"You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop out

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2007-07-01 01:41am

How does one debate matters concerning religion with a religious moderate or someone who is religiously liberal? It seems that a religious liberal has abandoned significant portions of their holy book that they follow and rather believe in some sort of a bastardization of the original religion. I recently was drawn into a discussion regarding religion and every single point I brought up, they simple brushed it aside and made the simple statement, "You're supposed to have faith."

I asked the question, "Is it possible for one to accept one part of religion and reject another aspect of it?" Their response was that it was absolutely ok to accept one part of religion and reject another part of it because religion is supposed to be tailored to your own views, that it allows you to have your own personal god. If you accepted everything, women would be second class citizens and gays be would hunted down.

I pressed the issue into greater detail and asked, "Well, lets say that a religion is structured in the following way: a religion makes the claim that there is some sort of supreme deity who created the universe and this deity selects a person, a prophet, to write down its words into a holy book. Now, this supreme deity is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and has instructed its prophet to write down its every words, which by default are true. This holy book consists of three different parts, part A, part B, and part C. If a person agrees with part A and part B but rejects part C, doesn't that by default mean you are rejecting part A and part B also since its either all or none?"

The response was one which I never heard before which was, "Many holy books have been rewritten so many times that it has lost many of its original meanings, that there are bound to be errors. Therefore, its necessary for each person to interpret their holy books as they see fit." I asked the question, "If you see the holy book as necessary to interpret because of errors, then how can you accept the original premise?"

"You're supposed to have faith."

Ok. I responded, "Let me ask you in terms that you understand since you want to be a law student. The prosecution makes a claim that a certain person is guilty of a certain crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this person did indeed commit this crime. Now, the default position is that said person is innocent of said crime; all the defense has to do is to demonstrate that there exists doubt in the prosecution's argument and they win. If you apply this same thinking to religion, there exists reasonable doubt about the veracity of religion if there are so many errors in this holy book."

"Again, you're thinking too scientifically (yes, that was uttered). You're supposed to have faith that the original premise is true. Everything after that, you can interpret."

I asked, "But then that goes back to my original question. You say that its possible for people to accept one part and reject another part but here, you're rejecting some of the core books of said holy book (i.e. the Bible), the original premise. Isn't that theologically unsound then?"

"Again, you're just supposed to have faith."

If there is ever a cop out statement in any form of debating, its the statement, "You need faith" or "You're supposed to have faith" or "That's why faith is so important." When debating someone who is a fundamentalist, at least they are willing to abide by everything that their holy book says (for better or worse...worse of course). I gave up after this because it became obvious I was getting nowhere which greatly annoyed me because he took it as a sign of concession.

Jericho Kross · Post by **Jericho Kross** » 2007-07-01 02:11am

Some of the christians I know tried this little "you need to have [blind] faith"

argument to try to counter my previous statement. I find whenever this "faith" statement is used It shows that the religious person who you are debating is attempting to cause a stalemate.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-07-01 02:55am

This was just about exactly the argument I'd gotten in my own religion classes in Catholic school. The teacher, a rather good chap actually, pointed out how if you started asking questions about how god came to be, you'd have to accept the idea that something created god and so forth until you fell into the infinite regress. As a result, you just had to take it on faith that god always was.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-07-01 03:36am

The response to that is copout is "No, you're supposed to THINK for yourself."

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2007-07-01 03:39am

My response? "No, I don't. I never signed anything, I don't have to have faith if I don't want to."

Parallax · Post by **Parallax** » 2007-07-01 03:52am

"So what is to better about your faith in god than in if there is an invisible pink pegasus flying above your head?"

Superboy · Post by **Superboy** » 2007-07-01 05:16am

Like Parallax said, just ask them how they know what religion they're supposed to have faith in. I had this same discussion not too long ago, and at the end of it they basically admitted that they randomly chose what to have faith in. They quickly realized how stupid this sounded and said that they had to think about it some more and get back to me (they never did).

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-07-01 06:58am

Fire Fly wrote:How does one debate matters concerning religion with a religious moderate or someone who is religiously liberal? ....... I recently was drawn into a discussion regarding religion and every single point I brought up, they simple brushed it aside and made the simple statement, "You're supposed to have faith."

See, the problem is that you think you're having a debate. You're not. Or rather, you are but they aren't.

I asked the question, "Is it possible for one to accept one part of religion and reject another aspect of it?" Their response was that it was absolutely ok to accept one part of religion and reject another part of it because religion is supposed to be tailored to your own views, that it allows you to have your own personal god.

That might work for a New Age or NeoPagan, and some polytheisms let you choose among a number of gods for the one that you like best, but it doesn't work for the world's major monotheisms.

"Again, you're thinking too scientifically (yes, that was uttered).

Again, you thought you were having a debate, and you weren't.

