The consequence of my belief is meaning and purpose, I'm not just a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust.

The issue for me isn't whether you choose faith or science, so long as you know it's a choice. — Hanover

Thank you. The notion of choice is interesting here. I tend to think that mostly we can't help the beliefs we are drawn to, much like sexual attraction.

In this case the consequence of their belief was the death of a child and 14 folk being convicted of manslaughter. — Banno

Yes, I’ve watched a few people die because they refused treatment, believing that their faith in God would heal them. One of these people, Malcolm, was a homeless man who had gangrene in his knee. He refused treatment even after his bones snapped and he was admitted to the hospital unable to walk. 'I pray and have faith,' he would tell me. He died.

You don't seem to have a burning desire to know truth. Or maybe you do. — Gregory

I know this isn’t directed at me, but what exactly is a burning desire to know the truth? About what, specifically? The meaning of life? The nature of reality? All of the above? Truth has never been a primary preoccupation of mine. I tend to think of it as consisting of provisional facts - statements that work within our current practices and inquiries but remain open to revision as our understanding and circumstances change. I don’t believe we can access some "special" reality beyond the one we experience, no matter what the anecdotes, religions, or some philosophers conclude.

Faith is subjecting a belief to its consequences. — Hanover

Nicely done. Can you provide an example?

:up: Thanks.

Masculinity has become a problem for itself, it is unclear what it is precisely, how it should be constructed. It is clear that it is a problem, but unclear what the solution is because it is caught in a contradiction. It has to reform and not reform at the same time. — Tobias

I suppose that hasn’t been my experience. In my work, I encounter criminals, former prisoners, and men from gangs, yet I see no evidence that their behavior is worsening or that attitudes are becoming more patriarchal. If anything, the men I meet today - even those who are uneducated and tough as nails - are more inclusive and open to new ideas than they were 35 years ago. That’s not to say they aren’t sometimes violent or dangerous, but I see the same tendencies in many women as well.

Isn't the "toxic masculinity" discourse often just a social media trope? There have always been toxic men, of course. And while we may be witnessing a modest, localized backlash against change, that seems like a natural part of any social transformation. In this vein, some religious groups are pushing “traditional” museum-piece lifestyles for men and women, with performative masculinity on display. But you have to expect that from those kinds of nostalgia projects.

Don’t masculine and feminine go together as the two poles of an outdated binary social conception? Aren’t they in the process of being replaced by a new binary, in which both what had been understood as masculine and what was seen as feminine are redefined? Or perhaps the binary itself is on the way to being replaced by a spectrum or non-linear plurality or fluidity? — Joshs

I suspect this is the case. But small steps, right? Certainly in my part of the world fluidity is becoming more prevalent. I suspect there are gender fundamentalists who are perhaps like the religious fundamentalists, reacting against uncomfortable ideas and a loss of certainty. My father once told me an amusing story about wearing light blue sweater in 1959 and how many men in his circle stared at him incredulously and called him a "sissy". And yet just a few years later men were wearing pink Kaftans.

Speaking of Church, I wonder if the so-called charismatic evangelical churches, with bands and lightshows and the like - are simply the result of applying these cultural forms to so-called 'religion'. That, combined with the so called 'prosperity gospel', which worships consumerist materialism as a manifestation of the holy spirit. — Wayfarer

I think certain types of Protestant, especially with their barnstorming tent extravaganzas of the early 1900's, have often put on a big show. Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis springs to mind. What Americans figured out long ago is that everything is intensified through marketing and showbiz. Hence, Trump. A Trump rally has always looked to me like Robert H. Schuller preaching in his Crystal Cathedral.

Arcane Sandwich was banned.

Can you tell me two useful things Nietzsche has contributed to your thinking and life? In simple dot points. :wink:

If we cannot be certain of anything ourselves, does that mean that certainty does not exist? — Kranky

Isn't this a performative contradiction? How can you be certain of something while claiming you can't be certain of it?

What I mean is: If I cannot be certain that I exist, can it still be said that it is certain?

There is a belief that I exist, but it might not be me thinking it. The thought of my existence could exist without me.

I think my question is:
So, if there is no certainty of my existence, can it be said that the belief of my existence is certain? — Kranky

If we cannot be certain we exist then perhaps we have bigger concerns than philosophy.

Your question isn't clear to me. Who is not certain that you don't exist - the rest of us, or yourself? How you feel about yourself has very little impact upon whether others think you exist. But naturally I don't know if you exist. For all I know you may be a fat, Russian apparatchik typing away inside some dreadful concrete brutalism in Novosibirsk.

