Why is faith different?

[chron]

Just as information is necessary for awareness, propaganda is necessary to prevent this awareness from being desperate.

Jaques Ellul- Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes

Chris, is this your way of saying that religion is propaganda?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chron —

Consider the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. That, it seems, is fundamentally unreasonable to me.

OK — but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to me, nor to Christians in general, nor indeed to some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You're expressing a personal opinion in this case, which is fine, but it's not a fact, nor a reasonable argument.

And it surprises me to discover that the Catholic church no longer believes in the virgin birth. Quoting from Catholic Encyclopedia...

You've misread the quote. It was citing the position of modern theology, before examining the arguments.

Here is the main point to me: when faith is defined as holding a belief that must be accepted and not questioned, then faith is held as against reason, in my opinion.

It's a common assumption of Catholicism, but it's not what Catholic Doctrine states. Take a look at:
Encyclical Letter "Fides et Ratio" on the relationship between faith and reason.

The issue of 'evangelicals' can be a bit unfair ... if one's not careful one ends up shooting fish in a barrel. Certainly, aspects of American evangelicalism horrifies me, but extremism in any vocation does.

I remember when Prof. Richard Dawkins chose American Evangelicals to represent the entire Christian faith, and made them look fools. A TV journalist here in the UK suggested the contest might be somewhat more balanced had he chosen a moral theologian ... but then he'd be obliged to admit his adversary wasn't stupid for being a Christian.

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

Ask a religionist why he holds a particular belief and the answer is often that it is a matter of faith, not reason.

My question is: Why is this acceptable? In all other areas of life, reason is accepted. Why is faith exempt?

I look forward to your thoughts.

(I've specifically kept this question as open as possible, but if I haven't been clear or precise enough, ask a question, and we'll dialog about it.)

Why is it acceptable? I have a question for your question, why isn't it acceptable? Please answer me this....

One other thing I find, interesting.... "matter of faith" not reason? That -is- a reason his/her reason is faith.......

 

[chron]

but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to me, nor to Christians in general, nor indeed to some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived. You're expressing a personal opinion in this case, which is fine, but it's not a fact, nor a reasonable argument.

I'm not sure that it's just a personal opinion, Thomas. Set aside the Christian context for a moment. Is is reasonable to believe that a woman who has never had sex could give birth? Would you believe it of your next door neighbor?

I think it is the Christian tradition that makes it seem reasonable. Or perhaps it is the fact that it is a long-held belief that makes it seem so. To say, however, that a virgin birth (not the virgin birth) is reasonable, is to go against all that we know of human reproduction. This is what I mean.

You've misread the quote. It was citing the position of modern theology, before examining the arguments.

Ah, my bad. I shall go and read further, and I apologize for snagging what I thought was the church's position without fully investigating the matter. And I will read the encyclical as well.

chron

 

[chron]

Why is it acceptable? I have a question for your question, why isn't it acceptable?

Perhaps this is best illustrated in dialog.

Bob: Water has been known to burst into flames.

Rachel: Really? How do you mean? Have you seen this happen?

Bob: No, I haven't. But it's true just the same.

Rachel: How do you know?

Bob: Well, it's not important to know the "how" of the matter. It just is, and I accept it.

Rachel: Well, I'd like to know more about it before I decide that I agree that water can burst into flames. I mean, perhaps it can under certain conditions, but . . .

Bob: Look, it's a matter of faith. It's wrong to question it; you should just accept it.

~ ~ ~

17th Angel, in all areas of life that I know of, excepting religion, Bob would be told he's out of place to hold to his line of thought. But in religion, it seems to be okay to hold beliefs without supporting them. The reason given (note that a reason is given) is that "faith is different."

My question is, why are matters of faith exempt from reasonableness, to phrase it another way?

