• In total there are 12 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

#26: April - June 2006 & Nov. - Dec. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
I can appreciate that as it appears that you do not require the same empiricism from authors you admire.
DWill never said nor implied any such thing. Stop making stuff up.
Let's not go down the road again. It is very boring.
DWill made excuse after excuse for Robert Wright's omissions and errors with respect to the Bible in our TEoG discussion. I call that excusing empiricism. Others excused sloppy footnoting by Murdock etc. If you want me to build a legal case to support my claim I will be happy to do so but the posts speak for themselves. Perhaps you should start paying attention instead of polishing your fallacy cards.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Dawn

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Graduate Student
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:05 am
13
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

DWill wrote:This is pretty random, but I came across a simple phrase from the book that struck me as something I didn't realize. It was "the doctrine of faith." I think this is probably right, faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion. We talk about how religion must have arisen because of innate cognitive structuring. But there's no reason that I can think of why faith--believing without evidence for belief--should have been present from the start. Is faith, then, a Christian doctrine that has inaccurately become almost synonymous with religion? I'm looking for feedback on this thought.

Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?
Is it 'cheating' to comment here if I haven't yet read Sam's book? I was intrigued by this concept of faith being separable from religion
faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion
, not sure how Sam means it but yes, Religion and Faith are two different things and if that were ever sorted out...well we could all see more clearly. Religion is to be blamed for many things, it's true. Faith is another thing. Religion is based on what I can do to please a god etc. It's man-made, based in human effort to be good enough.... And we see the results. True faith is a God-given grace that exists in every child. 'Why should it have been present from the start?' It's a mercy of God, to be blunt. It's why there is a thread, "How did you stop believing". By implication there was faith in the beginning. It's what fills a child with wonder...It's what makes them seem so innocent..They are so ready to believe--anything. Is this a weakness? Only if the object of that faith is found to be bogus. But when offense comes and that child knows he's been duped in one area or another so often all faith is called into question and rejected. A little heart is hardened. A child becomes a cynic. Faith is lost. A child's shattered world becomes a god-less adult's. Woe to the one who brings such offense. Faith is commendable. But its object must be bedrock, not fantasy. True Christianity has this Rock.
Is faith, then, a Christian doctrine that has inaccurately become almost synonymous with religion?
Yes, it is.
Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?
Not at all. But it's a tremendous boost to see what you've believed all along being confirmed visibly, and there's always the hope that someone else might see and believe (as unlikely as that may be as per Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:31)

"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen... by it we understand that the universe was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." True? Absolutely. Do you understand it? Were we there? Nope, but can we still believe like a child? Hope so. These are the ones God commends.

And now I should get ahold of this book and read the context :roll: How much longer will there be discussion here?
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."--Jesus
"For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."--Jesus
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Dawn:
By implication there was faith in the beginning.
I cannot see how faith is independent of an object of faith. A child can have faith in their parents, for example. For there to be faith from the very beginning, the object of faith would have to be known from the very beginning. There is an innate sense of wonder about our world that is not faith; it is wonder. Faith entails believing in something for which there is no evidence. That something must be introduced to them before they are to have faith in it. Your statement that "True faith is a God-given grace that exists in every child" is a conclusion, but you use it as if it's a premise. I see no reason to believe that statement, you must first take it on faith, which is a self-fulfilling belief devoid of critical thinking.
But when offense comes and that child knows he's been duped in one area or another so often all faith is called into question and rejected. A little heart is hardened. A child becomes a cynic. Faith is lost. A child's shattered world becomes a god-less adult's.
That's a somewhat condescending line of thought. Loss of faith does not necessarily lead to cynicism. It more appropriately leads to skepticism, which is a virtue. The same is true when a child learns that Santa Claus isn't real. It is an exercise in critical thinking, and is beneficial.

