Faith is sin.

[Faint]

It seems to me that beliefs held upon insufficient evidence and without reasonable justification are dangerous not only to an individual--and not only to those he or she interacts with directly--but to the whole of humankind.

Consider the following quotes:

...no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handed on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows.

and

But if the belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence...it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence, which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the rest of the town. What would be thought of one who, for the sake of a sweet fruit, should deliberately run the risk of bringing a plague upon his family and his neighbours?

Therefore faith-based beliefs are not private and they are certainly not benign. In fact, their very existence can be seen as a threat to the future of our species. With this in mind, it seems obvious that the common beliver is in essence choosing to sin against humanity by favoring a great improbability.

And thus we find a contradiction in the abrahamic memeplex, namely that one cannot value God(s) and one's fellow man. To have and maintain faith you are rejecting the good of your own kind for something you do not (and cannot) know.

How then would one declare that there is any virtue in faith?
​

 

[keith99]

It seems to me that beliefs held upon insufficient evidence and without reasonable justification are dangerous not only to an individual--and not only to those he or she interacts with directly--but to the whole of humankind.​

Consider the following quotes:​

and​

Therefore faith-based beliefs are not private and they are certainly not benign. In fact, their very existence can be seen as a threat to the future of our species. With this in mind, it seems obvious that the common beliver is in essence choosing to sin against humanity by favoring a great improbability.​

And thus we find a contradiction in the abrahamic memeplex, namely that one cannot value God(s) and one's fellow man. To have and maintain faith you are rejecting the good of your own kind for something you do not (and cannot) know.​

How then would one declare that there is any virtue in faith?​

Years ago I looked up faith on hte internet. I found many quotes. In my view they ranged from profound and beautiful to absurd foolishness verging on madness. But one I remember.

Faith is not belief without proof, it is trust without reservation.

The faith that is a virtue is the second one, the first is near madness.

A trivial example. My dogs have faith in me. They would follow me into hell. But their faith is not limitless. One is terrified of water. Even for me he will not enter the pool. But he will come to the very edge.

 

[Faint]

Years ago I looked up faith on hte internet. I found many quotes. In my view they ranged from profound and beautiful to absurd foolishness verging on madness. But one I remember.

Faith is not belief without proof, it is trust without reservation.

The faith that is a virtue is the second one, the first is near madness.

A trivial example. My dogs have faith in me. They would follow me into hell. But their faith is not limitless. One is terrified of water. Even for me he will not enter the pool. But he will come to the very edge.

I disagree. Faith or trust--whatever you choose to call it in this case--amounts to the same thing which is indeed "belief without proof". The pious young Christian may trust an authority figure (parent, pastor, C.S. Lewis, etc.) if they assume that particular person is wiser than they themselves are in these matters. However, this does not make their trust virtuous any more than a dog following you into a dangerous situation would make its unquestioning loyalty something to be admired. It is the capacity for skepticism that we should find virtue in...the willingness to ask ourselves questions such as, "Is he dishonest?" and/or "May he be mistaken?"

Another example:

[A man] may say that which is untrue either knowingly or unknowingly. In the first case he is lying, and his moral character is to blame; in the second case he is ignorant or mistaken, and it is only his knowledge or his judgment which is in fault. In order that we may have the right to accept his testimony as ground for believing what he says, we must have reasonable grounds for trusting his veracity, that he is really trying to speak the truth so far as he knows it; his knowledge, that he has had opportunities of knowing the truth about this matter; and his judgment, that he has made proper use of those opportunities in coming to the conclusion which he affirms.

With this in mind, a pastor may say to you, "Jesus loves you." The pastor in all likelihood will believe his own words here, and thus you might reasonably assume that he is not purposely lying to you. But it is still your duty as a human with the capability of rational thought to make use of your faculties and consider whether or not the pastor really knows what he's talking about. You may rightfully say that the pastor speaks the truth as he or his denomination have interpreted it from the Bible. Yet that interpretation alone has many possibilities for error. Furthermore, how does the pastor know for certain if Jesus is let alone who Jesus loves? His source on this comes in two testaments of course, yet even those ancient authors would not be able to accurately tell you if the Jesus-of-the-past loves you of the present; or conversely if there would ever be a Jesus-of-the-future able to love someone and everyone of some distant epoch. We might say they were "speculating".

What we're talking about of course is that this kind of trust--this faith--is little more than unquestioned and scarcely examined adherance stacked on the more of the same and upon the previous faith of others...all the way down to an unknown and highly questionable foundation. That my friends is truly a house built on sand.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It seems to me that beliefs held upon insufficient evidence and without reasonable justification are dangerous not only to an individual--and not only to those he or she interacts with directly--but to the whole of humankind.

Consider the following quotes:

and


Therefore faith-based beliefs are not private and they are certainly not benign. In fact, their very existence can be seen as a threat to the future of our species. With this in mind, it seems obvious that the common beliver is in essence choosing to sin against humanity by favoring a great improbability.

And thus we find a contradiction in the abrahamic memeplex, namely that one cannot value God(s) and one's fellow man. To have and maintain faith you are rejecting the good of your own kind for something you do not (and cannot) know.

How then would one declare that there is any virtue in faith?
​

Easy to defeat this one, just find someone who is not convinced against BiaJ (Brain in a Jar). You have insignificant evidence that you are not, to reference popular culture, plugged into a matrix. All you have is Occam's razor, I have never seen the Razor justified, it is always assumed.

So, either all beliefs are sin, and as such, we have not choice to sin, and as such contradiction, or this is not the case, and blind faith is not sinful in and of itself.

 

[Faint]

Easy to defeat this one, just find someone who is not convinced against BiaJ (Brain in a Jar). You have insignificant evidence that you are not, to reference popular culture, plugged into a matrix. All you have is Occam's razor, I have never seen the Razor justified, it is always assumed.

So, either all beliefs are sin, and as such, we have not choice to sin, and as such contradiction, or this is not the case, and blind faith is not sinful in and of itself.

No. You are assuming (or trying to convince yourself) that beliefs are equal...which they are not. Why give credibility to brain in a vat...why not brain in a 1982 Toyota Corolla? Why not brain in an orbiting teapot? It is because these ideas, when examined critically have no plausibility and thus we have no reasonable occasion for believing them. Simply being able to imagine a [fantastic/fictional] scenario does not make that scenario likely.

Without sufficient evidence or reason to believe something...you are in effect making a "leap of faith" that might as well be BASE jumping without a parachute. Do you really think you can fly? Doubtful...you, like most humans, subscribe to an observable/testable order of the natural world in most things (gravity for instance) except when it comes to the unknown and perhaps unknowable. Why?

 

[Faint]

It seems to me that beliefs held upon insufficient evidence and without reasonable justification are dangerous not only to an individual--and not only to those he or she interacts with directly--but to the whole of humankind.​

I think this is highly relevant today considering the anti-human-rights activist turnout at the polls.

How would one reconcile the belief that faith is "good" when it causes them to do "bad" things?

 

[BobW188]

Ah. The problem is that people who have "faith" don't vote your way.