"Tell us first what that is - define your term in some substantive way." And you cannot, except in terms of faith.
This is true for some believers, but not all. The concept of divinity has been around for the whole reach of human history. If you take a holistic approach to its meaning, it means things like cause, consciousness, volition, life, Nature, logic, purpose, etc. None of those things are purely matters of faith or exclusive of what we commonly think of as humanity's properties.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 15:20#2234050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. As such, it is not about philosophy, metaphysics. logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics or really anything else. These other things, to be sure, as tools can be applied to theology for the benefit of theology. But no application of them brings theology out of its own proper sphere of faith without turning it into nonsense.
The idea that God is just about faith is an idea that I think most people understand, but if it's just a belief based on faith, what makes one faith better than another. It's funny because when I ask this question to religious people they start using reason to defend their faith, but the claim is that reason has nothing to do with faith. So which is it, I ask, faith or reason? If it's purely faith, without reason, then I suppose I could have faith in anything I please. One faith is no better than another.
I understand the holistic approach (feel free to educate on this) is the belief in an immanent something -
I was talking about meaning holism. Imagine a sea of beliefs and inferences that repetitively crashes upon the shore of contemporary speech, making available elements from the distant past and from distant lands. Meaning, by this view, arises from this vast sea so that no particular case of use has clear boundaries in terms of meaning.
So I was offering elements of the use of "God" that aren't about faith, but may feature in everyone's experiences. What makes the believer distinct is that he or she is calling that thing divine.
But the rock is, first, a rock. If any part of the rock is something else, what part, what something else?
I'm not sure what belief system this is. Sounds interesting, though.
LD SaundersOctober 30, 2018 at 17:05#2234280 likes
No system we have is grounded --- science, mathematics, logic, they all rest on faith. In logic and mathematics, we rely on the faith in axioms. In science, we rely on the circular reasoning of using induction to support induction, which means science remains ungrounded. The distinction between theists and others has nothing to do with the issue of faith, as all of us have faith. Philosophers have shown this over and over again. We cannot even trust there is a world outside of ourselves without faith, it simply cannot be proven in any concrete fashion. The distinction is that some theists make claims to knowledge that they do not possess. That's the real dividing line.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 18:58#2234660 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 19:06#2234670 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 19:12#2234690 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
If it's purely faith, without reason, then I suppose I could have faith in anything I please. One faith is no better than another.
Faith, as distinct from merely arbitrary belief, or idle entertainment of ideas, has affective power. No one will feel devotion or love for, or be profoundly inspired by, the Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.
It is not so much that one faith is better than another but that there is real faith and then there is mere belief and then something even less significant than that.
As faith qua faith, none is better, imo - you can believe what you want. But is it that simple? In most faiths there's a component of action. I imagine you would agree with me that some actions are better than others. And there is also the internal logic of any system, which is merely the application of reason - logic - to the system itself without reference to anything outside the system - usual tests being for internal consistency and the presence of contradiction.
For me, it's not a matter of believing what I want, I want to have knowledge. What's true is what interests me, not some opinion that may or may not be true.
I do agree that some actions are better than others, and that's based on reason. However, you're going beyond reason, to say that faith is better, but you don't give a reason, you just make a statement, as if the mere statement conveys the truth.
Faith, as distinct from merely arbitrary belief, or idle entertainment of ideas, has affective power. No one will feel devotion or love for, or be profoundly inspired by, the Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.
It is not so much that one faith is better than another but that there is real faith and then there is mere belief and then something even less significant than that.
There is no doubt that faith, which are about beliefs by the way, have power, but that doesn't make them true, and that's what I'm concerned with, not wishful thinking.
Faith without reason is no better than mere belief, that's all it is; and by mere belief, I mean opinion. Now if reason plays a part, as some religious people contend, then we can look at one's faith, one's beliefs, in terms of the evidence or the reasons that support them. Tim seems to want it both ways, at least that's how I read what he's saying.
Finally, people can be inspired by false beliefs, it happens all the time. Beliefs are powerful, and this is true even if the belief is false.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 19:45#2234780 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. As such, it is not about philosophy, metaphysics. logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics or really anything else.
In this quote you say it's all about faith, "...not about philosophy, metaphysics, logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics..." Later you say that if it's brought out of the sphere of faith, then it turns into nonsense. You seem to want to separate the faith from the reason, but faith is about the beliefs, i.e., if it's not about the beliefs, then what is it about? If I have faith that God exists, then I believe God exists. Thus, we want to know what the reasons are for those beliefs. Faith without belief is meaningless.
Rank AmateurOctober 30, 2018 at 19:59#2234800 likes
Reply to tim wood In general I agree. I think any statement we make about the nature of God has no basis. There is no reason to believe that we in anyway possess the tools required to make any such claim.
Faith in God may well be the philosophic suicide that Camus said it is. But if one finds theism a personally satisfying answer to the big "why", why is that in anyway different from the existentialist defining a unique meaning, or from the absurd hero's acceptance of the absurd?
Camus would, I think, say one is more truthful than the other. Which to my mind is just a prejudicial selection of one option over another - neither one with any more provable truth value than the other.
So to the main point neither fact, nor reason, nor faith is a better or worse basis for one to believe something to be true - with the only caveat that they can not be misapplied. Reason can not be in conflict with fact, and faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason.
What is really at issue, and has been for a very long time is really just one person saying their faith based belief is better than your faith based belief. -
There is no doubt that faith, which are about beliefs by the way, have power, but that doesn't make them true, and that's what I'm concerned with, not wishful thinking.
One person's faith is another person 'wishful thinking".
