|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 17:41:36 [Permalink]
|
Siberia wrote: Uh, maybe it's just a cultural thing, but coming from a deeply religious country which is also very pluralist, I tend to agree except when it comes to accepting atheism as a path. Most people I know would accept anyone of any faith, but would immediately distrust an atheist open about his/her atheism. Those people seem to think some sort of spirituality and belief in the supernatural is essential for a happy healthy life (which we know is absurd).
Edit: methinks the big divergence here, Marf, is that you're extrapolating from your personal experiences to the masses. That is not quite true, at least over here - people are tolerant of pretty much everything and everyone, but to a point. That point, my experience dictates, is where belief in anything ends and skepticism and atheism begins. I don't see how that sort of behavior can be good. |
And Ricky wrote: | I agree that Marf seems to over state the amount of "good faith", for lack of a better term. |
I think Sib and Ricky are right in that I have been allowing my positive personal experiences with pluralistic and humanistic faith to cloud my perspective to the point where I'm over stating the amount of "good faith" in the modern world. I guess I really should just say that I strongly believe in "good faith", have seen it in action, and I think more often than not it is understated, especially by atheists and other skeptics. That is probably also why I tend to overstate it when I'm discussing the issue with nontheists.
As for what Sib said about tolerance extending to everyone except atheists, I gotta admit, there is lots of that in America and the surveys to prove it. I think it's mostly because most people haven't known a friendly neighborhood atheist (I got that off a t-shirt the Freedom From Religion Foundation was selling.) Most people don't know anyone personally who self-identifies as an "atheist", and unfortunately a good number of people who self-identify as atheists aren't aren't shy about saying so are the antagonistic type that re-enforce bad stereotypes of atheists being arrogant and anti-religious. Friendly neighborhood atheists need to come out of the closets. If enough of us do, I am confident that the majority of religious humanists will recognize us as just another religious minority, deserving of equal respect.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/30/2007 17:45:42 |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2007 : 18:20:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
As for what Sib said about tolerance extending to everyone except atheists, I gotta admit, there is lots of that in America and the surveys to prove it. I think it's mostly because most people haven't known a [i]friendly neighborhood atheist (I got that off a t-shirt the Freedom From Religion Foundation was selling.) Most people don't know anyone personally who self-identifies as an "atheist", and unfortunately a good number of people who self-identify as atheists aren't aren't shy about saying so are the antagonistic type that re-enforce bad stereotypes of atheists being arrogant and anti-religious. Friendly neighborhood atheists need to come out of the closets. If enough of us do, I am confident that the majority of religious humanists will recognize us as just another religious minority, deserving of equal respect.
|
I have known people that do not believe God exists and have known atheists. It has been my experience that someone identifies themselves as an atheist they are pretty antagonistic and rude to believers. (see halfmooners comments in the creation/evolution folder thread not just a theory 2). Most people that simply say they do not believe God exists are OK with believers. Thats my experience anyway. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
| Edited by - Robb on 07/30/2007 18:22:57 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 18:23:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Maybe the major difference in our perspectives on this matter is that I would never group all religious people together when thinking about this topic. What things such as “faith”, “God”, “souls”, “spirituality”, and “{insert whatever religious term}” are varies so wildly from one religious group to another that these words cannot be said to mean the same things from one group to another. |
Okay. Let's limit this discussion to the world's major organized religions then.
| I don't know how many times I've had a conversation with a progressive theist, and I go to criticize something literal about their faith, and they wince as if I've just made the most ridiculous strawman argument ever, and then say something like, “What are you talking about? Of course I don't believe that!” |
If they claim to ascribe to a particular faith an yet they don't adhere to some basic tenent of that faith then perhaps they are not really of that faith.
| In other words, I do not think any religious mindset is typical. That is exactly why it there is little use to grouping all religious people together (or all Christian together for that matter, since that is an especially diverse group of faiths.) |
Well let's remove the "religious progressives" from this discussion then. In my opinion they aren't religious with a capital "R" anyway.
