tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post528121423738641401..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The ten commandments of faitheismLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35098943969895088172014-10-07T15:09:31.971-04:002014-10-07T15:09:31.971-04:00Great post, Larry. One point: I don't see &qu...Great post, Larry. One point: I don't see "faitheists" as identical to "accommodationists". There is a lot of overlap, but a "faitheist" is defined as an atheist who is very sympathetic to believers and belief, while an accommodationist is someone who sees religion as compatible with science. Not all faitheists are accommodationists, and not all accommodationists are faitheists.<br /><br />Besides that quibble, it's an excellent rebuttal of Chituc's stand. I particularly deplore the claim that we'll never get anywhere by criticizing the tenets of religion. In fact, that's the ONLY way we'll get anywhere as far as loosing faith's grip on this planet.<br /><br />Jerry CoyneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11048284761440378072014-10-07T13:26:20.931-04:002014-10-07T13:26:20.931-04:00OK OK, when you wrote "I'm clicking the r...OK OK, when you wrote "I'm clicking the reply button under your comment (you = Larry)", I thought you meant both comments were directed at Larry. Apologies.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11230602484967471632014-10-07T07:09:24.691-04:002014-10-07T07:09:24.691-04:00Diogenes, that seems rather an extreme reaction to...Diogenes, that seems rather an extreme reaction to pressing the wrong button. As my post appeared right under the one of Robert Byers it should have been obvious that it was a comment on that and not on Larry's post. I get the impression from your own response to Robert Byers that you were not all that convinced by his arguments yourself, and you only addressed his first sentence, which is not what I meant by describing the rest of it as incoherent. What about the rest of it? do you find "To might be the bad guys act badder because they have too. Its the DNA" a well argued proposition?<br /><br />Your "even for you" suggests that you have found others of my comments to be incoherent. Could you give an example or two?<br /><br />I hope I'm pressing right button this time, but if not I hope the first word will make it clear what I'm replying to.Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993242236208061356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43544222310516294092014-10-06T18:38:29.998-04:002014-10-06T18:38:29.998-04:00Good read. However, I may be mistaken but I though...Good read. However, I may be mistaken but I thought that there was a slight difference between accommodationism and "faitheism", with the former meaning the desire to avoid a confrontational approach and the latter being descriptive of atheists who consider religion a force of good in the world even as they find it impossible to believe themselves. What is described here sounds more like accommodationism than how I understood "faitheism".<br /><br />That word, by the way, is probably listed as an example of cacophony in the dictionary.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65747954227510666512014-10-06T13:01:15.136-04:002014-10-06T13:01:15.136-04:00Athel, even for you, that is an astonishingly inco...Athel, even for you, that is an astonishingly incoherent comment. I'm trying to figure out what you're bitching about, but your comment had no content for me to attempt to refute.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79068750401738701552014-10-06T12:57:09.763-04:002014-10-06T12:57:09.763-04:00Byers: "Religious identities were here first....Byers: "Religious identities were here first. We fought and settled these matters long ago in North america."<br /><br />No you racist asshole, the Native Americans were here first. Your kind attacked them spiritually, religiously, militantly and violently for centuries. Your kind were the original "militant atheists" since you were atheists with regard to the Natives' beliefs. Unlike today's so-called "militant atheists", who use books and science, yesterday's militant atheists-- Christians all-- were actually militant, and actually used weapons to kill people.<br /><br />Since you have assumed that those who were "here first" should have their beliefs given privilege and authority, then the Native Americans must have this privilege and authority; and you, Byers, must convert to paganism and the worship of Gitchi Manitou.<br /><br />Explain why you should not worship Gitchi Manitou.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87724760684522338342014-10-06T12:35:01.850-04:002014-10-06T12:35:01.850-04:00Guess! (I've not always agreed with you, but u...Guess! (I've not always agreed with you, but usually I do, and anyway, I've never found you to be incoherent.)<br /><br />I know how the buttons are supposed to work, but for some reason I can't always get them to do what they're supposed to do. Anyway, this time I'm clicking on the reply button under your comment ("you" = Larry) but I don't guarantee that the combination of your server and my computer will produce the hoped-for result.Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993242236208061356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90883001734015962932014-10-06T11:53:45.460-04:002014-10-06T11:53:45.460-04:00Are you referring to my post or to the comment by ...Are you referring to my post or to the comment by Robert Byers? If you want to reply directly to a comment, click on the "Reply" button that's right underneath the comment. That's what I did to reply to you.