# What's wrong with faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156 "2010-12-23T05:05:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/61 "2010-12-23T17:14:04Z")
> [@in\_hiding](#): > > The pills **are** providing a physical effect. They trick the brain into thought patterns that make healing more likely. It’s very real. I’m as much a physicalist as they come, but placebos and even meditation seems perfectly plausible to me. The brain is connected to the body, so you don’t have to buy into woo to admit that fooling the brain can improve your health. There was also a study showing that the same drug or placebo works better if the person taking it thinks it is expensive. And of course all these effects are measurable - no faith required at all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/62 "2010-12-23T17:24:59Z")
> [@in\_hiding](#): > > The pills **are** providing a physical effect. They trick the brain into thought patterns that make healing more likely. It’s very real. That’s a psychological effect, not a physical one. The pills don’t _physically_ do anything, and they also don’t heal anything. They can temporarily use suggestion to alleviate pain or discomfort, but they don’t actually change or heal the physical causes. It’s not even the pills _per se_ which cause the placebo effect. It’s the suggestion from the pill giver. I guess this would be analogous to religious faith in that it can lead to a false beliefthat a problem has been solved when it hasn’t been (actually faith healing uses exactly the same psychological phenomenon). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/63 "2010-12-23T17:37:54Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I can only speak for myself but, as far as I’m concerned, people can believe whatever the heck they want as long as it doesn’t impact my life in any way. Nailed in the first post. Faith without action is perfectly okay with me. ---
**Author:** ![in\_hiding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c5a1d2/32.png) [@in\_hiding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/in_hiding)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/64 "2010-12-23T18:18:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s a psychological effect, not a physical one. The pills don’t _physically_ do anything, and they also don’t heal anything. They can temporarily use suggestion to alleviate pain or discomfort, but they don’t actually change or heal the physical causes. It’s not even the pills _per se_ which cause the placebo effect. It’s the suggestion from the pill giver. Well, it’s measurable, it’s empirically tested, so it’s physical enough for me. But yeah, you couldn’t see from a blood sample if anyone was taking placebos. I just wanted to contrast that the placebo effect is well understood and very much part of the physical world - there’s no need for faith in it. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/65 "2010-12-23T18:29:01Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Today I’m going to ask the question, “what’s wrong with faith”? It’s a more broad question than the one that prompted it which is, “what’s so important about being right”? To take a flippant stance and borrowing a tactic of some of the more annoying (though sometimes sincere) believers; because with faith in an Abrahamic god, _anything goes_. This kind of god is the negation of any kind of moral standard. Kill, rape, maim, torture, whatever. It’s all fine and even encouraged if your god happens to wake up in a bad mood that day. Even if your god disapproved, never mind, just ask for his forgiveness and you’re fine and dandy. But if you don’t ask him to treat you like a lowly worm, no matter what else you did or didn’t do, when you’re done and dead, god himself will make all of that look like a pleasant evening in the pub. It’s bloody disgusting. Fine if you want to believe it, but don’t tell me you’re doing anything praise worthy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/66 "2010-12-23T18:33:11Z")
> [@in\_hiding](#): > > Well, it’s measurable, it’s empirically tested, so it’s physical enough for me. What is physically measurable about it? The placebo effect does not cause physiological changes or healing. It’s just superficially analgesic. It causes the brain to release natural endorphins which temporarily relive pain. It can also make people “feel better” in a more subjective sense in that it can make them think their condition is improving (when it isn’t), so it makes them more optimistic and makes their mood better, but placebos can’t actually kill cancer cells or physically heal anything. The suggestion can just change the way they feel emotionally about it and cause the brain to bomb them with it’s own natural painkillers. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/67 "2010-12-23T18:42:28Z")
I’ll assume by “faith” you mean “believing something without evidence”. Generally this is a Bad Thing. If you don’t base your beliefs about the world on empirical observation, then they’re much less likely to be correct. This will often lead you to do things that are either useless or destructive. For example, in a dangerous situation you might waste time praying instead of trying to figure out how to save yourself or others. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/68 "2010-12-23T18:43:03Z")
> [@martu](#): > > You can avoid the danger by discounting faith. Easy. Really? Atheists can’t get dementia or Alzheimers and fall prey to manipulation? Neat. Now there’s a reason I can get behind. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/69 "2010-12-23T18:46:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Turn the question around: What **good** is faith? Well, it makes me happy. It helps me calm myself when facing a crisis. I’ve had jobs where I had to make quick decisions with others life on the line. The exact beliefs that gave me the calm never came up when I was making these decisions but the calmness to not crumble under the crisis sure was. More specifically, it fought the natural fear of holding such responsibility. That’s one good that came to mind. ---
