The meaning and significance of faith
In the following definitions of faith straight from Google, you'll see key words that I've developed an interest in. Those words are "optimism" and "hope"
Faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians"
Similar:
trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence, optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation
Opposite:
mistrust
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
I want to explore the meaning of faith and how it relates to optimism and hope. If you have thoughts on that or the meaning of faith, please jump in. But my first stop will be faith as it appears in Judeo-Christian traditions.
Faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians"
Similar:
trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence, optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation
Opposite:
mistrust
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
I want to explore the meaning of faith and how it relates to optimism and hope. If you have thoughts on that or the meaning of faith, please jump in. But my first stop will be faith as it appears in Judeo-Christian traditions.
Comments (202)
The basic idea is that you don't need hope unless you're afflicted in some way. Rich, happy people don't need faith. It's ailing people who will reach out with hope to be healed. Faith is simply the irrational belief that healing is possible.
So, for instance, if we apply this to global warming, the sickling is the person who wants change. To reach out with hope takes the faith that things can change.
How do you think they relate?
I dont think they do. Hope and optimism were part of 1, not 2 but you posted as though you thought hope and optimism were in 2 as well. So how did you get there?
I don't use the word 'faith' as it is too drenched in religious baggage. I generally regard faith as the excuse a person gives for believing in something despite a lack of evidence. As in Hebrews 11: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If one has evidence, one doesn't require faith. You can say, 'Well an atheist has faith that a plane they catch won't fall out of the sky.' The response: we can demonstrate the existence of a plane and we know that they almost always fly safely, so getting on one isn't a matter of faith, it is a reasonable confidence based on evidence that it will do its job.
Another issue with faith is that there isn't anything that can't be justified with an appeal to faith. I have amongst other clangers heard people say that homosexuality is wrong because faith tells them so and that South Africa's Apartheid system was 'right' and justifiable through faith.
Quoting DingoJones
You may be right. As I said, I'm exploring hope and optimism. The Judeo-Christian tradition just happens to be centered around oppression and overcoming, so it's worthwhile to look in that direction. My goal is to draw it out into my world, though.
I get that. I dont have that particular allergy. If I can learn something from religion, I won't let that sort of thing stand in my way.
It's a kind of faith, I think. Faith in myself, that I can learn anything I want without falling into a pit of superstition in the process.
But one of the things this thread immediately has me wondering about is the relationship between pessimism and atheism.
Why would there be a relation?
Sure, me too. Faith isn't one of those things, for the reasons I have listed.
Quoting Tate
That's something I hear atheists say all the time. Are you a pessimist?
I think you'll find that ostentatious optimism is pretty strong amongst members of cults and religions, but quite possibly if you scratch under the surface the doubts will become visible.
There are so many fields that the typical person just doesn't know and we often just have to default to the experts.
Wow, I check things.
You check everything? Do you have a full understanding of the big bang theory? Every news article you read? Are you sure the sources aren't lying? Maybe the pictures are fake.
Trump said he won the election. He lied. I check things.
Indeed. I always check.
You can't check everything. Are you sure the ingredients in dietary supplements are correct? Or do you just look at the labels and trust them? Do you understand cars completely or do you trust a mechanic?
I check stuff more than many people. I mean, there are still people who think Trump won.
I'm not sure what your point is here. How would you define philosophical optimism?
That's great, but the Trump thing is only one topic. We ingest food daily that apparently contains certain ingredients or substances that we just have to trust. Or are you going to double check how many calories are in your honey nut cheerios?
I'm not attacking you, it's just part of being human. We just don't have the time or energy to check everything.
Is this an unthinking faith? Is that what you mean?
I am very conscientious about my diet. My sister is a food scientist.
I would never eat that garbage.
No it's just reasonable. Unless you want to spend all your time double checking what materials are in your clothes or what exactly is going into your body. Do you double check all your nutrition labels? It's just faith. Our mental resources are limited. It would be insane to check everything.
Hopeless people tend to be misanthropic. Belief in God supports faith in people. It did for MLK Jr anyway.
:rofl:
You mean in order to live, you need faith?
I think in order to be a person in this world and actually act and do things as opposed to spending all your time "following up" or asking for evidence about everything you just kinda have to take a lot on faith.... like if I asked you what material your shirt is you'd presumably trust the tag right? But then you're taking that on faith/trust. You don't know.
Ok...therefore believing in God is rational. What is the conclusion?
Yes, and I would go even further. Our lives are a mess. All of us. I dont mean this to sound as bad as it does. What I mean is that whatever we have accomplished in our past, we wake up in the morning and have to start from scratch. Logic and information are a delicate house of cards resting on the foundation of a human psyche that struggles day to day with continually shifting moods , now of confidence, now of trepidation and doubt, now of terror , now of anxiety, now of loss. No kind of
packaged logic, proof or information will enable us to avoid these vicissitudes of mood. Each moment we are alive we put forward a faith, an expectation of some kind that the next moment will either reward or destroy. I arrange all my food containers at a slight angle on my shelves? Why do I do this? For the same reason I consider certain number combinations ‘good’ and others ‘bad’. It is a kind of faith, even in the absence of religious belief or overt superstition.
Jackson, I never mentioned God. I'm just saying that it's insane to imagine oneself as a purely rational being who must verify everything.... I'm saying faith is a necessary part of life just in the sense of action. No mention of God here.
Ok, I thought there was some point.
The point is that worldviews which seek to completely discount the role of faith and instead advocate for a dogmatic narrow-minded commitment to empiricism or using one's own reason to follow up on everything are bullshit.
Can you give an example?
You'll see rhetoric which discounts the role of faith all the time. I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today. There are tons of quotes which discount the role of faith. I just don't see where we're going with this. It's an epistemological matter. I'm sure I could dig up some quote from Dawkins or Penn Jillette or Ricky Gervais... it's a constant theme.
I thought you were not talking about God?
"Jackson, I never mentioned God."
I'm not explicitly talking about God. The new atheists may or may not be talking about God when they denigrate the role of faith. The topic of faith is a matter of epistemology; it doesn't necessarily relate to God.
Example: Trusting the bible (or any ancient text) on matters not involving God.
You are not talking about God and talking about God. Got it.
There is such a thing as faith in epistemology, a faith that the new atheists don’t recognize in themselves.
People are dismissive of faith because they see it as a meaningless placeholder term, with no real value except to avoid accountability for a belief in god that has no other defense.
Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith?
