What is faith?

One useful word from the lexicon of religious studies is fideism which is generally interpreted to mean that knowledge must rely on faith. ‘I believe in order that I may understand’ is one frequently =-quoted aphorism.

However, I don’t believe that fideism is regarded as a sound basis for the spiritual life in many Christian denominations. Catholic theology is intricately reasoned, and Thomas Aquinas’ arguments all commence with a thorough ‘consideration of objections’. So as you say, it is to simplistic to say that Christianity depends merely or only on ‘accepting propositions for which there is no evidence’, although it is certainly depicted in those terms by many of its antagonists.

There was some interesting writing done on this question by religious studies scholar, Karen Armstrong, a few years back, in articles such as Metaphysical Mistake, which sees the emphasis on belief as a kind of ‘clinging to dogma’ as being very much part of the modern view of religion.

The extraordinary and eccentric emphasis on "belief" in Christianity today is an accident of history that has distorted our understanding of religious truth. We call religious people "believers", as though acceptance of a set of doctrines was their principal activity, and before undertaking the religious life many feel obliged to satisfy themselves about the metaphysical claims of the church, which cannot be proven rationally since they lie beyond the reach of empirical sense data.

Worth reading.

The other point that might be made - and it’s a very difficult one - is that there is a tension in Christianity itself between faith and the idea of a ‘higher knowledge’. This underlies the conflict betweeen mainstream Christian denominations and the various movements known as ‘gnostic’ in the early tradition. Gnosis means a kind of saving knowledge or insight, and is distinguished from belief. It doesn’t necessarily signify a conflict although in practice, there were major conflicts between the early gnostic movements and the mainstream (whom the Gnostics referred to pejoratively as ‘pistics’, after ‘pistis’ meaning belief.) In any case, the Gnostics lost out, and as history is written by the victors, the ‘doctrine of the pistics’ has become the standard. Which, I think, is reflected in that article above by Armstrong.

Reply to Wayfarer Thanks for your informative post. I think I'm talking aboit the universality of fideism - that faith is essential to all knowledge. Just thought of this...

Am I making a mistake by equating scientific faith and religious faith? The former is, well, proven through the actualizations of predictions about our world. Science makes predictions and tests them. True predictions support the theory and its methods (its axioms and rules). So, science is self-verifying, a quality that religious faith lacks. Perhaps religious folks can claim miracles as proof of their faith. What do you think?

Quoting TheMadFool

A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical.

No, Position A is completely rational. Where there is no evidence but you need nonetheless to take some action requiring knowledge you must simply believe something to be the case. Where that action is quite important to life (and evidence for the knowledge it required is unlikely to ever be forthcoming) then living with the decision you made becomes emotionally challenging. The more fervently you hold the belief you used to make that decision the less emotional distress you will be in. Since the evidence is unlikely to ever be forthcoming the disadvantage of this 'faith' (that you might miss out on the 'truth') is unlikely to ever arise. Thus you have, by your actions; taken the decision that needed to be taken, saved yourself considerable emotional distress, and lost nothing in the process. Sounds entirely rational to me.

Quoting TheMadFool

So, why single out religious faith for our criticism?

Because religious faith causes actual measurable harm and we do not need to suspend judgement about that, the evidence is there. We might not know whether there is a God, but we do know that abusing children causes them to suffer, so when Catholic priests abuse children we might, on the basis of the evidence, question their religion's ability to direct people to do good. We know that stoning hurts, so when the Bible or the Quoran advise it as a punishment for adultery we might justifiably question whether this is the sort of group we want to be associated with.

Think about your comment if applied to the Klu Klux Klan. We have no actual evidence, apart from faith, that black people aren't actually an inferior race put on earth by god to serve the whites, we can't disprove it in any conclusive way. So should cut the Klu Klux Klan a bit of slack, stop being so harsh on them?

Quoting Inter Alia

No, Position A is completely rational. Where there is no evidence but you need nonetheless to take some action requiring knowledge you must simply believe something to be the case.

This is an exception to the rule that all actions must be well-thought. As such I think it doesn't damage the rule: we must believe only on evidence.

Quoting Inter Alia

Because religious faith causes actual measurable harm

[I]Damage[/i] or benefit has no relation with truth. Fire is harmful and beneficial but its use or misuse has no effect on the truth that fire burns.

Anyway, my point is faith isn't irrational and I think you agree.

Quoting TheMadFool

This is an exception to the rule that all actions must be well-thought. As such I think it doesn't damage the rule: we must believe only on evidence.

I don't think it's an exception, based on your initial proposition, that faith underlies every belief, it's pretty much something required on a daily basis. We are constantly put into ethical dilemmas which require us to have some belief in a proposition about both the future and our moral duty towards it, neither of which have any evidence for them which cannot be questioned at some level. Just leaving your house to go to work - is it OK for you to be doing your job and not some more worthwhile enterprise, should you drive (with the associated pollution) or walk, if you walk should you give money to the beggar in the subway, how much should you give, is it OK to buy breakfast from the food stand, should you have gone organic, vegetarian, kosher... you've not even got to work yet and already you've had to make dozens of decisions none of which you have any evidence for which cannot be refuted by a clever enough philosopher.

Quoting TheMadFool

Damage or benefit has no relation with truth.

But that's not what you said. You said

Quoting TheMadFool

So, why single out religious faith for our criticism?

Nothing to do with truth, you were making the typical apologist presumption that because we can't disprove their beliefs we should go easy on religion. Attacks on religion are not limited to, nor even dominated by, the fact that their beliefs cannot be disproven. They are dominated by the fact that their beliefs are harmful. It's quite a simple metric - seeing as we cannot be sure of any beliefs, we should at least avoid the ones that we can see cause harm.

Religious language must get its meaning from extending that of ordinary speech. In ordinary language, 'faith' means "trust", as "to have faith in the American judicial system". The primary locution is "faith in". Somehow, religionists have focused instead on the locution "faith that", meaning believing that something is true, usually without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence. The original religious notion of faith was "faith in God", meaning to trust God. In this sense of faith, the existence of God is not in question; it is a given.

Quoting TheMadFool

After some very superficial study of philosophy and religion I had the feeling that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical.

It is very questionable what exactly "belief without evidence" means, and whether it is truly irrational. We must consider what it means for a belief to be justified. A belief may be justified through logical process, so if "evidence" means justifying the belief by means of the senses, then many beliefs are justified without evidence. Further, if something is told to us by a person who is believed to be an authority on the subject, then many people would agree that belief in what the person says is justified. But isn't believing what a person says, simply because that person is thought to be an authority on that subject, nothing more than having faith in that person?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But isn't believing what a person says, simply because that person is thought to be an authority on that subject, nothing more than having faith in that person?

It is.
Everything we have been taught, from every source (people, books, the internet, etc.), requires us to have faith in the source in order to accept it as truthful or accurate
And even if we have firsthand experience of something, we are still placing faith in our physical senses and our own brains/minds that they are giving us accurate information.
Descartes may have been wrong about a lot, but one thing he got right was that the only thing I can truly be certain of is that I exist. Everything else requires varying degrees of faith.

Quoting Mitchell

Somehow, religionists have focused instead on the locution "faith that", meaning believing that something is true, usually without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence. The original religious notion of faith was "faith in God", meaning to trust God. In this sense of faith, the existence of God is not in question; it is a given.

I think the notion of 'evidence' ought to be considered a bit more deeply (and here, I'm not speaking as a Christian apologist or church-goer.) But what would be considered evidence in this case?

It seems to me that much of the incredulity about 'God' is based simply on the notion that 'God' is said to be intangible and not knowable to the senses. And after all modern empiricism really amounts to a requirement for tangible or measurable evidence of whatever is supposed to be real. In other words, many sceptics will ridicule belief in God on the grounds that this is not something for which there is empirical or sensory evidence. But that is something that was always understood by the founders of the monotheistic faiths. Karen Armstrong, in her book Case for God, argues that the attitude of seeking 'evidence' arose from the tendency in the early modern period to present science as 'showing the handiwork of the Divine'. As science expanded, the purported role for the Divine correspondingly diminished.

But that attitude was mistaken from the outset. Armstrong points out that the unknowability of the Divine was always central to the great monotheistic faiths: '"He is not "good", "divine", "powerful" or "intelligent" in any way that we can understand. We could not even say that God "exists", because our concept of existence is too limited."

The problem, according to Armstrong, is that we don't properly grasp the relationship of logos and mythos.

Both were crucial and each had its particular sphere of competence. Logos ("reason; science") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to control our environment and function in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external realities. But logos could not assuage human grief or give people intimations that their lives had meaning. For that they turned to mythos, a precursor to psychology, which dealt with the more elusive aspects of human experience.

Stories of heroes descending to the underworld were not understood as factual in our sense, but taught people how to navigate the obscure regions of the psyche. In the same way, the purpose of a creation myth was therapeutic; before the modern period no sensible person ever thought it provided a literal account of the origins of life. A cosmology was recited at times of crisis or sickness, when people needed a symbolic influx of the creative energy that had brought something out of nothing. Thus the Genesis myth, a polemic against Babylonian religion, was balm to the bruised spirits of the Israelites who had been defeated and deported by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar during the sixth century BCE. Nobody was required to "believe"; like most peoples, the Israelites had a number of other mutually-exclusive creation stories and as late as the 16th century, Jews thought nothing of making up a new creation myth that bore no relation to Genesis but spoke more directly to their circumstances at that time.

Above all, myth was a programme of action. When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play. (You find the same in the Platonic dialogues, where many profound truths are suggested by way of allusion to myth.)

Religious truth is, therefore, a type of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to dive in the deep end and acquire the understanding by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or the Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.

Incidentally, CloserToTruth has just published a series of interviews with David Bentley Hart, philosophical theologian. Available here.

Quoting Wayfarer

It seems to me that much of the incredulity about 'God' is based simply on the notion that 'God' is said to be intangible and not knowable to the senses. And after all modern empiricism really amounts to a requirement for tangible or measurable evidence of whatever is supposed to be real. In other words, many sceptics will ridicule belief in God on the grounds that this is not something for which there is empirical or sensory evidence. But that is something that was always understood by the founders of the monotheistic faiths.

I think you've misrepresented the atheist argument, it doesn't focus on "this is not something for which there is empirical or sensory evidence" and then walk away, it argues that it is not something for which there is empirical or sensory evidence, and, that having empirical or sensory evidence for such a belief is a reasonable requirement to justify it on account of the potential (or actual) harm such a belief may do. It's basically no more than the application of the Hippocratic oath "do no harm" i.e. in the face of uncertainty, at least doing nothing will mean you have caused no harm. If we can't obtain any evidence to support the net benefit of religious practices, then don't engage in any.

The fact is that some faith is required at the foundation of any belief system, but that doesn't then mean all belief systems become equal. There are many other means to judge belief systems than the degree of evidence in their favour. Their simplicity, their utility, their net observable harm, the virtues of fellow believers, even their aesthetic beauty. None of these judgements are objective, but they shouldn't be dismissed as valid and many of them form an important part of the atheist argument. It not just about lack of evidence.

Quoting Inter Alia

The fact is that some faith is required at the foundation of any belief system, but that doesn't then mean all belief systems become equal.

Oh I certainly agree with that. I think 'evangelical atheism' has nothing much to recommend it. But I can't agree at all with the repeated claim about 'the harm religion does'. Whilst it is certainly true that at times religions have done great evils, they've been well and truly de-fanged in modern secular culture, which has plenty of its own evils to dispense. As Terry Eagleton said, swap you chemical warfare for the Inquisition any day of the week,

Actually I think a lot of what motivates atheist polemics is what Thomas Nagel described well in his essay, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, to whit:

IN SPEAKING OF THE FEAR OF RELIGION, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring tothe association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evidentempirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper, namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and,naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heavea great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning,and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena,generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed.

As to how to adjudicate whether religion is overall a boon or a curse, I would say - forget about it. As Thomas Paine said, you can't reason a man out of something he hasn't been reasoned into, and religions have immense emotional appeal, as attested by their explosive growth in many of the developing nations. The atheist dream of a purely scientific-secular culture is ever doomed to remain just that.

Quoting Wayfarer

Whilst it is certainly true that at times religions have done great evils, they've been well and truly de-fanged in modern secular culture,

You've missed the point of the harms religions have done. It's not to say "do not be religious because they are burning people at the stake" it's to say "do not be religious because they have burned people at the stake and this reveals something unsavoury about being religious, something potentially harmful". It's like encouraging the breeding of Pit Bull Terriers and saying it's OK because they're all muzzled nowadays, why would you even want to breed them in the first place?

Modern secular culture may well have plenty of evils, but none of them are demonstrably the result of secularism. The inquisition was demonstrably the result of a fanatical devotion to the Catholic religion. The covering up of child abuse was definitely the consequence of unquestioned faith in the church. "Swap you chemical warfare for the Inquisition any day of the week" is a ridiculous argument, chemical weapons are not caused by secularism, the inquisition was caused by Catholicism.

I don't entirely disagree with Nagel's suspicion that there is a great deal of fear of cosmic authority, but there's a great deal of fear motivating the religious, I don't see how that helps us assess the value of either position.

Being honourable in a battle is not about choosing which side is most likely to win, it's about choosing the one that's right.

Oh and I'm sorry if I sound a bit "hysterical" about child abuse, I guess I'm just funny like that, we all have our little quirks, mine just happens to be a personal dislike for regularly beating and abusing children in the name of one's religious authority and then having everyone else in one's religion keep quiet about it. I shall try to calm down about such trivialities in future.

Quoting Inter Alia

you've not even got to work yet and already you've had to make dozens of decisions none of which you have any evidence for which cannot be refuted by a clever enough philosopher.

That, my friend, is a point in my favor. [I]Faith[/i] is, well, ommipresent. So, why point fingers at one particular variety (religious) of faith? I'll follow up on this below...

Quoting Inter Alia

They are dominated by the fact that their beliefs are harmful.

Following your reasoning - we do most things on faith - how do we know religion is harmful? Is it an open and shut case as you suggest? Also religion is a complex mixture of things. Surely, we're intelligent enough to know the difference, separate the wheat from the chaff, and may be we'll see religion has a thing or two in its favor.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover May be I'm talking about myself here. I was under the ''misconception'' that faith is irrational and, therefore, bad. Now I feel that faith is inescapable in all spheres of experience. We must have faith in our senses, in our instruments, even reason itself, which is opposed to faith as I defined it, must be taken on faith.

Of course I see that reason supports itself quite well through the process of predictions. If reason were wrong or baseless then we wouldn't have been able to ''understand'' our world as much as we have. This form of self-supporting mechanism is absent in religious faith. At best the faithful have missed every opportunity of vindicating their beliefs or, at worst, religion is utterly bogus.

Quoting TheMadFool

So, why point fingers at one particular variety (religious) of faith?

Because religions are entire world-views that cannot simply be picked at whilst still claiming to be religious. I cannot say I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but not because he was the son of god, and then claim to be a sort of Christian, I'm not a Christian unless I believe that Jesus is the son of god, that his words are the words of god and that following them is a requirement, it's not a pick-and-mix. You cannot take the good things of religion and ignore the bad. One way or another religion has 'caused' all these things, they must be taken as a whole or not at all.

So the relevant question is, do the net benefits of joining, and thereby strengthening and condoning this community outweigh the harms?

But the problem with this approach is how are you going to judge? If you can see what is 'wheat' and what is 'chaff', as you put it, then what is religion actually offering you? You clearly already have sufficient knowledge of good and bad to carry out this filtering, so what's religion going to offer you at the end of the process?

In order that you obtain some world-view, some insight that you do not already possess (or possess the means to obtain for yourself by application of your own thought), you must simply trust someone else to know better than you. Honestly, can you look at the history of religions and say that they have proven themselves trustworthy institutions?

Reply to Inter AliaI guess to judge religion the way you have one would have to be a moral consequentialist - you think religion has had harmful consequences.

The flaw that I see in this is that its a static point of view. In addition to some folks taking exception to your evaluation of religion being harmful one would also need to stop the examination of consequences at 2017 so to speak. Life is dynamic, change is an undeniable fact, and, to me, in very simple terms, things haven't reached a conclusion yet. What about 2018? What about a decade or century later? Religion might just prove itself good don't you think?

Reply to TheMadFool

No, I'm a virtue ethicist, for exactly the reason you've just given, long-term consequences are too difficult to work out with any hope of accuracy. I just look a religions (as institutions, not individuals) and see that they do not display the virtues I believe we all know are good. I've not yet had anyone argue that the priests were right to abuse those children, or torture people during the inquisition, not one single person. How come? Because we all knew it was wrong anyway, We all know what right and wrong are, it's working out how to get there that's difficult, but abusing children? Is that really likely to be the sort of virtue we want to adopt?

Quoting Inter Alia

Because religions are entire world-views that cannot simply be picked at whilst still claiming to be religious. I cannot say I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but not because he was the son of god, and then claim to be a sort of Christian, I'm not a Christian unless I believe that Jesus is the son of god, that his words are the words of god and that following them is a requirement, it's not a pick-and-mix. You cannot take the good things of religion and ignore the bad. One way or another religion has 'caused' all these things, they must be taken as a whole or not at all.

First off, the vast majority of religious people do "take the good things and ignore the bad". In 2010 there were 5.8 billion religious people in the world, 84% of the total human population. How many of them are murdering infidels? How many of them are stoning people to death for breaking Biblical laws?

Blaming religion for atrocities committed by humanity is short-sighted. Some people are just more prone to violence and hatred, whether it be due to mental illness or simply because of their biology. We don't understand much about what makes people do bad things, but it's safe to say that religion isn't responsible.

For the record, I'm not religious and this isn't a defense of religion. There are disgusting things in most religions, but it's very clear that if religion truly caused people to do bad things, there would be a lot more people doing bad things than there actually are.

I just realized this is essentially the same as the gun control issue. Blaming the tool a person uses to do bad things isn't rational. Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people.

Quoting Inter Alia

Modern secular culture may well have plenty of evils, but none of them are demonstrably the result of secularism.

Not true; all ideologies come with their share of evils. Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Liberal Democratism, or whatever; people do evil things in the names of all of them.

Quoting Janus

Not true; all ideologies come with their share of evils. Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Liberal Democratism, or whatever; people do evil things in the names of all of them.

I think that the problem is that some people cannot distinguish between religious beliefs and actions of certain groups, and political beliefs and actions. Quite often the Catholic Church, for example, isn't just involved in religion, but also in politics - and the two aren't the same.

Reply to Agustino

True!

Quoting Inter Alia

I've not yet had anyone argue that the priests were right to abuse those children, or torture people during the inquisition, not one single person.

Others have responded this but a few things I want to say...

It's true that religion has many bad directives and examples. We can't deny that. Violence, for instance, is part of many religions but I sense that religious violence isn't an end/goal but that it is used only as a means. War, paradoxically, can achieve peace. About homophobia and human sacrifice or slavery I see no redeeming qualities.

Also, religion is good for it teaches love but people aren't perfect. Everybody has a flaw and the points you make about child abuse, terrorism, stoning, etc. should be attributed to human failings than religion itself.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

First off, the vast majority of religious people do "take the good things and ignore the bad". In 2010 there were 5.8 billion religious people in the world, 84% of the total human population. How many of them are murdering infidels? How many of them are stoning people to death for breaking Biblical laws?

Well they're not religious then are they? that's what the instructions in the bible specifically say and they specifically say the they are the word of god and must be obeyed. What people say the are is irrelevant to this argument. Most people say they are above average drivers but we know this is not mathematically possible, more heterosexual men say they've committed adultery than women but this is not technically possible.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

Blaming religion for atrocities committed by humanity is short-sighted. Some people are just more prone to violence and hatred, whether it be due to mental illness or simply because of their biology. We don't understand much about what makes people do bad things, but it's safe to say that religion isn't responsible.

Are you seriously suggesting that where a direct link is found between an ideology and some aberrant behaviour we should do nothing about it?

Quoting JustSomeGuy

I just realized this is essentially the same as the gun control issue.

Blaming the tool a person uses to do bad things isn't rational. Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people.

Oh god, you are! 130/yr per capita equivalent gun murders in the UK (with gun control) vs 11,004 in the US (without gun control). As Eddie Izzard says "I think the gun helps"

Quoting Janus

Not true; all ideologies come with their share of evils. Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Liberal Democratism, or whatever; people do evil things in the names of all of them.

What evils have been associated with Jainism then? The Hare Krishna movement? Stoicism, Epicurianism? It's nonsense to say that all ideologies have a share of evils. In fact it's pretty much limited to the ones that lend themselves to idolatry, which encourages the word of their leaders to be taken without question. I haven't mentioned the evils of Nazism because I thought that's basically been covered, can't remember where...oh yes, the second world war.

You've just done the same as everyone else in response to my use of religious atrocities in this argument, ignore the actual context in which they were mentioned and simply leapt to the defence of religion.

At no point did I say "religion is all bad and no secular ideology would do anything bad" so why do you feel the need to point out the obvious? The question was;

Quoting TheMadFool

So, why point fingers at one particular variety (religious) of faith?

The answer (in my opinion) is that religious faith, by it's doctrine of submitting to authority, has allowed (I never claimed they directly caused) some terrible atrocities to take place. Atheism, the disbelief in god, has not directly caused or allowed similar atrocities to take place. Ideologies which happen to be atheist have committed atrocities, but nothing about the atheism has caused them.

My argument is that the blind submission to authority allows atrocities to take place because people can suspend their natural tendency to avoid committing immoral acts, by absolving their judgement to others. Religion actually requires that you do this, atheism does not require it, that makes the two morally distinct. The fact that some atheists nonetheless choose to give over their moral judgement to others would only be relevant if I were making the argument that atheism automatically makes you a 'good' person, which am not.

Quoting TheMadFool

Also, religion is good for it teaches love

Religion doesn't 'teach' love, we've been loving each other perfectly well for the last few million years since oxytocin evolved to do the job.

Quoting TheMadFool

the points you make about child abuse, terrorism, stoning, etc. should be attributed to human failings than religion itself.

This would seem to suggest that we take no steps at all to eradicate those things which are linked to crimes. Racist propaganda doesn't actually cause attacks against minorities, it just human failings so perhaps we should go easy on that. How would you feel about a Nazi coming in to speak to children at a primary school, after all it wouldn't be Nazism itself that caused any resulting atrocities, but human failings. In fact why bother having any laws at all, gun control, restrictions on the sale of alcohol and dangerous drugs, after all these things are not directly responsible for the resultant harms, it's human failings.

Quoting Inter Alia

Well they're not religious then are they?

You're getting into "No true Scottsman" territory by claiming that. The definition of "religious" is simply "believing in a religion". You can believe in a set of tenets and not follow all of them--or any of them, really. Many people "believe in" donating to charity, but don't do it themselves.

Quoting Inter Alia

Most people say they are above average drivers but we know this is not mathematically possible, more heterosexual men say they've committed adultery than women but this is not technically possible.

Alright, now use that same reasoning on what we're discussing. Does it work? Is there a technical/mathematical contradiction in the case of people claiming to be religious vs. actually being religious? Of course not. Your examples are irrelevant because they are of a completely different kind than the issue at hand.

Quoting Inter Alia

Are you seriously suggesting that where a direct link is found between an ideology and some aberrant behaviour we should do nothing about it?

What is this direct link that has been found? Has there been a scientific breakthrough I missed that has proven a causation between religion and aberrant behavior? You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but don't act as though we have any sort of proven causal relationship between religion and people doing "bad" things.

Quoting Inter Alia

Oh god, you are! 130/yr per capita equivalent gun murders in the UK (with gun control) vs 11,004 in the US (without gun control). As Eddie Izzard says "I think the gun helps"

How do you not see the dishonesty in making that argument? You're saying there are more gun murders in a place that had more guns. Well, obviously yes. How can you murder someone with a gun if you don't have a gun? It makes sense that you feel this way, though, based on what you're saying now about religion. You are one of many people who conflate correlation with causation, without putting any actual thought or reasoning into it.

Quoting Inter Alia

What evils have been associated with Jainism then? The Hare Krishna movement? Stoicism, Epicurianism?

The first two are not widespread enough to cause significant evil, and in any case are not ideologies, but spiritual and/ or ethical practices, as are both Stoicism and Epicureanism. An ideology, as I define it and under which category I would include religious fundamentalisms, is an aggressive, repressive, and oppressive system of prescription and proscription. An ideology say how things are and what you must believe or be punished, It is when religions become ideological in this sense that they bring about significant evils; but the main point was that there are secular ideologies that operate in just the same kinds of ways.

Reply to Inter Alia

A few more comments on the topic of guns which further demonstrate the point I was making in regards to religion:
It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime. The only crime-related statistic that correlates with guns is how many violent crimes end in death.
While you can use this as an argument for gun control if you wish, it is more evidence of my point that guns aren't making anybody commit violent acts--they only enhance violent acts which would be committed regardless. If you want to try to relate this to religion, attempting to claim that religion makes bad people do more bad than they would without it, I don't see how that could work. Mainly because what you're actually claiming religion "causes" isn't even clearly-defined, at this point, but also because that seems like it would be near impossible to measure.
A final comment in regards to guns: two-thirds of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide. This is something people often don't know or take into account, and funnily enough is probably a good analogy for religion--it does more harm to the individual who uses it than it does to others.

Quoting TheMadFool

After some very superficial study of philosophy and religion I had the feeling that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence. Position A is, from all angles, completely irrational and so, clearly, anti-philosophical.

How can anybody believe anything without evidence?

Whether such faith is rational or irrational is a moot point if it does not exist.

Can a belief even be formed without evidence?

Saying that it is about trust rather than belief doesn't change anything. One has to believe that someone or something can be trusted.

Beliefs come and go. Who knows what we will believe tomorrow.

Faith is deeper than that. It is not swayed by evidence or lack of evidence. It is the foundation upon which everything else is built.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

You're getting into "No true Scottsman" territory by claiming that. The definition of "religious" is simply "believing in a religion". You can believe in a set of tenets and not follow all of them--or any of them, really.

So say, I set up a cult which had a s its central tenets, opposition to slavery, the sanctity of free speech and the fact that the earth was hit by a meteorite 65 million years ago. You happen to believe in all those things too, are you now a member of my cult? No, of course you're not, your independently arrived at opinions of metaphysics, ethics, and earth history just happen to coincide with my. What would make you a part of my cult would be if you absolved yourself of personal judgement and adopted the tenets of my institution on faith.

This is the problem with religion that separates it from atheism. (note I'm talking about religion, not theism). Both require a faith, but one continues to allow independent judgement on other aspects of metaphysics, world history and crucially ethics. Religion does not, it encourages its followers to set aside their personal opinions to have faith in the religious authorities. That's how priests get away with abusing children such as recently with Cardinal Law's diocese, or here in England where we have recently heard of the Catholic orphanage which had three time the national average child mortality rate for nearly a hundred years and no-one stopped them. I thought I was in some war-torn state when I read the actual wording of the press release "the nuns declined to comment on how many bodies were in the mass grave". Are you seriously telling me that an institution which buries the children they've beaten to death in mass graves deserves one shred of respect? I don't care how many Catholics do good work for charity, if there's even a minuscule chance that something about their religion allowed or encouraged them to do this it should be banned immediately.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but don't act as though we have any sort of proven causal relationship between religion and people doing "bad" things.

I can't believe you're being so heartless about this, this is absolutely proven mass child abuse we're talking about and you're suggesting we wait until we have absolutely conclusive proof that the structure of religion helps abusers get away with it before we act. Why?
I can't paste links to all the references, but below is a summary of several meta-analyses highlighting the specific doctrines of religious institutions which allow child abuse to take place.

The absence of women in key leadership positions with any authority (absence of gender appropriate role models and support) (Higgins, 2001; Morrison, 2005).
Patriarchal and authoritarian beliefs about the family (creating an environment in which victims are less likely to question the authority of their abuser, see Finkelhor, 1979; Higgins & McCabe, 1994).
Doctrines about sin (an emphasis on 'personal sin' to the exclusion of issues of social justice can easily lead to victim-blaming).
Teachings regarding repentance and forgiveness (may lead premature attempts to seek forgiveness from the victim or to holding victims partially responsible for their own abuse, see Parkinson, 2003).
The role of civil authorities (teachings against the use of court proceedings, based on biblical passages referring to civil suits can lead to confusion about the appropriateness of reporting abuse).
Reverencing of church leaders (e.g., priests being viewed as 'indelibly marked') can lead to a reluctance for (i) victims to be able to speak about abuse at the hands of clergy; (ii) members of the church to question the actions church leaders take in dealing with situations of abuse within the church.

It's not just religion, the same is true of institutional schools like boarding schools and many other organisations. The rate of offence in religious schools is no different to that in ordinary institutional schools, but no-one is suggesting a belief in boarding school brings about inner peace.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime.

1. Where? and 2. I never claimed that religion causes people to want to carry out these atrocities, it is sufficient that it allows it. If you made any attempt to actually follow the argument rather than just supply a set of clichés vaguely on the same topic. The point is the guns help, without guns you cannot shot someone, so why not ban guns? Without the religious authority structures (and other authoritarian structures) child abusers would be less able to get away with it, so why encourage them?