**Author:** ![in\_hiding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c5a1d2/32.png) [@in\_hiding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/in_hiding)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/70 "2010-12-23T18:49:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What is physically measurable about it? The placebo effect does not cause physiological changes or healing. It’s just superficially analgesic. It causes the brain to release natural endorphins which temporarily relive pain. It can also make people “feel better” in a more subjective sense in that it can make them think their condition is improving (when it isn’t), so it makes them more optimistic and makes their mood better, but placebos can’t actually kill cancer cells or physically heal anything. The suggestion can just change the way they feel emotionally about it and cause the brain to bomb them with it’s own natural painkillers. I was just reading the Wikipedia article about placebos looking for numbers and/or quotes, and it turns out that you are right - the measurable impact on sicknesses with “binary” results is insignificant. I had the impression that placebos can help here too, for a tiny fraction. Interesting. Still, even the “feeling better” - effect **is** physical - higher endorphin levels do show up in a blood test. It’s not a miracle healing, of course not, but that was never open to debate. All I mentioned was a physical impact on the patient. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/71 "2010-12-23T18:51:00Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Really? Atheists can’t get dementia or Alzheimers and fall prey to manipulation? Neat. Now there’s a reason I can get behind. **martu** did not say all danger. Yet again I ask you to define “faith” for the purposes of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/72 "2010-12-23T18:52:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Again, which definition of faith are we talking about in this thread? Is it “blind faith” in which no evidence is required to acquire it(and thus no evidence is able to shake it), or is it faith based on previous experience and available evidence? Sorry, saw this earlier and ran out of time. Honestly, I’m not the person to ask about the real definition of faith as I’m not sure I even have whatever that is. Either kind of faith works for what I’m asking though since I’m only asking what would make someone aggressively dismissive of someone holding a faith. Now, blind faith in something harmful is another thing. I’m pretty much talking self affecting faith because again, I see no problem fighting harmful faith when it comes up. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/73 "2010-12-23T18:56:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **martu** did not say all danger. > Yet again I ask you to define “faith” for the purposes of this thread. Wow, I’m a little too slow for the board. Sorry again. **martu** said the danger and as far as I know we were discussing one specific type of danger so I didn’t see the need to clarify he didn’t mean all danger but I will do that. **martu** , can you tell me what specific danger you meant that ties into my statement of worrying about dementia instead of faith and would be solved by not having faith? I ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/74 "2010-12-23T18:57:57Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > I’m pretty much talking self affecting faith because again, I see no problem fighting harmful faith when it comes up. How do you distinguish between the good kind of faith and the bad kind of faith? In advance, I mean … before someone does something obviously good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/75 "2010-12-23T19:00:46Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Honestly, I’m not the person to ask about the real definition of faith as I’m not sure I even have whatever that is. It’s _your_ thread, for Rao’s sake! Open up a dictionary, pick a definition, and get back to us. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/76 "2010-12-23T19:01:49Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Got it, the only alternative is that I am either ignorant or lacking in critical thinking because I choose not to discount a feeling that I realize has no effect on the world around me but internally makes me feel better. I am extremely likely to be using that as criteria for all types of things I am not consciously factoring my beliefs into. I am so weak of mind that I can’t tell the difference. > > I’m good with that though I must commend your omnipotence to know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I’d never be able to state such things with such authority because clearly there’s no way you could be wrong and you’re only presenting an opinion of how you feel iwhich of course you then act on. I can clearly see where your knowledge of this certainty which you act on, is clearly knowledge based and not a belief of how definitively every human mind operates so it’s not similar to what I am doing at all. So you are telling me that a literal belief in the Flying Spaghetti monster does not reflect a lack of critical thinking, and/or ignorance? (that was the example I was working with in my post) Secondly, to assume that your “feeling” can be so compartmentalized as to have no impact on the outside world is the height of arrogance, despite your clearly earnest desire to paint me in such a light. (BTW it is this basic logic is that you are sarcastically describing as “omniscient knowledge” on my part: belief in flying spaghetti monster =\> lack of critical thinking =\> indirect impact on decision making) ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/77 "2010-12-23T19:11:41Z")
> [@in\_hiding](#): > > Faith has the big problem that it does not require evidence. You believe something, but you don’t get (or use) any feedback from the world to see if you are actually right. I think a big reason for the success of Christianism in America is the vast amount of positive feedback they get. Everything re-enforces faith. If you are rich, you thank god for your success. If you are poor, you thank god for testing you. If you get sick, it is god’s will. If you get better, you thank god for healing you. No matter what happens, the whole community assures you that your faith is strong and everything is going the way god wants it to. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/78 "2010-12-23T19:19:46Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’re not talking about different types of faith, you’re talking about different types of people. One Muslim has faith in Islam and crashes a plane into a building and a more “moderate” Muslim may interpret his holy texts differently and choose to not harm himself or others yet pray, fast and teach his kids their Christian friends are going to Hell. The faith isn’t different; their interpretations of what their god commands of them are. His kids, however, may want to fly into a building one day or believe it’s okay to beat his wife and will most likely pass on the same faith virus to his kids. > > You’re asking what’s wrong with the kind of faith that doesn’t hurt anyone as if it’s separate from faith that doesn’t. It’s not. Ok, all faith is together as one thing and there is no difference from any faith to another? If I have faith that Johnny isn’t holding pocket kings I’m on the same road as a christian telling their kids their friends are going to Hell? I don’t even believe in Hell so yeah, if my holding my beliefs are making you think that I’m the kind of guy who will do this to my kids then yeah, that answers my question as to why you’d be hostile and aggressive whenever I state my beliefs but it doesn’t really strike me as logical or fact based at all. It sounds more like making assumptions due to how your mind works not how the human mind works in general. > [@](#): > > Cite? Seriously, you don’t know that. You think it’s harmless to be raised being told your Jewish friends are going to Hell, God’s watching you whack off, etc? > > See this: > [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705.html) > > and this: > > [Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse | Pope Benedict XVI | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids) > > Just a couple examples out of many. That’s faith in action and it’s far from harmless. I never said that. I never said that there weren’t specifically dangerous or bad faiths. Unlike you, I don’t hold every faith exactly equal though. I’m saying that despite that, the vast majority of the humans in the world profess some faith and most of them, heck the vast majority of them function rationally enough for us to advance as a species so yeah, neither of us can prove a cite. > [@](#): > > That’s great, but plenty of people don’t reject it. They not only believe if you pick the wrong religion you go to Hell, they sometimes succeed in instilling this fear in others. Harmless? Let me guess- you’re not talking about _that_ kind of faith; you’re talking about the kind where you believe there’s someone in the sky watching you but you don’t pass this on to your kids and you never let it affect you negatively, right? Among other beliefs certainly. I’m also talking about people who believe that the universe itself is a higher entity for example and we’re all part of that. In other words, those who do not believe in a personal god at all. I’m talking about faith in the unprovable. You are trying to again fit me into a religious box but that’s not me. > [@](#): > > Does it matter? Do you know anyone that believes in the FSM? I can’t answer because I don’t know what sort of beliefs one would have regarding the FSM. Ask a genuine question that actually pertains to people in real life like what the difference is between believing in the Abrahamic God and not having irrational beliefs and I’m sure you’ll get more answers. I dunno, what does the FSM stand for, I might get behind it if it is espousing what I believe in. Wouldn’t matter as I’d be believing in the ideals, not the specific fiction but just like other forms of fiction having a FSM makes it easier for people with those beliefs to work with than trying to lay theory on them. That’s what makes fiction valuable. It gives you an outline of a thought you can work with. > [@](#): > > As you can see in the responses in this thread, atheists in general wouldn’t give a damn about silly faith based beliefs if they never harmed anyone. But you’re either pretending or mistaken in believing there’s a harmless type of faith that exists in a vacuum. It doesn’t. That’s why we care. I don’t see that though. I have no surviving close family. I am not part of any groups or affiliations. I don’t wear any beliefs on my shoulders nor is there any way that I can affect people on my job due to any beliefs. I haven’t even laid any of them out here in a discussion about beliefs. If you’re saying that I’m harming someone then it’s simply the fact that I exist that is doing it and I can’t help existing. Maybe the answer to the OP is because those with belief are viewed as abominations by the type of people who would aggressively scorn them? ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/79 "2010-12-23T19:22:48Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > It’s an irrational epistemology. > > Completely depends on the context. Personally, I don’t care if someone believes that bigfoot exists (I suppose, as long as they aren’t wasting tons of resources on it). It’s fairly harmless. Now, someone believing that their race is superior and that other races should be exterminated, is a belief that I think warrants an attempt to correct the person. > > This is typical - whenever someone’s paradigm shift, there is usually a period where they become evangelical about it. > > Two reasons - one is the reason above and the second is because people often effect the lives of others based on their religious faith. So, for instance, they would vote for candidates to effect policy _based_ on that religious faith, which would in turn effect the atheist, sometimes extremely negatively. > > It’s not that it always hurts, it’s that it _can_ hurt. > > Suppose that the faith you are referring to demanded that you killed homosexuals, would you still see it as harmless? We all agree it can hurt and we all agree it must be confronted when it does. Are you saying that this risk is so bad we need to proactively stamp out any belief lest it become that type of belief? Again, think bigfoot not flying planes into buildings. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/80 "2010-12-23T19:27:10Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > You do realize that if you relied only on faith, both of those faiths (the harmful and the non harmful) are equal, don’t you? Meaning, without criticizing them or trying to find flaws in them, a person would have no recourse in choosing one over the other. > > Which is the danger of faith. Well, hmm, I don’t agree with the first sentence if you mean to the believer. Presumably their faith is in line with their beliefs and they would be able to sort out which is harmful and non harmful. I’ve never been someone to just randomly pick a faith and oh well, sucks if I disagreed with it personally, I’ll just have to change my own thoughts to match this new belief. There could be people out there like that but I’d like to give people more credit than that and assume that it worked the other way around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156.md?page=5)