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

[sayak83]

So you're saying for you it's about pleasure, the joy of children. But that doesn't address the need for purpose. Some people would ask: what is the purpose of seeking that pleasure?

Experiencing a rich quality of conscious emotional and intellectual and aesthetic life is self rewarding. This should be obvious. Why else does one go on a hike, travel to a new place etc.

 

[Jumi]

It doesn't sound like you identify Philosophical Taoism as a religion, because you say your ancestors practised it, then were forced into a religion.

My ancestors weren't philosophical Taoists. I just made multiple examples.

Wikipedia describes it as a "philosophical doctrine". And the very name suggests it's a philosophy.

Read the Tao Teh Ching.

But if it is a religion, it must require faith according to this definition: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." Or do Taoists have proof of their belief, or do they NOT have any conviction?

This does tell me that "strong belief in doctrines" at least didn't exist and your definition of faith has been even less universal.

I said "homo sapiens probably had a sense of faith". When did I claim I have proof? The evidence is based upon history - that 99.9% of cultures have shown strong signs of religion, for the whole of history, and I'm just using reverse extrapolation. So you would need a reason to think that religion must have suddenly begun at some point, rather than developing, or perhaps evolving (as memes evolve) over a long period, just as language or biology evolved over very long periods.

I'm equally sure that those "signs of faith" are interpreted wrongly (us mystics tend to be made false positives quite often in this) and that these signs are not everyone. When have we had everyone have faith in the same religion anywhere, even with everyone having to fake religion in an area? Never. I'd say most people were working just to survive and their families survive.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Surely a concept of self is far more complex and abstract than a concept of other, so if you have a concept of self, as chimps do, why wouldn't they be capable of a concept of an unknown animate external agency?

Another species is irrelevant. It's suggested that dogs regard humans as 'sort of' dogs. It doesn't matter what species another agency might be. It needs only a concept of an agency that is animate and can 'do things', which clearly animals have, with regard to the other animals they interact with. It's not like a dog thinks the other dogs in a pack have ceased to exist when they cannot be detected. That seems like a feasible starting point for a concept of supernatural agency, and I'm sure by the time of homo sapiens it would have developed considerably.

I didn't follow your explanation for where religion came from. When I talk about 'we', I'm not going back to distant species, but homo sapiens is sufficient.

I think it is a step too far to go from a concept of self - and we don't exactly know what other species have in this regard, apart from such things as mirror tests, their understanding of death, and the limited morality that some seem to exhibit - to project agency onto events. To me, that is a major shift in concepts, and where and why would such thinking evolve? I suspect that it was the variety of events that humans experienced - because they travelled so widely - that might have caused these projections, and where other species would likely not have experienced these, being more confined to one particular environment. Also, language will likely be involved here, and other species are much more limited in this regard, so another reason why humans will have been the only species to have developed such concepts.

We haven't a lot to go on as to when religious (or spiritual) ideas developed, and even the cave art so often cited as religious-like, in my view, could be seen as nothing of the sort (more like teaching aids), and they only go back, what, 40,000 years or so, but perhaps even earlier. Hence, I see religious concepts as almost certainly purely human and not going back that far, and although our ancestors might have projected some kind of agency to events, they might not have gone a step further to think that anything humans did could affect such things. Perhaps just seeing themselves as the victims of whatever was thrown at them.

 

[scott777]

It is as direct as possible. Since God an immaterial cannot deliver the message Himself, God “manifests” Himself in the form of a Messenger who is a perfect mirror image of Himself.

There is no proof but there is evidence. Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

Nobody can establish God’s existence as a fact. All we have are the body of facts or information surrounding the Messengers of God that indicate that God exists.

I understand your point about cause and effect, things exist because something causes them to exist; but even that raindrop has a purpose for existing, because we need rain.

I know the difference between proof and evidence. I've seen no evidence. What's your most compelling evidence?

We don't always need rain. And it rains in places where there are no people, such as out at sea (or maybe you think it never does). Do you believe there were once dinosaurs? What were they for?

 

[scott777]

My ancestors weren't philosophical Taoists. I just made multiple examples.


Read the Tao Teh Ching.


This does tell me that "strong belief in doctrines" at least didn't exist and your definition of faith has been even less universal.


I'm equally sure that those "signs of faith" are interpreted wrongly (us mystics tend to be made false positives quite often in this) and that these signs are not everyone. When have we had everyone have faith in the same religion anywhere, even with everyone having to fake religion in an area? Never. I'd say most people were working just to survive and their families survive.

