[MD] The End of Faith

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Margaret,

> I remember debates
> I had in the second grade cafeteria over
> the existence of god. I was a staunch athiest
> then. They weren't much fun. ha ha ha.

Steve:
Does this mean you are not an atheist now?


Margaret:
>
> Beliefs on the other hand (to me), are composites
> of what a person has experienced up until
> that moment and their beliefs are very unique
> to that individual. I think its too easy to say that just because
> you can dance circles around someone intellectually
> that your belief is superior/or has more quality than
> theirs.
>

Steve:
I understand your pov better now. I think you make a good point about  
ideas in the abstract versus a person's belief system. In some ways I  
think we do need to "respect people's beliefs" in that for example, I  
don't go around telling people why I think that the evidence for  
religions is poor every time someone makes reference to God in  
conversation.

But I do think that we have taken respect for beliefs too far in this  
country. When faith is used to defend a scientific claim or a  
political position, we shouldn't allow the word faith to be used as  
the conversation stopper it is.

For example, when Bush says "We need commonsense judges who  
understand that our rights were derived from God," the next question  
a reporter might ask is "what does that mean" or "how do you know?"  
or "are you referring to Poseidon, Zeus, or some other god?"

and look how scary Scalia is...(from some speech in Chicago in 2002)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? 
res=9F07E7D61031F93BA35754C0A9649C8B63

He quotes St. Paul, ''For there is no power but of God: the powers  
that be are ordained of God.''

''The Lord,'' Mr. Scalia explained in Chicago, ''repaid -- did  
justice -- through His minister, the state.''
...
''Indeed, it seems to me,'' Mr. Scalia said in Chicago, ''that the  
more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death  
penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post- 
Christian Europe, and has least support in the churchgoing United  
States. I attribute that to the fact that for the believing  
Christian, death is no big deal.''

This might imply that the death penalty would have little deterrent  
effect for the faithful. It might also imply that devout Christians  
have fewer moral scruples about disregarding the Old Testament's  
injunction against killing. (''For the nonbeliever, on the other  
hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence,'' Mr.  
Scalia said sarcastically. ''What a horrible act!'')

So while belief's are personal, they are also public to some extent.  
Sam Harris points out that we don't consider individual beliefs on  
personal hygiene or epidemiology to be respected because our public  
health is at stake. The health of civilization itself is certainly at  
stake as religious extremism becomes more prevalent and access to  
better and better technology of mass destruction continues.

I understand what you saying about "I think its too easy to say that  
just because
you can dance circles around someone intellectually that your belief  
is superior/or has more quality than theirs." We smarty-pantses need  
to keep this is mind and have humility about our own ideas and the  
limits of intellectual skill in coming up with the right answers. But  
the issue I'm trying to get at is a little different.

I'm not saying I'm right about anything and that my intellectual  
skills have proven it. I'm just saying that people need to apply  
their own intellect. The affirmative claim I am making is that this  
ideas of faith that says it is a good thing for people to believe  
what they are told on faith is a actually bad thing. Do you disagree  
with that point?

Regards,
Steve