Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Rillion]

Why to vitriol against FAITH?  We all have a measure of faith, It's just where we choose to place it.  If you walk into an unfamiliar place, and see something that looks like a chair, you wouldn't think twice about sitting in it, even though you didn't build it, you don't know anyone who built it, and you haven't tested it for yourself.  You have faith in the person that made the chair.  The person that made the chair may be long dead, it doesn't matter to you.

If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

That's why so many people hate atheists.  If belief in God were a morally neutral issue, then nobody would care whether other people believed in him or not.  But atheists are perceived as having rejected a relationship, something they ought  not do.  Their lack of belief is in essence a moral matter to people, rather than a matter of truth or falsity. 

Faith is something that, when you lack it, you are a bad person-- not simply mistaken or ignorant. 

[The Muslim Agorist]

Christian Brother,

I sense we have much in common. I look foreword to future exchanges.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Yes, I am a man of The Book...

[ChristianAnarchist]

If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

My belief in God is reasonably based on argument or evidence, so I guess I cannot be a man of faith anymore...

[markuzick]

It can also mean a powerful motivation or impulse. E.g., You may have an instinctive revulsion to socialistic sounding ideas and be instinctively draw to free market ideas and for someone else it could be just the reverse. That doesnt mean that you where each genetically destined to become that way. Once you develop learned instincts, they act much like inborn instincts, the difference being that they can be changed.

I would call those intuitions, not instincts.

I like that. People, including both of us, use "intuition" and "instinct" interchangeably, but intuition is better, as it's more specific, in that it refers to "programmable" instinct.

WordNet - Cite This Source
intuition

noun
1.    instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)
2.    an impression that something might be the case; "he had an intuition that something had gone wrong"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

It's consistent with what I've been saying. Unconscious moral judgments are the logical result of one's chosen values.

That's not the argument of the paper.  As I said, the argument of the paper is that most moral judgments were never chosen.

I think you mean that they were never consciously chosen. Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen, even if only to choose to unconsciously absorb on faith, an uncritical adoption of popular societal values.

Again, you're failing to distinguish between behaviors that evolve genetically and behaviors that evolve culturally. You're also ignoring the role of the maverick individuals thoughts and actions, whether rational or not, in the evolution of culture.

By insisting that all moral judgments are chosen, you don't seem to be allowing any room for genetic evolution at all. 

I think we've already agreed that there is a distinction to be made between hard wired instinct and intuition. Morality refers to a code of values that, at some level, is chosen. Genetic instinct refers to a code of values which are hard wired, that can, at most, be repressed, but never changed.

[dharveymi]

If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

That's why so many people hate atheists.  If belief in God were a morally neutral issue, then nobody would care whether other people believed in him or not.  But atheists are perceived as having rejected a relationship, something they ought  not do.  Their lack of belief is in essence a moral matter to people, rather than a matter of truth or falsity. 

Faith is something that, when you lack it, you are a bad person-- not simply mistaken or ignorant. 

But, what is reasonable to me is nonsense to you.  We could argue till the cows come home, but it won't change what I find reasonable.  As for the rest of it, what most people believe has nothing to do with me.  I have very little in common with most people that call themselves Christians.  I personally have been thrown out (by threat of violence,) from three churches from my own denomination.  Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not.  I don't believe it's a moral matter at all.  I have a great deal of respect for people who can maintain an honest atheistic philosophy.  I have no burning desire to convert you to Christianity or my belief system.  Find meaning in your way, please.  But, because you do, that doesn't make me stupid, illogical, etc.  You find meaning in your way, I find it in mine, some Indian finds it in his way, what makes yours so superior?

[ladyattis]

Faith: Hope for things unproven and unseen.

I can't fill my belly on it. I can't build a skyscrape from it. I can invest to make a fortune based on it. And so on. So faith is no show and no go, and all zero.

-- Brede

[Rillion]

I think you mean that they were never consciously chosen.

The word "choice" implies that it is conscious. 

Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

I think we've already agreed that there is a distinction to be made between hard wired instinct and intuition. Morality refers to a code of values that, at some level, is chosen.

Again, you've given no reason why I should accept this as true.  It is not intrinsic to the definition of morality that it be chosen.  If there is a genetic (that is, evolved) reason why, for example, people are likely to view incest as wrong, then that would be a moral judgment which is emphatically not  chosen. 

Genetic instinct refers to a code of values which are hard wired, that can, at most, be repressed, but never changed.