I don't think I'll read the Tao Teh Ching, but you could just explain whether it's followers have proof in what they believe, and whether they have conviction it it's doctrines.

What tells you that "strong belief in doctrines" at least didn't exist?

What does "faith in the same religion" have to do with it? I never said everyone had the same religion. I'm just talking about any religion and any form of faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know the difference between proof and evidence. I've seen no evidence. What's your most compelling evidence?

I think the most compelling evidence for God is Baha'u'llah, and the most compelling evidence for Baha'u'llah is His Writings, but also His Life.

We don't always need rain. And it rains in places where there are no people, such as out at sea (or maybe you think it never does). Do you believe there were once dinosaurs? What were they for?

True, there are things in life that do not seem to have a purpose. We usually do not need as much rain as we get where I live. Yes, I believe there were once dinosaurs but I do not know their purpose. I cannot say what the purpose is of everything in existence, only God knows that.

 

[Jumi]

I don't think I'll read the Tao Teh Ching, but you could just explain whether it's followers have proof in what they believe, and whether they have conviction it it's doctrines.

Basically that there's not much use in having those beliefs or spreading them.

What tells you that "strong belief in doctrines" at least didn't exist?

Because doctrines didn't exist until language was sufficiently developed. You could have a bunch of poetry and storytelling, but without organization to enforce doctrine it was easy to copy from other tribe's stories, poetry when you liked it. Did our ancestors just die before they could develop language and writing? no.

What does "faith in the same religion" have to do with it? I never said everyone had the same religion. I'm just talking about any religion and any form of faith.

So any belief elevated to level of "faith" will do no matter if it's shared by a group or just an individuals own faith... and they're supposed to be needed to live?

 

[scott777]

I think it is a step too far to go from a concept of self - and we don't exactly know what other species have in this regard, apart from such things as mirror tests, their understanding of death, and the limited morality that some seem to exhibit - to project agency onto events. To me, that is a major shift in concepts, and where and why would such thinking evolve? I suspect that it was the variety of events that humans experienced - because they travelled so widely - that might have caused these projections, and where other species would likely not have experienced these, being more confined to one particular environment. Also, language will likely be involved here, and other species are much more limited in this regard, so another reason why humans will have been the only species to have developed such concepts.

We haven't a lot to go on as to when religious (or spiritual) ideas developed, and even the cave art so often cited as religious-like, in my view, could be seen as nothing of the sort (more like teaching aids), and they only go back, what, 40,000 years or so, but perhaps even earlier. Hence, I see religious concepts as almost certainly purely human and not going back that far, and although our ancestors might have projected some kind of agency to events, they might not have gone a step further to think that anything humans did could affect such things. Perhaps just seeing themselves as the victims of whatever was thrown at them.

It seems apparent that the chimp concept of 'self' and 'other' is sufficient for a concept of 'an unknown other who has done something or might do something'. That's actually a very basic concept. It doesn't have to be so complex and thoughtful as our concept. Just an awareness.

And that should be sufficient for projecting agency onto events. A dog behaves 'as if' there were an animate agency when something sudden happens, such as the snow falling off your roof. If it reacts in an identical way to how it does when there is an agency, that's a strong indicator that it 'believes' in the agency, however basic that 'belief' is.

If dogs can have a very basic concept of external agency, then I'm sure all homo sapiens could have something much closer to religion. Cave art is a good point, not in its depiction, but in its capacity as language. If a 'cave-man' can produce it, then the ability to conceptualize must be far more advanced than a chimp. That ability is also strongly suggestive of the ability to have a primitive type of religious belief.

 

[scott777]

I think the most compelling evidence for God is Baha'u'llah, and the most compelling evidence for Baha'u'llah is His Writings, but also His Life.

True, there are things in life that do not seem to have a purpose. We usually do not need as much rain as we get where I live. Yes, I believe there were once dinosaurs but I do not know their purpose. I cannot say what the purpose is of everything in existence, only God knows that.

In what way are Baha'u'llah's writings or life evidence of a god?

 

[Mock Turtle]

It seems apparent that the chimp concept of 'self' and 'other' is sufficient for a concept of 'an unknown other who has done something or might do something'. That's actually a very basic concept. It doesn't have to be so complex and thoughtful as our concept. Just an awareness.

And that should be sufficient for projecting agency onto events. A dog behaves 'as if' there were an animate agency when something sudden happens, such as the snow falling off your roof. If it reacts in an identical way to how it does when there is an agency, that's a strong indicator that it 'believes' in the agency, however basic that 'belief' is.