Harris is saying that it's ok that we don't have a "conceptual definition" for morality because we just sort of know what it is. — frank

I tend to agree with this, but I would probably not agree with Harris that morality is or can be scientific.

Did I answer it in the post above you. Sorry, a belated response.

Aren't you describing consequentialism? If Harris defines morality as consequentialism, why would he give the opinion that morality doesn't have to have a clear definition in order to be rationally discussed? — frank

Coming back to this point, i guess science operates this way: we don't really have precise definitions of concepts like "life" or "consciousness," but we can still study and make progress in understanding those notions. Similarly, Harris holds a view that we can identify moral truths through reason and evidence, even if our definitions of morality remain somewhat flexible. Welbeing is a guiding principle rather than a precisely definable concept, but we can readily identify examples (through consequences) where wellbeing is absent or enhanced. For instance, I don't need to fully define health, but it is pretty clear that poisoning the water supply won't promote health.

I guess we aren't going to make any progress here. Thanks.

Yoru questions seem pretty easy to answer.

Why does the government have to favor Catholicism? — Arcane Sandwich

History and culture. Once a system of values is established it sticks. It becomes culture. Look at all the people on this site who are convinced that the religion of their family and culture is true.

Argentina is a modern Nation-State. And, as all modern Nation-States, it is not Biblical. Hence, it is not subjected to Biblical Law. — Arcane Sandwich

A state becomes Biblical if the dominant culture says it is. You have not addressed this:

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus is recorded as saying - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. — Tom Storm

What does Argentina have to do with Catholicism specifically, or with Christianity in general? Nothing, because Argentina is not in the Bible to begin with — Arcane Sandwich

So what? Christianity is not a map, it is based on spreading the message to all nations. The goal is for the entire world to become Christian. Hence missionaries and conversions.

Argentina's policy, from the entire country to every city and town, should not be based on one bronze age myth be used by a country to enforce values on its citizens. It should be based on secular, Enlightenment thought instead. In other words, it should be based on science, not religion. — Arcane Sandwich

Well as an atheist I would largely agree with this. But a country becomes Christian by conversions and by cultural practices. It is not a geographic matter, it's built out of axioms not mountains and floodplains. I think that's the nub of our differences.

Jesus specifically asks his followers to take his message and establish his word in all nations.

Ok, but I wasn't responding to Harris or the OP, I was responding to you when you said -

I think Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too. 'It's a meaningless universe, but you shouldn't do x.'. — frank

Did I misread your comment? Sorry if I got distracted.

he example provided in the OP is relevant here: it is a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. Is it a Biblical country, in a metaphorical sense? That would mean nothing to me, even if it were true. — Arcane Sandwich

But what does this give you? Step out the logic further? What are the implications of this fact?

I don't believe that there is such a thing as a Biblical country. It's a construct. What I do believe is that certain countries have imposed values and identities upon citizens and use a selection of facts to maintain that identity.

Up until recently, abortion was illegal in Argentina. Unlike the USA, we never had legal abortion clinics here. Women used to die during clandestine abortions. And one of the main reasons why it took so long to legalize abortion, was because of the opposition of the Catholic Church. They oppose abortion on religious, ethical and political grounds, and they make their case by way of philosophical and biblical arguments. — Arcane Sandwich

You are simply talking about a Christian nation (a construct), which like democracy or dictatorship is held in place by contingent factors. The question here is probably should one particular interpretation of one bronze age myth be used by a country to enforce values on its citizens?

I'm not an expert on Harris' model but I would have thought his project was broadly consequentialist. My point was that atheists often advocate for moral improvements despite their view that life is essentially meaningless.

Harris seems to want to reduce suffering because for him it is a fact that we can do something about this and make life less miserable. We can debate the specifics - which is what he seems to encourage people to do.

Many atheists (Rorty, Russell, Singer) still find moral imperatives grounded in human well-being, empathy/solidarity, and the impact we can have on the world around us. Even in the absence of a higher meaning, these human-centered values can be just as powerful. The point is not necessarily to seek a greater, cosmic purpose, but to improve the quality of life for ourselves and others, fostering a world where suffering is alleviated and wellness maximised. In this sense, you might say that improving the world becomes its own form of meaning; rooted in the tangible, real-world consequences of our choices and actions.