| The biases introduced by the faith of, say, the Quakers I know is that it is their spiritual and moral responsibility to care for the well being of their fellow mankind. Can't say that's a bad bias! My point is, not all religions have dangerous, hateful, or foolish biases built into them, and some have compassionate biases built into them, just like any other worldview or institution. |
Sure there are some small pacifist religions. They rarely remain innocuous once they achieve widespread success though.
| Bummer for you, but that is your personal experience. Mine is quite different. I have rarely met fundamentalists, and when I do it is usually in some impersonal way such as them knocking on my door to proselytize. Most of the people I know have some kind of religious faith and it is this pluralistic and enlightened religion. Probably this is because I live in a major city (Philadelphia) that has a lot of religious diversity, I went to grad school for art, and I work at a Quaker school. However, beyond my personal experience, I also read a lot and hear a lot about progressive and pluralistic religious movements. |
That's cool. My disinterest in religion may make me less aware of those "religions" that don't prosthelyze much or wind up in the headlines.
| Here's an interview I happened to hear on NPR just last week with a progressive Muslim, Eboo Patel, who |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 23:15:09 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Okay. Let's limit this discussion to the world's major organized religions then. |
What difference would that make? Do you think all sects of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Hindu and Buddhism have same or even similar concepts of “faith”, “God” and so on? Heck, what difference would it make if we limited the conversation to just Christianity? You should hear some of the ways the Quakers at my school use those words. I heard a talk a bit ago by an Episcopalian priest (the talk was directed toward or Secular Humanist community in Columbus, Ohio) a few years ago that made it quite clear that his concept of religious ideas was radically different from say a conservative Southern Baptist's.
| If they claim to ascribe to a particular faith an yet they don't adhere to some basic tenent of that faith then perhaps they are not really of that faith. |
Oh please. Show me a time in history where the adherents within any particular group all held exactly the same interpretation and meaning of the various tenets. Hell, show me a time in history where the religious leaders could agree on all those things. If there is dissension, who has ultimate authority to decide that a person or groups of persons have officially crossed the line out of that faith? Religion has never been so cut and dry.
| Well let's remove the "religious progressives" from this discussion then. In my opinion they aren't religious with a capital "R" anyway. |
Yes, let's just sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist so we can go forward disparaging religion and faith in general. Let's just pretend that the Enlightenment and modernism had no impact on the way many educated individuals perceive faith, God, and religious authority. And let's just pretend that the Enlightenment and modernism didn't have an impact on religious institutions other than to inspire contemporary forms of fundamentalism and their political and social backlash against the mainstream embrace of humanistic ethics and democracy.
| Sure there are some small pacifist religions. They rarely remain innocuous once they achieve widespread success though. |
Power often corrupts. What do you think Secular Humanists would do if suddenly they became a dominant institution?
| That's cool. My disinterest in religion may make me less aware of those "religions" that don't prosthelyze much or wind up in the headlines. |
Most religions don't proselytize (at least not explicitly. For instance, many evangelical Christians believe in evangelizing through being a living example, not explicit preaching) or end up in headlines. Most religions are pretty boring, so I can't say I blame you for not being interested.
| Well it's not really a religi |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/30/2007 23:15:48 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 06:05:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Do you think all sects of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Hindu and Buddhism have same or even similar concepts of “faith”, “God” and so on? |
What other concepts of faith are there? Can it be something other than belief without evidence? Are you using "faith" as a synonym for religion here because that's not how I'm using it.
| Heck, what difference would it make if we limited the conversation to just Christianity? |
Well, what if we limit it to traditional religion?
| You should hear some of the ways the Quakers at my school use those words. I heard a talk a bit ago by an Episcopalian priest (the talk was directed toward or Secular Humanist community in Columbus, Ohio) a few years ago that made it quite clear that his concept of religious ideas was radically different from say a conservative Southern Baptist's. |
Sure fine, but really so what? What point are you making? Unless his view of faith was radically different I don't see the relevance of this.
| If they claim to ascribe to a particular faith an yet they don't adhere to some basic tenent of that faith then perhaps they are not really of that faith. |
Oh please. Show me a time in history where the adherents within any particular group all held exactly the same interpretation and meaning of the various tenets. Hell, show me a time in history where the religious leaders could agree on all those things. If there is dissension, who has ultimate authority to decide that a person or groups of persons have officially crossed the line out of that faith? Religion has never been so cut and dry. |
Did I make it sound cut and dried? Note that I specifically said "basic tenent". Maybe you just like arguing?
