6 ms·

That didn't use to be the case historically, for what it's worth. The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old, dating to the time w

That didn't use to be the case historically, for what it's worth. The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old, dating to the time when naturalists put the final nail in the coffin of expectation of science validating religious beliefs.

ajuc 8y ago
> The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old Nah. > Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20 Christianity at least was always about (blind) faith. And I'd argue all abrahamic religions were like that. Let's not forget the start of the all these religions - Abraham blindly believing god so much that he tried to kill his son. Or maybe try Hiob's story (I believe in English it's Job?). God killed his family to win a bet with the devil, and Job was supposed to keep his faith because he will get a new better family in the end. Or the wife of Lot who was changed into a salt pillar because she dared to look back at the cursed city (damn LGBT, it ruined Sodom ;) ) instead of blindly believing the god and going away. There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear.
- foldr 8y ago
  Fideism has been repeatedly condemned by the Catholic church, FWIW. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm
  - ajuc 8y ago
    > A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. That's a different position than "religion is a matter of faith". IIUC it's more like "everything is a matter of faith". And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility Papal infallibility is actually a rather new dogma (and, on the age scale of the Catholic Church, even somewhat new as a general belief), and it means a lot less than a lot of people (especially outside the Church) think it means, because it applies only on special circumstances and only on specific subject matter; there's a very small number of pronouncements to which it is generally held to apply (and I believe only two that are absolutely unquestioned), and several more to which it has been argued to apply (as well as one very frequent act to which it has been argued, but is not generally accepted, to apply: canonization of saints.)
    - foldr 8y ago
      I think you may have misread. It's clear that fideism is being discussed in the context of Christian belief in the article I linked: >... before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself. See e.g. the following for further discussion. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-is-the-fideism-rejected-by-the-catholic-church https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-...
      - ajuc 8y ago
        From your link: > All the truths you list above, which are beyond the capabilities of human reason alone to discover, can only be known through faith. See, for example: "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?" (Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1). > Just because there are truths beyond our human natural reason, that doesn't mean faith is not an intellectual virtue grounded in reason. This debate seems to be orthogonal to our debate. They are arguing whether faith is a feeling or a thing you can reason about. But they all agree faith is required to believe in catholic dogmas. And I fail to imagine how you could think otherwise, religions make lots of assumptions about god, and the proofs of existence of god I've seen were all flawed, and even if they weren't - they would only prove the existence of something, not the existence of a personal god with any particular properties. I especially liked the proof that went: "all things are perfect to some degree, therefore there must be a thing that is the most perfect, and that's by definition god" :) I was a devout catholic when I heard it the first time, and still it seemed so fishy to me :)
- humanrebar 8y ago
  It's worth noting that, at least in the New Testament Greek, "faith" also translates as "trust". It is an emphasis on knowing and trusting God himself, not subscribing to a particular dogma. Jesus clearly ridiculed people who leveraged dogma for the sake of control, vanity, or out of ignorance. In other words, Jesus blessed people who trust him though they didn't meet him. He didn't exactly expect people to say "Jesus... nice name. I think I go apologize to my wife now." The expectation was always that Christians would be a people who taught and encouraged each other to understand Jesus and trust him. In fact "blind faith" itself is a reference to Jesus mocking folks with ignorant dogma.
- CelestialTeapot 8y ago
  "There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear. " You've picked some of the best stories that illustrate if god existed, he'd be a moral thug and sociopath...
cjf4 8y ago
The entire Gospel is centered around salvation by faith in Christ, which of course is much older than 150 years.
- sb057 8y ago
  No it isn't; while the years is more like 500, it is nonetheless a recent innovations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
TheOperator 8y ago
>The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old I think I know what you're driving at but what you literally said is wrong. I've read many Christians from over 150 years ago jawing on anout faith.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Yeah I should have said "solely a matter of faith." Many early scientists and alchemists were driven by a desire to discover through theory and experiment the mind of god. Archeology as a field was largely formalized by members of christian societies hoping to find the historical sites of miraculous events, to bolster their faith. Even as these searches strike out in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries, religion still clung to the near universal belief in material of life being different from inanimate matter. The proof in the existence of god was as simple as looking in a mirror--you were made in his image, and so obviously different from the mechanical substances that made up the rest of the world. The discovery of evolution as a mechanism for the explanation of life, and the later elaboration of life's mechanical nature really closed off the final possibility of there being everyday real-world proof for the existence of god. It was then that the philosophy was adopted that ALL of religion was a matter of faith alone, untestable by science.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Faith does seem to be a Judeo-Christian-Moslem thing though, rather than something inherent in religion. As far as I can tell, the Indo-European pagan religions were more about practicing the correct rituals, rather than believing the correct things.

