Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance in the face of life's trials seems to be the cornerstone of many religions. But wouldn't that seem to suggest that faith taken to the extreme is the best faith of all? Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

21 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance in the face of life's trials seems to be the cornerstone of many religions. But wouldn't that seem to suggest that faith taken to the extreme is the best faith of all? Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

No, I don't think so. (Full disclosure: I'm English, so anything extreme fills me with misgiving😄).

Most people with religious faith don't have it by the bucketful, but it still helps them in their lives. There is an obvious danger in extreme faith, in that it can make the believer inflexible. So when something comes along that shakes that faith, there may not be ability to flex, adapt and move forward with a different, modified appreciation.

My experience is most well-adjusted people are able to manage a degree of uncertainty or doubt without being unduly troubled by it. I think this is the healthy way to be.

52 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance

Yeah

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance in the face of life's trials seems to be the cornerstone of many religions. But wouldn't that seem to suggest that faith taken to the extreme is the best faith of all? Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

You have acutually asked answerable question this time so big improvement there. +1

Consider this smart alec saying

If an expert is someone who knows a lot about a little.
A true expert is someone who knows everything about nothing.

I suggest the question is of this sort since it assumes that the belief, whatever it might be, is the only point of consideration.

But observation tells us that we live in a complex world the requires consideration of the interplay of many points, which runs counter to the belief in one thing above all alse.

As to the second question there is no one single line, it depends upon circumstances so I would suggest the line has been crossed if one single consideration excludes all others.

So often questions like these are couched in terms expecting a binary answer when most of our world works in shades of grey.

Edited October 24Oct 24 by studiot

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

One point would be when faith causes one to deny empirical truths, i.e. when an article of faith about the physical world is asserted as a fact that contradicts objective evidence.

I'd add: Or when it seeks to deny others their right to different beliefs and becomes a basis for oppression, warfare, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, slavery, that kind of stuff. Faith "taken to the extreme" is historically associated with a rigid mindset that their faith is the one true and virtuous path and should be imposed on others "or else." Even when it doesn't reach the violent consequences I listed, it can result in a socially corrosive sort of condescension, where the True Believer looks down on those not sharing their faith and sees them as somehow lacking or needing to be prayed for. That can be difficult, to be on the receiving end of that.

5 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

Everywhere.
To us Physics ( and most other science ) guys, any ( not just Religious ) unfounded belief without evidence is extreme ( or excrement ? )

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Everywhere.
To us Physics ( and most other science ) guys, any ( not just Religious ) unfounded belief without evidence is extreme ( or excrement ? )

You can speak for yourself of course, but I don't think you can clam to speak for all "physics guys". That would, superficially at least, seem to suggest any physics guy has to be an atheist, which is far from being the case e.g. Born, Abdus Salam, Robert Millikan, Faraday, Lemaitre (obviously!).

But perhaps I'm reading you wrong. After all, the qualifier "unfounded" does a lot of work in your statement. None of the people I've listed would accept their religious belief was unfounded, I suspect, though I'm sure they would agree it does not rely on evidence to the standard demanded by science.

14 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

When it starts issuing proclamations of 'death to all infidels' and stuff of similar murderous nature.

As evidenced even in this thread, the word has become so diluted through misuse as to be almost worthless in serious discussion. To me, it usually flags a bad actor simply badmouthing some school of thought he happens not to agree with.

Apologies if some find this viewpoint a tad extreme.

17 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Apologies if some find this viewpoint a tad extreme.

No need to apologise as far as I am concerned. Extreme acts call for extreme viewpoints.

This happened in my city this month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

15 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

faith, a belief so strong and unswerving

That's the dangerous part isn't it? Thinking you are absolutely correct because god tells you so in his book?

This is where a lot of people got Dawkins wrong, he had no issues with religious people and debated with Rabbis, priests, Theologians, academics, theist philosophersand even the arch bishop of Canterbury at one point. All amicable, polite and respectful if a little heated at points.

What he hated was religious people damaging science education not just because they believed in god. There is 40 years between his first book and first book on religion. He became famous because of the Selfish Gene, the camera liked him, obviously educated (Baliol) and he had a beautiful English accent so the BEEB gave him programs. Initially anyway he did not get into the god stuff till later.

My approach is more Dawkins than Hitchens although my approach to the Koran is more hostile than to the NT and Judaism.