In cults people often radiate happiness as a consequence of 'knowing' that god's will is being fulfilled and that they are part of a system of transcendent meaning that will deliver a great destiny and reward. The world they know is exactly as it is meant to be, all has been provided for. I suppose my overarching point is that perhaps not all optimism is worth having.
We can talk about faith in God, or we can talk about faith in other matters such as biblical historical that does not involved God, e.g. the Babylonian exile or the Assyrian take over of Israel in antiquity. Neither of these events need God to explain them, but since they happened so long ago are we only to trust the bible? how much evidence is enough?
You just want to talk about religion. Count me out.
Quoting DingoJones
utility is the value. it's necessary unless you want to remain a very serious skeptic your entire life. you will have to make jumps if you want to believe e.g. that certain historical events happened or that the news you read is accurate.
thank you for the productive discussion.
Quoting Joshs
I see faith as a necessary part of epistemology. lets say we're trying to determine if a historical event happened in antiquity so we have no personal witnesses but we have the bible and a few tablets from ancient rulers indicating a conflict. is that enough to believe? when do you make that jump into belief that the event happened? when is enough?
The value of faith is value itself. Logic, empiricism and reason depend on a foundation of values, which are the essence of faith.
Let’s say there are plenty of personal witnesses and we’re talking about something all of us can observe at the same time. Is a kind of faith not also operative here ?
As I read it, the meaning of the quoted passage is the opposite of what you are saying, though: it says that faith itself is the evidence of :things unseen". As I've often said, I disagree with the idea that faith is belief despite the lack of evidence or even more strongly belief despite the evidence, because people have different ideas about what constitutes evidence. I doubt that anyone believes anything without thinking they have evidence to support that belief.
if we're talking about events in history all we have our records of witnesses. no one is still alive. we also have archaeology.
if we can observe it and there are plenty of witnesses then we could still doubt, but we'd be into some kind of cartesian doubt where we doubt our senses or our own perceptions. faith plays a role in either.
here
Good point, I forgot a word, I should have said without 'good' evidence.
Yes, but what constitutes "good" evidence is also a matter of opinion. In fact I would hazard to say that I doubt that anyone considers something evidence without simultaneously considering it to be good evidence (in kind at least if not in quantity).
No question they think this. But we have to make judgements, and I argue the 'faith' camp inhabits a dubious space and have provided my reasons. If people want to say that faith is a reliable pathway to truth and then use this faith to justify homophobia and racism and misogyny, we probably shouldn't accept that. The fact is everyone has their reasons for doing things. Some of those reasons seem to me to be less reliable than others. But I make no proclamations about absolute truth.
Im not talking about rational doubt , which Cartesian doubt is referring to, but pragmatic faith and doubt , which is a very different thing. The perceptual world we experience changes every moment. We use a kind of pragmatic perceptual faith to create and then recognize a certain constancy and stability within what is actually a turbulent flux. This works more or less , but we are also using the same sort of pragmatic faith to assume that our social world, our friends and acquaintances, will behavior in ways that are recognizably predictable and intelligible to us. This is a shakier proposition, which is why on a day to day basis we experience stress , anxiety and disappointment as our faith in others is confounded. This pragmatic anticipatory faith is different from truth-falsity factuality that you’re taking about, The latter is a narrow and artificially worked up practice, whereas the former is how we live most of our lives.
I don’t think this is true. Those are not leaps of faith, or faith based conclusions. Just because you trust the reliability of something doesnt mean you are taking it in faith. The opposite in fact is true, you have specific reasons for believing certain historical events happened or if the news is accurate. Not faith based at all, but based in the past reliability of historical research or news program.
Anyway, you said the value of faith is its utility. Its utility doesnt make it true or false, and when faith is given as a reason for belief it is a matter of whether its true or false not whether or not it is useful. Lies have utility too, but that doesnt mean they are true.
So I think you have made a false equivalence.
That doesnt really make sense. Its like saying “the reason for me walking to the store is reason itself”.
You gave a non-answer to my question.
You asked what is the value of faith. I believe that faith and value are inextricable. Faith in its most fundamental form is an expectation, a hope, an anticipation, a question which assumes a certain kind of answer, a space of possibilities to be realized. Faith can be rewarded or disappointed. When we value, we are also asking a question that expects a certain kind of answer. A value can be violated or confirmed. So faith is intrinsic to valuation. What is the value of having a particular faith? What is the value of having a particular value? These seem to be the same questions to me.
Yeah, I agree and understand. We can recognize patterns or common behaviors in our friends or social circle, but these are hardly immutable. I think of myself as multipartite and certainly changeable depending on age or influences so I always assume a bit of uncertainty even when talking with old friends and certainly acquaintances. I just try to remember that just because someone acts e.g. negatively it's not necessarily, and often isn't, a reflection of me. People are weird. There's actually a philosophy of friendship and I remember reading in undergrad an exegesis of Aristotle's idea of friends as "second selves."
We need to narrow down our discussion if we want it to be more fruitful: Do you wish to discuss faith in the context of believing whether a historical event occurred or reliability of a news story? These are separate and I don't want our discussion to get too convoluted.
In any case when it comes to history it's about what we consider good reasons/evidence to accept that an event happened. In other words whether you place faith in your sources.
Quoting DingoJones
I was talking about utility in the realm of praxeology, i.e. human action - it allows us to basically cut off our thinking at a certain point and invites action. I agree that utility has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false, nor should faith be a reason. I think another benefit to faith, if used correctly, is that it acknowledges our own very limited knowledge of this world.
You are using different meanings of “value” interchangeably. Im sorry but it makes it difficult to find a spot to engage with.
I didnt want to not respond to your opening paragraph here, but it seems like you move on from it anyway…
Quoting Moses
I disagree that reasons and evidence that an event happened are based on “faith” in your sources. Its a figure of speech to say you have faith in a source, but that way of using the word “faith” is not the same as having faith in the religious sense of the word.
Quoting Moses
Ok, so what is faith in the religious sense if its not a reason? Why when people are asked why they belief in god they say “faith”? I do not understand how faith isnt being offered as a reason in that common example.
You should question your sources because sources are human and humans are not unquestionable. For instance, lets take Sennacherib's assassination purportedly by his own sons in 681 BCE. We come to know this because of royal inscriptions and this is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (I guess word got around). Is it insane to think that a royal assassination may have been pinned on someone else? Wouldn't be the first time.
But no, generally we trust in these stone inscriptions written by his advisors and presume that this is honest. We also presume that we interpret correctly despite language changing.
I agree that there is a distinction between religious faith and e.g. historical faith although a common thread is that both involve a "jump."