To a degree, they are correct in that faith is not something that can be analysed in a scientific manner. It is subjective and concerns the emotions, not reason. Nonetheless, one does not have to shut off one's brain entirely. What you are talking about - accepting part of the Bible but rejecting other parts - really doesn't make sense in the context of the religions that use it.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2007-07-01 07:19am

How would one argue the premise that God doesn't exists then? It just seems that people take it on "faith" that god exists.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-01 07:29am

Broomstick wrote: To a degree, they are correct in that faith is not something that can be analysed in a scientific manner. It is subjective and concerns the emotions, not reason. Nonetheless, one does not have to shut off one's brain entirely. What you are talking about - accepting part of the Bible but rejecting other parts - really doesn't make sense in the context of the religions that use it.

What about religions that do have a holy book, but consider retconning it to be a perfectly acceptable practice in order to keep the religion up to date(in some sense of the word)?

The_Saint · Post by **The_Saint** » 2007-07-01 07:35am

PainRack wrote:How would one argue the premise that God doesn't exists then? It just seems that people take it on "faith" that god exists.

Occam's Razor

Could also use the argument that you have faith that God doesn't exist though that could potentially open up the can of worms of "but faith is religion, you admit you have faith so you must be religious" which... well, it doesn't. (I've been through the last argument before... I gave up, like Broomstick mentioned, I was having a debate with someone who wasn't)

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2007-07-01 07:37am

If there is ever a cop out statement in any form of debating, its the statement, "You need faith" or "You're supposed to have faith" or "That's why faith is so important." When debating someone who is a fundamentalist, at least they are willing to abide by everything that their holy book says (for better or worse...worse of course). I gave up after this because it became obvious I was getting nowhere which greatly annoyed me because he took it as a sign of concession.

Honestly, what do you expect? Several centuries of culture has the underlying massage "BELIEVE!" and the notion that "you must have faith" appears logical.

My response: Why am I supposed to have faith? (not very witty I'm afraid, but it gets to the point for me).

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-07-01 09:32am

Ace Pace wrote:
Broomstick wrote: To a degree, they are correct in that faith is not something that can be analysed in a scientific manner. It is subjective and concerns the emotions, not reason. Nonetheless, one does not have to shut off one's brain entirely. What you are talking about - accepting part of the Bible but rejecting other parts - really doesn't make sense in the context of the religions that use it.
What about religions that do have a holy book, but consider retconning it to be a perfectly acceptable practice in order to keep the religion up to date(in some sense of the word)?

Huh. Good question. Can you name such a religion?

Would first have to know how the group defines "keeping it up to date".

I don't have an off-the-cuff response, I'll have to think about it.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-01 09:42am

Broomstick wrote: Huh. Good question. Can you name such a religion?

Would first have to know how the group defines "keeping it up to date".

I don't have an off-the-cuff response, I'll have to think about it.

Judaism does it to some extent, in the old texts explictly. The Tanach(old testement to you non Jews) is held in equal and not greater regard as the Torah SheBealpe(the Oral Torah) and the Talmudic interpetive texts. Furthermore, depending on which group of people you ask, the main Rabbis of the middle ages, Rambam,Rashi, etc. are also considered just as worthy a source on how to act as the Tanach.

A good quote on this comes from here. I'm not sure how accurate is it, but it seems to sum up the opinion of most of the religious people I know.

"Here are the facts: traditional Judaism as we know it today is absolutely not the religion of Moses and the prophets. It is the religion of the rabbis who lived and taught in some cases over 1500 years later. Instead of being the religion of Temple and sacrifice as prescribed by the Torah, it is the religion of no Temple and no sacrifice, in spite of the Torah. It may shock you to know this, but some of Judaism's most sacred books did not even exist before the late Middle Ages. Christopher Columbus had already discovered America before the Code of Jewish Law used by Orthodox Jews today had ever been compiled!

Now, the dates, to my hazy recollection, are abit wrong, but the point is accurate, Judaism today in no way resembles the Tanachs time.

Furthermore, Judaism is a painful thing to ever generalise about. When I talk about the above, it's about the Orthodox branch, and not the fundamentalist, Reformist, Traditionalist or any other branch, all of whom, depending on geographic location, have just as much if not more relevence then the orthodox. Reformists are pretty much open to tossing things out, and bringing things in, and are big pushers of full equality of women(for example), I do belive they're 100% equal in that regard, but I'm not sure.

This is not to say they don't have their own issues and contradictions and areas where they are quite off the mark, but in Judaism, specifically the Orthodox branch, a prominent Rabbis words carry as much weight as the Tanach depending on how it's phrased and what the topic is about.[/quote]

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-07-01 10:41am

I'm surprised you didn't ask why people are supposed to have faith, or need it.

Would've been interesting to read his take on it.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2007-07-01 11:29am

I don't tend to engage religious liberals in this sort of debate because frankly, I don't want them to start thinking that pushy atheists are a threat to their beliefs. I like religious liberals because they're mostly good people and aren't likely to string me up.