| Well let's remove the "religious progressives" from this discussion then. In my opinion they aren't religious with a capital "R" anyway. |
Yes, let's just sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist so we can go forward disparaging religion and faith in general. Let's just pretend that the Enlightenment and modernism had no impact on the way many educated individuals perceive faith, God, and religious authority. And let's just pretend that the Enlightenment and modernism didn't have an impact on religious institutions other than to inspire contemporary forms of fundamentalism and their political and social backlash against the mainstream embrace of humanistic ethics and democracy. |
Feel better now? Apropos of nothing, I seem |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 09:30:55 [Permalink]
|
I only have a couple clarifications to add here, as an "amateur theologist" (somebody who reads lots of books about other peoples' religions). Originally posted by dv82mattOriginally posted by marfknox
Do you think all sects of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Hindu and Buddhism have same or even similar concepts of “faith”, “God” and so on? |
What other concepts of faith are there? Can it be something other than belief without evidence? Are you using "faith" as a synonym for religion here because that's not how I'm using it |
Each religion seems to place a slightly different emphasis on faith, e.g. what it can do for you, its importance in the grand scheme of things, etc. I think that was marfknox's main point here. You're right: "faith" can have a very simplistic definition. | Heck, what difference would it make if we limited the conversation to just Christianity? |
Well, what if we limit it to traditional religion? |
There is the problem: what do you consider is "traditional religion?" That is a very vague term. Taoism is considered by many to be a traditional religion, but it has no gods, and a very nebulous concept of faith. | If they claim to ascribe to a particular faith an yet they don't adhere to some basic tenent of that faith then perhaps they are not really of that faith. |
Oh please. Show me a time in history where the adherents within any particular group all held exactly the same interpretation and meaning of the various tenets. Hell, show me a time in history where the religious leaders could agree on all those things. If there is dissension, who has ultimate authority to decide that a person or groups of persons have officially crossed the line out of that faith? Religion has never been so cut and dry. |
Did I make it sound cut and dried? Note that I specifically said "basic tenent". Maybe you just like arguing? |
dv82matt and marfknox, you're both right in this one. Most formal religions have a specific set of doctrines that, if you don't follow, you are not really a member of that religion. That is, you cannot be Catholic if you do not believe in the Resurrection or in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_trinityHoly Tri |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 14:50:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Each religion seems to place a slightly different emphasis on faith, e.g. what it can do for you, its importance in the grand scheme of things, etc. I think that was marfknox's main point here. You're right: "faith" can have a very simplistic definition. |
Faith is used to enable beliefs that would otherwise not be viable. Sure the specific beliefs and their relative importance vary a lot from religion to religion but everywhere you look faith is faith. I don't see any way around this.
| There is the problem: what do you consider is "traditional religion?" That is a very vague term. Taoism is considered by many to be a traditional religion, but it has no gods, and a very nebulous concept of faith. |
Okay what would you suggest then? I'm not willing to endlessly chase a moving target. It does seem to me that with a little common sense most of this could be avoided as it is barely relevant to the original point.
| Most formal religions have a specific set of doctrines that, if you don't follow, you are not really a member of that religion. That is, you cannot be Catholic if you do not believe in the Resurrection or in the Holy Trinity, no matter how much you may claim otherwise. Similarly, there are several more minor points on which people disagree within a religion. You both seem to be talking past eachother on this point. |
Thanks for clearing that up.
| Can we not agree that some people are dangerously religious and some are not? Is it possible to limit the conversation to one of these groups? |
We could agree on that but it wouldn't further the discussion. The point is that religious faith is itself inherently dangerous and irrational, not that all people of faith are dangerous.
| Right, it's pretty confusing. But really if someone is unsure which religion they are then they are non-religious IMO. |
That seems a little like saying if somebody is unsure whether they want steak or chicken, they must be vegitarian. Perhaps I don't understand your point. Would you mind reprasing that? |
Well if you are religious but you are unsure what religion you ascribe to then you're in some sort of religous crisis really. If religion is so unimportant to you that you haven't bothered to decide which one you are then you're effectively non-religious.
