The end of faith.

I think individualism is destructive and so I really do not like the idea of theories such as emotivism or subjectivism dominating ethical principles. Cultural Relativism is another theory I say we can do without. It stuns me to how any rational person would agree to use these theories as a working model for society -- any society. These are a dangerous set of ideals because it stops all cause for people to question their own actions and customs. I believe absolute moral truths do exist and the only way of discovering them is through reason. For example:

Relativism: In certain parts of the world we know young girls have their genitals mutilated. While western society tends to vehemently disagree with the practice we do however agree that different cultures follow different customs. In short, it is no way prudent of us to force our morals onto other cultures. The relativist at this point would call it a day and go for a pint. The rational person instead would ask, did the young girl agree to the procedure? One simple question and the theory shatters because in not consulting with the girl beforehand, she is simply being used as a means to an end. This blindly followed custom robs the girl of her own reason and dignity. Reason tells us there are likely very few girls and women who would agree to circumcision and so as a working ethical theory relativism collapses.

As for faith. There is no room for a personal God in my life. Religion is nothing more than a tool to rob people of free thought. Religion stifles imagination. Crushes wonder. Leaves no room for questions about the stars and heavens. Religion is the cause of many strifes, misery, pain, suffering and deaths around the world. So powerful is religion, such a corruption of the mind, people are willing to end their own life by flying an aeroplane into a building because of their faith. Their belief that God has reserved a special place in heaven for those who work in His service. Religion is fear. Fear of the unknown that awaits us. Fear of an omnipotent God who will burn us with smoke and fire for eternity if we deny Him. If science is a torch, religion is an extinguisher.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Is it purely coincidental that male circumcision is viewed as acceptable to western cultures and at the same time shows up in scripture? I can only wonder, if God asked for the removal of the labia how many millions of women in North America would undergo the procedure without consent in the same manner as their male counterpart. I am willing to bet quite a few. Although male circumcision is accepted it is still widely debated simply because the child has no say in the matter.

Brady, I want to be clear on your position so correct me if I have misunderstood. You're saying that because certain societies are less fortunate, moral truths ought not to apply to them and more, do not exist at all? This is the equivalent of suggesting that 2 + 2 only equals 4 in certain societies with higher education. Moral truths are no different than logical truths. Also, in calling it the moral crusade, you seem concerned that moral truths are nothing more than an iron curtain. This isn't the case. Moral truths are not forced onto people. It is not like the ten commandments. The rational person only has to think about murder to know it's wrong. There is no need to look it up in the criminal code or scripture.

It's interesting that you reject moral truths because the study of ethics is to do just that. Ethics is the attempt to derive our values from facts. You are free to believe that we are forever hopeless in ever finding moral truths but I just happen to think of them as quite real and obtainable.

Last thing, I want to clarify the contradiction you believe I have made. My view on morality and religion are very much separate. Moral truths are discoverable through reason. These are not rules codified by the elite and forced onto others. All humans have the ability to discover the same moral truth. In the same manner that all humans have the ability to understand that 2 objects when added to another 2 objects equals 4 total objects. And so I have not contradicted myself because while religion is an iron curtain, moral truths are not.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Atheism is not a religion. The atheist doesn't use faith to reject God. She uses common sense. The rejection of God is based on the absence of rational justification. You cannot prove the existence of God with logical thought. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm tried and their arguments, even to the church, are embarrassingly laughable in this age. 21st century philosophy is mainly dominated by logical positivists and analytic thought. Metaphysical claims about God are rejected as nonsense because there is no way to prove them.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The only form of thought that is objective is logic, yet logical conclusions may still not be right.

That is very misleading. You can only have a false logical conclusion assuming the premises you start with are not true themselves. If the Queen is a man then pigs have wings, is a perfectly valid argument.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

This is called agnostic. Unless you think you can rationally reject something from existing because of a lack of evidence. Example: there's a planet 5 million light years away that spins backwards at a speed of 3 miles a minute. Can we prove this right or wrong? No. Which means we can't make statements on whether it really exists or not. Without evidence one way or the other, you have no right to make claims on it's existence unless you have faith.

Good point. But why then do people believe in God? Why not believe in the Celestial Teapot or the Yo-Yo theory where the sun begins to revolve around Earth? Why do so many people believe in God when they could just as easily believe in any number of unknown and unprovable objects?