That said, I had a discussion with a Methodist, liberal, very close friend a few years back in which I made my point pretty clear. I pointed out that she is only a Methodist because of who her parents are, and that (picking a random example) Hindus were Hindus for the same reason. And she actually admitted that, eventually, and then admitted my next point, which is that they have as strong a basis for faith as she. So then I ask, "what makes you right and them wrong?" With a very uncomfortable expression, she said "They're...just...wrong."

I didn't push any farther but ever since then I think she's had a better understanding of why I'm an atheist.

Hugh · Post by **Hugh** » 2007-07-01 12:07pm

Parallax wrote:"So what is to better about your faith in god than in if there is an invisible pink pegasus flying above your head?"

Here's a more interesting comparison (IMO): in what way is ethics superior to faith in a God?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-07-01 12:16pm

Patrick Degan wrote:This was just about exactly the argument I'd gotten in my own religion classes in Catholic school. The teacher, a rather good chap actually, pointed out how if you started asking questions about how god came to be, you'd have to accept the idea that something created god and so forth until you fell into the infinite regress. As a result, you just had to take it on faith that god always was.

Monotheist: "Everything must have a cause. Therefore, the universe was created by something or someone."

Atheist: "No, the universe has always existed."

Monotheist: "That's impossible to believe! The universe must have been created by God!"

Atheist: "Then who created God?"

Monotheist: "God has always existed."

Atheist: "... o.O"

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2007-07-01 12:28pm

Bubble Boy wrote:I'm surprised you didn't ask why people are supposed to have faith, or need it.

Would've been interesting to read his take on it.

This was one of the many tangents that came up in our discussion. His response was that it was necessary to have faith just because. Some people need to believe that there exists a higher purpose to life so that they aren't so depressed, so that they feel there is a meaning to life; some people just actually can't live without faith. Beyond that, I don't think he really knew why.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2007-07-01 12:30pm

The way I argue it is to find areas where their faith seems to supercede a moral or scientific proposition I hold dear. The most common one is homosexuality - I argue that they need to put to me a good reason why this is immoral if they think so. They usually fail to do so without resorting to a text. I can then take the more traditional line of questioning why it should be considered a binding document to those who do not find it binding.

I tend to agree with some of the above posters that if they were so liberal that all of their moral positions matched mine (or they could argue without a religous position) then I see no need to have the argument

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-07-01 02:40pm

Bubble Boy wrote:I'm surprised you didn't ask why people are supposed to have faith, or need it.

Would've been interesting to read his take on it.

If they can't answer that, then they need to have their noses rubbed in their shit without mercy, it's really the most important question to ask someone spouting this kind of crap.

"Supposed to?" It literally begs the question "WHY?"....

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-07-01 03:03pm

Here's a more interesting comparison (IMO): in what way is ethics superior to faith in a God?

Hmm... maybe because in common ethics you use the up-to-date system of human social relations, not the ancient words of some crazy monks writing from the name of a sky pixie. Sorry if that sounds offensive, but really, humanist ethics are superior to sky pixie beliefs.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-01 03:19pm

Hugh wrote:
Parallax wrote:"So what is to better about your faith in god than in if there is an invisible pink pegasus flying above your head?"
Here's a more interesting comparison (IMO): in what way is ethics superior to faith in a God?

Ethics is capable of actually explaining why something is bad without relying on the ever so common fallback of "My magic sky pixie says it's bad."

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2007-07-01 04:56pm

"Supposed to?" It literally begs the question "WHY?"....

Short answer: Because. (no mockery intended, well not towards you anyway)

Slightly longer answer: because mommy and daddy said so, and they also said that its the foundation of western culture.

And if you think about it, how much does Western culture rely on the idea that you must blindly believe? Not specifically in Jesus and "THE" Holy Book, but anything in general.

His response was that it was necessary to have faith just because. Some people need to believe that there exists a higher purpose to life so that they aren't so depressed, so that they feel there is a meaning to life; some people just actually can't live without faith.

My response: purpose in life does not necessarily have to metaphysical.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-07-01 05:32pm

I think faith=good for several reasons from their point of view.

1. Faith is something we have that, as far as we know, the animal kingdom doesn't share. Therefore, we're special, and we must embrace that which makes us better than animals, and clearly not decended from them.

2. Faith can be used as a tool to get you through a tough ordeal when otherwise you might have faltered/given up/whatever. I actually think this one is weak. Clearly determination plays a more important role if we're talking about trying to survive a dangerous or life threatening ordeal. On the other hand, faith that God will punish those that pissed you off when they cut across you in traffic might (and I stress might) prevent the praying idiot from lashing out himself.

It's not like number 2 in particular hasn't been exploited throughout the ages by many, many people. People have faith that God will lead them to a better life, or at least prevent them from recieving harm. And while it certainly is in many cases harming them from having a happy life, it seems to yet still satisfy them personally on many levels.

Thus I suppose you would get the argument that faith is good for the soul, even if it isn't good for a materialistic world.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop out

"You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop out

Re: "You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop

Re: "You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop

Re: "You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop

Re: "You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop