Introduction
Those of you who have been around a while will have noticed that once in a while I try and post a defence of theism or faith.
Something about the attack on faith/theism in general struck me as wrong, and I've been trying to pinpoint where I disagree with it.
In the past I've tried the "moderatism good, fundamentalism bad" approach but that was dumb.
For starters, as has been pointed out to me many a time, believers don't neatly split into two such categories.
Even if they did, a blanket defence of moderatism and attack on fundamentalism was completely wrong.
Moderates come out with all sorts of stupid things and fundamentalists don't get everything wrong.
 
This time I have a different approach.
I will try and show that Faith can be a good thing if done a certain way, and that this way reflects an ideal that all faith-believers hold.
If so, it would mean that religion can be a good thing if done "properly" and it would be more accurate to criticise faith for when it fails this ideal rather than criticise it altogether.
 
Outline of the Argument (Don't address this - full argument to be presented in a later section)
The argument is based on premises:
1) "Should I believe X?" is a question about what we should or shouldn't do, a question of practical reason
So if "We should only believe what the evidence shows" is true, it's justified by practical reason.
My argument will claim the justification will depend on the situation.
So in some situations the we must make sure our belief is justified.
In other situations, belief without evidence will be permissible - there will be no reason why they shouldn't.
 
2) The definition of faith
Faith is commonly defined as "Belief without evidence"
I don't disagree that faith involves "Belief without evidence" but I think that with religious faith there is a further part as well:
"The believer thinks that it will lead them to virtue."
All theists believe that having faith makes them a better person.
If they do something they believe to be wrong, they will claim that was a lack of faith.
If they were ever to find that their faith was leading people to do wrong, they would consider that faith to be false and make changes accordingly.
While we don't believe that having faith causes God to act through them, we can accept that having faith has a psychological effect on the person, and these effects can be either positive or negative.
 
Believers say that "True Faith" will lead them to virtue.
We could see this "True Faith" as a synonym for an "Ideal Faith", where the psychological consequences of belief are purely positive.
 
So it's perhaps easy to see where my argument is going to go.
First it will try and determine which situations where "belief without evidence" is permissible.
It will try and find out what a believer has to do to ensure that they don't "believe without evidence" in situations where evidence is required.
It will also look into what the believer has to do to ensure that their beliefs have "positive consequences"
It will then argue that so long as they meet these conditions, their faith would be a good thing.
 
 
Before I present the argument...
I'm taking full burden of proof on this claim.
I've taken the time to formulate it into a formal argument with steps and premises clearly shown.
Because this is no easy task, I've just got a couple of requests on how it is addressed.
 
1) There should only be 2 types of fallacy - "unsound premise" or "non sequiter"
I've got two types of premise:

Hypothesis - This is where I will appeal to your own observations.
I will try to give examples that I think will be confirmed by your own experiences.
If the premise doesn't conform with your own experience then you will disagree.
In each premise, the writing in blue will focus on it's justification and suggest questions to answer when addressing it.

Argument This premise is supposed to logically follow from other premises.
Either the argument is valid or a non-sequiter.
If you find the argument valid but the disagree with the premises then please address the premises instead.
In each premise, the writing in blue will focus on it's justification and suggest questions to answer when addressing it.



2) If you disagree with a premise, please quote the entire premise
Sometimes why address posts line for line.
Not always a bad thing but this can sometimes cause lines to be separated from their context.
If you quote the entire premise in full then I won't have an excuse to bitch and moan and accuse you of taking the line out of context.

 
3) Please avoid using positive claims in the argument
Sometimes when we disagree, we put forward our own argument to contradict theirs.
This is usually fair enough, but it's not the best way to address this argument.
Partly because my argument has taken burden of proof so should stand or fall on it's own validity so positive arguments aren't necessary.
Bringing in a positive claim kind of ignores my argument in favour of your own.
It also means you'd be shifting the burden of proof on to yourself.
Some premises will ask for alternatives in which case a positive argument will be necessary, I'm just asking for them to be avoided where possible.
 

