The Harm of Belief in God

[Metahive]

Well, I think believing in an omnipotent god who nonetheless chose to create humanity, the only beings he cares about supposedly, in the slowest and most inefficient way possible which also lead to lots of dead-ends would provide a challenge for one's suspension of disbelief.

[Zinegata]

Metahive->

You are therefore arguing that my statement - "People can believe in evolution and God at the same time" - is wrong because of cognitive dissonance. However, let us look at the definition of cognitive dissonance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Cognitive dissonance is merely the discomfort of having two conflicting ideas. You have therefore failed to refute my argument for two reasons:

1) Cognitive dissonance does not prevent two conflicting ideas from existing in the same person. And it can be reduced. Therefore, a person can, in fact, totally believe in both Evolution and God without problem.

2) More importantly: You have not proved that religion and science are required to conflict. You have merely assumed this, but have shown no proof.

[Metahive]

You are therefore arguing that my statement - "People can believe in evolution and God at the same time" - is wrong because of cognitive dissonance. However, let us look at the definition of cognitive dissonance:

No, I am in fact not arguing this and I'd ask you to read the little exerpt you copied from Wikipedia thoroughly, especially the latter part so as to find out what I am actually arguing. Holding two different viewpoints is perfectly possible for human beings, it only requires them to look for any rationalization since, as is stated, we don't like contradictions.

Therefore believing in completely rational and completely irrational things at the same time is possible, it only requires certain mental gymnastics. No one here has denied that, so I ask you to drop this accusation.

[Zinegata]

You are therefore arguing that my statement - "People can believe in evolution and God at the same time" - is wrong because of cognitive dissonance. However, let us look at the definition of cognitive dissonance:

No, I am in fact not arguing this and I'd ask you to read the little exerpt you copied from Wikipedia thoroughly, especially the latter part so as to find out what I am actually arguing. Holding two different viewpoints is perfectly possible for human beings, it only requires them to look for any rationalization since, as is stated, we don't like contradictions.

Therefore believing in completely rational and completely irrational things at the same time is possible, it only requires certain mental gymnastics. No one here has denied that, so I ask you to drop this accusation.

This is true. However, the second point still remains:

You have not proved that religion and science must contradict.

If you cannot prove this, then it means this is a false assumption. Therefore, cognitive dissonance may not even come into play.

So please respond to what I already pointed out in the previous post, as you have yet to prove anything.

[Ghost Rider]

Wait, he has to prove how the belief needed to accept an omnipotent being and a state that is defined as

knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Are not contradictory?

One is defined by ignorance. The belief there are higher unknown powers that guide everything in mysterious ways is the very height of ignorance.

[Metahive]

This is true. However, the second point still remains:

You have not proved that religion and science must contradict.

If you cannot prove this, then it means this is a false assumption. Therefore, cognitive dissonance may not even come into play.

So please respond to what I already pointed out in the previous post, as you have yet to prove anything.

Easy. Science is a bottom-up method of inquiry. You draw conclusions out of the available evidence. Religion is a top-down method of inquiry. Conclusions are drawn ("revealed") and it is attempted to fit the evidence in. Both however try to explain the same thing, reality. The former has delivered resulty way more often and with regularity, the latter one hasn't and its facts are also not supported by any sort of valid scientific evidence.
So thinking that both methods of inquiry are valid does in fact cause cognitive dissonance.

Also, if you adhere to one of the abrahamic religions at least you will sooner or later come to a point were you are forced to either compromise a doctrine or deny reality. It's inevitable, just look at Christianity's most basic doctrine, that Jesus returned from the dead three days after his supposed death. Try harmonizing that with the scientific data without any sort of cognitive dissonance.

[Kanastrous]

You have not proved that religion and science must contradict.

If by 'contradict' you mean 'stipulate incompatible methods for determining the truth-value of propositions concerning the world,' then yes, religious faith and scientific methodology are inherently contradictory.

It's probably not necessary to explain why, but...I guess I will, just in case.

An article of faith is based upon an a priori assumption that said article is true, whether or not anyone has objectively tested its truth, whether or not any such test is even possible, whether or not said article comports with observed phenomena or known physical laws. In other words This is True, don't question it, don't ask for evidence, and no matter how much contradictory evidence is available, well, it remains true. Because we say so.

