When I think of faith, I don’t necessarily think of God or religion. — Fire Ologist
The point being love. — Fire Ologist
But praxis, “a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics” is, to me, completely off the topic of what is faith. — Fire Ologist
The point being love.
— Fire Ologist
What do you think that implies? — praxis
clearly religion is the quintessential exemplar and that makes it an excellent subject to focus on. — praxis
What do you think that implies? — praxis
So what I am saying above is, when I think of religious faith, I think of moms and dads loving their kids. The point being love.
Many on this thread, when they think of religious faith seem to think only of Abraham attempting murder, terroists bombing schools, etc. — Fire Ologist
6) Finally, why do Christians argue whether faith must have hope and love in order to cause salvation? Are not those three things always intertwined together? — Gregory
That hope and love are intertwined in faith indicates that its function has to do with human bonding rather than salvation. — praxis
Why should salvation require faith? — praxis
Are you at all familiar with Christian theology? Or the Reformation polemics? I'm not sure where your starting point is. — Leontiskos
Fundamentalists treat articles of faith as if they were empirical, evidence based facts, and that is where the trouble begins. If, instead, intellectual honesty prevailed and the faithful acknowledged that their faith is for them alone, between them and their God, so to speak, then they would not be arrogant enough to commit heinous acts purportedly in the name of God.
— Janus
Don’t you see how none of what you just said addresses what I asked?
All of what you just said contradicts “faith is neither good nor bad” because that all sounds bad. — Fire Ologist
There's a lot in this. An ideology is another example of a belief that is not to be subjected to scrutiny. — Banno
faith is not confined to religion. It is to be found in ideologues of all persuasions. — Janus
not about faith as such, but about faith not being acknowledged as such. — Janus
faith is not confined to religion. It is to be found in ideologues of all persuasions.
— Janus
Sounds like religion is bad. Like other ideological persuasions are bad.
Still sounds like a contradiction with “faith is neither good nor bad.” — Fire Ologist
thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad — Janus
thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad — Janus
people do not trust their leader then there will also be the danger that order will break down into chaos, or 'every man for himself"―and that would obviously not be a good strategy for survival — Janus
I agree whole-heartedly that the notion that one has grasped an Absolute Truth is extremely dangerous. It makes it impossible to acknowledge and tolerate any disagreement. I cannot think of a situation in which this might be a a Good Thing, but I can think of many in which it is clearly a Bad Thing. I do not confine this to religious contexts.If they acknowledged to themselves that what they believed was not the Absolute Truth but merely an expression of their own predilections, then they might understand that others need not share their beliefs. — Janus
I can't see that, in the context of philosophical discussion, there is any clear meaning attached to this slogan. I really don't know where to begin with it. It seems pretty clear, though, that faith is not simply evidence-based knowledge. If it were, there would be no particular philosophical interest in discussing it.faith is evidence based knowledge — Janus
I agree whole-heartedly that the notion that one has grasped an Absolute Truth is extremely dangerous. It makes it impossible to acknowledge and tolerate any disagreement. I cannot think of a situation in which this might be a a Good Thing, but I can think of many in which it is clearly a Bad Thing.