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23015878622919730652014-10-06T11:06:30.428-04:002014-10-06T11:06:30.428-04:00Even by your standards that's an incredibly in...Even by your standards that's an incredibly incoherent post. I'm having difficulty trying to work out if it has any content worth addressing. Maybe someone else can try. Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993242236208061356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7335886333311426912014-10-06T03:01:35.136-04:002014-10-06T03:01:35.136-04:00Religious identities were here first. We fought an...Religious identities were here first. We fought and settled these matters long ago in North america.<br />We agree to disagree. nOt we agree they were wrong and we simply will live with them.<br />to overthrow one must attack entrenched garrisons.<br />Atheists must attack since they are a tiny minority.<br />Creationists attack because a tiny minority is in wrongful position of leadership on conclusions in certain things.<br />Social conservatives must attack wrong and bad things.<br />Its all about fair play in the battle. Not fight like evil savages.<br />It might be the wrong side acts more unjustly because they have too.<br />To might be the bad guys act badder because they have too. Its the DNA.<br />The good guys and right guys benefit more from fair fights.<br />It seems society sees attacks on God/religion as unnaturally nasty.<br />I suspect the left wing doesn't want provocation against religious foundations and peoples because they want to progress thier ideas for how society must be run.<br />Divide and conquer and later mopping up operations.<br />its funny to me to indeed see the left wing army chastise the "extreme atheists " because they are a threat to a orderly left wing change with not as much resistance.<br />When Rome took over the world they left religion alone because it provoked the natives too much if it was destroyed. <br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27161779814080742412014-10-06T01:24:51.817-04:002014-10-06T01:24:51.817-04:00In the USA, health insurance is paid for not by th...In the USA, health insurance is paid for not by the state, but by employers. It is currently legal for an employer to refuse to pay for contraception coverage based on the faith (believing without knowing) that contraception a bad thing. An employer can legally tell an employee "I am not going to pay for your contraception coverage because I believe, but do not know, that contraception would be a bad thing for you".<br /><br />What this means is that "Do you have faith that God exists?" is NOT the "real question". The real question is whether society should continue to regard belief without knowledge as an acceptable justification when people make decisions that affect the lives of people other than themselves.<br />Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06867375994008638278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15341688824584556982014-10-05T20:52:54.758-04:002014-10-05T20:52:54.758-04:00You can also deny that water is wet, or insist tha...You can also deny that water is wet, or insist that a square is a circle. Anyone who says the existence of a god is not an ontological claim and faith that there is a god is not an epistemology is making two self-contradictory, impossible assertions similar to the assertions water is not wet and a square is a circle.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68836485225567375462014-10-05T20:07:12.043-04:002014-10-05T20:07:12.043-04:00You missed the point. There is no ontological clai...You missed the point. There is no ontological claim. There is only faith. Faith is not intended to justify anything. It is part of the psychological make-up of the believer- and is independent of any claim about the material world. Assume a believer says that he has faith that X even though there is no possible evidence for X. You may find that believer foolish. You may not understand why that believer holds onto that belief. But there holding the belief the believer is not giving you anything to argue against. No claim -- other than the fact of his own belief -- is being made.Russ Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15431389045571531450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67274296541431594472014-10-05T18:53:48.791-04:002014-10-05T18:53:48.791-04:00You are divorcing what people believe from their b...You are divorcing what people believe from their behavior. But well intentioned people can behave very poorly if they sincerely believe that God decrees death for homosexuality, for adultery, for not observing the Sabbath the correct way, for leaving the true religion, for not believing in any God, etc. The reality is that morality is rooted in recognizing harm, accurately identifying harm is very much linked to accurately identifying what is true and false about how the universe functions, which in turn is very strongly linked too recognizing, and using, reliable epistemology.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80843397065550665812014-10-05T18:45:50.216-04:002014-10-05T18:45:50.216-04:00No, any ontological claim must have an epistemolog...No, any ontological claim must have an epistemology to validate it. Why people have faith is a secondary issue. The important issue here is our ethical obligation to properly justify our factual, ontological, beliefs. Faith fails in this context, therefore anyone who cites faith in any such context is making a mistake. Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8350875196361858252014-10-05T18:28:59.839-04:002014-10-05T18:28:59.839-04:001. Theism and atheism are both views on metaphysic...1. Theism and atheism are both views on metaphysics, but what counts in everyday social life is how you treat people, that is, morals. We can't see into other people's hearts, so all we have to go on is their behavior, what they do. <br /><br />2. Those of us who believe there are right and wrong ways to deal with each other agree on the most important thing. It's those who want to condemn other people for what they think rather than what they do who are doing wrong. It doesn't matter whether they do this because they think they are holier than the others or because they think the others can't do right as they are misled by a false God (or none.) <br /><br />3. Experience has showed that other people who don't believe as we do can still do right as well as wrong. Acting on the assumption that people who have the wrong religion can't do right by us is bigotry. <br /><br />4. Experience also shows us that people somehow disagree on what God says to do. If we want to deal with other people, we must acknowledge this disagreement in the only way that really matters: By reasoning together on common grounds. Facts, logic, cost and benefit, natural human sympathy are the basic tools of social intercourse between people, not religious commandments. <br /><br />5. It is natural that people want to act according to the religious commandments as they perceive them. Experience shows that making other people act according to your personal beliefs is militant bigotry and has caused terrible evils. <br /><br />6. Insisting that your personal ideas are mandated by God is effectively claiming you are holier than others. Perhaps this is so, but experience shows that people will disagree with you. If and when these people attack your opinions, that is nevertheless not an attack on you personally. Whining about being a victim when this happens is shameless bigotry. The decent way to disagree with people is with public arguments, not personal revelation. <br /><br />7. Experience has showed that the notion some people are better than others isn't true. Therefore there is no reason why some people should get privileges others don't. <br />This is just as true when the people are claiming to be the true religion. <br /><br />8. Trying to be considerate of other people, to treat them well, also means trying to leave space for them to think differently. This means that in social life there should not be an omnipresent expression of a particular set of religious beliefs, not even the majority's. Given the diversity of beliefs, it is impractical to mandate full representation. Besides, when the other's religious beliefs get thrust into your life, it becomes very obvious this is an intrusion into personal space. The courteous and sensible code of manners in public is to avoid pointless contention about religion. <br /><br />9. Experience shows us that we are not necessarily aware of our biases, especially those we share with the majority. Therefore it is particularly incumbent upon us to be cautious about expressions of contempt, or support persecution of religious minorities (or the unchurched or those we perceive as unbelievers of any kind.) Attacking other religions and their believers as evil is bigotry. <br /><br />10. Inasmuch as our morals also include not just personal but public decisions about how to treat other people, that is, laws, it is our moral duty to abide by the just laws of the land. And we must engage in debate on justice on our common grounds, not our personal beliefs. In the most difficult cases, we as the public may assess a particular religious observance as contaminated by gross superstition. Laws against harm done by superstition are not religious persecution. Allowing harmful practices to continue under color of religion is special privilege, legal bigotry.<br /><br />I don't know whether any of this would count as faitheism, but I suspect there are quite a few atheist bloggers who couldn't agree with this. Yet I think this is what we really should want, rather than verbal assent to metaphysical propositions.S Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068751705809284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49945992179105506922014-10-05T13:18:57.984-04:002014-10-05T13:18:57.984-04:00As I write in this blog post (http://goo.gl/T4Lx5Z...As I write in this blog post (http://goo.gl/T4Lx5Z), <br /><br />Religion is about faith, and faith by definition means believing without knowing--and without even the possibility of knowing. God is neither an epistemological nor metaphysical question.<br /><br />If the real question is: Do you have faith that God exists? my answer is No; others may answer Yes. The interesting discussion as far as I'm concerned then focuses on why someone has faith. By Why I'm not asking for a justification but for a personal statement of the part that a person's faith plays in their life. How is a person's faith integrated into their view of the world? What part it plays in how they live? Why is it an important feature of the fabric of their personality. That, I think, is the most useful and interesting discussion about faith in God.Russ Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15431389045571531450noreply@blogger.com