Is Faith Valuable?

[nonbeliever_92]

I was trying to think how best to answer the question. Patience my friend.

In order:

1) I find patience in a person produces someone is more accepting of adversity and that this is generally conducive to forming a society which can tolerate its fringe better and be cool enough to deal with big problems as they come.

2) Material gains production is a bit questionable. This gets into notions of proximal versus ultimate causation that I do not think contribute gainfully to this thread. But suffice it to say that I would go on the record as stating that yes I am aware of situations in which patience has produced material gains.

3) Gains in general is an easier prompt. The answer is yes, I am aware of situations in which patience has produced reward.



The issue I have is how best to illustrate what I am suggesting. I am aware of gains both manifest and potential, but I am also aware of losses both manifest and potential. But my willingness to be patient (in action and my belief in its necessity) exceeds its gains-loss ratio.

MTF

Well then, I wouldn't call your belief faith. If, say, you have consistently seen someone being patient and only not getting anything in return, yet you believe patience in the future would grant a positive gain, then that would be faith. Because you have a reasonable observation behind your belief, I wouldn't call it faith, more like hope as I've distinguished in an earlier post. You have hope that patience in the furture will be beneficial to the human race, and I tend to agree with you there.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

If you can provide a reason for believing something besides "faith" than it doesn't really count as faith. It's a reasonable and justified position, unlike many of the theists claims of gods, or people who believe that they were abducted by aliens yet can't show any evidence or reason as to show that they've been abducted.

Eaxample:

Person A: I believe that god is the ultimate creator of the universe.

Interviewer: And why do you believe this?

Person A: Well I have faith.

Interviewer: Is that it?

Person A: Why yes, what else would I need?


A claim of faith is completely useless, or the claim that one has evidence that only they can see, or others can't see the evidence unless they believe. This isn't Peter Pan folks, believe all you want, you can't fly.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

So both hope and faith are irrational individually, but you contend that hope can (or often does) have an overall rationale which renders it valuable. So, essentially it is pragmatism that what differentiates faith and hope is hope possesses a rationale which is consistent with societal values?

So then how do you contend with the assertion that Faith a comparable rationality in that it is societally functional as well. Certain people are not emotionally ready (mature?) nor mentally developed (possibly even capable) to adopt more abstracted or esoteric belief systems. In the absence of an ideology which imposes certain moral constraints how do you suppose the more absolutist or those already prone to immorality would behave?

MTF

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Well as I see it, there is nothing provided by faith that cannot be provided without faith. This is one of my basic responses to people when they ask me why is it possible that i don't believe in god. I basically say, well I don't need to, it's not a necessity to believe in an imaginary being. (Okay sometimes I respond "My leg's not broken so I don't need a crutch." but that usually makes people angry.)

Hope can be used to comfort people, as can faith, but faith isn't necessary.

Say that I'm trapped in a cave, there was an rockslide and the entrance was blocked. I am under a pile of rocks and can barely breath. I start to panic and hyperventilate. I then begin to pray that god sends people to find me and rescue me. My blood pressure decreses, I breath slowly, my heart slows down, and I am essentially psyching myself out of panic. This is fine, this is great, in fact. But why can't I simply hope that people come to me and help me? My blood pressure would decrease, I breath slowly, my heart beats slower, I psych myself into comfort again. Same results, different tactics, but one has an unnecessary step.

To me believing in god for any reason is underestimating one's environment and the people around oneself as well as giving credit to something which credit is not due because it most likely doesn't exist and has no effect upon your life. Or god stands in as a filler for one's ignorance so that one feels comforted, though unjustified. It would be much better just to say "I don't know." when ignorant of something.

Also people do the dumbest stuff becuase of their faiths, like burning witches or flying planes into buildings, or not providing medical care for their child because "God will protect them from their (insert maladie here)" Yes people do these things without faith, that's not the issue here though. People have and give to charities because of their religion, but this is possible without the belief and tends to be much more unbiased.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

...

1)To me believing in god for any reason is underestimating one's environment and the people around oneself as well as giving credit to something which credit is not due because it most likely doesn't exist and has no effect upon your life. Or god stands in as a filler for one's ignorance so that one feels comforted, though unjustified. It would be much better just to say "I don't know." when ignorant of something.

2)Also people do the dumbest stuff because of their faiths, like burning witches or flying planes into buildings, or not providing medical care for their child because "God will protect them from their (insert maladie here)" Yes people do these things without faith, that's not the issue here though. People have and give to charities because of their religion, but this is possible without the belief and tends to be much more unbiased.

1) It would be better to just say "I don't know," but some people are not comfortable enough to be able to say "I don't know."

2) This presumes that the people would not do the "dumbest" stuff already or even worse stuff without religion. Take a look at the character of the individuals who do such "dumb" things in the name of their religion. Surely you find it plausible that they would be doing equally or even "dumber" things if the particular ideology they were attached to weren't designed to facilitate incorporation into society.