It depends how you interpret and apply them. More specifically, it depends you treat people who violate your principles. Ask yourself why the allies went to so much trouble to put Nazi leaders through an elaborate and difficult trial process, as opposed to shooting them out of hand or, possibly, sending them to their own gas chambers? Is it because there was any serious doubt about what they did?Are these extremely dangerous absolutes we should be open to reconsidering? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Very funny. What will you do if I give you the wrong answer?At any rate, what you're saying clearly can't be "Absolutely True," itself, right? :wink: — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is an interesting thing to say. I wonder how you think one should deal with this "complex question". Research?The fundamental mistake is to treat these questions - the existence of God, whether religion is a Force for Good - as straightforward empirical beliefs with straightforward empirical answers. I don't think that the question of the existence of God is an empirical belief in any ordinary sense. There's some room for philosophy there. Whether religion is a Force for Good does look like an empirical question. But it is a complex question requiring a good deal of analysis before any empirical data can be brought to bear on it. There's already a huge amount of research on this question. If there's space for philosophy there, It needs to take that work into account. — Ludwig V
Facts are supported by evidence, faith is not. By 'evidence' I man 'what the unbiased should accept'; that is what being reasonable means. — Janus
We all hold beliefs for which there can be no clear evidence. To do so is not irrational, but those beliefs are nonrational, not in the sense that no thoughts processes are involved, but in the sense that the thoughts are not grounded in evidence. — Janus
not in the sense that no thoughts processes are involved, but in the sense that the thoughts are not grounded in evidence. — Janus
Interesting question. I was thinking about the question whether religion is a force for good. My answer is that there are lots of other similar questions. But also lots of expertise and good and bad practice to learn from. One problem is that something may count as a good thing for believers but not for non-believers. Attracting larger congregations would be an example. Some other things might count as a good thing for one side and actually a bad thing for the other side. The multiplicity of critieria creastes another problem because any overall judgement must be complex and balanced. (It's hard enough with a good car or a good house, but this is a whole different level).When one researches something, one has to have an issue in mind. What is the issue regarding researching God? — Astrophel
Coming to a conclusion on the basis of non-conclusive evidence is a big part of our lives. Cases where we have conclusive evidence, I would say, are relatively rare. So there is nothing special here. Arguably, what makes Christianity special is prounouncements from believers like Tertullian, with his famous "I believe because it is incredible."An act of faith relies upon inferences and reasons that are defeasible and not undeniable (or indefeasible). — Leontiskos
Interesting question. I was thinking about the question whether religion is a force for good. My answer is that there are lots of other similar questions. But also lots of expertise and good and bad practice to learn from. One problem is that something may count as a good thing for believers but not for non-believers. Attracting larger congregations would be an example. Some other things might count as a good thing for one side and actually a bad thing for the other side. The multiplicity of critieria creastes another problem because any overall judgement must be complex and balanced. (It's hard enough with a good car or a good house, but this is a whole different level).
The really tricky problem is the idea of researching God. Of course, it is not hard to see what researching Zeus (or Rhea) would be. There are the stories, the accounts of the relevant practices and so forth. But it's a different thing when you come to God, (or Allah, etc.). A non-believer will follow the same methods as for the research off Zeus. But, for a non-believer, who is looking to develop a relationship with God that is at least akin to a relationship with another person, so it involves a whole different dimension - not merely knowing what the non-believer knows, but learning to take part in the practices - especially the liturgical practices - and taking part in them, not to mention various disciplines designed to train (or re-train) oneself for the new life.
Does that help? — Ludwig V
Surely, philosophy does require that the questions whether God exists or Religion is a Force of Good need to be suspended. I don't mean that actual scepticism is required. I understand that the Buddha said that the question of the existence of the gods is "undetermined". That seems to me the only possible basis for anything that might count as a philosophical discussion. — Ludwig V
faith is evidence based knowledge
— Janus
I can't see that, in the context of philosophical discussion, there is any clear meaning attached to this slogan. I really don't know where to begin with it. It seems pretty clear, though, that faith is not simply evidence-based knowledge. If it were, there would be no particular philosophical interest in discussing it. — Ludwig V
But most of what is thought about God is a lot of medieval drivel, so that much can be dismissed summarily. The question really is about, after the reduction, the move to reduce God to its defensible core ---minus the endless omni this and that, and Christendom, and the Halls of Valhalla, and so on--- what is it that cannot not be removed because it constitutes something real in the world that religions were responding to? The imagination has been busy through the millennia, and I don't think we want to take such things seriously, regardless of how seriously they are taken by so many. It is not a consensus that that we are looking for. It is an evidential ground for acceptance, and since God is not an empirical concept but a metaphysical one, one is going to have to look elsewhere than microscopes and telescopes.
