But you’re basing your judgment on the evidence that’s come in so far, right? While ready to revise your judgment accordingly as evidence continues to come in? While remaining somewhat skeptical by keeping in mind that the person in question may well be dissimulating? Is that an accurate portrait of how you’re describing “faith” in this context?
I don’t think anything anyone believes needs to be taken seriously by anyone else. I’d say it’s a good thing to be respectful of others especially when it doesn’t affect me.
As for this belief, why not? Hey, if it gets you through your day, keeps you good to you and yours and keeps you a productive member of society and a good neighbor ( and you don’t try and inflict it on me ) knock yourself out. If it is the reason you didn’t do evil I have no problem with it and I wouldn’t see it as my duty to debunk you and screw up one thing in your life that’s working.
In that context absolutely.
I missed the edit window but I’d like to add this, most atheists wouldn’t have a problem with this either as I already believed and many have affirmed in this thread. I’m talking about the other guys.
And what would happen when you take your car to someone calling themselves a gremlin doctor instead of to a mechanic? At best you’re merely out a lot of money, at worst, they ruin your car.
This post is a tissue of prevarication between the general and the particular, and between tendencies and definite consequences. When you unravel this for yourself (I can’t be arsed to deconstruct it all for you, frankly) you will be a long way towards understanding what is wrong with faith.
Actually **DP’s **entire gremlin in engine analogy is inapt and silly because it only sounds reasonable because **DP **knows that his gremlin view is just a whimsy: he doesn’t believe it himself. This of course says nothing about people who actually make decisions concerning their engines based upon their faith that engines are operated by gremlins, which would be an accurate analogy to religious faith.
What would happen is that I’d get me to a psychiatrist quick. Everybody knows that engine gremlins don’t respond to medicine. 
Of course, in the post that started this thread, you described “faith” differently – I say I have faith though I will freely admit there is no basis for it and scientifically my faith is incorrect. I can converse with people and discuss the irrationality of my beliefs – and now, in a different context, you’re using “faith” to mean pretty much the exact opposite of that: working to build an evidential basis while maintaining rational skepticism without being scientifically incorrect, and something something reason and something something experience.
It’s a neat piece of equivocation, but just make sure to note that “what’s wrong with faith” pertains to the former description and context rather than the latter.
I understand. When I can take the pebble from your hand, it will be time for me to leave.
Well, I was educated that there were different types of faith and that the OP was discussing blind faith which is not in the context of the above example. There is a basis for the faith but there just happens to be no certainty else it wouldn’t be faith.
I’m not sure what to say. I honestly believe that we had already clarified about different types of faiths, which kind I really meant and that I was talking about the former type of faith here not the latter.
Could be.
Of course this suggests that for some there may be an [implicit] acknowledgment that this God may actually exist, but for them ----------> insert complaint here<--------------the existence of God is pointless; they have no use for him.
But the question of such a god’s utility (or value…etc) and his existence are different threads.
Got it. So (a) just keep in mind that, when folks are addressing the OP question of what’s wrong with faith, they’re referring to the former rather than the latter; and (b) when I reply that judging someone on the merits is okay so long as you’re not going on faith, keep in mind that I’m likewise referring to the former rather than the latter.
True, and it would be an interesting discussion too I think.
You seem like someone who may (and I say may) be looking for an answer instead of an argument. If so, then I’m trying to help. My experience however is that if I rip the logic of your post to shreds you will react by arguing back as a reflexive action. But if I just hint at the logical holes but require you to find them for yourself, you will be more accepting when you do.
Is a particular personal datapoint an appropriate basis for forming a general conclusion? Does a lack of perfect correlation mean there is none? You seem too smart to believe either of these things. Go back and look at your post.
I think we’re clear on this.
No worries. It was just a tad bit too vague to be useful as presented that’s why I went the Kung Fu reply. I mean, logic presented like that honestly sounds like woo. Rereading your post I realize that I missed that you were referring to a particular post. That added to my confusion.
Ok, with the gremlin analogy I see what I did there and you’re right I was conflating the personal with the general.
The gremlin analogy is the least of your problems. You need to review closely almost every part of the post I was commenting upon.
Yep. It runs through the entire post. It is the question I’m asking though and also explains why it doesn’t feel that I’m getting the answers I want.
I am talking intensely personal. I’m not really asking why “people” do this I want to know from someone who does, why they do it. I want to understand it from a level I’m more capable of personally understanding than general answers can do. I never asked that though yet I’ve been reading the replies through that lense and that’s not what they’re saying.
I realize too that I’m using specific examples as rebuttals against a general principle so I didn’t miss that but I also realized I didn’t ask what I wanted to get answered.