Which is pretty much my problem with faith. There is no act so barbaric that it can't be justified by an appeal to faith. As a way of deciding action, it is very poor and entirely unaccountable. — Tom Storm

Yes; and yet by some it is elevated to such heights that it is seen as the greatest virtue.

:angry:

Why do you think that is? Obviously one strand here is that faith has been marketed by certain religious institutions as a convenient way to decide things and to shut down further discussion lest it lead people to sound reasoning. As my fundamentalist friends often say, "Don't think, don't reason, have faith."

suggesting that stories give things meaning. For example, if you ask a theologian why God created the Moon, they might say its purpose is to control Earth’s tides—assuming they are aware of the science. The scientific explanation itself has a narrative structure, offering meaning and coherence, regardless of any theological interpretation layered onto it. — praxis

I agree, but not as to the purpose of the moon. I do think a scientist would tell you a bird flies south in the winter in order to eat, breed, etc. That is, a purposeful teleological explanation is required to make sense of that. Just telling me how the bird reacts to cold and the chemical processes within the bird causing its wings to flap would be insufficient as an explanation.

Teleological explanations become necessary with biological organisms.

We explain this apparent purposeful behavior with evolution, suggesting that the urges toward particular purposes being caused by the death to those that rejected it.

But I suppose if you make evolution uncontradictory in the sense that all that exists is by definition most suitable for survival, then you'd have a complete explanation, with the ironic result being that disbelief in natural causes is more advantageous than strict adherence to scientific fact.

Funny result.

Folk find it difficulty to accept uncertainty. Others like the neatness of having god only on Sunday - they don't have to think.

For me using the word "faith" outside of a Christian or Islamic religious contexts is problematic. — Tom Storm

Why so? That makes no sense to me.

People, are forever trying to fit faith into secular choices so I am bound to disagree. — Tom Storm

Well, I don't care that much about the word. I would happily talk about commitment, but then insist of calling whatever you think Christians and Muslims have by the same name. Because I don't see what makes those specific religious contexts special, philosophically speaking.

Mostly it's taking a punt, that the skills, training, equipment, knowledge and physical strength you have as a fireman or solider will make the activity a success, knowing full well that you could die. — Tom Storm

Sometimes people take a punt against the odds, or not knowing (or caring) what the odds are. On the other hand, the people we are talking about consider their choice to be well founded and likely to succeed. That's what faith does.

My own personal stance is that I don't respect people's choices if I consider the choice to be poorly founded and certain to fail. — Tom Storm

But will you allow them to make their choices? Or, better, at what point are you prepared to intervene and prevent people acting in accordance with their faith, even if you consider their choices to be poorly founded and certain to fail? (There are problems like vaccine scepticism, where private choices affect the rest of us.)

Which is pretty much my problem with faith. There is no act so barbaric that it can't be justified by an appeal to faith. As a way of deciding action, it is very poor and entirely unaccountable. — Tom Storm

Well, that is indeed a serious issue. Private choices, like refusing medical treatment, are one thing. Forbidding medical treatment to others, is another.

If you've found meaning in science, then you don't need to be told you're missing out. — Hanover

I didn't say I found meaning in science - just wonder, and a satisfaction that there is some order in the world. But I certainly do not feel that I'm missing out. On the contrary, I think that those who think that scientific explanations obscure the wonder in the world are missing out.

I'm just trying to stop the responders who will insist upon pointing out the obvious literal absurdities before they begin. — Hanover

I'm glad that stuff was not to be taken seriously. But now I don't know what to make of your repeating it. Ah well, perhaps I'll just enjoy the mystery.

There are no circumstances where their faith must be "rationally" rejected.

It's this incapacity to reconsider that marks an act of faith. — Banno

We're in complete agreement that the choice not to treat the cancer is the wrong one.

We're also most likely in agreement that Mengele's brand of science is the wrong one. Both faith and science have things not to be proud of.

This is to say we reach agreement, faith or no faith, in the vast number of instances. I care about the consequences of my faith, and if I learn that death results from my decisions, I'd not do it again. I've not said I'd just pray for the best and damn the torpedoes.

Nor have you said the exploration of truth, damn the torpedoes, is something you're committed to. The difference would be easy if it were stark, but our day to decisions are likely very similar.

The substantial difference arises in attitude and worldview. And it's a choice. If you find that commitment to a scientific worldview offers you greater fulfilment than otherwise, have at it. What I dispute is that it's not a matter of choice. That you believe as you do because it's a matter of inherent constitution is not something I agree with.

Funny result. — Hanover

Not at all.

An AI recalls Yuval Noah Harari's argument for me that Homo sapiens' survival and dominance were largely due to their ability to create and believe in shared fictions—stories, myths, and collective beliefs that allowed large groups to cooperate.

Unlike other human species (like Neanderthals), who mainly relied on direct personal relationships, Homo sapiens could unite thousands or even millions of people under abstract ideas, such as religions, nations, money, and laws. These shared fictions helped create trust and large-scale collaboration, giving Homo sapiens an evolutionary advantage.