| Would it be easier if we were to capitalize Religion when referring to an organized institution? This is a lot like the "evolution is both a fact and a theory" discussion. I am not sure what, other than context, would be the best way to distinguish between the two meanings. |
Naw, don't worry about it. That's the least of the problems I'm having with this discussion.
| If they are a Christian then sure that's a religion. If they just feel all cosmic and tingly from time to time then no not a religion. |
So your claim is that for somebody to be religious, that person has to ascribe to one of the larger, more formal, internationally recognized religions? |
No that is not my claim. But you also can't have a religion of one. A religion of one is generally refered to as a delusion.
| What would you call somebody who "just feel[s] all cosmic and tingly from time to time" then? |
High as a kite.
Okay seriously, it depends on the beliefs they form. In the absence of beliefs that conform to some religion or other why describe them as religious? |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 16:07:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Siberia wrote: Uh, maybe it's just a cultural thing, but coming from a deeply religious country which is also very pluralist, I tend to agree except when it comes to accepting atheism as a path. Most people I know would accept anyone of any faith, but would immediately distrust an atheist open about his/her atheism. Those people seem to think some sort of spirituality and belief in the supernatural is essential for a happy healthy life (which we know is absurd).
Edit: methinks the big divergence here, Marf, is that you're extrapolating from your personal experiences to the masses. That is not quite true, at least over here - people are tolerant of pretty much everything and everyone, but to a point. That point, my experience dictates, is where belief in anything ends and skepticism and atheism begins. I don't see how that sort of behavior can be good. |
And Ricky wrote: | I agree that Marf seems to over state the amount of "good faith", for lack of a better term. |
I think Sib and Ricky are right in that I have been allowing my positive personal experiences with pluralistic and humanistic faith to cloud my perspective to the point where I'm over stating the amount of "good faith" in the modern world. I guess I really should just say that I strongly believe in "good faith", have seen it in action, and I think more often than not it is understated, especially by atheists and other skeptics. That is probably also why I tend to overstate it when I'm discussing the issue with nontheists.
As for what Sib said about tolerance extending to everyone except atheists, I gotta admit, there is lots of that in America and the surveys to prove it. I think it's mostly because most people haven't known a friendly neighborhood atheist (I got that off a t-shirt the Freedom From Religion Foundation was selling.) Most people don't know anyone personally who self-identifies as an "atheist", and unfortunately a good number of people who self-identify as atheists aren't aren't shy about saying so are the antagonistic type that re-enforce bad stereotypes of atheists being arrogant and anti-religious. Friendly neighborhood atheists need to come out of the closets. If enough of us do, I am confident that the majority of religious humanists will recognize us as just another religious minority, deserving of equal respect.
|
Eh, I have no problems with "good faith" (being daughter of one such a faithful person), but I don't want to encourage it to exist, either. I don't see it as a bad thing; sometimes, it's even a good thing for the person. I know my mother found strength to face a lot of bad stuff that happened to her through her faith. I wish people didn't have to rely on magical thinking to get strength, but if it floats their boat, so be it.
However, I also think many friendly neighbourhood atheists, to put it on your terms, are afraid to come out precisely because, as any social animal, they fear ostracism. Strange as it might be, I don't think it's very different from homosexuals anywhere - and in some places, it might be even worse. I've seen far too many stares at my 'coming out' to think it's too different from what other people on the same lane pass through. Prejudice can be a bitch. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 22:17:15 [Permalink]
|
Matt (and interested lurkers),
I am coming back to this, but I've been super busy today and want to write a substantial response, so I'll get to it tomorrow. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/31/2007 22:17:30 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 16:02:31 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | What other concepts of faith are there? Can it be something other than belief without evidence? |
Yes.