The instincts may not be changed, but the behavior resulting from them can be.  If you are sufficiently persuaded (through argument or fear of punishment, or both) that something you have an instinctive desire to do is wrong, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to refrain from doing it. 

[dharveymi]

Faith: Hope for things unproven and unseen.

I can't fill my belly on it. I can't build a skyscrape from it. I can invest to make a fortune based on it. And so on. So faith is no show and no go, and all zero.

-- Brede

Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

[ladyattis]

Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

That's the biggest lie ever told. Nothing in reason is based on faith. Something unproven does not imply in itself to be based on faith. It just means it hasn't been done before, but Nature being non-contradictory allows us to make such judgments when we assess situations, without faith and without blind ignorance. Faith requires one to actively ignore the facts, the unknowns, and the possibilities. Faith requires the mind to literally BLANK OUT. To cease, to silence. Reason requires the opposite; to think, to question, to add to what is known from what is unknown.


If you wish to know more try Objectivism 101.

-- Brede

[Rillion]

If something can be reasonably concluded based on argument or evidence, faith is not required.  Faith is when belief has a moral component-- you believe because you think you ought to, rather than because you are convinced by argument or evidence.

That's why so many people hate atheists.  If belief in God were a morally neutral issue, then nobody would care whether other people believed in him or not.  But atheists are perceived as having rejected a relationship, something they ought  not do.  Their lack of belief is in essence a moral matter to people, rather than a matter of truth or falsity. 

Faith is something that, when you lack it, you are a bad person-- not simply mistaken or ignorant. 

But, what is reasonable to me is nonsense to you.

Maybe I should take the word "reasonable" out, then.  If you honestly don't care whether somebody agrees with your religious beliefs or not, and wouldn't feel bad in the slightest if you yourself lost them, then I'm not sure your belief should properly be called "faith."

Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

Nothing is proven.  Things can only be, as they say, established beyond a reasonable doubt.  If I decide to cross the road when the light has turned red for oncoming traffic, I don't know that somebody isn't going to drive right through the intersection and hit me anyway.  What I am applying is inductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning that deals with probabilities.  I am applying the general to the specific, in this sense:

1. Every time I've crossed the road at a red light for my entire life (and that's a lot of times), oncoming traffic has stopped and not hit me.
2. I am now crossing the road at a red light.
3. Therefore, oncoming traffic will stop and not hit me now.

Is #3 necessarily true?  No-- no conclusion of an inductive argument is necessarily true.  But it is justified, and if you deny my conclusion you may be mistaken or confused or just plain stupid, but you are not a bad person. 

[dharveymi]

Bullshit!  Without faith there would be no skyscrapers, no fortunes, no zero.  Without an unproven belief in themselves, the people who do these things could never have done them.

That's the biggest lie ever told. Nothing in reason is based on faith. Something unproven does not imply in itself to be based on faith. It just means it hasn't been done before, but Nature being non-contradictory allows us to make such judgments when we assess situations, without faith and without blind ignorance. Faith requires one to actively ignore the facts, the unknowns, and the possibilities. Faith requires the mind to literally BLANK OUT. To cease, to silence. Reason requires the opposite; to think, to question, to add to what is known from what is unknown.


If you wish to know more try Objectivism 101.

-- Brede

I was using the definition you gave.  Evidence of things unseen.  Before the first skyscraper was built, it was unseen.  Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.  A person that is insane accepts perceptions and suggestions without thought.  I do not.  If I did, every new perception or suggestion would change my thinking.  I would become an atheists when you suggested that there might not be a god.  I do not.

[ladyattis]

Faith does not require mental blindness, what you are talking about is insanity.  Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

Bullshit, you're conflicting with the biblical definition ("Things unseen but hoped for..."). So I won't deal with you if you can't accept that the common definition is as it stands.

A person that is insane accepts perceptions and suggestions without thought.

Yet people everyday think there is a God, a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, and so on. Also, perception is not conception, so don't think you're given perceptions by people, because that's part of your sense-o-rama that you work upon to get knowledge and etc, no one, not even you, can control it.

 

I would become an atheists when you suggested that there might not be a god.  I do not.

That's because you're an idiot that wants to anthropomorphize the multi-verse.

-- Brede

[Rillion]

Faith requires thinking, questioning, and adding to what is known from what is unknown as well.

I can understand "allows," but "requires"?  Are you honestly suggesting that all people with faith are thinking, questioning people?

[ladyattis]

LOL! Don't even try anymore Rillion, these guys want the universe to be ran by a giant MAN GOD, a penis in the sky, a pecker of all peckers!

-- Brede