Despite my being contrary, that was a good post. Thanks Dawn.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Dawn wrote: Is it 'cheating' to comment here if I haven't yet read Sam's book? I was intrigued by this concept of faith being separable from religion
faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion
, not sure how Sam means it but yes, Religion and Faith are two different things and if that were ever sorted out...well we could all see more clearly. Religion is to be blamed for many things, it's true. Faith is another thing. Religion is based on what I can do to please a god etc. It's man-made, based in human effort to be good enough.... And we see the results. True faith is a God-given grace that exists in every child. 'Why should it have been present from the start?' It's a mercy of God, to be blunt. It's why there is a thread, "How did you stop believing". By implication there was faith in the beginning. It's what fills a child with wonder...It's what makes them seem so innocent..They are so ready to believe--anything. Is this a weakness? Only if the object of that faith is found to be bogus. But when offense comes and that child knows he's been duped in one area or another so often all faith is called into question and rejected. A little heart is hardened. A child becomes a cynic. Faith is lost. A child's shattered world becomes a god-less adult's. Woe to the one who brings such offense. Faith is commendable. But its object must be bedrock, not fantasy. True Christianity has this Rock.
Dawn, thanks for your thought. I would go along with Interbanes's response, though, that when we (or at least he and I) speak about faith, it's in relation to a specific teaching that needs to be accepted in the absence of evidence. In my post, I was really extrapolating from Harris' contention that faith is a doctrine or dogma in itself, one that is responsible for a great deal of the unreason loose in our world. I was thinking that, therefore, religion is something larger than faith but not necessarily inclusive of it. So you and I come out on opposite sides, with me agreeing with Harris that the problem is actually with faith, and that religion doesn't have to involve faith at all--at least not in the sense of beliefs that run counter to reason.

It doesn't seem that a child's faith could be perfect in the way expected of an adult Christian. I don't think they're able to grasp what's being presented to them, if they're tutored in the theology. But more than that, they're not able to make up their own minds about it because they believe whatever an adult tells them. So they "believe," but it's a belief based on the trust that their parents and others wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. That seems to be taking advantage of them rather than teaching them something good and useful about the world. All of the theology should go on the back burner until children are old enough to think for themselves.
DWill wrote:Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?
Dawn wrote:Not at all. But it's a tremendous boost to see what you've believed all along being confirmed visibly, and there's always the hope that someone else might see and believe (as unlikely as that may be as per Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:31)
I was just trying to wrap my mind around the way that many of the faithful appear to want to demonstrate that one doesn't need faith to believe, because it all makes normal sense, just like any accepted fact.That seems paradoxical to me.
And now I should get ahold of this book and read the context :roll: How much longer will there be discussion here?
Well, it's hard to tell how long the discussion will be kind of officially going on. No matter when you wanted to say something about the book, somebody would be glad to get back into a conversation about it with you.
Last edited by DWill on Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dawn

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Graduate Student
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:05 am
13
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Dawn:
By implication there was faith in the beginning.
Interbane:I cannot see how faith is independent of an object of faith. A child can have faith in their parents, for example. For there to be faith from the very beginning, the object of faith would have to be known from the very beginning. There is an innate sense of wonder about our world that is not faith; it is wonder. Faith entails believing in something for which there is no evidence. That something must be introduced to them before they are to have faith in it.


What I'm saying here is precisely that faith does have its object from the beginning. The fact that a child is born with an inherent sense of faith (even though it can be readily misplaced) implies for me that there is an object, that object being the very Creator of that child's heart... "In the beginning God..." Consider the kindness of a God who creates us with the capacity to believe in Him who is our greatest good. This is a wonder. (Had you considered where this wonder comes from that, for instance, every naturalist feels when surveying nature?) I know we don't agree here but it is a perspective I didn't want to be lost from view. Thank-you for you kind appraisal despite disagreement.
Interbane:Your statement that "True faith is a God-given grace that exists in every child" is a conclusion, but you use it as if it's a premise. I see no reason to believe that statement, you must first take it on faith, which is a self-fulfilling belief devoid of critical thinking.
Truly faith is not devoid of critical thinking. For the believer in a Creator there are endless worlds of critical thinking to catch up with. God is the ultimate in mental brilliance! and "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
But when offense comes and that child knows he's been duped in one area or another so often all faith is called into question and rejected. A little heart is hardened. A child becomes a cynic. Faith is lost. A child's shattered world becomes a god-less adult's.
Interbane:That's a somewhat condescending line of thought. Loss of faith does not necessarily lead to cynicism. It more appropriately leads to skepticism, which is a virtue. The same is true when a child learns that Santa Claus isn't real. It is an exercise in critical thinking, and is beneficial.