The purported truth, in any propositional sense, of what one has faith in is irrelevant, not even coherent, I would say. Faith is not properly held in propositional terms at all; if it is, it is mere irrational belief, some form of fundamentalism.
The most powerful and universal form of faith is faith in God, or some kind of divine, universal power or principle. What could it mean to ask whether particular faiths of those forms are "true"? This is not an empirical matter at all, unless the religious belief takes the form of fundamentalism; in which case it would plausibly be false, or at least beyond any possibility of demonstration, and thus, as a would-be empirical proposition, incoherent. The purported refutations of such non-propositional faiths are thus also tantamount to fundamentalism.
I'm struck by the substance and beauty of this metaphor
Cool. I was going for a wave/particle duality for holism/atomism. It's clearer to say that meaning holism says that a word's meaning is bound up in the meaning of a whole statement in which it appears. In turn, that statement's meaning is bound up in its context: a scientific statement being inextricably bound to science in general, for instance.
It's not enough for any criteria of meaning I know of to accept it as meaning, as meaningful, merely because someone says it.
"There, but for the grace of God, go I." If you heard that in context, you'd probably understand some of the meaning. You'd have a deeper understanding if you studied medieval Christianity. If your grandmother used to say that, it would have other connections.
That's an example of thinking in terms of meaning holism: seeing overlapping contexts.
tim wood: If someone says the rock is divine, as knowledge that's private knowledge, again, faith, or, another word, feeling, the personal attribution of a particular cause for a particular feeling.
Again, I'm not familiar with the rock disciples. It wouldn't bother me if they said that God is the feeling they get when they're around rocks. Would it bother you?
The purported truth, in any propositional sense, of what one has faith in is irrelevant, not even coherent, I would say. Faith is not properly held in propositional terms at all; if it is, it is mere irrational belief, some form of fundamentalism.
I don't follow your thinking. If we're talking about the existence of God, and having faith in a God, what are we talking about if not whether such a being exists, whether it's true or not. If it's not propositional, then what is it? How do you express it? There has to be a belief of some sort, we are not talking in a vacuum of beliefs. I don't know of any religious faith that doesn't hold to some kind of propositional faith or belief. Moreover, if someone asked, what is your faith in, what do you believe, how do you do express it without expressing statements or propositions of some sort. I guess you could chant.
As I see it, faith proper is almost entirely a matter of affect. It consists in feelings: of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, of a sense of the divine, the sublime. Whatever is said as an expression of faith should be taken as metaphor, as allegory.
The existence or non-existence of God cannot be known; first you would need to understand what it could mean to say that God exists.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 21:55#2235310 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 22:07#2235400 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 22:09#2235420 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
As I see it, faith proper is almost entirely a matter of affect. It consists in feelings: of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, of a sense of the divine, the sublime. Whatever is said as an expression of faith should be taken as metaphor, as allegory.
The existence or non-existence of God cannot be known; first you would need to understand what it could mean to say that God exists.
Okay, so faith consists of feelings of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, etc. Faith as I see it, involves trust, if I have faith in someone or something, I'm trusting someone or something.
However, let's use reverence as an example, reverence is respect for someone or something, usually when Christians use the term reverence they are talking or referring to someone, viz., God. If they talk about love, it's love for someone, so it's more than a feeling, although it's that too. Even very liberal churches, at least many of them, have tenets of faith, beliefs that they put their faith in. Your idea seems very subjective, viz., faith is whatever I want it to be, a kind of mysticism or metaphor. My argument is with those who put their faith in specific beliefs.
Your way of thinking about it would need to be tackled in a different way. Moreover, the two main religions don't think of it the way you're thinking of faith, at least generally.
Reply to tim wood Not joking, it's what I believe, that what we call 'God' is the only thing that exists. So if you/I/we exist then you/I/we are God, quite simple really. Everything we investigate appears more complex the more we look, I believe ultimate reality must be simple.
Not joking, it's what I believe, that what we call 'God' is the only thing that exists. So if you/I/we exist then you/I/we are God, quite simple really
It's a model with much pedigree. You can think of it like this:
- In the beginning there was God and some stuff and God made the world from stuff
Or
- In the beginning there was God only and he mad the world from himself
I don't belief in creation ex nihilo so that gives a 50% chance that Pantheism is true.
Your way of thinking about it would need to be tackled in a different way. Moreover, the two main religions don't think of it the way you're thinking of faith, at least generally.
I'm not sure which religions you are referring to as the "two main", but in any case I would say that intelligent adherents of all the major religions do for the most part see it the way I described.
Think about God, for example. To have faith in God is to have faith in what is felt and thought to be a real divine power inherent in things. The fact that some believers have more objectivist views of God only speaks to their fundamentalism.
Some people have faith in an after life. Is such faith rational? Not according to the consensus view, since any purported evidence is purely anecdotal. What people count as evidence is always already determined by their particular set of groundless presuppositions.
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2018 at 22:37#2235550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurOctober 30, 2018 at 22:38#2235570 likes
Reply to tim wood as I stated, I don't think any truth one believes is better or worse if believed by fact, reason, or faith. As long as, as I stated, that what one believes by reason can not be in conflict with fact, and what one believes by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. With that caveat fact, reason and faith are neither better or worse than each other.
Reply to tim wood You don't perceive God directly because as God you have decided to experience being a human being, i.e. so called 'you'. To make that experience seem as real as poss the real you (God) has to forget your real identity and believe that you are that person. Therefore the real you must remain hidden until at some point you 'wake up' and realise who you really are. Then, I suppose, you may perceive yourself. God that is.
Reply to frank Not sure about that though somewhere in the bible we are described as gods, not God though, but maybe it's a sideways reference to all of us, the one God.
