Is Faith Dangerous?

[thomas t]

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

 

[Altfish]

Unfortunately, the video is blocked.

But faith CAN be dangerous.
It is not always dangerous and can be irrelevant BUT there are plenty of ways in which it is dangerous when it starts influencing politics.

 

[Vee]

Used the right way faith can be soothing, inspiring and wonderful. Used the wrong way it can become harmful. But so can a knife if instead of using it to cut stuff, you use it to stab someone, so can a car if instead of staying in your lane, you drive into a crowd.
Many things can be dangerous when seen and used the wrong way. The definition of faith is "complete trust or confidence in something or someone" or "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.". In itself, faith doesn't present any danger.

 

[dybmh]

I think faith can be dangerous if it discourages higher education or trust of academics.

 

[Heyo]

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

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.

 

[stvdv]

in which he insinuated that belief without evidence, which he calls faith, can lead people to commit any crime

Is Faith Dangerous?

IMO:

I totally disagree. Faith is not dangerous at all. IF Goal of Life is God-Realization THEN "anti-Faith" is most "dangerous" IMO

Note: Faith is personal "connection with God"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

As long as you understand that evidence is powerful and very useful, yet limited:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is Faith Dangerous?

IMO:

I totally disagree. Faith is not dangerous at all. IF Goal of Life is God-Realization THEN "anti-Faith" is most "dangerous" IMO

Note: Faith is personal "connection with God"

That is as far as I can tell another version of existential meaning. You don't need a belief in God for that. You apparently just need to believe in something more that yourself. I.e. a higher concept that a single human. That doesn't have to be God. I believe in humanity and that all humans have dignity and inherent positive worth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Yes, but with a caveat.

Dawkins is right that a mindset of "faith," applied consistently in all aspects of one's life, would be very dangerous and leave the person susceptible to all sorts of manipulation.

Where I think he's wrong is in assuming consistency on the part of the "faithful."

Compartmentalism and religion generally go hand-in-hand. Religious people are often inculcated from a very young age into suspending critical thinking when it comes to their religion... but only when it comes to their religion. Most religious people are skilled at managing the cognitive dissonance between their approach to their religion and their approach to the rest of their life.

So yes, I'd say that the faithful are irrational when it comes to their religion, but this doesn't mean that they'd be similarly irrational with regard to something else that they haven't been conditioned from birth to accept uncritically... e.g. committing some heinous crime.

The mainstream religions have generally evolved and adapted to work within their societies. These religions don't tend to push their adherents into completely anti-social behaviours... nothing that would cause so much backlash as to put the continued existence of the religion into doubt, anyhow.

 

[Estro Felino]

Believing is never dangerous .
Unless you impose your beliefs onto others.
Then it can become dangerous.

But if you respect people's free will...it is not.

Dawkins speaks of his field...science... biology...
So I think he is just worried about kids' education. Children have the right to be educated with the instruments of official science. Then they will decide as adults what to believe or disbelieve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

New Believing is never dangerous .
Unless you impose your beliefs onto others.
Then it can become dangerous.

"As a structural engineer, I believe this building is structurally sound. You can either choose to enter it or not."

 

[ChristineM]

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

I didn't watch the vid but yes, faith can be dangerous in many ways.

Examples are religious terrorism, of which there is plenty, i have been victim to religiously motivated terrorism.
Prison inmates of faith tend to be a higher percentage per capita than non faithful.
Indoctrination of children into a faith at the expense of education is a determent to the child's welfare and future

And your example
If you believe jesus will turn up tomorrow and sucker people into selling up and giving you their money based on that faith, yes its dangerous and ruins peoples lives

 

[Nakosis]

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

Science can be dangerous too. I suppose it depends on what you do with it.

Faith can be helpful. It was helpful through a large part of my life to keep me out of depression. Faith amounted to me as trust that God has a plan. That no matter what happened to me, in the end, things would work out somehow.

I suppose I no longer need that faith but at the time, it was helpful.

What faith is dangerous? Faith that you are on a mission from God to defeat evil. Faith that your decisions carry the authority of God. The subconscious mind is capable of creating autonomous entities, demons angels, Gods that converse with you, tell you things. If you place faith in these of having some external reality, that can be dangerous. They can escalate your fears, support your desires. Convince you to go about harming yourself or others.

 

[Vinayaka]

With regard to belief, I think it's wrong to make sweeping generalisations of any kind. Surely people deserve a closer look than some label.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Really, what bugs me most about the idea of faith is that I am always uncomfortable around people who believe things (any things, not just religious matters) on the basis of indoctrination and in the face of evidence to the contrary. Once you can do that, you really can do pretty much anything.

I feel the same way, by the way, about people in mobs. Individuals who may will be gentle and kind for the most part can easily be swayed into doing things as part of a mob that they would have found abhorrent on their own.

 

[Fool]

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

it can be when it's practiced on another actively and in a negative aspect. if its practiced on self solely then its only relevant indirectly.


people have private lives and public lives. if you believe, you shouldn't be subjecting others to your negative beliefs in public. keep it in your underwear and at home; unless otherwise asked to put your private parts up for consideration.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

 

[74x12]

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

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.

 

[Kenny]

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

I believe, as in any application, most everything can be beneficial or dangerous depending on its application.

Capitalism can be good until greed hits it and at the expense of family time and/or others
Socialism can be helpful until greed and/or laziness gets in
Cars can be beneficial, until you street race (my daughter had two friends that were killed by a street racer with no lights at night)
Faith can be inspiring, until foolishness, presumption or self-righteousness gets involved.

 

[Audie]

Is Faith Dangerous?

IMO:

I totally disagree. Faith is not dangerous at all. IF Goal of Life is God-Realization THEN "anti-Faith" is most "dangerous" IMO

Note: Faith is personal "connection with God"

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