Opinion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument

[Samof94]

Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster supposed to be an argument?

No, an appetizer!

There’s also the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is a being built around a contradiction.

[Mopsus]

Religion cannot and has never been able to make accurate predictions, which is one of many reasons why it is clearly disconnected from reality in a way that causal laws are not.

On the contrary, religious people can predict that if they obey the prescriptions of their faith, they will have a clearer mind and a more robust disposition towards life than they would if they didn’t. People are religious for the same reason they believe in cause and effect - it works.

Sure. I bet the Branch Davidians, Manson Family, and People's Temple missionaries were quite confident in their futures. For a time.

I’m sure that they were too. But they were regarded by almost everyone at the time as a cult, and their futures have clearly not come to pass. This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of people are quite capable of differentiating between a real religion and a cult. If the existence of the latter disproves the former, then every rejected hypothesis disproves the scientific method.

[RI]

Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster supposed to be an argument?

The FSM was originally conceived as a playful argument against teaching intelligent design as science in schools. It was essentially a re-skin of the Russell's Teapot argument. As the FSM grew in popularity, it was subsequently adopted as an argument against God entirely (or at least to dismiss the possibility of God without some unspecified level of sufficient "evidence") in some atheist circles. The FSM is held up as this obviously ridiculous claim which, it is argued, can be no more proven or disproven than God's existence, which is meant to imply that God's existence is equally a ridiculous claim. If you want evidence of it being used this way, look no further than John Dule's posts in this very thread.

[Samof94]

Religion cannot and has never been able to make accurate predictions, which is one of many reasons why it is clearly disconnected from reality in a way that causal laws are not.

On the contrary, religious people can predict that if they obey the prescriptions of their faith, they will have a clearer mind and a more robust disposition towards life than they would if they didn’t. People are religious for the same reason they believe in cause and effect - it works.

Sure. I bet the Branch Davidians, Manson Family, and People's Temple missionaries were quite confident in their futures. For a time.

I’m sure that they were too. But they were regarded by almost everyone at the time as a cult, and their futures have clearly not come to pass. This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of people are quite capable of differentiating between a real religion and a cult. If the existence of the latter disproves the former, then every rejected hypothesis disproves the scientific method.

Heaven’s Gate all died in 1997(except for 2).

[°Leprechaun]

Why should people take something that is obviously meant as a joke, so seriously?

Sectarianism in general, and sectarian violence in particular is a serious problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKmje75kZo

Although much of religion is harmless, much of it is not. I tend to think that we'd all be better off without it.

[John Dule]

Religion cannot and has never been able to make accurate predictions, which is one of many reasons why it is clearly disconnected from reality in a way that causal laws are not.

On the contrary, religious people can predict that if they obey the prescriptions of their faith, they will have a clearer mind and a more robust disposition towards life than they would if they didn’t. People are religious for the same reason they believe in cause and effect - it works.

Sure. I bet the Branch Davidians, Manson Family, and People's Temple missionaries were quite confident in their futures. For a time.

I’m sure that they were too. But they were regarded by almost everyone at the time as a cult, and their futures have clearly not come to pass. This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of people are quite capable of differentiating between a real religion and a cult. If the existence of the latter disproves the former, then every rejected hypothesis disproves the scientific method.

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

[John Dule]

I think the thing that's always bugged me about the FSM argument as an argument against religion is that using it as such is actually a strawman argument, and the entirely purpose of the argument is to trump theologically-illiterate Young Earth Creationists, not religion entirely. It addresses a very narrow vision of the nature of God not held by most of learned Christianity and is pretty ridiculous in any serious setting. That is has some merit against the YEC position is a testament to YEC theology also being ridiculous in any serious setting.