 
 
You don't have to follow these guidelines - I'll still read your reply.
But they will ensure that the argument is addressed clearly and efficiently and reduce tangents and misunderstandings.
This would reduce frustration on both sites of the debate.

 
The argument
Section 1: Defining Faith and how it can be a virtue
The argument of this topic is that faith can be a virtue if done a certain way. I need to show that Faith can be a virtue under certain conditions. I'll do this by looking at the definition of Faith and introducing the concept of "Ideal Faith".
I then need to show that the believer can have a methodology that ensures that their faith is as ideal as possible. An "Ideal Faith" wouldn't be very relevent unless believers could achieve it in real life.
 
After that I'll outline what I consider to be the only possible objections.
 
 
1a) Hypothesis - The definition of faith
A commonly accepted definition of faith is "belief without evidence".
However, I don't think that this is sufficient.
I think that a further part of the definition needs to be added:
"The believer thinks that this faith will lead them to virtue"
My argument for this is that theists believe that "true faith" will cause them to do good.
When they admit to doing wrong they will claim that was due to a lack of faith rather than their faith.
If they ever admit that a "faith" is causing wrong doing then they follow this up by condemning this faith as "false".
 
So my premise is that a person with religious faith believes that this faith will lead them to virtue.
If they were to ever find that this faith was causing them to do wrong then they would no longer keep to it.
I'm not expecting a lot of disagreement on this premise but if you do then I'll hear your argument.

If you disagree that faith is supposed to lead the believer to virtue?
can you give an example of a believer who doesn't hold to this definition?
A believer that thinks a "true faith" would cause them to do things they consider to be bad?
Remember, I'm only claim that the believers think that their faith is the cause of their virtue and not to blame for any vice.
I'm not claiming that it actually is.
 
 
1b) Argument - The definition of faith implies a concept of "Ideal Faith"
In the above premise we see that people with faith believe that this faith will lead them to virtue and not to vice.
If a faith leads them to vice, they call it "false".
They say that "True Faith" will lead to only virtue and not vice.
This "True Faith" basically means "Ideal Faith" - when faith meets its ideal.
So "Ideal Faith" is belief without evidence that actually does lead the believer to virtue and not vice.

If the definition of faith includes:
"The belief is supposed cause virtue and not vice in the believer" as per premise 1a
Then there is a clear definition of Ideal Faith - belief without evidence that actually does cause only virtue and not vice.
Remember, I'm only arguing for the concept/definition - I'm not arguing that anyone actually has this "Ideal Faith"

 
1c) Argument - "Ideal Faith", by definition, is a good thing
If a person has a set of beliefs that leads them to virtue and not to vice, then it is surely a good thing by definition.

If X causes only good consequences and not bad consequences then X must be good, right?


1d) Hypothesis - There are only 2 objections I need to deal with
In this hypothesis I claim that there are only 2 objections that I need to refute.
 
1) Isn't belief without evidence is a vice?
That means that faith can never be a virtue.
It means that "Ideal Faith" is incoherent.
(Addressed in section 2)
 
2) Can a believer possibly ensure that their faith is Ideal?
Or is Ideal Faith not possible to make happen in the real world?
Even if Ideal Faith is theoretically possible, it's no good unless it can work in the real world.
(Addressed in Section 3)
 
These are the only objections I am aware of so they're all my argument addresses.
If you come up with a further one, post it here and I'll try and address that too.
 
So, any further objections to Ideal Faith?
This might be a part where positive arguments in the reply might be unavoidable


1e) Argument - By following 4 rules a theist can ensure that their faith is ideal
This premise will be justified in Sections 2 and 3 so this is a preview of what's to come.

The 4 rules are as follows:
1) Beliefs that inform practical decisions need to be based on evidence
2) The believer must have an open mind. A willingness to learn and change.
3) Issues of morality need to be settled through reason
4) Issues of psychology need to be settled through reason
 
Rules 3 and 4 are technically covered by rule 1 The reason for their emphasis will be covered in Section 3.