Quoting Janus

An ideology, as I define it and under which category I would include religious fundamentalisms, is an aggressive, repressive, and oppressive system of prescription and proscription. An ideology say how things are and what you must believe or be punished,

So which of the major religions don't have a set of instructions which you must follow otherwise you'll be punished? I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure the basic principle is you believe in the religious version of events, do the stuff it tells you or you burn in hell/come back as an ant or whatever. Maybe I'm missing the religion that says "these are just suggestions, do whatever you think best and God will be just fine with that"

Reply to Inter Alia

I don't even know where to begin. It honestly amazes me that you're on a philosophy forum. You seem to have no interest in reason or logic, and instead rely on personal feelings and appeals to emotion.

Quoting Inter Alia

So say, I set up a cult which had a s its central tenets, opposition to slavery, the sanctity of free speech and the fact that the earth was hit by a meteorite 65 million years ago. You happen to believe in all those things too, are you now a member of my cult? No, of course you're not, your independently arrived at opinions of metaphysics, ethics, and earth history just happen to coincide with my.

Okay....

Quoting Inter Alia

What would make you a part of my cult would be if you absolved yourself of personal judgement and adopted the tenets of my institution on faith.

Well the main issue with what you're saying here is that religions and cults are not the same thing. The fact that you think they're equivalent is one example of your reliance on personal feelings and emotion rather than reason. But even replacing this example with religion instead of a cult, your conclusion is still wrong. What makes a person a member of a religion is if they identify themselves as a member of that religion. Nothing more. Religion doesn't require you to absolve yourself of personal judgement. In fact religion requires absolutely nothing of you except belief.

Quoting Inter Alia

Both require a faith, but one continues to allow independent judgement on other aspects of metaphysics, world history and crucially ethics.

This is simply untrue. You have an extremely biased, narrow view of religion.

Quoting Inter Alia

That's how priests get away with abusing children such as recently with Cardinal Law's diocese, or here in England where we have recently heard of the Catholic orphanage which had three time the national average child mortality rate for nearly a hundred years and no-one stopped them. I thought I was in some war-torn state when I read the actual wording of the press release "the nuns declined to comment on how many bodies were in the mass grave". Are you seriously telling me that an institution which buries the children they've beaten to death in mass graves deserves one shred of respect? I don't care how many Catholics do good work for charity, if there's even a minuscule chance that something about their religion allowed or encouraged them to do this it should be banned immediately.

There's some of that appeal to emotion I mentioned. This has no relevance to the conversation at hand. You're talking about an institution, not religion. Religion isn't responsible for the molestation and death of those children, the institution of the Catholic Church is. How prevalent is this sort of thing in Judaism? Or other branches of Christianity, for that matter? Where is the epidemic of Protestant molestation victims?

Quoting Inter Alia

I can't believe you're being so heartless about this, this is absolutely proven mass child abuse we're talking about and you're suggesting we wait until we have absolutely conclusive proof that the structure of religion helps abusers get away with it before we act. Why?

More appealing to emotion, and more conflating religion as a whole with a specific institution.

Quoting Inter Alia

It's not just religion, the same is true of institutional schools like boarding schools and many other organisations. The rate of offence in religious schools is no different to that in ordinary institutional schools

You literally just debunked your own argument. Thanks for saving me the trouble, I guess.

Quoting Inter Alia

1. Where?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/136447

Quoting Inter Alia

I never claimed that religion causes people to want to carry out these atrocities

*Earlier*

Quoting Inter Alia

One way or another religion has 'caused' all these things

Moving on...

Quoting Inter Alia

The point is the guns help, without guns you cannot shot someone, so why not ban guns?

[i]Without knives you cannot stab someone, so why not ban knives?
Without cars you cannot hit someone with a car, so why not ban cars?[/i]

Another example of your complete lack of reason. Let's throw all logic out the window and just say "this has the potential for bad things, so it needs to be banned", without any sort of risk-benefit assessment, without asking any other questions or looking at any other information.

Oh, and while we're at it...

Without religion you cannot molest children.....oh, wait....

So I guess that argument is both irrational and irrelevant.

Quoting Inter Alia

so why encourage them?

Can you show me where I said--or even so much as implied--that religious institutions should be encouraged?

I'll help you out: the answer is no, you can't, because I didn't.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

What makes a person a member of a religion is if they identify themselves as a member of that religion. Nothing more. Religion doesn't require you to absolve yourself of personal judgement.

From the Collins dictionary - "Religion - A belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe". Note the word 'obeyed'

From The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990): "Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience." . Note 'controlling' and 'obedience'.

Just in case you think the new atheists have infiltrated dictionaries. From the pro-religion humanreligions.info -" Religions are shared collections of transcendental beliefs that have been passed on from believers to converts, that are held by adherents to be actively meaningful and serious and either based on (1) formally documented doctrine (organized religion) or (2) established cultural practices (folk religion).

Nowhere does it say that a religion is just whatever any individual says it is. All definitions refer to a written or commonly agreed upon set of doctrines or practices. So if you do not follow that set of doctrines you are not part of that religion, it doesn't matter what you say you are.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

How prevalent is this sort of thing in Judaism? Or other branches of Christianity, for that matter? Where is the epidemic of Protestant molestation victims?

If you'd have actually read any of the studies I've cited you would have found that molestation in Protestant institutions was actually slightly higher than Catholic ones and victims had more difficulty reporting incidents. But actually bothering to find out whether your off the cuff opinions happen to be true doesn't seem to be important to you.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

I never claimed that religion causes people to want to carry out these atrocities — Inter Alia


*Earlier*

One way or another religion has 'caused' all these things — Inter Alia

One statement claims that religion does not cause people to act a certain way, the other claims that religion causes certain things to exist. Was it you who brought up the issue of ability to use logic to analyse claims?

Quoting JustSomeGuy

Without knives you cannot stab someone, so why not ban knives?
Without cars you cannot hit someone with a car, so why not ban cars?

Because knives and cars are useful. To make the same claim for religion you would have to point to some purpose that cannot be equally served without religion. Demonstrating that there is no such purpose has been the point of my comments,but there's little point if all people are going to hear is "someone's being nasty about religion, we'd best trot out the stock argument that it's not all bad"

Quoting Inter Alia

Because knives and cars are useful. To make the same claim for religion you would have to point to some purpose that cannot be equally served without religion. Demonstrating that there is no such purpose has been the point of my comments

I was very hesitant to even engage with you again, and this is exactly why. You are doing the exact same thing you did in our discussion of atheism: changing the argument to suit your needs when what you were previously arguing gets shot down. Look:

Quoting Inter Alia

You've missed the point of the harms religions have done. It's not to say "do not be religious because they are burning people at the stake" it's to say "do not be religious because they have burned people at the stake and this reveals something unsavoury about being religious, something potentially harmful"

Quoting Inter Alia

Modern secular culture may well have plenty of evils, but none of them are demonstrably the result of secularism. The inquisition was demonstrably the result of a fanatical devotion to the Catholic religion. The covering up of child abuse was definitely the consequence of unquestioned faith in the church. "Swap you chemical warfare for the Inquisition any day of the week" is a ridiculous argument, chemical weapons are not caused by secularism, the inquisition was caused by Catholicism.

Your argument was originally that religion caused "plenty of evils" like burning people at the stake, the inquisition, and child molestation. That is what "demonstrably the result of" means. You also say it yourself in that last sentence, "the inquisition was CAUSED by Catholicism."

When someone makes legitimate arguments against your claims, you either make a counterargument or you admit defeat. You don't change your argument. It is twice you have done this now, and it's making me not want to talk to you at all anymore since it's clearly a waste of time. You don't listen to or use reason, you are intellectually dishonest, you appeal to emotion, and you create strawman arguments to take down instead of addressing the real ones. The very first argument I made in this conversation, in response to your claims, was that religion does not cause atrocities and evil, it is simply a tool people have used to commit them. Now you claim that you are actually arguing that. So you are being dishonest both about what your argument was and what my argument was. It's ridiculous, and since it has happened two out of two times I've engaged with you, I don't think I'll try a third time.

Whoa!!

Reply to JustSomeGuy

Its really not that complicated.

1. When we talk about an object causing something we do not imbue it with intent. This is not an argumentative trick, this is normal grammar. To say the plane crash was caused by faulty wiring is not to say that the wiring intended to crash the plane, nor that planes are unable to crash without faulty wiring. It is simply to assert that the faulty wiring contributed meaningfully to the crash.

2. I have repeatedly claimed, and still do, that religion caused the inquisition, religious wars and the continuation of child abuse in Religious institutions.

3. I have never claimed, and never will, that religion causes people to be evil. If a person wishes to murder on impulse, but has no weapon they may only cause harm or refrain entirely. If, however, there is a gun on the table, they may well commit murder. In the same, normal grammar use of the term the availability of the gun was an instrumental cause of the murder.

Religions, in the normal use of the term, create social structures which allow people who may otherwise have been restricted from committing evil to do so, this is supported by the evidence I provided. Religions do not provide sufficient net benefit (which cannot be replicated in other ways) to counter this harm.

What has happened here has been that you've misunderstood my argument, I've explained it in different terms but rather than adapt, you've persisted with your original interpretation, leaving the impression that I'm "changing my argument". My argument is, and always has been, as above.

Quoting Inter Alia

What has happened here has been that you've misunderstood my argument,

Quoting Inter Alia

My argument is, and always has been, as above.

Let me summarize the various arguments you just made:

[i]1. Religion does not have intent
2. Religion caused the inquisition, religious wars and the continuation of child abuse in religious institutions
3. Religion does not cause people to be evil
4. Religions create social structures which allow people who may otherwise have been restricted from committing evil to do so[/i]

1 - I never claimed it did. Yet another strawman.

2 and 3 - If you equate the things you list in 2 with evil--which it is heavily implied that you do--then 2 and 3 are contradictory.

[i]The inquisition, religious wars, and child abuse are examples of people being evil
Religion caused the inquisition, religious wars, and child abuse
Religion does not cause people to be evil[/i]

These are your claims. Logically, they cannot all be true. So which one is false? If we use the first two claims as premises in a logical argument, the conclusion would be that religion does cause people to be evil.
The only point I have ever been arguing against is the second claim, so why haven't you been defending that claim? You take is as a given, having provided no argument as to why it is true, and instead going off on all of these tangents, arguing for and against things that nobody brought up but you, and which have no bearing on the original argument.

4 - Religion does not create these social structures, men create these social structures. Religion allows for the creation of these social structures. This is a huge and key difference which you don't seem to understand.

Reply to Inter Alia

If such threats of punishment exist in all religions and ideologies then it would seem that they all have their evils, which was my original point.

There is no more point arguing against anti-religious prejudice than there is against religious prejudice.

Reply to Wayfarer

There is no more point arguing against anti-religious prejudice than there is against religious prejudice

I disagree. While there is no way to come to a resolution, such arguing often enables me to clarify for myself my position, arguments for and against, and objections. But there does come a point in which no more benefit is to be gained from a particular exchange.

Quoting Mitchell

there does come a point in which no more benefit is to be gained from a particular exchange.

That's what I was getting at. OK, I'll spell it out, I'm talking about Inter Alia, in particular. Since joining the Forum, he or she has devoted nearly every post to explicating 'the evil of religion' in the kinds of terms associated with Dawkins. I did actually join the Dawkins forum, when it was active in about 2008 - it was the first forum I joined. I found almost everyone there was literally phobic about religion, to the point of being hysterical about it.

Myself, I am non-doctrinally religious - perhaps one of those described as spiritual but not religious, although I'm finding it a hard distinction to maintain. I quite agree that there are many evils to be found in religion, many abuses, and that even some religious institutions ought to go out of business. But I will never agree that the major religions are simply evil tout courte and I think that Dawkinsian type of attitude actually betokens a form of pathology - the fear of religion, as Nagel put it, in his review of The God Delusion. That, I would be prepared to debate.

Reply to JustSomeGuy

There is a difference between causing evil things by to happen by facilitation and causing people to want to do evil things. It's not rocket science.

Quoting Wayfarer

There is no more point arguing against anti-religious prejudice than there is against religious prejudice.

And who's going to decide what's prejudice and what's justified belief? You, I suppose.

Quoting Inter Alia

And who's going to decide what's prejudice and what's justified belief? You, I suppose.

Having opened this can of worms, I will now endeavour to respond.

The kind of attitude I am talking about, I encountered on the Dawkins forum when it was active about ten years ago. I asked a few questions like, what about the work done by religious charities and missions, providing hospital care and food to orphans and the like. The response was universally dismissive. The people on that could never acknowledge that religions were capable of any good, or at any rate, that whatever good they did accomplish was a result of something other than their faith. And besides, atheists were just as giving as the religious, along with stats and arguments and the rest.

After a while of posting on that forum, I realised that there is such a thing as 'misotheism', which is to religion as misanthropy to mankind, and misogyny to women. It means literally 'hatred of God' but metaphorically 'hatred of all things spiritual'. Since then I've debated a few misotheists on various Forums - Neopolitan, Krumple, 180 Proof, and others of that ilk. There is nothing that can be said to someone who simply believes that religion is evil. So I don't bother.

Reply to Wayfarer
I will second all of this. I've been casually discussing and debating people on various forums for over a decade, and I've encountered many of these "misotheists" as you call them. I've generally referred to them as antitheists. But there really is no reasoning with people of that sort, they're as irrational and dogmatic as any other kind of fundamentalist. After a while you realize it's just not worth your time to engage them, because there is no possibility of having any sort of productive or coherent discussion. The irony is that the vast majority of these people are rebelling against the religious environment they were brought up in, and yet they go to the same extreme as the religious fundamentalists, just in a different direction.

Reply to JustSomeGuy Glad you agree, but I just want to add one point, albeit a crucial one. Which is that, ultimately, I blame religious orthodoxy for this problem. And the reason for that goes right back in history to the emergence of the dominant orthodoxy in the Western tradition. After all, 'orthodoxy' means 'right belief'. And the Church put such an enormous premium on being correct, on conformity to dogma, on Correct Belief, that they left many in the intelligentsia with no choice but to rebel. After all, you either believed correctly, or you were shown the door (or much worse). That rebellion against orthodoxy manifests in many forms, of which scientific materialism is one example, but a very influential one. So in a way, I certainly respect the rejection of religious authority, with the crucial caveat that this can't involve the outright rejection of spiritual reality, which we are getting dangerously close to.

