Belief and Bad Faith

[gsa]

One thing that confuses me about believers is the issue of authenticity of belief. Increasingly, I have a hard time taking their belief claims seriously.


I have avoided describing myself as an atheist for a few years now, largely because of a willingness to entertain the idea that there was something more significant to meaningful coincidences than false pattern recognition and because of some experiences that seemed to correspond to mystical ones. But I have always admitted my doubts about the cosmic significance, if any, of these experiences, both in private to myself and in public when discussing the issue with others.

The more I listen to the accounts of “believers,” however, the more I have the sense that they are not being genuine about their own internal estimates of their beliefs. Call it “bad faith” in the existentialist sense: The more I listen to them or read their accounts, the more I sense self-deception. In the case of more orthodox believers, I think that this is largely a result of unwillingness to relinquish social or political conservatism and/or live with uncertainty or a more mundane and indifferent universe, even though they do not truly believe it. With more open minded believers, I get the sense that they are hanging onto religious language, tradition and identity out of a sense of obligation or familial and communal pressure.

This may very well be different for religious extremists who simply cannot understand evolution or cosmology, of course, but even there I detect more than a hint of willful ignorance. Does anyone else have the impression that, in matters of belief, believers are just not being honest?

 

[LuisDantas]

I so know the feeling.

 

[dannerz]

I consider it a forum of subconscious corruption, which effects some people more than others. When they hold to something harmful or weakening. Basically one part of a person wrecking another part.

 

[Sunstone]

Very few people in my experience are much more than fairly honest, especially in intellectual matters, which includes religious beliefs. But I think most dishonesty starts with misleading ourselves. And we're often only barely aware, if at all, of our own dishonesty.

It seems to me that dishonesty in some sense is part of the human condition, like war, love, and ego. But a lot of it might be unnecessary.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's what happens when belief and faith clashes with actual reality as it's experienced. It ends up being forcefully channelled through ideological venues alone berift of actual substance. Of course dishonesty and denial plays a notable role under circumstances like that.

 

[gsa]

Very few people in my experience are much more than fairly honest, especially in intellectual matters, which includes religious beliefs. But I think most dishonesty starts with misleading ourselves. And we're often only barely aware, if at all, of our own dishonesty.

It seems to me that dishonesty in some sense is part of the human condition, like war, love, and ego. But a lot of it might be unnecessary.

I agree that there is some level of dishonesty that is inherently human. There are plenty of studies that show people regularly lie for all sorts of reasons, even to themselves.


But we are talking about religious beliefs that simply can’t be taken seriously on their own terms and contradict pretty much everything that we know about our world. You might have an inflated sense of your own physical attractiveness, I can understand that, but religious claims seem different.

 

[gsa]

That's what happens when belief and faith clashes with actual reality as it's experienced. It ends up being forcefully channelled through ideological venues alone berift of actual substance. Of course dishonesty and denial plays a notable role under circumstances like that.

The part that interests me is the dishonesty. I have the feeling that they are conscious of this self-deception, but feel the need or desire to go along with it anyway.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe all believers are growing within their faith. Anyone who claims to know their spiritual maturity at any age may be dishonest with the learning process it takes to be fully spiritually minded. What I love about Catholicism (example), is that they recognize this growing in faith once you become part of the Church and encourage all congregants to confess to God regularly. It's an never ending vow they take--we all take--to follow our faith. To say we are done, would be missing the point.

Since we are growing, of course authenticity, based on how serious and dedicated that person is, may look like it isn't genuine. I mean, my friend mocks me and says "you went from belief X, to believe, Y, and now you at belief Z" while she doesn't realize I am still part of all of those faiths--but my true devotion is to belief A though she dismisses because "I don't look" authentic in that faith--that and her she disagrees with it.

I actually believe labeling ourselves and making a physical commitment helps us internalize ourselves and our relationship with our faith. So, authenticity grows in time...until one can firmly say they believe in Q and they know and see their behavior and speech change to reflect their devotion, that's authenticity.

The more I listen to the accounts of “believers,” however, the more I have the sense that they are not being genuine about their own internal estimates of their beliefs. Call it “bad faith” in the existentialist sense: The more I listen to them or read their accounts, the more I sense self-deception.

Self-deception? Kind of like trying to make themselves feel authentic when they are not?

In the case of more orthodox believers, I think that this is largely a result of unwillingness to relinquish social or political conservatism and/or live with uncertainty or a more mundane and indifferent universe, even though they do not truly believe it.

