks, Daniel for a piece that is, on the one hand, more powerful, and on the other, more measured than the Islamophobic nonsense from Custador a few weeks back. It seems to me that the whole âfaithâ thing is at one and the same time the great weakness of religion (in terms of rational justification) and itâs great strength (in terms of the power it can have over people)
Iâm reminded of something an old Marxist friend of mine said : âIt doesnât matter why people do what they do, or even why they think they do it. All that matter is what they doâ.
While I wouldnât go along with that 100% (and of course, context is important) it points up for me an important difference between a faith driven ethic and one driven by reason/humanism. For the theist, everything is driven by belief and so, as long as they sincerely believe and base their actions on that belief they cannot do wrong. Morality becomes a matter of interpretation of the holy scripture. Recently, having been invited to a Muslim friendâs wedding reception I had to point out that my wife is a strict vegetarian. This was cheerfully catered for, but my friend said to me âSorry we didnât think of this â but of course, vegetarianism isnât an issue for us (Muslims) because itâs a life style choice. We donât have to make lifestyle choices, the Koran says we should share meat at a wedding party, so we doâ.
Even for relatively liberal Christians, the one essential moral basis is faith, so they cannot fail to admire it in others â and in so doing, they lose track of the real issues of morality. I have no doubt that individuals under the sway of the Taliban are still capable of acts of generosity and kindness. Human beings are not, on the whole, either all good or all bad. The Taliban is wicked, cruel, muderous, dishonest, hypocritical â and is able to be so precisely because its raison dâetre is faith and not reason.
As my old Marxist friend would have been quick to point out, though, why they have fallen prey to this ideology is a matter of history.
You have to remember that the Church of England pretty much has to trot out some crap like this every now and again just to get some attention over here – they’re otherwise utterly irrelevant to 95% or more of the population. They’re a state religion which nobody espouses anymore, basically.
You also have to translate what he’s saying into what he actually means: “What a pity that the Anglican faith doesn’t have hordes of unthinkingly faithful followers who will do exactly what I say, however screwed-up.”
He’s got faith envy, basically.
Hmm – Let’s not forger that the Church of England is essentially a Catholic church – and faith is still enough of an issue for thousands of believers to be currently “deserting” back to Rome over the issue of the ordination of gays and women.
How many of the faithful of that sect will die because of the Pope’s declaration that condoms cause the spread of HIV??
Well, it was designed to be a church that “looks Catholic and sounds Protestant”, in order to appeal to both sides of the schism, and prevent further fighting between them.
Within the Church of England, you have High Churches, which model their worship after Catholics; Low Churches which model their worship after Protestants; and Broad Churches, which walk a line between the two.
Yes, but a few thousand people out of a population of 62 million people? Really, they’re not as big of a deal as they would like everybody else to think. They’re just the creme-de-la-creme of the morons, basically.
The importance of religion in the UK can be neatly summed up by the fact that more people watch the X Factor than go to church every week. This is in spite of the schism with Celebrity Come Dancing …
I have to agree on some of the bishops comments. ‘admire’ may well be a strong word, but with the taliban or most other strong fundamentalist you know where they stand and what they stand for. So if I came face to face with 5 of them I would know what to do and I had better to it 1st and fast.
With a moderate you have every action from ‘love the sinner’ to ‘burn them at the stake’ and you have NO idea which it will be. Do think so?? Ask any number of gays in america who are or were in hospitals, why they got there. With the taliban they KNOW what will happen. Yes ADMIRE is way to strong a word, they are wicked, cruel, and murderous to our rational minds. With the moderate you have to wonder if the guy next to you is going to stab you in the back.
But since they do not wear signs saying ‘fundy asshole’ it is dangerous here in America and Europe. In the middle east it is safe….I will never go there.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.
- Voltaire
âWe must remember that there are a lot of people who are under their influence for a whole range of reasons, and we simply canât lump all of those together.
âTo blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.â
While the rest of his statement is unfortunate, the man is right about this. Vilifying political or ideological enemies is of limited usefulness, and can cause significant harm.
You all are letting me down. A post about the Church of England, fifteen comments, and not one person mentioning either cake or death?
Cake?
