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.