Meister Eckhart prayed to God to be rid of God. I think it begins here, with a purifying of the question (that piety of thought) so one can be rid of the presuppositions of the familiar, the way when one "thinks" of God, one is already in possession assumptions that determine inquiry. It is, as with the Buddhists and the Hindus and Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopogite and other spiritualists and mystics, an apophatic method: delivering thought, well, from itself. then realizing you had all the questions wrong. Not the answers, but the questions.
And what is a question, but an openness to truth, and what is truth, but a revealing, a disclosure (not some logical function in the truth table of anglo american philosophy). The Greeks had it right with their term alethea. One has to withdraw from the clutter of implicit assumptions (Heidegger's gelassenheit. See his Conversation on a Country Path about Thinking) to ALLOW the world to be what it is so one can witness this. Otherwise, it is simply the same old tired pointless thinking, repeating itself. — Astrophel
Quite, but not just the questions, also posture, practice, direction, communion.It is, as with the Buddhists and the Hindus and Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopogite and other spiritualists and mystics, an apophatic method: delivering thought, well, from itself. then realizing you had all the questions wrong. Not the answers, but the questions.
I'm afraid I was not very clear here. My immediate point was that dialogue between believers and non-believers cannot take place, or cannot take place productively, if each side digs in to its own position and exchanges arguments in the way that has become traditional in modern times. It is (or at least it seems to me to be) a completely unproductive exercise. A more productive approach to park the question whether God exists or not, leaving a space in which, perhaps some clarity about what God is supposed to be (in Christianity or Judaism or Spinoza's thought). That opens up some prospect of mutual enlightenment. Conversion or not, it seems to me, will happen elsewhere.So, believing in the unseeable is believing in the indeterminable, which means the belief itself is without determinable content, which is really the same as saying that it is without conceptual content, but may have affective content, which is to say it is nothing other than feeling. So believing in the indeterminable is merely the feeling of believing. — Janus
I looked again and saw that you are right. I was careless and I'm sorry.If you look again at the context "faith is evidence based knowledge" you will see that I was not agreeing with that, but disagreeing with it. — Janus
The phrase "beliefs determined by faith" sounds as if faith is somethiing separate from belief, but surely what you mean is (roughly) "beliefs not determined by evidence"? I would agree that there is a spectrum there, from conclusive evidence through partial evidence. I think that beliefs based on authority are diffeerent in kind. In a sense, of course, authority can be regarded as a kind of evidence, but it is a rather different kind of evidence - being, as it were, evidence that the source is trustworthy. So beliefs based on authority require faith, in a rather weak sense. There are also beliefs that are not based on empirical evidence, but on, let us say, the meanings of the words in them, or the (logical) grammar of language. It doesn't seem to me quite right to say that these are based on faith. But religion doesn't quite fit in to any of these categories.I see beliefs determined by evidence and beliefs determined by faith (or feeling in other words) as being on a continuum, — Janus
Once one raises one's head from the rows about religion, faith turns up all over the place.There is faith in God, faith in redemption, faith in society and human interaction. Faith in oneself, faith in truth. Faith as a tool used in mysticism, or by the ascetic. — Punshhh
it, I think we should be thinking of faith as not merely a peculiarity of some people, but as about the foundations of whatever form life a human being pursues - however inchoate and unreflective.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I guess that, for a non-believer, a religion or ideology, can be regarded as about life-style and practice. However, there's a difference, I suppose, between a life-style and a way of life. It seems to me that a life-style is usually regarded as an option, not fundamental. But it seems clear to me that, for a believer, their religion or ideology, is fundamental, not just an option. It's the difference between choosing to wear certain kinds of clothes because of how they look, and perhaps, of the cultural messages they send and choosing to wear those same clothes because they are necessary for how one lives. (I'm not pretending this is a rigid distinction, but the difference is important.)This is very much about lifestyle and practice(service) — Punshhh
Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets. — Fire Ologist
I agree there is something there, yes. What is" the move to reduce God to its defensible core" all about, do you think? What defensible core? — Astrophel
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.