Huh, not sure why the link does not work

15 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

When we forget what the word's mean.

In the UK the words are "Lest we forget" and in the USA the word's are "MAGA".

In the bible it's "an eye for an eye". 😉

48 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

That's the dangerous part isn't it? Thinking you are absolutely correct because god tells you so in his book?

I'm not sure why, yet history is replete with examples of the 'so called' sheeple being exploited.

But what's so wrong with being content with what we have,?

It strikes me that the dangerous part, that is exploited, is that I'm not content with what I have...

17 hours ago, exchemist said:

No, I don't think so. (Full disclosure: I'm English, so anything extreme fills me with misgiving😄).

Most people with religious faith don't have it by the bucketful, but it still helps them in their lives. There is an obvious danger in extreme faith, in that it can make the believer inflexible. So when something comes along that shakes that faith, there may not be ability to flex, adapt and move forward with a different, modified appreciation.

My experience is most well-adjusted people are able to manage a degree of uncertainty or doubt without being unduly troubled by it. I think this is the healthy way to be.

I agree with all of this but it bothers me on some level I can't put my finger on. I think maybe because, although true it has the implication, though unintended, of specifying an extremism exclusive to "faith." Best take that with a grain of sand because I can't articulate my discomfort well.

Perhaps it would best be articulated in that extremism often only uses faith and other modes of expression as a tool when those things are only useful for their ideological fixation and social control. Someone, for example, who blows up an abortion clinic, protests a gay marriage, wants creation taught in schools, fight wars for democracy, freedom, god and country, don't really care about those things, they only use them for sociopolitical control. That is what I think the entire class struggle between atheist/theist is really all about. It has little to nothing to do with faith or faithlessness.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

You have acutually asked answerable question this time so big improvement there. +1

[Sigh] I don't understand exactly why the questions I've asked prior to this are inferior except for possibly that it wasn't written by me and possibly that it presented the opportunity to discuss faith in a negative light. Although all of my posts over the last 30 years do that, they have done it from a different perspective than the unbelievers. This was an experimental post on my part. It was originally posted by @Phi for All .

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Consider this smart alec saying

If an expert is someone who knows a lot about a little.
A true expert is someone who knows everything about nothing.

I like that.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

I suggest the question is of this sort since it assumes that the belief, whatever it might be, is the only point of consideration.

But observation tells us that we live in a complex world the requires consideration of the interplay of many points, which runs counter to the belief in one thing above all alse.

As to the second question there is no one single line, it depends upon circumstances so I would suggest the line has been crossed if one single consideration excludes all others.

So often questions like these are couched in terms expecting a binary answer when most of our world works in shades of grey.

Very good. Thanks for the insight.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

One point would be when faith causes one to deny empirical truths, i.e. when an article of faith about the physical world is asserted as a fact that contradicts objective evidence.

I would agree with that but would - again - hazard the exclusive application to faith in this context as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" excluding "strong belief in the position of science, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." Semmelweis Reflex as I often refer to.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'd add: Or when it seeks to deny others their right to different beliefs and becomes a basis for oppression, warfare, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, slavery, that kind of stuff. Faith "taken to the extreme" is historically associated with a rigid mindset that their faith is the one true and virtuous path and should be imposed on others "or else." Even when it doesn't reach the violent consequences I listed, it can result in a socially corrosive sort of condescension, where the True Believer looks down on those not sharing their faith and sees them as somehow lacking or needing to be prayed for. That can be difficult, to be on the receiving end of that.

I don't know . . . man! You have no idea how much that applies to my faith under constant attack by "science" minded atheists. I've come to understand that it isn't about "science" or "faith" though.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Everywhere.
To us Physics ( and most other science ) guys, any ( not just Religious ) unfounded belief without evidence is extreme ( or excrement ? )

I agree with the sentiment as I understand it, but am just reluctant to the specifics. I think. The reason for the hesitancy is the sentiment. That doesn't make any sense I know. What I mean is that it is everywhere and therefor not extreme. The extreme connotation comes from the polarization.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

When it starts issuing proclamations of 'death to all infidels' and stuff of similar murderous nature.

That is the most obvious example, I would agree, though it can be a great deal more subtle. By that I mean achieving the same results in a much less obvious fashion.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

As evidenced even in this thread, the word has become so diluted through misuse as to be almost worthless in serious discussion. To me, it usually flags a bad actor simply badmouthing some school of thought he happens not to agree with.

