Faith Is Necessary

mordantly circularwise subdepartment unpermeable demurring sapience catechizer pseudopregnancy
http://www.estromineral.com/ >Estromineral
http://www.capebretonpost.com/

all faith is trust. one way or another, the faith that God loves is not disimilar to the faith that a mother loves. you cannot prove either one really exists, you can only see the effects of that love. it makes more sense to live your life as if God does exist that as if he doesn't. if your wrong and he doesn't exist then at least you'll never know you where wrong- but if your right and he does, then you can reap the rewards (or not depending on how you lived your life!). personally i'm not a great believer but i do reconise sense when i see it, and it makes more sense for God to exist that for him not to. wheather he really is the Christian, active and interested God, is another matter.

Desmond Tutu always stirs people's imagination, and always gets a response.

It seems clear to me that he is describing faith as trust, rather than knowledge. We choose to trust, rather than verify, because the world and people in general are trustworthy and reliable. There are always exceptions, and they fill the newspaper every day, but most of my life and yours never makes it into the newspaper. We depend on each other for a multitude of ordinary kindnesses, from driving on the correct side of the road to stopping for red traffic lights. We don't have to look over our shoulders all the time, we don't have to keep a wary eye on our neighbors. We could, but we don't, because we trust them.

Tutu trusts God. So do I. You don't have to have faith in God to live in good faith and act in good faith, which atheists can do as well as anyone else.

For people of faith, faith is not a separate area of life to be walled off from epistemology (our scientific and verifiable inquiry into the world around us). Faith inspires us to see the world a certain way, and to value all people, and to trust others long before any cause or reason to trust has been demonstrated.

What would an atheist say is the source of their inspiration? Why do you choose to trust, rather than constantly verify, that this world is fundamentally a good and trustworthy place? Why do most people do the right thing? You can challenge my faith-based answers, and Tutu's. What are your answers? People of faith would say that your answers would be likely to reveal where your deepest confidence lies, and in whom you trust.

Dear DMY,
thank you for your answer. It helps me understanding you a little better.

Concerning our subject,
I guess you and I have to accept that we are defining the word faith very differently.
I refuse to arbitrarily call everything faith.
There is such a thing as knowledge.
There is a difference between testing your facts and not testing them.
This is a line which gets blured by thinking faith in facts is valuable.
Even worse, as you said:
The mind protects the things it has faith in. Correcting your mistakes becomes evermore harder with this set of mind.
Men is prone to error. Erring is normal and not a bad thing, as long as you try to correct yourselfe. Sceptecism is a very good tool to achiev it. Faith isn`t.
That is why I deem faith by far not such a good thing as you might do.

I´m writing the above neither to lecture you nor in the hope that you will agree. I´m writing this that you understand how I´m thinking and how my way of thinking works.
It´s not a bad way of thinking and it certainly has it´s benefits.

Now let me finish with suming up you position, that you may correct me if didn`t grasp your concept.
My understanding is, that you think faith is a great and benign force, one that moves mountains and is simply a part of the human condition.
It is nothing to avoid but to embrace and derived from it is creation and live itself, a condition sine qua non, so to speak.
Knowledge can not be obtained, but everything is in doubt and everyone has to relay to faith, wether he or she wants it or not.
There is no difference between faith in a tested and an untested fact, faith itself is actually defining excistence and people are better of accepting this as fact.
Derived from this concept is that believing in a untestifyable propertie holds the same quality as believing in a testified one.
(You never stated this derivation, I´m merely assuming this and are herby asking you if you´d subscribe to this idea.)

Well, I´m really curious if I´m right with my abstract. If so, we will have a hard time finding common ground, I guess.

But anyway, peace

Falk,

Your missing the point! Faith is personal and everyone has it. Some have come to a realization of it and others haven't. We all live by the testimony/word/faith of someone, some idea or something, whether it is incorrect or not IS NOT THE ISSUE. The topic of conversation is F.A.I.T.H
(Forever Abiding In The Hope), whatever that hope is.

We know that the human body has a daily rest interval of around (generally) 8 hours and it awakens refreshed and rejuvenated. This is fact. However, we can only hope, believe, have faith that we WILL wake up. You have no power in and of yourself to wake yourself up. Your body does it naturally and you have to believe/have faith that it will do so each and everday. Now, granted, we don't need to have faith in order to wakeup literally; faith is not the force behind this phenomena. Yet still, you might be thinking, I don't have to have faith in something that naturally occurs, because it just happens! However, I must beg to differ that faith in the naturally occurring is HIGHLY important.

*The reason why it is important (and here's the CLINCHER, that most people miss) is because the mind protects the things it has faith in and neglects the things it does not believe in.*

Thus having faith in the human sleep system will cause us to do things to protect the system, such as eating properly or exercising. When we don't believe or have faith in the system we tend to destroy it, i.e., eating improperly, staying up late, etc... This destruction is often indirect, unintentional and passive in terms of any arena of faith. When we say we believe in nothing, we are passively saying we DO NOT HAVE FAITH. And those things which we do not believe in, become of no value. You have faith in yourself, and thus you protect and value yourself.

Your example, of it being once believed that the world was flat, is a prime example of the issue at hand. It was BELIEVED that the world was flat, a false fact. Did that dismiss the faith of those who believed that notion? No. Everyone at some point believed this to be the case. However, it took someone else of another belief/faith to challenge what was commonly accepted as truth.

Those who believed the earth was flat had faith in a false fact. It was the faith of the masses. Consequently, this false notion was protected for a long time. Now get this, the person who said I do not believe the earth has ANY shape has no notion to hold on to, no belief to protect. Matter of fact, the idea of the earth's shape is destroyed whether flat, round, square or otherwise it does not exist. This person contributes nothing to the topic of the earth having shape. Taking this further, to those who beleived in a different shape(round), we see there was a belief or faith in something other than the commonly known. This belief ultimately lead to the true facts of the earth being round.

What's the point of all this?? It is simple,
facts are the foundation of faith, regardless of the facts being correct or incorrect. Faith in facts is not only valuable, but essential. It boils down to preservation and discovery versus destruction and displacement. Where there is faith there is existence and where there is no faith there is no-thing.

I will leave you with this thought. When we in this lifetime have expired, what will people in the future know or believe about Falk Steinle?
You might say it does not matter, but I say it matters greatly because the future can only exist by faith in the testimony of the lives of those preceding.

Ford believed in a concept of a vehicle that could travel with the design of an object having four wheels. His faith in this concept spawned the car. Now, (because of those who beleived in his concept after him) today we have the Mustang. Falk, you may have a belief/faith in a concept or idea and it may spawn some invention. However, if there exists no FAITH, rest assured, there is no creation.

Faith is completely necessary!!!

dmy

Robert Ingersoll on the orthodox clergy

What harm are they doing?

On every hand they sow the seeds of superstition. They paralyze the minds, and pollute the imaginations of children. They fill their hearts with fear. By their teachings, thousands become insane. With them, hypocrisy is respectable and candor infamous. They enslave the minds of men. Under their teachings men waste and misdirect their energies, abandon the ends that can be accomplished, dedicate their lives to the impossible, worship the unknown, pray to the inconceivable, and become the trembling slaves of a monstrous myth born of ignorance and fashioned by the trembling hands of fear.

I live in South Africa and have admired Tutu for his courageous stand in opposing injustice and oppression, if there is a religious person who lives the so called peaceful and tolerant tenets of Christianity it would be Archbishop Tutu.

However his religious profile and antics are hard to swallow and have tarnished his image, reading his arrogance and dogmatic lack of reason in his column confirms that for me. I also find him to be disingenuous when mouthing off his religious platitudes.

I wonder if he would have taken the same moral stand if it weren’t grounded on faith and his selective interpretation of the bible. How much more admirable would his actions have been if he acted out of a personal conviction in the sanctity of human dignity and freedom.

Your Excellency,

Thank you for your words and the witness of your life. I've been thinking about interfaith dialogue and how often it can degenerate into verbal attacks. Do you think a truth and reconciliaton model might serve us well in this arena? To begin with a mea culpa and a plea for forgiveness? Maybe then we can hear each other.

God bless you.

Frannie Schafer

John Denny:

Actually not. People are intersted to see what`s it all about and their asking questions. It`s not their fault if the answers are not satisfying.

Ironic how the faithless presume to tell the faithful that their concept of faith is wrong.

Floyd: I appreciate your comments and respect your opinions. I am embarassed at myself at getting so fired up at the rude comments on the blog and then using insulting terms myself. I guess one thing that we can all agree on is that religious discussion definitely brings out people's passionate side. That isn't a bad thing. I think it would be nice if we could all concentrate more on what all faiths do have in common than what we don't...what is right or wrong...because none of us is going to "prove" someone wrong on this subject...it's very difficult if not impossible to disprove what someone believes in their heart, and I truly believe that's where our feelings on our religious beliefs lie.

dnkyi
"In the example of flying in a plane, I have understood that some claim it does not require faith to fly in a plane; or the notion is mistakenly called faith and should be recognized as reasonable evidence."

No dnkyi, neither the first nor the later. It just simply means, that the "faith" you put into boarding an airplane is of a completly different sort than religous faith and that you make a grave mistake if you try to equate the two just because they are called the same. (In a nutshell: The wrapers the same, the content is different).
The former is based on expierience and can be and is tested over and over again. The latter is grounded in an emotion, a spirutal feeling, maybe even in the awe of existence. Whatever you want to call it.
Those are two different methologies to reach faith and to a large degree they are mutual exclusive.
If I want to test rigouriously I have to reign my emotions in. I can't permit myselfe to take something for granted because it feels good. And if I want to make an extra effort to doublecheck I will try sincerly to disprove my own theory. Should I succeed in doing so, I have to drop it. Even if the theory is very dear to me.
This asks for diligence, honesty and a disciplined mind. I have the deepest respect for people who master these qualities and I indulge in the clearity of their minds and their answers.
And I have grievances with people who with a flick of a finger dismiss science and all the hard work and effort that was put into it, not because they have better answers but simply because they dislike the answers science came up with.

Having faith via feeling works different.
If you put trust in your feelings... well, I don't know about you but my feelings don't requirer evidence. I might have the feeling that someones a nice person before I get to know them. Normaly I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
If I'm wrong my feelings for that person will change over time. But in the beginning I felt he or she was a nice person, although that was wrong from the start.
Now as long my feelings and the evidence I collect are consistent I won't get in trouble.

Is there a problem between feeling and fact?
Well sometimes people like to keep their feelings, for example for a lover. They can do so by rationalizing, explaining the bad behavior away or plainly ignore it.
However this becomes harder if you are ready to test a theory with an open mind. And if you are ready to accept an outcome, even if you don't like it you have a greater chance to achieve truth.
It is, however, more painful than living by elusions. Yet it is more rewarding, at least that's my expierience.

Which brings us to your intrinsic truths...
Er... I'm sorry to say that, but they don't realy make sense. Let's test them a bit, okay?

1. Faith requires evidence? Since when? There was a time a lot of people had faith that the earth was flat.
Since the world is actually spherical they had faith without factual evidence - you can't have true evidence for something that now is known to be wrong.

2. Fact is an inactive principle? Faith is fact in action?
Here is my simple thought why this sentence is wrong: A principle works wether people have faith in it or not.

3. Fact is the foundation of faith.
Well, I don't see a difference between this statement and statment # 1.
Anyway, as stated above the flat earth faith is wrong . Since there was one faith not founded in fact there is no cogent connection between faith and fact, or this faith would have never worked.

4. Everyone has "a" Faith.
Oh well, see above. This should read: Everyone has a "Faith". A problem of semantics again.
Besides I'm really puzzeled, why you so stubbornly want to turn anybody into a faithful person. As if that would realy change anything.

A last note: An atheist doesn't believe that there is a god. That's it. No more, no less. There is no further lore connected to it, no dogma you have to adhere to, no congregation you have and no agenda.
Atheism doesn't cover anything else.
It's like beeing an antialcohlic. That term means just that: Your don't drink alcohl. Anything else people try to infer is mere speculation and doesn't serve any purpose.
So could you please, please, please stop redefining the english language whenever it seems convient to you.
Thank you.

Faith and science are not oppositional concepts. Believing in science takes as much 'faith' as believing in religion. Science is full of theories -- not all of them proven or provable (e.g., Big Bang theory). That is not to say that theorizing should not be encouraged if we are to continue to uncover the truths about our world, through empirical means or other means.

Faith may seem like theory to some, but perhaps it is because they may not or do not want to have the ability to understand or accept the evidence of faith. If you claim to believe in nothing, then it seems foolish to look for evidence of no-thing in things =). Just because you can't see or touch something does not mean it does not exist. It's like emotions. Can you see or touch love or happiness or hurt? Do we believe that these things exist? Yes -- (at least I do) because I see the evidence of these concepts in very ordinary ways (both empirical and nonempirical) like the elation of hearing an encouraging word, a gentle touch, or the pain suffered when someone rejects you.

On a slightly different note, I disagree with those who say people are inherently good, ethical, or moral. Maybe a lot of people are good, but not everyone. Every day in the media - both news and tv shows - I see those who do evil, unethical, and immoral acts. I see in this world constant abuse of power and those who take pleasure in violence toward mankind and those who relish in and work to develop new techniques for war and torture. Rather, I hope that those who believe in good, no matter their religion, continue to believe in goodness and act with goodwill to their neighbors.

It saddens me to read people's comments berating and disparaging a great man like Desmond Tutu, who because of his faith has made a positive and tangible impact on world peace. It seems a shame to waste such effort criticizing people like him when that energy could be used to oppose the ills of warlords, child abusers, rapists, and murderers -- who make it hard to believe in the goodness of others or the goodness of God.

I find it amusing how we humans are so easily fascinated and hypnotized with the output of our OWN cerebral cortex. How amazingly profound it is to know that people generally are not interested in intrinsic truth, but are only interested in the truth that is relative to their OWN experience. Have you ever met someone who you knew in the core of your being was not interested in what you had to say, but was only interested in hearing themselves talk!! For those who answer no, maybe its time to have your right hand take hold of your left hand and then introduce yourself. Has anyone out there ever contemplated that it is generally human nature to be enamored with the expression of our OWN actions and words? Until we get beyond our OWN lives we will NEVER find truth.

It can be quite difficult stepping outside of the realm of our OWN intellect and venturing the notion that the possibility of what we have established as the foundation of our meaningful lives could possibly be wrong. Our pride tends to fight truth, especially truth that exposes the negative parts of our being.

***MY SOUNDING BOARD***
In the example of flying in a plane, I have understood that some claim it does not require faith to fly in a plane; or the notion is mistakenly called faith and should be recognized as reasonable evidence. Thus a person bases the belief of a plane flying safely on reasonable evidence. Thus implying, faith not being evidenced-based. If this is true, lets suppose that a deranged airplane engineer just informed you personally that the plane you were about to fly on was compromised and that IT WOULD CRASH.
A decision must be made on reasonable evidence. Now, the problem here is that there are two reasonable evidences. One evidence known by you and the other passengers that planes ARE SAFE. The other evidence that this plane is not safe and WILL CRASH. Does not reasonable evidence suggest not to fly? If you fly, you could die, and if you don't you live! The simple fact is this: you are basing your decision on the immediate evidence that has presented itself, which requires you to BELIEVE the truth of the danger. Thus, this BELIEVING is what we call FAITH.

There are a number of things that must be pointed out here as intrinsic truth.

1. Faith REQUIRES evidence/fact/principle/knowledge/subtance/whatever you want to call IT, IT is NEEDED.

2. Fact is an inactive principle. Faith is fact in action.
-It is fact that planes are safe!
-It is faith that a plane will be safe!

WHEN A PRINCIPLE IS WORKING(in action) THAT IS FAITH! WHEN A PRINCIPLE IS NOT WORKING(inactive)THAT IS FACT.

WHEN A WORD COMES ALIVE THAT IS FAITH!

3. Fact is the foundation of Faith, they are inseparable.
-without fact, faith does not exist.

Fact can exist without faith, but then what?
A plane is a vehicle that flies, what next? Where's the action? If engineers made this contraption called a plane and said it flies in the sky, but nobody believed or had faith in the concept/princple/notion/theory would we be flying today?

4. Everyone has "a" Faith!!
-including the atheist, whose God/belief/faith is themself.

Last question for thought:

In the year 2099, will people actually BELIEVE that current President George Bush was actually a President or will that BECOME myth?

I heard from somewhere that ALL history does become watered down, does not stand the test of time and eventually is mixed with untruths and untrustworthy? I don't know, maybe, I'M WRONG!
After all, FAITH is UNNECESSARY!

dmy

Why is it that many religious people respond to others who question their faith with an essentially dogmatic statement of belief? In Jim's statement above, he simply restates the traditional party line common to many evangelical churches: God is coming, join up or die.
I find it very likely that individuals like him choose to follow such clear-cut and dogmatic belief systems because they lack the intellectual capacity and energy to examine their own beliefs about the universe. Dogma is, unfortunately, the last refuge of the idiot.
By contrast, Pastor Jon above presents a far more compelling argument because it acknowledges the complexity and ambiguity of religion and emphasizes a dynamic belief system based on thought and intellectual exploration. Sadly, the few voices like his tend to be drowned out by the legions of Jims, walking in zombie lockstep towards an imaginary apocalypse chanting "join or die, join or die."

All: My sincerest apologies for my earlier post. It was based a personal observation of my Christian friends that went too far. Readers were correct to point out the arrogance and insensitivity of it.

To Kelly: Yours is not the faith that causes me any concern. It is the faith of those who either want to bring this infidel to justice or interpret the Bible so literally that they look forward to the end of the world (Armageddon). It is also the faith of the politician who claims a higher moral ground because of his (or her) faith and makes public policy that prevents scientific advances from happening (stem cell research). You say you have 'moments in life of a connection to a higher power'. That's wonderful.

I, too, have those moments of 'consciousness', of happiness that can only come from a deeper understanding of the nature of the universe. My moments have nothing to do with a belief in God and in fact have become more frequent ever since I logically and completely gave up the Christian dogma I learned as a child. It really is liberating when one no longer feels compelled to believe all that 'stuff' (to be polite).

My Christian friends say I will burn in hell for eternity for my views (seriously, they say that!). I tell them, for once in my life I finally feel completely 'free' and offer them my love. They offer me their prayers and we manage to stay friends.

Again, sorry for my cynicism in my prior post.

I find Mr. Tutus reasoning problematic in manyfold ways.

Firstly Mr. Tutu is committing the fallacy of equivocation, if he insists that faith in the pilot is the same as faith in a supreme beeing.
While it's true, that I have no immediate proof for the pilots qualifications I have good reason to assume that the authorities have checked on it for me, as well as the airline.
The airline will hopefully be unwilling to risk it's expensive equipment and the trust I put in them as a customer.
And the authorities hopefully are committed to my safety, which in return assures my adherence to their laws and principels "for the commen good".
On the whole I am able to make an argument by induction and don't have to relay on blind faith.
With faith in a supreme beeing it is quiet a different matter. I will have a hard time, or to be more precise, be unable to find undisputable evidence for its exsistence.
(Please note the word undisputable. While every believer sees evidence for his beeing of choice working in the world, people of a different persuasion find other explanations.)
The difference between the two is obvious. My "faith" that the airplane is fueled and not watered up will soon waiver, when the engines won't start. And finaly I'll be ready to test my fuel theory.
However, would I put the same faith into the fuel as many people into a supreme beeing I would come up with many explanations why the engines don't work:
The fuel line is broken, the engines are out of order, the pilots believe in the fuel is not strong enough, fuel works in mysterious ways, it refuses to burn for our own good, though we might not understand it right now.
The crux of these arguments however don't serve to solve the problem i.e. making the plane fly, but are used to keep my faith in fuel. Which is all well and good but won't get me anywhere in this particular example.

Secondly Mr. Tutu is giving us a variety of examples where trust is serving us well, unfortunatly he omits situations where unfounded trust leads to great harm. If we trust in a false friend or in a bridge which is in poor working
order - we may loose money or even our lives. Which should tell us that trust carries a caveat with it and can be revoked, if need may be.
I doubt that Mr. Tutu wants to applie this caveat to his faith as well.

Thirdly, while he makes a compelling argument that we can't control and check everything all the time, he somehow misses to inform us why it is a good idea never to check and even not to try to do so, though the odds may not be in our favor. Just because I´m unable to test my theories all the time doesn´t make it acceptabel to never test my
theory.
Or to put it more bluntly: You don´t have to proof to me that your faith is grounded in reason all the time. But once in a while would be nice.

And last but not least I find it a too giant leap of faith to propose that there is an untestable transcendent reality and then en passant adress to it very real and definite properities.

What I´m not denying is that Mr. Tutu wanted to bridge the gap between people of faith and people of reason so that we may find common ground and I salute him for his effort.
Why then my elongated rebutal to his positions? Simply because the first thing we need is intelectual honesty, however painful it may be. It´s the basis for common ground, without it all our efforts will go for nought.
Logic is the best problem solving tool at our disposal. It works well in every day problems. With some good will it should also work for our bigger problems. Regardles wether we believe in a deity or not.

To quote Jim

"Jim:

My Faith is JESUS CHRIST and what he did for me on the CROSS.Through this FAITH,GODS GRACE is poured into me.To the non-believers,one of two things will happen when you die.Myself being a Christian,i try to live as JESUS CHRIST(my LORD and SAVIOR)expects me to.When i die if the Bible is not true than i have lost nothing and lived a good life.On the other hand..if i'm a non-beliver and die and the Bible is true....ETERNITY is a VERY LONG TIME.I Pray for all who do not know the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE of GOD our FATHER. JESUS is LORD !!

Posted November 16, 2006 4:40 PM "

To Jim,

1. The unconditional love of God sure isn't apparent in the Old Testamant (genocides, infanticides, etc) nor is it in the New Testament if one takes into account the divine genocide that will supposably take place when God's Kingdom returns to Earth.

2. You seem to worship God and Jesus, making you something other than monotheistic..

There are a lot of intelligent but mistaken replies to Bishop Tutu's post. Although in fairness, he used a fallacious argument to support a valid conclusion. His assertion that we all have faith, however, is absolutely true. Atheists have just as much faith as theists do. The reason is simple enough. Most people believe in their world view (whether it be pantheism, atheism, etc.) because they believe it is more likely to be true than all other world views. Still, every living person has doubts about what they believe at some point in time. Everyone says to themselves, well this does seem fantastic, how could it be? But, the reason an atheist or a theist does not completely abandon their world view is because they have faith in it. This is not blind faith, but a reasonable faith. The trite error made by skeptics is to say that all faith is blind. Some faith is. Some atheists believe in atheism because their parents said so and they didn't look to much further into it. The same holds true for muslims, buddhists, christians, etc. However, there are many people who belong to all these faiths who investigate their faith and believe what they do because of many REASONS. Everyone should have a myriad of reasons to support what they believe, but no one can prove it! Every belief from atheism to theism and inbetween is UNPROVABLE. And therefore some faith (which is tantamount to trust) is required in order hold onto that belief. However, the initial reason for choosing a world view should simply be because one believes there is a higher probability of its truth than other views.

!Pascal Levensohn!

"The works of philosophers from Machiavelli to Nietzsche to Marx clearly link religious dogma as an instrument of power. Religion has been used for subjugation for thousands of years. Even a casual observer can recognize that innumerable crimes against humanity have been done in God's transcendent name."
The reason this argument is a poor one is quite simple. When religions such as christianity oppress others they do so in direct contradiction to their faith. Ironically, they confirm the most fundamental christian doctrine, namely sin nature. But, when oppression and cruelty arises from materalistic philosphies (such as the case with Hitler) than the sin is a natural consequence of the philosophy. Eugenics certainly isn't advocated by the bible, but surely it is by Darwin (The Descent of Man) and Nietzche. Here we see that living in agreement with irreligious philosophies is actually the problem. The problem with religious opression isn't religion. It's people.

I am astonished someone so eminent can write such blatant nonsense. Surely he could come up with something just a little more credible?

Why is it, that whenever anyone posts a particular opinion regarding religion, it devolves into name-calling? I must confess, that at one point in my life I felt the need to indulge in the same sort of activity. I, too, was an avowed atheist. And every day I would mock the Christians, and assert the superiority of my own beliefs, and rip on them for asserting the superiority of THEIR beliefs... those damned hypocrites.

Forgetting all the allusions and insinuations, I've seen several people outright insult Bishop Tutu's intelligence in these responses, when he merely posted his opinion on the matter in the spirit of opening up a dialogue. The first response of many in here was to try to squash, degrade, and eliminate that dialogue. Unless, someone would like to argue that the magic sock comment was NOT in fact dismissive and insulting?

"We can't have people talking about faith/science, because it contradicts my own point of view."

Christians are often accused, justifiably, of being rabid in their views, and closed-minded. I daresay that avowed "atheists" seem to have many possessing the same mindset among their own ranks. Consider this: you have to be right so bad that you can feel it, and you will force it on anyone who doesn't agree with you. This further illustrates the point that "it takes two to tango," and as much as open discussion is hindered by fanatical Christians, it is equally hindered by fanatical atheists.

My thanks to you, Bishop Tutu, for at least trying to start a civilized dialogue. God knows you will forgive these people their rudeness, and you will feel much better for it. Anyone from the other side, however, who reads this and disagrees will feel the need to rip me to shreds until he has satisfied that chip on his shoulder. And I say to you, go right ahead. The next guy who says something that you don't agree with will get the same treatment, and the guy after that, and the guy after that. Maybe one day that chip on your shoulder will fall off. Or maybe you will just continue verbally savaging everyone you disagree with. I can guarantee it won't make you any happier. And, to quote a not smart, but quite wise, man "that's all I have to say about that."

Life is a gift, as is "faith." By grace, you are saved through "faith" and not of yourself, it is a gift of God. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

Wow, while reading the comments posted, I believe everyone must realize that this very discussion points to the fact that every human has faith in the basic good of mankind. Regardless of religious affiliation or spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), people want to believe that there is meaning in this world, whether that meaning goes against organized religion or not, if an atheist believes he somehow has more meaning in their life by trying to disprove religion, so be it, but they must aknowledge the fact that he/she is working toward a cause in order to restore some void in their life--just as the Christian follower uses religion because God brings meaning into their life.

I am disheartened to see that this discussion has shifted from a talk about meaning of life, into one that divides people who are religious and people who are not. That is not the point of Arch Bishop Tutu, the point is that every human, regardless of personal beliefs and ways of life, must have faith in a general sense, in order to maintain life. If one did not, then that person might have a tough time sleeping, for fear of not waking up. Life itself is fragile, no one ever knows when it will end. Faith is the only thing that humans have that cannot be taken away except in death, in order to create enough meaning to live another day.

Floyd: I find your statement that "that those who are able to throw off the shackles of dogma are those who truly enjoy discussions of this nature" utterly ridiculous. Not all Christians huddle together and pray for atheists because we are afraid to face true open rhetoric about these subjects. Not all Christians live attached to "dogma" shackled or otherwise. And, I love discussions like this...All of these entries by atheists,to me, sound overly condescending and narcissistic and further proof that those that believe in no higher power other than themselves really like to hear themselves talk and pat each other on the back about how they're not shackled to any all-encompassing set of rules. It makes them feel a little better about walking through this crazy world alone and with no idea where or what they may be after death.

I can't say that I know the truth. To me, my faith is so personal, telling you or anyone else my version would be absurd. But, that's what it is, my version, what makes sense to me. I have faith in God because I feel that it is true. I don't have to go to church every Sunday or hold hands with my neighbor and beg for forgiveness for your sins, beat a Bible, huddle with anyone...or even believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale to have a true and intimate faith in God. Being a true Christian or a true believer in any religion is much more difficult than saying..I am too intelligent to need to believe in a higher power when it can't be proven to me and I don't need that to feel worthy. I have moments in my life, feelings, a connection to a higher power that I cannot explain in any other way than God. I believe that this world, proven by scientists to be so meticulously in order and well-designed was not a cosmic accident or fluke.
I can intellectually see why believing in a God in the world that we live in can almost seem small-minded, but really trying to argue who is right or wrong on this issue is really the action that is small-minded.

My Faith is JESUS CHRIST and what he did for me on the CROSS.Through this FAITH,GODS GRACE is poured into me.To the non-believers,one of two things will happen when you die.Myself being a Christian,i try to live as JESUS CHRIST(my LORD and SAVIOR)expects me to.When i die if the Bible is not true than i have lost nothing and lived a good life.On the other hand..if i'm a non-beliver and die and the Bible is true....ETERNITY is a VERY LONG TIME.I Pray for all who do not know the UNCONDITIONAL LOVE of GOD our FATHER. JESUS is LORD !!

Isn't it wonderful how atheism frees us to be boorish, arrogant and cruel?

Patty, are there any Christians out there?

Most I know don't want to have this discussion since they soon realize they are in way over their heads. They'd rather not think it through and instead go huddle in prayer for strength against those who claim there is no God.

It is those who are able to throw off the shackles of dogma who truly enjoy discussions of this nature. But I am sure you were asking rhetorically.

What excrement. It would be really amusing if it weren't so depressing to hear people commit so fully to their delusions. I can't tell whose essay was more insulting, Tutu's or Khatemi's.

Mr. Tutu,

You are obviously confusing " faith " with " reasonable expectation ". Faith is the belief in something without evidence. My belief that my car starting in the morning has evidence to back it up. I know how a car works. I know how the ignition works. I also know that if it doesn't work then there is something wrong with the car. These are all reasonable expectations I have of the car starting based on previous experience and knowledge. There is no faith required.

Pastor Jon made a comment on this post that no one disputes that Jesus never lived. Well, I want to say that the New Testament Jesus is a myth. The church has no reliable documented secular evidence that the New Testament Jesus ever existed, and they also have no reliable documented secular proof that he ever left behind a single written word. The church may refer to the historical book of Josephus to say that Jesus existed, but this is tampered evidence that is open to dispute. May you all have a great week. Regards. Jim Lee. Australia

No sir. Faith is not necessary. EMPATHY is necessary. If we all thought a little more about how our actions affected others and a little less about how our actions affect Jesus, Allah or Thor, the world would be a much better place.

During my walk away from Christianity some years ago now, after extensive research, I rediscovered that you do not need religious dogma to have principles, ethics, or morals, after all religion is only a theory as to the nature of man, a man’s place in the universe, and religion has been and still is used as a form of control to guide human actions. There is not a man on the face of this earth today whether he is a Minister, Pastor, Bishop, Cardinal or Pope who can prove to you that heaven or hell exist, except by faith. "Faith" is merely someone’s assumption that something is true without evidence to support it. "Faith" is a blind belief in something unknown and unseen. Religious faith is for the gullible and the weak.

If I fly and I believe that the pilot has a flying license and there's fuel in the plane, is that really nothing more than "faith"? Don't I have good reasons to think that the pilot has a license and the plane has fuel, even if they're not conclusive reasons? The airline has the ability to verify both, and it has strong motivation to make sure that the pilot is licensed and the plane fueled. Almost all planes that have gone flying off into the wild blue yonder have had fuel in their tanks and a licensed pilot at the controls.

Do I have any good reasons to doubt that the pilot has a license and the plane has fuel? No.

We have nothing like such good reasons (evidence) to believe that a transcendent being exists and plenty of good reasons to doubt that such a being exists. If we believe anyway, that's faith. Faith is nonrational. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? When I think of the faith of suicide terrorists that their God approves of what they're doing and will reward them with eternity in paradise, faith doesn't look like such a good thing.

In diverse fields of scientific study, methodologies change. In the pysical sciences, trial, error, experimentation and validation are primary. In fields of theoretical science; string theory for example, conclusions are drawn which give an explanation for observable phenomena but lack substantive proof. The followers of these string theories (which differ and are in many cases incompatible) believe strongly that the world is as they see it. In one sense, they are living by faith. There is evidence for their belief, but some of us would say there is not enough evidence to call it true.

No one disputes that Jesus lived, that he did something remarkable while he was here, taught a group of followers, and was killed by the Roman government. The question is what happened next There is evidence for a resurrection (the empty tomb, the witnesses to the appearances, etc), but there is also is within resurrection account enough that remains unexplained for people to say, "I'm not convinced."

Some Christians bluster on, speaking in absolutes, with no humility, and with so much confidence one wonders if they are trying to convince themselves. My understanding is a bit more modest. What if Scripture is not a Holy Oracle, but is instead a human book that is also God's Word? What if God's workings in our universe are always hidden? What if God is not a subset of the universe? If God is not part of the universe; then God could not be expected to be found therein.

On humility: My faith is real, but lives continually with the very real possibility that all that I know could be wrong. Scientists live with this same reality. New theories are proven to be true that better explain the evidence then old theories. Thomas Kuhn's the Nature of Scientific Revolutions reminds us that major shifts in scientific thinking (what he calls paradigm shifts) do not hinge on evidence. The evidence has existed usually for years, it has been placed on a shelf, and until that shelf gets so filled that it crashes down and the existing scientific community is forced to deal with it, they will continue to explain things the old way. In church speak, people like to sit in the same old pew. Scientists like to sit in their comfortable chairs, they have much vested there. Kuhn reminds us that we don't change our fundamental beliefs easily based on evidence. I'm drifting here to a discussion of the sociology of knowledge and epistemic foundations, so I will stop.

But know this, in my life faith does not displace reason. When I come to the place where evidence ends and explanation is required, faith requires me to jump here or there. I have faith in the God that revealed Jesus, or I do not. I jumped. It may be that our criteria validating evidence (for science or religion) and the place at which we jump differ, but Tutu's primary words were that we each do make that jump. From the given evidence, you may conclude that there is no God, that we are simply the result of remarkable, random chance. And you have faith in that decision, you live based on that decision. From that same evidence, I conclude that we have been given glimpses of the divine. That in the evolution of our world, God's creative presence can be found. For me that makes all the difference. Thanks for reading.

Wow, what spot-on good responses from the atheists and agnostics out there. I have nothing to add to these responses.

However, I do want all of the atheists out there to know that their arguments are not wasted on "preaching to the choir."

I have spent years struggling with what I believe, going from Catholicism, paganism, evangelical Christianity, vague spiritualism, and more. I have concluded atheism makes the most sense - and it was mostly because of the articulate arguments of atheists I have read online or met in person. So keep up the good work. Reason and evidence can still win open-minded people.

BTW, I think open dialogue on a major internet site like this is great for letting open-minded people simply compare and contrast the arguments offered by non-believers versus those offered by believers.

I have to say, I find it curious that so many atheists have entered a discussion entitled, "On Faith." Why? In what does an atheists have faith? I thought one of the benefits of being an atheist was not having to worry about things like faith... that, and having more time to read the Sunday Post...

Can multiple contradicting religions all be true? An imaginary discussion between two people

Cast:
Rex, a philosopher.
Fanatic, a religious fanatic who believes all other religions are false.

Rex: Do you believe in God?
Fanatic: Yes.

Rex: Do you believe God can do anything?
Fanatic: Yes.

Rex: Is God above human sciences, logic and reasoning?
Fanatic: Yes.

Rex: Can God do something that we humans can not understand or that we find impossible or contradictory?
Fanatic: Yes.

Rex: For example, can God make two plus two equal five?
Fanatic: Yes.

Rex: How about this: Can God make two plus two equal five and at the same time also have two plus two equal four?
Fanatic: Yes.

Rex: And, how about this: Can God have multiple religions which all seem contradictory to us by logic and reasoning, but still have them all ultimately true?
Fanatic: Hmm... Yes.

A question for Bishop Tutu:

According to Webster, Faith is trust in a person or thing. Faith is belief in God. The fact of the matter is that Noel Webster does not know what Faith is. Paul of Tarsus says that Faith is the evidence of things unseen. That also seems to beg the question, because where there is evidence there can not be faith..

If I see the gas in my tank, I can't believe it is there...I know it. But if I am blind and can not see it, what evidebce can you offer to make me believe it? I can believe it on your authority, because you said so. But then I must believe or "trust" you. So we are back to square one.

The ability to believe implies the ability not to believe. If I believe in the existence of God, you can believe in the non-existence of God. In either case we are making an act of faith. So we are back to square one, for does is not beg the question to say that faith is my evidence for God's existence?

So let's ask the question again. What is faith? Is is a commodity? Can one buy it? Can one quantify it? How can one come by it? Where is it? Who has it? Of what use is it? Does it reside in the will or in the intellect or in both? Can one state intellectually: "this is believable" and then with an act of the will add: "but I don't believe it"?

So what is Faith

Faith is a GIFT. To whom is it given is MYSTERY.

"When he boards a plane, he does not usually check the cockpit to ask for the pilots’ licences. He takes it as read. He will not have checked whether those filling the fuel tanks have in fact filled it with gas and not water."

What utter nonsense from a 'learned' man! We believe the things above because we have overwhelming EVIDENCE that planes arrive safely 99.99999% of the time.

Faith is believing without any EVIDENCE!

Faith is utterly unnecessary.

It is so frightening that such intelligent and benevolent people as Desmond Tutu can be so blatantly deluded.

Has he been living in a cave to state that "no religious faith I know proclaims that violence is right?" Regardless of what is in the religious texts, individuals have been committing violence in the name of their faith probably every day at least since the "birth" of christ.

Are there any Christians out there?

It is encouraging to see that there are now so many people willing to publicly state their agnosticism or atheism. This has happened many times in the past, but faith in deities always returns because it appeals to the simple minded and is useful to the ruling classes.

An interesting and clear description of the origins of religion and faith can be found in Will Durant's The Story Of Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage.

I think now that an understanding of evolution is the key element in moving toward a rational and better world.

As I read you're explanation of how we all live by faith, regardless of our stance on any particular religion, I notice two flaws in your logic that I see all too often in religious arguments. First, the english language has many words that have multiple definitions; "faith" is one of them. In the Abrahamic religions, it is used as an epistemological foundation for knowledge. Most notably, the "knowledge" that God exists rests on the foundation of faith, as opposed to the necessity of evidence. However, "faith" in the sense of trusting the actions of a pilot or spouse is a completely distinct definition and usage of the word. Passing them off as the same is academically dishonest and fatally flaws the logic of your arguement. Second, as a graduate student in physics your mistaken portrayal of the use of faith in science is disturbing flatly incorrect. We are extraordinarily more careful about our assumptions than what you say. To take your example, if the structure of water is determined in one experiment at one place and time, we certainly do NOT then assume that this will be true on all instances everywhere. The test must be repeated...again and again and again. And after a myriad of such testings are performed and every one yields the same result, we PROVISIONALLY accept that the structure of water is known. However, we simultaneously must accept the possibility that there exists some as-yet-untested context that could change our minds. This why science in no way has an epistemological foundation that resembles the structure of religious faith. Knowledge is provisional and based on only evidence acquired to date. We absolutely never slap the label "knowledge" on an idea that is untested and/or untestable, as is the idea that God exists.

Jonathan, what you profess as evidence of the validity of the bible is hardly profuse. If you've ever played the game of telephone you'd know how easily things get screwed up when passed on from person to person. Event-wise there mayhave been real events that happened and real people that were there at those times. However, that can be true of other scriptures (Koran, Bhagadvagita etc.. which are much older too) and to infer that the book is therefore the literal truth is foolish. The bible is mythical - real and made-up events mixed with tales, tweaked for educational and fantastical purposes.

Species evolution is not a fact. It is a theory, based on recent scientific observations and hypotheses. Science has yet to prove evolution, and to my knowledge, no one has stated it it the infallible be-all end-all truth. That's why it's a THEORY. Please don't try and make this a science vs religion issue. Science doesn't profess to have all the answers unlike religion ,although it strives to find answers.

If religious folk took the same approach it would be a different matter altogether, but rarely is that the case. For them it is an absolute truth and nothing less. The day they say it is only a theory will be the day they stop preaching to the masses. When people en masse realize that religious belief is a PURELY personal choice will be the day the religious leaders will fade into obscurity.

If it weren't for the sheer hypocrisy and flexiblity religious beliefs favor then we wouldn't be questioning other's inclination to hand off their thinking to religious leaders.

Don't get the idea that people are either science-based or religious. There are plenty of folks who don't subscribe to either on a 100% basis. Science just serves a purpose, that's all. Religion does too for some but it comes with many more caveats.

Bill K:

You suggest that I, as an atheist, by living demonstrate faith that my life has some meaning and is necessary. However, I need not resort to faith to establish meaning for my life.

I create my own meaning; I give my life purpose through my actions and the consequences I hope to achieve. Human beings do this continually by creating goals which they then act fulfill. What is the meaning of their lives at that point? To fulfill the goal they have set for themselves. And of course, people have overarching goals that span their lives as well. To be an honest person and to raise a healthy and happy family is one example of a life-spanning goal that can invest a life with meaning without resorting to faith. Do I believe my life has some ultimate purpose or achieves a role in a universal play? No. I hold to no ultimate objective meaning for all life; rather, each life creates its own subjective meaning.

Why don’t I kill myself? Simple, because to ensure my life has the meaning I wish it too I have to complete the goals I set. Also, if I wish my life to express the meaning I’ve created for it to others then giving up on my goals and committing suicide would ensure I failed.

I would also argue that atheists have more of a reason to live and to persist in living than theists, who commonly believe they have an after-life awaiting them. To me, this is the only life I will ever have and my only chance for immortality is within the minds of successive generations. Even if my life were, for a time, completely goalless (I would argue that this state would be hard since one can, at minimum, have the goal of helping those around them) and thereby meaningless I would persist because I have no evidence of any conscious state awaiting me.

I am an atheist and I have yet to kill myself.

Switzer:

The historicity of the Bible is riddled with inaccuracies while the book itself is full of contradictions, geographical mistakes, and inconsistencies. These are not eyewitnesses. Most of the books were written hundreds of years after the events they purport to discuss in the case of the OT and twenty to thirty to forty years after in the case of the NT. Also, we have no evidence as to the actual identities of the authors themselves and thereby have no way of knowing if they could have actually been eyewitnesses.

As for trans-species evolution, I suggest you visit pandasthumb.org or talkorigins.com for a helpful dose of information about the contemporary theory of evolution since I’m too tired to explain. The National Academy of Sciences may also be helpful as would be “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Dawkins or several books by Stephen J. Gould or perhaps Michael Shermer’s “Why Darwin Matters.”

The evidence for the validity of the Bible is profuse. People who lived at the time of the events wrote down their observations of what happened. 66 books written over hundreds of years by over 40 authors. Not just one author. Not just at one point in history. We are talking kings, peasants, soldiers, farmers, Jews, Greeks, Romans, fighters, lovers, fishermen, government workers, etc. Court cases are decided based on the word of witnesses. How is this considered not proof? These are eyewitnesses. Which by the way used to be important to science... Science used to mean that experiments were performed, the results observed and recorded and theories developed from those results which would then be tested again. Observation was important. Yet, to this day NO ONE has ever observed an experiment that shows anything close to the possibility of trans-species evolution. Yet, that is believed anyway by so many. Witnesses to one event are ignored and theories of events with no possibility of witnesses are accepted. Which of these is more scientific?

Bishop Tutu uses the word "faith" more semantically than should be implied in the meaning which he purposes to convey. A priori knowledge as in the truth as it exists in natural law does not really constitute a source of faith. Knowing that the sun will rise each morning from the east does not imply faith in the sun rising from the east. It is a factual occurrence that has nothing to do with faith in the act itself.

Religious faith enjoins believers to believe and act in a manner that is informed by the Aristotelian and/or the Thomassian creed of the unmoved mover, a supreme being, a god, God, Allah as the case may be.

Unfortunately not even the seeming commonalities in religious faiths connote a common cause. The sects in Islam,the judeo-christian religions and many others are diversified on so many philosophical and sometimes petty doctrinaire differences even as they source their claim to the same deity.

Perhaps the affinity between a priory existence and faith is the myth of the metaphysical.

I should say at the outset that I am not, nor have ever been, (and excuse the McCarthy-istic reference) a follower of any organized religion, but I agree with Mr. Tutu - we all have faith in one thing, and that is that life is meaningful. This we cannot measure or know, yet we all believe it on some level or else, conscious critters that we are, we might, and sometimes do, off ourselves. Yet most of us do not because of the belief, the faith, that life holds a meaning at its core.

I understand that the idea of faith feels like a kind of blind subservience to a bearded guru. It is not. It is instead bowing to the belief that life - chaos and murder and insanity included - reamains necessary and meaningful.

There are no athiests. They have already killed themselves.