I'm a whole-hearted believer in critical thinking. Must it always lead to skepticism? How do you see faith? Is it on one end of a continuum which contrasts with skepticism and ultimately cynicism? Or how do you see skepticism and cynicism contrasting?

Thanks for your perspective.
p.s.(hope all these quotes are attributed correctly. I'm having a little trouble with these technicalities, any pointers?)
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."--Jesus
"For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."--Jesus
User avatar
Dawn

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Graduate Student
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:05 am
13
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

whoops... those quotes didn't come out quite right. sorry. There is new matter in the big quote box...sigh.
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."--Jesus
"For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."--Jesus
User avatar
Dawn

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Graduate Student
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:05 am
13
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

DWill wrote:
Dawn wrote: Is it 'cheating' to comment here if I haven't yet read Sam's book? I was intrigued by this concept of faith being separable from religion
faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion
, not sure how Sam means it but yes, Religion and Faith are two different things and if that were ever sorted out...well we could all see more clearly. Religion is to be blamed for many things, it's true. Faith is another thing. Religion is based on what I can do to please a god etc. It's man-made, based in human effort to be good enough.... And we see the results. True faith is a God-given grace that exists in every child. 'Why should it have been present from the start?' It's a mercy of God, to be blunt. It's why there is a thread, "How did you stop believing". By implication there was faith in the beginning. It's what fills a child with wonder...It's what makes them seem so innocent..They are so ready to believe--anything. Is this a weakness? Only if the object of that faith is found to be bogus. But when offense comes and that child knows he's been duped in one area or another so often all faith is called into question and rejected. A little heart is hardened. A child becomes a cynic. Faith is lost. A child's shattered world becomes a god-less adult's. Woe to the one who brings such offense. Faith is commendable. But its object must be bedrock, not fantasy. True Christianity has this Rock.
Dawn, thanks for your thought. I would go along with Interbanes's response, though, that when we (or at least he and I) speak about faith, it's in relation to a specific teaching that needs to be accepted in the absence of evidence. In my post, I was really extrapolating from Harris' contention that faith is a doctrine or dogma in itself, one that is responsible for a great deal of the unreason loose in our world. I was thinking that, therefore, religion is something larger than faith but not necessarily inclusive of it. So you and I come out on opposite sides, with me agreeing with Harris that the problem is actually with faith, and that religion doesn't have to involve faith at all--at least not in the sense of beliefs that run counter to reason.
Ok, yes, you're right, we do come out at odds.. I would see for example Islamic jihad as an example of 'religion' wreaking havoc. Would you call it 'faith'?
DWill wrote:It doesn't seem that a child's faith could be perfect in the way expected of an adult Christian. I don't think they're able to grasp what's being presented to them, if they're tutored in the theology. But more than that, they're not able to make up their own minds about it because they believe whatever an adult tells them. So they "believe," but it's a belief based on the trust that their parents and others wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. That seems to be taking advantage of them rather than teaching them something good and useful about the world. All of the theology should go on the back burner until children are old enough to think for themselves.

