virus: Religon, faith

Eric Boyd (
Sat, 01 Nov 1997 22:45:20 -0500


From: (Reed Konsler)

> One point I am trying to make is that people of faith, including
> don't rely on evidence and don't prove things with least
> about issues of faith.

Yes -- exactly why faith is dangerous -- faith is belief without
checking! I've got a little file here to please all of you:

COURT: Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own

PATTERSON: You are absolutely right Mr. Court, I am head of a new
company called "Beliefs R Us", and I heartily support your proposition.
Why waste years wading through the dreary process of RESEARCHING and
THINKING the issues through yourself!! Merely choose any one of our
handy PRE-RATIONALIZED BELIEF SYSTEMS and then mindlessly conform to it
for the rest of your life!!!

PLUS! at no additional cost, we show you how to avoid letting any
"FACTS" seep into your brain, thus assuring that nothing disrupts
new-found illusion of mental security!!!

But what if your beliefs are wrong, you ask? That is the beauty of our
system man!! You'd be the very last to know even if they were!!

Beliefs R Us
Ron Patterson

> The Second Point is that each of us relies on assumptions that are
> in kind, to articles of faith. This is the point that David
> denies or denies the significance of. Logic and reason are systems of

> organizing elements of thinking...but the elements of thinking are
> derived from subjective experience.

I'm not sure... if you define faith as belief WITHOUT RECOURSE TO
evidence, then I don't think I have faith... generally, I don't believe
anything unless it seems to agree with what I already know... in a way,
this is recourse to the evidence of my common sense. Sure, I make
"assumptions"... but generally, I make ones which MAKE SENSE IN LIGHT OF

(hmmm... faith in my common sense? Maybe you do have a point here...
This requires more thought... but it does seem to make sense that a
Christian's "common sense" would tell them God exists... and so by my
reasoning that would be an "assumption" without faith... Doh!)

> Correlation is not causation. Those same Christians were also
> and nacent Capitalists and Urbanites. Which of the factors CAUSED the

We could actually try and deny this -- I think. Certainly we can't
thank Jesus for democracy -- and I think the basis for capitalism was
already present in the Romans. But then, my knowledge of history is not
good at all.

> others? If the native South and Central Americans tore the beating
> from a prisoner, on occasion, does that make the culture bloothirsty
or their
> religion the bane of the people's existence and cause of their
demise? Or
> was it the Spanish Conquistadors? If the Spanish were guilty of the
> and enslavement of these native cultures do we blame those atrocities
> their nature as Spaniards? Catholics? Monarchists? Males?

Blame it on the Original Sin!!! <grin>

But I see your point here -- history is complicated.

Nevertheless, you can't possibly deny that the book burning were not at
least partially caused by the Church -- at the very least, they had the
Church's passive consent.

(passive consent is a very interesting issue -- I've been hearing about
the Church's behavior during the wars)

> If witches are burned at the this an indication of the
> of religion? Or is it an expression of some deeper cultural problem
> expressed through the institutions of the time? How do you prove
> cause and effect?

I would say that in the case of witches, it was religion -- at very
least, the people of those times found SUPPORT for what they were doing
from religion -- which to my way of thinking makes religion guilty of
aiding and abetting those murders.

I found a really good quotation the other day --

Religion has not civilized man, man has civilized religion.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

(certainly it's become more civil since we stopped sacrificing animals
to our Gods -- and recently, more civil since we stopped killing people
for heresy...)