This can be depicted in Hegelian terms: thesis, which is orthodox Christianity, and its antithesis, which is scientific materialism. But as Hegel saw, any dialectic will produce a synthesis, which I see in in the 'new physics' and the kind of systems science that Apokrisis is an expert it (albeit he is still a bit far on the physicalist end of the spectrum). But that is the way science is going - a new synthesis, in fact, a new gnosis, which is scientifically effective but spiritually informed. Can't happen soon enough.

Quoting Wayfarer

The people on that could never acknowledge that religions were capable of any good, or at any rate, that whatever good they did accomplish was a result of something other than their faith. And besides, atheists were just as giving as the religious, along with stats and arguments and the rest.

So what exactly is wrong with that opinion, you're sounding frighteningly like you're saying that some opinions just aren't allowed, those pesky 'other people' with their 'different opinions' especially when they're backed up by the dreaded 'stats', how dare they!

Quoting Wayfarer

There is nothing that can be said to someone who simply believes that religion is evil.

But someone who simply believes it is not evil is somehow automatically reasonable. Not every conflict in the world is automatically solved by sitting somewhere in the middle, vacillation does not automatically make you wise, there's nothing about the middle ground between two opposing opinions that just automatically confers rightness.

You're basically saying that unless people agree with you about the balance of harms caused by religion, you're not going to talk to them. Well enjoy your echo-chamber, it will be a bit emptier from now on.

Reply to Wayfarer I definitely see what you're saying and agree that the rise of religious orthodoxy probably led to the rise of materialism, but individuals always have a choice and must be held responsible for their choices (unless you don't believe in free will, but that's another discussion entirely)

What exactly do you mean when you say "outright rejection of spiritual reality"?

Quoting Inter Alia

So what exactly is wrong with that opinion,

What struck me as being wrong with it, was that Christian missionaries actually do a lot of really helpful and important work to save many perishing and suffering individuals from an awful fate. So the opinion that this doesn't actually amount to anything, or mean anything, I regard as basically a form of bigotry.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

What exactly do you mean when you say "outright rejection of spiritual reality"?

Something close to atheism, but I don't want to imply that people ought to believe in God. For example, Buddhists aren't believers and certainly don't believe in a 'creator God' but the kind of atheism I'm referring to, is the kind that wishes to account for everything in terms of physics, and so is also inimical to Buddhism.

Reply to Wayfarer Ah, I see. I guess the use of the term "spiritual" is what threw me. I haven't studied materialism in-depth, but as far as I remember from learning about it in college, isn't it only--or at least mainly--concerned with the mind? When you say "spiritual reality" it calls to mind a sort of unseen spiritual aspect of all that exists, rather than just an immaterial human mind or consciousness. I could be remembering materialism incorrectly, though.

Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO

How can anybody believe anything without evidence?

Isn't that what faith is? Below is the Google definition.

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So, faith, by that definition, is irrational. My point is that, as you said later in your post, everything is faith-based. So, we can't criticize religious faith and turn a blind eye to the fact that everything is faith based.

Quoting TheMadFool

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So, faith, by that definition, is irrational

I disagree. The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a very rational one, yet we have no proof that it will. Proof is not a requirement for rationality.

Quoting TheMadFool

everything is faith-based. So, we can't criticize religious faith and turn a blind eye to the fact that everything is faith based.

I do agree with this, but there are various degrees of faith required for various beliefs, and the more faith required, the less rational the belief is. This isn't to say less rational beliefs should be automatically discredited, only that it does make sense to scrutinize some more than others.

Also, as a side note, we need to remember that proof and evidence aren't the same thing. In fact, you could argue that obtaining absolute proof isn't even humanly possible.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a very rational one, yet we have no proof that it will. Proof is not a requirement for rationality.

But evidence is. Evidence need not be, and indeed with regard to empirical knowledge, cannot be, "proof".

Quoting TheMadFool

So, faith, by that definition, is irrational

By that definition. But faith, in its ordinary sense meaning "trust", can be "well founded" or "baseless". A spouse who has faith in their partner need not be irrational in that faith. Having faith in the American judicial system may or may not be irrational, depending on circumstances.

Quoting Mitchell

But evidence is.

Yes. This is what I was implying here:
Quoting JustSomeGuy

there are various degrees of faith required for various beliefs, and the more faith required, the less rational the belief is

But I guess I didn't make it explicit enough.

Quoting Mitchell

Evidence need not be, and indeed with regard to empirical knowledge, cannot be, "proof".

Evidence cannot be proof? Are we talking semantics here? What else would proof be if not a piece or multiple pieces of evidence?

Quoting JustSomeGuy

What else would proof be if not a piece or multiple pieces of evidence?

Exactly, thus the scare-quotes. So now, the question about religious faith is, "Where's the evidence?" IOW, you don't have to "prove" the existence of God, just show me some evidence.

Reply to Mitchell That is always said with the apparent conviction that none of the religious literature of the Judeo-Christian tradition actually constitutes evidence. I mean, it is simply swept off the table with the gesture of it 'not being empirical science', as though it is thereby settled that nothing in it ever happened, that the whole corpus is simply the superstitious accretions of the pre-scientific mentality. Never mind that it is read out at weddings and funerals, and that billions of people still live by it; there's no 'evidence'.

Quoting Wayfarer

Glad you agree, but I just want to add one point, albeit a crucial one. Which is that, ultimately, I blame religious orthodoxy for this problem. And the reason for that goes right back in history to the emergence of the dominant orthodoxy in the Western tradition. After all, 'orthodoxy' means 'right belief'. And the Church put such an enormous premium on being correct, on conformity to dogma, on Correct Belief, that they left many in the intelligentsia with no choice but to rebel. After all, you either believed correctly, or you were shown the door (or much worse). That rebellion against orthodoxy manifests in many forms, of which scientific materialism is one example, but a very influential one. So in a way, I certainly respect the rejection of religious authority, with the crucial caveat that this can't involve the outright rejection of spiritual reality, which we are getting dangerously close to.

The development of a religion is an odd thing. If we take Christianity as an example, you can see that in the early days, it needed to promote free choice, and free thinking, to attract members. This freedom is crucial to the development of a progressive ideology which sets the religion apart from others making it attractive. In Christianity you can see this trend, right up until after the scholastics. At this point there is a shift, it's almost as if the Church leaders believed that all the important metaphysical questions had been answered. Following this, the Church perceives a stronger need to protect its members from the infiltration of wrong ideas, so the problems of orthodoxy which you describe, prevail.

The central issue is the way that we, as individual people relate to the nature of free will, freedom of choice. If we whole-heartedly embrace freedom of choice we afford the same respect for others to choose as we do ourselves. We recognize clearly, that with respect to the foundations of knowledge, and first principles of ontology, the individual will naturally select what appears to be closest to the truth, when provided with the information. The individual will naturally select the truth because these principles are not useful for anything else other than determining the truth, so when given the choice, the only guiding principle is the desire for truth. Therefore, when it is the truth which we seek, there is no need to hinder anyone's freedom of choice.

Faith of course plays a very important role. It allows us to take what is granted by others, as fundamental and true. So there is no need to question fundamental principles, we take them and build on them, enabling the rapid growth of knowledge. But there's a delicate balance to the role of authority. The individuals being given the principles, from the authorities, must trust and have faith in the authorities, to accept them unconditionally and move forward. And this faith is inspired by the actions of the authorities which demonstrate the good of the principles. When the principles are enforced by the authorities, the need for force draws suspicion as to whether the "good" of the principles is really the truth.

Quoting Wayfarer

That is always said with the apparent conviction that none of the religious literature of the Judeo-Christian tradition actually constitutes evidence. I mean, it is simply swept off the table with the gesture of it 'not being empirical science', as though it is thereby settled that nothing in it ever happened, that the whole corpus is simply the superstitious accretions of the pre-scientific mentality. Never mind that it is read out at weddings and funerals, and that billions of people still live by it; there's no 'evidence'.

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scripture as evidence for the existence of the divine puts the cart before the horse.

Also, it sounds as if you are hinting at an "Argument from Consensus", suggesting that "billions of people still live by it" provides evidence that the divine is real.

I know you've heard this all before, but I am wondering about your take on these two points.

Faith is the death of reason the cessation of investigation.
Faith is the failure of knowledge
Faith is the cry of the weak and the hopes of the dispossessed.
Faith is the failure of responsibility.
Faith is giving up.

Reply to charleton
In philosophy, making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up in any way isn't taken seriously whatsoever. Even if you do it seven times in a row and format it in such a way as to attempt to make it look like poetry.

Just for future reference.

Quoting Mitchell

So now, the question about religious faith is, "Where's the evidence?" IOW, you don't have to "prove" the existence of God, just show me some evidence.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. That is definitely a key distinction to make, and one that, unfortunately, most people don't.

Quoting Mitchell

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scripture as evidence for the existence of the divine puts the cart before the horse

I wouldn't say it necessarily puts the cart before the horse unless the claim is that the scriptures were actually written by the corresponding deity, which I know some people do believe. But I think we can count them as evidence in that they are the author's personal account of some events which they claim actually happened which demonstrate the existence of their deity. So, they are evidence, just not particularly good evidence.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

they are the author's personal account of some events which they claim actually happened which demonstrate the existence of their deity. So, they are evidence, just not particularly good evidence.

Now we get closer to what I think is the only plausible reason, though still weak, for believing there is a deity: religious experience.

Quoting Mitchell

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scripture as evidence for the existence of the divine puts the cart before the horse.

Alan Watts, The Supreme Identity:Almost without exception, the sacred writings begin their exposition of the ultimate Reality without preface, argument or proof. The modern philosopher will regard this as hopeless prejudice, for to adopt the existence of the infinite or God as one's major premise is against every rule of his science. But it cannot be otherwise, for as the reality of light cannot be proved or described in terms of visible shape, the reality of the infinite cannot be proved in terms of the finite. For this reason every attempt to prove the existence of God by logic is a foregone failure.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

At this point there is a shift, it's almost as if the Church leaders believed that all the important metaphysical questions had been answered. Following this, the Church perceives a stronger need to protect its members from the infiltration of wrong ideas, so the problems of orthodoxy which you describe, prevail.

I have studied two major issues in the formation of religion in the West. The first was the battle to define orthodoxy against gnosticism in the early Christian period. A lot of that was lost to history until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in the 20th Century. That gave rise to a kind of neo-gnostic movement, with figures like Stephan Hoeller, Richard Smoley, and Elaine Pagels, who argued that some essential aspect of Christian teaching had been suppressed at that time.

One of the books about that is Pagel's Beyond Belief which is based on the analysis of the recovered Gospel of Thomas and related writings:

At the center of Beyond Belief is what Pagels identifies as a textual battle between The Gospel of Thomas (rediscovered in Egypt in 1945) and The Gospel of John. While these gospels have many superficial similarities, Pagels demonstrates that John, unlike Thomas, declares that Jesus is equivalent to "God the Father" as identified in the Old Testament. Thomas, in contrast, shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but, rather, is a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels then shows how the Gospel of John was used by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon and others to define orthodoxy during the second and third centuries. The secret teachings were literally driven underground, disappearing until the Twentieth Century. As Pagels argues this process "not only impoverished the churches that remained but also impoverished those [Irenaeus] expelled."

There is a tension in early Christianity between the two verses, 'he who believes in Me shall be saved', and 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. The first is an archetypical statement of 'pistis', right belief; the second of a 'higher knowledge' that is more typical of the gnostics.

I think some of the early figures in the Church, notably Origen, recognised that both the pistic and the gnostic had their place in the overall scheme. The pistic approach - believe and be saved - was essential for devotional religion of the masses. Only the elite were able to actually understand the higher truth. But there's been a conflict between these tendencies in the Church from the outset.

When Calvinism came along it was a definitive victory for the doctrine of 'saved by faith alone'. The intellect was practically ostracised by it. Allied to the 'voluntarism' of Ockham and others, Christianity became much more like Islam, a religion of 'submission to the Divine Will'. Which is what, in my opinion, was one of the major factors behind the secular revolt against religious authority. (I have read that Calvin has been referred to in modern times as 'the Ayatollah of Geneva'.)

But these are all big historical questions with many possible interpretations. But one of the main books that I have found illuminating about all of this, is Michael Allen Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up

Then I suggest you stop doing it.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

Also, as a side note, we need to remember that proof and evidence aren't the same thing.

What's the difference?

Quoting JustSomeGuy

In fact, you could argue that obtaining absolute proof isn't even humanly possible.

Why? Please explain.

Quoting TheMadFool

What's the difference?

Evidence is essentially information that supports a certain conclusion, whereas proof is evidence that confirms a certain conclusion.

For example, if we're trying to solve the murder of Bob and we find John's DNA on Bob's body, that is evidence that John killed Bob, but not proof, because we still cannot say for certain that John killed Bob--it leaves open other possibilities. Alternatively, if we have a security camera video of John killing Bob, that is proof that John killed Bob, because it allows us to say for certain that John killed Bob.

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Quoting TheMadFool

Why? Please explain

Obtaining absolute proof isn't humanly possible because we're limited in the information available to us. Our brains/minds are limited in what they can understand, and our senses are limited in what they can perceive. Plus we're also bound by time, so we cannot know the future or experience the past.

So we can never possibly have all of the information, and without all information we cannot truly be certain of anything (except that I exist).

Quoting JustSomeGuy

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

So proof is stronger than evidence.

Quoting JustSomeGuy

So we can never possibly have all of the information, and without all information we cannot truly be certain of anything (except that I exist).

That's right. There's always a gap in our knowledge. Radical skepticism tears away the foundations of all knowledge. What are we left with? Faith!

Reply to TheMadFool It's not all or nothing. One might sense the limits to knowledge, but still know how to do a lot of stuff. I think the real issue here is, knowing what is the basis for value judgements - knowing whether what we believe, or do, or what guides our actions, really means something or not. All of those who constantly bleat that faith is 'the end of reason' seem to overlook the fact that the scientific assessment of 'reason', is that it's something that is useful for survival. But when it comes to 'what is the point of survival, really' - which is another way of asking the question, 'what does life really mean' - science doesn't have anything to say. And that is so, even despite the many extraordinarily useful things that science can do for us.

Quoting charleton

Faith is giving up.

Quite the contrary, it takes faith to try in the first place. If you don't have any faith, you don't even try. So it's actually quite the contrary - the faithless is the one who gives up right away.

Quoting Mitchell

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc.

Yes, they absolutely are evidence. Who told you they don't count? As far as I know, both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches recognise other world religions as sources of knowledge about the divine, even if in some regards incomplete or inaccurate.