Consider this quote from the Wikipedia article on "faith" (under "faith as commitment): | Sometimes, faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity. In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity." For many Jews, the Hebrew Bible and Talmud depict a committed but contentious relationship between their God and the Children of Israel. For a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identity, for example a person who identifies himself or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. |
Consider this quote from the historian Karen Armstrong's book The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions: | The Axial sages (the "Axial sages are what the philosopher Karl Jaspers called the founders of Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jewish monotheism, and Greek rationalism) have an important message for our time, but their insights will be surprising—even shocking—to many who consider themselves religious today. It is frequently assumed, for example, that faith is a matter of believing certain creedal propositions. Indeed, it is common to call religious people "believers," as though assenting to the articles of faith were their chief activity. But most of the Axial philosophers had no interest whatever in doctrine or metaphysics. A person's theological beliefs were a matter of total indifference to somebody like the Buddha. Some sages steadfastly refused even to discuss theology, claiming that it was distracting and damaging. Others argued that it was immature, unrealistic, and perverse to look for the kind of absolute certainty that many people expect religion to provide. |
This is highly relevant to this conversation, not just missing the forest for the trees. Many people today, whether they call themselves religious or not, whether they identify with a particular organized religious group or not, will claim to have some kind of religious or spiritual faith, and if you ask them if their faith resembles this above passage, they will agree that it does. It is my impression that such people are in no small proportion, and history tells us this view of faith is thousands of years old. Unfortunately, surveys about peoples' religious beliefs do not help much because they tend to rely on more superficial labeling that is not at all consistent among actual adherents.
Consider the religious scholar Stephen Prothero's book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn't, which points to statistics to prove the incredibe ignorance of religious Americans. In his introduction, Prothero writes: The paradox is this: Americans are both deeply religious and profoundly ignorant about religion. They are Protestants who can't name the four Gospels, Catholics who can't name the seven sacraments, and Jews who can't name the five books of Moses.
…
And I will admit to a sneaking suspicion, likely rooted in my Episcopal upbringing, that faith without knowledge is dead. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/01/2007 16:13:57 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 22:32:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Matt wrote: | What other concepts of faith are there? Can it be something other than belief without evidence? |
Yes.
Consider this quote from the Wikipedia article on "faith" (under "faith as commitment): | Sometimes, faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity. In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity." For many Jews, the Hebrew Bible and Talmud depict a committed but contentious relationship between their God and the Children of Israel. For a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identity, for example a person who identifies himself or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. |
|
Still means belief without evidence though. "Fidelity", in the sense used here, is a belief based on faith. But perhaps I worded my question badly. Especially given the nature of our miscommunication.
Consider this quote from the historian Karen Armstrong's book The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions: | The Axial sages (the "Axial sages are what the philosopher Karl Jaspers called the founders of Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jewish monotheism, and Greek rationalism) have an important message for our time, but their insights will be surprising—even shocking—to many who consider themselves religious today. It is frequently assumed, for example, that faith is a matter of believing certain creedal propositions. Indeed, it is common to call religious people "believers," as though assenting to the articles of faith were their chief activity. But most of the Axial philosophers had no interest whatever in doctrine or metaphysics. A person's theological beliefs were a matter of total indifference to somebody like the Buddha. Some sages steadfastly refused even to discuss theology, claiming that it was distracting and damaging. Others argued that it was immature, unrealistic, and perverse to look for the kind of absolute certainty that many people expect religion to provide. |
This is highly relevant to this conversation, not just missing the forest for the trees. |
It's just not relevant to the point that I've been trying to get across. When I use the word "faith" I am using it in the sense of unevidenced belief.
| Many people today, whether they call themselves religious or not, whether they identify with a particular organized religious group or not, will claim to have some kind of religious or spiritual faith, and if you ask them if their faith resembles this above passage, they will agree that it does. It is my impression that such people are in no small proportion, and history tells us this view of faith is thousands of years old. Unfortunately, surveys about peop |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 09:16:25 [Permalink]
|
Matt, You want to argue that faith is essentially "belief without evidence" and that it is an inherently dangerous or destructive concept even if the faith of individuals doesn't always lead to destructive actions. Do I have this right?
Faith is not essentially belief without evidence, it is belief without proof, which is slightly different. Many people with faith have it because of personal spiritual experiences. Those experiences are evidence, but they fall way short of being proof.
