Why is it that faith, which here I define as religious-based beliefs without or in opposition to empirical or other evidence, is so highly valued, or even central to Christianity (and assumedly many other religions as well)? Perhaps the assumption is that faith is a more 'humble' position rather than over-valueing humankind's ability to rationalise and use logic to understand the world around them, since humility/ lack of pride is highly valued by many major religions ?? Does this mean that philosophy is quite arrogant ? But perhaps that is more a question for psychology and sociology. So in more philosophical terms, I guess I am asking whether faith can be justified from a philosophical point of view, or are the two quite incompatible?

While reading through some questions in the religious section, I came across Peter Smith saying [http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2250/], "What is it with the obsession of (much) contemporary organized religions with matters of sexuality? It really is pretty bizarre. And for sure, if some of the energy wasted on pruriently fussing about who gets to do what with whom and where were spent campaigning on issues of social justice, say, then the world would be a better place. But I digress ...". Can any philosophers, including Peter Smith, tell me if my reasoning is valid regarding this (or come up with their own reasoning as to why an organized religion would have such rules): There are several reasons why organized religions could be "obsessed" about matters of sexuality, about "who gets to do what with whom and where" etc. 1. Disease: STD's are horrible, and the AIDs crisis in Africa is a good example as to why an organized religion might stress sexual relations with only one partner to whom you are...

I am an atheist fully in favour of a secular society. However I have recently been alarmed by the burka ban recently put in place by the French government. This to me seems at best to be a draconian, knee jerk reaction to something that effects a very small number of people (apparently 1,900 women in France) and at worst thinly veiled racism. I am in no way in favour of the burka or any form of religious dress, but a carpet ban seems to me to be wrong. Surely it is better to live in a society in which such things are allowed, in the hope that one day the people wearing the burka feel they no longer need to. It is often cited as a reason for the ban that it stops oppression of muslim women, but it seems that taking away the option to wear something is a form of oppression also. As an atheist who wishes for as secular a society as possible, am I justified to be concerned about such a law and people lobbying for a similar ban in Britain?

I really don't understand what the big deal is with the apparent 'fine tuning' of the constants of the universe, or even if 'fine tuning' is even apparent! The conditions have to be just right for life to emerge, sure, but so what? Conditions have to be just right for many things in the universe to occur, but we don't always suspect an outside agent as responsible for setting them up that way just so they'll happen. Is this the final refuge of the 'god of the gaps' habit the humans tend to fall in to? I also don't get the need for a multiverse theory either. To me it's a bit like saying, because I rolled a six on a die there must be five others each rolling the other possible numbers in order to explain it. Okay, much bigger die....

How is it that almost anything that any religious preacher says to prove the existence of God turns out to be typical examples of one or the other of the well known logical fallacies? How is it that they don't realise this simple fact when all such fallacies are enumerated in the Web in such sites as the Wikipedia? Are human being basically very irrational creatures ?

I am an atheist, so I tend to find belief to be equivalent to superstition and group-think. I generally admire the ethical thinking of some believers -- the compassion, the commitment to justice, the reverence for "creation" -- but I am insulted at the suggestion by some believers that atheists cannot be equally ethical because our ethical commitments are not anchored to any fixed basis in revelation, scripture, or the promise of eternal rewards/punishments. When I reflect on the subject, I realize that there are certain advantages to having a moral framework as one finds in his chosen/inherited religious tradition. Where can an atheist go to consider and adopt his own framework? Are there any recommended readings on this question?

There are many attributes that are commonly attributed to God, or at least some versions of the Christian God, one of which is omniscience. I have my doubts that omniscience is a possible trait for any being to have because it seems to me to be a paradoxical trait. If God (or any being) knows everything that can be an object of knowledge can s/he know what it is like to not know everything that can be an object of knowledge? I say everything that can be an object of knowledge because there are obviously things that are unknowable like a round square or a married bachelor. However, I don't think that a being could know everything that was knowable and simultaneously know the experience of not knowing everything that it knowable (knowing the experience of not knowing everything that is knowable is something that is knowable because as humans that is how our experience is).

I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?

Greetings, I've been pissing off my scientist friends and delighting creationists with the notion that both contemporary cosmology and Christianity share a fundamental ontology - first there was nothing and then there was everything. The Big Bang is a story of miraculous creation. Therefore, both have equivalent epistemological status - either both are the Truth, or both are just good stories. I am particularly interested in arguments against. Cheers, Chris Alexander, NC

If God exists, and wants to be known, how is it possible that some open-minded people don't believe in God? In my case, if God existed, I would want to know. Is a theist committed to saying that either I don't really want to know of God's existence, or that God doesn't really want me to know?