Perhaps faith is a self-imposed inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken. A consciously chosen refusal to believe or even consider anything to the contrary.

Perhaps faith is a self-imposed inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken — creativesoul

I give you the whole enchilada and you're playing with a pinto bean.

I'm sure you understand that religion is real people, real wounds, and real cultures on vast timescales. You know this isn't the domain of analytical philosophy (deny it if you want, but I know you do.)

↪Possibility We have some agreement.

In my view, this ‘evil’ is more the cornerstone of institutionalised religion.
— Possibility

Kenny sets out faith in terms of adherence to "acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community" - top p.394.

I would drive the nail deeper and suggest that no sooner are religious notions articulated than they become false. This also follows from such talk being understood as metaphor. — Banno

‘False’ seems to advocate a dismissal of the entire testimony. I just read an article on the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ that addresses the imperialistic assumptions and misunderstanding of gender in what is otherwise an important work, and the difficulties in recent moves to ‘erase’ the authority of racist ideas from history. Recognising Darwin as ‘a man of his time’ allows the falseness in his testimony surrounding and interpreting his research to at least be understood without throwing out the proverbial baby.

I think it’s not just a matter of understanding these religious notions as metaphor, but also understanding their articulation as personal testimony (rather than authority), filled with the ignorance and falsehoods of the knowledge/experience that articulated them.

——————

I guess the issue I was having with the discussion - and the reason I commented - is the denigration of faith in general for the ignorance that unwarranted assertions and claims of authority or knowledge have contributed to, under the guise of religious ‘faith’.

Faith is not a virtue in itself, but by the same token is also not a vice when acted upon as a reasonable prediction in the absence of sufficient evidence. It is, however, a vice when it attempts to conceal a lack of warrant. I think it is this lack of warrant that is difficult for the faithful to acknowledge, because it opens the door to the possibility of doubt - falsely portrayed as the enemy of faith. But if there was no doubt, then we wouldn’t need faith to guide our actions, would we? We would just know.

I think faith is useful ONLY in the absence of sufficient evidence, and only for guiding our own thoughts, words and actions - not those of others. Faith (accompanied by doubt) is supposed to help us to interact with the world - to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with what we don’t yet understand - not to construct walls and swords against understanding.

When confidence is wielded as imposed authority over the words, thoughts or actions of others, then it’s an expression of the doubt and lack of warrant that naturally accompanies faith - in acts of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. When we read this authority into sacred texts and then attempt to bind others to it, we are no longer expressing our faith, but our doubts in denial, projected outward.

You know this isn't the domain of analytical philosophy (deny it if you want, but I know you do.) — frank

I don't believe in domains. Not too sure I'm rightly called an analytic philosopher either, so...

The pinto bean is the focus. Specifically, faith as distinct from mere or reasonable religious belief. I agree that faith may be a relatively new aspect within Christianity, and be inapplicable to other religious belief systems, but that's not the topic.

I'm not attributing Christian faith to any other religions, however, there are certainly similarities in different belief systems, such as QAnon and many Trump supporters(not all). The kind of faith being discussed is not limited to just Christianity.


...a self-imposed future inability to admit that one's own belief(s) are, or could be, mistaken. A consciously chosen refusal to believe or even consider anything to the contrary - a leap into faith - actually creates an insurmountable 'self'-imposed impediment to even being able to believe otherwise. Such people will not even acknowledge that it's possible for such deeply held, unshakable beliefs to exist and be operative elements of their own self-governance.

One with faith in God will not waver. One with faith that they've attained access to God's word will not be swayed. One who knows(or comes to know) that they've long since placed faith in the truthful testimony of others may be swayed a bit more.

:up: