[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
when Sam Harris made his case for removing the protected status of religious beliefs I agreed and I seem to remember most of the atheists on this board strongly agreeing as well. It seem odd to me that when it comes to the subject of faith there seems to be an effort to keep “religious” faith separate from the day to day faith every human operates on. I suppose that makes it easier to ridicule and criticize. Certain aspects of faith deserve criticism but IMO if we hope to understand it better and contribute towards progress we must look at the inner mechanics of faith that we all share, believer and non believer alike.
DT uses a broad brush to paint all religious faith with the same characteristics. It’s ludicrous. If he could be more specific and nuanced I’d agree with some of his points, but as it is, his exaggerated approach ruins any valid underlying truth for me.
Looking at faith as an emotional and mental phenomenon we an see that what occurs within the details of religion also occurs outside religion.
Trust. Based on experience we trust our significant other or our best friend. We are aware that it’s possible they could do us wrong and life changes but we go on with “faith” based on past experiences.
When parents teach their kids about God and Jesus wouldn’t you call that an example of trust? When someone has a powerful subjective experience and they translate it with the influence of those around them wouldn’t that be an example of trust? People trust the good intentions and the “knowledge” of the people around them. When people hear a repeated meme from good people around them
they are inclined to accept it as true. That sounds like trust to me.
What interests and disturbs me about faith is the strength of the emotional attachment people seem to have for certain doctrine and dogma. Why does it seem to be a “must” to believe certain things. Is it just being a part of the certain group that is important? Do people need acceptance from their denomination of choice so much that they are emotionally unable to question the details? It sure seems so. Can’t we see something very similar outside religion in families and other groups. I think so.
IMO it’s not religion per say but the emotional need or the emotional disconnect that causes people to cling to false beliefs and deny or rationalize in spite of what the evidence suggests.
It’'s important to note that faith in spiritual matters does not have to include a denial of evidence and the kind of closed mind often attributed to a fundamentalists. The classic definition in Hebrews 11
does not have to be the kind of blind faith that denies evidence. We go forward moment to moment acting on faith about our world, our relationships with those close to us. We operate on what we believe is true even though a new experience or new evidence may alter our beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
It is common for beliefs to have strong emotional attachments. There are very strong emotional attachments being displayed in this thread in the name of science. A very strong belief that science is reason and religion is folly. Why shouldn’t those who believe in religion feel as strongly about their faith and scientists do about science. There is a lot of talk about blind faith, but to spiritual people there is no blind faith. The distrust is building between those scientists who wish to deny religion its rightful place and those religionists who wish to deny science its rightful place. Science will never replace nor destroy religion, ala Richard Dawkins, so how about learning to live in peace with each other.
I believe the elections next year will be greatly influence by the rift. Probably not in the manner favorable to science.