What if belief is taken to be a frame of reference. It may just be another context for perspective developed in relation to certain information. As such, it would account for the many faiths, religions, etc and would be impossible to invalidate without concrete proof which reveals otherwise. Also, as a frame of reference, it can be tagged to new facts or information e.g. God created the atoms, quarks, etc., God develops humans through evolution, or God is involved in whatever we discover or invent in the future,...
Since God is not presented as a being to observe and point to as, "hey, there he is," but is supposed to be evident through a distinct set of circumstances and activities, therefore, whichever interpretation is given of God, if it doesn't match up to the original defining information, then it outlines a different circumstance or activity and therefore a different identity other than God. This applies to all who question why an omni-scient/potent/present God can't or isn't this or that. Just by having limitations in the question, they have already excluded the omni-scient/potent/present God they hoped to refer to.
In this way, it's about how we relate to information about God that determines for each individual whether God exists or doesn't. To me, this seems like a reasonable and practical way to perceive belief. Any takers?
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 31, 2018 at 00:25#2236030 likes
Faith comes from within us. Therefore anything attributed to faith has its origins in us. At the same time not in fact - or we would be being informed by fact.
Clearly, we all believe that we are being informed by fact, otherwise we'd each have to be skeptical of all of our knowledge. But we aren't such radical skeptics, because we have faith that we are informed by fact. Without that faith we'd have radical skepticism because there is no way to know with absolute certainty that we are being informed by fact.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I don't believe I being informed by fact, rather, I believe I'm being informed by beliefs and opinions. I take it all all so called'knowledge' with a pinch of salt.
And it's crystal clear that many participants on TPF do not understand that simple point. Practice faith. Think about what it means to believe in and practice that faith. And practice goes to conduct. There's plenty in that. But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed.
Not in faith, not in science, but what about in practice? As you've so nearly said?
This bullshit definition of "faith" of the new atheists is so tired and rubbery. It reveals a total lack of understanding of what faith is to the common believer. It's fucking boring.
In short, there can be philosophies of religion and theology. This is just thinking about the thinking about these topics. But that's the limit of what is reasonable. Attempts to prove existence, or presence, or anything else, outside of theology, is nonsense.
Is it? Or is it the thinking about the traditions that bears these topics? But yes, attempts to "prove" "god" are useless.
God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith.
That definition, forgive me for so saying, is rather fideistic.
fideism
/?f??d??z(?)m/
noun
the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation.
But that said, I don’t want to disagree with the substance of the rest. The problem I have, however, is that the insistence on faith can easily be intellectually immasculating. I mean, after all, many theocrats of all stripes would heartily endorse such an insistence.
Any yet, it is certainly true that much of the talk about ‘God’ is completely uninformed about the existential dimension of that term. The importance of practice and of anchoring one’s understanding in the lived reality of faith can’t be over-stated. Though practice one learns a dimension of existence and experience that simply can’t be learned by any other means. One cannot, after all, learn to ski by reading books about skiing.
Nevertheless, as this is a philosophy forum, and the proper approach is to make a philosophical argument for something, rather than to simply insist on believing, I will say that one facet of spirituality that mainstream Western denominations are weak in, is the ‘experiential dimension’. But I say that as one of those who sought out spiritual experience, only to realise that any worth having requires that one adopt certain attitudes and dispositions which would customarily be designated ‘religious’ . There’s probably no escape from that particular regress, but I still maintain that religion as it is propagated in Western culture has become estranged from the experiential aspects without which it is indeed simply meaningless verbiage. I think one reason is because the metaphors and myth is in which religion is embodied are now so remote from the reality of post—industrial civilisation.
But that is our problem, not religion’s. See Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.
But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed.
Experience of phenomena that might be called God seems possible through reason alone.
As example, you are using reason to discover the limitations of reason in regards to God beliefs. So if we discard reason, and can't accept faith, we are left with nothing.
This might be a good outcome. The overwhelming vast majority of reality is nothing (or perhaps relative nothing for you sticklers). Thus, putting our minds in a state of nothing aligns us with reality.
When our minds aren't crammed with theories, ideas and plans etc our attention is freed to focus on reality. To the degree we focus on the real world we may experience things there which were inaccessible to us while distracted by the symbolic realm.
The problem arises when we try to convert this experience of the real world in to ideas, theories, conclusions etc. Then we are back in the same old game, and if we want to create a bunch of explanations of such experience then faith may be the only available course of action, as you suggest.
But we don't have to create a big pile of explanations. We can value the experience for itself and leave it at that. As example, we get nutrition from food simply by the experience of eating it. It doesn't matter if we then go on to try to explain the processes of digestion etc, this is an optional activity which doesn't provide any nutrition.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 12:58#2236550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 13:03#2236560 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 13:09#2236570 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurOctober 31, 2018 at 13:43#2236580 likes
I'm not talking about truth or falsity. Why would anyone do that when we're not dealing in facts? I'm suggesting that it's primarily about a certain relationship with information we have regardless of evidence. For example, I don't have to be religious to know and to relate with the concept of a religious God or religious anything. What I need is the relevant information and to understand the context. As such, at least, I can claim to have decent perspective in the matter.
The fantastic claim are just as relatable as any scientific claims given the right perspective. The problem is we're too quick to deny what isn't seeking our validation. And why? Perhaps, because of fear of being invalidated. I think those who are antagonistic to religion would think that religion is antagonistic to them. Imho there's often very little adherence to logic by those who argue against religion because most of them ignore a significant portion of what religion is.
Rank AmateurOctober 31, 2018 at 15:01#2236670 likes
every argument against a faith based belief that is not in conflict with fact or reason - is just another faith based belief.
