6 ms·

> The central goal of this series is to explore the evolving relationship among faith, science and philosophy Faith is the ultimate thought-terminating cliche.

• lostcolony 4y ago
  Hard disagree. Or rather, faith, in anything, can be as you describe (a non-religious example being politicians), but it doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be). Whether a person is optimistic or pessimistic in the face of unknown is a matter of faith. Values/morals, even outside of an organized religion, are still a matter of faith (not that they'll be rewarded, but that they're somehow better, even in situations you'd be advantaged by disregarding them). That there is value in life, in expression, etc, are all matters of faith, as for every bit of rational evidence that there is benefit in them, there is also rational evidence that there are issues in them. The fact philosophers don't end up in the same place indicates there are, at minimum, different axioms over what is valuable or necessary in the first place. Whether faith happens to also include a concept of god is immaterial; most if not all of us operate under concepts just as immaterial but which nevertheless we believe in.
  • alexvoda 4y ago
    dqpb, lostcolony, I believe you two are operating with different meanings of the word "faith". Let's ban the word for the sake of the argument. Care to reformulate your arguments without using it? Lostcolony, I believe you are using a far more nebulous and encompassing definition for the word compared to dqpb who I think operates with a more concrete and narrow definition.
    • javert 4y ago
      In my view they aren't using different definitions of faith.
    • technothrasher 4y ago
      Agreed, "faith" gets equivocated quite regularly (whether on purpose or otherwise) in these types of discussion. It helps to be clear on what definition one is using.
    • lostcolony 4y ago
      Belief in something without evidence. This encompasses religion/spirituality, but so much more. Which is my point. If dnub cares to explicitly call out religion, as a specific subset and distinct from faith, the arguments I'd make are largely the same. I see very little difference in the evidence between "I believe there is a knowable God(s) who would have me be kind", "I believe there is a concept of 'god' that would have me be kind", and "I believe being kind is the 'right' thing to do"; none of them rely on refutable claims.
      • dqpb 4y ago
        The difference is that beliefs can be updated by new information. Faith cannot.
        • layer8 4y ago
          I agree that that’s a crucial distinction. One can take on beliefs for tactical or strategic reasons, to increase one’s well-being or likelihood of success. But if one doesn’t adjust those beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence and/or based on Bayesian reasoning, then that’s counterproductive and harmful.
        • lostcolony 4y ago
          If by 'faith' (per the parent) you mean religious faith, sure it can. Plenty of people have stopped believing in a god, started believing in a god, or come to a new understanding of their god. Maybe what you mean is 'blind faith', i.e., a rejection of evidence contrary to what you want to believe, to which I will again point out is not unique to religion, by pointing to politics, and the quote of our past president "what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening", and the millions willing to accept that.
          • dqpb 4y ago
            I guess faith is a knob. You can dial it down when explaining it to a critic and dial it up when exerting control over an adherent.
    • dqpb 4y ago
      I take issue with two aspects of faith as it's often used in religion / spirituality / metaphysics: 1. When faith is claimed to have a direct physical effect. For example, faith healing in which ones faith conjures divine intervention, or in the Christian Science sense where faith directly alters your physical reality, or in The Secret where faith in having something "attracts" it to you, etc. The malware in this idea is that it corrupts the very concept of evidence. If you try to find evidence that it doesn't work - by having faith and not observing the proposed effects - it's nullified by saying you just didn't have enough faith. 2. When faith exploits our innate social impulses. For example: Jesus died for your sins, how cruel of you to deny him. Or if you don't have faith you will be excluded from the club of Heaven and you will be permanently separated from all your friends and family who were true believers. Or when not having faith alienates you from your existing friends, family, and community. The malware here is that it short-circuits your natural process of observe->think->decide and turns it into observe->consider-social-contract->think->decide. If someone presents you with a good argument for why something is or isn't true, but it violates the social contract of your faith (ensuring your initial impulse is to feel guilt and fear), then you are short-circuited from thinking.
      • lostcolony 4y ago
        Both of these are perfectly fair to object to! But they're not solely relegated to religion; both of those issues also show up all the time in secular circles. Back to politics, QAnon is an obvious example, but even something as 'comparatively' sane as trickle down economics suffers both of those as well (for the first, "it's not working" - "we just have to cut rich peoples' taxes more! And quit spending so much on social services!"; for the second, "we should tax the rich more and spend it on social services" "What are you, some sort of socialist?! This is -America-, the best goddamn country in the world! Love it or leave it!").
  • javert 4y ago
    If anybody wants an opposing view to this, read Ayn Rand.
• robg 4y ago
  Too narrow a view of faith. Kirkegaard wrote of a “leap of faith” by which the will and passion necessary to believe in yourself and your abilities is inherently spiritual. Rather than a blind leap, we use reason to literally and figuratively reach for the stars, be it another continent in Polynesian canoes or another planet aboard rocket thrusters. Feature not a bug of human ingenuity tied to purpose. https://academic.logos.com/kierkegaards-leap-of-faith/ https://academic.logos.com/kierkegaards-leap-of-faith/
  • dqpb 4y ago
    > the will and passion necessary to believe in yourself and your abilities is inherently spiritual Having raised a child, I think the will to explore is natural and innate, and confidence in oneself is developed and reinforced through experience.