That (and below) are good points. I guess that is the point of belief, justifying uncertainty so we can live with it. With faith being a clause to put the two together.

With more open minded believers, I get the sense that they are hanging onto religious language, tradition and identity out of a sense of obligation or familial and communal pressure.

Maybe trying to stick to what they are comfortable with even though they know there is something outside the box?

 

[gsa]

Carlita, you raise some interesting points. I'll do my best to address them.

I believe all believers are growing within their faith. Anyone who claims to know their spiritual maturity at any age may be dishonest with the learning process it takes to be fully spiritually minded. What I love about Catholicism (example), is that they recognize this growing in faith once you become part of the Church and encourage all congregants to confess to God regularly. It's an never ending vow they take--we all take--to follow our faith. To say we are done, would be missing the point.

Since we are growing, of course authenticity, based on how serious and dedicated that person is, may look like it isn't genuine. I mean, my friend mocks me and says "you went from belief X, to believe, Y, and now you at belief Z" while she doesn't realize I am still part of all of those faiths--but my true devotion is to belief A though she dismisses because "I don't look" authentic in that faith--that and her she disagrees with it.

I actually believe labeling ourselves and making a physical commitment helps us internalize ourselves and our relationship with our faith. So, authenticity grows in time...until one can firmly say they believe in Q and they know and see their behavior and speech change to reflect their devotion, that's authenticity.

To me, what you are describing is the effect of ritual behavior, particularly social ritual behavior that is accompanied by some form of religious instruction. A less charitable description would be indoctrination. I confess, I suspect that is what led me to be more receptive to something akin to the impersonal god of Eastern philosophy: Adopting a yoga and meditation practice, socializing with those who had one and spending time contemplating those ideas. But of course I was always riddled with doubt; I even wanted to believe these things, but had significant doubts about their veracity. I still view this process warmly, but the main difference between my experience, coming from a pretty solid atheistic background, was that I was conscious of that doubt and I wasn't attempting to claim anything beyond an experience of synchronicity and sense of oneness. I am still open to learning that there is something of more than personal significance to that experience, but when I talk to believers I don't have the impression that they will admit their doubts to others, even if they will admit them internally.

Self-deception? Kind of like trying to make themselves feel authentic when they are not?

Yes, precisely. And also deceiving others about their internal state of mind.

That (and below) are good points. I guess that is the point of belief, justifying uncertainty so we can live with it. With faith being a clause to put the two together.

But why have faith, when faith is simply the confession of a dogma that you do not really embrace? Why not just admit that there is an experience you have had, or continue to have, as part of the ritual behavior, and use more reliable tools to investigate that experience?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The part that interests me is the dishonesty. I have the feeling that they are conscious of this self-deception, but feel the need or desire to go along with it anyway.

I remember as a Christian it had a lot to do with my strong convictions at the time. It essentially was practically impossible to accept anything but what my convictions and feelings told me at the time.

Even when reality and actuality was indicating that there was really nothing going on which would challenge my beliefs and convictions, it was instead completely shut out and disregarded, leaving the generated reality of the imagination in place painted with pretty and sparkling visions of stained glass and rose colors.

 

[gsa]

I remember as a Christian it had a lot to do with my strong convictions at the time. It essentially was practically impossible to accept anything but what my convictions and feelings told me at the time.

Even when reality and actuality was indicating that there was really nothing going on which would challenge my beliefs and convictions, it was instead completely shut out and disregarded, leaving the generated reality of the imagination in place painted with pretty and sparkling visions of stained glass and rose colors.

It is interesting because I find that I have had pretty much the opposite problem. There has never been a time when I was not riddled with doubt about religious, paranormal or mystical claims. Even when I had personal experiences that seemed to indicate there might be something to synchronicity or mysticism. Even when I would have loved to believe in UFOs, ghosts, ESP and other paranormal activity. I just can’t wipe away the doubt or force myself to believe in things that fly in the face of empirical evidence and reason. For me, the Christian confessions and rituals just seemed vacuous.

On the other hand, I don’t have the same experience with some other spiritual or religious rituals. But I also have a hard time attributing cosmic significance to any of it, or affirming the dogmas. I can’t really wrap my head around belief in the absence of probability. And if I communicated something that I knew I didn't really believe, I would feel like I was engaged in an act of bad faith.

 

[Willamena]

One thing that confuses me about believers is the issue of authenticity of belief. Increasingly, I have a hard time taking their belief claims seriously.