Harry HinduOctober 31, 2018 at 15:03#2236680 likes
How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"?
Isn't "faith" simply accepting certain knowledge with no reason to other than it is consoling?
Rank AmateurOctober 31, 2018 at 15:12#2236690 likes
How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"?
much of this entire issue is based on one's definitions of the words.
I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true, and this basis can not be in conflict with fact or reason. All truths believed by faith are individual - although many individuals may have them in common.
using this definition - hope is not a truth claim - if you hope something is true - you are saying you don't know if or if not it is true. And if your truth claim based on faith is delusional, it would be in conflict with either fact or reason or both.
Harry HinduOctober 31, 2018 at 15:42#2236790 likes
I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true
What if the individual basis for believing something is based on how it makes them feel, as opposed to consistent observations and experimentation? How does the concept of god NOT conflict with fact or reason?
Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you.
Rank AmateurOctober 31, 2018 at 16:01#2236810 likes
Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you
believing something is true, does not mean it is a fact that it is true. However, until proven wrong by either fact or reason - there is no basis to say it is not true.
For example - i can say, based on reason alone, it is true that there is no such thing as a pink unicorns on earth. That statement remains true, to me, - right up until the point where someone finds a pink unicorn in some dark corner of some jungle.
this is the nature of the belief in truth.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 31, 2018 at 16:04#2236820 likes
I don't believe I being informed by fact, rather, I believe I'm being informed by beliefs and opinions. I take it all all so called'knowledge' with a pinch of salt.
Right, I am sympathetic to that position. But this is where faith is essential and necessary, without it we could not proceed with even the most simple activities, being too unsure and insecure.
Yet clearly we are not in fact always informed by fact. On this we agree, yes? And I suspect there are some - perhaps many - who do not believe we are always informed by fact. "Always" my word; I believe you implied it, I merely wished to make it explicit.
Yes we agree here. And, because we recognize that we are not always informed by fact, though we hope we are, faith is of the utmost importance. Otherwise, we would not be able to proceed in our daily activities, out of fear that we are not being informed by fact, and our decisions and actions are mistaken. Hence the importance of faith.
So, let me return to your paragraph which I quoted.
To be brief, faith (itself) tells us nothing. Faith comes from within us. Therefore anything attributed to faith has its origins in us. At the same time not in fact - or we would be being informed by fact. Nor in reason, for reason would be informing us, and reason speaks of facts. To denominate any as "true" requires a definition of true. Except that one definition won't fit. Each will require its own truth.
Faith does come from within, but contrary to your claim, it does tell us something. It tells us when to act. And since the act of decision making is itself an act, faith is far more important than any facts which might come to us from some external source, because we can never know with certainty whether what is coming from the external source is fact or not. Whatever comes to us from external sources, fact or not fact, must be judged, and since we can never be absolutely certain of our judgement, no judgement is possible without faith.
Do you not agree that faith ought to be cultured and propagated as a virtue similar to courage? And, that religion is the discipline which does this?
Knowledge of facts beyond the domain of human conduct has been of little significance to religion. There's no religion where a deity/deities uses the concept of creation of the universe to inform on morality. Such information is always used to develop the context in which to understand God's authority. It is information used to show that the deity/deities in question do have a superior point of view and therefore maybe worth the attention and due consideration.
Religion is more concerned with the facts of human conduct. Surprisingly, most religions have provided greater illumination into human conduct than any branch of science. In fact, I would argue there is nothing about the scientific study of human conduct that is not previously represented in religion. And for those who would like to argue against the kinds of instances such as where psychological conditions and diseases were not previously recognised as such, then it becomes a question of perception, language and expression of information but not its unavailability.
In terms of human conduct, religious teachings are superior to scientific teachings especially in their authority, integrity and discipline towards managing human behaviour. Religious teachings manage to ward off any sort of addiction rooted in our physical organisation (and this takes into consideration the likes of shamanism which, for longer than modern science, has promoted the use of certain drugs), a trend I would wish science to emulate in its participation in our lives.
I am one of those who, even though not adhering to any particular religion, advocate for the revision and transformation of religions into domains defined predominantly by critical analysis, intelligent beneficial methodology and strict jurisdiction in application of discipline. I don't think such an endeavour can be undertaken by people who do not fully appreciate the value of religion.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:13#2236960 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:14#2236970 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:28#2236990 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:30#2237000 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurOctober 31, 2018 at 17:30#2237010 likes
Reply to tim wood there is always a major issue in discussions on faith. the first is agreeing on a definition of what the word means, and the second is it is an individual concept - that we wish to apply universally.
so at least my definition is faith is a basis we use to believe something is true, and act accordingly. faith is linked to truth and to action. For this basis to be valid, and for me to use it as a basis to believe something is true it can not be in conflict with fact or reason.
i can not say through faith alone I believe it is true the world is flat. It is in conflict with fact, and it just makes me a fool. It does not make "faith" a fool, nor did "faith" make me a fool, my denial of fact makes me a fool.
that does not mean - fools don't claim foolish things by faith, and that maybe greater fools continue to argue with them -
the second point is that all truth claims are personal believes - many individuals may hold identical truth claims - but they are all individual beliefs. There is always issues with expanding the individual to the universal
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:34#2237020 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:37#2237030 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurOctober 31, 2018 at 17:38#2237040 likes
Reply to tim wood sure - how about the multi-universe objection to the argument by design - in no way at all could one consider the multi universe a fact, although there are reasonable arguments both for an against, no one can say by reason alone that the multi-universe "is". It is just a truth some believe based on faith in science's ability to answer these types of questions.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2018 at 17:49#2237060 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
If God isn't a matter of faith, what is it? Next there's the notion of knowledge. In respect of faith, "knowledge" needs a careful definition or qualification. Give it a try?