    • robg 4y ago
      I’m raising three, they each have their own spark, no? Calling it natural and innate is just as underspecified as saying God-given or lucky or a leap of faith.
      • dqpb 4y ago
        It’s much more specified. You can look at physical things like their dna, their brain, chemical markers, etc. Even without these, one doesn’t need God to understand the concept of variation.
• stareatgoats 4y ago
  This type of reasoning is in my mind a typical expression of how mere cultural values create an unhealthy bias. It is similar in this respect to how the Inuit might consider whale flubber a great delicacy, or a Swede might enjoy fermented herring, whereas everyone else looks on in distaste, and will tend to express their dislike in universal terms. That is not the same you might argue, and you'd be right of course. But there are so many overlaps that is certainly motivated to call it similar: We are weaned into a secular disdain for religion - at least in many parts of the world - just as the Inuit are weaned into their food culture. It is not primarily a function of our superior intellect that we look down on religion, it is a function of our age and time. We will eventually abandon our present hubris for something else, just as people under the monotheistic era departed from the previous animistic and polytheistic beliefs. So what is unhealthy about it? wasn't the monotheistic religions a big step forward that allowed for greater societal cohesion and (in most places) a rule of law? Isn't a secular society a much better place than before, where beliefs are not passed down from above in a unintelligible language and jealously guarded by the elites that profited from the system? Well the key term is probably "step forward" as opposed to right and wrong. It is not like the Inuits are wrong in their eating habits - but uninformed and biased people might be prone to think so. It is not like the polytheists were wrong, in spite of the persecution they endured. And it is not like we are right in our present thinking either - a step forward in many respects, yes. But we will one day also be ridiculed for our primitive assumptions about reality - by the biased people of the future. Provided we all survive the present at all, our present and ubiquitous self-righteousness sure looks poised to snuff out whatever future we may dream of.
  • igouy 4y ago
    > So what is unhealthy about it? wasn't the monotheistic religions a big step forward that allowed for greater societal cohesion and (in most places) a rule of law? Huh? Greece. Rome. Polytheism could accommodate monotheism. Monotheism could not accommodate polytheism or different monotheisms. How is intolerance a step forward?
    • stareatgoats 4y ago
      Well first of all, I don't believe "tolerance" is useful for evaluating historical epochs as if from a position of absolute truth. It is mainly a construct, which rapidly falls apart at further inspection: at most something which arbitrarily occurs towards a variety of human expression at specific times in specific places. But above all, what we call "tolerance" today is hardly applicable to societies that practiced slavery, considered women property, didn't even have writing etc. It is barely more than a (slightly intolerant) dogwhistle, a "look at me, I like flubber" if you like. The same actually applies to the terms "forward" or "backward"; we are steeped in a belief that originated in the zeitgeist of intellectual Europe in the early 1800s (Comte et al) that society always moves forward, i.e. to a better place than before. It was supposed to be a secular set of objective values applied to the historical progression of epochs, but it has turned out to be as arbitrary as any other that touts as superior and eternal the finicky values of their own specific time and place. When I use the term it mostly just represents the arrow of time, with no further valuation. Many people feel like this kind of reasoning will cause them to lose their moorings, but it is really the only viable antidote to the ubiquitous self-righteousness that is ultimately putting us all at risk. It is not like nihilism, because it leads to the conclusion that it is better to have an understanding for, and come to terms with other people, be they from times gone by, with beliefs that may seem strange, or from the other side of the globe.
• tsol 4y ago
  Love is faith. How else do you explain making yourself totally vulnerable to another human for no reason other than the possibility that they will be nice to you for life, rather than eventually changing as humans tend to do, and despite huge rates of divorce and cheating in our society? Either you have faith in the one you love, or you are a hard rationalist that sees its a losing bet I think you're just attacking faith because you think it's a purely religious concept and you feel your smarter than the religious. But it really isn't a purely religious concept. Anyone who's had faith a friend would let them down ought to know that . Rhe kind of confidence that you have here, the kind that makes you certain a majority of the world are fools for practicing religion-- that's the real thought-terminating cliche. It's the same thing as the religious person who thinks they know everything and can condemn all to hell because they're so certain they're right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. And it really is a tired cliche
  • dqpb 4y ago
    > How else do you explain making yourself totally vulnerable to another human for no reason other than the possibility that they will be nice to you for life … Our social impulses are the result of several billion years of evolution. The primary reasons are reproduction and survival. I didn’t invent these ideas by the way. For reference, I would take a look at the fields of Biology, Psychology, Anthropology, etc.
    • tsol 4y ago
      Love is the result of evolution? No, love is a concept from culture. The raw feelings we have are the result of evolution. But as some men live to say, evolution didn't make them monogamous it made them want to be polygamous. It's culture that says you are supposed up love one single person your whole life despite constantly finding others attractive.
  • dqpb 4y ago
    > the [confidence] that makes you certain a majority of the world are fools for practicing religion-- that's the real thought-terminating cliche My pet theory is that an alien species planted religion in humans as a KPI to determine when we’re rational enough to be worth interacting with.