Organised religions have developed out of primary hierophanic phenomena that were codified in symbolic ways that could be understood and shared by the local cultures where they first occurred. Furthermore, organized religions also have socio-political attachments, that actually have nothing to do with religion per say - for example, each Christian church has a different "correct" baptism procedure, BUT that baptism is fundamentally a matter of the heart is universally acknowledged theologically. So everyone has a different "correct" procedure and seeks to impose it on everyone else (a power game), but that's just an attempt at answering how it's best to physically illustrate the mystical change that occurs during baptism. And there may not be one answer in this case, but a multitude of answers, depending on context. That each church seeks to impose its ways on others is just a matter of politics, survival and power.

Quoting Wayfarer

That gave rise to a kind of neo-gnostic movement, with figures like Stephan Hoeller, Richard Smoley, and Elaine Pagels, who argued that some essential aspect of Christian teaching had been suppressed at that time.

It is evident that in early Christianity there is all sorts of disagreement on principles, especially concerning the divine nature of Jesus. So of course there would have been attempts to produce agreement. But even "The Creed" is not singular, and we'd be more accurate to call them the Creeds to indicate the variations in belief.

We have odd ways of looking back at history such that our history is very perspective oriented. If people holding a particular ideology become more influential over time, we do not necessarily know the reason why they became more influential, so the reasons we ascribe are quite speculative. We, looking back having the ideology which became more influential, will at first be very biased, thinking that the good, or the correct ideology won out over the incorrect. But if we look back from the other perspective, that the better ideology is the one that got dropped, we would tend to argue that the better was suppressed. But these terms of "force" don't really do justice to the activities of the mind which are going on.

In actuality, it is very difficult to determine why one ideology becomes more prevalent than another. What I described in the last post, is that I believe it a fundamental principle, that the ideology which allows for maximum freedom of thought is the one which has the greatest capacity for persistence. But freedom of thought runs contrary to faith, and faith is the element which provides coherence within the ideology, through the reinforcing of the same principles in different human minds. And without this principle of coherence, there is no ideology.

I used the term "reinforcing" instead of "enforcing" here, because I think that the essence of faith is that it must be willed, and cannot be forced. So we have two distinct possible perspectives here, a certain ideology became prevalent because it was enforced, and suppressed others, or a certain ideology became prevalent because it was freely chosen over the others. My belief is that the very nature of faith is such that it cannot be forced. To be true faith, it must come from within, being supported by what's within. Therefore a pretense of faith, such as the claim to support the principles of an ideology without having a freedom of choice in that matter, cannot actually support that ideology and it will dissolve.

This leaves the principles by which an ideology that promotes the freedom of thought supports itself, as very delicately balanced principles. There must be some fundamental articles of faith to provide coherence, and maintain the sustainability of the ideology, but these articles of faith must not interfere with the capacity for freedom of thought, so that the articles of faith are in a sense, irrelevant to the thinking activities. The articles of faith are not important fundament ontological, epistemological, or even moral principles, they are more like objects of distraction. Unity is provided by a common diversion, instead of agreement on fundamental principles, thus allowing free thought in relation to fundamental principles.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The articles of faith are not important fundament ontological, epistemological, or even moral principles, they are more like objects of distraction. Unity is provided by a common diversion, instead of agreement on fundamental principles, thus allowing free thought in relation to fundamental principles.

This sounds to me like revisionist history. In other words, this may be what believers of today want to believe, given multi-culturalism, global village, etc. It may well be part of a progressive religious world-view, but I don't think, viz. I am not convinced, the Church Fathers would agree. There is a reason why the concept of orthodoxy developed, and it had nothing to do with allowing any "freedom of thought".

Quoting Mitchell

This sounds to me like revisionist history.

According to what I posted, I believe "history" itself to be perspective dependent. So to say that this is "revisionist history" is not very meaningful because the original "history" which is being revised is produced to justify a perspective in the first place, so the "revision" may be more accurate than the original was in the first place.

Quoting Mitchell

There is a reason why the concept of orthodoxy developed, and it had nothing to do with allowing any "freedom of thought".

Even amongst "the orthodox", there has always been a variety of creeds. If orthodoxy was designed to restrict freedom of thought it would not accept such a variety. Orthodoxy was developed as a means of maintaining faith, not as a means for restricting freedom of thought. As I tried to describe, it is quite difficult to maintain faith without restricting freedom of thought, because the articles of faith (things taken for granted) commonly form the foundations of thought. To maintain faith without restricting thought is almost a contradiction in itself. So to do this requires a separation between the articles of faith and the objects of thought. This allows thought to proceed rationally without the influence of faith.

The fact that even the unorthodox are accepted in their own right, is evidence that orthodoxy is not principal. Faith is what is principal. Orthodoxy is the means by which the orthodox maintain faith, while the unorthodox maintain faith in their own way. The intent of orthodoxy is not to exclude the unorthodox as faithless, or any such thing. I think that if some acted to impose the rules of orthodoxy as if the unorthodox are faithless, then this is an abuse derived from misunderstanding.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

How, then, did the concept of heresy fit into your narrative. It seems to me any variation from the orthodox dogma was labeled "heresy" and ostracized.

Reply to Mitchell
To say that an individual does not adhere to our faith, and is therefore heretical, and may be ostracized depending on one's actions, is not the same as saying that the person is faithless.

‘Heresy’ is derived from a Greek term meaning ‘to hold an opinion’. Actually MItchell is correct, in the early Church there was no tolerance for individual opinion - the believer was expected to accept the dogma and to participate exactly according to the rules of the orthodox. And ‘orthodoxy’ means ‘right worship’ or ‘right belief’. The dogma was ‘no salvation outside the church’. So, can’t agree that the early church encouraged ‘free thought’ at all, that came very much later, post Renaissance. I think the concept of the individual person was barely developed in the ancient world.

Actually one of the most formative books I read in my student years was by sociologist Peter Berger, who wrote The Heretical Imperative. It was about the fact that in today’s marketplace of ideas, it is now required that the individual form an opinion about his or her religious principles - in contrast to the olden days, where they were simply handed to you, and you believed it, or else.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's not all or nothing. One might sense the limits to knowledge, but still know how to do a lot of stuff. I think the real issue here is, knowing what is the basis for value judgements - knowing whether what we believe, or do, or what guides our actions, really means something or not. All of those who constantly bleat that faith is 'the end of reason' seem to overlook the fact that the scientific assessment of 'reason', is that it's something that is useful for survival. But when it comes to 'what is the point of survival, really' - which is another way of asking the question, 'what does life really mean' - science doesn't have anything to say. And that is so, even despite the many extraordinarily useful things that science can do for us.

(Y)

Quoting Wayfarer

Actually MItchell is correct, in the early Church there was no tolerance for individual opinion - the believer was expected to accept the dogma and to participate exactly according to the rules of the orthodox

In the early times, as today, there were different branches of Christianity. The fact that there were attempts by some to establish orthodoxy, such as the councils of Nicaea is clear evidence of this. These attempts were driven by some members who saw a need for a higher degree of unity. That the result of these attempts was a plurality of creeds and a plurality of orthodoxies, indicates that this need was not a top priority.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think the concept of the individual person was barely developed in the ancient world.

Of course you know, from previous discussions, that I strongly disagree with this. The "individual person" was very important to Plato. He developed the concept of the tripartite soul. Prior to Plato there was a dualism of body and soul. Plato saw that the mind had the capacity to rule the body. An example he uses is that a thirsty man will not drink the water, if the water is not known to be good. But the separation between mind and body, eternal Forms and temporal existence, cannot be absolute. As modern monists argue, with such an absolute separation, the eternal cannot interact with the temporal. So Plato posited "spirit" or "passion" as the intermediary. Under Plato's design, the spirit can go either way. If the person is well-tempered, it will ally with the mind, to control the body according to principles of reason. But if the person has a corrupted soul, the spirit allies with the body to taint the mind.

The point being that Plato designed his Republic according to his description of the individual. He produced this description of the tripartite soul, the individual, then modeled his state to be a representation of a well-tempered individual. The state has three classes corresponding to the three parts of the individual, the rulers (philosophers, intellectuals, thinkers) the guardians ( nobles, army, police), and the providers (tradespeople, craftspeople, farmers).

If you read Plato's Republic, you will see that he goes through a progression of different forms of government. He provides an understanding of the form of government by comparing it to a type of person. So Plato's understanding of governance is derived from an understanding of individuals. This is important, because an understanding of morality in general must be derived from an understanding of the individual. So the best forms of governance are the ones based in the best understanding of the individual. If you read St. Augustine, especially "On free Will", and "On The Trinity", you will find an understanding of the individual which is far more comprehensive than anything in modern philosophy. Morality is something which of late has been simply taken for granted. But at the time of early Christianity, the mindset was totally different, morality was something which urgently needed attention. This is what inspired delving into the depths of "the individual".

Incidentally, Augustine's "On The Trinity" was in some part a response to the councils of Nicaea, and contains some fundamental differences especially concerning a key term "substance". What is evident though, is that an understanding of God the Trinity is derived from an understanding of the individual as tripartite, God being the ultimate individual.

Quoting Agustino

Quite the contrary, it takes faith to try in the first place

There are two meanings to faith which characters like you switch between when it suits you.
1) Trust based on experience and knowledge.
2) Faith with a capital F which is religious faith based on fear of death and "god".

When I place my trust in the doctor or my car starting, it does not mean I absolutely trust that the doctors advice is going to work or that the car will start. It's a matter of convenience so that I get on with my day until I get sick or the car runs out of petrol.
Faith with a capital F means thinking the car will start without putting petrol in it.

Quoting charleton

2) Faith with a capital F which is religious faith based on fear of death and "god".

No religion defines Faith (as you like to call it my dear charle), as faith based on fear of death or "god". Apart from being circular, it would be entirely absurd, since having faith in God isn't the same as that faith being based on God.

This is the Biblical definition:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Quoting charleton

When I place my trust in the doctor or my car starting, it does not mean I absolutely trust that the doctors advice is going to work or that the car will start.

How did you learn to start your car? You learned because you were told and shown how to do it. To really have done it yourself, you must have had faith (in the religious sense) that in following the instructions, you would achieve the same result (and in that you understood how to apply the instructions you were given). How did you learn to make all those cute arguments that you're blabbering today? You must have had faith when you were taught that this is how you use your language, and that's what this and that means, etc. For without faith, you wouldn't even have learned how to speak, much less how to start your car. You cannot start with doubt, you must start with just believing what you're told (ie, things not seen), ie faith.

Quoting charleton

Faith with a capital F means thinking the car will start without putting petrol in it.

:s - according to the religion of charle?

Quoting Agustino

Apart from being circular, it would be entirely absurd, since having faith in God isn't the same as that faith being based on God.

Specious nonsense. I don't care how religion defines faith. I can tell what it is.
Quoting Agustino

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

And here you encapsulated the double standard, which I mention above.
Quoting Agustino

you must have had faith (in the religious sense) that in following the instructions,

Rubbish. Someone showed me how. I did not have to have any faith, since I was able to start the car in any event. For me faith "trust" follows evidence and knowledge. For you Faith is bollocks Because you put your trust in a clearly untrustworthy idea.
Quoting Agustino

You cannot start with doubt

Yes you can, and yes you must. This is your failing, and that is why you argue so poorly.

Quoting charleton

Specious nonsense. I don't care how religion defines faith. I can tell what it is.

So you don't care what the other person says they believe - you just know what they believe anyway, no need to communicate X-)

Quoting charleton

For me faith "trust" follows evidence and knowledge.

That is impossible. When you're born, you know nothing. So what "evidence" and what "knowledge"? To even gain the first little bit of "knowledge" you must have faith.

Quoting charleton

Someone showed me how. I did not have to have any faith, since I was able to start the car in any event.

Yes, you had faith that you understood what they showed you and you could replicate it yourself.

When you learn to do math, you must have faith that 1+1=2. There is no "evidence" that can be offered or any more basic knowledge that can be used to assert it. You must accept it on faith to be able to move forward and actually start gaining knowledge.

Quoting charleton

Faith is bollocks

What is bollocks?

Quoting charleton

Yes you can, and yes you must. This is your failing, and that is why you argue so poorly.

No, it is literarily impossible to doubt when you have nothing to doubt. Doubting and disbelieving is a learned process that becomes possible only after you've already learned to believe and have come to believe a thousand and one things.

To doubt, you must provide reasons for doubting, and those reasons must be stronger than whatever thing they're meant to cast into question. So those reasons that you need to doubt, they must already be things that you know. Without knowing those, you can have no reasons for doubting, and so no doubt is even possible. This follows as the night follows the day my dear charle. So stomp your feet, throw your hands in the air and shout as much as you like it, but it ain't going to change. As you told me, it would be much like the madman who expects that his car will start without any petrol.

Quoting Agustino

This is the Biblical definition:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Quoting Agustino

When you're born, you know nothing. So what "evidence" and what "knowledge"? To even gain the first little bit of "knowledge" you must have faith.

How can the child just born have any assurance or hope or conviction in the "things" not seen? The only sort of faith that the child has is in what he can see - the doctors, the nurses, the nervous father, the mother and her bosom. The babe in swaddling clothes doesn't come to some articulately and consciously reasoned, utilitarian decision about whether or not he ought to doubt his urge to suck his mother's teet. While it is true that we all are born to trust - to have faith - we are not, however, born with religious faith. One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt.

God may apply to you before you believed in him, but for the disbeliever, you cannot attribute that same hindsight to them.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

How can the child just born have any assurance or hope or conviction in the "things" not seen?

He has an instinctual faith which is aided and encouraged by parents to, for example, drink milk from his mother's breast in order to deal with the discomfort of hunger.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

The babe in swaddling clothes doesn't come to some articulately and consciously reasoned, utilitarian decision about whether or not he ought to doubt his urge to suck his mother's teet.

Exactly, he cannot doubt, he can just trust that when his mom throws the breast in his face and puts it in his mouth, it is good to suck on it. And by faith he sucks on it, and behold, he sees that it is good.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

While it is true that we all are born to trust - to have faith - we are not, however, born with religious faith. One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt.

We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt.

I was clarifying errors in thinking that charle displays in abundance. How can she think of God if she cannot even solve basic problems of thought, such as which comes first, belief or doubt? So don't forget that my responses aren't universal, but targeted at specific people in specific situations. So the reason I answered the way I did was because I was talking to charleton - and it's not profitable to talk to charleton about God if the groundwork is not ready.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

God may apply to you before you believed in him, but for the disbeliever, you cannot attribute that same hindsight to them.

How so?

Incidentally, this is a good paper at clarifying some of the above matters.

Quoting Agustino

He has an instinctual faith which is aided and encouraged by parents to, for example, drink milk from his mother's breast in order to deal with the discomfort of hunger.

And how is this religious faith, or faith in something unseen?

Quoting Agustino

Exactly, he cannot doubt, he can just trust that when his mom throws the breast in his face and puts it in his mouth, it is good to suck on it. And by faith he sucks on it, and behold, he sees that it is good.