Well, the obvious answer - although I suppose not that obvious - is ‘gnosis’. The handy Wikipedia entry says ‘Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (??????, gn?sis, f.).[1] The term is used in various Hellenistic religions and philosophies.[2][3] It is best known from Gnosticism, where it signifies a knowledge or insight into humanity’s real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence.' (It has cognates in Indian languages, notably jñ?na - the 'jñ- is the same root as the 'gn-' in gnosis.)
My early search for understanding centred around the experience of spiritual enlightenment or illumination, having read about it in the books of my youth. Underlying that was a belief in the importance of first-hand spiritual experience, as distinct from 'mere belief'. So there is the germ of the distinction between knowledge and faith. Through that, Eastern spirituality came to be seen as a way to attain or reach such modes of experience through which you could arrive at or at least get a glimpse of the higher truths of spirituality, in other words, attain some form of gnosis. I was initiated into meditation, read many spiritual books, and majored in comparative religion. I discovered the idea of the philosophia perennis - the idea of there being a perennial philosophical tradition, of which the various faith traditions are manifestations. There are certainly grounds to criticize this idea, but one thing it did do, was to allow me to re-appraise Christianity from a different interpretive framework.
I formed the view that the Christian tradition had indeed included an important element of illumination or enlightenment, but that this element had been suppressed in favour of an approach which emphasised the supremacy of belief - pistis - over insight - gnosis. I learned about the Nag Hammadi scriptures, which was the discovery of a cache of lost gnostic documents in a clay pot in Egypt. Anyway, the picture that emerges from these discoveries, was that the early Christian period was an absolute ferment of competing doctrines and ideas. (People used to brawl in the street about The Nature of the Son!) Out of that emerged what was to become the orthodox view articulated in the Nicene Creed, which hammered out a basis of what every Christian was supposed to believe; that's why it's recited.
But I think amongst the gnostics, there was a vital element of insight that had become lost. (This is not to say by any stretch that all of the gnostics were virtuous, some gnostic sects were bizarre in the extreme, and besides, 'gnosticism' is not a doctrine, per se, but a different kind of spiritual orientation.)
But as the saying has it, 'history is written by the victors', and the mainstream -Tertullian, Iraneus, and others - won the day. And within that milieu, faith or pistis reigns supreme. Gnosticism is said to be deficient, because it's elitist, hates the world, and so on. All of these ideas were debated for millenia, but the core idea of spiritual illumination became lost. Well - not lost. But obtainable only on condition that you 'agree to the terms'- sign the contract and recite the dogma. See this review.
Anyway, by the time I discovered all of this, I had basically converted to Buddhism, although that said, many Christian cultural archetypes continue to resonate within me, and there are many Christian philosophers that I respect.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 31, 2018 at 21:06#2237440 likes
I'd modify "religion is the discipline" to religion is a discipline. And concede that in western culture, it's the main and often only choice. Apparently the ancient world was much concerned with which beliefs should be learned, and how, and wrote and studied much (much more than I was ever aware of) on the topic.
I don't think It's a matter of which beliefs ought to be learned, but a matter of learning to have faith. That's what religion teaches us, to have faith. Notice how the Bible for example is not really involved in teaching you specific beliefs, it tells stories with morals, and describes how good wins out over evil. so we learn to have faith in good.
Now I think you and I agree that faith is an attitude towards action. But I think that it is fundamentally indifferent towards good or bad actions. That is to say that faith drives ambition, but ambition may be directed equally toward bad or good. So despite the fact that faith is a virtue, it is like many other virtues, like courage, which are means rather than ends themselves. And if a person with a character of many virtues is directed toward the wrong ends, those virtues become useful for carrying out bad acts. Therefore if faith is cultured, it must be cultured under the right conditions, or it could turn out to be bad instead of good. For example, when we have faith in beliefs which turn out to be wrong, the faith could have been a hindrance to us making proper actions.
Comments (65)
This is true for some believers, but not all. The concept of divinity has been around for the whole reach of human history. If you take a holistic approach to its meaning, it means things like cause, consciousness, volition, life, Nature, logic, purpose, etc. None of those things are purely matters of faith or exclusive of what we commonly think of as humanity's properties.
The idea that God is just about faith is an idea that I think most people understand, but if it's just a belief based on faith, what makes one faith better than another. It's funny because when I ask this question to religious people they start using reason to defend their faith, but the claim is that reason has nothing to do with faith. So which is it, I ask, faith or reason? If it's purely faith, without reason, then I suppose I could have faith in anything I please. One faith is no better than another.
I was talking about meaning holism. Imagine a sea of beliefs and inferences that repetitively crashes upon the shore of contemporary speech, making available elements from the distant past and from distant lands. Meaning, by this view, arises from this vast sea so that no particular case of use has clear boundaries in terms of meaning.
So I was offering elements of the use of "God" that aren't about faith, but may feature in everyone's experiences. What makes the believer distinct is that he or she is calling that thing divine.
Quoting tim wood
I'm not sure what belief system this is. Sounds interesting, though.
Faith, as distinct from merely arbitrary belief, or idle entertainment of ideas, has affective power. No one will feel devotion or love for, or be profoundly inspired by, the Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.
It is not so much that one faith is better than another but that there is real faith and then there is mere belief and then something even less significant than that.
For me, it's not a matter of believing what I want, I want to have knowledge. What's true is what interests me, not some opinion that may or may not be true.
I do agree that some actions are better than others, and that's based on reason. However, you're going beyond reason, to say that faith is better, but you don't give a reason, you just make a statement, as if the mere statement conveys the truth.
