You mean patriotism? Sure.

Again, I question the broad brush, but the number of Jews verses Christian and Muslims is insignificant - the inclusion of them in the JCI group is a cute move for the sake of inclusion I suppose. I do not disagree, however, with the notion that many religious institutions (including current ones) have much to apologize for (in the moral sense) and that too many people are quick to excuse bad behavior because of an institution’s association with the sacred.

But I see the same horrors at the hands of government. How can you participate in government knowing what a past it has had? Might your response be "not the government I believe in"? Substitue "religion" in there for me. — Hanover

What you say is true but I wonder is there a difference in the foundational nature of government and religion? Is religion not founded on and galvanized by notions of moral correctness and inclusivity and fairness and charity and righteousness, making religion's considerable violations all the more hypocritical and scandalous; while the business of politics is by nature conflictual and partisan? Religion also tends to maintain that it holds the truth, while government rarely gets any more totalizing than expressing broadly held community values.

↪180 Proof You mean patriotism? — Ennui Elucidator

:yawn: Not remotely. G'nite ...

So Trumpism doesn’t fit your faith form? Or it just that religion is somehow unique in faith because beardy head?

"what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?"
Then religion isn't saying anything at all. Is it a fact that I will be born again, or not? If you can't say either way, then you haven't said anything at all, so why bother making a religious claim if the claim isn't intended to point to some actual state of affairs?

Politics is the one domain where people aren't concerned about being factually correct to the point that listening to politicians speak is a waste of time. Listening to their critics is just as much a waste of time as they seem to whine about why the other side isn't using logic or making any sense. It was never their intent to make sense or be logical. Logic is the antithesis of religion and politics (group-think).

???

if one allows religion not to be factually correct, to consist in metaphor and allegory, for the betterment of mankind, then does that mean it need not be honest? — Banno

Your ideas about the value of honesty need to be supported. Being a philosopher, I'm sure you are aware of "the noble lie". That the noble lie is somehow wrong, or immoral, is a very difficult claim to support. We might support it with the principle of "equality", but equality isn't real so as much as it might provide a legal base, it provides no moral base.

We might try a Christian principle like love your neighbour, but for some reason we still see the efficacy in lying to those whom we love. Where do you derive the idea that the betterment of mankind might be accomplished without dishonesty?

Probably just over-reading your comment. Faith is neither a function of nor a feature of religion (though there is something catchy about a "faith community" as another description of a religion). In a thread about the goal of religion in the context of recognition of the abject failure of religious institutions (Christian in particular in the Western/colonialist context) to acknowledge their current and historic failures I didn't want the focus to move to a critique of faith as a proxy for either the critique of religion as a concept or the point of religion as a goal. Religion is not (despite what good Kierkegaard did not say) the will to faith.

Faith, as such, is something endemic to humanity (or so it seems). People just as often kill others in the name of patriotism (or nationalism or whatever you want to call it - "FOR GOD AND KING!" or "TO THE GLORY OF ROME!") as religion even if some religious language is invoked in the call to war (such as manifest destiny in the US). Vicious "irrational" tribalism may be a consequence of faith, but it is not the only consequence. (If you don't like violence, pick your sin - institutional coverups, cf police violence, sexual assault in business/education/sports, etc., are no less wide spread in non-religious institutions.)

Regardless, religion (as a social endeavor/feature) is both more than the failures of certain groups and meaningfully analyzed through its failures just the same as government or any other broad organizing category of people. The point is simultaneously that religion is not unique in its messiness but also that what makes religion unique as a useful concept in our language/thought does not necessarily lead to a worse outcome than other such concepts. One might even say that the point of religion is to make the world a better place. You know, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and visit the sick. Maybe a bit of spitting into the wind while remembering the injunction that justice, justice you shall pursue and that although you cannot complete the task of perfecting the world, neither are you free to desist from it.

And your point?

Is at the tip of my nose.

If, in the last couple of Occidental millennia, "faith" has meant anything, it certainly has meant believing in the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible ... in the name of insert______here. — 180 Proof

If I misread you as suggesting that "Abrahamic apologists" arrive that their defense of institutions through faith and thereby reflect the poverty of either religion or faith, I apologize. Perhaps you can expand a bit on what you intended so that I can write something you find non-trivial.

State your point. No need for coy guessing games. You disagree with me? Fine. Argue your point.

Who is being coy? I was rather direct with my objection to what you said (or so I thought). You used the word "faith" pejoratively in the context of the point religion and I tried to demonstrate that your use of that word is not helpful when discussing the point of religion. Was I obtuse or my meaning obscure?