The FSM argument posits there exists an undetectable omniscient being who created the universe (who happens to be made of pasta), and because you can't disprove this claim, it is no less likely than any other theological claim. This is really the conflation of two separate arguments: 1) Does God exist and can this be demonstrated? 2) What is the nature of God? The argument assumes that, conditional on God existing, the nature of God can not be demonstrated and thus could be anything; it presupposes a naive prior distribution without justification. It inherently assumes that the nature of existence does not reflect the nature of the God who created it; it assumes that, despite existing, God has never revealed any relevant information concerning their own nature to humanity as never has such purported revelation supported God's nature reflecting such as the FSM; and it assumes that bad faith claim to God's nature is as valid as that of a good faith claim.

Behind this, however, is a deeper flaw which is a clear (and common) misunderstanding of what religion (at least Christianity) means by God. The FSM is a claim to the existence of a being who occupies space and time but is simply undetectable, not unlike a mythical god of old. If we had but the proper supreme tool we could detect this being, but we simply lack the capacity. This is not what Christianity claims by God; God is not a being, not even the supreme being, but is being itself. "The unconditioned ground of existence is that whose very nature is to be," "the non-contingent ground of contingency"-- that is, the First Cause, both temporally and ontologically, whose nature is inextricably linked with what follows from it, namely creation. Science can no more "prove" or "disprove" God than it can prove its own founding tenets; no tool, no matter how great, which is contingent can address the non-contingent.

The FSM isn't even in the same ballpark as what Christianity means by God. Next to God, the FSM is child's play.

A better thought experiment, perhaps, would be that modern theological claims are no less likely than those made in ancient times by (for instance) the Greeks. Those religious claims were:

1) Made in good faith
2) Supposedly revealed to humanity in some manner by a higher power
3) Descriptive of gods whose nature aligned with the nature of the world we experience (more so than the Christian god, indeed)

If these are your standards for whether a belief system is credible, then that is still a phenomenally low bar. Indeed, the only well-founded argument against Greek mythology is that nobody believes it today-- in other words, the credibility you assign to a cult is directly proportional to the number of followers it possesses.

In any case, I agree that the FSM is a silly and reductive argument. I would certainly never use it. But it's useful insofar as it illustrates to theists how they sound to the rest of us.

[Mopsus]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

[Mopsus]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

[Mopsus]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

A group of people united by the elevation/veneration of a person, object, or idea at the expense of all others. The pejorative use of the word implies insularity and irrationality, and while this is also true, the term encompasses everything from Trumpism to Christianity.

[Mopsus]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

A group of people united by the elevation/veneration of a person, object, or idea at the expense of all others. The pejorative use of the word implies insularity and irrationality, and while this is also true, the term encompasses everything from Trumpism to Christianity.

In other words, any group of people who share an ultimate concern. Which if it applies to Trump supporters, also applies to libertarians, utilitarians, and corporations.

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

A group of people united by the elevation/veneration of a person, object, or idea at the expense of all others. The pejorative use of the word implies insularity and irrationality, and while this is also true, the term encompasses everything from Trumpism to Christianity.

In other words, any group of people who share an ultimate concern. Which if it applies to Trump supporters, also applies to libertarians, utilitarians, and corporations.

I can't speak for any of those people. I can only speak for myself-- and I can genuinely say that I don't venerate anything at the expense of all else, nor do I believe anything that I would not change my mind about if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. "Faith" is a vice.

[Mopsus]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

A group of people united by the elevation/veneration of a person, object, or idea at the expense of all others. The pejorative use of the word implies insularity and irrationality, and while this is also true, the term encompasses everything from Trumpism to Christianity.

In other words, any group of people who share an ultimate concern. Which if it applies to Trump supporters, also applies to libertarians, utilitarians, and corporations.

I can't speak for any of those people. I can only speak for myself-- and I can genuinely say that I don't venerate anything at the expense of all else

Neither do religious people. Christians do seek to become children of God at the expense of sin and Buddhists do seek to become enlightened at the expense of suffering, but from their perspective, they’re better of without those things anyway. If you don’t have any part of your life for you which you would make sacrifices in some other part of your life - well, you will one day.

nor do I believe anything that I would not change my mind about if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. "Faith" is a vice.