Quoting DingoJones
Faith is not a reason. It is a jump. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that he does. I may be wrong.
Belief is simply holding some statement to be true.
Within that, we might differentiate the beliefs we hold to be true in virtue of their situation in our language games. So that the bishop always stays on the same coloured squares in chess is a consequence of the rules of chess, and hence cannot be doubted without throwing doubt on those rules.
Similarly, beliefs in certain other language structures cannot be doubted without throwing doubt on the fundaments of language use. Things like that 1+1=2, or that bachelors are unmarried males. Doubting these leads to inconsistency or incoherence.
There are other things that if doubted lead to inconsistency or incoherence, but not so much because of the structure of language as of our being embedded in the world. That you are now reading this post, for example. It is difficult to see how that might be doubted without also bringing into doubt fundamental aspects of the way the world is.
There are a range of things that we take as granted. That the floor will not give way under your feet when you stand up, that your fingers will obey your commands, and so on. We can on occasions be wrong about such things, but we are so confident in them that we take them as granted.
Doubting the things listed so far is a philosophical conceit. Something we do not do unless perhaps we are studying Descartes. Generally speaking we can reasonably be certain of the things mentioned so far.
Then there are things for which we might requirer evidence. the ubiquitous examples are what we call scientific facts, but there are far more commonplace instances. A common error, already seen in this thread, is for folk to think that all statements are of this type, usually with the excuse of being "scientific" or "rational", and a demand that others "justify" their beliefs. This is a error that can be cured by considering the wider number of examples mentioned in this post.
Such things are to be subject to doubt unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Then there are things which seem so extraordinary that common evidence is insufficient for us to believe in them. These are things that requirer a not just a repositioning of our beliefs but a great upheaval. Samples might included ghosts being accepted as evidence of life after death, or UFO reports being taken as evidence of extraterrestrial interest in the anuses of country hicks. There are things it is unreasonable not to doubt.
And in consideration of the OP, there are things which folk take as true regardless of the evidence involved. These are things that folk take to be certain even if there is evidence to the contrary, and even if that evidence is overwhelming. Conspiracy theorists provide ample examples. You've doubtless seen how folk will reinterpret or excuse evidence against Trump, or against a flat Earth, and so on.
Other examples are riff in religious communities. Transubstantiation is a clear example. Despite the direct evidence that the wine and bread remain unchanged, they are taken by the believer to have been altered in their very substance. No evidence is relevant here, but rather one must believe even if the all else is contrary to that belief. this is elevated to the highest virtue.
But this last leaves rationality behind.
Quoting Tate
I have no doubt that a persistent 'illusion of knowledge' (faith) projects an 'illusion of control' (optimism, hope) – in other words, the fetish of suspended disbelief exacerbates self-serving make believe.
I know what being deeply entrenched in pessimism means, so there's no shock value here (not that you meant that). I don't ail so as to need hope as a salve. For all practical purposes, I'm the rich man who, like Nietzsche, can revile pity because it only sustains the superfluous.
Just for a second, stop trying to teach and try something on. It starts with just letting go of pessimism for a second and realizing that you don't know. What comes into view are possibilities. Some of the possibilities for our species rock. Do you know what I mean?
In a way, you do. When Kierkegaard talks about having faith in your own acceptableness, think about the emotions that keep you from embracing that. Emotions are usually the thing that clouds your vision. An act of faith can involve putting those emotions to the side.
Ha. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard says Abraham had the hope that takes the form of madness.
Sometimes maybe madness is needed.
Carry on.
I can agree with that, Im a historical skeptic, further back the more skeptical I am. I am less skeptical when there is corroborated evidence to reinforce a historical fact. For example, the evidence that pyramids were built long ago is so strong ( “hey look, a pyramid!”) that it is foolish to think otherwise.
However, this level of evidence is still much much stronger than any case based on faith alone.
Quoting Moses
I don't think there is a real distinction between faith being a reason and a jump.
But ok, so your answer to “why do you believe in god?” Is NOT faith? What is it then?
Or madness takes a form of hope. I think the god depicted in that particular story is a deity who abuses its power.
Have you read Fear and Trembling?
No. I was referring to my take on the Abraham/Isaac story, not Kierkegaard's - fascinating though his probably is.
Well, it's faith + my reading and understanding of the bible. I've read the greeks. I've read other ancient literature. I can usually deduce where the writers get certain ideas, like when early Greek writers in antiquity talk about the four elements being water, earth, air, and fire (or something along those lines).... you get where they got that understanding. The greeks are good in some areas; interesting political insights, social insights, insights into the nature of man.
But the bible has moral wisdom that I cannot pinpoint the source of. I've read a lot of moral lit. I've read a lot of ancient lit. The bible is radical in that it preaches basically the opposite message of a lot of ancient literature and I just have no idea where these ideas came from. the bible humbles kings and boosts the oppressed. I don't know why anyone in antiquity would choose to boost the poor and diseased when it's more natural and widespread to think of them as low. the hebrew bible affirms the dignity of the disabled (exodus 4:10) in a way that virtually no one else does. disability studies are a major area for me and on this topic the bible gets an A+; the wisdom is beyond the current day. I could write more about this but the short answer is that if the book if fiction then it is the greatest work of fiction ever written and I have no idea where they came across this type of wisdom or ideas in the brutal environment that was antiquity. I know we can always pull sword quotes but look at what this book gets right and don't take it for granted. today we have the luxury of taking them for granted, but it is a luxury. I believe in god because I believe in the wisdom of the book.
Have you read any of what Nietzsche proposes concerning this ‘slave’ morality?
Quoting Tom Storm
A central characteristic of the psychology of cults is an intense need for a sense of belonging. This need finds its satisfaction in a delicately constructed and very vulnerable faith, so the happiness radiated by cult members comes at a great cost. It requires enormous energy keeping at bay all forces that might risk bursting the bubble of faith so tenuously held together by lock-step thinking. This means making the outside world the enemy. I got to know the members of three cults, the Moonies , Yogananda , and Kerista, based in Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, and saw first hand how this need manifested itself.
My post didn't express "pessimism".
Well it can’t be faith + your reading…it would have to be just your reading then right? Cuz faith isnt a reason…?
Quoting Moses
That is an argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because
You cannot pinpoint the source doesnt mean you get to insert the one you want. All that can be concluded from your lack of pinpointing is that you do not know. The source of that moral wisdom could be anything, why is the answer god? I dont think it makes sense to answer faith so what factor does faith actually play for you?
Children trust their parents, until they learn better. Or with luck, they do not learn much better because their parents are trustworthy.