Yes, this is the unremarkable, mundane, and uncontroversial kind of faith.

Quoting Agustino

We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us.

What does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

Quoting Agustino

How can she think of God if she cannot even solve basic problems of thought, such as which comes first, belief or doubt?

My point is that neither of you seem to be distinguishing between ordinary trust/faith and religious trust/faith. They're similar in definition, but different in practice.

Quoting Agustino

How so?

Because it'd be presuming belief in others.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

And how is this religious faith, or faith in something unseen?

Because the fact that drinking the milk will eliminate the discomfort of hunger is not an a priori given, but must be taken on faith. If the child did not have this faith, they would refuse the mother's breast, and would not drink the milk.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Yes, this is the unremarkable, mundane, and uncontroversial kind of faith.

Yes, this unremarkable, mundane and uncontroversial kind of faith is the same as religious faith. The only difference is the object or person of that faith.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

What does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

I did not really understand what you meant by "God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt". So it seems I misinterpreted what you meant. Please clarify and I will respond again.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

My point is that neither of you seem to be distinguishing between ordinary trust/faith and religious trust/faith. They're similar in definition, but different in practice.

In what sense are they different in practice, apart from the faith being directed towards a different person/object?

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Because it'd be presuming belief in others.

I don't follow.

Reply to Agustino It's pointless arguing against convinced unbelief. It's the mirror image of the conviction that it denies. So it amounts to holding an anti-religious attitude with religious conviction and it would take something like an epiphany to change it.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's pointless arguing against convinced unbelief. It's the mirror image of the conviction that it denies. So it amounts to holding an anti-religious attitude with religious conviction. 'Beasts are driven to the pasture by blows', said Heraclitus.

Pass me the whip then please X-)

Quoting Wayfarer

But when it comes to 'what is the point of survival, really' - which is another way of asking the question, 'what does life really mean' - science doesn't have anything to say.

We don't need science to tell us that we want to survive, and more, we want to live and even more still, that we want to flourish.

Quoting Agustino

Because the fact that drinking the milk will eliminate the discomfort of hunger is not an a priori given, but must be taken on faith. If the child did not have this faith, they would refuse the mother's breast, and would not drink the milk.

You assume the child trusts that it's good, not merely that he instinctively desires it. If you gave him a bottle of bleach he'd suck it. The trust, therefore, in his mother derives first from the instinct to suckle.

Quoting Agustino

Yes, this unremarkable, mundane and uncontroversial kind of faith is the same as religious faith. The only difference is the object or person of that faith.

They're the same but different??

Quoting Agustino

In what sense are they different in practice, apart from the faith being directed towards a different person/object?

A baby's trust in its mother is not the same as one who has faith in some religious ideal. The ideals tell you that they're good, and you ought to trust them, the baby trusting its mother is blind.

Reply to Janus Want to live, need to flourish? That's what I'd get on board with, :)

Quoting Janus

We don't need science to tell us that we want to survive, and more, we want to live and even more still, that we want to flourish.

You should tell that to the anti-natalists and nihilists, not me.

Reply to Wayfarer

Yes, but the point is that we know this directly without having to believe anything about a "higher" meaning of life. People say life has no inherent value; but this is bullshit based on vainly attempting to look at life from a 'sublimed' purely dispassionate viewpoint. Life, as such, and how much more so flourishing, obviously has inherent value to human beings; the question as to whether it has value "in itself" is meaningless.

Quoting Janus

Yes, but the point is that we know this directly without having to believe anything about a "higher" meaning of life.

I don't see any philosophical insight in that. I think there is a generalised problem of the human condition, the malaise which philosophy has set out to cure, which has been lost sight of. In some ways it is like a religious instinct, but it differs because it seeks reasons, considers perspectives, and doesn't simply recite articles of faith.

So as I said to BitterCrank, if you find life is good, without reference to such ideas, then good on you.
But without there being a sense of 'higher' and 'lower', how is the moral compass to be directed? What is the basis of moral principles? The principles we've inherited in this culture - respect for persons, rule of law, civil rights, private ownership, 'do unto others' - were all thrashed out over centuries of conflict and resolution, and laid down on principles that were originally religious in nature, because they provide a validation of what really is good, irrespective of your or my opinion of it. I think we're still living on the momentum of that, but it is rapidly diminishing. Or seems so to me.

Quoting Wayfarer

I don't see any philosophical insight in that.

Well, I can't help that, since it's due to your particular set of presuppositions. I do understand very well where you are coming from, though, since I have previously come from a more or less similar place myself.

Reply to Janus Yeah, don’t know what happened..... ;-)

Reply to Wayfarer

My ideas have evolved. I have discarded what I understand to be incoherent; namely the idea that there is any valid spiritual authority and that it can be imposed from above.

This is not to deny that many people cannot do without spiritual authority; to those are told the noble lies.

On the other hand, I have not rejected as much as you might imagine.

Reply to Janus My feeling is that it’s because you see it as ‘something imposed from above’ or always a matter of authority, that is behind a lot of what you say. I see it as an order that I must recognise - that after all is the meaning of ‘dharma’ - but it’s up to myself to respond to it.

Reply to Wayfarer

I see Dharma or Dao or 'the Truth that sets us free' as a natural order, which is also a social order. The Golden Rule reflects the reality of conscience, and social reasonableness. We don't need to concern ourselves with an afterlife, but with how to authentically live and die well.

Reply to Janus Well, if you think naturalism is the answer, then fair enough. As it happens, I don't.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

You assume the child trusts that it's good, not merely that he instinctively desires it.

That's the same thing worded differently. That he instinctively desires one thing is just the same as he trusts that it's good.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

A baby's trust in its mother is not the same as one who has faith in some religious ideal. The ideals tell you that they're good, and you ought to trust them, the baby trusting its mother is blind.

The ideals invite you to trust them, just like your mother invites you to trust her that the milk she gives you is good. You trust the one, but not the other. Why? Because in the meantime, you've learned to distrust.

Reply to TheMadFool

An Idea, perhaps?

Quoting Agustino

That's the same thing worded differently. That he instinctively desires one thing is just the same as he trusts that it's good.

My point has been that mere belief in x or y being good does not make x or y good. As I said, the baby trusts that a bottle of bleach is good to suckle, before realizing, no, no that's no good.

Quoting Agustino

The ideals invite you to trust them, just like your mother invites you to trust her that the milk she gives you is good. You trust the one, but not the other. Why? Because in the meantime, you've learned to distrust.

This perhaps depends upon what one's first experience is. Not every child's first experience is set up for the trusting of something that is in fact good. The mangled-born Spartan baby born is thrown on a hillside after his cries were ignored. He never got to receive the good post-trust. He is born, and then dies.

Reply to Wayfarer

I don't think science has all the answers, if that's what you mean; but you already know that. On the other hand concerning ourselves with an imaginary supernatural really amounts to concerning ourselves with nothing, as I see it.

The religious or spiritual life consists in feeling, NOW, in THIS life.

Reply to Janus So, what you're saying is that whilst science doesn't have all the answers, talking about what is beyond science really amounts to saying nothing - which is basically the attitude of positivism.

[quote=A J Ayer, Language Truth and Logic]We may define a metaphysical sentence as a sentence which purports to express a genuine proposition, but does, in fact, express neither a tautology nor an empirical hypothesis. And as tautologies and empirical hypotheses form the entire class of significant propositions, we are justified in concluding that all metaphysical assertions are nonsensical.[/quote]

Your issue is that you don't have a philosophical lexicon for the discussion of what is beyond the scope of naturalism, even though you recognise naturalism's limits. You will acknowledge that the 'experience of the sacred' is indeed real, and carries intrinsic authority - but only in a subjective or first-person sense. Nothing can be said about it which is of value to philosophy. So you're constantly criticising anything I venture in the area of Platonist metaphysics, as it appears to you as a transgression of what philosophy ought to concern itself with, which for you is strictly secular. Otherwise it represents 'an appeal to authority' which you see as 'imposed from above', which you equate with 'the imaginary supernatural'.

By the way, on the background to Wittgenstein's oft-quoted aphorism, 'That of which we cannot speak....' I read that as basically being in the tradition of apophatic philosophy. The fact that it was then (mis)appropriated by the Vienna Circle as an argument against the transcendent or the mystical, was a misinterpretation of Wittgenstein's intent, as explained in this article on The Folly of Logical Positivism.

Reply to Wayfarer

No, there is plenty we can talk about which is beyond the scope of science. You mentioned Wittgenstein; well, he was totally against any notion of reducing philosophy to science.

So, I am familiar enough with lexicons of meaning beyond the ambit of science; I just don't agree that there is any sensible lexicon that deals with purportedly supernatural entities. Kant made this point, Wittgenstein made this point. The difference between Wittgenstein and the positivists that are usually associated with the Vienna School, is that he did not believe that philosophy is reducible to empirical propositions.

"That of which we cannot speak" is meant to be taken seriously; and Wittgenstein adhered to his principle and didn't attempt to speak about those things, such as ethics, aesthetics and religion that cannot be discoursed in propositional language.

If anyone lacks a lexicon I would say it is you, because you do not seem to have actually read the modern philosophers and perhaps not even the medieval and ancient philosophers, but instead seem to rely on Wiki quotes and book reviews to get a sense of what they are all talking about. This inevitably leads to a distorted picture, I would say.

Quoting Wayfarer

You will acknowledge that the 'experience of the sacred' is indeed real, and carries intrinsic authority - but only in a subjective or first-person sense.

This is untrue. I don't believe "experiences of the sacred" carry any authority whatsoever, beyond their power of affectivity and conviction, and this is an 'inner' matter, not an imposition of something purportedly "higher". I also believe that power is not merely subjective, but it doesn't tell us anything we can sensibly argue about. We all have it within us to respond to the good, the beautiful, and the numinous, but this fact tells us nothing about anything metaphysical. Such experiences cannot coherently be objectified in the kinds of ways you seem to want to objectify them: in terms of "realms" or "higher authority" or "transcendent being".

Reply to Janus It’s simply your mindset against anything you deem ‘supernatural’, which includes an awful lot.

Quoting Janus

We all have it within us to respond to the good, the beautiful and the numinous, but this fact tells us nothing about anything metaphysical.

Do they have any place in philosophy at all, then, or they simply passed over in silence?

Quoting Janus

If anyone lacks a lexicon I would say it is you, because you do not seem to have actually read the modern philosophers and perhaps not even the medieval and ancient philosophers, but instead seem to rely on Wiki quotes and book reviews to get a sense of what they are all talking about. This inevitably leads to a distorted picture, I would say.

I don’t claim to be an authority in philosophy. What I do is refer to such materials in support of a general approach or perspective, which I believe that overall I present quite coherently.

Quoting Wayfarer

That is always said with the apparent conviction that none of the religious literature of the Judeo-Christian tradition actually constitutes evidence. I mean, it is simply swept off the table with the gesture of it 'not being empirical science', as though it is thereby settled that nothing in it ever happened, that the whole corpus is simply the superstitious accretions of the pre-scientific mentality. Never mind that it is read out at weddings and funerals, and that billions of people still live by it; there's no 'evidence'.

The problem for me Wayfarer, as someone who argued for years about the evidence in support of the Judeo-Christian tradition, is that although there is evidence, my contention now is that it's very weak testimonial evidence. The question, at least for me, is what conclusions can one reasonably draw from the available testimonial evidence. The main question is, does the evidence point to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God; and I don't see how one can reasonably conclude based on the available evidence the such a God exists.

When I wrote my thread on NDEs, in terms of consciousness surviving the body, I believe I gave a mountain of testimonial evidence in terms of numbers, variety, consistency, and objective verification of the testimonial evidence, but there is nothing like this in terms of the evidence that supports the God of the Bible. I'm mainly talking about first-hand accounts, not hearsay accounts, which most of the NT accounts, especially for the resurrection, are hearsay. For example, that 500 witnesses saw Christ after his death - pure hearsay.

So when you say evidence, I'm not sure what evidence you're referring too, and what conclusions can be reasonable drawn from this evidence.

Quoting Janus

but instead seem to rely on Wiki quotes and book reviews to get a sense of what they are all talking about. This inevitably leads to a distorted picture, I would say.

Yeah, this is an important point. Many times I've first read Wiki and other secondary sources before diving into a philosopher, and it turns out that by reading them I got a completely different impression than by reading the secondary sources. One such philosopher was Spinoza, or why not, even Wittgenstein. Sometimes I do wonder how come the Wiki is so far off the actual philosopher.

Quoting Janus

Such experiences cannot coherently be objectified in the kinds of ways you seem to want to objectify them: in terms of "realms" or "higher authority" or "transcendent being".

Reply to Wayfarer
So, Wayfarer, of what use is metaphysics? Because it seems to me that one can read and become acquainted with many many metaphysical theories, and still not "feel" any differently about his or her life.

Quoting Wayfarer

It’s simply your mindset against anything you deem ‘supernatural’, which includes an awful lot.

It's up to you if you want to encapsulate it like that rather than respond to points made.

Quoting Wayfarer

Do they have any place in philosophy at all, then, or they simply passed over in silence?

I believe that philosophy should be descriptive, as with Wittgenstein and phenomenology. The fact that we have it within us to respond to the good, the beautiful and the numinous is obviously of great significance to any philosophy that wants to describe and understand the human condition. When it comes to metaphysics, though, we are left with speculation that exercises our capacities of imagination and logic. The logic part is very important for speculative metaphysics; and I believe Spinoza is the greatest exponent here. But we have to realize with Kant and Wittgenstein that our speculations are just that; they don't give us any firm knowledge of reality comparable to how science can. We have nothing independent of our imaginations and logic (the logic is the part that checks for consistency) to test our speculations against. Mystical experience cannot provide such a testing ground, because mystical experiences tell us nothing solid about metaphysics, about reality and lest of all about any purported "higher reality".

Quoting Wayfarer

I don’t claim to be an authority in philosophy. What I do is refer to such materials in support of a general approach or perspective, which I believe that overall I present quite coherently.

I don't claim to be any authority in philosophy either. We don't have to be in order to come on here and share our ideas, and critique our own and others' ideas. I always try to avoid offering any opinion on aspects of philosophy that I have not studied adequately, though I might ask questions if I am interested to learn more.

Quoting Sam26

[In respect of the Biblical tradition] I'm not sure what evidence you're referring too, and what conclusions can be reasonable drawn from this evidence.

Simply the fact that it exists, along with the commentarial tradition that grew up around it over the centuries. You can be agnostic (as I am) but still not assume that it's all simply historical delusion and myth. Many people put it all in the same category as computer games or fantasy novels; that is one of the manifestations of the cultural nihilism that we're discussing elsewhere. (And a lot of people are unknowingly nihilist.)