Premise 1d claims that there are only 2 objections to Ideal Faith
Premise 2d claims that belief without evidence is okay so long as rule 1 is followed.
Premise 3c claims that a believer can ensure their beliefs provide good consequences by sticking to rules 2-4
The conclusion of 1e clearly follows from these premises.
The only question is whether these premises are true.

 

Summary of Section 1
"Ideal Faith" is when faith beliefs have a psychological effect on a person that causes virtue - improves their lives.
This is clearly a good thing.
The two objections were whether this good "Ideal Faith" was actually possible.
These will be addressed in the next 2 sections.
 



Section 2: Belief without evidence isn't necessarily a vice.
In the last section I made the claim that there was such thing as "Ideal Faith" - believes that led the believer to virtue and happiness through psychological effect.
However, faith involves belief without evidence, and if belief without evidence is always a bad thing then this "Ideal Faith" is a self-contradictory idea and isn't possible.
This section is to show that under certain conditions that belief without evidence is 'permissible' (the fancy philosophical term for saying "there's nothing wrong with it" ) and thereby refute this objection.
 

2a) Argument - "Should I only believe with justification?" is a positive claim of practical reason.
Any claim about what we should do is a claim of practical reason and should be justified accordingly. So the question of whether "should I only believe with justification?" depends on whether the claim has a practical reason justification. Otherwise we are telling someone that they should do something without giving them a rational justification why.

If your claim about what a person ought to do isn't a premise of practical reason then what is it?
Why should anyone obey this claim about what they ought to do?


2b) Hypothesis - The only justification for "belief must be justified" is for particular reasons.
As in the above premise, "belief must be justified" is a claim of practical reason that must be justified itself. As far as I can imagine, there is only one justification.
When we make decisions, we sometimes require information to base our choice upon and we need this information to be accurate. If our beliefs are informing our choices then we need them to be as accurate as possible, and justification ensures this accuracy. So as long as a belief can inform our decisions we need it to be as accurate as  possible.
 
As far as I can see, this is the only reason why we need beliefs to be accurate. If you feel you have another, feel free to present it, although the burden of proof will be yours.

If you have further arguments then post them and we'll see if they're valid.


2c Hypothesis - Some kinds of "belief" don't inform decision-making.
In this section I will be claiming that it is possible to believe that something is true but at the same time will not use this belief to inform practical decisions.
My claim is that when someone believes something on faith, they are in the state of mind where they believe it is true, that it happened, but when it comes down to making a decision they will find an excuse to rule it out of the process.

For example, one person might believe that eggs balance during an eclipse.
If you question them they'll insist that they believe it.
That said, if you were to challenge them to put money on it, to see if they could do it next time there was an eclipse, the chances are they won't go for it - they will come out with an excuse.
Perhaps the excuse will be that while they think that it's true, they're not sure enough to put a risk on it.
Perhaps they will make claims that it can be done but they won't necessarily be able to pull it off or that there's something wrong with the test.
Whatever the excuse is, it will leave them with the fact that they believe something it true, but won't allow it to affect their decision making.

An example in religion could be the Catholic Holy Communion.
Find a Catholic who believes in the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
They will say that they believe it is the truth, that the wine literally transforms into Jesus' blood.
So suggest to them that we test Jesus' blood type, and then we could use this ritual to turn wine into blood and use it for medical operations - it could save people's lives.
See what they say.

The chances are that they will say that while they believe that the wine turns into blood, trying to use it for medicine won't work and use some theological reason/excuse to say so.
Perhaps they'll say "God won't let you abuse the ritual and he'll change it back", or something like that.
The fact of the matter is that we have a religious belief that they hold on faith, but they hold it in a way that it will never inform their practical decisions.
The belief plays a different role in their lives.

If you disagree with this example then what part do you disagree with?
That the believer really believes in transubstantiation or that they wouldn't actually act on it?
Why do you disagree?


2d Argument - Belief without evidence isn't a vice so long as a condition is met
So long as the belief is like the Catholic one above, then it cannot mis-inform our decision making. If hypothesis 2b is correct and mis-information is the only reason why beliefs need to be justified then this would mean that to believe such beliefs without evidence would be okay.

Premise 2b claims that belief without evidence is only bad if it misinforms decision making.
Premise 2c claims that certain types of belief don't mis-inform decisions.
The obvious conclusion that it's not a bad thing for these particular beliefs to be believed without evidence.
I expect disagreement to be with the premises rather than the inference here.
 
Summary of Section 2
This section was to address the objection against Ideal Faith that said:
"If faith is belief without evidence, won't that always be a vice rather than a virtue?"
So long as the argument in this section holds that objection has been refuted.
But it does put a constraint on Ideal Faith - the belief must be of a kind that does not inform practical decisions.
This is why Ideal Faith requires the believer to follow the first rule from Section 1d:
1) Beliefs that inform practical decisions need to be based on evidence
 
So long as they stick to this rule, belief without evidence is permissible.
 

Section 3: How a theist can ensure their faith leads to virtue?
So far we have established that under certain conditions, faith can be a virtue.
That's possible for the believer to have a set of beliefs that lead them to virtue and not vice.
However, this isn't enough.
It's possible for the lottery ticket to lead you to winning a lot of money, but because it's a matter of random chance whether it's a winner, playing the lottery isn't a good strategy in the rule world where you have little chance of winning.
In the same way, if it was only a matter of random chance whether a person's faith was actually Ideal, that it did them good rather than bad, then faith wouldn't be a good strategy to play in the real world either.
 
The aim of this section is to give the believer a methodology so they can ensure that their faith is as ideal as possible.
This is necessary for faith to work in the real world.
 

3a) Hypothesis - How we usually test whether xxx is good for us
In life we have various activities and hobbies and we often evaluate whether they are good for us.
Rather than strictly knowing in advance, we try something that we find appealing, and then over time we see whether it is having a good effect on our lives or whether it is having a bad effect on our lives and make changes accordingly.
 
e.g. Jane takes up Yoga thinking that it will be good for her health.
As time goes on, she notices that she feels less stiff so it is having a good effect, but she the time she's spending on it takes away from other things in her life so she makes a change and cuts down on the sessions, deciding to do more if she ever starts feeling stiff again...
 
I see no reason why faith shouldn't be treated in the same way.
A starts by finding a religion appealing and will have to make changes depending on how this religion affects their life.
So long as they remain open to honestly question it and they accurately evaluate whether it is good for them, they will encourage the parts of religion that help them and make changes where it doesn't.
Over time they will hone their religious practice so mainly good consequences come off out of it - the faith becomes Ideal.
 
This might seem like a slow process, allowing problems to crop up on the way, but this is how we have to deal with everything in life.
You cannot absolutely assess something before hand.
We have to try things out and see how they go and make changes where necessary.
 
My hypothesis in this section that the "Try things out and make changes as appropriate" approach is a suitable approach to deal with beliefs and the consequences they have on us.
Perhaps we find that thinking a certain way is making us more impatient and intolerant so we make changes.
Maybe we find that thinking another way makes us more relaxed and competent so we encourage it more.
My claim is that the only way to know is to try things out and take it from there.
 
If you disagree then what would you suggest as an alternative?
In what way would this alternative be better?


3b) Argument - 3 rules will ensure changes for the better
In order for a person to make changes for the better, they need to be open minded enough to see where change is required, and they need to be informed enough to make changes for the better.
I'm going to add 3 more rules to Ideal Faith: (See Section 1d)
2) The believer needs to be open minded and honest to make changes when necessary.
3) Morality and values are to be determined through reason/moral philosophy.
4) Psychological effect is a question of science/reason.
 
