The Root Of All Evil?

[C1ay]

The root of all evil is a two part documentary by Richard Dawkins, part 1,

The God Delusion

and part 2,

The Virus Of Faith

.

The God Delusion explores the unproven beliefs that are treated as factual by many religions and the extremes to which some followers have all taken them. Dawkins opens the programme by describing the "would-be murderers who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they're motivated by what they think is the highest ideal." Dawkins argues that "the process of non-thinking called faith" is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous.

In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of all children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes.

Both of these videos are about 45 minutes so broadband is recommended. Google video also has The God Delusion in 5 parts for slower connections.

Like Dawkins I wonder why people leap to conclusions on faith. I wonder why they decide that contrary possibilities to their beliefs are not possibilities at all. Is faith the virus that Dawkins claims it is?

P.S.
FWIW I originally thought this probably belonged under Theology but on second thought it occured to me that the issue I'm raising here is to what extent is faith an obstacle to real science and the scientific method so I've placed it in general philosophy and it is my intent that it will not be a thread that's only about God so please stay on topic.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by C1ay

...In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of all children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes.
...
Like Dawkins I wonder why people leap to conclusions on faith. I wonder why they decide that contrary possibilities to their beliefs are not possibilities at all. Is faith the virus that Dawkins claims it is?

P.S.
FWIW I originally thought this probably belonged under Theology but on second thought it occured to me that the issue I'm raising here is to what extent is faith an obstacle to real science and the scientific method so I've placed it in general philosophy and it is my intent that it will not be a thread that's only about God so please stay on topic.

I watched about 15 minutes of The Virus of Faith before I became sick at my stomach. I wish Dr. Dawkins the best of luck. I hold the opinion as does he, that there is no greater obstacle to science & reason extant than religious faith.

As to the 'why' of it, I roll with the emerging area of study called 'bio-theology'*or 'neuro-theology', which posits that blind faith had the evolutionary advantage of subjecting the fear emergent in humans as they evolved into self-awareness and the realization each individual has that they are ultimately going to die. One can only hope the structures in the brain responsible for blind faith go the way of the appendix. Suffer the children unto me indeed.

* Biotheology

[TheFaithfulStone]

Faith and science are only incompatible to the extent people misunderstand what they mean.

Science is a method, and a mental framework. It is how you LEARN things and how you organize your knowledge.

Faith is an outlook, and an attitude. It's how you assign meaning to what you've learned, and how your organize that meaning.

(And I'm not talking about "assign meaning" like - "this result means these two things are related," I'm talking about "meaning" in the larger philosophical sense. Science CANNOT provide that meaning, it's a question that's outside of it's purview, because it's a question that no scientific experiment can falsify an answer to. Science can never tell you what it MEANS to be human.)

Let us say we are hungry. We require sustenance.

Science tells you why a sandwhich is better for you than a ding-dong.
Philosophy tells you why you would rather not die of hunger or ding-dong overdoses.
Faith is the sense of the purpose and place of your sandwich.
Art is a symbol of why sandwiches are important.
Culture is a shared pattern of sandwich-making among people.

None of the answers provided by any one of those disciplines however, make any sense at all without the answers provided by all of them.

Furthermore, you don't need to believe that God has ordained that you should eat sandwiches for you to have "faith" that the act of eating a sandwich has purpose and meaning. You may believe that God has a place for you, and that destroying yourself by subsisting entirely on ding-dongs is a sin. You may believe that you have something to offer to human evolution, or that you should stay alive simply because you prefer it to alternative. Those are all matters of faith. There is simply no reasonable explanation for why any of us should continue to exist (or for that matter, that we should all cease to exist.) You either believe that it's some sort of supernatural plan from above, or you believe that it's better than the alternative, or you believe that the universe would be better off if we were to all die.

I'm pretty sure that if you ask "Why is that?" enough times to any person you end up with "Just Because." eventually. Where is the point where aggressive atheists like Dawkins end up with some non-answer like that? Where is the point where aggressive religious jerks end up with a non-answer? That's the interesting question about people's belief.

TFS

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I hold the opinion as does he, that there is no greater obstacle to science & reason extant than religious faith.

Anymore it is not just religious faith that bothers me but faith in general. Look at the recent Duke Lacross case where the prosecuter had faith that they were in fact guilty to the point that he obstructed his own investigation. His faith obstructed the search for truth. I wonder how many individuals have been coerced into a confession because of an officers faith of their guilt only to find themselves in the death chamber. Throughout law faith obstructs justice.

