True belief

[cottage]

There have been some very articulate believers/theists who have made interesting contributions to this forum but have now disappeared, just temporarily I hope. I guess it can get a bit wearing for believers, because to be fair the believer has the more difficult job in my view.

As a sceptic my position is that nothing is certain or true if it cannot demonstrated, but otherwise everything else, no matter how fantastic, is possible. In other words I might be utterly wrong in my scepticism. Believers, however, cannot by definition argue for something that might be false. So they are either forced to defend their beliefs or attack sceptical arguments.

Atheism is a walk in the park by comparison; it's far easier to ask questions than it is to give answers. And if an atheist's argument is rubbish (and some of them frequently are) it doesn't prove that scepticsm isn't justified. If a believer's argument is demonstrably unsound or invalid it shows the belief to be false or wrong, and it is illogical to believe what can't be believed. And there can't be elements of religious belief that can be true or false, and so a single unsound instance is sufficient to bring down the entire edifice. For if one part of belief is false then it is demonstrated that so can others be. To take this further, if one believer holds to false beliefs, then why not others? It might be argued (in the case of theism) that the cement that holds religious belief together is faith, not propositions. But belief in God is propositional, and the believer cannot make an invalid argument to God and then say 'well, I believe in spite of contrary evidence and any contradictions'. In sum, atheists' invalid arguments have no overall detrimental effect on atheism, since their scepticism isn't certain or true, but believers' lesser arguments damage what they claim as 'true belief' and therefore the concept of faith generally is discredited.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I am simply dis-interested in the philosophical aspects of this issue. If some want to believe in myth legend fairy tales or think they are the King of Mars now in exile it matters not to me. Nor do I have any interest in challenging their beliefs.

PROVIDED

They do not use those beliefs as a tool or motivation to re-make the culture around them. Religious faith ONLY has import when and if it enters the public arena. Otherwise it has little significance and is only of interest to those with a philosophical mindset. And perhaps those in the medical field interested in delusional behavior.

Those who boldly assert "What I believe is right, absolutely right, without possibility or error" are human curiosities.

But when they add "And I am going to use the power of the state to compel you to at least act like you believed it also" - now THAR'S a problem.

 

[cottage]

I am simply dis-interested in the philosophical aspects of this issue. If some want to believe in myth legend fairy tales or think they are the King of Mars now in exile it matters not to me. Nor do I have any interest in challenging their beliefs.

PROVIDED

They do not use those beliefs as a tool or motivation to re-make the culture around them. Religious faith ONLY has import when and if it enters the public arena. Otherwise it has little significance and is only of interest to those with a philosophical mindset. And perhaps those in the medical field interested in delusional behavior.

Those who boldly assert "What I believe is right, absolutely right, without possibility or error" are human curiosities.

But when they add "And I am going to use the power of the state to compel you to at least act like you believed it also" - now THAR'S a problem.

While I broadly agree with what you say I think it important to remember that religious beliefs are always in the public domain whether implicitly or a overtly. Do we become divorced from our beliefs simply because we're involved in public life? I don't think so! As long as large numbers of people have religious beliefs it is reasonable to suspect that those beliefs will find ways into the lives of the rest of us.

I would say, however, that in a democracy we are collectively responsible for whatever the state forces upon us. The UK is now one of the least religious countries in the world and yet we still accept a law that says religion must be taught in every school. Admittedly the government isn't too prescriptive in describing exactly how this religious education is comprised, and some schools creatively turn this compulsion into discussions about faith generally and knowledge of all religions, while yet other schools have managed to drop religion altogether without attracting any sanctions from the education authorities. But when all is said and done it is the law, and that law exists only because we the people of the UK allow it. It does seem outrageous to me, though, that religion should be taught to impressionable young minds as if it related to some universal truth. It isn't education: it is indoctrination.