Which is why I added the qualifier: "No benefits which cannot be achieved through purely secular means."

(September 16, 2016 at 5:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Which is why I added the qualifier: "No benefits which cannot be achieved through purely secular means."

Except in my examples they actually were motivated by religion, whereas you are merely speculating that it could have been otherwise. Perhaps you could provide examples of prominent abolishionists that were prominent atheists.

(September 16, 2016 at 5:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 4:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What about motivating people like Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce, and Dr. King?

Yeah, I'm really not sure how anybody could claim faith has NO benefits.  I mean-- it makes someone feel good.  It gives them a sense of peace.  It prevents them from getting kicked out of their family's church.  Those are all obviously benefits.

The real discussion should be whether the benefits of faith outweigh the benefits of not having faith.  That's a lot more grey.

I concur.

Are there any areas in a human being's epistemic life that require a certain leap of faith and does such a pragmatic approach include any religious propositions? It seems like there are an infinity of questions--aye, the infinite itself--that lie beyond our ken; does all the benefit lie in a suspension of judgement where we are ignorant, or does belief allow us to move forward in ways that skepticism doesn't permit, and where should the lines be drawn with regards to one's cautious assent to unverified or unverifiable notions? Wherein does verification ultimately lie? Is it not as dependent upon our passions as it is on our reasons?

(September 17, 2016 at 12:19 am)Mudhammam Wrote: Are there any areas in a human being's epistemic life that require a certain leap of faith and does such a pragmatic approach include any religious propositions?  It seems like there are an infinity of questions--aye, the infinite itself--that lie beyond our ken; does all the benefit lie in a suspension of judgement where we are ignorant, or does belief allow us to move forward in ways that skepticism doesn't permit, and where should the lines be drawn with regards to one's cautious assent to unverified or unverifiable notions?  Wherein does verification ultimately lie?  Is it not as dependent upon our passions as it is on our reasons?

Fancy assessment is easily described with the qualifiers faith and secular faith, and the obvious difference between the two.

(September 17, 2016 at 12:19 am)Mudhammam Wrote: Are there any areas in a human being's epistemic life that require a certain leap of faith and does such a pragmatic approach include any religious propositions?  It seems like there are an infinity of questions--aye, the infinite itself--that lie beyond our ken; does all the benefit lie in a suspension of judgement where we are ignorant, or does belief allow us to move forward in ways that skepticism doesn't permit, and where should the lines be drawn with regards to one's cautious assent to unverified or unverifiable notions?  Wherein does verification ultimately lie?  Is it not as dependent upon our passions as it is on our reasons?

I'd argue that ANY major philosophical assumption I make is intrinsically an act of faith.  I choose to believe in the existence of others, and then that belief becomes firmly entrenched as I attach my experiences to it in formation of a world view.

Certainly, my faith in the existence of an objective world outside myself allows me to take comfort in my life, and make some sense of it.  I wake up, plan how I'm going to interact with people and things, and live out my day with purpose.

Some people go to another level of narrative beyond that-- they see a GIVEN purpose, beyond just the ability to interact with stuff.

(September 17, 2016 at 12:10 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 5:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Which is why I added the qualifier: "No benefits which cannot be achieved through purely secular means."

Except in my examples they actually were motivated by religion, whereas you are merely speculating that it could have been otherwise. Perhaps you could provide examples of prominent abolishionists that were prominent atheists.

Are you suggesting that Dr King, for example, could not or would not have been motivated by anything other than religious means; and not that he was able to use religion as a motivator to others? Was he a good man only because of his faith, or could he have been good regardless, simply by being a good man? Or is there some other avenue?

I suppose there's a small benefit from cherrypicking the "good" parts of a holy book and using them as one's life's philosophy, even though one could glean similar if not better philosophy from plenty of secularist literature. Otherwise no, I see absolutely no benefit in believing fairy tales and spending one's life in ignorance.

(September 17, 2016 at 12:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Are you suggesting that Dr King, for example, could not or would not have been motivated by anything other than religious means; and not that he was able to use religion as a motivator to others?

At that place and time, and given who his audience was, I'm pretty sure he couldn't have such a strong impact if he didn't describe the narrative of freedom in religious terms. This goes to the fact that most white people at the time were Christian, and that Christian blacks could expect a kind of spiritual brotherhood etc. etc.

I really can't imagine anyone who could have done better than he did with his "I have a dream" speech, and the religious overtones were a big part of that.

(September 16, 2016 at 4:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 5:50 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: There are no benefits to religious faith.

What about motivating people like Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce, and Dr. King?

We already covered that dude:

(September 16, 2016 at 10:55 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 5:50 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: There are no benefits to religious faith.

... which cannot be achieved by purely secular means.