You're right, a child's faith isn't perfect. It's only a beginning, an openness to be taught truth and receive it. This is a critical age for a child to be exposed to truths such as the goodness and love of God, which become so much harder to grasp with age don't you think? It is an awesome trust to be given a child to raise. But putting theology on the back burner is not the answer. Faith in something will result regardless, even if it's only faith in the proposition that there is no god. The education system is not neutral on this
DWill wrote:Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?
Dawn wrote:Not at all. But it's a tremendous boost to see what you've believed all along being confirmed visibly, and there's always the hope that someone else might see and believe (as unlikely as that may be as per Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:31)
DWill wrote:I was just trying to wrap my mind around the way that many of the faithful appear to want to demonstrate that one doesn't need faith to believe, because it all makes normal sense, just like any accepted fact.That seems paradoxical to me.

:) I think the idea is that a person of 'faith' is confident that there is a firm foundation in reality for all that they have put their faith in. In the case of Christianity, the object of faith is God and all that He has written in the Bible. A 'believer' is confident that this is an unshakable foundation, that does not run counter to reason, even if all is not yet seen or understood. That's my take on how the term faith is used in Christianity. Paradoxical? maybe.

But say, I would like to introduce you to a top notch Christian apologist (if you haven't already met). What a complimentary and excellent exercise it would be to discuss his book The End of Reason here though I can't suggest it, being a newbie and all (sigh). Have a look at: The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists http://www.amazon.com/End-Reason-Respon ... 0310282519 Have you read Ravi at all?

Thanks for you comments.
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."--Jesus
"For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."--Jesus
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Dawn wrote: Ok, yes, you're right, we do come out at odds.. I would see for example Islamic jihad as an example of 'religion' wreaking havoc. Would you call it 'faith'?
Yes, I'd call it faith. That's the way my mind currently is set up when I think about this issue. Semantics is involved, so maybe it would be a mistake to insist on the distinction. Global jihad seems to me, though, to be built on faith, as somewhat distinct from religion. Jihadists appear to be devoted to beliefs such as the the surety of the afterlife--and the abundant rewards that come to martyrs for the cause of killing infidels. This is not to say that non-violent Muslims don't also believe in these things, to some degree, but as Harris says, the gauge for belief is the actions people are willing to take for them. So it seems safe at least to say that faith has taken a particularly dangerous form with jihadists.

When I look at the 5 pillars of Islam, the guides of the religion, I see something that admits of some interpretation, so that contrary to what some people assert, it is quite possible for Islam to have a moderate form. The religion, to that extent, can be separate from the faith.
DWill wrote:It doesn't seem that a child's faith could be perfect in the way expected of an adult Christian. I don't think they're able to grasp what's being presented to them, if they're tutored in the theology. But more than that, they're not able to make up their own minds about it because they believe whatever an adult tells them. So they "believe," but it's a belief based on the trust that their parents and others wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. That seems to be taking advantage of them rather than teaching them something good and useful about the world. All of the theology should go on the back burner until children are old enough to think for themselves.
Dawn wrote:You're right, a child's faith isn't perfect. It's only a beginning, an openness to be taught truth and receive it. This is a critical age for a child to be exposed to truths such as the goodness and love of God, which become so much harder to grasp with age don't you think? It is an awesome trust to be given a child to raise. But putting theology on the back burner is not the answer. Faith in something will result regardless, even if it's only faith in the proposition that there is no god. The education system is not neutral on this.
Although I don't think in terms of a God, when I say that theology should not be taught to children, I'm really talking about a doctrine such as what follows from Christ dying to expiate our sins. A general God approach is different from that. It's not my approach, but it's not something I want to knock down, either.

