This is a very important realization re: the concept 'rights'. And you may have accurately pointed out that there is a tendency among 'intellectual pursuits' other than those of explicitly religious nature for some individuals to embrace those pursuits at the expense of the rights of others. I do not know myself of any Darwinists who are guilty of this particular accusation, but it stands to reason - by mountains of historical evidence - that some are willing to dispense with the rights of others for the sake of their own 'beliefs'.

It is for this reason that I find religious philosophy ultimately a disaster for man. The 1000 years of religious tyranny in the western world which were the Dark Ages, is a case in point. The ruling religious elite held no concept of man's right to exist for his own sake (it was not a doctrine of their biblical laws), and the individuals living under this elite were subjected to a tyranny now unknown in the west.

But that tyranny continues today in the religious dictatorships of the Middle East. When the State and the Religion are one, man is doomed without recourse. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, where no individual enjoys the right to exist for his own sake, police enforce daily prayer to their 'loving and merciful' Allah. Prayer at gun point? Is that what certain religious groups want to see in America?

If so, go ahead and shoot me now, because I don't care to live in such misery; such misery is not life.

I agree with your first statement here completely: reason and faith are incompatible. In fact, I would go further to say that they are diametrically opposed. Reason is the faculty by which man identifies and integrates the material provided by or ultimately provided by his senses. Its method is called logic, which is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Mysticism, however, is the acceptance of allegations without evidence and/or against one's own reasoning. Its method is called faith, which is a short-circuit of the mind.

If one has evidence to support a claim, and thus he can appeal to reason to validate that claim, he does not require faith for he does not need to dispense with the requirement of evidence in order to validate and accept the claim.

If one has no evidence, however, in support of a particular claim, such as "there's a group of magic elves on the planet Neptune studying Hegel," yet still one still accepts that claim as knowledge, he can only do so by dismissing the requirement of evidence in support of that claim, and accepting it in spite of the lack of evidence for that claim.

This is the nature of all god-belief. All god-belief is dependent on mystical epistemology, i.e., faith. If there were evidence in support of the religionist's claim that 'god exists', then he would not need to appeal to faith, for he could appeal to reason, which is the only means of validating knowledge. Thus faith would be unnecessary.

The Bible's description of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." What is meant by "substance of things hoped for"? What is meant by "evidence of things not seen"?

Is there a such thing as 'substance' originating from hopes? Only if existence finds its origin in consciousness, and we know that this is not the case. Existence exists. Anything that exists cannot be 'created', i.e., existence does not come from non-existence. Things are manufactured, such as metamorphic rock, from the elements in the metaphysically given environment. The same is true for living beings: we are manufactured by nature, using elements, in the form of molecules, which already exist; our bodies put us together. That is why we eat regularly. The nutrients we eat are used by our bodies to grow. Our bodies are not created.

That's why a pregnant woman is often referred to as "eating for two" when she dines. The nutrients she consumes are used both for her body, and for the body growing (i.e., being manufactured) within her. I was not 'created', I was manufactured, and that by nature.

So, judging by that, the notion of 'hope' springing forth into 'substance' makes no sense.

What about 'evidence of things not seen'? If you do not see it, then wherefrom comes your evidence? Remember that the root of the word 'evidence' is the proto-European root 'vid', which is the word from which we get words like 'video', 'vision', and, yes, 'evidence'. 'Vid' in proto-European language systems is the word 'to see' and its corollaries. Even in the Russian language (in which I have a degree), this root 'vid' is seen in verbs such as vid'et' = 'to see'; vid'ets'a = 'to meet' (as in 'to see each other'); vidimo = 'apparent'; vidno = 'evidently', and ochevidno = 'obviously'.

The point is: we require material provided by our senses in order to claim that we have evidence. One may object, saying that we "cannot see the wind, how do you know it is blowing?" Obviously we do see trees blowing in the wind, but also we have our other senses: we can hear the wind, we can feel it against our skin, we can smell the neighbor's barbecue, we can taste the pork chops almost! (I'm getting hungry!)

Is this what Hebrews 11:1 meant by 'evidence of things not seen'? Did the writer of Hebrews mean things that can be evidenced by appeals to our other senses, namely taste, touch, smell and hearing? Or, did he mean what I think he meant, wishful thinking?

No amount of wishing will fill your belly with food. In order to reach any kind of goal in reality, man will have to use his mind, and obey nature. That means: He must act.

There's much more to the conflict between reason and faith, but that should get us started.

My next question would then be: Now that you've decided to renounce your rights (and you do have this right, I admit), would you renounce the rights of others?

If one does not value his own rights, and is completely willing to renounce them for the sake of his religious beliefs, how difficult will it be for that individual to renounce your rights?

That is the question that concerns me most when individuals begin to take their religion seriously. History has shown the religionist's ease with which he dismisses the rights of others. Again, look at Western Europe under the Dark Ages. Look at the religious dictatorships of the Middle East today.

Religion is no basis for the protection of individual rights!

Here, we have one individual who would gladly give up his rights for his 'god'. What does he think about your rights? That is my concern.

I have no problem with people wanting to give up their own rights per se, for their beliefs. That is your issue, your concern, your business.

But how much of a stretch will it be till those who renounce their rights (or who claim to renounce their rights) to also make that decision for others?

There is no right to take away the rights of others.

Unless your 'god' is mightier than everyone else's? Is that the question?

Observe:

I see. You say that "there is no 'right' to property." For whom are you making that statement? Are saying that generally, for all individuals? Or, are you just saying that in regard to yourself?

This is the issue. If you are making that decision in your little head for everyone, then that means you probably think you have a right to my property and a right to everyone's property.

You have "no conflict" to "give up [your] mind from reason to faith."

Do you have a conflict if someone else were to make that decision for you?

Do you have a conflict with making that decision for others?

The basic problem with trying to reconcile reason with any form of mysticism, such as faith, is: by what principle does one determine when to use faith, and when to use reason?

Since reason and faith are incompatible, as it has already been shown, then one would require a principle in their application if one insists on continuing with the problem of employing opposing means of epistemology. When does reason stop, and when does faith begin, and what is the principle that determines this?

Remember, one cannot use reason to annihilate reason. And that is what we will ultimately see in any argument wherein one attempts a compromise between reason and faith as means for validating knowledge claims.

This is the religionist's dilemma. Not mine.

Tindrbox

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win" Ayn Rand.

_________________________________