There is no doubt that faith, which are about beliefs by the way, have power, but that doesn't make them true, and that's what I'm concerned with, not wishful thinking.
Faith without reason is no better than mere belief, that's all it is; and by mere belief, I mean opinion. Now if reason plays a part, as some religious people contend, then we can look at one's faith, one's beliefs, in terms of the evidence or the reasons that support them. Tim seems to want it both ways, at least that's how I read what he's saying.
Finally, people can be inspired by false beliefs, it happens all the time. Beliefs are powerful, and this is true even if the belief is false.
In this quote you say it's all about faith, "...not about philosophy, metaphysics, logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics..." Later you say that if it's brought out of the sphere of faith, then it turns into nonsense. You seem to want to separate the faith from the reason, but faith is about the beliefs, i.e., if it's not about the beliefs, then what is it about? If I have faith that God exists, then I believe God exists. Thus, we want to know what the reasons are for those beliefs. Faith without belief is meaningless.
Faith in God may well be the philosophic suicide that Camus said it is. But if one finds theism a personally satisfying answer to the big "why", why is that in anyway different from the existentialist defining a unique meaning, or from the absurd hero's acceptance of the absurd?
Camus would, I think, say one is more truthful than the other. Which to my mind is just a prejudicial selection of one option over another - neither one with any more provable truth value than the other.
So to the main point neither fact, nor reason, nor faith is a better or worse basis for one to believe something to be true - with the only caveat that they can not be misapplied. Reason can not be in conflict with fact, and faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason.
What is really at issue, and has been for a very long time is really just one person saying their faith based belief is better than your faith based belief. -
One person's faith is another person 'wishful thinking".
The purported truth, in any propositional sense, of what one has faith in is irrelevant, not even coherent, I would say. Faith is not properly held in propositional terms at all; if it is, it is mere irrational belief, some form of fundamentalism.
The most powerful and universal form of faith is faith in God, or some kind of divine, universal power or principle. What could it mean to ask whether particular faiths of those forms are "true"? This is not an empirical matter at all, unless the religious belief takes the form of fundamentalism; in which case it would plausibly be false, or at least beyond any possibility of demonstration, and thus, as a would-be empirical proposition, incoherent. The purported refutations of such non-propositional faiths are thus also tantamount to fundamentalism.
Cool. I was going for a wave/particle duality for holism/atomism. It's clearer to say that meaning holism says that a word's meaning is bound up in the meaning of a whole statement in which it appears. In turn, that statement's meaning is bound up in its context: a scientific statement being inextricably bound to science in general, for instance.
Quoting tim wood
"There, but for the grace of God, go I." If you heard that in context, you'd probably understand some of the meaning. You'd have a deeper understanding if you studied medieval Christianity. If your grandmother used to say that, it would have other connections.
That's an example of thinking in terms of meaning holism: seeing overlapping contexts.
Again, I'm not familiar with the rock disciples. It wouldn't bother me if they said that God is the feeling they get when they're around rocks. Would it bother you?
I don't follow your thinking. If we're talking about the existence of God, and having faith in a God, what are we talking about if not whether such a being exists, whether it's true or not. If it's not propositional, then what is it? How do you express it? There has to be a belief of some sort, we are not talking in a vacuum of beliefs. I don't know of any religious faith that doesn't hold to some kind of propositional faith or belief. Moreover, if someone asked, what is your faith in, what do you believe, how do you do express it without expressing statements or propositions of some sort. I guess you could chant.
As I see it, faith proper is almost entirely a matter of affect. It consists in feelings: of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, of a sense of the divine, the sublime. Whatever is said as an expression of faith should be taken as metaphor, as allegory.
The existence or non-existence of God cannot be known; first you would need to understand what it could mean to say that God exists.
Okay, so faith consists of feelings of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, etc. Faith as I see it, involves trust, if I have faith in someone or something, I'm trusting someone or something.
However, let's use reverence as an example, reverence is respect for someone or something, usually when Christians use the term reverence they are talking or referring to someone, viz., God. If they talk about love, it's love for someone, so it's more than a feeling, although it's that too. Even very liberal churches, at least many of them, have tenets of faith, beliefs that they put their faith in. Your idea seems very subjective, viz., faith is whatever I want it to be, a kind of mysticism or metaphor. My argument is with those who put their faith in specific beliefs.
Your way of thinking about it would need to be tackled in a different way. Moreover, the two main religions don't think of it the way you're thinking of faith, at least generally.
It's a model with much pedigree. You can think of it like this:
- In the beginning there was God and some stuff and God made the world from stuff
Or
- In the beginning there was God only and he mad the world from himself
I don't belief in creation ex nihilo so that gives a 50% chance that Pantheism is true.
I'm not sure which religions you are referring to as the "two main", but in any case I would say that intelligent adherents of all the major religions do for the most part see it the way I described.
Think about God, for example. To have faith in God is to have faith in what is felt and thought to be a real divine power inherent in things. The fact that some believers have more objectivist views of God only speaks to their fundamentalism.
Some people have faith in an after life. Is such faith rational? Not according to the consensus view, since any purported evidence is purely anecdotal. What people count as evidence is always already determined by their particular set of groundless presuppositions.
Holism, man. Holism.
Booked.
Since God is not presented as a being to observe and point to as, "hey, there he is," but is supposed to be evident through a distinct set of circumstances and activities, therefore, whichever interpretation is given of God, if it doesn't match up to the original defining information, then it outlines a different circumstance or activity and therefore a different identity other than God. This applies to all who question why an omni-scient/potent/present God can't or isn't this or that. Just by having limitations in the question, they have already excluded the omni-scient/potent/present God they hoped to refer to.