These rules are to ensure that decisions about their faith actually improve it.
If a believer was evaluate their faith through the values "people must be obedient to the bible" then this is going to cause bad decisions.
Or if they believed that the way to become a better person was through authoritarian submission to the local church leader then this too will prevent them from making rational changes to their faith.
The point of rules 3 and 4 are to ensure that certain of the believer's beliefs cannot be based on faith.
These particular issues need to be settled through reason.
(Technically this was covered in Section 2 with the rule that "beliefs that inform decisions require reason&quot
 
Rule 2 ensures that the believer is ready to make changes if necessary.
Rule 3 ensures that the values they judge their beliefs by are as rational as possible.
Rule 4 ensures that their theories of the psychological effect of their belief is as accurate as possible.
There is still room for error but this is surely as good as we can humanly expect?


3c) Argument - There is a method to ensure that a believer's faith is as ideal as possible
In Section 1d I listed 4 rules that the theist must follow to make their faith Ideal.
If you agree with 3b then you agree that this will ensure that over time they will improve their faith to provide them with positive psychological consequences.
If you agree with 3a then you agree that "over time" is a necessary process for these things as we have to learn from experience and make decisions using the best information we have at that moment in time.
 
This would mean that if theist followed the 4 rules then we could consider their faith a good thing as they were honing it to provide them with purely benefitial psychological effects.
This would answer the objection raised in Section 1e, that Ideal Faith can "work in the real world" so long as these rules are followed.

So long as you agree with premises 3a and 3b then a method has been provided.
I expect that the disagreement will be with the premises rather than this inference.
 

3d) Anticipated Objection - Can we choose beliefs based on consequences?
An objection I've been passed to this argument is that we cannot simply choose our beliefs based on what is good for us.
Even if you think that a belief is good for you, that doesn't mean that you actually think that it's true.
That's some Christians live in fear of hell, because despite thinking that they ought to believe, they find their faith weak because they find it difficult to actually believe.
So if the ideal theist is evaluating their beliefs in terms of psychological consequences, how will that result in what they actually believe?
I will give an example on how this can actually work.

Some of my beliefs have strong rational foundations.
They are built on a mixture of experience and arguments which leave me very sure and confident in them.
To persuade me to change them would take a strong argument which I would put under serious scrutiny.
But not all our beliefs have such strong rational foundations.
Some of them are uninformed and are quite loose and fickle as a result.
They can be easily swayed and influenced.
Maybe we will believe the person who seems the most confident, who seems the most learned, or maybe just the last person we talked to.
The point is, we don't have enough information to make a decisive rational decision on these beliefs so whether we believe them will be affected by non-rational events.

That doesn't mean that we have no control over how our beliefs are being affected.
Maybe by hanging around a particular group, or by reading certain books, or by indulging certain thoughts, our beliefs will be influenced in a certain way.
If we feel that a "worldview" is benefiting our lives (e.g. makes us happier and nicer) then perhaps we will read more that encourages it.
If we find that it's damaging us in some way (e.g. making us prejudiced and hateful) then we might decide to distance ourselves from it and read material that opposes it.

For me, the question of whether there's a God is one that I've looked too deeply into to be swayed like this. My atheism has strong rational foundations and I think that it is psychologically impossible for me to have faith and become a theist.
However, just 4-5 years ago, before I had looked into it so deeply I was of the "loose opinion type" who could be swayed.
Back then it would have been possible for me to have faith on this issue.
I would have gone through theologies, reinforced them when they were working for me, distanced myself when they weren't.
Since then I've looked into it deeply and attained a rational foundation for an atheistic worldview, but there's still subjects that I don't have such a strong opinion on, and in those subjects I could potentially have "faith" in issues.

How? By indulging myself in non-rational means of persuasion, e.g. immersing myself into a worldview and then reinforcing or distancing myself depending on whether I found it to be good for me.
I believe that this is how many people out there treat their religious/spiritual beliefs.
It's a practical method how people can influence what they believe by whether it is "good for them" to believe it.

This should have given an example as to how a person has a control over what they believe.
That they can put themselves in a position where their mind will accept beliefs for non-rational reasons.
This won't work on beliefs that they have a strong rational foundation for holding but many of our beliefs don't have this.
 
Summary on Section 3
A method was provided for a believer to keep their Faith Ideal, i.e. ensure that their beliefs had a purely psychological effect on them.
Combined with Section 2, this has answered all the objections in Section 1e.
It would seem that Ideal Faith could be considered a virtue so long as the 4 rules were kept to.
I've also answered an objection on whether it is possible to change your beliefs based on whether you like their psychological effects.
 
With a defense of an "Ideal Faith" that a believer can have if they follow the rules, it's now time to relate all this to the real world, so how people really do treat their faith.
 

Section 4: How this all relates to real-world belief
So to summarise what we have so far:
All theists believe that "true faith" leads to them to virtue - has a positive effect on their lives. If they were to ever find that their faith was causing them problems, they would make changes.
This gives us a definition of "Ideal Faith" - beliefs that really do have a positive psychological effect on their lives.
We've also shown that there's a methodology a believer can use to ensure that their faith is as ideal as humanly possible.
 
So how Ideal is the faith of real believers in the real world?
 

4a) Hypothesis - How the faith of real believers relate
Here is a picture how "Ideal Faith" relates to real belief.
While I don't think that any real person achieves a perfect "Ideal Faith", I think we can still use it as an ideal to compliment/criticise real faith by.
 
Ideal Theist - Perfectly Ideal.
Their faith is flawless.
It gives them perfect psychological effects and it never mis-informs their decision making.
For obvious reasons, human beings aren't capable of this.
 
Liberal Theist - As Ideal as humanly possible.
They have their failings as we all do, but for the most part their faith sticks to the rules of Ideal Faith, so it generally has a good effect on them.
These guys are more or less as rational as non-believers.
 
Fundamentalists - Far from Ideal.
These guys have some aspects of their faith that meet the ideals, but they also have lots of failings too.
 
Moderates - Somewhere in between Fundamentalists and Liberals.
 
The point here isn't to vindicate the liberals and/or demonize Fundamentalists.
The point is that all of these people will have faith, some parts Ideal, some parts not.
Good faith is to be commended and bad to be criticised.
The 4 rules/standards should give guidelines one how faith can be judged to be good/bad and treated accordingly.
Even the fundamentalist will have good aspects to their faith that we can commend, just that they'd have bad parts too that require criticism and change.
Likewise, the liberal theist will sometimes come out with complete garbage that needs criticism.
(I mean, it happens to the best of us right?
It's not like us atheists are any exception to having stupid ideas from time to time?
For example, if you disagree with the rest of my topic then you have to agree with me on this point atleast! )

Does this meet your experience of real life believers?
I'm sure you've observed that all types of believers have both positive aspects and negative aspects to their faith.
That even enlightened liberals come out with garbage sometimes and not everything fundamentalists say is bad.
Perhaps your personal experience is different?


4b) Argument - The closer a theist adheres to the 4 rules, the more Ideal their Faith is
So if "bad faith" is causing problems, encouraging theists to abide by these 4 rules will improve their faith and do a great deal to solve the problems.
That is, attacking faith altogether isn't the only solution.
We can criticise it in a way that attacks the bad aspects of faith while preserving the good parts.

This follows directly from Premise 1d


4c) Argument - Reforming faith is generally a better approach than attacking it altogether
This isn't an absolute argument.
With each believer there will be a different way that's advisable to argue.
Some people will find it easier to give up faith altogether than to reform it.
However, in general there will be the following advantages to an argument based on reforming faith, compared to an argument based on attacking faith altogether.
This is for the following reasons:

1) Sweeping attacks on religion and faith are false
If a theist keeps to the 4 rules, calling their belief irrational is like standing up in the middle of a Starwars film and shouting "This is a lie!! No one can know what happened many years ago in a galaxy far far away!!"
It's attacking a strawman as the Starwars film never claimed to be truthful.
In the same way, if someone has faith then criticising it for not being proved misses the point as the believer is committing to it for a different reason - because of the effect that it will have on their life.
 
