tbvanbel@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.15.18.42.28.1991.197@athos.rutgers.edu> BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu writes: >Terry cites faith as the reason for the crusades, inquisition, indulgences >and Sadam. I beg to differ. Faith involves one's personal relationship >with the deity. The above cited instances are an example of politics, which >is why theocracies (governments by God or his (self) appointed leaders >are such a bad idea. Don't let the actions of xenophobic idiots lure you >away from something that can only be good for you. Fair enough. I agree. However, your article does not respond to the point I was trying to make, the difference being in our definitions of faith. I would define faith as the ability to maintain a belief in the face of inconclusive but powerful counter-arguments. There are times, when I examine my beliefs in various topics, that they don't seem as reasonable as they once did. At times like this, there is a great temptation to simply say "Well, we must have faith" as if following skeptical lines of thought is the hallmark of the weak and cowardly. My only point in the last part of my posting is that such a resolution can be extremely dangerous; there is nothing 'steadfast' or 'honourable' about it. Imagine a torturer for the inquisition, thinking about what he does to people for a living. He wonders why a religion which preaches love tells him to stretch fellow humans on racks. He wonders exactly why his victims' views are wrong while the Church's are right, especially when the differences are so minor. Finally, he has doubts as to how much his victims are actually saved by being forced to recant their views under extreme pain. "Ah, but then we must have faith" says he, and continues about his job with a clear conscience. By all means, don't reject anything unless you are comfortable with the reasons for doing so; but PLEASE don't ignore ideas just because they're inconvenient. Peace, Terry Van Belle tbvanbelle@cgl.uWaterloo.edu