>The problem with faith is indicated by the fact that it allows a
>person to believe *anything* that he can vaguely conceive of,
>totally without regard for whether there is any basis in reality or
>not. It has essentially the same reality-linkedness as does flipping a
>coin to answer the same questions that faith is supposed to answer.
Do you have an empirical demonstration of this claim or
is this an expression of your faith about faith?
[snip]
>Ultimately, because there is no objective basis for faith
>itself (it is a "method" of no actual method at all),
How do you know there is no objective basis for faith?
By faith?
>and because it is empirically demonstrable that most faith-beliefs
>are false,
Huh?
>a rational person has to reject faith.
Define a "rational person".
>Historically, faith has fared no better. Every major evil of human
>history has been perpetrated on the basis of faith, without exception,
>as have been most minor evils as well.
This very type of rhetoric could also be used to smear the concepts
of "the good" and "love."
>It is not an accident that the Dark Ages were also
>the period in European history in which faith was at its maximum.
An empirically minded person such as you should clearly understand
that correlation does not equal cause.
>It was not an accident that Hitler denounced reason and advocated
>"thought" and action based on mindless passion.
As the great scholar, Allan Bullock, has written:
"The truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was a
rationalist and materialist.....Hitler's belief in his own destiny held
him back from a thorough-going atheism."
You confuse Hitler's propagandistic agenda with his larger
objectives. Hitler and the Nazi's viewed their own views as
being quite rational and scientific and the advocation of mindless
passion on the part of the general public was a "means to a greater
end" socio-political plan. It's kind of like members of the inner circle
of a political party that think universal health care is the only
rational solution. But they recognize charts and figures won't
get the public behind them as well as propagandistic fear-mongering.
They don't have faith in the ability of reason to bring about changes.
And I hate to break it to you, but the social evils associated with Hitler
(i.e., the Holocaust) where a logical outgrowth of the science of
the day (the science of eugenics). German scientists were impressed
with the American eugenics movement. If you read some articles
from the Journal of Heredity (as I have) that date from 1910-1930,
you'll find plenty of arguments/claims that sound like something
a good Nazi would say. You see, eugenics always flirted with bigotry
and it should be no surprise that when a bigot like Hitler came to
power, the foundations laid by this science would be exploited.
[snip]
>All major wars are based on faith.
Greed seems to be more fundamental.
>Genocide is based on faith.
Hatred seems to be more fundamental.
>Racism, a form of genetic collectivism, is based on faith.
Not too long ago, it was also based on science. Racism
expresses itself in many ways, suggesting it is more
fundamental that faith.
>Slavery is based on faith.
Greed seems to be more fundamental.
>As Ayn Rand and others have pointed out so
>eloquently, faith and force go hand in hand, because, when
>reason is no longer available to resolve disputes, force is all that's
>left (or abject surrender).
The empirical evidence doesn't indicate that reason is a very
effective means of resolving disputes based on prejudice,
hatred, greed, and selfishness.
But you argue like a politician in ignoring the good things
faith is associated with. Human relationships could not
exist without faith. Faith in another person often builds
up that person and makes him/her a better person. Faith in
our work often gives thus the impetus to proceed, even
when the odds are stacked against us. Our Founding Fathers
must have had faith in the system of government they
designed. And there is a growing body of scientific
literature which argues that religious faith is tied to various
positive psychological dynamics (i.e., a better ability to
deal with depression and handle traumatic life events).
Of course, maybe the problem is in how we define faith.
I don't define it as "belief without evidence", I define
faith merely as trust.
>In recent times, more attempts have been made to reconcile
>faith and reason, especially in the form of reconciling faith and
>science. It is true that some scientists have been religious, but it is not
>true that this shows that faith and science are compatible.
>They are not, but not because of disputes over particular matters of
>facts (e.g., whether there really are moons circling Jupiter, or even
>whether abiogenesis occurred or occurs). They are incompatible
>because faith represents a rejection of *the* fundamental rule
>of rational belief:
> Believe all -- but *only* -- what you have rationally adequate
> cognitive basis for thinking to be true -- and be very careful
> about how easily and why you conclude that *do* you have
> rationally adequate cognitive basis for a belief.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't reflect historical
reality (although you probably have no beliefs about history as they
all would involve some element of faith). Specifically, modern
science was birthed by men of faith, men trying to "think God's
thoughts after Him." Faith could hardly be incompatible with
science because faith birthed modern science. For example, it
was faith in a linear view of history that allowed for "scientific
progress" to emerge. It was faith which allowed some to extrapolate
terrestrial dynamics to explain celestial events. Or, as Paul Davies
noted:
"In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of
science has faded [note that science began with a "theological
dimension"- mike]. People take it for granted that the physical world is
both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the
laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts.
Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so
in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist
accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that
there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike
order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So
science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially
theological world view."
[snip]
>In any case, I find it hard to see how anyone knowing anything about
>current beliefs worldwide or popular beliefs historically, or who can
>even examine his own beliefs introspectively, can believe that faith
>is a "rock."
Faith is a rock because our perceptions are limited, our minds
are not perfect, our desires are often more powerful than reason,
and reality is ambiguous. Those who use faith to understand The
Truth acknowledge the role of their faith; those who claim reason
shows The Truth don't.
Mike