A scientific theory is based upon the results of repeated tests of a given hypothesis or hypotheses (which may be via physical experiment or mathematical modeling) which constitute objective tests for truth: absent those tests your hypothesis does not progress to the level of a theory, and your theory certainly does not reach the status of being regarded as a scientific law. And unlike articles of faith - which are by nature supposed to be eternal and unchanging - a scientific theory can be revised or overturned entirely by contradictory observations that are not accounted for by its structure. In other words This model proves true according to experimentation in the real world, you are welcome to question it via experimentation, share your evidence, and if we find that the evidence contradicts it - time to revise or discard the theory. Because that's what we observe in the real world tells us.

These are mutually exclusive methods for interpreting the world. I'll leave it to you to pick which one has yielded replacement joints, information technology, organ transplants, high-yield crops, space travel, clean drinking water and XBoxes, and which one has gifted us such things as ghettoes, blood libels, doctrinal warfare and hierarchies of men in feminized dress who molest children and skip the consequences because wearing that dress distinguishes them as persons beyond reproach by civil authority.

*EDIT* I see people beat me to it. Well, I'm posting it anyway.

[Zinegata]

Right. We have several responses stating that science and religion must, in fact, contradict.

A common thread of all these responses is that "Science is rooted in logic, while religion is rooted in ignorance"

Here is my counter-argument:

Religion, contrary to popular belief, is not defined by ignorance. Religion is defined by faith.

If you'll recall one of SD.net's very own articles...

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

The original principle comes from a theologian named William of Ockham, who lived nearly a thousand years ago and devised it as a proof that the existence of God is not logical. That may seem contradictory for a theologian, but he was trying to show that you need pure faith to believe in God, and that logic will not help you.

The concept of evaluating whether or not a theory is rational or irrational actually comes from our friend Okham, a theologian who wanted to prove that to believe in God, you need to have faith and not logic.

How is faith different from ignorance? Well, let me explain then:

Ignorance is believing in something, because you don't have the correct information.

Faith is believing in something, even though you know that you don't have enough information.

This may seem like a minor difference, but it's not.

When somebody believes that Obama is a Muslim by the mere fact he has "Hussein" in his name, he is being ignorant.

When somebody voted for Barack Obama and his platform of change, despite not knowing what the future would actually bring, that's an act of faith.

This is a hugely important distinction, because many actions we take are based on faith. Every time we take an action that has an uncertain effect on the future? That's an act of faith.

Most of our morality is also based on faith. "Do good unto others and they will do good unto you" is a tenet of morality most of us follow, but we all know there's no guarantee it will actually work out. We know some loon may do bad things to us even if we do good to them. You just have to put faith in your fellow men to follow the same principle.

And that's why religion and science can, in fact, co-exist. Science gathers information to provide us with facts and truths. Religion allows us to believe in answers (through faith), even though we have yet to gather enough evidence to prove the answer is the right one.

(Also, a preemptive counter-argument: Yes, some religious people are simply totally ignorant. But it doesn't mean all of them are. Thus, a person of faith can totally believe in both God and Science).

[Zinegata]

Also, Metahive, one minor side issue:

Not all Christians read the Bible literally.

[Kanastrous]

Addendum - I neglected to mention that Scientific Methodology can yield a predictive power which has never, ever been delivered by religious faith.

For example, look up a fellow by the name of Dmitri Mendeleev, who assembled the Periodic Table of the Elements which you can find in pretty much any halfway-well-furnished junior high school science classroom. Put simply, via interpretation of experimental evidence - that is to say, methodical observation of the real world - Mendeleev developed the concept of periodicity, which among other things stipulates that the physical properties and behavior of chemical elements are linked to their atomic weights. However, at the time he assembled his table, there were gaps - no one had managed to isolate the elements that should fall into certain empty squares in the grid. So Mendeleev left those spots open, but made predictions concerning those as-yet-never-seen elements' properties based upon their expected weights.

And he turned out to be right. For years after his death chemists and physicists kept finding the 'missing' elements, and discovering that their properties and behavior matched Mendeleev's predictions to a high degree of accuracy.

In other words, using the predictive power of a well-constructed scientific theory Mendeleev effectively prophesied the discovery and properties of forms of matter that no one had ever seen. He made what turned out to be accurate predictions - laboratory accurate predictions based upon application of scientific principles.

