Greetings Steve,
Well first of all, in this case they were connected. If you trace back the origen of this argument, you'll see it started with you saying: Having faith in something without evidence is nothing unusual - we all do it every day. It's when that kind of faith determines how you live your life that the trouble begins.
So when people let faith lead their choices, they do so because of the morality derived from faith.
We're still talking at cross-purposes here. Let me try and explain what I mean.
I'm sitting in my house typing away. My car is just outside, but I can't see it from where I'm sitting. I have
faith that it is still there. I believe it is still there, even though I have no direct evidence for this (beyond the fact that it was there ten minutes ago and I live in a very quiet neighbourhood). I could be wrong - it could have been stolen - but I think I'm right.
Now, my belief one way or the other about whether or not my car is still there is not going to affect my moral views in any way, is it? There is no reason why any thought process based on faith should (simply by virtue of being faith) have any necessary connection with morality.
A religious person has no more evidence for god's existence than I do for the belief that my car is still where I left it. Yes, there are plenty people who have written about god, but can their words really be taken as evidence? Look at the number of religious writings which explicitly exclude other interpretations of what god is and what he wants: there is no way that all of these interpretations could be right, but they could all be wrong.
For example religion says it's wrong to steal, so they don't steal. So you see, in such a case there is a huge connection between religion and morality. Now if a person believes that religion, and thus believes stealing is wrong, that not only makes him/her a thief, but also an immoral person because they do something while they fully realize it is immoral.
There is certainly a
historical connection between religion and morality, but there is no
necessary connection.
What you cannot debate is that three is a difference of level, because so much is obvious.
What I was pointing to was the fact you were making a huge generalisation about massive groups of people, but since you're happy with thinking that way I think we'll just let it lie...
As for steadfastness. I think I can make up a whole lot of hypothetical situations where a non-believer will be inclined to forfeit his morality due to circumstances thinking it's not such a big deal whereas the firm Muslim would not.
Non-believers famously have no integrity at all. Don't trust them, folks!
Well some stalkers believe they kill their ex out of love, but nobody in the world seems to be having issues with love because of that. That is because we are all very familiar with love, so we immediately know that the stalker is wrong and did not act out of love but instead acted out of hate. I argue that; if in a similar way the world had an equal familiarity with Islam as they have with love; then the world wouldn't have any problems with Islam despite suicide bombers.
This is a fairly good argument, making clear the differences between the two pairs. I don't think the world has a problem with Islam,
per se, I think the world has a problem with nutters blowing themselves and others up. The fact that many of them do it in the name Islam must be hugely offensive to the broad majority of Muslims.
First of all I do think there are alternatives with all the dangerous examples, but that the alternatives are rejected because of a lousy cost-effectiveness balance.
I'm not sure I believe you, but that's another discussion.
In a similar way I would say that the non-believers would forfeit some of their morality if it's only a small immoral act with great positive benefit.
Generalising again.
Secondly I do not think the positive effects can be that easily substituted by other things. Perhaps one could do so partially. But such substitutes simply don't cut the mustard.
Opinion.
I don't suppose we'll ever agree on this...
I disagree. You seem to be implying that anything that exists must leave some sort of evidence. I think that is narrow-minded.
I would love to hear of one thing that we know exists but for which there is no evidence.
Peace
