6 ms·
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).
by 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 agodqpb, 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 agoIn my view they aren't using different definitions of faith.
- technothrasher 4y agoAgreed, "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 agoBelief 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 agoThe difference is that beliefs can be updated by new information. Faith cannot.
- layer8 4y agoI 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoBoth 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 agoIf anybody wants an opposing view to this, read Ayn Rand.