Sky cake I assume…
They weren’t expecting such a rush.
We only had three bits!
I’m Episcopalian – the American wing of the Anglican community – and with us it’s “You! Doughnut or death?”
The joke goes that we’ve replaced the bread and wine with coffee and doughnuts.
I’d argue that doughnuts are killing the American people with obesity and diabetes… so you die either way!
“Death!…….I mean Cake!”
“You said Death first!”
“Yoav, would you consider the possibility that even our assumptions about physical laws and empirical facts may not be what they appear to be, especially if we look at them from the angle of quantum mechanics at the subatomic level? Iâm not an expert here, but just want to gauge your opinion.”
That’s an interesting question. My answer would be “Yes, of course.” I would consider the possibility that our assumptions about empirical facts are not what they appear to be, or – Wait, I changed my mind. Our assumptions are not what they appear to be? No, our assumptions are just that – our assumptions. You did not ask if we are sure they are correct.
Did you mean “Our assumptions about what we think we know may not be correct?” Yes, I agree. We certainly don’t know everything, and what we do know may be wrong. Of course science provides more and more explanations for what we observe, so what we know changes. A decade ago, superstring theory was the hot idea in physics, but I notice physics books for laypeople are starting to come out discussing the possibility that it is not correct (interestingly, not because it has been proven false, as far as I can tell. It is still an elegant and beautiful theory and the math makes sense, but over years of trying there is no experiemental proof, no evidence. Science comes up with theories to describe the world, then looks for evidence. They do not take it on faith).
So – we agree that we might be wrong. My next thought is “We don’t know yet.” I assume that there are natural and scientific explanations for all those phenomena, and eventually we will know a lot of them, but probably not all. That assumption is based on the fact that scientific exploration has always provided us more explanations, not less. All the way from rainbows have a scientific explanation to mystical experiences and feelings can be traced to seizures in a certain part of the brain – they can induce spiritual visions by stimulating parts of the brain, meaning there is now an natural explanation for mystics through the ages.
So we agree we might be wrong about what we know – what is your next thought? Where does that lead you?
What this leads me to is an appreciation of how wide and mysterious nature is, and despite our best efforts to explain the laws of nature, much remains to be discovered. We must also appreciate the fact that the question of God may never be explained by science, by virtue of the limits of our instruments of science and that of our senses and cognition. What we have are conjectures and assumptions, and to that level, God as an explanation for existence does not seem any less credible than a lack of belief in God.
Tools of logic and empirical observation can merely suggest the existence of God, but to assert that it provides absolute proof is gibberish. I just find it overly presumptuous to use scientific observations as a basis for disbelief in God. Not that I don’t understand the merits of disbelief though. But are are we barking up the wrong tree here by waiting for proof to drop? What constitutes proof? How would you be convinced that God exists?
Whatever the definition of god is to you, to me, the less and less visible he must be to exist pretty much negates the plausibility of his existence. Whatever that is, it must be something else, or else it would be visible. I mean GOD. Who or what could god be, if it is something that’s undetectable?
I have read your posts here and looked at your blog, but you are clinging to a notion of god as a possibility or maybe even a slight probability, and mischaracterize atheism and atheists as having a belief in something that is true just because it is too small. Why would god be GOD if it wasn’t there when someone looked for him? We are far technologically advanced from the humans who invented a notion of god and still there is no evidence. Just like you, I do believe a fundamental belief in god seems to require less amounts of faith, that is the god of the bible (I guess), where everything that exists is quite obvious to a believer as deriving from a creator, and no amount of reasonable proof can sway them. I think rather that is the most reasonable position of faith (if we are putting them on a continuum).
The individual can invent a new god, and be fundamental about it – they might sound like a liberal Christian because they get that the bible story is a myth, but they insert god and insist certain things about it, and ponder and work out all the bugs to their satisfaction. I’ve done this a great deal, but I was not brought up a Christian or in any other religion. I was not demanded to be an atheist or for the most part confronted in the family environment with any literature or discussions on the subject at all. I figured it out by reasoning it myself.
God probably doesn’t exist because I can’t think of a good reason for him to exist, or that he’s a necessary element in the as yet unsolved mysteries of life and the universe. He’s an implausible character in every possible way I can think for him to matter – an extraneous detail, a superstition, a neurosis. The farther away from a fundamental belief you are, the “more faith” you say it takes, I say the “less sense” you have, but either way, it’s sort of the same thing. If you are actively imagining a god and he so far isn’t visible, he’s not god. The belief in a god you make up to explain what science hasn’t reached yet is to admit you are making up that god, just as the ancients did. If you can detect god scientifically, he’s not a supernatural explanation. Why would he be so invisible? Do you know how your brain works? What exactly is god’s domain if a huge amount of the important stuff so far is explained by science or is due to be anytime soon? What is this god about, and why should it matter if he exists? If he is comforting to you, again, that’s your brain granting its own wishes: time heals, the shock gets dimmer, we are problem-solvers, it’s called coping. There’s no belief for me in something that cannot seem to exist in any satisfactory definition of god – whatever it is turns out not to be god.
Logic and empirical observation can determine that the existence of god is very unlikely but obviously not give an absolute proof he don’t exist (The whole negative proof issue have been chewed to death here and elsewhere). As to what would I consider as a proof for the existence of god, any obviously supernatural event will be a good start. For example a huge bearded face showing up in the sky all over the world and annoncing, I’m yawe/ alla/ jesus/zeus will be something I’ll give a serious consideration.
But predictably, wouldn’t you attempt to rationalise any supernatural event as a scientific one? Would you really be convinced that the said example would convince you of God? I’m sure there’ll be skeptics who will attempt to rubbish the whole thing. I’m not sure where the line is for many atheists. And I doubt such a phenomena will solve many of life’s theological questions. It might just raise even more questions.
Yes, Terence. Rationalize. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalize
You probably mean the first sense, but I don’t.
When something odd happens, the first thing is not to assume it has a supernatural cause! The first thing is to discover what the natural cause must be. There is nothing so far explained by the supernatural, so why would anyone rational leap to that conclusion? If I saw god in the sky telling me he was god, I would probably think it had to be an elaborate hoax or a hallucination or I’m having a stroke or some kind of attack. If everyone on earth saw this, there would still be science on the case, it would not just be accepted. It’s possible no one would ever be able to explain it – many things are unexplained but that doesn’t mean they are unexplainable by natural causes. Some people might be convinced and converted. A question you might ask is why god doesn’t reveal himself so far to the degree he is visible or detectable, why he never has, or that if he did, he would no longer be supernatural.
I’m with Kodie on this one. Obviously the first reaction will be to look for a natural explanation. If humanity have stuck with the intellectually lazy option of just accepting god did it as an explanation we will still be living in trees. However I’m sure that a god capable of creating the universe in less then a week should be able to come up with some idea that will be so obviously outside the realm of the natural that even the most adherent skeptic will be forced to accept his existence.
One time, last summer, I was walking home from 4 miles away due to lack of funds for bus fare. It’s not that I minded the walk, but I said out loud, God, please let me find a $10 bill on the ground. Probably not the stupidest thing I ever said out loud.
Everyone knows someone who has found a decent bill just laying there. I found $5 once, but my ex said he had found a $50 bill. Odds are very slim, but non-zero. I was a little freaked out that it might actually happen, knowing full well people pray for cash all the time, and people drop paper money rarely, and I’ve only coincided with it once before someone else came along to pick it up. Coincidences can be freaky but no reason to believe someone’s listening, because there’s a logical explanation.
Thousands of people are moving around in my area, and some of them almost have traffic accidents all the time. A lot of them meet maybe at the grocery store, go on a date and later marry. If you are somewhere other people are, there’s a non-zero chance your future spouse had to run out to buy bread at the same time as you, and just an even greater chance you will pass by several times and not look, you and she will leave separately and never know her name, and she usually shops in another store or comes on a different day right after work, so that’s the end of that. No such thing as “fate.” I know a lot of “evidence” for god seems to point to a chance meeting or a near miss or the job you wanted to get, that’s just a course of life, and all the normal human stuff that happens to everyone. It’s not a plan even though chance meetings seem suspiciously planned. You might want to look into statistics, and also agree, when a person is looking, they will probably find someone eventually who is also looking and find they have a lot in common. Or kiss a lot of frogs, as they say, eventually one might be a prince, or close enough.