Yes. That.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Apologies if some find this viewpoint a tad extreme.

[Chuckles]

Edited October 25Oct 25 by Pathway Machine

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

That's the dangerous part isn't it? Thinking you are absolutely correct because god tells you so in his book?

No, I don't think it is. Not that that would be exclusively the motivation. The Bible tells the reader not to believe it. Literally the "spirit" or God breathed. To test it. It teaches that salvation comes from contending with God. And the Bible is a fallible translation of the infallible word of God anyway, so it (a collection of books) is only to be used, in the words of Jude, as an example. (Jude 1:7; 1 John 4:1; Galatians 1:8-9; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:12) So repeatedly in this thread I stress the significance of faith as being broader than the religious connotation. Thinking you are absolutely correct because God tells you so in his book is no greater, in fact less dangerous, than thinking you are absolutely correct because science or anything else tells you so in a book.

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

This is where a lot of people got Dawkins wrong, he had no issues with religious people and debated with Rabbis, priests, Theologians, academics, theist philosophers and even the arch bishop of Canterbury at one point. All amicable, polite and respectful if a little heated at points.

Absolutely.

Dawkins on the Bible

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

What he hated was religious people damaging science education not just because they believed in god.

Not just because? He seemed to hate religion. A sentiment I share up to a point as well, because it damages spiritual education - but so does "science" when it interferes with spiritual instruction. There is a rule of thumb in science, I think, not to do that with other fields of science. I see Dawkins not as someone who may have a problem with that, and if it exists I think it would be warranted, but he doesn't seem to me objective about it in the sense that he sees the traditional. Turning the table, I see science minded atheists as gross representations of science, though I have little interest in science I wouldn't criticize it based on that misrepresentation. I see the religious in the same light with religion. The traditional and to a lesser extent, theological theists as gross misrepresentations of religion.

2 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

I agree with all of this but it bothers me on some level I can't put my finger on. I think maybe because, although true it has the implication, though unintended, of specifying an extremism exclusive to "faith." Best take that with a grain of sand because I can't articulate my discomfort well.

Perhaps it would best be articulated in that extremism often only uses faith and other modes of expression as a tool when those things are only useful for their ideological fixation and social control. Someone, for example, who blows up an abortion clinic, protests a gay marriage, wants creation taught in schools, fight wars for democracy, freedom, god and country, don't really care about those things, they only use them for sociopolitical control. That is what I think the entire class struggle between atheist/theist is really all about. It has little to nothing to do with faith or faithlessness.

Oh I didn't intend to single out religious extremism as unique. I simply read your OP as being about extreme religious faith, specifically, so that is what I addressed. There is all manner of extremism at large, certainly, and some of it definitely hijacks religion as a cover story in order to make intolerance seem respectable. But it can work the other way round as well. For example in the USA, and to some degree in Continental Europe, there is the so-called Religious Right, whose objectives seem to be a blend of intolerant social conservatism and old-fashioned religious views. Basically they are trying to advance a social policy agenda, but one inspired largely by their rather antediluvian religious views.

I'm not sure I buy your idea of an atheist/theist class struggle, though maybe you can develop it more to help me see what you mean. For the most part, atheist and religious believers get along fine and are thoroughly intermingled, it seems to me, rather than being identifiable classes.

I think it is worth pointing out that not everyone who is non religious (me for instance) is aetheist.

In fact I consider it rather insulting to be lumped with them (aetheists).

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Oh I didn't intend to single out religious extremism as unique. I simply read your OP as being about extreme religious faith, specifically, so that is what I addressed. There is all manner of extremism at large, certainly, and some of it definitely hijacks religion as a cover story in order to make intolerance seem respectable. But it can work the other way round as well. For example in the USA, and to some degree in Continental Europe, there is the so-called Religious Right, whose objectives seem to be a blend of intolerant social conservatism and old-fashioned religious views. Basically they are trying to advance a social policy agenda, but one inspired largely by their rather antediluvian religious views.

Unfortunately that is true. Jesus was no part of the world and said his followers were to be no part of the world. Satan tempted him with the world and he resisted, they tried to make him king and he fled. Unfortunately many, perhaps most of his alleged followers don't see it that way. But they don't care either. It's just a means to an end.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

I'm not sure I buy your idea of an atheist/theist class struggle, though maybe you can develop it more to help me see what you mean. For the most part, atheist and religious believers get along fine and are thoroughly intermingled, it seems to me, rather than being identifiable classes.