When you say "faith in something will result regardless," I know what you're getting at, but this use of the word "faith" is too imprecise for me. I'm sympathetic, though, to feelings that the culture is not neutral in some ways, that indeed it presents many bad influences. It takes some intentional, principled approach to truly raise children, as opposed to just letting them develop however they will.
DWill wrote:I was just trying to wrap my mind around the way that many of the faithful appear to want to demonstrate that one doesn't need faith to believe, because it all makes normal sense, just like any accepted fact.That seems paradoxical to me.
Dawn wrote: :) I think the idea is that a person of 'faith' is confident that there is a firm foundation in reality for all that they have put their faith in. In the case of Christianity, the object of faith is God and all that He has written in the Bible. A 'believer' is confident that this is an unshakable foundation, that does not run counter to reason, even if all is not yet seen or understood. That's my take on how the term faith is used in Christianity. Paradoxical? maybe.
So, whether or not this firm foundation in reason can be shown doesn't matter to a person of faith. Again, I'm just wondering about the strenuous efforts to show people that the foundation in reason is there, even though by your definition, you can't, or can't yet.
But say, I would like to introduce you to a top notch Christian apologist (if you haven't already met). What a complimentary and excellent exercise it would be to discuss his book The End of Reason here though I can't suggest it, being a newbie and all (sigh). Have a look at: The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists http://www.amazon.com/End-Reason-Respon ... 0310282519 Have you read Ravi at all?
Haven't heard of it. I read one called The Delusion of Disbelief, by David Aikman, that gave a fairly solid presentation, I thought. One thing to know about atheists is that they don't all believe that reason is all we need. Sam Harris, though seen as perhaps the most aggressive critic of religion, says that indeed reason isn't sufficient. So Ravi Zacharias' attempt to play off of Harris' title might not be fully successful. But, yes, I'd be willing to read the book.
Thanks for you comments.
You're welcome.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

What I'm saying here is precisely that faith does have its object from the beginning.
That is a presumption. Who says faith has it's object from the beginning? How do you know? That is the statement I said you were using as a premise, when it was really a conclusion. I strongly disagree that a child has some object of faith since birth, and would request you support that claim.
Consider the kindness of a God who creates us with the capacity to believe in Him who is our greatest good. This is a wonder. (Had you considered where this wonder comes from that, for instance, every naturalist feels when surveying nature?)
That is another conclusion you're using as a premise; that God gives us capacities such as wonder. I see no reason whatsoever to believe this statement. It simply does not conform to my world-view, it is entirely unsupported.
Truly faith is not devoid of critical thinking. For the believer in a Creator there are endless worlds of critical thinking to catch up with. God is the ultimate in mental brilliance! and "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
First of all, fear is certainly not the beginning of wisdom. That's a manipulative ploy. No one should live in fear of some ultimate being. The fear then acts as a puppeteer string. If you fear to be without fear, then you are truly lost. Love the world and your neighbors for what they are, without the veil of fear behind everything.

Faith is certainly devoid of critical thinking. This is true by the definition of the concepts. They are opposites.
Or how do you see skepticism and cynicism contrasting?
Skepticism is a healthy questioning of everything around you. It is the inquisitiveness that makes us human, and prevents us from simply accepting the words of another man. Pseudo-skepticism and cynicism are on the opposite end of the spectrum as faith. They are people who refuse to acknowledge any proposition. Healthy skepticism is in the middle, pragmatic, open to new ideas, but not so gullible that new ideas aren't taken without first examining them with critical thinking.

In what way did you first examine the Bible? Did you acknowledge that it was possible for men to speak to donkeys, for everyone on Earth to be only evil, for no poison to hurt the faithful, etc? Did you acknowledge these things as true even though they are silly? That is faith, without an ounce of critical thinking. Such acceptance is why religion is synonymous with faith, for the acceptance of dogma which is required that would never pass the filter of critical thinking.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
Truly faith is not devoid of critical thinking. For the believer in a Creator there are endless worlds of critical thinking to catch up with. God is the ultimate in mental brilliance! and "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
First of all, fear is certainly not the beginning of wisdom. That's a manipulative ploy. No one should live in fear of some ultimate being. The fear then acts as a puppeteer string. If you fear to be without fear, then you are truly lost. Love the world and your neighbors for what they are, without the veil of fear behind everything.
Can we please have the courtesy to include a tag telling us who you are quoting? It may not be important to you but it is helpful. Thank you

As for your parry that, "fear is certainly not the beginning of wisdom," that is NOT what the author you quoted said, he/she said, "[the] Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
Post Reply

Return to “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - by Sam Harris”