In this way, it's about how we relate to information about God that determines for each individual whether God exists or doesn't. To me, this seems like a reasonable and practical way to perceive belief. Any takers?
Clearly, we all believe that we are being informed by fact, otherwise we'd each have to be skeptical of all of our knowledge. But we aren't such radical skeptics, because we have faith that we are informed by fact. Without that faith we'd have radical skepticism because there is no way to know with absolute certainty that we are being informed by fact.
Demonstrate this first.
Quoting tim wood
Not in faith, not in science, but what about in practice? As you've so nearly said?
This bullshit definition of "faith" of the new atheists is so tired and rubbery. It reveals a total lack of understanding of what faith is to the common believer. It's fucking boring.
Quoting tim wood
Is it? Or is it the thinking about the traditions that bears these topics? But yes, attempts to "prove" "god" are useless.
Quoting tim wood
That's a facsimile of faith that precludes it's very definition. I might as well say that, in science, you can have whatever your science calls for.
That definition, forgive me for so saying, is rather fideistic.
But that said, I don’t want to disagree with the substance of the rest. The problem I have, however, is that the insistence on faith can easily be intellectually immasculating. I mean, after all, many theocrats of all stripes would heartily endorse such an insistence.
Any yet, it is certainly true that much of the talk about ‘God’ is completely uninformed about the existential dimension of that term. The importance of practice and of anchoring one’s understanding in the lived reality of faith can’t be over-stated. Though practice one learns a dimension of existence and experience that simply can’t be learned by any other means. One cannot, after all, learn to ski by reading books about skiing.
Nevertheless, as this is a philosophy forum, and the proper approach is to make a philosophical argument for something, rather than to simply insist on believing, I will say that one facet of spirituality that mainstream Western denominations are weak in, is the ‘experiential dimension’. But I say that as one of those who sought out spiritual experience, only to realise that any worth having requires that one adopt certain attitudes and dispositions which would customarily be designated ‘religious’ . There’s probably no escape from that particular regress, but I still maintain that religion as it is propagated in Western culture has become estranged from the experiential aspects without which it is indeed simply meaningless verbiage. I think one reason is because the metaphors and myth is in which religion is embodied are now so remote from the reality of post—industrial civilisation.
But that is our problem, not religion’s. See Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.
Experience of phenomena that might be called God seems possible through reason alone.
As example, you are using reason to discover the limitations of reason in regards to God beliefs. So if we discard reason, and can't accept faith, we are left with nothing.
This might be a good outcome. The overwhelming vast majority of reality is nothing (or perhaps relative nothing for you sticklers). Thus, putting our minds in a state of nothing aligns us with reality.
When our minds aren't crammed with theories, ideas and plans etc our attention is freed to focus on reality. To the degree we focus on the real world we may experience things there which were inaccessible to us while distracted by the symbolic realm.
The problem arises when we try to convert this experience of the real world in to ideas, theories, conclusions etc. Then we are back in the same old game, and if we want to create a bunch of explanations of such experience then faith may be the only available course of action, as you suggest.
But we don't have to create a big pile of explanations. We can value the experience for itself and leave it at that. As example, we get nutrition from food simply by the experience of eating it. It doesn't matter if we then go on to try to explain the processes of digestion etc, this is an optional activity which doesn't provide any nutrition.
that it is in no way in conflict with fact or reason -
I'm not talking about truth or falsity. Why would anyone do that when we're not dealing in facts? I'm suggesting that it's primarily about a certain relationship with information we have regardless of evidence. For example, I don't have to be religious to know and to relate with the concept of a religious God or religious anything. What I need is the relevant information and to understand the context. As such, at least, I can claim to have decent perspective in the matter.
The fantastic claim are just as relatable as any scientific claims given the right perspective. The problem is we're too quick to deny what isn't seeking our validation. And why? Perhaps, because of fear of being invalidated. I think those who are antagonistic to religion would think that religion is antagonistic to them. Imho there's often very little adherence to logic by those who argue against religion because most of them ignore a significant portion of what religion is.
Isn't "faith" simply accepting certain knowledge with no reason to other than it is consoling?
much of this entire issue is based on one's definitions of the words.
I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true, and this basis can not be in conflict with fact or reason. All truths believed by faith are individual - although many individuals may have them in common.
using this definition - hope is not a truth claim - if you hope something is true - you are saying you don't know if or if not it is true. And if your truth claim based on faith is delusional, it would be in conflict with either fact or reason or both.
What if the individual basis for believing something is based on how it makes them feel, as opposed to consistent observations and experimentation? How does the concept of god NOT conflict with fact or reason?
Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you.
i am willing to argue against any set of premises that end with the conclusion " therefore theism is unreasonable"
Quoting Harry Hindu
believing something is true, does not mean it is a fact that it is true. However, until proven wrong by either fact or reason - there is no basis to say it is not true.
For example - i can say, based on reason alone, it is true that there is no such thing as a pink unicorns on earth. That statement remains true, to me, - right up until the point where someone finds a pink unicorn in some dark corner of some jungle.
this is the nature of the belief in truth.
Right, I am sympathetic to that position. But this is where faith is essential and necessary, without it we could not proceed with even the most simple activities, being too unsure and insecure.
Quoting tim wood
Yes we agree here. And, because we recognize that we are not always informed by fact, though we hope we are, faith is of the utmost importance. Otherwise, we would not be able to proceed in our daily activities, out of fear that we are not being informed by fact, and our decisions and actions are mistaken. Hence the importance of faith.
So, let me return to your paragraph which I quoted.