I'm going to have to work on my allusions. I was born and raised atheist/irreligious. Most of the people I've known throughout my life have been atheists. I think there is a definite distinction between the majority of atheists who are apathetic and the minority who are "militant." The ideological struggle I refer to is between the latter and the fundamental nationalistic Christian. There's also a sort of intolerance of anything spiritual, which I get, but the struggle or conflict I refer to is sociopolitical. I don't see the militant atheist as not believing in God I see them as wanting to be God. Sort of a different take on imitatio dei.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think it is worth pointing out that not everyone who is non religious (me for instance) is aetheist.

In fact I consider it rather insulting to be lumped with them (aetheists).

I myself prefer the terms believer and unbeliever. I also prefer Hitchens' term antitheist. To me a theist is one with God(s) and an atheist is one without God(s) but there is no such thing as the latter because as Penn & Teller said, everyone's got a gri-gri. It isn't about faith because faith isn't just belief in the existence of but also trust. I'm irreligious and apolitical. I know politicians exist but I have no faith in them. Demons don't have faith, they know and yet shudder. Just because you have no faith in gods don't mean you think they don't exist. And just because you do have faith in gods don't mean you think they do exist. A god can be anyone or anything that is venerated. Natural, supernatural, human, spirit, mortal, etc.

Edited October 25Oct 25 by Pathway Machine

22 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

I myself prefer the terms believer and unbeliever. I also prefer Hitchens' term antitheist. To me a theist is one with God(s) and an atheist is one without God(s) but there is no such thing as the latter because as Penn & Teller said, everyone's got a gri-gri. It isn't about faith because faith isn't just belief in the existence of but also trust. I'm irreligious and apolitical. I know politicians exist but I have no faith in them. Demons don't have faith, they know and yet shudder. Just because you have no faith in gods don't mean you think they don't exist. And just because you do have faith in gods don't mean you think they do exist. A god can be anyone or anything that is venerated. Natural, supernatural, human, spirit, mortal, etc.

To me this reply also shows a certain measure of contempt for the opinions of others.

I do not fit into any of the categories you describe.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

To me this reply also shows a certain measure of contempt for the opinions of others.

Really? How so? Not that I don't possess contempt for many opinions.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I do not fit into any of the categories you describe.

Into what categories do you fit into?

Edited October 25Oct 25 by Pathway Machine

5 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Really? How so?

Into what categories do you fit into?

Because of the emotive language and binary terms you have classified others.

I am a don't care.

I do not need an emotional crutch to justify my actions or beliefs.

Here is an interesting Poem from Robert Service

My Father Christmas passed away
When I was barely seven.
At twenty-one, alack-a-day,
I lost my hope of heaven.

Yet not in either lies the curse:
The hell of it's because
I don't know which loss hurt the worse --
My God or Santa Claus.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Because of the emotive language and binary terms you have classified others.

Emotive? It seems to me that it is possible that the offense could be in the reception rather than presentation. If there are two binary descriptive terms suffice. Could it be overcomplicated by unnecessary (Ockham's razor) terms? Liberals destroy conservatives conserve, for example.  

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am a don't care.

Apathetic protestation? It doesn't make sense to me. There seems to be an increasing tendency towards hypocritical tyranny. I mean in general, not with you personally. I don't know you from Adam. In order to understand variations in human behavior it would seem necessary to dismantle and perceive vicariously these variations objectively. Okay, I think this is this and that is that, so let's examine them carefully from our own perspective and perception. Judge them on our own fallible position. To conclude that I think this or that is wrong for me is not a negation of an alternative or insistence upon it unless you protest the perspective of another which goes beyond the intent of the original understanding you set out to do in the first place. 

For example, Brits are much better educated than we are in the states. That's due to the industrial revolution and JD Rockefeller's grooming obedient workers rather than scholars. The Skinner method of education that comes from Prussia where the beliefs of the student, no matter what they are, must be eradicated. Consequently no one believes in anything and intelligence or even understanding is frowned upon as an affront. 

Killing with kindness.    

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I do not need an emotional crutch to justify my actions or beliefs.

That's fine, but I don't think anyone said you did. 

14 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

That's fine, but I don't think

I think we are divided by more than a common language (if you understand that quote because I didn't understand half of your last post)

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

My Father Christmas passed away
When I was barely seven.
At twenty-one, alack-a-day,
I lost my hope of heaven.

Yet not in either lies the curse:
The hell of it's because
I don't know which loss hurt the worse --
My God or Santa Claus.

I was raised as atheist/irreligious. Loathed religion. Still do but for different reasons. Organized, not individual beliefs. I wasn't taught Santa Clause and had to be careful not to give that away to kids my age. Had to look at it from another perspective and feel fortunate I wasn't the adorable idiot people often want their children to be. Later, after becoming a believer I had to examine the possible literal existence of God, which reminded me of Santa. Santa does exist, as a mythological person possibly based on a literal person and as a marketing device at the mall and on street corners. God's existence is like that. I believe Jehovah to literally exist and other Gods not to. God is simply a word that means mighty/venerated. The atheist believe that God doesn't exist but that would mean they created him in their image. Not the theists. Doesn't make sense. Our societies were formulated upon mythological presuppositions.

You hate this

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think we are divided by more than a common language (if you understand that quote because I didn't understand half of your last post)

That, it appears, is not unusual.

Edited October 25Oct 25 by Pathway Machine

Why would I hate it ?

I don't agree with it, but that is another discussion.

Perhaps the speaker has never done any marine biology or read Stafford Beer.

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Unfortunately that is true. Jesus was no part of the world and said his followers were to be no part of the world. Satan tempted him with the world and he resisted, they tried to make him king and he fled. Unfortunately many, perhaps most of his alleged followers don't see it that way. But they don't care either. It's just a means to an end.

I'm going to have to work on my allusions. I was born and raised atheist/irreligious. Most of the people I've known throughout my life have been atheists. I think there is a definite distinction between the majority of atheists who are apathetic and the minority who are "militant." The ideological struggle I refer to is between the latter and the fundamental nationalistic Christian. There's also a sort of intolerance of anything spiritual, which I get, but the struggle or conflict I refer to is sociopolitical. I don't see the militant atheist as not believing in God I see them as wanting to be God. Sort of a different take on imitatio dei.

Yes, quite, the gospels are not agitprop.

OK so you are referring to evangelical New Atheists on the one hand and fundie Christians (or Muslims or Jews, actually) on the other? Yes, of course they are fighting one another. I also agree it could indeed be seen as a sociopolitical fight, in that both camps want to mould society according to their worldviews. While this is nakedly obvious on the part of the Religious Right in the USA, it is less so for the New Atheists. But I found this article on the topic of the political dimension to New (evangelical) Atheism:

I thought it was quite interesting, though it was written in 2013 and my feeling is the New Atheism movement has grown weaker since that time. There is little doubt from reading this that the New Atheists have, or had, political goals. What I wonder now, though, is whether this crusade has gone anywhere. I see a lot less about it than a decade ago. I wonder if this may be linked to the failure of the Intelligent Design movement, which I know exercised people like Dawkins greatly.

By the way, and a bit off the subject, I was also struck by the description of how the New Atheists see religion: "Tied to this is a view of religion as propositional, as a set of truth claims about the nature of reality that is to be treated as a scientific hypothesis and duly weighed against the available evidence. As such, new atheists maintain that since no evidence of this kind that can withstand scrutiny has ever been produced, the claims made by religion must therefore be rejected as false."

It seems to me this is a bit shallow, ignoring as it does the often profound value of religion in people's lives as a guide, a coping mechanism, a source of tradition, identity, the aesthetic (architectural, visual, musical, literary), shared ritual and community. But that's possibly a different subject.

5 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Thinking you are absolutely correct because God tells you so in his book is no greater, in fact less dangerous, than thinking you are absolutely correct because science or anything else tells you so in a book.

Though it's important to distinguish what one is told in a religious book from what one is told in a science textbook or journal or conference proceedings. These are very different sorts of telling, epistemologically.

The religious book asks certain assertions be accepted on faith. A science text asks only your attention to what is empirically supported by the data, and asks nothing of you on the basis of faith. This would seem LESS dangerous in the beliefs engendered, given they would be derived from evidence and open to revision on the basis of new evidence and/or procedural flaws exposed by peer review.

I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell quote,

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.