marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) <1r2eba$hsq@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> wrote: >I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but I disagree with >your reasoning.  (Faith = Bad.  Dogma = Bad.  Religion -> (Faith ^ Dogma). >Religion -> (Bad ^ Bad).  Religion -> Bad.)  Unfortunately, you never  >state why faith and dogma are dangerous.    Faith and dogma are dangerous because they cause people to act on faith alone, which by its nature is without justification.  That is what I mean by the word ``faith'': belief without justification, or belief with arbitrary justification, or with emotional (irrational) justification.  For example, when someone says that God exists, that they don't know why they believe God exists, they can just feel it, that's faith.  Dogma is bad because it precludes positive change in belief based on new information, or increased mental faculty. > >So Christians are totally irrational?  Irrational with respect to their >religion only?  What are you saying?  One's belief in a Christian God does >not make one totally irrational.  I think I know what you were getting at, >but I'd rather hear you expand on the subject.  Faith and dogma are irrational.  The faith and dogma part of any religion are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals.  I claim that faith and dogma are the quintessential part of any religion.  If that makes (the much overused in this context) Buddism a philosophy rather than a religion, I can live with that.  Science is not a religion, because there is no faith nor dogma. > >>A philosopher cannot be a Christian because a philosopher can change his mind, >>whereas a Christian cannot, due to the nature of faith and dogma present >>in any religion. > >Again, this statement is too general.  A Christian is perfectly capable of >being a philosopher, and absolutely capable of changing his/her mind.  Faith in >God is a belief, and all beliefs may change.  Would you assert that atheists >would make poor philosophers because they are predisposed to not believe in a >God which, of course, may show unfair bias when studying, say, religion?  Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists?  If a philosopher is not an atheist, s/he tends to be called a theologian.  A Christian tends to consider Christianity sacred.  Christianity is a special set of beliefs, sanctioned by God himself, and therefore, to conceive of changing those beliefs is to question the existence of That Being Who Makes No Mistakes.  Faith comes into play.  Dogma comes into play.  ``The lord works in mysterious ways'' is an example of faith being used to reconcile evidence that the beliefs are flawed. Sure, interpretations of what ``God said'' are changed to satisfy the needs of society, but when God says something, that's it.  It was said, and that's that.  Since God said it, it is unflawed, even if the interpretations are flawed.  Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma. A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND, *AND*, ****AND***, a scientist understands that any current beliefs are deficient in some way.  The goal is to keep improving the beliefs.  The goal is to keep changing the beliefs to reflect the best information currently available.  That's the only rational thing to do.  That's good philosophy.  Can you see the difference?  Science views beliefs as being flawed, and new information can be obtained to improve them.  (How many scientists would claim to have complete and perfect understanding of everything?  None---it would put them out of a job!)  Religion views its beliefs as being perfect, and the interpretations of those beliefs must be changed as new information is acquired which conflicts with them. > >Please explain how "just because" thinking kills people.  (And please >state more in your answer than "Waco.")  It's easier for someone to kill a person when s/he doesn't require a good rational justification of the killing.  I don't consider ``he's Jewish'', or ``he was born of Jewish parents'', or ``this document says he's Jewish'' to be good rational justification.  >By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide >was a problem.  Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents.   >Mass suicides are far from common.  Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this. It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could.