Is Faith/Religion needed to live -- my analysis of Jordan Peterson

[LuisDantas]

In your bio you mention 'personal understanding', why do you see this as being important?

Sometimes. It depends a lot on the immediate situation. Why do you ask?

How would you describe your worldview/guiding ideology?

Utilitarian ethics with a huge amount of appreciation for interdependent origination.

 

[Altfish]

Why do you consider Secular Humanism to be a virtuous ideology? On what grounds do you base the idea that we have a duty to all of Humanity?

Did I say Secular Humanism was a virtuous ideology?
I must admit though it matches my attitude to life, the Golden Rule is a good guide for most things, add into that a few green credentials and Humanism ticks the boxes.
Do you not have a duty to all humanity? I certainly do. Look after our planet, animals, plants and of course our fellow beings (Which after all are just another animal). What of those is not correct and good guidelines for life?

 

[Mock Turtle]

For me "it makes sense" to "have faith". So maybe afterall not so much difference. For you "it makes sense" to "not have faith when told so".
Good to see that it "makes sense" for both of us. Advaita taught me that "it makes sense" to "have faith" in myself. And that felt good. So I accept this.

Hypothetically speaking: If you believe in yourself, then in a weird way you "have faith in yourself". Correct? If not so, then don't read on. If so, then I have also faith in you, if I trust you a lot. I know you are scientific, always nice on the forum. So it makes sense to have faith in you IMO. So I "have faith" because you, as outside authority tell me. But only because I have a good feeling about you in the first place.

So for me "it makes sense" to "have faith" if "person feels really good to me". As long as my trust is not broken, I "have faith". Boils down to "feeling"

I'll agree that having faith in oneself, as in self-belief, is very important - perhaps even the most important thing in life. Some perhaps never achieve this fully but for myself it has been quite a constant over the years although at times a little dented. Perhaps I got this from my mother. I will no doubt regret many things in the past, but we often can only operate with the functionality that we have at the time, and for me, it has been seriously diminished at times. Fortunately that is all in the past as I seem to have overcome most of the issues.

I'm not discounting all the good that religious beliefs often provide - not necessary or achievable for me - but I seriously doubt most religions will survive into the future given the trends in the more advanced countries - discounting certain ones. And I think it is a bit demeaning for some to class all ways of operating as 'faith-based' systems - as if religions were not a special case - which they are.

 

[Sanzbir]

As a fan of the recently popularized Jordan Peterson, I'd like to analyse a particular assertion of his.

Firstly, I like him for his (mostly) critical thinking and considerable knowledge. However, he is (sort-of) religious, and a few things I disagree with him about.

He has said that everyone must have a 'kind of' religion or perhaps 'faith' in order to live. I would like to question that.

His logic is: everyone must necessarily live 'as if' there is something to live for, i.e. a purpose, a meaning. He says that atheists must have a 'faith' that there is more to death and 'the end', and that there must exist this 'purpose' in order to get up and go to work and deal with life.

But I disagree, and would make a simple analogy:

If you have a job interview, you are advised to behave 'as if' you have a real chance of getting the job. It's no good going and thinking you can't. But can we describe this as 'faith' or behaving 'as if' you will get it?

I think not, because it is a rational weighing up of possibilities, not 'faith'. At the interview, you neither accept nor deny either outcome. You consider both. You imagine 'what if' you have a real chance of getting it. But you also know you might not. You behave in a way that judges the possibilities and outcomes. But you don't behave literally 'as if' you will get the job, because that would literally mean going, having the interview and then saying "well, thanks, so when do I start?"

So, is it possible to live while considering that life has a continual, meaningful purpose, without having religion or faith? I think yes, because you can suspend belief. You can live 'in the hope' that it will have purpose, without knowing for certain.

It appears that you are using a different definition of "faith" then the person you are analyzing. Hence the disconnect.

Your subject appears to be using the words "kind of" for a reason. It appears that by "kind of religion or faith" he is meaning a system of values and meaning. There's probably a better word he could have used.

 

[Augustus]

Did I say Secular Humanism was a virtuous ideology?

I inferred it seeing as you are a Humanist and assumed you, like most Humanists, think it is a good, ethical ideology.