Most religious people would also change their minds “if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary” (you may have heard people talk about “converting” from one religion to another; this is what they’re referring to). The point of faith is that human beings seldom have perfect information, yet are called to make choices anyway. Faith is about what values you chose to adhere to in the face of uncertainty.

[John Dule]

I can't speak for any of those people. I can only speak for myself-- and I can genuinely say that I don't venerate anything at the expense of all else

Neither do religious people. Christians do seek to become children of God at the expense of sin and Buddhists do seek to become enlightened at the expense of suffering, but from their perspective, they’re better of without those things anyway. If you don’t have any part of your life for you which you would make sacrifices in some other part of your life - well, you will one day.

Note that I said "at the expense of all else." Do Christians not worship Jesus above everything else? If not, I don't think they could properly be called Christians, yes?

nor do I believe anything that I would not change my mind about if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. "Faith" is a vice.

Most religious people would also change their minds “if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary” (you may have heard people talk about “converting” from one religion to another; this is what they’re referring to). The point of faith is that human beings seldom have perfect information, yet are called to make choices anyway. Faith is about what values you chose to adhere to in the face of uncertainty.

Faith is not a requirement to have moral conviction or values. It is an inherently irrational belief in something that is not substantiated by evidence. It is possible to have values without believing that they are supported by a supernatural being.

[Mopsus]

I can't speak for any of those people. I can only speak for myself-- and I can genuinely say that I don't venerate anything at the expense of all else

Neither do religious people. Christians do seek to become children of God at the expense of sin and Buddhists do seek to become enlightened at the expense of suffering, but from their perspective, they’re better of without those things anyway. If you don’t have any part of your life for you which you would make sacrifices in some other part of your life - well, you will one day.

Note that I said "at the expense of all else." Do Christians not worship Jesus above everything else? If not, I don't think they could properly be called Christians, yes?

Of course. And I’m trying to explain to you that such judgement calls are a necessary part of life. On a small scale, I value cheesecake at the expense of all other desserts; on a much larger scale, many people have valued their families, their honor, and their fatherlands above their own lives. Religious people, because they believe that life has an overarching purpose, are willing to subordinate everything to that purpose. That is completely logical.

nor do I believe anything that I would not change my mind about if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. "Faith" is a vice.

Most religious people would also change their minds “if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary” (you may have heard people talk about “converting” from one religion to another; this is what they’re referring to). The point of faith is that human beings seldom have perfect information, yet are called to make choices anyway. Faith is about what values you chose to adhere to in the face of uncertainty.

Faith is not a requirement to have moral conviction or values. It is an inherently irrational belief in something that is not substantiated by evidence. It is possible to have values without believing that they are supported by a supernatural being.

It is possible to have values without believing they are supported by a supernatural being. But if you do what you think is right without knowing that it is right - which none of us ever do - then you are acting on faith, whether your beliefs involve the supernatural or not. The word “faith” is not as one-dimensional as you think it is.

[John Dule]

Of course. And I’m trying to explain to you that such judgement calls are a necessary part of life. On a small scale, I value cheesecake at the expense of all other desserts; on a much larger scale, many people have valued their families, their honor, and their fatherlands above their own lives. Religious people, because they believe that life has an overarching purpose, are willing to subordinate everything to that purpose. That is completely logical.

[...]

It is possible to have values without believing they are supported by a supernatural being. But if you do what you think is right without knowing that it is right - which none of us ever do - then you are acting on faith, whether your beliefs involve the supernatural or not. The word “faith” is not as one-dimensional as you think it is.

FAITH: noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The reason why I claim that faith is a moral failing is because neither of these two definitions are desirable qualities in a person. In the first case, it is wrong to have complete trust or confidence in something-- to the point that you will dismiss any evidence to the contrary out of hand. The second case is merely a subset of the first.

An inability to adapt to new evidence routinely leads people to ruin. Faith is by definition baseless.

