The extraordinary and eccentric emphasis on "belief" in Christianity today is an accident of history that has distorted our understanding of religious truth. We call religious people "believers", as though acceptance of a set of doctrines was their principal activity, and before undertaking the religious life many feel obliged to satisfy themselves about the metaphysical claims of the church, which cannot be proven rationally since they lie beyond the reach of empirical sense data.
A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical. — TheMadFool
So, why single out religious faith for our criticism? — TheMadFool
No, Position A is completely rational. Where there is no evidence but you need nonetheless to take some action requiring knowledge you must simply believe something to be the case. — Inter Alia
Because religious faith causes actual measurable harm — Inter Alia
This is an exception to the rule that all actions must be well-thought. As such I think it doesn't damage the rule: we must believe only on evidence. — TheMadFool
Damage or benefit has no relation with truth. — TheMadFool
So, why single out religious faith for our criticism? — TheMadFool
After some very superficial study of philosophy and religion I had the feeling that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical. — TheMadFool
But isn't believing what a person says, simply because that person is thought to be an authority on that subject, nothing more than having faith in that person? — Metaphysician Undercover
Somehow, religionists have focused instead on the locution "faith that", meaning believing that something is true, usually without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence. The original religious notion of faith was "faith in God", meaning to trust God. In this sense of faith, the existence of God is not in question; it is a given. — Mitchell
Both were crucial and each had its particular sphere of competence. Logos ("reason; science") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to control our environment and function in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external realities. But logos could not assuage human grief or give people intimations that their lives had meaning. For that they turned to mythos, a precursor to psychology, which dealt with the more elusive aspects of human experience.
Stories of heroes descending to the underworld were not understood as factual in our sense, but taught people how to navigate the obscure regions of the psyche. In the same way, the purpose of a creation myth was therapeutic; before the modern period no sensible person ever thought it provided a literal account of the origins of life. A cosmology was recited at times of crisis or sickness, when people needed a symbolic influx of the creative energy that had brought something out of nothing. Thus the Genesis myth, a polemic against Babylonian religion, was balm to the bruised spirits of the Israelites who had been defeated and deported by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar during the sixth century BCE. Nobody was required to "believe"; like most peoples, the Israelites had a number of other mutually-exclusive creation stories and as late as the 16th century, Jews thought nothing of making up a new creation myth that bore no relation to Genesis but spoke more directly to their circumstances at that time.
Above all, myth was a programme of action. When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play. (You find the same in the Platonic dialogues, where many profound truths are suggested by way of allusion to myth.)
Religious truth is, therefore, a type of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to dive in the deep end and acquire the understanding by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or the Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.
It seems to me that much of the incredulity about 'God' is based simply on the notion that 'God' is said to be intangible and not knowable to the senses. And after all modern empiricism really amounts to a requirement for tangible or measurable evidence of whatever is supposed to be real. In other words, many sceptics will ridicule belief in God on the grounds that this is not something for which there is empirical or sensory evidence. But that is something that was always understood by the founders of the monotheistic faiths. — Wayfarer
The fact is that some faith is required at the foundation of any belief system, but that doesn't then mean all belief systems become equal. — Inter Alia
IN SPEAKING OF THE FEAR OF RELIGION, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring tothe association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evidentempirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper, namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and,naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heavea great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning,and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena,generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed.
Whilst it is certainly true that at times religions have done great evils, they've been well and truly de-fanged in modern secular culture, — Wayfarer
you've not even got to work yet and already you've had to make dozens of decisions none of which you have any evidence for which cannot be refuted by a clever enough philosopher. — Inter Alia
They are dominated by the fact that their beliefs are harmful. — Inter Alia
So, why point fingers at one particular variety (religious) of faith? — TheMadFool
Because religions are entire world-views that cannot simply be picked at whilst still claiming to be religious. I cannot say I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but not because he was the son of god, and then claim to be a sort of Christian, I'm not a Christian unless I believe that Jesus is the son of god, that his words are the words of god and that following them is a requirement, it's not a pick-and-mix. You cannot take the good things of religion and ignore the bad. One way or another religion has 'caused' all these things, they must be taken as a whole or not at all. — Inter Alia
Modern secular culture may well have plenty of evils, but none of them are demonstrably the result of secularism. — Inter Alia
I think that the problem is that some people cannot distinguish between religious beliefs and actions of certain groups, and political beliefs and actions. Quite often the Catholic Church, for example, isn't just involved in religion, but also in politics - and the two aren't the same.Not true; all ideologies come with their share of evils. Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Liberal Democratism, or whatever; people do evil things in the names of all of them. — Janus
I've not yet had anyone argue that the priests were right to abuse those children, or torture people during the inquisition, not one single person. — Inter Alia
First off, the vast majority of religious people do "take the good things and ignore the bad". In 2010 there were 5.8 billion religious people in the world, 84% of the total human population. How many of them are murdering infidels? How many of them are stoning people to death for breaking Biblical laws? — JustSomeGuy
Blaming religion for atrocities committed by humanity is short-sighted. Some people are just more prone to violence and hatred, whether it be due to mental illness or simply because of their biology. We don't understand much about what makes people do bad things, but it's safe to say that religion isn't responsible. — JustSomeGuy
I just realized this is essentially the same as the gun control issue.
Blaming the tool a person uses to do bad things isn't rational. Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people. — JustSomeGuy
Not true; all ideologies come with their share of evils. Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Liberal Democratism, or whatever; people do evil things in the names of all of them. — Janus
So, why point fingers at one particular variety (religious) of faith? — TheMadFool
Also, religion is good for it teaches love — TheMadFool
the points you make about child abuse, terrorism, stoning, etc. should be attributed to human failings than religion itself. — TheMadFool
Well they're not religious then are they? — Inter Alia
Most people say they are above average drivers but we know this is not mathematically possible, more heterosexual men say they've committed adultery than women but this is not technically possible. — Inter Alia
Are you seriously suggesting that where a direct link is found between an ideology and some aberrant behaviour we should do nothing about it? — Inter Alia
Oh god, you are! 130/yr per capita equivalent gun murders in the UK (with gun control) vs 11,004 in the US (without gun control). As Eddie Izzard says "I think the gun helps" — Inter Alia
What evils have been associated with Jainism then? The Hare Krishna movement? Stoicism, Epicurianism? — Inter Alia
After some very superficial study of philosophy and religion I had the feeling that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.