To a skeptic "belief without proof" sounds truly terrible indeed on its surface, but if you actually think about it for a few minutes, you might start to see why most people find faith to be such an admirable trait. Maybe you've heard this example before, and I've found it again in a dictionary, but a scientist might have faith in his or her hypothesis before they test it. This is not a distortion of reality. In the case of science, people can establish proof of whether their previous unevidenced belief is true or not, thus turning faith into knowledge.
Faith begins when there is an unknown and people are curious about that unknown, and they start making guesses based on a variety of experiences and information. And they cannot help it if they find one particular answer or set of answers especially persuasive. People cannot help believing in things without proof. The mistake isn't that faith itself. The mistake is forgetting that it is merely faith, and then allowing it to trump proof against it.
You say that faith is never a valid way to establish beliefs about reality, but nobody establishes belief with faith – how can they if we are using your definition of faith as a type of belief? Their faith (unproven belief) is established by a whole variety of personal experiences that are particular to that individual. The issue with most religious faith is that it deals in things which cannot be tested scientifically either because they are issues of morality or issues of the ultimate meaning of origin of the universe.
And let's not overestimate how literally most people take their own religious faith. I went to Catholic HS and had a bunch of friends who had also lost their faith. We used to read the Bible together and find especially obscene passages to bring to our nun religious teacher. Of course, having long studied the Bible herself, she had apologetics for everything and she explained very gracefully. One day we pointed out John 3:16 and asked her if she thought we were going to hell since we didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. She smiled and told us that believing in Christ wasn't just the simple belief that Jesus was literally the son of God, but rather, it was trying to live in the spirit of Christ's moral teachings. Her answer fits with the passage I quoted from Karen Armstrong. Religious faith – at least sophisticated religious faith – uses literal imagery to make more vivid an all-encompassing philosophy of how to live. This sort of faith is enriching in the same way as art, theatre, and music, and I suspect that is probably why the arts have such a close relationship with religion and spirituality throughout history. The matter of whether those literal stories are true or myth is often not regarded as important and up to the individual. The impossibility of the flood and arc story doesn't stop Catholics – who do not believe in it literally – from getting inspiration from the story or a deep feeling that their lives, that human life itself, is incredibly meaningful. This is an experience, not a literal claim about the natural world.
I am not missing the forest for the trees. The mainstream of people who widely regard faith as an admirable trait are not narrowing the meaning of that word to self-righteous adherence, with disregard for reason, to unevidenced claims. When Victor Hugo wrote “A faith is a necessity to a man. Woe to him who believes in nothing.” he wasn't making a knock on atheists.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2007 09:22:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 09:50:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The mainstream of people who widely regard faith as an admirable trait... |
Those people are also, to some extent, regarding other people's faith as admirable because it reinforces the idea that faith is a good thing. It's an argument from popularity (not that you made such an argument): because other people are faithful, I am not deluded.
Because the other side is that because faith isn't arrived at through reason, it cannot be reasoned with. Whether a person will allow proof to "trump" faith is unpredictable, and such conversions are unreliable. It is these sorts of attributes, inherent to faith, that are undesirable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 13:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Because the other side is that because faith isn't arrived at through reason, it cannot be reasoned with. Whether a person will allow proof to "trump" faith is unpredictable, and such conversions are unreliable. It is these sorts of attributes, inherent to faith, that are undesirable. |
Well one, conversations with rationlists are unreliable also because people can be blinded by their own biases. We even have a name for such misapplication of reason: rationalization. Or two people may interpret the same set of info differently, especially when the info is incomplete or complex.
For another thing, I don't agree that all faith can't be reasoned with. Faith that is used to trump reason can be reasoned with by virtue of the fact that it does make explicit and specific claims about reality. That is the easiest type of faith to criticize because we can't point out clear evidence that the claims are false. Doesn't mean the person making the claim will listen, but other people certainly do. That is why fundamentalists have no respect from anyone other than other fundamentalists of the same creed. Such people are a danger mostly to themselves and often to others if they become brave radicals capable of organized acts of terror or oppression. But again, I think we're now talking about self-righteousness, which is not an inherent component of faith.