... um, you shouldn't take any belief claims except your own seriously.

The more I listen to the accounts of “believers,” however, the more I have the sense that they are not being genuine about their own internal estimates of their beliefs. Call it “bad faith” in the existentialist sense: The more I listen to them or read their accounts, the more I sense self-deception. In the case of more orthodox believers, I think that this is largely a result of unwillingness to relinquish social or political conservatism and/or live with uncertainty or a more mundane and indifferent universe, even though they do not truly believe it. With more open minded believers, I get the sense that they are hanging onto religious language, tradition and identity out of a sense of obligation or familial and communal pressure.

This may very well be different for religious extremists who simply cannot understand evolution or cosmology, of course, but even there I detect more than a hint of willful ignorance. Does anyone else have the impression that, in matters of belief, believers are just not being honest?

Their beliefs are not genuine because they are not yours.

 

[gsa]

... um, you shouldn't take any belief claims except your own seriously.

By this I mean, accepting that what they claim about their own beliefs are true.

Their beliefs are not genuine because they are not yours.

That's not what I am getting at. I'm suggesting that many of them don't genuinely hold the beliefs that they purport to hold.

 

[Willamena]

By this I mean, accepting that what they claim about their own beliefs are true.

What if I told you that I believe the Eiffel Tower is in London?

Your own beliefs should be primary... and, in fact, they are whether you like it or not.

That's not what I am getting at. I'm suggesting that many of them don't genuinely hold the beliefs that they purport to hold.

They hold the beliefs they hold, they just don't always claim the beliefs they hold.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow. I like your points as well. Let me see.

To me, what you are describing is the effect of ritual behavior, particularly social ritual behavior that is accompanied by some form of religious instruction. A less charitable description would be indoctrination.

Hmm. I don't see how growing in faith and indoctrination go together. I know many people raised in their faith (like my friend) feel they have a duty to believe and act on it and, because she is Catholic, she continues to grow in her faith through confession to God. Others who are coverts want to follow their chosen faith. So, the intention is more open-minded (hopefully) since they are too still learning but have experienced other ways of thought outside their chosen faith.

I am still open to learning that there is something of more than personal significance to that experience, but when I talk to believers I don't have the impression that they will admit their doubts to others, even if they will admit them internally.

True. I don't see that either. It is hard but I guess I'd compare it to my belief. I know my deceased relatives are telling me what I should do to keep our family together. It's hard to see outside, if not impossible, to see outside this belief that my family and through them the connection to my ancestors are not there. (Keeping an open mind that there are other trains of thoughts) Because I am deeply appreciating they are my reality.

It is hard to step out of reality when reality is all there is. To someone who is indoctrinated in their faith either by how they are raised or personal internalizing it as a convert, I don't think one can ever get them to look outside the box or even understand what it is like outside it. My friend said it will make her doubt her faith.

So, I agree, I don't believe they will admit it.

Yes, precisely. And also deceiving others about their internal state of mind.

True. I can see how that can affect people. Maybe their self-deception is part of their growing process?

Some faiths base their faith on experiences they have, continue to have, and as part of a ritual in their belief. I believe some are scared to investigate the validity behind their experiences, though. Which, I believe is what you are saying?

The first part, I can see why you say that. When I was a part of the Church, I said I had faith and realized that I just believed in a dogma that I did not embrace. If we let go of that word and express it as fact then we won't be afraid to investigate it and have an open mind about it's validity. Also, we wouldn't be afraid to find out it is not true. Maybe it is fear.

I know if I found out through investigation that my ancestors and relatives do not speak to me since they have passed, I don't know where'd I be. Since I depend on them and the natural world to live, that would be taking away a part of me. So, I can see why people are attached to their faith. I get your point, I believe, that some don't want to admit that is what it is a belief, nothing more.

But why have faith, when faith is simply the confession of a dogma that you do not really embrace? Why not just admit that there is an experience you have had, or continue to have, as part of the ritual behavior, and use more reliable tools to investigate that experience?

 

[gsa]

What if I told you that I believe the Eiffel Tower is in London?

Your own beliefs should be primary... and, in fact, they are whether you like it or not.


They hold the beliefs they hold, they just don't always claim the beliefs they hold.

Many former Christians, for example, will tell you that they never really believed what they professed to believe. That they never had the level of certainty that they claimed for themselves when they were professing believers. That's what I am getting at.

