Freedomain Radio

I remember mentioning this to you in the chat, but thought I'd throw it in a post, so it doesn't get lost in the ether:

A demystification of the three most toxic concepts in religion: Faith, Hope, and Charity. To employ them, requires the adoption of a non-empirical view of reality, and ultimately conditions one for pessimism, and cynicism.

What do you think?

Greg Gauthier:

I remember mentioning this to you in the chat, but thought I'd throw it in a post, so it doesn't get lost in the ether:

A demystification of the three most toxic concepts in religion: Faith, Hope, and Charity. To employ them, requires the adoption of a non-empirical view of reality, and ultimately conditions one for pessimism, and cynicism.

What do you think?

 

This sounds like an interesting topic. 

 Could you expand a little on how you are defining those three terms and the thought process behind the conclusions of the idea? I'm clear on 'Faith' but the context in which you are using 'Hope' and 'Charity' is a little foggy to me. Outside of the Randian notions of 'altruism' in relation to 'Charity,' I have never thought of these ideas in this way.
 

Well, here's how I see those three concepts, as they are employed in religion:

* Faith: Belief that something is true now, regardless of evidence and reason.

* Hope: A desire for something to be true, at some point in the future, regardless of evidence and reason.

* Charity: A belief that justice is possible in an unjust act. Charity, in the religious sense, is much worse than altruism (as described by Rand) - which is bad enough. It's actively promoting the idea that good can come of evil (or at least, corruption). 

I think, if we want to keep using these terms ourselves without being destructive to our own ends, then we need to put them in a context, and define them in a way, that makes it clear that the 'accepted' meanings are not acceptable anymore.

Otherwise, I think I'd just rather not use them anymore.

bump