I must admit though it matches my attitude to life, the Golden Rule is a good guide for most things, add into that a few green credentials and Humanism ticks the boxes.
Do you not have a duty to all humanity? I certainly do. Look after our planet, animals, plants and of course our fellow beings (Which after all are just another animal). What of those is not correct and good guidelines for life?

There is nothing wrong with them. Although accepting these higher order values can be considered analogous to having 'faith', belief that people ought to behave in this way despite there being no 'objective' reason why we should.

We didn't evolve to instinctively have a duty of care to all of humanity, we evolved to favour our group (actually it also takes faith to believe there is something called humanity too).

"Faith" in this context is really just believing your favoured ideology is a good one and drawing meaning from it. There is nothing pejorative about it.

 

[Augustus]

Sometimes. It depends a lot on the immediate situation. Why do you ask?

Just an example as to what 'faith' in the OP refers to which is different from the usual meaning of faith in a specific god/religion.

People who do not have religious faith, require another form of 'faith' to underpin their worldview.

Utilitarian ethics with a huge amount of appreciation for interdependent origination.

For example, utilitarian ethics rests on certain axioms that are really just subjective preferences (and could arguably even be considered 'unnatural' from an evolutionary perspective).

We require 'faith' in these axioms and guiding principles on which we build our worldview, otherwise they cease to have any real value to ourselves.

There is nothing wrong with this of course as it is unavoidable.

 

[Augustus]

And I think it is a bit demeaning for some to class all ways of operating as 'faith-based' systems - as if religions were not a special case - which they are.

Why do you believe they are a special case? What would you say clearly differentiates a religious from a non-religious ideology?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

From a simple biological perspective, I don't think it is possible for a being not to see at least some point in getting up and going about each day's work of survival. If anything, I feel it is the human intellect that has allowed any of us to philosophically worm our way out from under that single, simple inborn drive - the desire to continue living.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just an example as to what 'faith' in the OP refers to which is different from the usual meaning of faith in a specific god/religion.

People who do not have religious faith, require another form of 'faith' to underpin their worldview.

You will have to put more effort in defining your concepts. What would religious faith be in this context? How, if at all, does it correlate with theism and atheism?

For example, utilitarian ethics rests on certain axioms that are really just subjective preferences (and could arguably even be considered 'unnatural' from an evolutionary perspective).

I take it that you have not studied the subject.

We require 'faith' in these axioms and guiding principles on which we build our worldview, otherwise they cease to have any real value to ourselves.

There is nothing wrong with this of course as it is unavoidable.

Says you.

 

[stvdv]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 16

but I seriously doubt most religions will survive into the future given the trends in the more advanced countries - discounting certain ones.

Just today I had the same thought, that they might heading to extinction even. But now reading your post I remember my own life, when going down to ZERO, only then I became open for something new. And new ideas started. So maybe that is natural for religion also. When they go down, they can learn and change. If they still don't do, yes then they might not survive. But human nature is to swim and not drown.

And I think it is a bit demeaning for some to class all ways of operating as 'faith-based' systems - as if religions were not a special case - which they are.

Sorry if I were demeaning. Did not meant to be. I tried to find common ground. I thought having faith in ourselves was what I have in common with atheists.

 

[joe1776]

As a fan of the recently popularized Jordan Peterson, I'd like to analyse a particular assertion of his.


Firstly, I like him for his (mostly) critical thinking and considerable knowledge. However, he is (sort-of) religious, and a few things I disagree with him about.


He has said that everyone must have a 'kind of' religion or perhaps 'faith' in order to live. I would like to question that.


His logic is: everyone must necessarily live 'as if' there is something to live for, i.e. a purpose, a meaning. He says that atheists must have a 'faith' that there is more to death and 'the end', and that there must exist this 'purpose' in order to get up and go to work and deal with life.


But I disagree, and would make a simple analogy:


If you have a job interview, you are advised to behave 'as if' you have a real chance of getting the job. It's no good going and thinking you can't. But can we describe this as 'faith' or behaving 'as if' you will get it?


I think not, because it is a rational weighing up of possibilities, not 'faith'. At the interview, you neither accept nor deny either outcome. You consider both. You imagine 'what if' you have a real chance of getting it. But you also know you might not. You behave in a way that judges the possibilities and outcomes. But you don't behave literally 'as if' you will get the job, because that would literally mean going, having the interview and then saying "well, thanks, so when do I start?"