2) This gives religious folk and excuse to dissmiss our arguments
If a theist was to waltz in here and start an argument by saying "Why do atheists think they know for certain there's no God" or "atheists have rejected Jesus because they are bitter and angry" we'd roll our eyes and not even care what else they have to say.
We already know that they don't have a clue what they're talking about.
If we are attacking something positive, and misunderstanding their faith, they're going to be similarly dismissive of our own arguments against them.
People are very defensive about their beliefs at the best of times.
If they find the slightest flaw in your argument they're going to use it as a excuse to dismiss the entire lot.
Fighting for the 3 standards of Ideal Faith would still be an uphill struggle but it would have less flaws and weaknesses.
 
3) A more direct way to tackle the issues at hand
Furthermore, if we were to argue based on the 3 standards rather than attacking religion as a whole, we would be directly tackling the real issues at hand.
The 3 standards of Ideal Faith reflect the reasons why many of us criticise faith in the first place.
We would be directly addressing the issues that we previously tried to solve indirectly by attacking faith altogether.
 
4) It argues in terms of practical reason in a way that can easily appeal to a person's common sense.
Rules like "positive claimaint has burden of proof" and "beliefs must be based on evidence" make sense to people who are used to scientific debate and are used to the context and situations in which these rules arose so see the sense in them.
They can be counter intuitive to other people, which includes many of our target audience.
 

5) "Bad faith" can only use "good faith" for cover when good faith is attacked also
Sometimes terrorists like to hide amongst civilians so the military can only attack them by hitting the civilians with collateral.
The terrorists are using the civilians as cover.
However, if the military were to develop weapons and techniques that could pick out terrorists from the civilians then this 'cover' won't work.
The cover only works against weapons like bombs that attack everyone in the area.
In the same way, "bad faith" can only hide behind "good faith" when "good faith" is attacked by an argument.
If the argument especially targets "bad faith" rather than attacking all types of faith then it will be impossible for "good faith" to be used as cover.

This will make attacks against "bad faith" more effective.


What I'm ultimately trying to say here is:
Providing my arguments above are valid, sweeping attacks on religion, faith and theism are false and unhelpful.
They are not only attacking good things in the crossfire, these good things then provide cover for the bad things.
Arguments based on the 3 standards of Ideal Theism would cut out this "collateral damage" problem and attack the things we do have a problem with more efficiently.
It would be arguments that the liberal theists and theist-sympathizing non-believers could relate to and get on board with.
And I can't see it sparing any "bad" beliefs in it's crosshairs, even those that are socially acceptable among religious moderates.

 
Summary of Section 4
I basically argued that if following the 4 rules makes the theist's faith Ideal, then we can challenge "bad faith" through reform rather than through attacking it altogether, and this approach has advantages.
Clearly, the main argument was in Section 1-3 where I defended Ideal Faith.
This is just some basic follow on consequences of my argument.
 


Summary of Entire Argument
So I've argued for a certain definition of faith that claims the belief should cause good in the believer.
If faith causes good in the believer then it's surely a good thing.
The question was whether faith can live up to this ideal and I've argued that it can so long as the following 4 rules are stuck to:
1) Beliefs that inform practical decisions need to be based on evidence
2) The believer must have an open mind. A willingness to learn and change.
3) Issues of morality need to be settled through reason
4) Issues of psychology need to be settled through reason

If so, it means that faith can be a good thing and that arguments that don't recognise this are both false and unhelpful to the cause of rationality.
 











Thanks for reading
Weighing in at over 6000 words this essay was quite the behemoth and I admire your patience and concentration in working through it.
I apologise in advance if I get ever bit snappy or volatile in my replies.
I can get a bit passionate and impatient in these debates, but rest assured that when I read it back to myself an hour later I will cringe with a deep red embarrassment, and have lingering regrets over how I

lost my cool for the rest of my life.
It will indeed hurt me more than it hurts you!
Either way, I'll be sure to leave myself an hour or so before making any replies - usually makes my replies more rational and less emotional.

Thanks for reading again and I look forward to your replies.