Some people have faith in democracy or justice, or the creative potential of humanity. But to have faith in justice is by no means to believe that justice prevails. Indeed if justice did invariably prevail one would not talk about having faith or belief, but of knowing from experience. Rather, this faith is manifested in action, as the attempt to make this day this affair, this act, a just one. One does not steal because it would be unjust, and thus one is faithful to justice.
One is faithful to the principles of science if one reports honestly and fully the results of an experiment and does not cook the statistics or pretend to have taken precautions one has not taken. A faithless scientist is an abomination and not to be trusted.
The more one looks at the way the language is used, the more one sees that faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works.
I have but it's been around a decade. I remember the argument made quite an impression on me. I did a quick bit of research into Nietzsche's argument but after reading the OT I just don't buy his interpretation.
The OT is fundamentally life affirming, not self-abnegating. It encourages strength, not weakness, but there is no single-minded devotion to strength (that is wicked.) The OT tells us to be fruitful and multiply, and the book details the feats of great warriors and lionizes military strength at times. One gains strength through God. God will reward and strengthen those who follow his dictates. The OT encourages one to boost the poor, but being poor and weak is not a virtue, on the contrary, weakness is often a result of disobeying God according to the OT. Be humble, not weak.
yes yes yes
If we put this a bit differently and say that the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way others live, we might then have to deal with what separates me from we , or binds us all together. This is of course a very sticky wicket. The old fashioned ethical approach begins with such concepts as free will and the autonomous individual, and the assumption that the me and the we are separated by a clear divide such that it is necessary to start from the way I live rather than the way we live. In its most extreme form, Objectivism , the ‘we’ can go to hell if it stands in the way of the me. Utilitarianism tries to strike a balance between me and we.
More recent approaches , like Wittgensteinianism, phenomenology and postmodernism, assert that the we is already built into the me. From this vantage, evidence concerning how I live my life cannot be separated from evidence concerning how we live our lives. Self-interest is already an investment in the interests of others. Put differently, without an intimate understanding of the way the world of other people works, I will fail to live an ethical life, since that ethics depends on my insightful relations with others rather than empty rules.
I don't know, maybe God is an alien. Who the hell knows. I'm just throwing in with it. That's what I mean by faith. Some theists claim their belief in God is a pure product of rationality but I am not one of those. I'm not saying that my claims/reasons are purely rational hence I use faith. I know they don't make the cut in a philosophy forum and I believe the idea that the Judeo-Christian God can be reached rationally is folly. God transcends human rationality/reason by his very nature. All I know is that the book is insanely wise - wiser than Mill, Hume, Descartes, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, you name it.
Fair enough I suppose.
So how do you reckon the parts of the bible that are awful with the parts with this wisdom you claim it has?
We'd have to go case by case since there's so many. It's a brutal book but it's also hilarious at times. Some of the prophets liken God to a cuckold at times when Israel strays.
And your own "suspect" for this claim ... :roll:
Quoting unenlightened
Explain how "faith healing" in lieu of modern medical attention for a patient in extremis is "ethical"? :mask:
I just meaning general. Whatever wisdom the book provides it also Condones slavery and murder.:.are you just ignoring those parts or…?
These are two different issues but I'll start with murder. The short answer is I think its possible for societies to be so rotten that they're basically in need of a re-do. The men and women could theoretically all be very evil. We need to remember that death is not the end and ultimately trust in God's judgement for their souls. For all we know the children could be enjoying eternal bliss or reincarnated as a billionaire oil baron. Ultimately life is god's to give and take.
Certain societies could theoretically be so awful that death is warranted given God's commandment. We don't make these decisions on our own. Only if direct divine intervention instructs it.
So murder in the bible is justified because the people in the bible or those the bible identifies as murder worthy deserved to die?
What about gay men? The bible calls for them to be stoned to death.
Also, you mentioned “in theory”, but we dont need to theorise because the bible is specific. Im not asking you about theory but the actual instances of the murder described in the bible.
Let's talk about the amalekites which are the most hated group and the warrant for murder most clear. the amalekites are not a separate race, all we really know about them is that they're a tribe that preys on the weak and attacked Israel when they were refugees fleeing Egypt because they saw opportunity. Lets presume the society is rotten. It's not about me justifying it, it's ultimately trusting in God in this case that we can break the injunction against murder due to the gravity of that society's sins. I think there's something to be said about sparing future generations of that people the awfulness of their society. Evil society dehumanizes all involved. Imagine being brought up by a hateful nazi family in a society that was entirely like that. I mean we typically don't kill like that, but in this instance it's surprising and shocking but not necessarily evil if we trust in the essential goodness of God. Death is not the end.
The problem, as your know, is your system is based on presuppositions which many of us don't share and find no evidence for. You've got a lot of juicy morsels in this one statement:
1) that there is life after death; 2) that there is a god; 3) that god has some kind of role in post death assessment; 4) that there is a soul; 5) that god is good.
How have you determined that all these separate notions are true and then come together as you have described?
given all the brutal details and slaughters in the bible if we're going to make sense of it we need a few assumptions/presuppositions. it's all part of biblical theory and without them the bible is indefensible or doesn't make sense. my goal isn't to convince a non-believer of their truth in my above quote/discussion, it's to make sense of all the wild and brutal events of the bible through a biblical lens.
Its not branching off to homosexuality, homosexuality is just one specific reason the bible gives for the death penalty. I dont need to discuss the morality of being gay, its not a moral issue to me.
So staying on the topic of murder in the bible, is your position that killing gays as prescribed in the bible is wisdom or if it isnt wisdom then how do you reckon this awful part of the bible with this “wisdom” you purport it has?
in order for us to apply this commandment we need infrastructure i.e. a religious court system that would make the judgment. In ancient Israel this was known as a sanhedrin, and this system of courts was abolished in 300 CE. Religions change. No one is allowed to just carry out executions without due process.
Even if the case was brought to a sanhedrin in order to apply the death sentence there would need to be multiple witnesses and a lengthy judicial process. Sanhedrin rarely if ever actually sentenced people to death because the standards of proof were too high. It is said that a court which sentences one person to death every 7 years is a bloody one in.... I believe it's in the mishnah.
So despite this commandment no longer being applicable, especially not in a nation such as the US which prohibits the establishment of a religion through the first amendment, homosexuality is still considered a grave sin but it is one between the sinner and God.
Lastly, this only applies to the action between men, not the same sex attraction of course. I am not aware of any cases where a homosexual man or men were executed through a sanhedrin.
Is the bibles edict to kill people who are gay part of its wisdom?