So, is it possible to live while considering that life has a continual, meaningful purpose, without having religion or faith? I think yes, because you can suspend belief. You can live 'in the hope' that it will have purpose, without knowing for certain.

I doesn't matter whether one describes it as the "purpose of life" or refers to it as "evolution giving us a moral direction" but the motivation for moral progress is hard-wired into our brains.

It's as if our brains are using the reward and punishment method to train us to become better human beings. We are rewarded with pleasure when we treat others with kindness and we are punished with guilt when we intentionally harm innocent people.

Evidence of moral progress:
Global Harmony is Inevitable

 

[Augustus]

You will have to put more effort in defining your concepts. What would religious faith be in this context? How, if at all, does it correlate with theism and atheism?

It doesn't relate to theism or atheism specifically.

Faith relates to your axiomatic beliefs on which you create your worldview be they grounded in gods or something equally artificial like 'Humanity', 'common good', etc.

These axioms are not objective universal truths, but basically what you want to believe to give your world the meaning you want.

I take it that you have not studied the subject.

I've never heard anyone explain how utilitarian ethics rests on axioms that are objective truths. Perhaps you can?

Says you.

I personally don't have the conceit that my worldview reflects universal objective truth, you may differ in this regard though. I don't know.

 

[Nakosis]

As a fan of the recently popularized Jordan Peterson, I'd like to analyse a particular assertion of his.


Firstly, I like him for his (mostly) critical thinking and considerable knowledge. However, he is (sort-of) religious, and a few things I disagree with him about.


He has said that everyone must have a 'kind of' religion or perhaps 'faith' in order to live. I would like to question that.


His logic is: everyone must necessarily live 'as if' there is something to live for, i.e. a purpose, a meaning. He says that atheists must have a 'faith' that there is more to death and 'the end', and that there must exist this 'purpose' in order to get up and go to work and deal with life.


But I disagree, and would make a simple analogy:


If you have a job interview, you are advised to behave 'as if' you have a real chance of getting the job. It's no good going and thinking you can't. But can we describe this as 'faith' or behaving 'as if' you will get it?


I think not, because it is a rational weighing up of possibilities, not 'faith'. At the interview, you neither accept nor deny either outcome. You consider both. You imagine 'what if' you have a real chance of getting it. But you also know you might not. You behave in a way that judges the possibilities and outcomes. But you don't behave literally 'as if' you will get the job, because that would literally mean going, having the interview and then saying "well, thanks, so when do I start?"


So, is it possible to live while considering that life has a continual, meaningful purpose, without having religion or faith? I think yes, because you can suspend belief. You can live 'in the hope' that it will have purpose, without knowing for certain.

I have trust in myself because of my experience and knowledge. Faith would be like tossing a dart at the want ads and applying to whichever job got stabbied because some invisible force guided the dart to just the appropriate job for me to apply to.

Also I feel that man is free to create his/her own purpose in life.

 

[dianaiad]

As a fan of the recently popularized Jordan Peterson, I'd like to analyse a particular assertion of his.


Firstly, I like him for his (mostly) critical thinking and considerable knowledge. However, he is (sort-of) religious, and a few things I disagree with him about.


He has said that everyone must have a 'kind of' religion or perhaps 'faith' in order to live. I would like to question that.


His logic is: everyone must necessarily live 'as if' there is something to live for, i.e. a purpose, a meaning. He says that atheists must have a 'faith' that there is more to death and 'the end', and that there must exist this 'purpose' in order to get up and go to work and deal with life.


But I disagree, and would make a simple analogy:


If you have a job interview, you are advised to behave 'as if' you have a real chance of getting the job. It's no good going and thinking you can't. But can we describe this as 'faith' or behaving 'as if' you will get it?


I think not, because it is a rational weighing up of possibilities, not 'faith'. At the interview, you neither accept nor deny either outcome. You consider both. You imagine 'what if' you have a real chance of getting it. But you also know you might not. You behave in a way that judges the possibilities and outcomes. But you don't behave literally 'as if' you will get the job, because that would literally mean going, having the interview and then saying "well, thanks, so when do I start?"


So, is it possible to live while considering that life has a continual, meaningful purpose, without having religion or faith? I think yes, because you can suspend belief. You can live 'in the hope' that it will have purpose, without knowing for certain.

