Is Piety ( religious faith) the Opposite of Wisdom? I certainly think So!

Many debates with those claiming  to have greater wisdom than I, because they have Faith in God or Jesus.
But according to Logic, only the opposite can be true.

Since Faith = Belief without validation by evidence.

Because as many including Christopher Hitchens pointed out many times, if there were valid evidence for their Faith it would be instead "Knowledge". 

And of course there is wisdom in appealing to or acting on knowledge.
Though there is no obvious wisdom in appealing to or acting on that which is without evidence or Faith.

As David Hume stated:  "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

So can anybody think of a way that there can be Wisdom in appealing to or acting on Faith?

And what makes these Pious people consider that having Faith gives them greater Wisdom than those of us who consider their Faith as Irrational? 

So far those I've debated with have never been able nor willing to answer either question.

They just make a blank assertion that we atheists have no wisdom, because wisdom is their gift from their God, so non-believers don't have any.

Yes, they are that delusional.
But clever responses to their attacks is something I lack.

Views: 84


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How many times have I said it, DD:

Faith Is NO Reason.

Loren, but then you will get into silly presuppositional arguments with religitards.

They claim that without God, we are incapable of Reason.
So their evidence for God is that we are capable of reason.

Which is sort of putting the cart before the horse logic. ;)~ 

Since we know that reason created all gods. 
And reason has now removed almost all gods.

Right, whereupon I will tell them either to substantiate their god without the bible or any other supposedly holy writ or take their snake oil elsewhere.  Arguments aren't evidence, DD, and unless and until they have the latter, my response is the same:

Short pier.  LONG walk.  Move yer ass!

I look at theism through the lens of memetics. Historically, groups which bonded over religious practices fared better than people who had less cohesive bonds or were loners. Of course that doesn't make their values or beliefs appropriate or useful in today's very different world. However, inside of such communities there have been practitioners who had more wisdom than others. It can be useful to examine theistic heritages for bits of wisdom that can be applied without their theism. Grinning Cat often quotes favorite saying from Rabbis, though he doesn't do sky-god. To help people who were raised within such communities adapt to nontheistic reality, I see value in respecting such nuggets from their heritage. In fact, we can often find nuggets of insight from a wide range of theist-tainted heritages which could still be respected. Historic figures who did display wisdom within their time and place made contributions to today and to the future, if we reexamine what they say from our perspective. There's no reason for wholesale disrespect such figures.

Not So Ruth! ;) 
Those bonds go back before religion.
We bonded out of evolutionary necessity, long before we developed speech and the ability to discuss abstract concepts like Gods.

Being weak fearful mammals, in a land full of dangerous predators like saber tooth tigers which saw homo sapiens as their favorite food, we had to band together to defeat them.

So morality and tribal bonding was a product of evolution and genetics, we naturally bond with other humans for protection as do all social animals, even wolf packs and meerkats bond without need of religion.

Religion was started by charlatans who in times where our groups were led by alpha males who would not allow other male members of the tribe to produce offspring, some clever males  at a time when we finally developed speech and the ability to communicate abstract concepts, found that if they could persuade the alpha male that he could be stronger or live longer if they followed their teachings, he will allow them mating privileges or access to more food, etc....

This is how tribes ended up being led, not by alpha males but Shamans.
Brains and deception overruled brawn and fighting skill.

So maybe we have the shamans to thank for our evolution of bigger brains, through developing clever and even cleverer deceptions.
Fish have also developed such forms of deception to bypass dominant alpha-males to produce offspring.

So what you are saying to me is that you believe the deception created by religion.
That religion is responsible for bonding of humans.

Sorry, but that happened long before religion began.

Religion claims to be the reason for the bonding, but no, the bonding is a product of necessity to survive as a cohesive tight knit group.

We are social animals and feel more comfortable in peaceful communities.
There are the odd individuals who will stray and feel the need to be independent.
But they are the exception, not the norm.
The vast majority of humans seek comfort in being in a cohesive group.
Religion only claims responsibility for what already existed before religion.