In any case, this is somewhat of a distraction from my initial claim that the only meaningful distinction between a cult and a religion is the size/age of the organization. Do you disagree with that?

[Mopsus]

Of course. And I’m trying to explain to you that such judgement calls are a necessary part of life. On a small scale, I value cheesecake at the expense of all other desserts; on a much larger scale, many people have valued their families, their honor, and their fatherlands above their own lives. Religious people, because they believe that life has an overarching purpose, are willing to subordinate everything to that purpose. That is completely logical.

[...]

It is possible to have values without believing they are supported by a supernatural being. But if you do what you think is right without knowing that it is right - which none of us ever do - then you are acting on faith, whether your beliefs involve the supernatural or not. The word “faith” is not as one-dimensional as you think it is.

FAITH: noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The reason why I claim that faith is a moral failing is because neither of these two definitions are desirable qualities in a person. In the first case, it is wrong to have complete trust or confidence in something-- to the point that you will dismiss any evidence to the contrary out of hand. The second case is merely a subset of the first.

An inability to adapt to new evidence routinely leads people to ruin. Faith is by definition baseless.

You may have heard it said before that someone was "unfaithful" to their partner. What is meant by this obviously isn't that they stopped putting "complete trust" in them; it's that they failed to live up to the standards of behavior that anyone in their position would be expected to uphold. Similarly, a person must enter into their beliefs, religious or otherwise, rationally and of their own free will; such is human nature. Where faith is involved is whether people choose to fulfill the rules that someone with their beliefs ought to follow. Certainly this can be taken too far, and the results are dramatic and devastating. But what I submit to your consideration is that the opposite is far more widespread - people not doing what they know they ought to do (even if only in their heart of hearts), and thus making life miserable for themselves and those around them. This is what a lack of faith looks like, and because it's so much more common than an excess of faith, I suggest that it is actually the more insidious problem for mankind.

That's my final word on the topic.

In any case, this is somewhat of a distraction from my initial claim that the only meaningful distinction between a cult and a religion is the size/age of the organization. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I do fear that if your definitions are unable to affect a difference between the Quakers and the Manson Family, they are of limited practical application.

[RFayette]

The flying spaghetti monster trope reminds me of this funny blog post.  The philosophical arguments for the existence of God in classical theist traditions (including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) are for a God that is immaterial, unchanging, and not made of parts.   The flying spaghetti monster lacks these basic attributes of God.  So it really is an apples-and-oranges comparison.  

The fact of the matter is that creation clearly displays the glory of the invisible God, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there are valid, sound deductive arguments to confirm this.  And this is a God (unlike the Flying Spaghetti Monster) who is infinite and so far beyond our comprehension, but who revealed himself through his son Jesus Christ.   

[John Dule]

You may have heard it said before that someone was "unfaithful" to their partner.

Yeah, and Cubs fans prior to 2016 said that they were "keeping the faith." The word is used colloquially outside of religious contexts, but when Christians use it they mean something weightier, as I'm sure you'd agree.

What is meant by this obviously isn't that they stopped putting "complete trust" in them; it's that they failed to live up to the standards of behavior that anyone in their position would be expected to uphold. Similarly, a person must enter into their beliefs, religious or otherwise, rationally and of their own free will; such is human nature. Where faith is involved is whether people choose to fulfill the rules that someone with their beliefs ought to follow. Certainly this can be taken too far, and the results are dramatic and devastating. But what I submit to your consideration is that the opposite is far more widespread - people not doing what they know they ought to do (even if only in their heart of hearts), and thus making life miserable for themselves and those around them. This is what a lack of faith looks like, and because it's so much more common than an excess of faith, I suggest that it is actually the more insidious problem for mankind.

So your definition of "faith" is just... doing what you ought to do? That is an extremely vague interpretation that doesn't engage with the generally accepted definition of the word. You're essentially saying that we are suffering from a "lack of faith," by which "faith" means doing the right thing. So we're suffering from a lack of people doing the right thing? That's the most milquetoast uncontroversial statement you could possibly make, and it's predicated on the idea that "faith" means something separate from the way it is used in religious veneration.