One of the consequences of the Thesis upheld in the OP is that facts should matter more than mere opinions in matters of international politics. — Arcane Sandwich

But aren't most facts tied to a value system and a narrative rather than being bias free? For instance, for those who think the Bible is myth, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. There's also the problem that human beings never seem to agree on facts. What impartial body do we appoint to determine what the facts of any given matter are?

I find it hard to care much about this. Politics simply uses religious, historical or scientific rationale as justifications for taking action. Whether it is who should be in what country, or who gets to call themselves male or female. None of this is tied to anything more substantial than the manipulation of a set of claims, to which one can easily respond with a set of counter claims. Often it's the one with the best army who "wins" the debate - not the relative merits of the discourse.

The common theme is the manipulation of justifications as excuses for action.

It matters in international politics — Arcane Sandwich

Step this out in dot points by way of an example. I am assuming you mean Israel?

Is that a fact or an interpretation? — Arcane Sandwich

Seems to be a fact. In this case a biological, psychological, sociological fact.

Why does it matter what countries are mentioned in the Bible?

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus is recorded as saying - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

World domination seems to be built into the text.

I don't understand your point. Is is about refuting one of Nietzsche's points or something to do with the meaning of Christianity for other lands. Or both?

It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase. — Arcane Sandwich

Are there not many brute facts that undermine FN's observation? Pretty sure that he would have accepted as a brute fact that if we were to kill a writer that writer would compose no more books.

I think Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too. 'It's a meaningless universe, but you shouldn't do x.'. — frank

I don’t think Harris' position is necessarily wrong or contradictory. Even if the universe is meaningless (which can be interpreted in various ways - in Harris' case, he considers transcendental meaning or ultimate meaning to be absent), this still leaves us with the practical question of how we get along with others and minimise suffering. Our time on Earth can be better or worse, depending on how we relate to each other and work together. Even without inherent meaning in the universe, the quality of our lives is shaped by our interactions and the ways we contribute to the well-being of others. In this sense, Harris' focus on well-being as a moral foundation is reasonable: it’s not about finding cosmic meaning, but about creating value in our relationships and ensuring that we make life better for ourselves and others. At least, that's how I read him.

I can see why you see the idea of self-prophesy as evoking a conception of 'magic'. — Jack Cummins

Which is why I raised the concept of scale. Confirmation bias is one thing, but this -

Do the monsters of our fears transmogrify into real life?To what extent is? it possible to shape the future by faith? — Jack Cummins

Could be interpreted as having more of a magical impact upon a life. The idea of monsters or shaping the future has quite an interpretive range. I don't think our fears can change time or conjure beasts, except in a poetic sense.

Do the monsters of our fears transmogrify into real life?To what extent is? it possible to shape the future by faith? — Jack Cummins

Without overcomplicating it—confirmation bias makes us see the world in a way that reinforces our existing beliefs. If you believe people are bad and the world is dreadful, that's the reality you're likely to find.

My concern is that a word like "prophesy" is too totalising for a phenomenon that has some psychological truth to it but isn’t magically deterministic or predictive.

Through faith, as opposed to fear, is it possible to create desired ends individually and collectively? What do you think? — Jack Cummins

I would prefer "hope" to "faith", particularly in an existential context, but that's me. I think we need to be have some perspective on this phenomenon. We can enrich or destroy our lives based on choices we make and these are informed by temperament and beliefs. I'm just not sure how much power we have over these.

Don't we all know people whose lives are in tatters because of the way they see things and choose to react to their perceptions? Sometimes we can see so many ways out for them, so many alternative options which they seem unable to recognise.

For what it's worth, I very much enjoy reading your conversations here. For me this is a place to understand what people believe and why. Your dialogues are particularly interesting as they are so reasonably argued.

I don't know whether idealism is real or not, but I have some sympathy for the arguments. I am keen to have a better understanding of philosophical ideas and to see how they are defended in discussions like yours. It does strike me that most people on this forum don't seem to change their views. They simply uncover more arguments and tools to defend them.

it struck me that what is called "faith" is the same thing as what I call "intuition." It is not a fundamentally religious mental process - it's applied to everything we do and everything we know every day. — T Clark

It will be interesting to explore this. I think the connecting between faith and intuition is only partially successful. The intuitions which work tend to be those which are derived from experience of similar scenarios. We accumulate wisdom in this way. That said, a lot of people's intuitions are based on erroneous feelings and biases. We might need to determine just when an intuition is justified and when it is not. Which returns us to reasoning. I trust my intuitions about some things based on evidence I have acquired over time. In some areas I don't trust my intuitions since I have no experience or expertise. Not sure where gods fit in all this.

