Belief and Bad Faith

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I definitely see that. I don't know if that is bad in itself; and, I can see your kinda confusion(?) or annoyance with it.

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. Maybe covering up the uncertainty or instability their belief is? That faith just doesn't cut it?

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.

Thank you. Sadly to say, when I was part of the Church I felt that openness leave. My morals are wrapped around the necessity of objectivity. If we are to set our lives to something, we need to understand the whole picture and with beliefs, we need to know they are facts (as 2 plus 2 equals 4) first then follow (get a career in math). If the two don't match up, then one is following a "career" is basing his live (work) on nonexistent or incorrect teachings.

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.

She probably does. I shared a lot of what I learned from Christianity and the Church (not debate type of things like here) and she wanted me to talk about something else. Her faith even though it could be self-deception saved her life, though. I guess we have to accept people who take placebos. I personally wouldn't call it that and self-deceptive, but those two seemed like the only two that fit.




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.






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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Laika]

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?

Often bad faith is the conflict between professed beliefs and the sense of self, or psychologically speaking the ego/sense of self and the ego-ideal/the idealized sense of self. A healthy "faith" would be one where this conflict is not present and the belief system is consistent with a persons freedom, individuality and happiness.

"Extremism" is almost always the result of bad faith since it is based on the requirement to prove the validity of the faith; persecution of non-believers or heretics serves as a way to crush the doubts of the fanatics as they project their own anxiety and hostility to the self onto others. I leave this somewhat open as I think it depends on how you measure extremism.

depth and sincerity of conviction means that someone can entertain doubts, accept uncertainty and admit the limitations of a belief system because they are not experienced as hostile to the ego-ideal. Personally I would accept the idea that social or political conservatism may be an indication of bad faith as they show a distrust in a persons' ability to decide their own beliefs. This is a hunch rather than anything I can subject to proof. The paradox of course is that sincere conviction and free thought are compatible with one another- and therefore a believer may well be able to entertain the possibility of atheism without feeling threatened by it. its the sense that truth (and therefore a willingness to accept disagreement) is a threat to a belief that is a measure of whether it is a good faith or not.

[Edit: Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" is a very insightful book on this subject, and he's grasps the mental imbalances of fanaticism very well. He deals with both political and religious extremism. I'm not 100% sure he's so clear on the origins of the frustration that makes fanaticism necessary].

 

[J0stories]

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?

I can honestly say, based on my own experiences, that I believe there is something more out there. Call it what you will. And to me, that belief is totally honest. However, that being said, I would never presume to press my belief on anyone as they have not had my experiences. Perhaps for you, a more honest position is one of skepticism or non belief. And that is fine if it makes you comfortable. What I find fascinating is those who espous to have no belief struggling to understand, or even discredit, those who do have belief. What is that all about?

 

[J0stories]

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




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.

I do. My beliefs are based on experience. I will not bore you with that but Surfice it to say that for me, there is no other explanation. And as a person steeped in science; I am an advanced practice nurse, I have searched for logical ecpxplanations. None, thus far, have presented themselves.

 

[gsa]

What I find fascinating is those who espous to have no belief struggling to understand, or even discredit, those who do have belief. What is that all about?

Certain forms of belief are inexplicable to me. I do not understand how someone can believe that there are gods that are actively interfering in the world on a daily basis, when there is no evidence of that and all evidence points to the contrary. For similar reasons, I cannot understand people who believe in ancient aliens, demonic possession, and similar things.

As for discrediting, I can only speak for myself, but I am only interested in discrediting religious beliefs that appear to be harmful or have a strong potential for harm, and that are false.

 

[J0stories]

Certain forms of belief are inexplicable to me. I do not understand how someone can believe that there are gods that are actively interfering in the world on a daily basis, when there is no evidence of that and all evidence points to the contrary. For similar reasons, I cannot understand people who believe in ancient aliens, demonic possession, and similar things.

As for discrediting, I can only speak for myself, but I am only interested in discrediting religious beliefs that appear to be harmful or have a strong potential for harm, and that are false.

Well, of course, I agree that some beliefs are incredibly harmful. Look at what people like phelps have done to Christian beliefs. Scary, no? And you are right, there is no proof of any God or gods. However, that being said, I have had experiences that I cannot explain rationally, try as though I did. I choose, and it is a choice, to believe in a divine reason until someone proves me wrong.

 

[gsa]

Well, of course, I agree that some beliefs are incredibly harmful. Look at what people like phelps have done to Christian beliefs. Scary, no? And you are right, there is no proof of any God or gods. However, that being said, I have had experiences that I cannot explain rationally, try as though I did. I choose, and it is a choice, to believe in a divine reason until someone proves me wrong.

I have had experiences that I don't know can be explained rationally. It may even be indicative of some underlying unity or something, but I am not willing to describe it as divine. That, to me, is too loaded, too intertwined with beliefs that I simply find incredulous. I suppose it depends on the nature of your experience, but I am not sure that I can read anything divine into something like synchronicity or inexplicable euphoria or even things that are more traditionally spooky.

There might be something to these experiences, I agree. But we have to explore them rationally to understand what it is. And it seems to me that there is very little that can be deduced from an experience, standing alone.

 

[J0stories]

I have had experiences that I don't know can be explained rationally. It may even be indicative of some underlying unity or something, but I am not willing to describe it as divine. That, to me, is too loaded, too intertwined with beliefs that I simply find incredulous. I suppose it depends on the nature of your experience, but I am not sure that I can read anything divine into something like synchronicity or inexplicable euphoria or even things that are more traditionally spooky.

There might be something to these experiences, I agree. But we have to explore them rationally to understand what it is. And it seems to me that there is very little that can be deduced from an experience, standing alone.

I could not agree more. I am a scientist, an advanced practice nurse who works in critical care. It does not get more scientific than that. However, until that scientific explanation can truly explain some of the things I have been through, I withhold judgment and find solace in thinking that there is something bigger out there than quarks and antimatter

 

[gsa]

I could not agree more. I am a scientist, an advanced practice nurse who works in critical care. It does not get more scientific than that. However, until that scientific explanation can truly explain some of the things I have been through, I withhold judgment and find solace in thinking that there is something bigger out there than quarks and antimatter

I can appreciate that, but how much do you think can be discerned from those experiences? Wouldn't it be more rational to say it is an as yet unexplained component of a presumably natural world?

 

[J0stories]

I can appreciate that, but how much do you think can be discerned from those experiences? Wouldn't it be more rational to say it is an as yet unexplained component of a presumably natural world?

I wish it were that simple seeker. Unfortunately, it is not. These were tangible experiences that only I could see or hear. What would you say to seeing someone pop into existence, speak as clear as day and then pop out again? Or getting lost...I mean really totally lost, in the Pyrenees in Portugal and truly believing I was going to die and then seeing a 'light' show me a path out? If there was or is a rational conclusion I have yet to find out but trust me friend, I am all ears