Compare that to the forms of prophesy one finds in religious contexts - vague, inaccurate or at best so open to the chosen interpretation of the reader that they could mean anything or nothing, depending upon how the individual chooses to interpret them.

There's no contest. If you want poetry, consult a prophet. If you want any real crack at getting accurate predictions - ask a properly-educated scientist.

[Ghost Rider]

Faith and morality have little to nothing with each other. In the most basic sense, morality is based upon the fact that humans are social creatures and there are actions that allow for higher survival rather then others.

Faith is based purely on superstition which Rye covered earlier in far better fashion then I would, but I'll reprint his words:

Superstition is just primitive induction, really. False positives make incorrect associations of causation. Much of the human brain is dedicated to second guessing members of our own species in communication, so naturally the brain will apply anthropic principles to the world and natural phenomena where it doesn't belong. You know a guy hates you if he keeps coming after you throwing sticks and stones, shouting at you. What if every time you go out in a boat, the sea destroys your ship and others survive? The sea hates you.

[Formless]

So, again, please explain to me: How do you go from "Maj is wrong, superstition is not God" to "A Christian is not allowed to believe in evolution!"

You just don't stop strawmanning no matter what the fuck I say, do you?

Her whole argument is that superstition serves an evolutionary purpose, and therefor is a moral good. This rests on the implied premise that evolution designs creatures like a human designer, and that its designs are unquestionable and good.

Here, I've added emphasis and stripped out a few tangential bits to make it clearer what I meant. I know many believers who believe in God and in evolution, but most of them know what a naturalistic fallacy is. There are a few that believe that God works through evolution, which is also fine insofar as it makes evolution merely a tool of God. There are a few who think that [edit]evolution[/edit] religious belief is an evolved trait, and thus that this is evidence for God's existence. They too are wrong, but still don't make the mistake I was talking about.

Maj is making the novel (if fucking stupid) argument that because evolution created superstition and religious belief we therefor have a moral imperative to allow them to continue existing. She also stated elsewhere on this board that she was a mormon, and frankly her behavior seemed at the time to indicate that she is indeed a believer. Unfortunately, that means that unless she is one of the idiots who thinks evolution is a tool of God (a possibility my original statements did not rule out), she's effectively said that evolution has the qualities I listed here-- things God reserves for Himself, and no other.

Of course, you would have to have read the whole argument in context to have understood that, but seeing as you couldn't even grasp that this argument originally was as much about superstition as it was about religion....

Now, if Maj were to come back here and confirm that she is in fact trying to argue that evolution is a tool of god or evidence of god's existence (or for the existence of any other supernatural power for that matter) then obviously I will retract the comment. I will do the same if she states she does not believe God (or even just the Abrahamic god) or does not believe the Ten Commandments are inviolate moral imperatives (although that said, this entire argument would be moot point if she admitted to the former).

BTW, just to conform to board rules, as requested, the Nazi experments:

Great, now where is your evidence that the Crusades were more motivated by secular desires than by religious ones?

[Kanastrous]

Right. We have several responses stating that science and religion must, in fact, contradict.

A common thread of all these responses is that "Science is rooted in logic, while religion is rooted in ignorance"

Not in *my* response. Not at all.

Logic is simply an instrument, like a jackhammer or a screwdriver. The Catholic Church (for example) has produced world-famous philosophers whose arguments were based upon logical processes - the trouble is that a logical construction only gives you as valid a conclusion as the starting assumptions that you posit at the beginning. So you can start with a flawed premise, take it through a picture-perfect logical argument, and wind up with a completely ridiculous conclusion that is nonetheless logically consistent.

So, please, let's dispense with this 'science=logic/religion=ignorance' foolishness right now - at best it's a clumsy strawman: both scientific inquiry and religious arguments utilize logic; the difference is the manner in which each applies logical processes to their premises and how each selects its premises, to begin with.

Here is my counter-argument:

Religion, contrary to popular belief, is not defined by ignorance. Religion is defined by faith.

It's defined by both. In order to maintain faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the articles of faith you hold, you must be either inadvertently or deliberately ignorant of the manner in which that evidence contradicts those articles of faith. For example, if you are a Rio de Janiero slum dweller with a functional 3rd-grade education, you maintain that necessary ignorance by virtue of, well, never having learned any better. If you are, say, a Middle-Class American Bible Literalist, you maintain that ignorance by simply avoiding education contrary to your beliefs as much as possible, and by deliberately distorting and purposely playing-stupid refusing to grasp what the remainder of that education has, to offer you.

