If you had the power ...

[zakalwe]

Well, it is faith in the sense of "confidence".

It is not faith in the sense of "belief without evidence", which is the sense that is generally used in "faith is a virtue". I didn't mean to muddle the issue.

I realize that a priest/mullah/rabbi won't say that you're virtuous for believing in the laws of motion. Your belief has to be in something patently improbable (and asserted in the corresponding holy book) in order to be recognized as a virtue. In fact, there seems to be an interesting sliding scale: the more improbable your belief is, the more virtuous it is to believe it.

[Bigger]

faith is much more interesting to me as an end to itself, rather than just something you should have because its virtuous. Your opinion of it sounds like Glaucon's definition of justice in the Republic (namely, justice is doing what the gods tell you to). Faith, imo, is a virtue in the same sense that courage, wisdom, and temperance are virtues. It has its own intrinsic blessings, other than just gaining approval of the clergy

[Ruff_Hi]

I realize that a priest/mullah/rabbi won't say that you're virtuous for believing in the laws of motion.

In the above, I think that 'believe' is the wrong word. It is implying that scientific theory is a belief system. It isn't. The theory either currently describes the observed events or it doesn't.

I heard a scientist talking on NPR the other day about this concept and she was saying that theories are 'placeholders' or 'what currently works'.

Take the Newton Laws of motion - they work things like balls, you and me, planes, planets, etc but they totally don't work (ie they are WRONG) for quantum things ... thus the need for quantum mechanic theories. As science digs deeper (Higgs particle and possible sub particles anyone?), new theories are required to explain what is happening.

Just as an aside re the Higgs field and the theory that it gives us mass ... is anyone surprised that scientists had something like this 100s of years ago ... they just called it 'the Aether'.

'Aether theories in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether, a space-filling substance or field' - seems like we are returning to this ... not as a means of transmitting something, but to give particles mass.

[zakalwe]

Personally, I think rational, critical thinking is a virtue. And our brains are not really so well equipped for that as we tend to believe, so it really takes a conscious effort to overcome all of the various kinds of cognitive bias that we are susceptible to. Children should be taught to exercise their brains and be inquisitive, creative, and compassionate. They should not be taught to unquestioningly believe things for which there is no evidence.

Believing in the laws of motion means having confidence that they will yield accurate predictions. I believe in the classical Newtonian laws of motion when it comes to accurately describing the trajectories of cannonballs. I am aware that they don't work on smaller scales or at relativistic speeds. Moreover, I can state quite clearly what it would take to make me distrust the laws of motion: show me an apple falling upwards, for example. All I want is a theory that yields accurate results. If someone shows me a better one, I'll be ready to embrace it. That's the difference between science and religion. The belief systems constructed by religion are generally such that it is impossible to refute them. E.g., God is "testing" us, by making sure that the more inquiries we make, the more unlikely his existence will appear.

[Bigger]

Personally, I think rational, critical thinking is a virtue. And our brains are not really so well equipped for that as we tend to believe, so it really takes a conscious effort to overcome all of the various kinds of cognitive bias that we are susceptible to. Children should be taught to exercise their brains and be inquisitive, creative, and compassionate. They should not be taught to unquestioningly believe things for which there is no evidence.

I actually agree with everything in this paragraph, especially the bolded part.
I just don't think rational thinking and faith are in any way conflicted, as you obviously do.
I also think faith is not something that can really be taught (although certainly there are plenty who try).

[Ruff_Hi]

Believing in the laws of motion means having confidence that they will yield accurate predictions. I believe in the classical Newtonian laws of motion when it comes to accurately describing the trajectories of cannonballs.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I won't use 'believe' here ... I would use 'trust' ... as in ...

'I trusted you. You did [fill in thing that broke trust]'. Maybe I put my trust in the wrong place'.

v

'I believed in you. You did [fill in thing that broke believe]. Don't worry - I still believe in you and that you will do the right thing'

They (believe / trust) are similar but trust is a lower bar? Does that sound right?

The belief systems constructed by religion are generally such that it is impossible to refute them

Then why try? Doesn't thinking 'they are misguided' work for you? I expect that the very same thought works for the religious.

I cannot understand why people feel threatened when other people have a different believe system.

Outworkings of a belief system (ie pogrom / jihad / crusades) are a different kettle of fish.

[Ichabod]

b) religion as opium for the masses is Marx not Nietzsche

I personally prefer the Bill Watterson take on it (obviously):



Well, maybe Watterson is also not entirely updated for the present times. Today it'd be more like "Facebook is the crystal meth of the masses" or something.

:neenernee

[Dr.Disaster]

Also: religion is a significant force in the world,

A fact one can hardly ignore.

and removing it instantaneously could really screw things up.

I did not state that i would remove it instantly. I would remove it entirely from the history of mankind.

One of the main reasons has been brought up here (conflicts) but there is another thing i'm amazed nobody seems to notice: the restrictions placed on free thoughts and development.

Well maybe being a European i'm a bit more aware of it but without catholics ruling Europe for many centuries a lot of knownledge would have prevailed (i.e. medicine) or discoveries would have been made a lot earlier (i.e.America).

It also always puzzles me when scientist need to try so very very hard to come up with how things were done in the past. I don't need to go back as far as the egyptian pyramids. Some things are much more closer in time like how the romans build their roads or baths or temples/churches. Some are still in use today! Reason is that past knownledge was lost and quite some of it due to religion.

Of course keeping something as an example can be helpful but not learning from or getting rid of it squashed that purpose.

[Bigger]

I really think that's a rather myopic view of European history, Dr. D. There were many causes of the "dark ages," the Church was only one part.

While I actually agree that the conversion to Christianity helped speed along the collapse of the Roman empire (I'm familiar with Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic), the fact is it did collapse, it was essentially conquered by German barbarians, and the fallout of that (the splintering of Europe, collapse of all political systems, loss of many great Roman and Greek works - literary, philosophic, and scientific) was the chief cause of the dark ages. Don't forget that even in their golden age, before they became Christian, the Roman's had their own religion.

I don't really understand how this theory handles WWII Europe. In that era you had 2 governments, one cultist/semi-atheistic (nazi germany), and one 100% atheistic (stalinist Russia) that each were responsible for the slaughter over 20 million of their own people (that's not even counting the millions that died on the battlefield from all 3 sides in the war). Similar things happenned in communist china, fascist Italy, and fascist Spain - although on a much smaller scale. Really, the 20th century should be a wake up call to how dangerous a civilization without any religion can be.

[Rowain]

Really, the 20th century should be a wake up call to how dangerous a civilization without any religion can be.

This is BS.

religion has not stopped the various slaughters/genocides that happened in Europe in the past (starting with Charlemagne vs Saxons to the catholics vs protestants or catholics vs anglicans wars, the witch hunts the progroms vs Jews throughout the middleages etc etc)

The big difference is In the 20th century there are a) a lot more people to kill b) easier masskillings thanks to advanced methods and c) better documentation.

I'm absolute convinced that a religious fanatic who believes he goes to heaven if he dies for his religion is far more dangerous with an A-bomb (Iran/ Taliban) than any atheist (Kim from NK) who only has this world to live in.

Best example your 9/11 would not have happened without the religious background.