If dogs can have a very basic concept of external agency, then I'm sure all homo sapiens could have something much closer to religion. Cave art is a good point, not in its depiction, but in its capacity as language. If a 'cave-man' can produce it, then the ability to conceptualize must be far more advanced than a chimp. That ability is also strongly suggestive of the ability to have a primitive type of religious belief.

I'm sorry but I fail to see the likelihood of that happening. There is a big leap to go from one to the other. In the one, there is an actor, in whatever form they take, but in the agency situation this is not so.

The cave art could be just that which enables them to survive though - as in recognising the game and how to snare them - so more like a school or library, although I'll admit few seem to see it this way - except me perhaps. Who knows, perhaps some chimps just didn't have the right environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee)

 

[scott777]

Basically that there's not much use in having those beliefs or spreading them.

I don't understand. Who believes this?

Because doctrines didn't exist until language was sufficiently developed. You could have a bunch of poetry and storytelling, but without organization to enforce doctrine it was easy to copy from other tribe's stories, poetry when you liked it. Did our ancestors just die before they could develop language and writing? no.

How do you define 'sufficiently developed'? Does art count?

I'm not only talking about organized religion.

So any belief elevated to level of "faith" will do no matter if it's shared by a group or just an individual's own faith... and they're supposed to be needed to live?

Any religious belief will do. I'm not saying they were needed to live. I'm suggesting they existed, and were generally beneficial. They may have evolved. In evolution, not every gene is beneficial, but the beneficial ones are more likely to be passed on. Genes that result in more developed conceptual skills may have been beneficial for survival, and may have resulted (as a side-effect) in the concept of spirits or godlike beings. Consider this: the earliest form of worship among the Celts was probably an animistic religion, common in many ancient peoples, including the Semites – forerunners of the Hebrews. This saw the workings of vaguely specified spirits and forces reflected in nature generally. Deities dwelt in rocks and trees, in standing stones and in rivers and wells, and their influence could extend beyond the physical confines of these locations. A well spirit, or tree spirit, might create fierce windstorms or cause the crops to fail if not placated.

 

[scott777]

I'm sorry but I fail to see the likelihood of that happening. There is a big leap to go from one to the other. In the one, there is an actor, in whatever form they take, but in the agency situation this is not so.

But the animal/early human doesn't know whether it's an 'actor' or not. That's the point! So what exactly is this leap?

The cave art could be just that which enables them to survive though - as in recognising the game and how to snare them - so more like a school or library, although I'll admit few seem to see it this way - except me perhaps. Who knows, perhaps some chimps just didn't have the right environment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee)

 

[Mock Turtle]

But the animal/early human doesn't know whether it's an 'actor' or not. That's the point! So what exactly is this leap?

Erm, evidence in the form of such? Otherwise, these events are just that - events. Why would any being ascribe agency to a tree falling down or flood water rising or perhaps lightning or earthquakes? Please explain why any (not very intelligent) beings would do this.

 

[Jumi]

I don't understand. Who believes this?

Read the Tao t'eh Ching, doesn't get any clearer than that.

How do you define 'sufficiently developed'? Does art count?

Is art a faith? Is mysticism a faith? They aren't.

Any religious belief will do. I'm not saying they were needed to live. I'm suggesting they existed, and were generally beneficial. They may have evolved.

Beneficial for what? Getting a bunch of followers to follow something, "killing" any Socrates to make way for them.

In evolution, not every gene is beneficial, but the beneficial ones are more likely to be passed on. Genes that result in more developed conceptual skills may have been beneficial for survival, and may have resulted (as a side-effect) in the concept of spirits or godlike beings.

Religion tends to expand by spreading it and then survives by enforcing it. They don't necessarily survive because they improve people's lives, but because they have backing of temporal power.

Consider this: the earliest form of worship among the Celts was probably an animistic religion, common in many ancient peoples, including the Semites – forerunners of the Hebrews. This saw the workings of vaguely specified spirits and forces reflected in nature generally. Deities dwelt in rocks and trees, in standing stones and in rivers and wells, and their influence could extend beyond the physical confines of these locations. A well spirit, or tree spirit, might create fierce windstorms or cause the crops to fail if not placated.

You may believe they had faith in their religions, but if you read the Bible, you see the religious writers complaining about how people don't have faith and do things wrong and displease the God. Are you saying these are examples of beneficial faith that is needed for some people to survive?

 

[scott777]

Erm, evidence in the form of such? Otherwise, these events are just that - events. Why would any being ascribe agency to a tree falling down or flood water rising or perhaps lightning or earthquakes? Please explain why any (not very intelligent) beings would do this.