Atheism however does not necessarily have to rely on evidence. One theistic argument goes: We notice the external world is made up of extremely complex forms of life. These life forms in all their intricacies could not have come about by mere chance. Something intentional must have set up the conditions to start and support them. This something we call God.

The weakness of this argument is such: Humans are indeed very complex. Even slight changes to our genetic material can leave parts of our body without function such as a child being born deaf for example. God however is exponentially more complex than any form of life we're familiar with. God is perfect, immutable and enduring. Since God himself is very complex there must have been some intentional condition met to allow for God's existence. For God is so complex himself he could not have just come about by chance even by his own divine power. This is where Darwin's theory takes over and explains how life did not come about by mere chance but by a gradual evolutionary process.

When arguing for the existence of God, the onus is left to theism. Atheism has the much easier task of only having to prove that the probability of God's existence is so small, there is very little reason to suppose he does exists.

So you are correct that we cannot disprove the properties of a star 5 million lights away regardless if that star exists or not, in the same manner that we cannot disprove that a Celestial Teapot orbits around the sun. No one of course believes there is a Teapot floating about in space and for very good reasons. The atheist rejects the existence of God in the same way a rational person would reject the existence of a Teapot orbiting the sun.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Haha, I like that theory. But anyway, I think I agree with most of what you say. I can't say how or why we developed the idea of God in the first place, since I really haven't studied it. Though was polytheism around before monotheism? You could then make the case polytheism started due to exaggerated claims of people doing great deeds, and eventually the Hebrews took that to the next step be embodying the concept of a god free from any human notions. I think the issue with god verses the issue with a magical teapot is that god was originally rooted in some form of fact about a man perhaps killing 20 soldiers, then exaggerated to 100 then exaggerated will this man was invincible, etc etc until you get the notion of God. I'm not sure what my point is for this paragraph haha, but it's interesting.

I have to admit I don't have any of my own ideas of how religion came about but Richard Dawkins has an interesting theory. He says religion is a by-product caused by a misfire of some otherwise useful quality in human brains. He uses moths as an analogy. We've all seen a moth fly into a flame. To us it looks like the moth is simply emo and desires to end its own life in self-immolation. In actuality, moths flying into a flame according to Dawkins is a misfire caused by its otherwise useful ability to navigate using light such as the sun or in this case a flame.

He also talks about children and their tendency to invent imaginary friends. To the child their "friend" is every bit real and it's this imagination that carries over into adulthood in the form of religious faith. God to the theistic grown up is every bit as real as the "friend" is to the child.

Originally Posted by Chef Sean

We can't get rid of faith. Don't we use it all the time? When you are talking to people, you have faith that they are telling the truth or you have faith that someone will do something you've asked them to do for you. Faiths all over, ahh.

I really dislike how 'faith' is used as a multipurpose word. Faith should only be used when we're referring to the mysticism of religion. Proper usage would be: I have no reason to believe in God, but my faith enables me just that. Improper usage: I have no reason to believe my friend is telling the truth but I have faith that she is. I really do hope our expectation of promise keeping does not work like this. I don't want to have to resort to prayers when a friend promises to meet me for lunch.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

No, you can't pull that. The very first definition of "faith" according to Random House is 'confidence or trust in an individual or concept'. Even though it's very easy to say, "faith is the absence of reason", that's only a secondary definition, and no matter how much you might attempt to take it back people still say they have faith in a person's ability and not mean to be going against all reason. Not to mention that sometimes people use the word faith interchangably with 'religious beliefs', which is a bit different, as well.

This word "faith" is just not a clear-enough statement to make judgments like that.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

I don't expect I can change the meaning of words but number 1 bothers me. I trust my friends because there is reason to believe there is a high probability that what they say is true, or will become true. Faith is a much stronger word. As we know, faith is belief in the absence of reason. Because of the different strengths of these words I think it's improper to confuse them, even if according to a dictionary, they mean the same thing.

It further suggests that science itself is a religion which I disagree. When I think about the properties of metal and how metal expands when heated it's not my faith which leads me to believe this. I can prove this belief empirically. David Hume noted that in all his tests metal expanded when heated. However, he doesn't believe heat causes metal to expand. There is no reason to believe that in future tests metal will always expand when heated. Just like there is no reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow or your favourite food you have been eating for years will instead poison you. We can however make predictions about these things with very high probability of them becoming true in the future not based on faith. The principle of the uniformity of nature is our reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. It's why we don't expect the sun to suddenly start revolving around the Earth.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?