Im not asking about whether the edict can be proved in a religious court, I AM asking whether the edict is part of the bibles “wisdom”…well Im asking more than that but lets just focus in and not get distracted, as you yourself suggested.
So is the edict to kill gay people part of the bibles wisdom? Is it wise to stone gay people to death?
no, this is not part of the wisdom. i believe the two clauses against homosexuality appear in leviticus which is more of a legal text that just lays out rules and commandments, but not how they are to be implemented as that is left to humans and their institutions. this is not part of the wisdom. in the OT the anti-gay part is basically two lines in leviticus. it is not a central theme of the text. if you're looking for wisdom read Ecclesiastes or proverbs.
I understand, I’m just choosing something specific so we have direct context for this discussion.
Ok, so if it isnt part of the wisdom then I wonder A) what is it then? And B) why is it in the bible?
I think we have to do A) first, but could be wrong.
a) it's a rule/law. a judgment issued from god, but not an absolute one. the bible is many things: history, poetry, philosophy, practical wisdom, legal concepts, dietary recommendations... maybe you can glean wisdom from it but the most straight-off description of the leviticus rulings are that they're just commandments or rules or judgments that are then subject to human implementation.
I think that is the answer to a different question. I was wondering how you demonstrated those 'facts' to yourself. How did you arrive at :
Quoting Moses
Which you did put in bold (presumably because you made a judgment that it was critical to the subject) and the use of 'we' here virtually implores us take notice. But perhaps - given what you have just written - it might have been more efficacious to have stated instead - 'My presuppositions are that....' rather than expressing it as a totalizing overview? Just a thought.
I am also unsure how what you say makes sense of the 'wild and brutal events of the Bible' and why a biblical lens is a necessary condition of understanding. Do you come from the worldview of Judaism?
Quoting Moses
This set me thinking about what is involved in adopting a "biblical lens".
If the bible is true, then that is what one ought to do. The bible becomes on of the Quoting Banno
Amongst the variations in certainty listed in my last post, there is the position in which someone takes specified beliefs to be no just indubitable, but infallible. There is a way of thinking in which the believer takes the position that certain of their beliefs are true even if everything else were to count against those beliefs. These beliefs are to be held despite of the evidence, and despite their consequences.
Belief here ceases to be a rational act in the face of evidence or convention, and becomes an act of assertion, the expression of the will to power, the command "This is how things are!"
What would we call such belief?
And what are its ethical implications?
Ok but then you are talking about a rule/law with no wisdom in it aren’t you?
Edited to add:
Also, you DID say it was a judgement from god. Isnt god wise?
The Bible. I am talking with Dingo here, who is for the sake of discussion willing to operate within a biblical framework. If you just want to doubt everything that's an entirely different discussion.
Quoting Tom Storm
because without a biblical lens there's no making sense of this book. even with a biblical lens when you grant assumption its is an immense challenge. you need to grant certain assumptions just like we'd grant assumptions to virtually any ethical theory or metaphysical belief.
This is philosophy; we grant assumptions. Doesn't mean the assumptions are true. A lot of it is a thought experiment. If we're talking about my own personal faith in God I've already noted earlier in this thread that I don't believe rationality gets one 100% of the way there and that I'm content to rely partially on faith. I have other reasons but these reasons are more personal and intuitive. I think it's perfectly valid to have a discussion within the context of "let's say we grant assumption A, B, and C..."
Quoting DingoJones
The most straight-off description of the laws in leviticus is that they are laws. they are laws from god. if you want to say that they were issued with divine wisdom then fine. I usually think of wisdom as more bigger picture than just e.g. a law, but this isn't a major point IMO. The Bible is undoubtedly against homosexuality, but the application of that is a different matter. I don't see why we're getting so hung up on this word 'wisdom.'
Typically when I think of wisdom I think of practical timeless advice, not commandments. But God does possess infinite wisdom according to the book.
I think you're getting a little carried away here. We grant assumptions/presuppositions to virtually every ethical system. It's unavoidable. For instance, many of the enlightenment era philosophers and onwards conceived of humans are essentially atomistic individuals/everyone as their own "unit of individual moral worth" but you absolutely cannot apply this lens to the Bible if you hope to put up the most adequate defense of the book. In the Bible one is part of a genealogical line. You also just don't have autonomy over your own body according to the Bible. Our bodies are on loan from God. You might not like this, I might not like this, doesn't matter - we need to grant the view.
That's all I'm trying to do - give the book its best defense. If I was making the case for utilitarianism or Kant I would be charitable to their assumptions.
I don't know. Possibly delusional.
Going back to faith as a movement toward healing (as laid out by the pope), reaching out for a solution (as @unenlightened said) is reflexive for a child. That same action is done as an adult in the face of unknowing.
Solutions to global warming are like the existence of God in that there is an evidentiary problem. There is no evidence that there is no God. There is no evidence that we can't address global warming.
Is a biblical lens possible? Surely there any number of potential lenses? There is only personal preference tied up in biblical interpretation. Desmond Tutu's Biblical 'lens' was at odds with Scott Morrison's. How do we determine which lens is any good? Does faith eventually become literary criticism?
I'm with you to some extent. But I thought philosophy was about testing assumptions and presuppositions. You say there is no way to make sense of the Bible without a biblical lens. I am not sure this can be demonstrated either and we have already explored the fraught nature of a 'biblical lens'. But I respect your work towards a combination of rationality and faith. Do you include the NT in your thinking?
It can be both. It's fine to question and it's fine to grant (granting is not necessarily conceding that something is 100% correct). Each discussion takes a different form. I just want to build up the strongest form of a position and I think these assumptions/beliefs are reasonable given they're biblically supported and actually often widely accepted.
Quoting Tom Storm
I think it's the same with any philosophical system. Utilitarianism and Kant and Aristotle all have their background assumptions/presuppositions that need to be accepted for discussion to proceed or for the strongest version of the philosophy to come to light. No point in knocking down straw men.
Quoting Tom Storm
I am not currently defending the NT. I actually haven't even read the NT, but I will likely tackle it soon. From a philosophical perspective its easier to make sense of only the OT as opposed to OT + NT. Less ground to cover.
All excellent question. But I'm the wrong one to ask. The fact of such diverse "biblical lenses" for me indicates the incoherence of the very idea. It looks like intellectual yoga - bending over backwards in an attempt to achieve enlightenment.
Quoting Tom Storm
Hence there is no way to make sense of the bible.
This is all true, but could it not also be said that some presuppositions have a better warrant for certain purposes than others?
Or being so elastic you can suck yourself off.