Of course, I did not find the money, and I know right after I said my “prayer,” I was pretty freaked out by the extremely small chance that I could. It was late at night, and it was along a dark highway, and I was kept safe from harm by the coincidence of nobody seeking to harm a young woman walking by herself all the way home after 10pm. I was loaned money by my friend before I reached home, 12x more than I asked god. Was god performing his answer through my friend? And the chance meeting of my friend, because I was on the internet for a while at the same forum and wrote him an email, did god make me write that email, knowing I would need $120 10 years later? Otherwise, I wouldn’t have a friend to help me out. Seriously. I would have been freaked out by finding the exact amount where I asked to find it, even though I know that people drop cash sometimes, and eventually someone finds it, and so that could be me one particular day that I asked. Freaked out, but not proof of god.
I don’t know in what other ways people think god is there, it’s usually the result of wanting something and eventually getting it or realizing to do without it was the best thing for them, a “plan” they can’t see until later when everything turns out ok. They feel things as shown to them when asking for signs. When asking for signs, one generally looks for signs and attributes delivery of said signs to coincidences in their favor if they want to believe in god.
Thanks Kodie – this has thrown up an early childhood memory for me that I reckon might’ve been the first time I questioned religion. I couldn’t have been more that seven years old and we were on summer holidays in Wales and it was throwing it down. I have a very clear image of a farm field at a slighty higher level that the road, full of water which was cascading through the stone wall and accross the road. “You see” said my Mum “the farmers have been praying for rain and this is God’s answer to selfish prayers”
Thanks Mum – you saved me from a lifetime of delusion. Or maybe it was just coincidence ;)
You can’t prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. How would you be convinced that it does?
(Or, if that sounds too silly for you, how would you be convinced that Vishnu exists?)
Should we also admire the conviction, faith and loyalty of Nazi soldiers?
The weakness of human beings and their willingness to be manipulated and brainwashed is not admirable. It’s a sad truth of humanity. Admiring their weak gullibility and faithful hatred is equally warped.
No, you completely missed his point. Here, I’ll demonstrate it another way that should be a bit more user friendly:
I admire you (the author of unreasonablefaith.com) for your conviction and loyalty to your ideals ——–even though I vehemently disagree with them.
I admire Jeffrey Dahmer for his conviction (boom tiss) and loyalty to his ideals even though I vehemently disagree with them.
Wrong! There’s nothing admirable about people clinging to their conviction when their conviction is abominable. I hope we can agree that killing innocent people because of your faith is abominable, whereas being an atheist is not.
It’s a clichĂ© that people should be automatically admired for standing up for their principles. Stupid, ignorant, malevolent people will cling dogmatically to their principles. They deserve no respect for this. This is what the bishop fails to realize, and apparently, so do you.
Damn, that was supposed to be a reply to Dino.
Right, when you take things out of context, you can probably say something nice about anyone.
Organized, efficient, great teamwork, perseverance, punctual, meets deadlines, leadership, morale, loyal, positive attitude, finishes what they start.
Some people might do well to develop poorer work habits. “If we could adopt some of the strengths of the Taliban”… I have actually heard phrases like this somewhere in the air, more than a few times. I mean, to be so organized and working toward a common goal like that, we might actually get them to go away. Faith in their case is a belief in god, but it doesn’t have to be.
In order to get people to cooperate as a team, it might take a little faith that the goal can be accomplished by the steps leading up to it. If you’ve ever worked on a team, you know someone will always be whining “this will never work!” and maybe he’s right, and maybe the goal is not a really good one, maybe there should be a mutiny (people usually go along rather than be the squeaky wheel or hurt their bottom line), but almost always, these efforts require the “vision” or faith of the team members. Promises are not always possible for outcomes, but rather require hope and faith to motivate.
If I were trying to motivate people toward a goal by an example of a really tight team, I would not exemplify the Taliban or the Nazis, though. I don’t think there’s any reason to admire their positives since we know that their goals are destructive. If I were speaking to a congregation, I don’t think comparing the faith and loyalty of destructive people to their god and one another is a helpful comparison of how to strive towards the goal. He is trying to separate the positives from the negatives, but in this case, their positives help them achieve their negatives. They don’t have to; they could have different goals. We could be like that, only with positive and constructive goals. It’s totally senseless to mention, but in a religious way, I can see someone trying to get people to see the good in everyone, even the greatest monsters of earth.
But what does the Taliban believe? They canât agree with each other, because they often fight amount themselves. Religion just causes disunity as people argue and kill over minor theological differences. (Just like the line in the XTC song âDear Godâ).
The Taliban are nothing more then a gang, like the Crips and the Bloods. They are a bunch of lonely, undereducated, unemployed and undersexed men who love playing war games and killing people. If they take over Afghanistan again, they will just create new enemies and keep killing. Just like the Khmer Rougeâ
As for Bishop Venner, he is like that fat woman camp operator from “Jesus Camp”.
You are mistaken. They believe in Islam and sharia law and do not, as far as I know, significantly fight among themselves.
“Weakness of human beings” and “willingness” are in violent disagreement with one another here. You can have one, but you can’t have both. Which will it be? Please choose one and stick with it.
“weak gullibility” and “faithful hatred” and “brainwashing” are terms that could just as easily be applied to the new atheist movement.
actually, weakness and willingness are the same thing. The opposite would be to be stubborn and not willing.
to clarify – I mean “are the same thing in this case”
You know, Dino, as someone who fumble pretty much every time they try to make a logical point, I don’t think you should be the one who gets to define terms for everyone else and then demand that they stick to them.
You are better off sticking to your apologetics. They are, at least, easily ignored by the people who have useful things to say.
Dino – you are merely demonstrating you ignorance of atheism.
âweak gullibilityâ and âfaithful hatredâ and âbrainwashingâ are terms that could just as easily be applied to the new atheist movement.”
Dino – Can you please explain what you mean by this comment? Please provide some specific examples of how these terms “apply to the new atheist movement.”
No, this is not true. It is definitely NOT “essentially” Catholic.
Hey folks, looks like we found a TrueCatholic!
He has a point though – CofE was designed from the outset to be anything but Catholic.
My understanding was that it was designed to be pretty much exactly like the Catholic Church except without a Pope & a change in divorce laws…
Where’s vorjack when you need him? Vorjack, what were the differences between the CofE and the Catholic Church when CofE started?
Also notice the Catholics have even started accepting CofE clergy â so it must be similar enough for them. They sure wouldn’t accept Baptist clergy!
Well, CofE was supposed to have more of a protestant bent to it, because that gave Henry VIII a good excuse to help himself to treasures from churches and monasteries around Britain. Also, CofE priests are allowed to marry – hence very few child-abuse scandals in their house versus many, many, many kiddy-fiddlers in the Catholic church. Their churches are also very different, as are their services.
If we’re talking about what the CoE was when it first started – Henry VIII wanted a church that was essentially Roman Catholicism with him in charge instead of the Pope. He was not big on making changes to things, and generally raided the churches and monasteries for money in a manner similar to how the Pope was doing it – since Henry was in charge, it was his money after all. It was his successors who pushed the CoE into “reform” mode, not Henry.
If we’re talking about CoE as it exists now – yeah, it’s pretty different in many ways from the RCC, at least in ways that Christian churches can be different from each other. Besides allowing married priests, gay priests are allowed to serve openly in the CoE while the RCC they have to remain closeted. Also the CoE seems to have a hierarchy that is less likely to cover up criminal actions by their priests by moving them around. (Though I can only say that as an outsider – perhaps the hierarchy of the CoE is as bad as the RCC’s is. As a former Roman Catholic I’m disgusted by how thorough the corruption of the upper echelons of the hierarchy in the RCC are. I didn’t think it was that thoroughly rotten – and I was pretty sure that it was pretty rotten. Still I figured they were covering up embezzlement, some mafia ties and the occasional orgy – small stuff in the grand scheme. Even at my most cynical I never would have figured the hierarchy to engage in a criminal conspiracy to shield pedophiles from prosecution – hardened criminals don’t even protect pedophiles. And yet there was a group of priests protecting pedophiles from getting caught and punished. Sickening. And who knows what they’re still covering up at this point since sunshine is as much an anathema to the hierarchy of the Church as it is to the common vampire.)
Henry VIII wanted a church that was essentially Roman Catholicism with him in charge instead of the Pope.
Right. Henry was actually a big defender of the Catholic Church against the Protestants. Early in his reign he actually wrote a book defending the church, The Defense of the Seven Sacraments and was awarded the title “Defender of the Faith” for it.
He didn’t even change the divorce laws that much. The Catholic Church had been routinely handing out annulments to rulers who wanted them, and the thinking at the time was that Katherine’s barrenness was an indication that the marriage wasn’t favored by God and should be dissolved. But the Pope played politics and used the annulment as a bargaining chip.
It was Elizabeth and her advisers who really changed things. (Women, never satisfied, always changing things. It starts with the curtains … wait, I think my wife reads this blog.) If the Anglican churches are different from the Catholics, it’s because of her. She wanted a religion that unified Britain rather that divided it, so she made a church that was very flexible.
It worked, too. And given the fact that the Thirty Years War came not long after she died, I think it was very perceptive on her part.
Anyway, modern Anglicans supposedly base their faith on three pillars: Scripture (which keeps the protestants happy), Church Tradition (which keeps the Catholics happy) and Individual Reason (which keep everyone else happy, and keeps a fence between the first two groups). If you focus on the Church Tradition pillar, you find a theology that’s very close to Catholicism. But the pillar of Reason gives everyone an out if they want it.
Ya gotta love church history!
Not entirely correct. the “High Church” element in CofE actually *call* themselves Catholics – just not Roman Catholics – in that they recognise the Queen as head of the Church and not the Pope in Rome. Their parishes are run by Priests rather than Vicars (although I believe this is somewhat frowned upon by the Church establishment. And of course – the Pope is now allowing that CofE priests who are already married can be accepted into the Roman Catolic faith as long as they recognise Him as God’s representative on Earth rather than Queen Elizabeth.
Difficult choice eh?
Apologies – I wrote this without seeing the point had been more than adequately covered above. Lazy of me.
Christopher Hitchens was absolutely right, when push comes to shove (as we saw in the salmon rushdie incident) – All faiths will perpetuate the others, including the most extreme of the fanatics.
âThe Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.â
There’s nothing inherently wrong with conviction and loyalty.
There is something wrong with a conviction that everyone who doesn’t share your religion is an infidel who deserves death and being exclusively loyal to those who think like you.
The bishop was saying the former, I think, while Daniel seems to be criticizing him to stating the latter.
IMO, the bishop was seeking to find something nice to say in order to be PC. So he tried to say something hollow and shallow (like the former). Unfortunately, I think a lot of people will interpret him to be saying the latter (and I really don’t blame them; it’s not exactly clear).
Then the question becomes, Why was the bishop seeking to say something nice about the Taliban?
âThe Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.â
Thereâs nothing inherently wrong with conviction and loyalty.
The problem is when you’re convinced of something without evidence. If you’re 100% sure that by crashing a plane into a building you’ll go straight to heaven and have 72 virgins at your dispossal, then it’s absurd not doing it. You don’t see anything wrong with that?
While I disagree with the Bishop on every point. I have to give him credit for self honesty here. Either you see blind faith as a good thing, or as a bad thing. At least he is not trying to have it both ways and say that blind faith in Christ is good but blind faith in Allah is bad.
As to his appology the claim that no religeon could be used to justify acts of violence against civilians. Well. I think I’ll hold up the old testament as the best counter example there can possibly be.
There have been plenty of preachers who’ve looked at the Islamic militants and said, “Hey, these guys are more gung-ho than we are! We’d better step up our game.” There may be a degree of professional jealousy involved, too. Apart from Jim Jones and David Koresh, there haven’t been too many preachers who were able to get their flock to make the ultimate sacrifice, and even Christian Science is on the wane. We Americans have lived comfortable lives, and if it came down to it, most of us would choose infidel cake over faithful death.
I like infidel cake.
“The Talibanâs faith is irrational and hate-filled. It is deserving of denunciation and derision, not applause and approval.” Just like fundy Christians, then.
Heres an interesting quote I happened across. Guess who.
“There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life.”