My intuitions tells me the idea of god is without meaning. My friend Father John, a Catholic priest, has an intuition God is meaningful and real. How does one assess the faith of one person against the faith of another? Given all we have on this subject is a feeling without reason - would it not seem that faith is a weak foundation? I'm not crazy about having people proudly justify bigotries or even violent Jihad based on faith, as many seem to do. This is one area where reasoning may have a more significant role.

A religious belief is just another type of belief, similar to a belief we might have that it is safe to cross the street, that my own eyes are not deceiving me and there are no unaccounted demons in the sewer! — Fire Ologist

I think they are very different.

Crossing the road safely relies upon lived experience of knowing how to check for traffic and knowing the safe speed one can walk at. It is an act based on empirical evidence and learning. Faith does not share this. That's the precise point of faith - "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11 NIV.

To use faith to cross a road would be to hope there is no traffic and feel assured that nothing is coming when we blindly leap out into the traffic.

To suggest that one needs faith to trust one's eyes is incorrect. One is never sure about anything in life but one can have a measured expectation based on empirical measures that we can safely cross roads and not get killed if we look carefully.

So - what's wrong with it? Why is one universal field of subjectivity any more or less credible than atomic theory? — Wayfarer

Certainly doesn't seem any stranger than some contemporary formulations of physics.

Your general thesis doesn't seem that difficult to follow.

Humans do not have direct access to reality because our perception is filtered through our senses, our cognitive apparatus and shaped by language. Our senses provide a limited and subjective view of the world, interpreting stimuli rather than presenting reality as it truly is. Language further confines our understanding by categorising and structuring our experiences, shaping our thoughts within predefined concepts and cultural frameworks. We never perceive the world directly but only through the lens of our biological and linguistic limitations, leaving us with a constructed version of reality rather than an objective one.

Kastrup puts it much better than I could:

Under objective idealism, subjectivity is not individual or multiple, but unitary and universal: it’s the bottom level of reality, prior to spatiotemporal extension and consequent differentiation. The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you. What differentiates us are merely the contents of this subjectivity as experienced by you, and by me. We differ only in experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self, but not in the subjective field wherein all these memories, perspectives and narratives of self unfold as patterns of excitation; that is, as experiences.

As such, under objective idealism there is nothing outside subjectivity, for the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity. Therefore, all choices are determined by this one subject, as there are no agencies or forces external to it. Yet, all choices are indeed determined by the inherent, innate dispositions of the subject. In other words, all choices are determined by what subjectivity is.
— Bernardo Kastrup — Wayfarer

Not dissimilar to David Bentley Hart's account of God as the very "Ground of Being" itself—the necessary reality that makes all existence possible. Rather than a finite entity within the universe, God is the infinite, transcendent source from which all things derive their being.

God is not only the ultimate reality that the intellect and the will seek but is also the primordial reality with which all of us are always engaged in every moment of existence and consciousness, apart from which we have no experience of anything whatsoever. Or, to borrow the language of Augustine, God is not only superior summo meo—beyond my utmost heights—but also interior intimo meo—more inward to me than my inmost depths.

The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss
David Bentley Hart

The problem fdrake has with this thinking is that it's utterly totalising despite pretending not to be, and can't be articulated without reducing every aspect of human comportment to a single existential-discursive structure. It's everything it claims not to be, all the time. The utter hypocrisy of the perspective is nauseating. Everything mediates everything else, "there is no ontological distinction between discourse and reality" {because the distinction is a discursive one}. It's The One with delusions of being The Many. — fdrake

Wow. Interesting.

But surely there can be a faith that says there's no god as well. — flannel jesus

Maybe, but is faith the right word - is "reasonable confidence" a better term? The problem is anyone can say they have revealed knowledge of something - but why should we accept such a claim? It's inherent to theism that people can have revealed knowledge. It's not inherent to atheism as I understand it.

As an atheist, I would say I have heard no reasons to suggest that god is a useful concept. It seems incoherent and does not assist my sense making activities. Some atheists think they "know" there is no God. I'm not one of those.

No. I'm talking about something else: How faith can be problematic even for theists.

If two theists say they have faith that god exists there is no real problem between them. (Expect perhaps which God they have faith in). But any two Christians, for example, can agree on this aspect of faith with no real issues.

