I don’t believe anyone has properly responded to Pleonast’s challenge. Why should we believe that you should only pay attention to claims with evidence?
There is a clear empirical answer to this. The scientific method and faith are both valid ways of knowing/believing things (I’m not going to go into the know/believe philosophical argument here). The scientific method is reasonably reliable at producing knowledge that when applied gives us expected and desired results. In so far as it is unreliable, it is self-correcting over time.
Faith is a demonstrably unreliable way of knowing things. The simplest measurement is repeatability. Different people applying faith to the same problem with the same inputs regularly come to incompatible conclusions. The more controversial measurement is effectiveness. Acting on faith certainly does not give planned and expected results (see experiments on the power of prayer for example). Some believers claim that acting on faith gives “good” but uncontrollable or unpredicable results (God’s plan). Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up for ANY concrete non-circular definition of good that I’ve ever heard expressed.
I’d agree that faith is unreliable when it comes the physical world. It’s unfortunate that some religious tradition conflicts with science and those who are to weak to reconcile the two give faith a bad name.
It seems to me that it’s a mistake to compare faith and evidence in the physical. When it comes to moral or ethical behavior we all operate on some degree of faith and hopefully learn from experience. However experience is not completely reliable in a changing world and dealing with different people.
IMHO faith as described in
Is something we all use in certain areas of our lives. There’s no other way to operate.
No, we don’t. First, people who operate on faith cannot by definition “learn from experience” or any other way. Paying any attention to experiences is directly opposite to faith. And by the same token one cannot operate on faith when it comes to morality, because since it denies the real world faith is amoral at best. You can’t exercise meaningful morality when you are acting according to imaginary principles concerning imaginary things, like God’s Will and souls.
Someone operating on faith is operating on the same level as a ( badly ) preprogrammed machine, which is not a moral position. They are acting according to preset rules which have no particular relation to the real world.
Argument by assertion. There is no reason to believe that people who operate on faith do not learn, in fact, the opposite is true. Every single person who operates on faith does learn from experience, this is demonstrable and provable. It’s an objective fact. In this, you are simply wrong.
The brain simply does not work like this. You’re making up some bullshit to suit your own bias. Though you are presenting yourself as fairly good evidence for your thesis. You have complete faith that you are right.
No I’m not wrong; the ones who learn are hypocrites or aren’t learning about anything involved with their faith. If they really were operating on faith they wouldn’t learn; how could they? Learning requires admitting you were wrong or ignorant, at least to yourself; that is the opposite of faith.
And quite a few don’t learn; specifically the ones who do disastrously stupid things again and again despite being warned and despite their own experiences. Those are people operating on faith. The people who refuse to give their children medical care instead of prayer even after one dies? That is faith.
To be fair, some people latch onto religion not simply to parrot what their parents told them, but because of an intense epiphanic experience.
Of course, that only proves the complexity of neurochemistry, not the existence of God.
To move the argument from faith vs science as a way of knowing to faith vs reasoning as a moral system just moves onto even more shaky ground.
Christian religion is one of the easier examples to attack, but all faith-based moralities have the same problem …
It contains no method of extrapolation to new situations
It isn’t consistent
It isn’t complete even over the types of situations it deals with
There is no mechanism for resolving conflicts between principles held by one person, let alone principles held by different people.
You can always come up with situations where utilitarian moral systems give apparently non-intuitive results, but faith based deontological systems are riddled with inconsistencies with no way of fixing them but more revelation.
Faith doesn’t exclude reasoning as part of a moral system, in fact all moral systems include an element of faith as we use reason and experience to make choices and move forward.
There’s nothing to indicate it was the intention of religious faith based moral systems to cover every possible scenario and remain unchanging from generation to generation even though some religious folks approach it that way. This is demonstrated by religious groups applying the larger principles to modern questions and arriving at varied conclusions.
So, unless you’re talking about a very small potion of particular groups 1 through 4 are incorrect.
Hold on a second - you’ve started using a meaning of “faith” that isn’t the one the discussion so far has been based on, but you haven’t spelled out the difference.
If something starts as revelation (faith) and then adapts based on empirical experience, there comes a point where the beliefs are not faith but empirical observation. The comparison to this is faith adapted by further revelation (eg the Mormon council or the Catholic Pope) which has all the application problems of the original faith.
To claim that religious groups applying the “larger principles” to modern questions and arriving at varied conclusions is a SUCCESS of faith against the issues I raised is a measure or meaning of success that I am not familiar with. It isn’t exactly consistent or repeatable, it isn’t exactly broadly applicable.
I disagree with this. Many religions, especially Judaism, have rules and blessings for practically everything a person living at the time the Bible was written would want to do. At the time, people did not have the concept of change, so notice that the Bible, unlike the Constitution, has no means of modifying its moral system. Which makes sense, since if you assume that the rules are handed down by a supreme deity there should be no reason to change. What happened was when the rules got out of sync with reality, there was a religious revolution.
It is interesting that as religion caught up with the fact that society changes some have added mechanisms for modifying morality, such as the Pope issuing encyclicals. This is just delegating God’s work to man - if a God was really around, and really cared, he could speak to us more or less directly.