It seems that you are claiming that one of the inherent qualities of faith is that it is unreasonable, and I would agree that people who use faith to trump proven knowledge are unreasonable. But most faithful people are not unreasonable. Most faithful people relegate their faith to things that are unknown to them, and when they are presented with hard evidence that they can intellectually comprehend to the contrary of one of their beliefs, they admit to error. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2007 13:44:13 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 21:15:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Matt, You want to argue that faith is essentially "belief without evidence" and that it is an inherently dangerous or destructive concept even if the faith of individuals doesn't always lead to destructive actions. Do I have this right? |
Yes, that's more or less right.
| Faith is not essentially belief without evidence, it is belief without proof, which is slightly different. Many people with faith have it because of personal spiritual experiences. Those experiences are evidence, but they fall way short of being proof. |
Are you using 'proof' in the sense of 'sufficient evidence'? If so then any belief that has evidence in it's favor meets some level of proof.
| To a skeptic "belief without proof" sounds truly terrible indeed on its surface, but if you actually think about it for a few minutes, you might start to see why most people find faith to be such an admirable trait. Maybe you've heard this example before, and I've found it again in a dictionary, but a scientist might have faith in his or her hypothesis before they test it. This is not a distortion of reality. In the case of science, people can establish proof of whether their previous unevidenced belief is true or not, thus turning faith into knowledge. |
I disagree that the scientist has faith in his hypothesis. There may be suspension of disbelief or intuition or something similar going on but if a scientist fails to doubt their hypothesis then they have lost objectivity.
| Faith begins when there is an unknown and people are curious about that unknown, and they start making guesses based on a variety of experiences and information. And they cannot help it if they find one particular answer or set of answers especially persuasive. People cannot help believing in things without proof. The mistake isn't that faith itself. The mistake is forgetting that it is merely faith, and then allowing it to trump proof against it. |
I would say the mistake, and the beginnings of faith, often occurs when one forgets that a guess is just a guess.
| You say that faith is never a valid way to establish beliefs about reality, but nobody establishes belief with faith – how can they if we are using your definition of faith as a type of belief? |
Well your logic is a bit sketchy, it's like saying that a computer program cannot manipulate data since it is data, but you may have a point that faith is seldom used to establish beliefs from scratch. Faith is probably more often invoked as a means of defending pre-existing beliefs.
| Their faith (unproven belief) is established by a whole variety of personal experiences that are particular to that individual. The issue with most religious faith is that it deals in things which cannot be tested scientifically either because they are issues of morality or issues of the ultimate meaning of origin of the universe. |
That is often the case sure.
| And let's not overestimate how literally most people take their own religious faith. I went to Catholic HS and had a bunch of friends who had also lost their faith. We used to read the Bible together and find especially obscene passages to bring to our nun religious teacher. Of course, having long studied the Bible herself, she had apologetics for everything and she explained very gracefully. One day we pointed out John 3:16 and asked her if she thought we were going to hell since we didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. She smiled and told us that believing in Christ wasn't just the simple belief that Jesus was literally the son of God, but rather, it was trying to live in the spirit of Christ's moral teachings. Her answer fits with the passage I quoted from Karen Armstrong. Religious faith – at least sophisticated religious faith – uses literal imagery to make more vivid an all-encompassing philosophy of how to live. This sort of faith is enriching in the same way as art, theatre, and music, and I suspect that is probably why the arts have such a close relationship with religion and spirituality throughout history. The matter of whether those literal stories are true or myth is often not regarded as important and up to the individual. The impossibility of the flood and arc story doesn't stop Catholics – who do not believe in it literally – from getting inspiration from the story or a deep feeling that their lives, that human life itself, is incredibly meaningful. This is an experience, not a literal claim about the natural world. |
Good points.
| I am not missing the forest for the trees. The mainstream of people who widely regard faith as an admirable trait are not narrowing the meaning of that word to self-righteous adherence, with disregard for reason, to unevidenced claims. |
Well I only hope that this type of faith is as mainstream as your experience has led you to believe.
| When Victor Hugo wrote “A faith is a necessity to a man. Woe to him who believes in nothing.” he wasn't making a knock on atheists. |
More likely a knock on nihilists I guess. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Pope & Evolution