"...what you are saying to me is that you believe the deception created by religion. ... is responsible for bonding of humans."

Not really. Of course you are correct about group bonding in animals and prehuman ancestors. 

"... maybe we have the shamans to thank for our evolution of bigger brains, through developing clever and even cleverer deceptions."

Memetics posits that we coevolved bigger brains and language along with memes (bits of copied culture). Shamans were hosts that benefited from spreading religious memes, but the real benefactors are the virus-like information bits themselves. Like biological viruses, their successful reproduction is independent of their hosts' welfare.

It's as if we are all computers infected with malware of a sort, with different varieties of malware competing for our brain-space and our resources. Science memes are bits of culture too, but less pathological to the hosts. Science doesn't brainwash us to be its slaves.

Ruth: Storytelling or creating useful memes for human bonding existed long before gods were invented.
Gods became a centralized theme for memes.

While each tribe created its own stories / memes, religion became a central hub for memes and God became a central theme for these collections of memes.

But tribes had their own collections of memes before gods as such were invented.

While yes viruses benefited from our cultural unity, memes existed before religion and it was the memes that benefited from religion which is essentially a collection of related memes, centralized around a single mythical entity.

Essentially religion is a meme bank. 
Scripture is the repository of these memes.

Leaning was often passed on in tribes by story telling, as did the Australian Aborigines, with their stories and message sticks.
Those stories promoted bonding, with tales of people straying and being lost forever or eaten, while those who bonded tight to their communities survived and flourished.
So stories, (early memes)  not necessarily religion bonded tribal groups.

They didn't need a god to promote bonding.
Just good stories.
That is if you want to get into memetics.
Early memes were about bonding, without gods.

Sort of like earlier versions of Aesop's Fables ( memes). 

Faith has no reason. The ones that use this word are not even using it properly. I have seen it more than once where believers pass us of as "most likely taking logic and reasoning classes somewhere." Of course, that is meant as a slam against us but it is the believers who should be taking such classes. Having a god that "makes it all so" does not say anything good about your thinking processes.

For those who want to claim faith as a means to knowledge, I have a simple challenge:  Put on a blindfold and walk across a busy street without aid.  Even THEY will (at least most times) look both ways before crossing, because they need that EVIDENCE, yet they accept the existence of their deity with NONE, other than a badly written and highly contradictory book.

Might make 'em think ... might not.  Still worth a try.

Yes Michael, religitards mostly put religious rhetoric and that thing called commonsense above logic.
I did that while I was theistic and preaching the Bible.
An extension of that is presuppositionalism where they think we humans only understand logic because their God endowed us with such an understanding.

Essentially if it is not in the Bible it doesn't exist or if we can think it, it was God that allowed us to think it.

So to argue logic with a Theist is like being a dog and chasing your own tail.
You will get dizzy, but you won't go anywhere.

There are some who you may seem to get somewhere with a Socratic dialogue as Peter Boghossian suggests in his writings.

But that can take hours and days to have any effect.

I prefer the shock tactic.
I throw things at them they cannot even deny with their twisted logic.

Like making a blunt claim, such as:  "Fact:  God is nothing more than a bronze age storybook character!   Prove Me Wrong?" 

It is a crude entry into discussing the historical aspects of their belief system.

Introducing them to the archaeological aspect that it appears Judaism was a 5th Century con-job by Ezra, who created the Pentateuch to give the people of Judea a fake history, based on mythology from Babylon and Egypt.

And thus Christianity and Islam are merely offshoots from this fraudulent belief system.

A few get upset, but they don't have the ability to deny the history, and some are forced  to acknowledge that their religion may be built on fraudulent turf.

At least I got them thinking about the roots of their religion.
It was that thinking that took me from being a preacher to atheist.

I'm merely trying to put some on the same path out that I took. :-D~




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service