Bill k

Faith and trust are two different concepts. One requires blind acceptance the other requires reasonable acceptance.

Faith may not be necessary, but it is rampant. Bishop Tutu implies that some aspects of faith are driven by the need to trust and, by implication, social expediency. This may be true, but his post does not address some of the more troubling aspects of "necessary" faith. For example, why does boundless faith and certitude drive the violent excesses of religious fanaticism?

As an individual of power, Bishop Tutu must acknowledge that the underlying issue that links religion with fanaticism and dogmatic denial of the obvious has everything to do with the use of ideology by elites to wield power over the masses. The works of philosophers from Machiavelli to Nietzsche to Marx clearly link religious dogma as an instrument of power. Religion has been used for subjugation for thousands of years. Even a casual observer can recognize that innumerable crimes against humanity have been done in God's transcendent name.

I believe that it is worth encouraging people of faith who are not fanatics to take the center of power away from fanatics within their own faith. I believe that, though very challenging, this may be more feasible and less of a stretch than atheist calls for people to renounce their religions, which remain an important source of values and identity for most human beings, in the name of reconciling the many contradictions of faith.

How can I verify Bishop Tutu's assertion that there is a "Transcendent One"?

Playing Devil's Advocate (or Bishop's in this case)... one may not be able to verify that there is a Transcendent One, but I think that reason permits us to define transcendence in such a way as to say there exists something which transcends our condition as intelligent animals on a speck of dust in the universe. That may be the laws of physics, or perhaps the unknowable *cause* of the laws of physics, or it may be something as pedestrian as the biosphere upon which we depend. But short of saying, as a matter of faith, that there is a "Transcendent One", I think we can confidently say that there "is transcendence", justifying a reverent attitude toward life and our own fragile existence. A reverent attitude may not a religion make - but I'm of the view that we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when looking at the difficulties of the "faith" approach.

The title "Faith is Necessary" seems misleading, since nowhere in the piece do we find out why faith--belief without evidence--is necessary.

I can verify my pilot's assertion that he has a flight license. How can I verify Bishop Tutu's assertion that there is a "Transcendent One"?

The religious always trip over those two words: "prove it". "Not easy to prove"? That's an understatement.

The whole world knows that Bishop Tutu is a moral man... but I think that's in spite of his religiosity, and not because of it.

I respectfully disagree. People don't check everything out not because of faith but because it's easier to assume certain things than not. We'd spend a lot of time were it not for assumptions. Gravity is a good example. I don't take it on faith that the ball will fall every time. I assume, based on my previous experience, that it will. Assumptions are bread and butter to most people. (which can be problematic also)

The intrinsic problem with religious faith is that others must indoctrinate you into something that you can only live with after the indoctrination. For example you can only be graced with God's love if you accept him. Science does not need this because you can directly experience it before the indoctrination into scientific ways and the nice thing is that science is uniform all over the globe. I can see the effects of gravity before it is explained And yes we are indoctrinated in science too. For that matter, many other things.

Now, if in all of this there's a semantic issue of what you consider religious faith and what I term a sense of spirituality then we are on the same level. However, to me spirituality is something experienced and inexplicable. It does not succumb to rationalization unless you convert it into a belief system where it becomes rationalized and you use reason to bridge a gap that cannot be bridged. Some things cannot be explained in life and it would be folly to try. Both science and religion falter in their desire to explain everything. However, since science is in the field of rationalization, it is more appropriate if you will.

Just because known faiths profess morality doesn't mean morality is based on these faiths. If it were, it would be a really shakey foundation. Given all the hypocrisies in religious literature e.g. the bible, one could only come to that conclusion if one only selectively chooses what to believe or accentuate. By doing so you have already made a moral judgement irrespective of the belief system (since you are the one making a choice out of the system). If in many cases, you are accepting what others have selectively chosen as the "guideline beliefs of this particular faith" then you are bound by the choice you make to subjigate yourself to the interpretations of others - a very dubious path that lends itself to abuse.

Although many religious leaders have desirable human qualities does not make them infallible. A man could be pious without his religion but how are we to know that? - we might then assume it is the religion that makes him so..and we therefore follow him. To take the word of any man as the truth without discerning its merit is a bad idea.
If the religious leaders in this world sincerely wanted people to be exposed to all major world religions at a young age (think a really thorough religious education from a historic/fact based perspective), I think then we could have a real discussion of its merit.

Until then it will be up to people's own recognition of morality as a separate entity to further humanitarian causes rather than religion.
I think as a society it would do us well for both us and the planet to leave religious faith at the door when we want to help our fellow man.

And finally if a god exists, it seems likely given all the things that happen in this world, that any supreme being would be so utterly impersonal as to be unfathomable.

cheers.

Mr Tutu,

Your initial paragraphs miss the point. If I wanted to check that there was gas in the fuel tank, I could take the cap of and check. This is the essence of scientific "faith", it is open to direct, verifiable investigation.

There is no gas-tank cap for God. Where do I look? I can't verify the existence of any god by any objective means. This is where faith is required - to believe in something for which there is no possibility of obtained objective evidence.

As an atheist I take offence at your concluding paragraphs, and quite frankly I am getting sick of religeous people assuming the trancedency of their beliefs, and by inference belittling the deep spiritual feelings of atheists and other non-believers. I don't need to believe in an imaginary God to feel a "deep sense of worthiness". I feel I am precious, I love my neighbor, I feel I have a higher destiny, I feel deeply awed in the presence of great natural beauty. I long for us to live amicably in harmony with other creatures. If everyone else did so, we would be a long way to achieving that end - without gods.

One last point, I was stuck by your claim that "No religeous faith proclaims that violence is right...". A short perusal of the Bible or the Koran would indicate that the gods described in these books do not shy away from advocating violence.

I hope that one day you too will enjoy the intellectual and spiritual freedom that I enjoy, unshackled by the arbitrary tenets of ancient religeon.

Sincerely,
William Taylor.

Desmond, you seem to confuse knowledge with faith. Knowledge is based on empirical observations and rational thinking. Faith requires no proof of its claims, only that they be accepted as truth.

An example of knowledge: The earth orbits the sun. How do we know this? The scientific method, through processes of observation and logical thinking.

An example of faith: There is a supreme being that exists. How do we know this? We just do. We cannot observe this ‘supreme being’, nor can its presence be tested. This is a statement of faith – one that requires belief without proof.

And if you want to believe in something without proof then let me just say that I will sell you magical socks that will bring you eternal life and happiness for the low low price of one-hundred dollars a pair.