Here you hit on what underpins what makes faith distinct from other belief. For most purposes, a belief is a conclusion. The evidence or the convention supports the belief.
This is in contrast to beliefs that are not conclusions but what we might call commitment.
Those familiar with my other writings hereabouts will be aware of the use I make of direction of fit. This is the difference here. Some beliefs are adopted as a result of looking around the world and seeing how things are, what is the case. The direction of fit is such that our thoughts are made to fit the world
In contrast, there are beliefs that reverse this process, such that the world is made to fit the thought. Faith is of this sort.
It is your claims about the wisdom of the bible we are discussing is it not?
Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? But you said that stoning gays isnt wise so Im just observing that this is a contradiction, and to one of my original points you are left ignoring it or rectifying it with the wisdom of the bible.
Quoting Moses
I think that leads to contradiction, even through a biblical lense.
You could probably use the word that way.
Jim's faith in his ability to fly finally resulted in his death.
The Sierra Club's faith in the justice system paid off.
In cases like these the element of desire is apparent. Augustine longed to convert to Christianity for years before he did. This longing and his subsequent success at believing are mysterious to me. I almost want to say he was lying to himself, but I don’t know.
This usage isn't as interesting to me as the one mentioned earlier.
Quoting Tate
Understood. And yet it has implication for Quoting Tate
Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.
That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope.
That makes sense.
We could have that discussion. I've mentioned the books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs as two of my favorites that contain a lot of wisdom. I never said every sentence in the book is packed full of wisdom. If you're looking for wisdom you'll find a lot of it scattered throughout. Book of Daniel tells one to eat vegetables and water in 200 BCE as opposed to wine and fatty foods.
Quoting DingoJones
yes.
Quoting DingoJones
Commandments in that section of leviticus are not absolute in the sense that they must be followed under all circumstances and across all times. Commandments can be overridden.
I'm not sure where you're getting stoning. All I know was execution.
According to what authority?
Anyway, that doesnt excuse a contradiction so you have still to do.
Holding hands needs faith, yes?
there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law.
Quoting DingoJones
Why should the authority matter? This is a philosophy forum. Unless you're trying to get into theology. Then it would be the Talmud.
Are you having fun reading our discussion? Do you want to join in?
Thanks for the invite.
What I've been trying to say is that the two directions don't have to be in conflict. They can work together.
Engineering is an activity where the two work hand in hand.
If I believe in science, the direction is from thought to world, but I believe in science because the direction of fit of science itself is from world to thought. But that direction of fit of science is established by the moral commitment of the scientist to the truth about the world - that is, by their belief in science.
The circle is unbroken. But it only works the one way, one cannot have a moral commitment to falsehood or believe in anti-science, except as a partial game within the real commitment to truth. To be a scientist is to be dedicated to the moral cause of extending human knowledge. To falsify one's results is to betray science.
In science as in religion one [s]must[/s] ought to put aside personal desire in the name of principles of truth, justice, and - something else, I forget for the moment.
Let's not to conflate – confuse – "faith" (or "superstition") with pragmatic trust-ing (or pragmatic distrust-ing).
William Clifford is one of the leading examples.
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford#Ethics
The concept of such conflation can only exist for a non-religious person.
For a religious person, believing in God/having faith in God/trusting God is epistemically the same as believing/having faith/trusting that the ariplane one is about to board isn't going to crash.
What counts as insufficient evidence? By virtue of calling something insufficient you're already saying belief isn't justified. Who determines that. Who determines justified belief.
Poor William Clifford, the author of that pithy saying, worked himself to death, at the prophetic age of 33.
As for your questions, I'm with William James on this matter.
Yes. So?
Who or what is really offended here?
What is really at stake here?
Can you explicate?
Indeed, and I addressed this already and why its not a valid defence for your position.
Quoting Moses
You said commandments can be overridden…says you? What justification do you have for the claim that commandments (gods commandments no less!) can be overridden? By who? Where is this written?
We've now moved into theology i.e. religious reasoning.
Do you think it would make sense for someone to derive that they personally can just carry out e.g. the murder of homosexuals? That can't be how any religion works. Judaism advises against studying these books alone, and insists on group study/group justification.
Quoting DingoJones
all we can say is that god thought it wise to issue the rule.
Ok, thanks for the convo.
if god commands X that means you can maybe start the process but fulfilling the actual execution is a whole other issue. execution was extremely rare in sanhedrin. maybe once every 70 years.
people were executed for working on the sabbath, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that becomes law of the land.
*sigh*
I'm not babbling. Don't be so superficial.
I'm asking you to explicate why you think there's something wrong with some people believing that "snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed".
It's delusional to believe that patent falsehoods are true or factual. To wit:
[quote=Voltaire]Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.[/quote]
So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods?
They vote for President Trump because he is King Cyrus...
Quoting baker
What part of the following quote are you too trifling to understand or dispute?
[quote=Voltaire]Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.[/quote]
Well, even more than that. There's a difference between the written law and the actual law. The idea that the Torah (the written law) is the law is simply false, not just to liberal Jews, but to Orthodox Jews and to Fundamentalist Christians as well.
This idea that there are sizeable groups of religious folks who read the Torah (the 5 books of Moses) alone and use that as their sole guide for life simply have no idea how these religions work.
The oral law (the Talmud) and the thousands of years of rabbinical interpretation are as primary and authoritative as the Torah. You indicated that with your reference to the prohibition against the death penalty. A biblically authorized death penalty hasn't been carried out in over 2,000 years, yet thousands of death sentences have been carried out in the West in the past 200 years.
And this goes for Christians as well, who rely heavily on the New Testament and the traditions of their various denominations. That is, they don't just run out and try to emulate the biblical characters.
Just a rant about the constant anti-religious claims made here...
I'd prefer my bridges be supported by sound engineering principles as opposed to devout prayer.
Read Matthew today. NT is very different from OT. I believe Christians worship a false prophet. Lot more black and white thinking in NT. It's all about the afterlife. Jesus dishonors Jewish holidays for no reason, breaks simple rules like not eating bread on passover. There's two bad stories about him in the Talmud one where he engages in idolatry. The other is a gross sexual comment if I'm reading it correctly. He dishonors his family by treating them like everyone else. He tells his followers to be like children. He openly relies on his rhetorical skill and verbal cleverness to gain followers like a demagogue. He equates adultery with a man looking at a woman lustfully and in doing so debases the severity of adultery. It doesn't seem like his followers ever really question him. He says with enough faith one can move mountains. The OT doesn't bullshit you like that.
Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.