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Anymore it is not just religious faith that bothers me but faith in general. Look at the recent Duke Lacross case where the prosecuter had faith that they were in fact guilty to the point that he obstructed his own investigation. His faith obstructed the search for truth. I wonder how many individuals have been coerced into a confession because of an officers faith of their guilt only to find themselves in the death chamber. Throughout law faith obstructs justice.

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

Makes sense to me that we accept first a common agreement on what faith means. No better start than the dictionary.

Originally Posted by dictionary

faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
faith
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I think the prosecutor you mention- if indeed he had faith at all- took actions of faith as in #3 above.

Your question of 'where does faith come from' however seems a best fit with definition #1, and so the 'origin' of faith(confidence) depends on each individual's experiences and their ability to logically fit them into a paradigm. As with the thread 'what is religion', I suggest the confidence is a matter of attributing authority to elements experienced without further questioning that authority once it is established, per the experiments of Stanley Milgram.

The reason 'we' don't do a better job teaching skepticism is perhaps that it is counter to most teachers' purposes to give the learners reasons to doubt the teacher. In this vein, I agree with Dawkin's use of the term 'virus' inasmuch as the teachers' germ is to infect the learners with the idea that they themselves(the teacher) are the authority.

One might do much worse determining what 'justice' is, than to read Plato. At least I'm confident that is the case.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think the prosecutor you mention- if indeed he had faith at all- took actions of faith as in #3 above.

I think it was probably #2. He had a firm belief that they were guilty with no proof or material evidence. #2 actually describes religious faith, belief without proof or evidence. This is the obstacle to truth that I think Dawkins is referring to as a virus.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I think it was probably #2. He had a firm belief that they were guilty with no proof or material evidence. #2 actually describes religious faith, belief without proof or evidence. This is the obstacle to truth that I think Dawkins is referring to as a virus.

I don't think you can equate his 'faith' in the guilt of the Duke players with religious faith.
It appears more that he was grandstanding for his upcoming election. He had an eye witness report (from the alleged victim), saw the opportunity to make headlines just before an election, and ran with it.
If it was religious faith, he would still be arguing that the Duke players should go to jail

As for WHY people feel they need faith, I think it is a combination of two things.
A. Most people fear the unknown. Even those that seek out the unknown, I suspect, get an adrenaline rush out of the pursuit.
B. An evolutionary trait of wanting to belong to a group or society.

The ancient greek gods came about because they explained things. Death, weather, lightning, seasons, etc. Humanity feels better about things they can pin a cause to. Even if the cause is beyond our control, at least we 'know' why it is happening.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I think it was probably #2. He had a firm belief that they were guilty with no proof or material evidence. #2 actually describes religious faith, belief without proof or evidence. This is the obstacle to truth that I think Dawkins is referring to as a virus.

My first impulse was to choose #2, but I went with #3 on reasoning similar to Zythryn's

Originally Posted by Zythryn

...It appears more that he was grandstanding for his upcoming election....

. I think his firm belief was that he had a slam dunk and that his authority of reference for that belief was himself which he set above the standard for evidence.

I also agree with you that religious faith is hinged on no logical proof or material evidence. I think religious faith swings on common brain structures that give the appearence of personalities unseeable and the perceived authority of people who claim to receive instructions/information from said unseen personalities.

I am fond of the idea that greed is the root of all evil. In terms of Dawkin's virus then, greed is the motivation for using germ warfare.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

The assumption here is that objective truth always exists and that searching for it is a good thing.

Why is that?

TFS
[not that I disagree mind you, but some people might...]

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

The assumption here is that objective truth always exists and that searching for it is a good thing.

Why is that?

TFS
[not that I disagree mind you, but some people might...]

The assumption there is that good is well defined and that objective truth is gained only as a result of searching. Objectively I find that good is relative and truth is found serendipitously as often as not. This is not so much a disagreement as a qualification.

C1ay's quote deserves no less eh?

Originally Posted by C1ay

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

Under our definitions I believe the boldened faith refers to definitions #2 through #5, and that #1 & #6 safely & secularly accomodate science, specifically as the idea of the scientific method. The more I have thunk about the poor job teeching skepticism, the more Coberst's please to teach critical thinking comes to mind.

Even should we peeps on rock #3 set all aright & hunky-dory and banishing ignorant dogma and religious faith, the slightest little piss in the wind is more than enough by my observations to throw the whole works down the flusher. Nonetheless, I agree I would prefer tryin' to dyin'.