 

[Willamena]

Many former Christians, for example, will tell you that they never really believed what they professed to believe. That they never had the level of certainty that they claimed for themselves when they were professing believers. That's what I am getting at.

Belief happens now.

 

[gsa]

Wow. I like your points as well. Let me see.

Hmm. I don't see how growing in faith and indoctrination go together. I know many people raised in their faith (like my friend) feel they have a duty to believe and act on it and, because she is Catholic, she continues to grow in her faith through confession to God. Others who are coverts want to follow their chosen faith. So, the intention is more open-minded (hopefully) since they are too still learning but have experienced other ways of thought outside their chosen faith.

Well as I said, indoctrination is the less charitable term, one that has a negative connotation. A more charitable term might be socialization or habituation. Essentially, the practice of ritual, which carries symbolic meaning and serves as a way to convey and reinforce theological beliefs, helps cultivate a religious state of mind.

The more insular the religious tradition, the more focus on reinforcement. Marrying members of the tradition, attending religious schools, regular attendance at religious celebrations, etcetera. These all help cultivate a religious mindset.

True. I don't see that either. It is hard but I guess I'd compare it to my belief. I know my deceased relatives are telling me what I should do to keep our family together. It's hard to see outside, if not impossible, to see outside this belief that my family and through them the connection to my ancestors are not there. (Keeping an open mind that there are other trains of thoughts) Because I am deeply appreciating they are my reality.

But the fact that you can even describe it with this level of objectivity would seem, to me, to indicate that there is an openness internally as well as in communication with others. Many if not most believers are unwilling to engage in even that level of self-reflection and analysis.

t is hard to step out of reality when reality is all there is. To someone who is indoctrinated in their faith either by how they are raised or personal internalizing it as a convert, I don't think one can ever get them to look outside the box or even understand what it is like outside it. My friend said it will make her doubt her faith.

But your friend is kind of the prime example, to me, of someone who is engaged in some level of self-deception. How can she even know that there is evidence “out there” that will cast doubt on her faith unless she already has some awareness of what the nature of that evidence is? I suspect that she does, and she just isn’t willing to publicly admit it, and perhaps not even admit it to herself.

Some faiths base their faith on experiences they have, continue to have, and as part of a ritual in their belief. I believe some are scared to investigate the validity behind their experiences, though. Which, I believe is what you are saying?

In part. I think that they are unwilling to follow the inquiry to its conclusion, because they have prior commitments that prevent it. But I also think that they know their beliefs will be shaken to the breaking point. Not all of them; I do think that there are some people who are willing to admit that their beliefs might not be accurate, and root them in their subjective experience. But that, I submit, is a small minority of true believers.

The first part, I can see why you say that. When I was a part of the Church, I said I had faith and realized that I just believed in a dogma that I did not embrace. If we let go of that word and express it as fact then we won't be afraid to investigate it and have an open mind about it's validity. Also, we wouldn't be afraid to find out it is not true. Maybe it is fear.

I know if I found out through investigation that my ancestors and relatives do not speak to me since they have passed, I don't know where'd I be. Since I depend on them and the natural world to live, that would be taking away a part of me. So, I can see why people are attached to their faith. I get your point, I believe, that some don't want to admit that is what it is a belief, nothing more.

We all have beliefs. The question is, are the beliefs well founded? And can we admit the limitations of those beliefs that are not well founded? And that’s where I think the crucial difference lies. I believe that the universe is about 13-15 billion years old, that humanity is the product of evolution by natural selection along with most life on the planet, that there is very little evidence that our consciousness survives death or that a powerful personality intervenes in the affairs of humanity and reveals a cosmic purpose for people made in its image. I think that those beliefs are all very well grounded. Whatever doubts I have about them I am willing to share and discuss. I don’t detect a similar level of openness to questioning the foundations of religious belief on the part of most believers.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many former Christians, for example, will tell you that they never really believed what they professed to believe. That they never had the level of certainty that they claimed for themselves when they were professing believers. That's what I am getting at.

So true.

I vividly remember how matter-of-factly people just expected me to say that I had belief. It was difficult to even ask what they meant.

Edited to add: belief should be a personal matter. But it is usually treated as if it were a social duty instead, and that is a very grave distortion indeed IMO.

Come to think of it, noticing that goes a long way towards explaining the assumptions and unfounded statements that some critics of atheists make. They both over-rate atheism itself and underrate the behavioral derangements that theism often encourages.

 

[LuisDantas]

Belief happens now.

Meaning...?