:mask: :up:
"'You can, because you ought'- this expression, which is supposed to mean a great deal, is implied in the notion of ought. For ought implies that one is superior to the limitation; in it the limit is sublated and the in itself of the ought is thus identical to itself, and is hence a 'can'. But conversely, it is equally correct that 'you cannot, just because you ought.' For in the ought, the limitation as limitation is equally itself asserted, and the concept of possibility has, in the limitation, a reality, a qualitative otherness opposed to it and the relation of each to the other is a contradiction, and thus a 'cannot', or rather an impossibility."
Paradox is necessary to reason and to find one's salvation one literally has to do the impossible. That's a secret to life, while in the materialistic paradigm there are no secrets to life
What do you mean?
(in the Christian context)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [ ... ] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." ~Hebrews 11:1,3
"Credo ut intelligam." ~Anselm of Canterbury
:pray: :eyes:
Quoting Gregory
"One's salvation" from what? And in what way, Gregory, is that task "impossible"?
Not too familiar with the fundamentalist Christians, but yes, in rabbinic Judaism law is defined as halakha is determined by the rabbis which draws from both the oral and written tradition.
Quoting Hanover
When we talk of authority we're into theology, not philosophy. I recently read Pirkei Avot and I loved it; plenty of wisdom in that text but I don't necessarily view it as all as authoritative even if I personally accept 95% of it but I do view it as very wise and reasonable. In my mind there is a difference between canon and commentary, and thankfully Judaism allows for multiple valid interpretations of an idea, but there are interpretations which are not valid and ones which may have been valid at one point but upon further review were rejected. I think is the process of religious reasoning/rationality at work.
Quoting Hanover
I have no idea how the Christians do it. There are so many different churches. Just a few days ago I heard one pastor calling for the execution of homosexuals. The Catholics have their Church to mediate but with the Protestants it's much more down to the community and their own interpretations.
The material is only a limited way of seeing reality. What we think of as material doesn't act as we usually think material does. You can literally move a mountain if you had "faith the size of a mustard seed". Infinite potential is like a seed within reality that gives our will its infinity. We experience life as limited but faith is a form of reason and with faith one can realize that anything is possible to us. There is no escaping death as a tiny piece of matter but accepting the paradox of will allows one a way out and if it takes moving a mountain so be it
First of all, it is very good that you brougt in definitions from standards sources at start of your topic. :up:
This is quite rare in here, and it is a big miss-take . I know well that some even hate dictionaries and encyclopedias!
Quoting Tate
Using the concept of "God" restricts this definition unnecessarily. Oxford LEXICO, defines it as follows: "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.", which is much better, but it still restricts this definition unnecessarily.
So, let's make it more general, that is, applicable to all kind of situations: "Strong belief in something, based on conviction rather than proof.". I think this covers most if not all the cases, religion included.
For example, a very common cases is "I have faith in you". It means I cannot be totally certain, I have no undeniable data, etc. supporting that you are going to do or succeed in something, yet I strongly believe that you will. (Sometimes, of course, we say this to people just to encourage them.) It is a very recognizable feeling and mental state.
So, this is my answer to your topic "The meaning and significance of faith".
Yet, there are a lot of different uses of the term faith and, depending on the context, "faith" acquires different meanings. Like in the case that follows.
If you want to talk specifically about the subject of faith "as it appears in Judeo-Christian traditions", then your 2nd definition is well applied. In this case I will add that Judaism and Christianity --as Islam, Hinduism, etc.-- are dogmatic religions. Hence the concept of dogma comes in, for which Oxford LEXICO offers the following definition: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Not perfect, but it gives the basic idea. Judeo-Christians believe in hundreds of "facts" and stories the truth of which has and can never be proven. E.g. The stories of the Creation of the world, Adam and Eve, etc., which are contained in the Book of Genesis, the "Ten Commandments", which God gave to people via Moses and so on. My personal understanding and explanation of all these cases, is that they have a symbolic meaning and value, rather than are besed on foundations and/or historical data. Dogmatic religions are built on traditional values --moral, economic and political-- of a nation or civilization.
(They are too far from my way of thinking and view of the world.)
Salvation is impossible because it's impossible for a consciousness to cease to exist. To cease to exist is equivalent to going to hell for a consciousness. Then consider that you must save yourself from death and the possible impossible comes into view
You envision a scenario where one believes X is wrong, but some authority tells him otherwise (perhaps a person or writing) and so he over-rules his belief and favors the authority, not from duress or fear of reprisal from his community, but from sincere reconsideration because he is faithful to that authority.
And you worry about this scenario because that person ignored all that counted against the authority and sided with the authority and then did something terrible.
This of course ignores the counter situation, where someone has plans to do something terrible, yet the authority steers him to the right path, causing the man to over-rule all that he considered as counting in favor of acting badly. This counter scenario might just be the more common occurrence, but be that as it may.
The question that is begged here is which authority do we honor? Do we honor our own conclusions and assume them correct and that be the authority, or do we rely upon some external authority and consider it?
Let's put this in the concrete with an example. Let us say that a co-worker of mine gets behind at work and he works on the sabbath. As we know, per Exodus 31:15, "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death." My personal thought is that this man should live, but I know the Bible is right, so I slaughter this man. So there's a good example of the conflict you envision: Authority A which guides modern society says it's wrong to kill my co-worker, but Authority B from our time honored past says I've got to kill him.
So much counts against his killing, but a good man (me) was turned evil due to this faith in authority problem you're talking about.
But here's the problem with your position. The problem with the killing had nothing to do with reliance upon authority. It had to do with relying upon the wrong authority. I obviously agree A was the right authority and the man's life should have been spared, but Authority A is an authority just as much as B.
It's just that A is a good authority and B is not.
What does Authority A consist of in our example? I suspect it might be reason, experience, logic, the sound of our parents ringing in our heads, social norms, and maybe all sorts of other things.
What does Authority B consist of in our example? The literal translation of the Bible.
And that again brings us full circle to what we always talk about, which I submit is your unrealistic, strawman position of what Authority B really is. When we look at the world, and we see all the power that is given to the Bible, and we read Exodus 31:15, yet we see that exactly zero people are being killed for disobeying the law of keeping the Sabbath. What this means is that Authority B likely contains much of Authority A as well, which explains why more often than not we get the same results.
Quoting Jackson
Probably the same "reason" you come here to talk about your :roll:
No. The situation is one in which someone believes something despite the evidence. Authority might, but need not, enter into the situation. Your introduction of authority is a misfire.
