Is Faith Dangerous?

[Audie]

Of course faith can be dangerous but so can nihilism. I mean look at the atrocities of communists throughout the 20th century.

Nihilism or lack of faith in anything means you get to determine for yourself right and wrong. You get to be god. It's egotistical and leads to atrocities like we've never seen.

You think there is such a thing as no faith in anything?

 

[Audie]

Faith is indeed dangerous, but not for every individual.
It all depends what acts result. But the inherent problem
is that belief in things unevidenced can lead to unproductive
behavior...like filing suits to overturn a clearly valid election.

Faith that there was a flood and that there will
be a body of clear evidence will turn out badly when thesis defense time comes around.

 

[Revoltingest]

Faith that there was a flood and that there will
be a body of clear evidence will turn out badly when thesis defense time comes around.

It all depends upon which school one attends.

 

[Audie]

It all depends upon which school one attends.

We know him as "a..l" roberts, given his
peccadilliations.

 

[stvdv]

If you define faith as "not dangerous " then that's what you get.

I define faith as what faith is, and that is not dangerous

Of course brainwashing doctrines that are dangerous is dangerous

Sadly many religion use this tactic, hence I prefer personal spiritual journey over religion

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It most certainly can be.
Religious Trauma & Transitions — RESTORATION COUNSELING.

Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) is group of symptoms that arise in response to traumatic or stressful religious experiences. While Religious Trauma Syndrome is not an official diagnosis in the DSM-5, it is a common experience shared among many who have escaped cults, fundamentalist religious groups, abusive religious settings, or other painful experiences with religion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Last time I discussed a Dawkins video, most atheists here on RF agreed with him.

So this time I'd like to cite this video:

in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime. See minute 1:20 of said video.
Is he right in generalizing like this?

I doubt it.
Faith gets dangerous the moment you make accusations without providing the due evidence - or even better providing the proof for your reproaches.

If you just believe that Jesus will come back tomorrow at 9am, as an example, you are not a dangerous person by default.
As unsibstanciated as your claim ever may be, it lacks the danger, I think.
You just need to be careful the moment you make or listen to unsubstanciated *reproaches*.

Thomas

He's absolutely spot on. I can't imagine what arguments anyone could have against what he said.

If you just believe that Jesus will come back tomorrow at 9am, as an example, you are not a dangerous person by default.

Of course he didn't claim that a person becomes dangerous the instant that they abandon reason for faith. Just that if you willingly abandon reason in favor of faith in one aspect of your life you become that much more susceptible to abandoning reason in favor of faith in other aspects of your life.

A person who can convince themselves that Jesus is going to return a 9a.m. tomorrow without any verifiable evidence whatsoever is far more likely to convince themselves that Trump won the election, even though there's no verifiable evidence whatsoever for such a claim. Furthermore they can convince themselves that climate change isn't real, even when faced with mountains of verifiable evidence that the planet's climate is indeed changing.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Last time I discussed a Dawkins video, most atheists here on RF agreed with him.

So this time I'd like to cite this video:

in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime. See minute 1:20 of said video.
Is he right in generalizing like this?

I doubt it.
Faith gets dangerous the moment you make accusations without providing the due evidence - or even better providing the proof for your reproaches.

If you just believe that Jesus will come back tomorrow at 9am, as an example, you are not a dangerous person by default.
As unsibstanciated as your claim ever may be, it lacks the danger, I think.
You just need to be careful the moment you make or listen to unsubstanciated *reproaches*.

Thomas

Fundamentalism and ideology are dangerous, not faith.

 

[Audie]

I define faith as what faith is, and that is not dangerous

Of course brainwashing doctrines that are dangerous is dangerous

Sadly many religion use this tactic, hence I prefer personal spiritual journey over religion

We get our own opinions, facts and definitions, not so much.

 

[74x12]

You think there is such a thing as no faith in anything?

No, it's their words/views. I think they have faith.

 

[Heyo]

This is possibly what Dawkins was referring to. You could say that's gullibility not faith but then ask yourself where your faith comes from.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Faith is indeed dangerous, but not for every individual.
It all depends what acts result. But the inherent problem
is that belief in things unevidenced can lead to unproductive
behavior...like filing suits to overturn a clearly valid election.