Quoting Agustino

So, Wayfarer, of what use is metaphysics? Because it seems to me that one can read and become acquainted with many many metaphysical theories, and still not "feel" any differently about his or her life.

Metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose. Aristotle says this somewhere, but I can't find the reference, but the point is, it doesn't have a utilitarian or instrumental value. They are ideas that are contemplated for their own sake, purely because we as rational beings are able to contemplate them, and are fortunate to be able to do so.

As regards 'feeling differently' - I feel as though I did undergo a genuine Platonist epiphany a long time ago. Epiphanies are very elusive, they generally come and go in an instant. You could compare them to being out at night, and there's a lightning flash, and it reveals something amazing - just for long enough to see that it's there, and something about its nature - and then it falls dark again, but you still have a memory of what you saw.

In my case, it was the insight into the non-material reality of number. My very first post on philosophy forum was about this very idea. But when you try to explain it, you get funny looks.

There's a passage on Augustine and intelligible objects which I hark back to frequently, which strikes me as being of profound importance (although it gets the same response, most of the time):

In his Confessions, Augustine reports that his inability to conceive of anything incorporeal was "the most important and virtually the only cause" of his errors. The argument from De Libero Arbitrio shows how Augustine managed, with the aid of Platonist direction and argument, to overcome this cognitive limitation. By focussing on objects perceptible to the mind alone and by observing their nature, in particular their eternity and immutability, Augustine came to see that certain things that clearly exist, namely, the objects of the intelligible realm, cannot be corporeal. Then he cries out in the midst of his vision of the Divine Nature, "Is truth nothing just because it is not diffused through space, either finite or infinite?" he is acknowledging that it is the discovery of intelligible truth that first frees him to comprehend incorporeal reality.

Now, in that phrase above, I would not say of the 'intelligible things' that they 'clearly exist', but that they are real. They're real in a noetic or intelligible manner, but in a different mode to the reality of phenomenal objects. Whereas hardly anyone seems to get that there could be any other level or domain of being, than the phenomenal domain. You know the expression 'out there somewhere'? That is usually said of anything we might be considering the reality of - that it's 'out there somewhere', which denotes that it's real or that it exists. And for most of us, 'what exists' and 'what is real' are the same. We have an instinctive world-picture in which we picture ourselves as intelligent subjects in the world described by the natural sciences; and because it's instinctive, we're for the large part unaware of it; it's simply reality to us, it is 'what everyone thinks'. So seeing through that, or realising that it is literally just an attitude or mental construction - that does change you. Realising that 'what exists' - the phenomenal domain known to science - is only one slice or aspect or domain of reality, is indeed 'a realisation'. It's not simply understanding a verbal description. There's another Platonistic term, namely, metanoia, which nowadays is (unfortunately) translated as 'conversion', but it means something more profound than that. It's like a noetic transformation, a different way of understanding the nature of existence. And, sure, that does completely change how you 'feel' about life.

But, all that said, metaphysics is still only a verbal or discursive exercise. I think that is why, when Aquinas had his late life crisis/epiphany, he declared 'compared with what I have seen, all I have written seems as straw', and he stopped writing altogether (I once thought a great Comparative Religion essay question would be: 'N?g?rjuna starts here. Comment.) So, like a ladder, once metaphysics has served its purpose it can be discarded. But most people discard it before they climb it, or even know what it is, and there's a profound difference between going beyond metaphysics, and falling short of it.

Quoting Janus

But we have to realize with Kant and Wittgenstein that our speculations are just that; they don't give us any firm knowledge of reality comparable to how science can.

With all due respect, here I think is where you are mistaken. Because science can only give us certain knowledge of either those things that we are capable of treating in objective terms, along with what can be mathematically proven; of the domain of phenomena. But that is not all there is to reality.

That article in Philosophy Now clarifies this in respect of Wittgenstein. It explains how Wittgenstein underwent something of a conversion experience during WW1 after having found a copy of Tolstoy's The Gospels in Brief just before going into service.

Hence the key paragraph 6.522 in the Tractatus:

“There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.”

In other words, there is a categorically different kind of truth from that which we can state in empirically or logically verifiable propositions. These different truths fall on the other side of the demarcation line of the principle of verification.

Wittgenstein’s intention in asserting this is precisely to protect matters of value from being disparaged or debunked by scientifically-minded people such as the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle. He put his view beyond doubt in this sequence of paragraphs:

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value – and if there were, it would be of no value. If there is value which is of value, it must lie outside of all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental. It must lie outside the world.”

In other words, all worldly actions and events are contingent (‘accidental’), but matters of value are necessarily so, for they are ‘higher’ or too important to be accidental, and so must be outside the world of empirical propositions:

“6.42 Hence also there can be no ethical propositions. Propositions cannot express anything higher.

6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed. Ethics is transcendental.”

Young philosopher Frank Ramsey, who helped to translate the first English edition of the Tractatus, remarked that to describe ethics as ‘nonsense but important nonsense’ is too much like having one’s cake and eating it. This is surprisingly glib coming from Ramsey, whom we can assume had read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (as Wittgenstein certainly had), and would know the famous line in its Preface: that Kant had “found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” By this Kant meant that he denied an exclusively scientific worldview – a worldview that the Vienna Circle, including A. J. Ayer, had taken for granted. Kant’s purpose was to justify our conceiving of ourselves as rational agents who can through free will freely govern ourselves by the moral law. For Kant, for free moral choice to be possible, our will must not be constrained by the deterministic grip of the laws of nature that apply to the physical world. So our moral choices must be made independently of nature. So for both Kant and Wittgenstein, ethics is definitely transcendental. There are mysteries beyond the reach of human reason – totally beyond it, so that even all theological explanations are necessarily wrong. The most we can hope for is that our words may make our ignorance known to ourselves.

So, sure, we can't attain scientific knowledge of what is a fortiori beyond science. Which is why metaphysics is tentative and very general. But it does concern a domain of knowledge which precedes or underlies the phenomenal domain. Wittgenstein's approach was, as I said, apophatic - 'saying by not saying'. But it's a mistake to think that he too only believed in the reality of the domain of the sciences. Nor did Kant. They were both very scrupulous about the limits of language and logic, but they were also concerned to point out those limits.

Now you can say, therefore, that knowledge of 'what is beyond these limits' depends on faith - I guess that is how it must appear. But if you can actually see those limits, in the sense of understanding the nature and shortcomings of verbal/discursive thought, then to that extent, and in that sense, you see beyond them. That, I think, is the meaning of the gnosis, jñ?na or prajñ?p?ramit? in Greek, Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, respectively.

Reply to Wayfarer

You've totally misinterpreted what I said. I never said that Wittgenstein denied there was knowledge beyond the sciences. I can't see anything in that article, however lightweight and tendentious I might think it is, that does anything but support what I have been saying. If you think there is, then perhaps you could point it out.

In any case Philosophy Now is not a particularly reliable source, so how can you say what Wittgenstein's approach is when you haven't read his works, or even important secondary works about his philosophy?

Quoting Wayfarer

Janus: But we have to realize with Kant and Wittgenstein that our speculations are just that; they don't give us any firm knowledge of reality comparable to how science can.

Wayfarer: With all due respect, here I think is where you are mistaken. Because science can only give us certain knowledge of either those things that we are capable of treating in objective terms, along with what can be mathematically proven; of the domain of phenomena. But that is not all there is to reality.

Kant denies that we can have any other kind of knowledge apart from what he calls synthetic a prioiri knowledge. This is introspective knowledge about the forms he believed our experiences and judgements must take. Wittgenstein said we can only have propositional knowledge about matters of fact. The "more" that you say there is to reality is "that whereof we cannot speak". It can be shown; in our ethical actions, in art, music and literature, and so on; but it cannot be said. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. It puzzles me that you apparently cannot see that.

It is the domain of feeling, not of pure rationality. Of course we can reason, in a practical sense, about what we think we ought to believe on account of our feelings; but that is not pure reason, and I also think it is questionable; I don't accept the imperative, as Kant frames it, it doesn't work.

Quoting Janus

Mystical experience cannot provide such a testing ground, because mystical experiences tell us nothing solid about metaphysics, about reality and lest of all about any purported "higher reality".

I think that this is a too pessimistic evaluation of the epistemic force of mystical experiences.

As I read through much of what's said in this thread, I find that one of the problems, if not much of the problem has to do with how knowledge is acquired (an obvious observation). I have also been a student of Wittgenstein as some of you know, and I have great respect for Wittgenstein's ideas. In fact, his last work (On Certainty) tells us much about what it means to have knowledge, and if anything, it tells how expansive the use of the word know is. I have very rarely ever disagreed with Wittgenstein, because much of what I wrote on Wittgenstein was an exegesis. Although I did develop my own theory of epistemology based on his ideas.

My disagreement with Wittgenstein is that even he didn't fully appreciate the impact of his work, i.e., Wittgenstein's ideas, I believe, go much further than he even he thought. Although he did not downplay the importance of the mystical, he did not believe that we could have knowledge of the mystical, and this also carried over into his ethical discussions. He limits language, in terms of what we can know, to the world, and this is where I believe Wittgenstein went astray. The mystical is displayed by a showing, not a knowing according to Wittgenstein. This idea remains a part of his thinking from his early philosophy to his later philosophy. His later philosophy is much more accurate and practical than his earlier philosophy, but it still limits our knowing to how we use these words within the world, and within the culture developed around these words. The reasons for this have to do with the Austrian culture he came out of, and also the philosophical culture that molded some of his thinking.

My own view is that our knowledge is quite more expansive than Wittgenstein realized, and it's much more expansive than many materialists acknowledge. I definitely do not think that science has the corner on what it means to have knowledge. Some of you put a much higher premium on scientific thinking, and there are good reasons for this, but I think it is a mistaken notion that limits what we can know. One example comes to mind, and that is the experience of the self, my knowledge of myself, which surely is stronger in many ways than any scientific knowledge (any experimentation). In fact, our self awareness in some ways is bedrock to all that follows, including science.

Reply to Mitchell

It would be helpful if you were to say why you think that.

Quoting Wayfarer

Simply the fact that it exists, along with the commentarial tradition that grew up around it over the centuries. You can be agnostic (as I am) but still not assume that it's all simply historical delusion and myth. Many people put it all in the same category as computer games or fantasy novels; that is one of the manifestations of the cultural nihilism that we're discussing elsewhere. (And a lot of people are unknowingly nihilist.)

I agree with you in terms of the tradition, and that there are many facts that present themselves as part of that tradition, but, and I assume since you're an agnostic, that you also find the evidence to support a God lacking. This is my point. In many ways, I'm closer to your point of view, and I agree with some of your comments about the materialistic point of view.

Reply to Janus
I think that the cross-cultural similarities in reports of mystical experiences give us prima facie (and only prima facie) evidence of a dimension of reality that transcends the world of our senses. Let me recommend an examination of that claim: The Evidential Force of Religious Experience

Quoting Sam26

I assume since you're an agnostic, that you also find the evidence to support a God lacking.

I am agnostic, but not atheist. So I know I don't know that God exists; but the way I see it, for those who believe in God, the Universe is evidence. The requirement for evidence is a misunderstanding of the question.

There was a useful book published in 2009 by religious studies scholar, Karen Armstrong, called The Case for God. In it, she argues that the distinctively modern, Western attitude to God developed as one of the consequences of the Christian tendency to believe that natural laws ‘showed God’s handiwork’ - which is very much what early modern scientists and philosophers believed. But this had the consequence of 'naturalising' the Divine, which does it a disservice. It is that which made God a pseudo-scientific hypothesis, Paley's watchmaker, the divine engineer, tinkering on the edges with beetle wings and bacterium flagella.

But Armstrong reminds us of the apophatic tradition, the 'way of negation', which is behind the 'Cloud of Unknowing', and many of the Zen-sounding aspects of Christian mysticism [sup] 1[/sup]. That is in line with my approach. God is not a super-manufacturing design engineer.

However, I think what many people understand by the word 'God' is somewhat similar to Jupiter; after all, the names 'Jupiter' and 'Jehovah' sound somewhat alike, even though etymologically they're completely unrelated. The name 'Jupiter' is derived from the Indo-european 'dyaus-pitar', meaning, 'sky-father' also known as Zeus, Indra, and various other names, denoting the first among Gods. Now that, you can imagine as an engineer.

I think that due to the way religious ideas developed, the 'one God' of the Christian tradition became identified as one of 'the Gods', but then re-conceptualised as 'the most powerful' or 'only real' amongst the pantheon of ancient Gods which were displaced. This is why atheists will often remark that they believe in 'one God less' than do believers, as if Christians have clung to a remnant ancient deity, not realising that this is really no different in kind to Zeus or Indra or Baal. Which is a fair depiction under the circumstances, but a misunderstanding all the same.

I think there is a deep epistemological problem in all of this, which is identifying 'God' with Gods generally, or even with 'a' God. But religions have to operate on many levels; they have to clothe themselves in tropes and metaphors that are meaningful to their audience. So the 'Father' of the New Testament, is not actually 'a God' - but it was natural, in the ancient world, replete with pantheons and Gods, for God to be depicted this way, as everyone believed in the Gods. (It's also the case that as religion did have to provide a meaningful cosmology for the populace, then it depicted in terms that most people will grasp -whereas now the tropes of Christianity are barely intelligible in post-industrial culture.)

But as is known to students of comparative religion and mythology, the 'god of the mystics' is a very elusive figure. This has been brought out by the negative theology of Paul Tillich when he says that to claim that 'God exists' is to deny Him. The term 'existence' refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being - 'ex-ist' means 'to be apart'; to be 'this' as distinct from 'that'. Within this finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy and heteronomy abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon. In existence man is that finite being who is aware both of his belonging to, and separation from, the infinite'. Therefore existence is estrangement (the meaning behind the idea of the world being 'fallen'.)

"Although this looks like Tillich was an atheist such misunderstanding only arises due to a literalistic understanding of his use of the word "existence". What Tillich is seeking to elucidate is an understanding of the 'God beyond God'. We have already seen above that the Ground of Being (God) must be other than the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being); and that God cannot be a being; God must be beyond the finite or phenomenal domain. Anything brought from essence into existence is always going to be corrupted by ambiguity and its own finitude (i.e. 'fallen'). Thus statements about God must always be symbolic; this is reflected in the understanding of classical theology that all positive statements about deity are 'analogies' and not actual descriptions). Although we may claim to know God (the Infinite) we cannot. The moment God is brought from essence into existence God is corrupted by finitude and our limited understanding (and henceforth becomes merely an idol, a sign). In this realm we can never fully grasp (or even speak about) who or what God is [sup]2[/sup]."