Even in its foundation Christianity had multiplicity of thought with warring factions, some of which continued on and some which were snuffed out. — Ennui Elucidator

Those "snuffed out" and later views determined to be heretical make an interesting study, though. Arianism, which taught that Jesus was divine but lesser than the Father; Marcionism, which taught that the God was Jesus was different from the God of the Old Testament; Adoptionism, which taught that Jesus was born a man, but was so virtuous that he was adopted as the "Son of God" by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him; Sabellianism, which held that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three characteristics of the One God, rather than three "persons" in One God; Pelagianism which rejected the doctrine of original sin and held that grace wasn't required to achieve goodness. The "snuffed" seem to be rather unobjectionable, relatively speaking, in some cases, but were "snuffed" nonetheless. Perhaps this tells us something.

There were many more, of course. I'm not sure which you think "continued" but in the Latin West (and so in much of the Americas and elsewhere) it seems to me that after Nicea and prior to the Reformation one particular version was enforced, often violently. The Protestant Churches haven't been all that tolerant of differing views, either.

The thing is, it isn't necessarily the case that each person, each generation of person, looks upon the past and existing religious beliefs and makes a choice what to think and do. Religions may be instilled, inculcated--like that of Sancta Mater Ecclesia, which I grew up with--which developed an entire system of education from elementary school through college and beyond. Also imposed. This tells us something about organized religion, I believe. Perhaps the goal of organized religions is to teach its adherents not to question them, or at least to assure as much as possible they won't have the opportunity to do so.

Perhaps the goal of organized religions is to teach its adherents not to question them, or at least to assure as much as possible they won't have the opportunity to do so. — Ciceronianus

I'm not sure that would be a goal of organized religion. So far as I can tell from the literature, lots of smart people tried really hard to question those religions in order to establish them as the right one and no one is running around telling adherents not to read the apologists. But then I am not Catholic ("universal") in any sense of the word.

Religion also tends to maintain that it holds the truth, while government rarely gets any more totalizing than expressing broadly held community values. — Tom Storm

I think you greatly over-simplify things when you attempt to draw a clean break between government and religion. This concept of secularism is fairly new, and it's hardly complete.

But to the idea of mythology, it's no secret that the original Pilgrims were less than open and giving to the Native Americans, despite what we might have learned about Thanksgiving. The American founding fathers were also not as interested in equality of man, considering they were actually part of an aristocracy who used a servile class of black slaves and white indentured servants to do their dirty work. The value in the myths we learn of government (like religion) is to advance an ideal and their deconstruction does leave a void. Obviously no myth should be advanced that denies another's suffering or that continues his or her oppression, but, properly understood, we need not go around screaming that the US (and likely every other nation) was built upon a lie. What it was built upon was an ideal that the people fell quite short of and that should now be better advanced.

That it is to say one can believe in American ideology, but be disappointed in American behavior. The same can be said of any particular religion.

I think you greatly over-simplify things when you attempt to draw a clean break between government and religion. This concept of secularism is fairly new, and it's hardly complete. — Hanover

I'm from Australia so blandly secular is the default in general, even if we currently have our first evangelical Prime Minister. Our politics was always pragmatic and built around property values. We don't even have a Bill of Rights...

That it is to say one can believe in American ideology, but be disappointed in American behavior. The same can be said of any particular religion. — Hanover

Using that measurement criteria you could probably say the same about any given institution. Perhaps it is in unpacking the nature of that disappointment that the difference is located. But I hear you.

You used the word "faith" pejoratively in the context of the point [of] religion — Ennui Elucidator

Well, that's what threw me, Ennui: I didn't claim or even imply – "pejoratively" or otherwise – that "faith" is "the point of religion". On page 1 of this thread I wrote: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/593336

The noble lie is told to others; of course, I had presumed you and I know the truth about the early years of Christianity. Or do you choose to lie to yourself?

Ironically, the use of 'faith' to describe believing despite the facts comes from Augustin of Hippo. He thought it a virtue.

:up: No doubt Augustine got it from Saul of Tarsus who in turn got it from ...

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1

i.e. believing is seeing. :pray:

Ironically, the use of 'faith' to describe believing despite the facts comes from Augustin of Hippo. He thought it a virtue. — Banno

Can't speak to how others use the term, but it's something I'd suspect has had a meaning that has varied greatly over the years.

The Bible doesn't reference disputes between atheists and theists, but disputes over whose god reigned supreme. It was a given there were gods, magic and the like. Back then, what we take as "faith" was taken for granted. They were not wedded to the scientific method like we are today.

In the early portions of the Bible, there would have been no need for "faith" as we understand the term today. They saw splitting of seas, manna from heaven, and all sorts of violations of physical laws. They had empirical evidence for the existence of God.

What we call "faith" today, I'd submit is an entirely separate epistemology that can co-exist with a scientific one only insofar as it doesn't attempt to respond to scientific questions. How the world works is a scientific question, but how I should live my life is not. There are obvious oversteps that occur when people attempt to offer Biblical interpretations to explain our origins for example, but I'd submit that is the fault of an unreasonable literalism.