But that IS belief for everybody. As you have just stated, if this job seeker KNEW that the job was his, he would act differently. He merely hopes that he will get it.

There isn't a person on the planet who KNOWS that God exists, or that there is an afterlife, or that life has a purpose. All any of us do is hope there is, believe there is...have faith that there is.

Personally, I don't find day to day living so entrancingly, constantly, pleasurable that I could handle it if I didn't believe that there was a purpose to it.

Perhaps that purpose is to, oh....make my mom smile. Perhaps it is to see my niece text a picture of her nine month old standing up in her crib at five AM, laughing and grinning from ear to ear, having undressed herself...and pooped in the bed.

Perhaps it is to make life a bit easier for the young mother in my 'ward' who needs to take her dog to the vet, but her car battery died. You know, very simple things.

Or perhaps it is because we are here on the planet to learn to be gods ourselves.

Whatever the purpose we find, I agree...we need one. Not to have one, however small, has to be the ultimate degree of self-centeredness...and I suppose in a way even that is a purpose to life.

I'm on the back end of my own life now, dealing a bit more intensely and technically with the process of dying (or fighting it off, anyway) than most people, so the idea of having a purpose to life is somewhat more sharp a question than it might be to a healthy 20 year old. After all the time and all the...stuff...I've dealt with, I believe that I agree with this idea that atheists require a purpose to life. We all do. We don't necessarily have to have a RELIGIOUS purpose to life, but to have a reason to get up in the morning?

Yeah.

We all do.

 

[osgart]

This life is precious and probably moreso to atheists, than religious people. Its the one that they desire to make count. Its the end all and be all of happiness. People dont really need extra faith motives for this life to hold the utmost meaningful regard for it. Heaven and hell is right here right now. I am sure some atheists would love an eternal life of ideal living but they dont see any evidence for it. Their happiness, joy, and peace resides in who they are now, and for their entire lives. Unto death even.

 

[Altfish]

I inferred it seeing as you are a Humanist and assumed you, like most Humanists, think it is a good, ethical ideology.

I think it is a good way of life, but the word 'virtuous' never crossed my mind.

There is nothing wrong with them. Although accepting these higher order values can be considered analogous to having 'faith', belief that people ought to behave in this way despite there being no 'objective' reason why we should.

We didn't evolve to instinctively have a duty of care to all of humanity, we evolved to favour our group (actually it also takes faith to believe there is something called humanity too).

"Faith" in this context is really just believing your favoured ideology is a good one and drawing meaning from it. There is nothing pejorative about it.

Why are they 'higher order values'? Why are they analogous to faith?
They come naturally to me, I don't have to think about them. I put myself in the other person's position and ask, "Would they like it if..." If the answer is , "No", then I don't do it.

I believe that we did evolve to get on with one another BECAUSE it was a successful trait. Successful traits have more success in breeding.

I don't necessarily believe Humanism is the best creed, I just haven't found a better one.

 

[Trailblazer]

By purpose, I'm referring to ultimate purpose. The point being, a purpose in your life and your childrens' lives and so on.

How could we know the ultimate purpose of our existence? If there is a God and God created humans, then logically speaking God is the one who knows the ultimate purpose of our existence.

How could we know our purpose, unless it was revealed to us by God? I believe our purpose is revealed by God through His Messengers. According to my beliefs, our purpose is revealed in this prayer and the short passage that follows:

I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth.
There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.
Bahá’u’lláh
Short Obligatory Prayer

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

Baha'u'llah was the Messenger of God for this age. We live according to our purpose if we know God and follow the teachings and Laws set forth by Baha'u'llah in His Writings, since His Will is identical with the Will of God. Within those wide parameters, people can fulfill their purpose in many different ways. Some people have children, some don't. Some people go to college, some don't. We all have different aspirations and work we choose to do.

 

[ecco]

nm

 

[ecco]

If you have a job interview, you are advised to behave 'as if' you have a real chance of getting the job. It's no good going and thinking you can't. But can we describe this as 'faith' or behaving 'as if' you will get it?

I think not, because it is a rational weighing up of possibilities, not 'faith'.

I cannot understand why so many non-theistic people are afraid of the word "faith". "Faith" has two separate and distinct definitions. Only one of which refers to gods or religions. The other: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" is why I have faith that I'm going to get the job.

Ditto "belief".

 

[Trailblazer]

nm