So a lot of what is said about God really amounts to a straw man argument; 'straw god argument', you could say. But those who generally advance such arguments have no real interest in understanding what it is they're not understanding, as it's all in a sealed box which they have no desire to re-open.

Quoting Wayfarer

Metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose.

Quoting Wayfarer

So, like a ladder, once metaphysics has served its purpose it can be discarded.

I read what you wrote and I'm quite confused about what you're trying to say. One the one hand you say metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose, and on the other you talk of metaphysics having served a purpose :s

Quoting Wayfarer

As regards 'feeling differently' - I feel as though I did undergo a genuine Platonist epiphany a long time ago. Epiphanies are very elusive, they generally come and go in an instant. You could compare them to being out at night, and there's a lightning flash, and it reveals something amazing - just for long enough to see that it's there, and something about its nature - and then it falls dark again, but you still have a memory of what you saw.

In my case, it was the insight into the non-material reality of number. My very first post on philosophy forum was about this very idea. But when you try to explain it, you get funny looks.

Now, in that phrase above, I would not say of the 'intelligible things' that they 'clearly exist', but that they are real. They're real in a noetic or intelligible manner, but in a different mode to the reality of phenomenal objects. Whereas hardly anyone seems to get that there could be any other level or domain of being, than the phenomenal domain. You know the expression 'out there somewhere'? That is usually said of anything we might be considering the reality of - that it's 'out there somewhere', which denotes that it's real or that it exists. And for most of us, 'what exists' and 'what is real' are the same. We have an instinctive world-picture in which we picture ourselves as intelligent subjects in the world described by the natural sciences; and because it's instinctive, we're for the large part unaware of it; it's simply reality to us, it is 'what everyone thinks'. So seeing through that, or realising that it is literally just an attitude or mental construction - that does change you. Realising that 'what exists' - the phenomenal domain known to science - is only one slice or aspect or domain of reality, is indeed 'a realisation'. It's not simply understanding a verbal description. There's another Platonistic term, namely, metanoia, which nowadays is (unfortunately) translated as 'conversion', but it means something more profound than that. It's like a noetic transformation, a different way of understanding the nature of existence. And, sure, that does completely change how you 'feel' about life.

It seems to me that metaphysics is useful only to prove that your conception is possible. Metaphysics can prove possibility, never actuality. You'll never convince anyone of your metaphysical position by recounting metaphysics to them. Nobody gains any sort of insight through the reading or study of metaphysics, except insight into how reason, concepts, etc. work. In other words, you learn that metaphysics is useless, or only useful after the fact.

You speak of contemplation with an entirely different sense to the Christian or Medieval sense of contemplation. In Christianity, contemplation refers to the activity that you know as meditation in Buddhism. Meditation, in Christianity, refers to the activity that you call contemplation - thinking about things more deeply. So there is prayer, which is opening yourself up and asking for inner strength, etc. there is meditation, which is pondering over the wisdom of Scripture, the life of Christ, etc. etc. and there is contemplation (both active and passive), which is sitting silently and watching.

So all the metaphysics in the world are completely useless, since metaphysics doesn't give you any insights. Spiritual practice, ie prayer, meditation, contemplation does. The spiritual practices change how you feel about the world - not metaphysics. You can study metaphysics all day long and you won't get anywhere in terms of changing how you feel about the world.

Quoting Agustino

One the one hand you say metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose, and on the other you talk of metaphysics having served a purpose :s

Touché :-d

Quoting Wayfarer

Touché :-d

Why are you upset? I can't follow what it is you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with this?
Quoting Agustino

So all the metaphysics in the world are completely useless, since metaphysics doesn't give you any insights. Spiritual practice, ie prayer, meditation, contemplation does. The spiritual practices change how you feel about the world - not metaphysics.

Reply to Wayfarer Wow, I guess we're much further apart than I realized. To me Tillich's thinking is a muddled mess. However, to be fair, I've not studied him in depth, so I have very generalized view of his thinking. The language Tillich and other existentialists use, especially when it comes to epistemology is just not well thought out.

Quoting Agustino

So you don't care what the other person says they believe

Exactly. Belief is useless and unimportant. I'm only interested in knowledge. You make my point for me.

Quoting Agustino

No, it is literarily impossible to doubt when you have nothing to doubt. Doubting and disbelieving is a learned process that becomes possible only after you've already learned to believe and have come to believe a thousand and one things.

This is simply nonsense.
1) You say some shit
2) I doubt that shit, based on knowledge. Faith based belief has nothing to do with it.

Like I told you before you are using poorly developed ideas, where the same words come in for different meanings. Faith is not the same as trust. And belief is not knowledge. If you are incapable of making distinctions you are just making a fool of yourself by switching from one meaning to another.

Quoting charleton

Exactly. Belief is useless and unimportant. I'm only interested in knowledge. You make my point for me.

Then you can't have a discussion, so you're really wasting your time here.

And secondly, there is no knowledge without belief.

Quoting charleton

This is simply nonsense.
1) You say some shit
2) I doubt that shit, based on knowledge. Faith based belief has nothing to do with it.

What you call knowledge are merely things you have faith in.

Quoting charleton

And belief is not knowledge.

Sure, that doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't involve belief though.

Reply to Agustino
Belief is a thing taken to be true regardless of evidence, information or reason.
This, although, can be confused with "knowledge" is not the same thing at all.
Why don't you stop and think for a second. I know you are not completely stupid.
Take the two definitions above as two ends of a spectrum.
You know damn well that some people accept and believe things without a reasonable warrant. But on the other end of the spectrum there is such a thing as rigorous method that leads to near certain knowledge.
If you use belief without any discrimination, in the way you do, and also pretend that faith is the same as trust, then you are never going to make yourself clear.
On the contrary all you are doing is offering muddled thinking.

Quoting charleton

Belief is a thing taken to be true regardless of evidence, information or reason.

No, that's not the traditional definition of belief. Have a look in the closest dictionary please. Here's one:

Belief = conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Quoting charleton

This, although, can be confused with "knowledge" is not the same thing at all.
Why don't you stop and think for a second. I know you are not completely stupid.
Take the two definitions above as two ends of a spectrum.

If you are familiar with philosophic tradition, you would know that many philosophers have defined knowledge as justified true belief. So I don't see how I'm being dumb. You're just pretending I should accept what you say as if it is the most evident thing in the world. Clearly it's not, and that's not just for me, but for many people.

Quoting charleton

You know damn well that some people accept and believe things without a reasonable warrant. But on the other end of the spectrum there is such a thing as rigorous method that leads to near certain knowledge.

So one can believe in the absence of evidence, or one can believe based on evidence right?

Your use of these terms is has no utility. Since you want to use the "rational" definition of "belief" to self justify your silly religious Faith.
This makes you risible.
You are missing the point utterly.
Quoting Agustino

So one can believe in the absence of evidence, or one can believe based on evidence right?

No. I am suggesting that if you are indiscriminate in your use of the word, you end up saying NOTHING.
That is why I personally hold that knowledge and belief has to be sundered in order that it is possible to make any sense.
With Knowledge I do not employ Faith. I use previsional trust that my information is correct, until I discover contrary information.
With Belief, as the extreme can you simply employ empty faith and believe what suits your whim.
If you cannot see that there is a difference then you are not saying anything of any value.

Quoting charleton

No.

What other alternatives are there? So if believing in the absence of evidence, and believing based on evidence do not exhaust all possibilities, what other possibilities are there?

Quoting charleton

With Knowledge I do not employ Faith. I use previsional trust that my information is correct, until I discover contrary information.

Right, so you believe something based on reasons - evidence is an empty word. Reasons are just other things you believe. Ultimately we have to reach something that you believe for its own sake, because it is self-evident to you. Those are things you take as properly basic, that you believe on faith.

Reply to Agustino I can have the same discussion about logic, and hence reason, being antithetical to believe too if you want. I can also have a discussion about the realms of morality and natural science too if you want.

For example "I believe that we are all equal", does not mean that I know we are equal, or that we are equal. This is a moral value that I hold as an aspiration. A aspiration that we deserve to all be treated equally before the law.
The clumsy use of the term "belief" here above is not tantamount to knowledge in any sense.
Am I getting through?

Quoting charleton

For example "I believe that we are all equal", does not mean that I know we are equal, or that we are equal. This is a moral value that I hold as an aspiration. A aspiration that we deserve to all be treated equally before the law.
The clumsy use of the term "belief" here above is not tantamount to knowledge in any sense.
Am I getting through?

I never said belief is equal to knowledge. I asked you some specific questions, can you please focus and answer my questions, and not talk about things that I haven't yet asked you about?

Quoting Agustino

I failed to make a distinction between knowledge and unjustified belief. Can you explain how?

Quoting Agustino

Can you also explain what justifies belief? (and please don't tell me evidence, explain what evidence consists of).

Reply to Mitchell

Does prima facie evidence differ from 'evidence at first glance' or apparent evidence? The question is, whether on further examination and analysis, it constitutes substantive evidence, it seems to me. Substantive evidence is evidence that can be intersubjectively corroborated; and I think on that score it fails to qualify.

An individual's religious experience may constitute evidence for them, but the status as 'evidence' there consists in the ability to convince; to change one's feelings; it is not a matter of rational argument or empirical evidence. But don't mistake me to be saying that I don't think individuals should allow themselves to be convinced by such experiential "evidence"; on the contrary I think individuals should be very open to that; it is very human to lay yourself open to experience of all kinds, and to decide for yourself what it is that you value and how you value it. Individuals may be socially constructed to a certain degree, but they are by no means owned by society.

Quoting Janus

Does prima facie evidence differ from 'evidence at first glance' or apparent evidence?

I would concur it's not called evidence which should be readily available to be examined formally.
Rather it's just facts that you accept or deny based on your own subjective judgement. Say, you can still deny a rose is red if you were color blind.

Reply to Dzung

Something like that I guess.

Quoting Janus

We don't need science to tell us that we want to survive, and more, we want to live and even more still, that we want to flourish.

Well said. Do we know all our wanted or all we would and should want? And for what?

Reply to Dzung

Thanks. I would say that self-knowledge consists in knowing which wants lead to dissipation and which to flourishing. Since we are social beings, desires that lead to pleasant and mutually fruitful engagement with others should be cultivated, and desires which lead to unpleasant engagement with others or alienation from others should be neglected and if necessary weeded out.

We cannot know all our wants; there will always be the unconscious; but I would say the worthwhile aim is to, as much as possible, bring all that is subconscious into consciousness .

Quoting Janus

which wants lead to dissipation and which to flourishing

perfect!
Quoting Janus

Since we are social beings

appears obvious but if allowed just a bit of skepticism, one could ask "what if from deep down we are not?"
Anyway we can't deny that but I am still proposing the most important "what" you can ever perceive is your own self, more than any relationships or connections to the surroundings. Having said that I am aware there is yet a satisfactory definition of "self".

Quoting Janus

it doesn't work

can you educate me why not for Kan'ts imperative? I love Kant by the way and would be interested in any points unmatched.

Quoting TheMadFool

So, why single out religious faith for our criticism?

I believe you have been satisfied with the reasons given so far. I read the most apparent answer is because thinkers consider it as "that whereof we cannot speak".

If I am asked, I'd say plainly people don't want to talk about it because it sounds naive in the face, or sort of. Plainly we are very limited and we don't know our limits, just vaguely that we are. If you agree with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, this is exactly what I mean.

Reply to Dzung

Kant wants to formulate universal moral imperatives. In other words he wants to reduce morality to a set of rules, all of which may be rationally justified by just one maxim:

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

He wants to eliminate the affective, imaginative and intuitive dimensions from moral thought and action.

This may seem to work in the abstract; but the problem is that in concrete situations the rigidity of the imperative may create situations which conflict with our moral feelings and intuitions.

The classic example of this kind of conflict is: Say you have some Jewish children whose parents have been killed by the Nazis hidden in your attic. The Gestapo knock on your door and ask you if have any Jews in your house. According to Kant lying is always wrong; therefore you must tell them about the children.

Quoting Janus

Kant wants to formulate universal moral imperatives. In other words he wants to reduce morality to a set of rules, all of which may be rationally justified by just one maxim:

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

Given these two statements is seems to me that you have it completely backwards.

As if you act towards your universal wishes you are imposing your moral code towards the objective from the subject, not the other way round.

Consider the statement that all Mongols are universally supreme and the all Indians are universally inferior. That it ought to be a universal maxim that all Mongols should crush their enemies and hear the lamentation of their women.
This is great if you are Ghengis Khan, not so good if you are Ghandi.

Reply to charleton

I can't see any relevance at all in your response. Perhaps you could explain your point more clearly.

Reply to Janus cool, thanks. I found the criticism with the murderer/Natzi scenario (originally by Constant?) incomplete. But ironically Kant's defense was too. Probably it reaches the edge of philosophy and there's no resolute solution? How do you think?

Reply to Dzung

It's not clear to me what you mean by "incomplete". I do think there are no definitive 'in principle' abstract solutions to moral dilemmas, and I do think Kant did not want to accept this. I think it is wrong-headed to aim to eliminate the affective dimension form ethics and morality; the affective dimension may be messy, but it is alive! I don't believe that ethics and morality can be encapsulated within any purely rational system or by any universal maxim.

Quoting Janus

what you mean by "incomplete"

must say I am in no position to criticize them. Kant was tenacious in his imperative view and there must have been his allies around so we can say a few believers of such universality exist. However, the number of skepticals may be a lot higher and finally the opposition side must be overwhelming (are you on this side?). So Kant must have missed something if he were infallible.
There are implications here and there that equality is fundamental and if you take if off, all would collapse. Kant's years were the maternity for equality notion and he might have assumed this as a fundamental basis. At least on this point I wouldn't agree equality is something material or even hypothetically "complete". Equality in our real life is a bloat. I borrowed the "incomplete" terminology from Godel's incompleteness theorem and strongly believe it's relevant (there's another thread on this forum on the thoerem).
By the way, Benjamin Constant was refuted by Kant's defense, would we need to look at his incompleteness?

Quoting Dzung

finally the opposition side must be overwhelming (are you on this side?)

I think there is some value in the ideas that Kant works into the imperative; but as I said I don't think it is really workable.

I'm not familiar with Constant's critique; if I get sufficient time I might check it out.

Faith is collective mental illness.

Quoting TheMadFool

that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence.

No, faith is a pursuit, perfomance some teaching, philosophical theory. It is a project.
I am yoga-philosopher and my faith is based on raja-yoga teaching. The main sources of it are Yoga-sytra, Bhagavat-gita and other sanscrit scriptures.