How the world works is a scientific question, but how I should live my life is not — Hanover

Yep.

Now I have elsewhere characterised this as a distinction in the direction of fit. Science seeks to change what is believed to match the world. Action (Ethics) seeks to change the world to match what is believed.

Faith then is functional if it seeks to change what is changeable. An act of faith can make a hospital. AN act of faith cannot make the value of pi, 4.

There are those on this thread - and it turns out that you are not amongst them - who choose to deny the facts of early Christianity. They render themselves irrelevant to the main discussion here.

That's why @Ennui Elucidator and @Metaphysician Undercover find themselves advocating telling lies.

This comes back to the distinction between facts and beliefs discussed elsewhere. There were those who thought it a mere quibble. This thread provides an example of why it is important.

And here we have the answer to the question in the OP: if a belief is not factually correct it becomes an unstable base for our acts. IF a religion lies about its history then it may also lie about what it is doing now - it acts in bad faith. And indeed we see this in the many ways the various churches have covered over recent sins of maltreatment and pedophilia.

What we call "faith" today, I'd submit is an entirely separate epistemology that can co-exist with a scientific one only insofar as it doesn't attempt to respond to scientific questions. — Hanover

If it is to co-exist with the facts then the religion must be consistent with those facts. Religion cannot be entirely separated from science, nor from history.

That's why Ennui Elucidator and @Metaphysician Undercover find themselves advocating telling lies. — Banno

I’ve advocated no telling of lies, I’ve merely pointed out that myth need not be factual to be important. It might seem a hard distinction for someone that simply cannot understand metaphor or allegory as a dispositional trait, but I suspect you know the difference. As I suggested in another thread, when we invoke religious language we are signaling that what is being discussed is important. The factual accuracy of the language is not the least bit our concern.

And seriously Banno, either step up and advocate a block universe with no freewill or give up on your historical facts. There is no state-of-affairs there.

And seriously Banno, either step up and advocate a block universe with no freewill or give up on your historical facts. There is no state-of-affairs there. — Ennui Elucidator

I say some statements are true, some not.

I gather you do disagree?

So far as I can tell from the literature, lots of smart people tried really hard to question those religions in order to establish them as the right one and no one is running around telling adherents not to read the apologists. — Ennui Elucidator

I'm not sure who you have in mind, but I've read some of the apologists for Christianity, and if their work is representative, then apologists merely engage in special pleading. It's not easy to intelligently and in good faith question the doctrines of a religion you've already accepted wholeheartedly. C.S. Lewis is an example of the kind of apologist I have in mind.

The noble lie is told to others; of course, I had presumed you and I know the truth about the early years of Christianity. Or do you choose to lie to yourself? — Banno

The issue you brought up was whether or not honesty is necessary in the goal of the betterment of mankind. Those who believe in the value of the noble lie clearly believe that honesty is not necessary.

Whether or not you and I know the history of early Christianity, or whether we deceive ourselves in this matter is not relevant to the issue.

That's why Ennui Elucidator and @Metaphysician Undercover find themselves advocating telling lies. — Banno

I'm still waiting for justification of your opinion, that telling lies is bad, absolutely. Until you provide that justification, all you are doing is playing on the emotions of those who do not like to be told lies. Playing the emotions is not justification. We do not like to be punished either, but very few say that punishment is bad.

So until you provide an argument as to why the dishonesty, which is believed to be carried out for the betterment of human existence (the noble lie) is for some reason bad, I'll consider that you are just voicing an uneducated opinion. You're just like a little child, arguing with your parents, that they ought not punish you because you dislike it. You insist that the authorities ought not lie to you, because you do not like being lied to. Betterment often involves pain. That it hurts does not imply that it is bad.

IF a religion lies about its history then it may also lie about what it is doing now - it acts in bad faith. And indeed we see this in the many ways the various churches have covered over recent sins of maltreatment and pedophilia. — Banno

The noble lie is not an instance of bad faith so it ought not be compared with common instances of bad faith. Bad faith involves proceeding with an act which one knows to be wrong. The noble lie involves proceeding with an act which one believes to be right.

You seem to believe that the noble lie actually is wrong. Where's your proof? When the noble lie has been proven to be immoral, then we might class it as bad faith.

There's a reason I don't usually reply to your posts, Meta. It's because you are so comfortable with self-contradiction.

If you are happy to be dishonest to yourself, then then I will continue ignoring your posts.

There's a reason I don't usually reply to your posts, Meta. It's because you are so comfortable with self-contradiction.

If you are happy to be dishonest to yourself, then then I will continue ignoring your posts. — Banno

Obviously, I am completely unaware of the purported self-contradiction within my posts. So where are you coming up with this idea that I'm being dishonest to myself?

Why don't you get down to the task at hand, and demonstrate why you believe that dishonesty for the purpose of bettering mankind, is supposed to be some sort of oxymoron?