Please keep in mind that I'm not attacking faith or religion. Quite the contrary, I'm interested what religion has to say. My way of beginning to learn about religion is to ask of Faith (personifying here), "Why do you refuse to give me a reason for what you say, other than 'That's just the way it is. You must accept what I say and not question.'" Until I know why it's all right for religion to be unreasonable, I won't be able to have much faith in what it says.

peace,

chron

 

[Paladin]

Chron,
you ask how faith circumvents reason? The examples are many, you have responded to several already. Ad hoc fallacy, relativistic fallacy, appeal to emotion, sentimentality, it's a virtual buffet. Again, nothing wrong with faith, belief in things not seen, this is the glue of society, but it won't pass the test of inquiry. The things religion and spirituality teach have their use, and may have much to say to us, but we must trim off what isn't helpful in our search for what is, and what is not.
Krishnamurti comes to mind as a fine example of inquiry. The great sages and saints, mystics and others have taught us much but notice that each uses what has no form to fill a pre-existing form. Merton translated his inner experience into Christian terms, so did all the great Christian mystics. Rumi saw things a bit differently as did Ramana Maharshi. Therefore your own inquiry into the nature of what is might take you in a different direction.
Having faith in a particular religion and all its facets might be comforting for some, but I don't think it reflects reality.

 

[17th Angel]

Perhaps this is best illustrated in dialog.

Bob: Water has been known to burst into flames.

Rachel: Really? How do you mean? Have you seen this happen?

Bob: No, I haven't. But it's true just the same.

Rachel: How do you know?

Bob: Well, it's not important to know the "how" of the matter. It just is, and I accept it.

Rachel: Well, I'd like to know more about it before I decide that I agree that water can burst into flames. I mean, perhaps it can under certain conditions, but . . .

Bob: Look, it's a matter of faith. It's wrong to question it; you should just accept it.

I am sure bob would explain that it comes from his set of faith... As to why... And I am sure he wouldn't say -you- have to accept it... If he did he is a fool, I would expect a person to say you would have to accept that is their stance on the situation, which is fair enough who is Rachel to tell him what to think?

17th Angel, in all areas of life that I know of, excepting religion, Bob would be told he's out of place to hold to his line of thought. But in religion, it seems to be okay to hold beliefs without supporting them. The reason given (note that a reason is given) is that "faith is different."

Oh really? Anywhere else in life it wouldn't be seen as acceptable, by some?

Bob: That rachel is a real annoying person!
JimBob: I guess she can be, with all that water nonsense...
Bob: She's evil.......
Jimbob: How can you say that!?
Bob: Gut feeling........

You never have gut feelings? Or so on?

Please keep in mind that I'm not attacking faith or religion. Quite the contrary, I'm interested what religion has to say. My way of beginning to learn about religion is to ask of Faith (personifying here), "Why do you refuse to give me a reason for what you say, other than 'That's just the way it is. You must accept what I say and not question.'" Until I know why it's all right for religion to be unreasonable, I won't be able to have much faith in what it says.

peace,

chron

With some people chron, I would say faith can be a word subsititued for.... Trust, they have from "high authority" this is to be, or this is how this is... And so on, because this comes from higher up and from figures that are a godlike deity, you can understand right? If you have this strong confidence in say the bible for example.... Such things Jesus spoke of... You'd have faith... Trust that he was being honest and what he was saying was possible... So taking references from said perfect beardy man, you can then use these as stepping stones to other parts of life... And you know you can put your faith into something because it relates back to your religion...

faith

/feɪθ/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom 9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Obviously most of these relate to religion, but you can have faith without religion if you look at numero.... two, heh. It can stem from a promise from a friend of family member if you have had experience with say uncle Tony... And he is indeed a man of his word, you have faith that he will pay you back that money...... Or so on... I tend to see faith as a blind leap of trust, but there has to be that ounce of blindness.... M'kay.

 

[Saltmeister]

cyberpi, are you angry with me for not immediately agreeing with your point of view? Or am I off base to detect a strident tone in your words?

Nah it's ok chron. Cyberpi is someone you'll find who is quite flexible in how he uses his mind. He explores ideas in a rather . . . unusual way . . . you'll get to know him the more you interact with him. Be ready to be surprised.

He may appear angry with the rhetorical questions, but I doubt it. Then again, with electronic communication . . . you never know what people are expressing. From my personal experience and observation, I would doubt it. I would ask that you have faith that he isn't grumpy.

Here is the main point to me: when faith is defined as holding a belief that must be accepted and not questioned, then faith is held as against reason, in my opinion.

In war, and in political and ideological struggles, people are often given certain instructions that they must follow to support a particular cause. They may not know about everything that is happening around them, but must assume that the instructions that had been given are a reasonable response given information that the instructor, commander, messenger or politician knew and possessed. It's the same with religion. We put our faith in our politicians, military commanders, judges and security forces. We choose to believe that they are acting ethically, that they are trustworthy and making the best possible decisions that we could possibly demand of them.

I know that the way my car's engine works is explainable in terms that I could understand if I put my mind to it. If, upon probing the reasons why my car propels me down the road, I was told, "It's really just a matter of faith; you just need to trust that it works and leave it at that," then I might be, well, skeptical (another great word worth its own discussion), and not quite so willing to trust without thinking.

Knowing how something works doesn't mean there can't be so-called "faith." Machines often fail due to glitches or damage to their components. They could, quite easily, just fail if not assembled properly. Your knowledge of the functionality of the machine can make your worried. You know where things can go wrong. Maybe some of the piston rings could go bust, or you have fuel leaking out of the engine . . . could cause a fire hazard . . .

I would say that faith doesn't mean you don't know how something works. Knowing how something works may be important in having faith in the first place, for example, in relationships. Blind faith is when we believe in something even when we don't know how it works.

I see faith as something personal. It's about who you are as a person. It must be compatible with your personality, attitude and ways of thinking. It would not be faith if you just followed dogma that others spoon-fed you. Another way of seeing faith is that it's about your personal destiny (if you believe in your destiny, that is).

Reason is thinking logically about a thing.
And reason is all about thinking logically. That still seems good to me.

Well . . . not all reasoning is driven by logic. There is, for example, emotional reasoning. Take for example IQ and EQ. IQ pertains to logical intelligence, EQ to emotional intelligence. Faith is driven by emotional reasoning. It's about how you feel about something. Logic is just one kind of reasoning.

The trouble, often, with blind faith is that it is often driven by a stubborn adherence to the same system of logic despite changing circumstances. An extreme Evangelical or Fundamentalist (if I was to set up a straw man) is not someone who refuses to use logic. He may even claim not to use logic. But because he's so stubborn and so strict, what drives his thinking is, actually, a kind of logic, a logic that is inflexible, unmovable and cannot be changed. In that sense it's not always good to be a follower of logic as strict adherence to logical thinking can get people stuck onto a path from which they cannot unlock or unstick themselves.

In many such cases, only emotional reasoning, the fear of being enslaved by inflexible logic, and the fear of losing one's life to something that isn't worth valuing, because it has no value, is what frees such people. The horror of being the slave of something so inhuman and dehumanising is what allows them to break free. It is when these people start loving themselves again that they can once again taste freedom. They can have faith, that it is ok to not be a slave of such monstrous concepts.

The difference between the faith that sets them free, and the blind faith that keeps them enslaved by blind logic, is that the former is about how they feel about themselves whereas in the latter there is no emotion. It is all logic.

Logic can be liberating and emancipating for some, but dangerous and enslaving for others.

 

[chron]

Having faith in a particular religion and all its facets might be comforting for some, but I don't think it reflects reality.

Perhaps, perhaps. The thing for me is, while I certainly come down on the side of rational thought, there is something of the mystic in me. A paradox, to be sure. I cannot put my finger on it, but there is something beyond my five senses, something I sense dimly through a sort of sixth sense, but I cannot say what it is.

Is this a "reality" that springs only from my own mind, or my cultural upbringing, or a combination of the two (plus who knows what else)?

 

[chron]

You never have gut feelings? Or so on?

Gut feelings, or intuition: a part of life, I agree. But the fact that I act on intuition from time to time doesn't mean that there should never be a reason for holding a belief?