[Channel72]

And that's why religion and science can, in fact, co-exist. Science gathers information to provide us with facts and truths. Religion allows us to believe in answers (through faith), even though we have yet to gather enough evidence to prove the answer is the right one.

What you're saying is probably true theoretically, but in practice it's difficult to reconcile a scientific world-view with religion if you only reflect for a moment on the actual specific beliefs involved. In other words - what exactly are we trying to reconcile here? Are we trying to reconcile science with some kind of vague, spiritual predilection towards the belief in a benevolent Higher Power that controls our destiny? Or are we trying to reconcile science with [insert specific brand of Christianity here]?

The fact is, it's hard to reconcile any kind of specifically religious faith with science, because many important religious doctrines are stubbornly defiant of reality. For example, Christianity teaches us explicitly that the world was created in 6 days, mankind was an act of Special Creation, and a Great Flood wiped out all life on Earth approximately 4,000 years ago. Yet all of the physical, scientific evidence adamantly rejects this. So how much are you willing to dilute your faith in this doctrine, while still being satisfied that it is somehow reconcileable with science?

You can argue that 6 days is a metaphor for ~15 billion years, that Special Creation is a metaphor for "directed evolution", and that the Great Flood story is a morality lesson with no basis in historical fact. If you're willing to go that far, why not just argue that Jesus's resurrection was a morality lesson that never actually happened? At some point, your entire faith becomes so elastic that it hardly seems worth holding onto any longer. Even if you manage to convince yourself that the Genesis story is somehow reconcilable with science, a proper understanding of evolution should still cause you a great deal of cognitive dissonance when you reflect on the fact that your beloved Creator couldn't figure out a better way to create mankind other than through ~3 billion years of trial and error, resulting in untold millions of years of suffering and death, which continues to this day.

So while science and faith are probably reconcilable at some level, it takes a special kind of "faith" (i.e. outright denial) to satisfactorily reconcile science and specific tenets of the Abrahamic religions. And really, it's the specific tenets that actually matter.

[Kanastrous]

Science gathers information to provide us with facts and truths. Religion allows us to believe in answers (through faith), even though we have yet to gather enough evidence to prove the answer is the right one.

The whole 'gathering evidence' bit is bullshit. Religions are not engaged in a grand project to demonstrate the truth of their statements via collecting compelling evidence. They insist that you take their stories for truth, whether any evidence ever emerges, or not.

What you really describe is the difference between a scientific theory (a consistent schema for organizing and interpreting observational or mathematical data that comports with known scientific laws and offers predictive power) and a scientific hypothesis (a possible solution to the same ends which has not yet accumulated sufficient supporting observational or mathematical evidence to qualify as a 'theory').

Really, it's a little bit slimy to appropriate what is properly described as scientific theorization and try to pass it off as what religious faith offers. It's not the same thing, at all.

[Zinegata]

I'm kind of outnumbered here and there are multiple and somewhat contradictory responses. So if yours is not answered, sorry in advance (Sorry Kanastrous).

So, again: My argument is that "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance" How many actually responded to this statement?

None, actually.

There's somebody who showed Faith vs Predictive Methodology (Sorry, it's unrelated. I'm not arguing "Faith can replace science"). Another who went for the Faith is not morality tangent (Valid argument that we can further discuss, but it's a bit tangential). Another who is just screaming strawman over stuff that we're already over and done with... (Unrelated)

And somebody who actually asked for a clarification.

What you're saying is probably true theoretically, but in practice it's difficult to reconcile a scientific world-view with religion if you only reflect for a moment on the actual specific beliefs involved. In other words - what exactly are we trying to reconcile here? Are we trying to reconcile science with some kind of vague, spiritual predilection towards the belief in a benevolent Higher Power that controls our destiny? Or are we trying to reconcile science with [insert specific brand of Christianity here]?

Again, let me rewind back to the original statement that is the root cause of all this:

A person can believe in both in the Theory of Evolution, and God, at the same time.

Therefore, what I'm trying to reconcile is science, with the general idea of a Higher Power.