Exactly! That is very much akin to the examples that I gave. And what grieves me is what appears (I'm relying on only what I've heard from liberal media now, so take that for what itis) to be the sheer numbers of Republicans who actually do not believe the election was legit -- in spite of the more than 40 court cases which have failed to find anything seriously wrong, and in spite of a very Trump-dedicated AG to do the same.

This is that "indoctrination" thing I was talking about. They believe what they are being told -- most likely because it is what they want to be told anyway -- in the face of all the evidence making abundantly clear that what they believe is simply false.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course faith can be dangerous but so can nihilism. I mean look at the atrocities of communists throughout the 20th century.

Nihilism or lack of faith in anything means you get to determine for yourself right and wrong. You get to be god. It's egotistical and leads to atrocities like we've never seen.

"Lack of faith" is NOT what nihilism means. That's far too narrow. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose. With no purpose, what can it even mean to say "you get to be god?"

What regime in history can you point to and say that the "atrocities like we've never seen" can be attributed to that regime's nihilism?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Note: Faith is personal "connection with God"

What dictionary did you get that from? I can't find it anywhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly! That is very much akin to the examples that I gave. And what grieves me is what appears (I'm relying on only what I've heard from liberal media now, so take that for what itis) to be the sheer numbers of Republicans who actually do not believe the election was legit -- in spite of the more than 40 court cases which have failed to find anything seriously wrong, and in spite of a very Trump-dedicated AG to do the same.

This is that "indoctrination" thing I was talking about. They believe what they are being told -- most likely because it is what they want to be told anyway -- in the face of all the evidence making abundantly clear that what they believe is simply false.

Much like liberals who believed with great certainty
that Trump colluded with the Russians, eh.
Faith can afflict any group, even heathens.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Much like liberals who believed with great certainty
that Trump colluded with the Russians, eh.
Faith can afflict any group, even heathens.

Well, I can't disagree with that. But as to colluding, at very least we know Mike Flynn was -- but he's been pardoned.

And by the by, the Washington Post did write a longish article suggesting that there really was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I can't disagree with that. But as to colluding, at very least we know Mike Flynn was -- but he's been pardoned.

And by the by, the Washington Post did write a longish article suggesting that there really was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Suggestion....that's a low bar designed to fuel certainty
in the true believers. It's the same thing I see with OAN
to spread the gospel of a stolen election.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you just believe that Jesus will come back tomorrow at 9am, as an example, you are not a dangerous person by default.

If you really did think that Jesus will come back tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., you may not be full-on dangerous, but if you were to live consistent with this, you'd likely be a burden and an inconvenience to the people around you in a few days or so... right when you run out of both food (since you didn't bother to buy groceries for after the Second Coming) and money (since you didn't bother to save anything for after the Second Coming).

Luckily, religious people tend not to live entirely consistently with their beliefs.

There's a Bertrand Russell quote that touches on this inconsistency:

“I know a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found he was planting trees in his garden.”

 

[Augustus]

While in the last video I thought Dawkins didn't think his answer trough, this time he is spot on. That is because he qualified what he means with "faith": abandoning reason. Believing things without evidence can occasionally put people in danger but believing things against all evidence is dangerous.

I agree that ideology can drive violence, and that ideological tenets that drive violence may be held against all evidence.

The problem is that violence can equally be supported by reason and rationality.

Dawkins to me epitomises the kind of rationalist, as described by Michaels Oakeshott as 'finding it difficult to believe any fair minded person could think differently to himself'.

As such, he tends to take on faith that rationality leads to his form of fuzzy secular humanism. Ironically, I do find faith in this Whiggish Idea of Progress dangerous too (although not in the same way as violent fundamentalism)

 

[74x12]

"Lack of faith" is NOT what nihilism means. That's far too narrow. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose. With no purpose, what can it even mean to say "you get to be god?"

What regime in history can you point to and say that the "atrocities like we've never seen" can be attributed to that regime's nihilism?

I guess I could say that they had nihilistic views or tendencies. I think of nihilism as a kind of over-arching category. Technically as pointed out already no one can really be a nihilist because you have to believe something and you have to have some purpose such as nihilism itself ... But nihilism as an ideal is striven for by many people. That's why I look at it as an overarching category.

Communism is based on atheism which is why atheism is always so heavily promoted by communist regimes. Communism doesn't work with religious people. The atrocities of communists go on to this day.