The world is not black and white, of course. There are times when a gut feeling is an appropriate tool for deciding what to do. But when it comes to religion, the stakes are, as I've said, high: it's a matter of life and death.

Surely something so important as whether I will spend eternity in heaven or hell deserves more than just a gut feeling -- or a cursory glance at the supporting evidence.

By the way, why do you find Rachel (in my example) annoying? All she said was that she wanted to look into the matter instead of accepting it without question.

I tend to see faith as a blind leap of trust...

Exactly. I have faith, even blind faith, in all sorts of things and people -- from time to time. But my eternal destiny warrants a closer look, I think.

I'm reminded of the oft-quoted Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

What -- or who -- is behind the curtain? Surely it is not wrong to ask . . . .

 

[chron]

Nah it's ok chron. Cyberpi is someone you'll find who is quite flexible in how he uses his mind. . . . He may appear angry with the rhetorical questions, but I doubt it. Then again, with electronic communication . . . you never know what people are expressing.

Thanks, Saltmeister, for that word. I, perhaps, am too thin-skinned? I'm not offended, though . . . .

It would not be faith if you just followed dogma that others spoon-fed you.

Ah. This is the crux of the matte for me. I grew up being spoon-fed dogma and being told that to question it was anathema, apostasy, pure sin. Now I want to explore, think, ponder, consider, and I refuse to accept something as true "just because."

 

[17th Angel]

Gut feelings, or intuition: a part of life, I agree. But the fact that I act on intuition from time to time doesn't mean that there should never be a reason for holding a belief?

The world is not black and white, of course. There are times when a gut feeling is an appropriate tool for deciding what to do. But when it comes to religion, the stakes are, as I've said, high: it's a matter of life and death..

Heh, you never been in a situation where a gut feeling could have been of life or death? I have.

Surely something so important as whether I will spend eternity in heaven or hell deserves more than just a gut feeling -- or a cursory glance at the supporting evidence.

Indeed it does, and indeed it gets evidence, what book you want? Let's stay with the bible.... You have heard of bible -studies- right? Not all of the book is placed on faith, some of this is historical evidence and certain things in the world around us or situations make you stop and see evidence... (so I hear) of a divine god almighty...... It isn't 100% on blind faith a percentage yeah, but most comes from understanding and studying....

By the way, why do you find Rachel (in my example) annoying? All she said was that she wanted to look into the matter instead of accepting it without question..

Never did like Rachel.... lol, I didn't find her annoying I put myself as bob talking to his half brother Jimbob.... And He... Forget it.... lol...

Exactly. I have faith, even blind faith, in all sorts of things and people -- from time to time. But my eternal destiny warrants a closer look, I think.

I'm reminded of the oft-quoted Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

What -- or who -- is behind the curtain? Surely it is not wrong to ask . . . .

That again is a personal choice (a kin to faith) I myself couldn't care who is behind the curtain, nor for "eternal destiny" lol...... I just think you need to realise that -all- of religion isn't based on faith, only part...... And again faith isn't always an act of a religion.... Just sometimes you have to accept there isn't always an answer... So then what to do? There isn't one man on this Earth or been on this Earth that knows it all.... If that was the case none of us would be sat here like a bunch of muppets now would we?

 

[chron]

Heh, you never been in a situation where a gut feeling could have been of life or death? I have.

No, I haven't been in that situation. I have no problem understanding that such situations exist, of course.

But gut feelings, while they have their uses, and can certainly play a part in life-or-death situations, are not to be preferred when making the more important decisions of life, or at least, it seems that way to me. Granted, when all the evidence is in on a particular matter, there may not be a clear-cut answer, and intuition, or gut feeling, may, indeed, be the best way to decide the issue. But I wouldn't think that going only on gut feeling without making use of other things is advisable, assuming that there is time to ponder a situation.

You have heard of bible -studies- right?

Are you being sarcastic?

certain things in the world around us or situations make you stop and see evidence... (so I hear) of a divine god almighty.

Example, please? If there is historical evidence of God's existence, please share it.

I myself couldn't care who is behind the curtain, nor for "eternal destiny" lol......

Well, if there is a man behind the curtain, I want to know all I can about him before deciding to put my faith in him to take me to heaven.

Just sometimes you have to accept there isn't always an answer... So then what to do?

What to do, indeed?

For me, there is this to do: ask questions, seek truth, engage in dialog and conversation with those who care about this topic, learn from them, consider, revise, go on, and on, and on.

Coming back to my original question, which has yet to be answered, why is, in the mind of some, faith not a matter to be questioned? Exempt from the strictures of logical thought?

 

[seattlegal]

You might find this opinion piece from The New York Times interesting...

Taking Science on Faith

 

[17th Angel]

No, I haven't been in that situation. I have no problem understanding that such situations exist, of course.

But gut feelings, while they have their uses, and can certainly play a part in life-or-death situations, are not to be preferred when making the more important decisions of life, or at least, it seems that way to me. Granted, when all the evidence is in on a particular matter, there may not be a clear-cut answer, and intuition, or gut feeling, may, indeed, be the best way to decide the issue. But I wouldn't think that going only on gut feeling without making use of other things is advisable, assuming that there is time to ponder a situation.

I think that depends on the type of person... You are using yourself as your own example? Mentally right?

Are you being sarcastic?

Am I?

Example, please? If there is historical evidence of God's existence, please share it.

Oooh, asking the wrong person.... I am sure there are many on here that may entertain you on that one, but not I...

Well, if there is a man behind the curtain, I want to know all I can about him before deciding to put my faith in him to take me to heaven.

Why is the bloke behind the curtain going to take you to heaven? ;\ Oh I think I see what you're saying.... It isn't up to the man behind the curtain to get you there though, it's up to you.....

For me, there is this to do: ask questions, seek truth, engage in dialog and conversation with those who care about this topic, learn from them, consider, revise, go on, and on, and on.

Coming back to my original question, which has yet to be answered, why is, in the mind of some, faith not a matter to be questioned? Exempt from the strictures of logical thought?

What is truth? Obviously you are wanting evidence instead of faith.... But, how can you define what truth is and which of the many "true paths" are true if any? Evidence can be easy to mount up, and words can be manipulated certain situations warped to fit in place.... You think there doesn't come a time you may need to rely on some faith? Faith can be questioned.... Just you should respect anothers faith.

 

[chron]

You might find this opinion piece from The New York Times interesting...

Taking Science on Faith

Yes, thank you. It was in your reply to Bobby Winters. I enjoyed it.

 

[seattlegal]

Yes, thank you. It was in your reply to Bobby Winters. I enjoyed it.

LOL! Pardon me, I'm having a Monday Moment.

 

[cyberpi]

Of course. But I'm not in personal relationship with them, and so the faith I have in them is not as individuals per se, but more like a faith in the rule of law.

I find it personal when someone wields a several ton truck near me, but... When I have an agreement with someone I don't say that I have faith in the agreement... I say that I have faith in the person to uphold the agreement. For a more personal example: I don't have Faith in marriage. I have Faith in my wife with which I am married. There is a huge difference there. You have been expressing faith in something physical like a piece of information or a belief. I am submitting that is not what faith is.

In what sense? I take this to mean that we must make some assumptions about the natural world in order to get along in it, i.e., I assume (take on faith) that you are human, are not out to murder me, etc. Beyond that, what do you mean? And how does it relate to this conversation?

I would say that it is the absence of assumption. When you drive down the road you might assume that people will obey the rules of the road. That might be your choice, but I submit that you are a more alert driver if you don't assume that. I say be alert, watch for the liars, the drunken, the sleepy, etc... But to have Faith in the other drivers you may have to NOT assume that they are out to do you harm. I only said 'may' in case you have a death wish.

For a more personal example: Did I place faith in my wife because I assumed she would remain faithful, or was it the absence of assumption that she had a hidden agenda? It was the absence of assumption.

I can place Faith in someone who is unfaithful, is a known liar, convicted felon, has drug addictions, etc... someone with whom evidence has mounted up that they will once again fail. How am I able to do that? Death wish?