Those who do the infinite never become cadavers. Some fail and end up trapped in a dead body for eternity, never being free. You never are going to get this until you realize annihilation is hell. Annihilation as absolute philosophical nothing can't be conceived of. But people fool themselves
Of course.
But there comes a point at which the unity is broken. That point is seen in the extremes of belief despite the way things are, from the binding of Isaac through conspiracy theorists and suicide bombers to the conviction of a well regulated child militia storming a kindergarten, there is a point where belief overwhelms reality.
Hope is also belief overwhelming reality.
So here we have an odd commonality between an evil and a good. Both depend on faith.
Seems it follows that faith is not obviously a virtue.
Other things that are like that include tools and medicine. Every medicine is also a poison.
The pope's view was that faith is about healing.
In the OP you asked about "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". You were after the meaning of faith and how it relates to optimism and hope.
I've shown that complete trust or confidence in someone or something does not only lead to hope, but to other less palatable activities.
Absolutely. What's the secret to avoiding the bad outcomes?
For a start, not to think faith a virtue.
How would that help?
That leaves me non-plussed. Perhaps if you go over what we've discussed again, you will see the point.
I'm already aware that embracing a Utopian vision is dangerous. I thought you might have insight about that.
This is about global warming, not God.
Humility and love can be corrupted just as much as faith and hope. In fact it seems that all virtues can be turned to evil
Because that's what philosophy is for.
How?
You make for one shitty übermensch.
Come on, answer my question.
Quoting Hanover
Construction engineers who also happen to be religiously affiliated generally aren't known to forego the principles of sound engineering in favor of prayer. In contrast, you have more to worry about from an atheist capitalist engineer who tries to cut corners everywhere.
Religion is philosophy? Do you think art is engineering?
Love can be bad when you only love your country, humility can be bad when you have no self respect, kindness can be bad when severity is required, ect. They are not virtues at that point, but neither is faith still faith when you use it to blow up schools ect
Cartesian deus deceptor. :chin:
For dogmatists,
First pitfall: Agrippa
Second pitfall: Descartes' deus deceptor
No dogmatists escaped SIR!!
Whaddaya mean "What?"?
I laid it out for you in as much detail as I could muster.
The prime suspect = Deus deceptor
Quoting Jackson
Read again.
Philosophy is for talking about religion, among other things.
I never heard of that. Why do you believe philosophy is for talking about religion? Isn't religion for talking about religion?
For one, because many philosophers do just that: They use philosophy to talk about religion.
Why isn't religious talk about religion?
It is; but to religiously talk about religion can only take place in an actual religious setting (e.g. a church, the living room of a religious person, a religion forum), where the people involved actually are religious.
Typical for philosophical talk about religion is that those philosophers are typically religiously unaffiliated, and the discussion takes places in a non-religious setting.
This sounds like a worldly understanding of the matter.
And why is that wrong?
You mean because it does not align with your religious dogma?
Go back and reread the discussion. How does explaining things the way Gregory did help you in any way?
He explained it quite well. He was talking about how people express faith.
Quoting Gregory
If something can be turned to evil, then it's not a virtue to begin with.
No. Aristotle's Ethics is a long discourse on exactly how virtue is a mean between extremes.
I suppose those laws require interpretation and contextualization.
Quoting Hanover
In a way I agree with you. I understand that these laws need to be interpreted, contextualized and implemented.
If I were to challenge your view here I would ask "which interpretations?" Are only rabbis allowed to interpret? Why? IMHO just because a rabbi, even a famous one, has an interpretation or follows a certain midrash doesn't mean we need to. A midrash as far as I'm concerned is an old wive's tale. Ultimately, we only bind ourselves to the extent that we want.
A lot of the traditions we follow now like wearing a kippah or the exact way that certain holidays are conducted e.g. Passover or Shabbat are not in the Tanakh, but rather oral tradition. However Passover is mentioned in the Tanakh (Torah, I believe) so that has a solid scriptural basis but the exact way that Passover ought to be celebrated outside of Scripture is oral tradition and in my view not equivalent in force to the scriptural prescriptions. For instance - not eating bread = scriptural prescription, the four drinks of wine = oral tradition.
Historically, there have been sects that have rejected the oral tradition and held to the views I criticized, but they haven't been around for thousands of years. The Sadducees, for example believed in the Torah as the literal and sole source of authority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees
To take the position that the OT is the literal and sole source of truth runs you head first into the problem that the OT advocates stoning and other terrible acts. If you choose to creatively interpret those problematic verses, I question why you accept your own interpretation but not of the ancient rabbis.
What I really hear you saying, however, is something more innocuous, which is that you're troubled by the idea that much religious doctrine is obviously man-made, so you want to hold to the notion that the Torah, at the very least, is a reliable, untainted, authentic statement of God, unmitigated by the imprecise hand of man.
Can't help you there, though, because it's not.
[quote=Logician]Have a little faith, mon ami.[/quote]
[quote=Fideist]Be a little logical, mon chéri.[/quote]
I see reason extending a hand, but faith, no, it's pouting and in the corner, sulking!
1. You can't derive an 'ought' claim from an 'is' claim.
2. You can't derive a 'will be' claim from a 'has been' claim.
Some folks like to make much of 1. So much, sometimes as to deprive all 'ought' claims of any meaning.
But usually they make very little of 2. They simply claim that it is a matter of reason (and not faith at all),
to believe that the future will be like the past, often on the grounds that it always has been in the past, seemingly oblivious to the radical circularity of their "reasoning".
So I invite everyone to join my (and Hume's) irrational faith that things will be broadly as they have been and that we ought to be good.
The alternative is pretty dire, so I'll have faith.
To use your term, at least Sisyphus isn't thirsty then, with all those water boys catering to him.
In other words, with the above line of reasoning, you've joined the lines of secular humanists, existentialists, etc.
That is because reason cannot seem to abide its silent magnanimity, it is constantly nagging faith to go further and be rational.
:grin: Which party has lost its patience, is annoyed, and is fuming with rage? Theists (faith) or Atheists (reason)?
It is surely true that religious doctrine was written by man. The question is whether God exists and what is the range of feasible possible interpretations of his dictates.
Do you believe Moses existed? Jacob? King David? King Hezekiah? King Josiah? Tell me where you stop believing.
You're straw manning my position here on the Torah. I don't know what untainted means. Different authors? Certainly. Redactors? Certainly. What is tainted? There are contradictions in the Bible but on relatively non-important details and still adds up to a coherent narrative. In Philosophy a contradiction is damning but in narration its forgivable e.g. we'll never know whether it was the midianites or ishmaelites who brought Joseph down to Egypt but the result is the same.