The problems for religious folk begin when they encounter people who use faith as a reason for bigotry. Then we come to the problem of whose faith is accurate or whether faith has any utility at all.

As I wrote of religious faith -

The fact that faith can support or reject slavery; support or reject misogyny; support or reject war; support or reject capital punishment, etc, etc, tells even the faithful that faith is unreliable, since it equally justifies contradictory beliefs. — Tom Storm

Are you sure that the thing you said, that I quoted, is true? — flannel jesus

What do you think I am saying?

If it helps, I am not saying that faith in god is true.

What's the question?

For secular philosophy. — Wayfarer

And for many believers too. The fact that faith can support or reject slavery; support or reject misogyny; support or reject war; support or reject capital punishment, etc, etc, tells even the faithful that faith is unreliable, since it equally justifies contradictory beliefs. The only faith which one can’t undermine like this is a faith that a god exists. The moment you drill down into what your faith is justifying, you end up in belief quicksand. Or some kind of faith competition.

True, but my main point is that faith is never entirely independent of reasoning: it's embedded in a web of interdependent values and justifications from the very beginning. Some people seem to believe that faith exists in a separate domain, as if it were a sacred thread connecting them directly to the truth, untouched by external influences. But in reality, faith is as contingent and fallible as any other belief we hold, shaped by history, culture, and personal experience rather than standing apart as an infallible or 'different' source of knowledge. That's all.

The OP claims that making religious arguments based on reason is inconsistent with making them based on faith - as he wrote "...all of you who do require reason-based thought, have a severe lack of faith in God." — T Clark

One thing that occurs to me is that very few believers come to a position on faith.

People invariably have reasons for their faith in a particular version of a particular god. When I’ve spoken to Catholics, evangelicals, or other faith-focused Christians about this, their reasons for believing are often articulated as: “It’s the religion of my family, friends and community.” or “It’s the religion of my culture.” In these cases, faith is more of a post hoc justification rather than the primary driving force. If a person’s religion is the only expression of meaning and the numinous they have known since birth, their belief is shaped more by enculturation than by an independent leap of faith.

For those who come to a religion later in life - it's usually through a critical experience or through meeting new friends who aid in a conversion experience. Then too, the faith comes later.

I’m doubtful that faith functions the way many suggest. It often seems like a post hoc claim used to end discussion. My grandmother, a fundamentalist from the Dutch Reformed Church, put it this way: “I came from a Godly house and cherish the belief of my ancestors. I have faith.” To me, this translates to: “I was taught to believe something, and I have faith that the beliefs I’ve held since birth are correct because I was taught they are correct.”

You don’t. It’s not your job. Many Christians don’t consider it their job either. — T Clark

If I say slavery is right because I have it on faith and you say, no, I have it on faith it’s wrong - we arrive at space where we uncover the shortcomings of using faith as a justification. Faith isn’t a reliable justification.

As for it not being my job. It sometimes is.

If I’m in a country where people are voting on positions that are socially awful based on faith as a justification, then I believe I have a modest role, where possible, to explore how reliable this approach is. In fact I have done just this with a couple of Christians at work and to their credit, they gradually came around to a different view.

Thanks. Have you ever watched Malcolm Guite’s YouTube channel? He’s a very literate English Anglican priest in his 60’s who talks a lot about Tolkien, CS Lewis and the Arthurian romances. He has a rather wonderful vibe.

But let’s suppose that unregenerate man fails to fulfill his means-obligations. What then? Will telling him that he must do the supererogatory fix the situation? I don’t see how it would. If he isn’t fulfilling his means-obligations it’s not clear why he would fulfill his means-supererogations.

I would say that for the non-religious, or for those who believe that this state is our inevitable and perpetual condition, the only option is some form of resignation (to failure). To reuse the recycling analogy, this would be resigning oneself to fail to correct climate impact. You can still recycle, but only with the knowledge that you will not succeed—with the knowledge that you are only delaying the inevitable. And one can play Camus all they like, but that burns out fast enough. — Leontiskos

Powerful argument.

I know a number of secular types who like to quote the elderly Pablo Casals who once said of all the world's problems - "The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step." I noticed the Green's using this quote recently to describe your scenario.

At the end of the day we must ask for help. We know we can’t do it on our own. The crucial question then becomes: where to turn for help? There are many options. — Leontiskos

Can you say some more about this?

I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not. — 180 Proof

Nice.