Quoting tim wood
Faith does come from within, but contrary to your claim, it does tell us something. It tells us when to act. And since the act of decision making is itself an act, faith is far more important than any facts which might come to us from some external source, because we can never know with certainty whether what is coming from the external source is fact or not. Whatever comes to us from external sources, fact or not fact, must be judged, and since we can never be absolutely certain of our judgement, no judgement is possible without faith.
Do you not agree that faith ought to be cultured and propagated as a virtue similar to courage? And, that religion is the discipline which does this?
Religion is more concerned with the facts of human conduct. Surprisingly, most religions have provided greater illumination into human conduct than any branch of science. In fact, I would argue there is nothing about the scientific study of human conduct that is not previously represented in religion. And for those who would like to argue against the kinds of instances such as where psychological conditions and diseases were not previously recognised as such, then it becomes a question of perception, language and expression of information but not its unavailability.
In terms of human conduct, religious teachings are superior to scientific teachings especially in their authority, integrity and discipline towards managing human behaviour. Religious teachings manage to ward off any sort of addiction rooted in our physical organisation (and this takes into consideration the likes of shamanism which, for longer than modern science, has promoted the use of certain drugs), a trend I would wish science to emulate in its participation in our lives.
I am one of those who, even though not adhering to any particular religion, advocate for the revision and transformation of religions into domains defined predominantly by critical analysis, intelligent beneficial methodology and strict jurisdiction in application of discipline. I don't think such an endeavour can be undertaken by people who do not fully appreciate the value of religion.
so at least my definition is faith is a basis we use to believe something is true, and act accordingly. faith is linked to truth and to action. For this basis to be valid, and for me to use it as a basis to believe something is true it can not be in conflict with fact or reason.
i can not say through faith alone I believe it is true the world is flat. It is in conflict with fact, and it just makes me a fool. It does not make "faith" a fool, nor did "faith" make me a fool, my denial of fact makes me a fool.
that does not mean - fools don't claim foolish things by faith, and that maybe greater fools continue to argue with them -
the second point is that all truth claims are personal believes - many individuals may hold identical truth claims - but they are all individual beliefs. There is always issues with expanding the individual to the universal
No. I can only accept as valid what I validate.
Quoting tim wood
By valid I mean reasonable.
Well, the obvious answer - although I suppose not that obvious - is ‘gnosis’. The handy Wikipedia entry says ‘Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (??????, gn?sis, f.).[1] The term is used in various Hellenistic religions and philosophies.[2][3] It is best known from Gnosticism, where it signifies a knowledge or insight into humanity’s real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence.' (It has cognates in Indian languages, notably jñ?na - the 'jñ- is the same root as the 'gn-' in gnosis.)
My early search for understanding centred around the experience of spiritual enlightenment or illumination, having read about it in the books of my youth. Underlying that was a belief in the importance of first-hand spiritual experience, as distinct from 'mere belief'. So there is the germ of the distinction between knowledge and faith. Through that, Eastern spirituality came to be seen as a way to attain or reach such modes of experience through which you could arrive at or at least get a glimpse of the higher truths of spirituality, in other words, attain some form of gnosis. I was initiated into meditation, read many spiritual books, and majored in comparative religion. I discovered the idea of the philosophia perennis - the idea of there being a perennial philosophical tradition, of which the various faith traditions are manifestations. There are certainly grounds to criticize this idea, but one thing it did do, was to allow me to re-appraise Christianity from a different interpretive framework.
I formed the view that the Christian tradition had indeed included an important element of illumination or enlightenment, but that this element had been suppressed in favour of an approach which emphasised the supremacy of belief - pistis - over insight - gnosis. I learned about the Nag Hammadi scriptures, which was the discovery of a cache of lost gnostic documents in a clay pot in Egypt. Anyway, the picture that emerges from these discoveries, was that the early Christian period was an absolute ferment of competing doctrines and ideas. (People used to brawl in the street about The Nature of the Son!) Out of that emerged what was to become the orthodox view articulated in the Nicene Creed, which hammered out a basis of what every Christian was supposed to believe; that's why it's recited.
But I think amongst the gnostics, there was a vital element of insight that had become lost. (This is not to say by any stretch that all of the gnostics were virtuous, some gnostic sects were bizarre in the extreme, and besides, 'gnosticism' is not a doctrine, per se, but a different kind of spiritual orientation.)
But as the saying has it, 'history is written by the victors', and the mainstream -Tertullian, Iraneus, and others - won the day. And within that milieu, faith or pistis reigns supreme. Gnosticism is said to be deficient, because it's elitist, hates the world, and so on. All of these ideas were debated for millenia, but the core idea of spiritual illumination became lost. Well - not lost. But obtainable only on condition that you 'agree to the terms'- sign the contract and recite the dogma. See this review.
Anyway, by the time I discovered all of this, I had basically converted to Buddhism, although that said, many Christian cultural archetypes continue to resonate within me, and there are many Christian philosophers that I respect.
I don't think It's a matter of which beliefs ought to be learned, but a matter of learning to have faith. That's what religion teaches us, to have faith. Notice how the Bible for example is not really involved in teaching you specific beliefs, it tells stories with morals, and describes how good wins out over evil. so we learn to have faith in good.
Now I think you and I agree that faith is an attitude towards action. But I think that it is fundamentally indifferent towards good or bad actions. That is to say that faith drives ambition, but ambition may be directed equally toward bad or good. So despite the fact that faith is a virtue, it is like many other virtues, like courage, which are means rather than ends themselves. And if a person with a character of many virtues is directed toward the wrong ends, those virtues become useful for carrying out bad acts. Therefore if faith is cultured, it must be cultured under the right conditions, or it could turn out to be bad instead of good. For example, when we have faith in beliefs which turn out to be wrong, the faith could have been a hindrance to us making proper actions.