Anyway, we clearly suffer from an overabundance of faith. Belief systems (like Christianity) that vilify skepticism and doubt encourage black-and-white self-righteous thinking. 

Yes, I do fear that if your definitions are unable to affect a difference between the Quakers and the Manson Family, they are of limited practical application.

Oh? So what differentiates a "cult" from a "religion" is rooted in how benign/harmful their practices and teachings are?

[Mopsus]

Yeah, and Cubs fans prior to 2016 said that they were "keeping the faith." The word is used colloquially outside of religious contexts, but when Christians use it they mean something weightier, as I'm sure you'd agree.

It certainly requires far more faith to remain loyal to your God after the death of a loved one than it does to remain loyal to your baseball team after a one hundred year losing streak. But if you reflect for a few moments, you might be able to see why I consider those differences of degree, not kind.

So your definition of "faith" is just... doing what you ought to do? That is an extremely vague interpretation that doesn't engage with the generally accepted definition of the word. You're essentially saying that we are suffering from a "lack of faith," by which "faith" means doing the right thing. So we're suffering from a lack of people doing the right thing? That's the most milquetoast uncontroversial statement you could possibly make, and it's predicated on the idea that "faith" means something separate from the way it is used in religious veneration.

Anyway, we clearly suffer from an overabundance of faith. Belief systems (like Christianity) that vilify skepticism and doubt encourage black-and-white self-righteous thinking.

You are conflating two distinct things: ascertaining the difference between the true and the false, which requires reason, and remaining loyal to the true and shunning the false, which requires faith. This is something you learn from experience so I don't expect to be able to convince you of it, but it is often more expedient to do what one knows to be wrong than to do what one knows to be right, even though the right is more beneficial in the long run. If you keep this proposition in mind as you go about your life I'm sure you will eventually find it to be true.

What's more, you're also conflating skepticism in matters of religion with skepticism generally. I assume that you, like me, take a rather dim view of the Chinese Communist Party, yet theirs is a faith founded and promoted entirely by staunch atheists. I see no reason to believe that the average Chinese communist is more enlightened than the average Christian just because they are an atheist. What I can say is that the CCP offers a vision of society which is both harmful to everyone living in that society, and extremely dangerous for any individual to oppose. It is far more rational for the ordinary Chinese person to go along with that system than to oppose it, even if they don't believe in it. Those who stand up to said system must have an exceedingly high amount of faith in human freedom.

Oh? So what differentiates a "cult" from a "religion" is rooted in how benign/harmful their practices and teachings are?

This is one of the differences people are thinking of when they differentiate them. Another is that cults imply a kind of gross reciprocity. Thus in the cult of the Roman Emperor, one pays homage to Caesar while making one's sacrifices, and in exchange, he doesn't have you crucified. In genuine religion, one's sacrifices are noticeably more abstract - "unrighteousness", "sin", "desire", "attachment" - and they are offered to a being who doesn't strictly speaking need them, because he/she/it predates the created world. The benefits of such sacrifices flow out from you to everything you touch, because they are good for your character.

[John Dule]

Yeah, and Cubs fans prior to 2016 said that they were "keeping the faith." The word is used colloquially outside of religious contexts, but when Christians use it they mean something weightier, as I'm sure you'd agree.

It certainly requires far more faith to remain loyal to your God after the death of a loved one than it does to remain loyal to your baseball team after a one hundred year losing streak. But if you reflect for a few moments, you might be able to see why I consider those differences of degree, not kind.

On the contrary, there is indeed a distinction in kind. Cubs fans could base their hope on a series of facts and logical deductions. An example:

Premise 1: Major League Baseball will continue to be played in the future, as there is currently no reason to believe it will suddenly stop being popular.
Premise 2: The Cubs will continue to exist as a Chicago team so long as fans continue to support them, providing the organization with revenue and resisting attempts to move/shut down the franchise.
Premise 3: The quality of teams varies between years, which means that all teams will have the potential to win the World Series if given enough opportunities.