In short, faith is believing that there is, in fact, a higher power out there. Even though the evidence currently does not exist to prove that He/She exists, said person is confident that He/She will eventually be proven to exist.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "religion". That seemed to have sent people thinking this is about literal readings of the Bible again - which again is something most Catholics don't even practice anymore. Heck, Second Vatican admitted the Bible was a historical, not a literal document.

[Kanastrous]

(Sorry Kanastrous).

So, again: My argument is that "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance" How many actually responded to this statement?

I can see why I'm the one to whom you choose not to respond.

I *did* directly respond to your statement (3 posts above your latest) and now you are 'oh no so many responses' weaseling out of answering, presumably because you can't.

Fool, or coward?

Who can say...

As for the whole 'predictive power' business it is admitetdly a tangent but one intended to illustrate why Scientific Methodology is superior to Faith if you wish to construct an understanding of the world.

Plus it also illustrates who science eats religion's lunch on religion's home turf, in this case claims to prophesy what lies in the future.

[Zinegata]

As stated, this is a valid tangent, so...

Faith and morality have little to nothing with each other. In the most basic sense, morality is based upon the fact that humans are social creatures and there are actions that allow for higher survival rather then others.

Faith is based purely on superstition which Rye covered earlier in far better fashion then I would, but I'll reprint his words:

Superstition is just primitive induction, really. False positives make incorrect associations of causation. Much of the human brain is dedicated to second guessing members of our own species in communication, so naturally the brain will apply anthropic principles to the world and natural phenomena where it doesn't belong. You know a guy hates you if he keeps coming after you throwing sticks and stones, shouting at you. What if every time you go out in a boat, the sea destroys your ship and others survive? The sea hates you.

The thing is, you're not 100% sure that morality will indeed actually protect you. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is the rule of a functioning society and it increases survival rates. But there's always the chance of a lunatic who might break this rule and try to kill you. It doesn't matter if the chance is small. If you're dead, you're dead.

Hence, morality to an extent involves following rules, knowing that they may not work out for you in the end.

So please, explain how is this different from how I defined faith. To repeat:

Faith is believing in something, even though you know that you don't have enough information.

Because your definition seems a little different from mine. You're saying faith is based on superstition - which is based on false positives to make incorrect associations. But that's actually how I defined ignorance (Believe in something because you have the wrong information), not faith.

[Zinegata]

(Sorry Kanastrous).

So, again: My argument is that "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance" How many actually responded to this statement?

I can see why I'm the one to whom you choose not to respond.

I *did* directly respond to your statement (3 posts above your latest) and now you are 'oh no so many responses' weaseling out of answering, presumably because you can't.

Fool, or coward?

Who can say...

Please let me spell it out for you again:

I am not arguing Faith can be a replacement for science at all.

After all, you defined faith vs science as: "'stipulate incompatible methods for determining the truth-value of propositions concerning the world,"

So, why should I respond to something that isn't related to my statement? If you want to discuss that, start another thread.

[Kanastrous]

(Sorry Kanastrous).

So, again: My argument is that "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance" How many actually responded to this statement?

I can see why I'm the one to whom you choose not to respond.

I *did* directly respond to your statement (3 posts above your latest) and now you are 'oh no so many responses' weaseling out of answering, presumably because you can't.

Fool, or coward?

Who can say...

Please let me spell it out for you again:

I am not arguing Faith can be a replacement for science at all.

So, why should I respond to something that isn't related to my statement?

I'll just cut-and-paste the response offered to you before, and we can let others in the thread decide whether or not it relates to your statement:

YOUR STATEMENT: "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance"

MY RESPONSE TO YOUR STATEMENT: "It's defined by both. In order to maintain faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the articles of faith you hold, you must be either inadvertently or deliberately ignorant of the manner in which that evidence contradicts those articles of faith. For example, if you are a Rio de Janiero slum dweller with a functional 3rd-grade education, you maintain that necessary ignorance by virtue of, well, never having learned any better. If you are, say, a Middle-Class American Bible Literalist, you maintain that ignorance by simply avoiding education contrary to your beliefs as much as possible, and by deliberately distorting and purposely playing-stupid refusing to grasp what the remainder of that education has, to offer you."

That's precisely a direct response to what you posted. Can you not read?! If you interpret my response above as unrelated to your statement, there is something the matter with your reading-comprehension skills.

[Ghost Rider]

Because this is becoming walls of ignorance shrieking about things they do not want to define.

Faith: a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Religion: a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Ignorant:

lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

With Science being defined as

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

By definition, faith is relying upon you to believe something which is being ignorant. Faith does not ask you to learn about something, it asks you to believe...nothing more. Science is defined by learning, which is the oppositon of ignorance.

So yes, religion is about promoting ignorance. If that makes one unhappy, fine. But constructing bizarre stories of how one promotes or helps the other is asinine.

[Kanastrous]

I don't mean to muddy the waters but one can learn vast quantities of material concerning religion - in the same way that one can learn vast quantities of information concerning baseball stats, Harry Potter trivia, folk tales, Paris Hilton biographical data, etc etc etc.

The question is, what's the value of what's being learned? What's the truth-content as it relates to the real world?

Thomas Aquinas was certainly a learned man, at least, by the standards of his day. But his learning was mostly-if-not-entirely learning rooted in a gigantic inventory of superstition and bullshit.

If I'm just being a semantics-whore without realizing it, I'm sorry. But it seems like a worthwhile distinction.

[Zinegata]

I'll just cut-and-paste the response offered to you before, and we can let others in the thread decide whether or not it relates to your statement:

YOUR STATEMENT: "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance"

MY RESPONSE TO YOUR STATEMENT: "It's defined by both. In order to maintain faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the articles of faith you hold, you must be either inadvertently or deliberately ignorant of the manner in which that evidence contradicts those articles of faith. For example, if you are a Rio de Janiero slum dweller with a functional 3rd-grade education, you maintain that necessary ignorance by virtue of, well, never having learned any better. If you are, say, a Middle-Class American Bible Literalist, you maintain that ignorance by simply avoiding education contrary to your beliefs as much as possible, and by deliberately distorting and purposely playing-stupid refusing to grasp what the remainder of that education has, to offer you."

That's precisely a direct response to what you posted. Can you not read?! If you interpret my response above as unrelated to your statement, there is something the matter with your reading-comprehension skills.

Sorry, I missed that one. Again, there are like four people replying to me and sometimes I miss an entire post.

The thing is, that... actually doesn't refute what I was saying either.

I said "Religion is defined by faith, not ignorance." Faith, in particular...

Faith is believing in something, even though you know that you don't have enough information.

Your two examples are:

1) A Rio dweller who doesn't know better (ignorant, because he doesn't even know he doesn't have information)

2) An American who falsifies facts and plays stupid to support his religion (also ignorant, not "faithful").

Note how I defined ignorance:

Ignorance is believing in something, because you don't have the correct information.

In short, the reason why your definition is incompatible is simple: You're saying falsifying information is the basis of faith. This was never my claim. I said that faith - like how Ockham intended - was to believe in something that hasn't been proven yet.

You don't have to falsify something that hasn't been proven yet, and by Ockham's definition will never be proven.

[Zinegata]

By definition, faith is relying upon you to believe something which is being ignorant. Faith does not ask you to learn about something, it asks you to believe...nothing more. Science is defined by learning, which is the oppositon of ignorance.

So yes, religion is about promoting ignorance. If that makes one unhappy, fine. But constructing bizarre stories of how one promotes or helps the other is asinine.

Again, I'm not exactly using the dictionary definition here. Why do you think I even bothered to define it?

Secondly... yes, even in my definition "Faith does not ask you to learn about something. It asks you to believe".

But believing in something is not ignorance.

Again, when people voted for Obama, were they certain of a happy and prosperous future?

Of course not. They made a choice based on a belief: Which is that by voting for Obama, it will result in a better world.

Was it an informed belief? For some people, probably. But for others, it may not have been. But regardless, both of these kinds of people were making a bet on an unknown future.

Likewise, religious faith need not be about closing your ears to scientific knowledge. Truly faithful people are simply people who believe in a Higher Power - which simply hasn't been revealed yet because of our gaps in knowledge.

And to be blunt, there's still an awful lot of universe for us to explore.

[Kanastrous]

Does it suggest anything to you, that you have to invent your own meanings for words in order to try and keep your argument staggering along?

If you have anything resembling a functional argument you should be able to prosecute it using the accepted meanings for words that the rest of us are using. I don't see any reason that you should get to twist definitions for your convenience.