Why is it wrong to seek out information?

I did not imply that it is wrong to seek out information. I am saying that Faith is in a person... not in the information. Ask all the questions you can, only I'd recommend asking God if you want to get to know God better.

But religious faith is not the same as everyday faith. Religious faith is about life-and-death matters, and that seems to warrant more careful consideration. Yes, everyday matters can also be seen in a life-and-death context (Is this food prepared by factory workers I've never met poisoned?), but, in general, they are not in the same category as religious faith.

I disagree. I find that the stories in the OT have a lot to do about people having faith, and being faithful... but the word 'faith' is rarely used there. The word 'faithful' is emphasized. In the gospels I see that Jesus used a word many times which has often been translated as 'faith'. Everyday ordinary usage, but also involving a relationship with God.

cyberpi, are you angry with me for not immediately agreeing with your point of view? Or am I off base to detect a strident tone in your words?

If I were angry then I would consider it a fault to insist that you see as I do or to think as I do. I provided my thoughts freely and you are welcome to do with them as you please.

I am certainly not angry with you for being so sure of yourself; give me the freedom to explore what I need to explore.

I submit that the freedom to explore is neither provided, nor removed, by my words.

 

[chron]

I think that depends on the type of person... You are using yourself as your own example? Mentally right?

Um, how would I make a decision physically?

Oooh, asking the wrong person.... I am sure there are many on here that may entertain you on that one, but not I...

This is typical of those who purport to "know of" evidence for God's existence, 17th Angel. And it is also typical that said evidence is never forthcoming. If there were evidence for God's existence, wouldn't it be shouted from rooftops?

Why is the bloke behind the curtain going to take you to heaven? ;\ Oh I think I see what you're saying.... It isn't up to the man behind the curtain to get you there though, it's up to you.....

The Wizard of Oz analogy is stretched too thin here. In plain language: I want to know that what I'm asked to believe is trustworthy. "Because my holy book says so" is not a good enough reason for me.

Obviously you are wanting evidence instead of faith

Not at all. The purpose of this thread is to examine why religionists (some, not all) insist that faith must not be questioned.

When you ask me to believe, and I say, "Why?" -- if your response is "just because" or a variation of that, then I immediately have less reason to believe you.

My question -- again -- is: why is that seemingly okay in the domain of religion, when it is not in any other area of life?

Is this a hard question? Everyone here seems to want to tell me what faith is, but won't answer what I consider to be a rather straightforward query.

You think there doesn't come a time you may need to rely on some faith?

Of course. As I've said, I have faith in many ways throughout each day I live. Why do you think this is an issue?

Faith can be questioned.... Just you should respect anothers faith.

I do have respect for the faith of others. That is why I'm asking my question. In order to have an honest conversation with you, I need to know that you won't hide behind "because I said so," or "that's not a topic I'll discuss."

 

[bob x]

Consider the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. That, it seems, is fundamentally unreasonable to me.
OK — but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to me, nor to Christians in general, nor indeed to some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived.

I guess that depends on your subjective impressions of who the "greats" are.
It may have seemed reasonable back when nobody really had a clue how human conception works, but it is much less reasonable given what we now know. Unless you are some kind of Docetic, you must believe that at some point the body of the baby Jesus started being composed of ordinary physical matter, organic molecules ordered in cells which grow and split in the usual fashion? At what point did the ordinary processes take over? Did a Sacred Sperm poof into existence to fertilize the egg, after which everything went as usual? Or did the extra chromosomes just poof into existence inside the nucleus, without the "grossness" of a sperm cell introducting them? Either way, if Jesus was male and had a Y-chromosome not derived from a human parent, God must have specially selected what values all of his male traits (penis length, density and texture of facial hair, level of sexual arousal) were going to have, and this is troublesome to me. If Jesus just took genetic "luck of the draw" like the rest of us, that would be one thing; but if God made a special point of ensuring that his experience was unlike what I experience, then this lessens the relevance of Jesus to me.