When you draw conclusions from these facts, you can safely say that the Cubs have a chance to win a future World Series. Again, the religious definition of "faith" is not predicated on evidence-based claims or factual premises such as these. It is inherently unquestioning and unsupported by evidence. Indeed, those who demand "proof" of god before they are willing to believe are often maligned by Christians, as they do not have "faith." Faith is entirely independent from factual claims or evidence.

You are conflating two distinct things: ascertaining the difference between the true and the false, which requires reason, and remaining loyal to the true and shunning the false, which requires faith. This is something you learn from experience so I don't expect to be able to convince you of it, but it is often more expedient to do what one knows to be wrong than to do what one knows to be right, even though the right is more beneficial in the long run. If you keep this proposition in mind as you go about your life I'm sure you will eventually find it to be true.

More vagaries and platitudes. I cannot respond to this unless you make an effort to actually engage with the commonly accepted definitions of the word "faith," which can be found here. To reiterate, when the word "faith" is used in a religious context, it is literally defined as "belief absent proof." You are trying to redefine the word for your own purposes.

Again, nobody disagrees that "it is good to do what you should do, but sometimes it is easier to do what you shouldn't." That isn't exactly groundbreaking philosophy. However, "doing what you should do" does not require religious faith, which is not the same as simply "keeping a promise" or "showing loyalty."

What's more, you're also conflating skepticism in matters of religion with skepticism generally. I assume that you, like me, take a rather dim view of the Chinese Communist Party, yet theirs is a faith founded and promoted entirely by staunch atheists. I see no reason to believe that the average Chinese communist is more enlightened than the average Christian just because they are an atheist. What I can say is that the CCP offers a vision of society which is both harmful to everyone living in that society, and extremely dangerous for any individual to oppose. It is far more rational for the ordinary Chinese person to go along with that system than to oppose it, even if they don't believe in it. Those who stand up to said system must have an exceedingly high amount of faith in human freedom.

I never made the claim that all atheists are "more enlightened" than all Christians, so I feel no need to reply to this. I'm going to try to keep this on-topic (that topic being the distinction, if any, between religions and cults). I'll simply note that there is no society that is "harmful to everyone living in it," which goes for communist societies as well as Christian ones. If literally nobody stood to benefit from the status quo in a society, then that status quo would not be maintained. Obviously, some people benefit from the proliferation of Christianity, as some others also do from Chinese fascism. But I nevertheless oppose both of those systems.

Oh? So what differentiates a "cult" from a "religion" is rooted in how benign/harmful their practices and teachings are?

This is one of the differences people are thinking of when they differentiate them. Another is that cults imply a kind of gross reciprocity. Thus in the cult of the Roman Emperor, one pays homage to Caesar while making one's sacrifices, and in exchange, he doesn't have you crucified. In genuine religion, one's sacrifices are noticeably more abstract - "unrighteousness", "sin", "desire", "attachment" - and they are offered to a being who doesn't strictly speaking need them, because he/she/it predates the created world. The benefits of such sacrifices flow out from you to everything you touch, because they are good for your character.

You are inventing your distinctions out of thin air. The idea that you can delineate "religion" from "cult" by the nature of the sacrifices involved is nonsense. Are you saying that the Greeks, who sacrificed lambs to their gods, were "cultists," and not religious? Were the religions of the Aztecs and Mayans also "cults?" Again: There is no meaningful distinction to be had between religions and cults aside from widespread societal acceptance, age, and organizational size. Obviously disemboweling virgins atop a pyramid is quite dissimilar from modern Christian practices. But if you consider the motivations involved in both of these traditions (and the scant evidence in support of their beliefs), you might be able to see why I consider those differences of degree, not kind.