So in a way, our survival and success depended not just on raw intelligence but on our ability to believe in things that don't physically exist, like gods, borders, and economies.

This is to say we reach agreement, faith or no faith, in the vast number of instances. — Hanover

Quite so. And it seems we agree that the belief is not of much import, it's the acts, what one does, that is to be counted and evaluated.

But I will push back against being characterised as seeing science as a replacement for faith in some religious doctrine. Science describes how things are, it doesn't tell you what to do about how things are.

Rather, we can't know what to do, and yet have to act anyway. The only thing I can offer by way of consolation is something like Tolstoy's three questions.

Yep.

It's devotional use is an entirely different matter. — Hanover

Devotion is a personal matter, but if one hasn't actually read the whole book then I don't know one does it. Christianity is good with this, but with Judaism the focus is often more on the Talmud.

For me using the word "faith" outside of a Christian or Islamic religious contexts is problematic.
— Tom Storm
Why so? That makes no sense to me. — Ludwig V

For reasons I have explained: that it is not properly comparable. I understand that you disagree, many do, particularly those from Christian backgrounds.

On the other hand, the people we are talking about consider their choice to be well founded and likely to succeed. That's what faith does. — Ludwig V

Disagree - faith is blind, as it says in Hebrews 11 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

The fireman has foresight: knowledge of how buildings react to fire, an understanding of possible floor plans, specialized training, experience, and equipment. If anything, he possesses reasonable confidence that his actions can succeed, and this confidence is supported by demonstrable knowledge and equipment that can be shown to others. On the other hand, no such supporting evidence exists for gods. A fireman who relies solely on faith will probably face grave consequences. If he survives and is seen to take a reckless risk (which is uncommon today), he would likely face disciplinary action

But will you allow them to make their choices? Or, better, at what point are you prepared to intervene and prevent people acting in accordance with their faith, even if you consider their choices to be poorly founded and certain to fail? — Ludwig V

Where possible, and depending on the level of risk, I would advocate for authorities to intervene. In Australia, we sometimes have the ability to do this. I don’t generally agree that we should allow people to act solely based on what they believe to be right. Religion doesn't get a free pass. However, this is a complex issue, the doorway to which leads to a labyrinth of nuanced considerations.

Science describes how things are, it doesn't tell you what to do about how things are. — Banno

Most of the global religions were the science of a former age, along with medicine, engineering, politics and history. We're just sporting around on the shoulders of those giants.

The science we have now is far beyond anything they considered.

The science we have now is far beyond anything they considered. — Banno

So?

We're just sporting around on the shoulders of those giants. — frank

So what...

The science we have now is far beyond anything they considered. — Banno

Indeed and often demonstrates that the shoulders of those giants are not resting on good foundations and cannot bear the weight of progress.

So what... — Banno

Did you think all the suffering and struggle was just the lead up to this glorious moment in the history of science? Guess which ancient religion, preserved in Christianity, that you got that idea from.

Yep.

It's odd how folk keep imputing scientism to what I have said. First and now.

Again, science does not tell us what to do.

I guess folk as so used to thinking in terms of science versus religion that the idea of questioning both as a guide to ethics doesn't occur to them.

Again, science does not tell us what to do. — Banno

The law tells you what to do. Our law is a descendant of religious law. All the stuff we have separated out was fused back then.

People wrote the law, whether they thought they were writing the will of god or not.

But, and over, that, if the law is unethical, you ought not do what the law says.

Hence, the law does not tell you what you ought do.

Which is pretty much my problem with faith. There is no act so barbaric that it can't be justified by an appeal to faith. As a way of deciding action, it is very poor and entirely unaccountable.
— Tom Storm

Yes; and yet by some it is elevated to such heights that it is seen as the greatest virtue. — Banno

That's all true. Barbarity and false virtue, blessed in the dogmatic mask of some religion, happens.

But is that all faith is to you both, or just some misuse of faith that corrupts only some people?

Does absolute faith corrupt absolutely? If that is what you think, I wonder if I could change your mind?

Because I see the opposite in what springs from faith. Equating barbarity and false virtue with faith is a much more, let's say, particular view of faith than I've generally experienced. Looks like the TV version, or maybe from a sociology class, or anthropology class. Not from an actual church, or most actual churches and mosques and synagogues. Lot's of good, rational, faith-going people, exist and do things because of their faith everyday. For centuries, since people started writing, maybe because of words themselves - faith driving the discussions among people. Delivered us all to our currently enlightened state. Are you saying they all, because they would base their actions and justifications on some religious faith, they've all just strayed so far from the same reality you and I experience today that all faith is about is justifying things like barbarity and false virtue in the name of their religious beliefs?

Or is that just one small point in a broader understanding of "faith"?

You can't pull some lemonade out of "faith in God" at all? Even on a psychological or social level?

Do all opiates of the masses lead only to wife and child abuse, barbarity and praise of barbarity?

I think that misses everything about faith.

People wrote the law, whether they thought they were writing the will of god or not.

But, and over, that, if the law is unethical, you ought not do what the law says.

Hence, the law does not tell you what you ought do. — Banno

This is all confused to me. It sounds like you are overthrowing the law, but using the law to do it, so I don't know the function of "law" for you.

You talk about the writing of the laws by whatever means codified, then pose an unethical law, and from this conclude "you ought not do what the law says."
And this was in response to Frank saying

The law tells you what to do. — frank

But your determination of "unethical" can only come by appealing to some other law. So the law is still telling you what to do.

The determination of "unethical" is done here by seeing that one law (which tells you what to do) is in conflict with another law (which also tells you what to do). You replaced ought with another ought, not a refutation of ought.

If you said the law was just silly, or the law was impossible to understand so there is nothing to follow, you could say "hence the law does not tell you what you ought to do." But you said "the law is unethical" - so you are still looking to some law, some ethic, to tell you what to do.

The law always tells you what to do. That's what a law is, what it does.

The question is only "what is the law", and separate from whatever answer you get, there is what you actually do, following the law or not, or some other law. But if there is a law, it tells you what to do.

Quite so. And it seems we agree that the belief is not of much import, it's the acts, what one does, that is to be counted and evaluated. — Banno

It's the act that counts when evaluating the objective value of your citizenship, but you spend most of your time with yourself, so it makes sense to evaluate your beliefs upon what subjective fulfillment it provides.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

You have heard of the Euthyphro? Is an act good becasue it is the law, or is it the law becasue it is good? You seem to be saying that what is good and what is the law are the very same. Yet there are bad laws.

Perhaps you are thinking of divine command theory as the source of the ultimate law, or perhaps some form of deontology. But recall that there are alternatives that do not explain what is good in terms of what is commanded. Consequentialism is one alternative. But better in my view is seeking after virtue.

Laws present us with a codified and tested guide to what we might do. And following those laws is a good idea. But if a law leads to turpitude, it ought not be followed.

What is legal and what is good are very different things.

...you spend most of your time with yourself... — Hanover

Of course, believe whatever makes you feel good - whatever gets you through the night. (Should I link to the John Lennon song? Is it still sufficiently well known?) I'll work hard to set aside any jokes about onanism.

But be aware that what others see and are aware of, and so all that they can judge, are our actions. So it might be best to give them due regard.

Oh, and I don't agree that it was faith that delivered us to our present sate of enlightenment; recent history shows how fragile that enlightenment is; longer history shows how faith worked also on the side of darkness. We might do well to drop the myth of the inevitability of progress and put our backs into it.

Science describes how things are, it doesn't tell you what to do about how things are. — Banno

That's precisely correct.

So I have to assume nothing tells you what to do, since you are a man of science, and since you can't use faith to build authority behind the law, and since such authority will never come from science. It would be nonsensical to uncover the facade of a faith community making moral law, and then turn around fabricate some other ethical, moral code anyway (and why would anyone care to follow laws they didn't have to make in the first place).

But you seem to think faith justifies praise of barbarity, so you have a moral code where elevating barbarity is bad enough to be useful to denigrate the faithful. And so you think barbarity is immoral, and false praise immoral - where did these laws come from anyway? They sound like the bible just as much as the bible does to me.

If you want to denigrate faith as a pastime, that's fine, but if you want to be consistent, just admit that just like faith, morality and ethics make no sense to you, because they can't be weighed, or measured or proven sound, or logically derived, or tested or falsified. Why ought I not follow an unethical law anyway? Why can't I follow whatever I want?

No-faith may be a blessing in disguise.

Again, ethics is not about law, but about what is good.

Curious that some folk have such difficulty with this: that what is good and what is commanded are not the very same thing. But consider: of whatever is commanded, it makes sense to ask "is that good?".

It's pretty naive to suppose, unargued, that the only form ethics can take is that of a series of commandments.

I wonder where such a view might originate.

I don't agree that it was faith that delivered us to our present sate of enlightenment; — Banno

How about just one good person, who believes in God, has faith, and is a rational, good, fun, functioning, contributing member of society? Ever met one of those? If you have, go figure, all that despite the plague of faith.

You sound to me like you have no idea what faith is. And no curiosity.

Curious that some folk have such difficulty with this: that what is good and what is commanded are not the very same thing. But consider: of whatever is commanded, it makes sense to ask "is that good?".

It's pretty naive to suppose, unargued, that the only form ethics can take is that of a series of commandments. — Banno

That is all off topic. Law speak is more akin to science. You need reason to sift through laws and commands, like reason navigates us through physical laws and necessities.

I thought we were talking about faith.

It's not at all clear what the argument or counterpoint here might be. if there is one.

There are good people of faith.

I haven't said otherwise.

I have argued that they are not good in virtue of or due to their faith, and that faith is capable of abomination.

You sound to me like you have no idea what faith is. And no curiosity. — Fire Ologist

So you are affronted, and feel the need to denigrate me, rather than to address the arguments presented. You are not obligated to reply to me, nor to read my posts. If it makes you uncomfortable, go do something else.