That's an easy one. For survival. If a dog thinks the snow falling off your roof is in fact an intruder trying to get it, the dog will react accordingly. It's a safe-guard. If a dog sees a toy jumping around, it assumes it is alive. Same goes for cats. If they didn't, then the event might turn out to be a threat or food, which might attack or flee from the animal.

But certain things are more human interpretations. I'm not saying animals ascribe everything to an agency. Some things can obviously be interpreted as such. Maybe not lightning, though it certainly makes a lot of animals frightened, just like fireworks. Loud noises have this effect, because a sudden loud noise might be a threat from an intruder/predator, or the sign of one.

 

[osgart]

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.

Faith based on knowledge, evidence, and proven out to be is a necessary faith. Faith is confidence, and reliance toward something, or someone, self or other.

Faith as a mere hope and belief without knowledge literally means nothing to me. Its useless. Its counter productive, and its unsafe.

I have faith in my car running right, but i am aware of its condition. The faith comes in when i drive it.

Its very interesting how the word faith has come to mean so little, if nothing at all. Or even worse, faith as blind risk taking.

 

[scott777]

Read the Tao t'eh Ching, doesn't get any clearer than that.

Does that mean you don't know?

Is art a faith? Is mysticism a faith? They aren't.

Can you explain your point?

Beneficial for what? Getting a bunch of followers to follow something, "killing" any Socrates to make way for them.

Again, you are assuming 'organized religion'. I said nothing about followers. A personal belief in an afterlife, for example, would be beneficial when faced with great danger. It would reduce your fear of death and give you courage. For primitive man, that was essential.

Religion tends to expand by spreading it and then survives by enforcing it. They don't necessarily survive because they improve people's lives, but because they have backing of temporal power.

Again, you are assuming a certain type of religion only.

You may believe they had faith in their religions, but if you read the Bible, you see the religious writers complaining about how people don't have faith and do things wrong and displease the God. Are you saying these are examples of beneficial faith that is needed for some people to survive?

I don't understand. What is your example of a beneficial faith?

 

[scott777]

Faith based on knowledge, evidence, and proven out to be is a necessary faith. Faith is confidence, and reliance toward something, or someone, self or other.

Faith as a mere hope and belief without knowledge literally means nothing to me. Its useless. Its counter productive, and its unsafe.

I have faith in my car running right, but i am aware of its condition. The faith comes in when i drive it.

Its very interesting how the word faith has come to mean so little, if nothing at all. Or even worse, faith as blind risk taking.

Quite right, that faith is ambiguous. I suppose my post relates to religious faith.

 

[Jumi]

Can you explain your point?

You were saying art was sufficient to be faith?

Again, you are assuming 'organized religion'. I said nothing about followers. A personal belief in an afterlife, for example, would be beneficial when faced with great danger. It would reduce your fear of death and give you courage. For primitive man, that was essential.

Have you ever been in a dangerous situation? As much as we like to think, dangerous situations typically aren't conductive to thinking or beliefs. You might volunteer to be in dangerous situations for a faith though, for good or bad cause.

Belief in an afterlife could also lead to wasting all your time on converting other people to the same belief or killing people for god to sort out. Perhaps the death of nearly a whole continent.

Again, you are assuming a certain type of religion only.

Well, you were talking about faith-based religions.

I don't understand. What is your example of a beneficial faith?

Perhaps faith in a family unit, assuming that the family is not the worst kind of one, since it's something natural and we don't need to make it artificially important. Though I wouldn't use the word faith there.

I've never had any "religious faith" as an atheist or now that I am theist, so the argument that we somehow need it is completely silly to me. Never needed any to wake up in the morning to go to school or work. Never needed it to eat and enjoy life. Never needed it to experience God. Never needed it to care for sick friends or pets. I guess some people might need it, but making it be a universal or even a majority need is just not right.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's an easy one. For survival. If a dog thinks the snow falling off your roof is in fact an intruder trying to get it, the dog will react accordingly. It's a safe-guard. If a dog sees a toy jumping around, it assumes it is alive. Same goes for cats. If they didn't, then the event might turn out to be a threat or food, which might attack or flee from the animal.

But certain things are more human interpretations. I'm not saying animals ascribe everything to an agency. Some things can obviously be interpreted as such. Maybe not lightning, though it certainly makes a lot of animals frightened, just like fireworks. Loud noises have this effect, because a sudden loud noise might be a threat from an intruder/predator, or the sign of one.

Sorry, not buying that, so we will have to disagree on this. Or we are talking about a different concept of agency. I doubt most animals are capable of doing that even if they react to many different circumstances that they cannot understand.