Faith Is Immoral

My apologies to Con on round 3. I was unable to respond in a timely manner due to unforeseen circumstances. I had a number of issues that I had wished to address in this debate but, as this is concluding arguments, I will only touch upon what has already been addressed. To start with, I agree with both your rebuttals: Rebuttal one: Although faith is a form of belief, it is not always necessarily a choice. Rebuttal two: Not all faith-based beliefs inspire actions with negative effects on the self and/or others. However, where I disagree is with you is in your conclusion. You conclusion does not follow from your rebuttals. Specifically, when you say that, "morality is not applicable in this situation." This is not true. Morality is applicable in this situation because intentions do not dictate whether an action is moral or immoral. Rather, as you agreed to in round 1, the word "immoral" applies to anything that is contrary to human well being. This debate is not about the intent of our actions. But rather the outcomes of our actions. To put this into context I'll go ahead and use the example you provided of an isolated tribe in Africa. If they had a ritual of throwing a virgin into a volcano every year to appease the gods the action would be immoral. It would be in direct conflict with human well being. It does not matter if they have - or have not - had an opportunity to question or challenge the beliefs of their ancestors. The action is immoral. Because what is morally true is entirely dependent upon what is actually true. And what is actually true is that the virgins are dying for no good reason. This line of logic applies to your home school analogy as well. What makes an action moral or immoral is not intent. It is the effect. You state that "morality requires a conscious action." While I do agree that morality requires "agency" I do NOT accept that it requires a conscious action. Once again, I'll use the example of an airline pilot who is responsible for the souls on board his plane. If he falls asleep, crashes the plane into the ground, and kills everyone on board - that is not a conscious action. It is not something he intended to do. However, falling asleep and crashing the plane is none the less an immoral action. It is contrary to human well being. He failed to protect those on board even if his failure was not intentional. Neither my premises - nor do my conclusion - state that faith is immoral because it "always" leads to immoral actions. Rather, faith is immoral because it is the worst possible system for making determinations about reality. To believe something that is NOT evidently true - or, conversely, is evidently NOT true - is to abandon due diligence. Faith can only come by moral outcomes by accident. And to leave human well being to accident is immoral. Human well being must be protected and championed by informed decision making. And there is nothing less informed than faith. There is an enormous difference between believing something on bad evidence vs. believing something with no evidence. We have all been victims of bad evidence but no one can claim to be the victim of their own faith. It is easily combated by curiosity and education. And there is no excuse for having faith in anything because in the absence of evidence one can always choose to with hold judgment. Or, better yet, go out and find some answers. You next go on to claim that, "there is no example of Buddhist faith driving harmful/immoral actions." I am sorry to inform you but your statement is demonstrably false. I have enormous respect for a great many teachings of Eastern philosophy. However, it is undeniable that Buddhism has a darker side. I would encourage you to look up Ashin Wirathu a Buddhist monk in Myanmar who has recently led attacks against Muslim and Christian places of worship. And who's extremist rhetoric led to the deaths over 200 Muslims who were killed in August last year by Buddhist mobs in the Myanmar district of Rakhine. All of this done because of their "faith." The more faith a person has - the more committed they are to their unsubstantiated views. And, quite often, the more faith a person has the more extreme those views are. Though the immorality of Buddhism doesn't just stem from its extremist. It is also embedded in the teachings of Karma. A teaching that says you get what you deserve. A young girl who is raped "deserves it" because of some unknown crime she committed in a former life. Faith in Karma corrupts humanity and compassion and handicaps the need for justice. Such faith allows people to believe by the millions what only an insane person could believe by themselves. Baseless actions can have negative effects that are preventable. And effecting people negatively, especially when it is preventable, is immoral. To believe something on faith is to throw away reason. And with out reason you have no way of gauging the possible outcomes of your actions. In closing, I'll leave you with the following scenario: imagine a sniper trying to take out a gunman in a room full of hostages. This sniper accounts for the wind and other barometrics. He calculates where the cross hairs need to be and carefully lines up his shot. He does everything he can to make sure the gunman, and not the hostages, gets the bullet. Now, by contrast, compare that with a second sniper who, instead of carefully lining up his shot, instead closes his eyes, points his gun in the general direction, and fires. Would that be a moral action? Would that produce human well being? Of course not. It would be reckless and endanger the people they are trying to save. Such is the nature of faith. It is blind and reckless and it puts ourselves and others in bad situations we need not ever be in. And that is why faith is immoral.