Hey guys, speaking for my faith, Catholicism..
It doesn't and where did you get that definition of faith? The Church teaches that faith is not blind. On the contrary, it teaches that faith is in accordance with reason. Faith comes in when the evidence can't go any further. It's trust based on the credibility of what we do know (which has proven itself worthy of such trust) and humility in the acceptance that we cannot know everything due to our limited human faculties. Nope, I would agree with you, if the evidence contradicts a belief, then that belief should be discounted. The Catholic religion is one of faith and reason, it believes that the two are essential in arriving at the truth. As the late John Paul II said: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart the desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that by knowing and loving God, men and women can come to the fullness of the truth about themselves" (Fides et Ratio). It is no wonder that modern science was born out of Christian Europe, which viewed the world as intelligible and not divine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI https://www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages-3
Viewing the matter through naturalist lens like you, I can see where you are coming from but even then, rituals like prayer, meditation and fasting have shown to provide health benefits. When you look at matters through the lens of faith, or considering the possibility that God might exist, then these rituals would definitely have meaning to them and provide very real, spiritual benefits.
Your idea of Christianity is fundamentalist Protestantism, which is very popular in the United States. However, this is not Orthodox Christianity. This isn't authentic Christianity, this isn't what the earliest Christians believed in and this isn't the type of Christianity that a lot of great Christian writers such as C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton have defended. As atheist blogger Tim O Neil states: "The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally. In fact, the idea of Biblical literalism is a very modern notion - one that arose in the USA in the Nineteenth Century and is exclusively a fundamentalist Protestant idea. The Catholic Church, then and now, taught that any given Bible verse or passage could be interpreted via no less than four levels of exegesis - the literal, the allegorical/symbolic, the moral and the eschatological. Of these, the literal meaning was generally regarded as the least important. This also meant that a verse of scripture could be interpreted via one or more of these levels and it could potentially have no literal meaning at all and be purely metaphorical or symbolic. Therefore the Church had no problem with learning that a passage which had been interpreted literally could no longer be read that way because we now have a better understanding of the world". Moreover, Medieval Christians did not believe that the earth was the center of the universe. This is a historical myth. Regarding believing that the earth is a prison and should not be respected, I have no idea where you got this one man. The Church says that we are stewards of the earth and that we should take care of it. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event https://www.quora.com/What-people-fueled-the-flat-earth-theory-in-the-middle-ages-after-Ancient-Greek-astronomers-had-convincingly-shown-that-the-earth-is-round
That’s not true. Yes, our faith teaches that “such and such” is wrong but it is rooted in philosophy and reason. Actions are right and wrong not because someone or an institution says so (if this were the case, morality wouldn’t be objective) but because there are intrinsic qualities in the action that make it right or wrong. In some cases yes, the morality of certain issues are further illuminated by the teachings of Christ and his Church but they are still rooted in reason and philosophy (see natural law, which was originally a Greek and not Christian idea by the way). And on the contrary, it’s the other way around. If morality is subjective and not objective, then we are headed for an archaic future. The dignity of human life, human rights, collapse. There is no such thing as “right or wrong”. They become subjective, like flavors of ice cream which you like or don’t like, and no evil action can be truly condemned. Tell me, what does this mean for humanity? The implications of such a worldview are dangerous and terrible. Right and wrong will be determined by the majority, and immoral solutions to problems can be accepted on the basis that it’s practical or beneficial to society as a whole. In such a scenario, what happens to the minority here? Or what happens to the vulnerable like the poor and disabled?
Well there is no Catholic doctrine that says that we should question our faith. And the idea that Abrahamic religions teach that mankind is “literally punished and suffer disease and death due to thinking” is completely false, where are you getting your information? My parents, teachers, mentors who have instructed me in my faith and Catholic priests that I have met have also never said such a thing for many reasons. It’s impractical, unreasonable, intellectually inhibiting and dangerous and most importantly, suppresses a search for the truth. Fortunately, Catholicism upholds the freedom of the individual and greatly values reason, progress and learning. Western civilization in fact owes a tremendous deal to the Catholic Church, for its role in nurturing it is indispensable. Catholic monks preserved classical learning – preserving, translating and copying ancient manuscripts. The Church also greatly encouraged education and learning, founding the university system, and also, the sciences, which it has always been a great patron of.
Well that would be the fault of religious believers and not religion because most of the religious people I know by far do not use their faith as a shield. If person of differing belief speaks their mind against the beliefs a religious person and this religious person starts crying that their religion is “not being respected” and is “under attack” then that’s pretty pathetic haha. The right response is to explain why you believe that “x issue” is right/wrong. When we talk about any issue after all, we are after what’s true and good. So really, genuine discussion and the disagreements that naturally come with it are a good thing. The important part is that these discussions should be held in good faith – honest, charitable, respectful, open-minded and considerate of the views of others. We religious people only use that card, that our religion is “not being respected” or that our religion is “under attack”, when our liberties are being threatened. Examples of these would be laws that force Churches to perform same sex weddings against the tenets of their faith, Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or provide contraception coverage, or Catholic orphanages to provide services to same sex couples. And I think that during these situations such complaints are definitely valid.