ajuc 8y ago

> The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old Nah. > Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20 Christianity at least was always about (blind) faith. And I'd argue all abrahamic religions were like that. Let's not forget the start of the all these religions - Abraham blindly believing god so much that he tried to kill his son. Or maybe try Hiob's story (I believe in English it's Job?). God killed his family to win a bet with the devil, and Job was supposed to keep his faith because he will get a new better family in the end. Or the wife of Lot who was changed into a salt pillar because she dared to look back at the cursed city (damn LGBT, it ruined Sodom ;) ) instead of blindly believing the god and going away. There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear.

foldr 8y ago
Fideism has been repeatedly condemned by the Catholic church, FWIW. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm
- ajuc 8y ago
  > A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. That's a different position than "religion is a matter of faith". IIUC it's more like "everything is a matter of faith". And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And in matters concerning religion - at least the Catholic church still believes in papal infallibility Papal infallibility is actually a rather new dogma (and, on the age scale of the Catholic Church, even somewhat new as a general belief), and it means a lot less than a lot of people (especially outside the Church) think it means, because it applies only on special circumstances and only on specific subject matter; there's a very small number of pronouncements to which it is generally held to apply (and I believe only two that are absolutely unquestioned), and several more to which it has been argued to apply (as well as one very frequent act to which it has been argued, but is not generally accepted, to apply: canonization of saints.)
  - foldr 8y ago
    I think you may have misread. It's clear that fideism is being discussed in the context of Christian belief in the article I linked: >... before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself. See e.g. the following for further discussion. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-is-the-fideism-rejected-by-the-catholic-church https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67580/what-...
    - ajuc 8y ago
      From your link: > All the truths you list above, which are beyond the capabilities of human reason alone to discover, can only be known through faith. See, for example: "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?" (Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1). > Just because there are truths beyond our human natural reason, that doesn't mean faith is not an intellectual virtue grounded in reason. This debate seems to be orthogonal to our debate. They are arguing whether faith is a feeling or a thing you can reason about. But they all agree faith is required to believe in catholic dogmas. And I fail to imagine how you could think otherwise, religions make lots of assumptions about god, and the proofs of existence of god I've seen were all flawed, and even if they weren't - they would only prove the existence of something, not the existence of a personal god with any particular properties. I especially liked the proof that went: "all things are perfect to some degree, therefore there must be a thing that is the most perfect, and that's by definition god" :) I was a devout catholic when I heard it the first time, and still it seemed so fishy to me :)
humanrebar 8y ago
It's worth noting that, at least in the New Testament Greek, "faith" also translates as "trust". It is an emphasis on knowing and trusting God himself, not subscribing to a particular dogma. Jesus clearly ridiculed people who leveraged dogma for the sake of control, vanity, or out of ignorance. In other words, Jesus blessed people who trust him though they didn't meet him. He didn't exactly expect people to say "Jesus... nice name. I think I go apologize to my wife now." The expectation was always that Christians would be a people who taught and encouraged each other to understand Jesus and trust him. In fact "blind faith" itself is a reference to Jesus mocking folks with ignorant dogma.
CelestialTeapot 8y ago
"There's lots of such stories in the Bible - the message of "shut up and believe what you're told" is clear. " You've picked some of the best stories that illustrate if god existed, he'd be a moral thug and sociopath...

cjf4 8y ago

The entire Gospel is centered around salvation by faith in Christ, which of course is much older than 150 years.

sb057 8y ago
No it isn't; while the years is more like 500, it is nonetheless a recent innovations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

TheOperator 8y ago

>The idea of religion being a matter of faith is only about 150 years old I think I know what you're driving at but what you literally said is wrong. I've read many Christians from over 150 years ago jawing on anout faith.

garmaine 8y ago
Yeah I should have said "solely a matter of faith." Many early scientists and alchemists were driven by a desire to discover through theory and experiment the mind of god. Archeology as a field was largely formalized by members of christian societies hoping to find the historical sites of miraculous events, to bolster their faith. Even as these searches strike out in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries, religion still clung to the near universal belief in material of life being different from inanimate matter. The proof in the existence of god was as simple as looking in a mirror--you were made in his image, and so obviously different from the mechanical substances that made up the rest of the world. The discovery of evolution as a mechanism for the explanation of life, and the later elaboration of life's mechanical nature really closed off the final possibility of there being everyday real-world proof for the existence of god. It was then that the philosophy was adopted that ALL of religion was a matter of faith alone, untestable by science.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Faith does seem to be a Judeo-Christian-Moslem thing though, rather than something inherent in religion. As far as I can tell, the Indo-European pagan religions were more about practicing the correct rituals, rather than believing the correct things.