2A) It's not about what is possible (or ideal) without religion; it's about how likely it is without religion. Do you think it is likely that as many people would give to charity without religion? And do remember that most people are able to adopt some sort of transhumanist idealism.

MTF

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Good people do good things. bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg

 

[nonbeliever_92]

1) It would be better to just say "I don't know," but some people are not comfortable enough to be able to say "I don't know."

2) This presumes that the people would not do the "dumbest" stuff already or even worse stuff without religion. Take a look at the character of the individuals who do such "dumb" things in the name of their religion. Surely you find it plausible that they would be doing equally or even "dumber" things if the particular ideology they were attached to weren't designed to facilitate incorporation into society.

2A) It's not about what is possible (or ideal) without religion; it's about how likely it is without religion. Do you think it is likely that as many people would give to charity without religion? And do remember that most people are able to adopt some sort of transhumanist idealism.

MTF

1) I know that, and I acknowledged that.

2) Again, I acknowledged that people do dumb stuff for religion and without religion. In the case of dumb stuff in general, religion doesn't matter becuase people do dumb stuff anyway, it's inevitable. However people doing dumb stuff becuase of their religion is the case. It's not people doing dumb stuff and they just so happen to be Christian. It's about people intentionally doing dumb stuff because they believe that they will be "rewarded" by the religion or that they are doing what's "right" or "necessary" for others becuase of their religion.

Ex:
A (insert religion here) man gets really angry at his wife and kills her.

A (insert religion here) man believes that his wife's soul will be burned for eternity in the afterlife because she professes a disbelief in (his religion). In an attempt save her soul, he performs an ancient pagan ceremony (against his wife's wishes) and she ends up dying
Or
A (insert religion) man flies a plane through a building or two becuase he believes that he will be rewarded in the Hereafter with (insert divine prize for martydom).

Yes I agree that it is possible that people could do even dumber and more destructive stuff if they did not have a particular ideology, but faith, in no sense is required for these beliefs. Having a sense of right and wrong has nothing to do with someone's religious, areligious, or anti-religious convictions. I don't believe that people do alot of things simply becuase their religion tells them it so, they may believe that it's the religion, but i disagree. I think it's because we're human and for most of us there is an innate sense of right and wrong as well as a learned and reinforced sense of right and wrong. Empathy, sympathy are inbred traits, necessary for the survival of a social species such as humans, there's nothing religious about it.

For example, the ideology that killing a another person is wrong, is universal, except in cases where the killer has some sort of psychological disorder or tendencies, has been tricked, brainwashed, and deceived into delusions such as religion. (Like sacrificing a virgin to a volcano to appease the fire god, or burning "witches.") Teaching someone that something is wrong and having a good valid reason as to why it's wrong is appropriate. Saying "Oh god says it's a sin." is not a valid reason.

3) I disagree, people have just as much a concious of giving to charities with religion as they do without religion. But the problem is that it seems that people give to charites not becuase it's "the right thing to do" but because they seem to be stacking up points for the big man upstairs. It's wrong, it should be taught that it's better to be giving and generous. Besides there are just as many non-religious charities as there are religious ones. This is like saying, my religion makes me a good person. No being a giving human makes you a good person. Being a good person makes you a good person. i have more to say, but i have to go for now...

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Agreed. Being a good person makes you a good person. I am not referring to the tautology here, but to the imperative beneath it. One can only be good if one's behavior and beliefs are consistent with what is empirically beneficial. I acknowledge this.


And while I agree that giving to charity because you are "stacking up points" is "less good" than giving to charity because you are consciously trying to help humanity, it does not necessarily follow that all people can rise to that level of thinking/maturity. Most people do not progress much beyond the early stages of Kohlberg's stages of morality. Most people are not well suited to critical thinking and abstract analysis. It takes a certain amount of "role playing" to be able to move into the more advanced morality systems. If you can't walk a mile in another man's shoes in the hypothetical, and most people aren't willing to actually to walk a mile in another man's shoes just to understand them, then why should we suppose that you will be able to relate to the other man?


This goes to you too Omar: Good people don't do bad things because of religion generally speaking. They just do bad things. But take a look at mass actions taken on behalf of religion and it starts with either an noticeably corrupt leadership or with some fringe of the masses which are not consisting of good people either and almost certainly would engage in even more prejudicial, hateful, and ridiculous activities in the absence of an institution to which they could devote themselves "fully" which preaches peace, tolerance, etc.

MTF

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Agreed. Being a good person makes you a good person. I am not referring to the tautology here, but to the imperative beneath it. One can only be good if one's behavior and beliefs are consistent with what is empirically beneficial. I acknowledge this.


And while I agree that giving to charity because you are "stacking up points" is "less good" than giving to charity because you are consciously trying to help humanity, it does not necessarily follow that all people can rise to that level of thinking/maturity. Most people do not progress much beyond the early stages of Kohlberg's stages of morality. Most people are not well suited to critical thinking and abstract analysis. It takes a certain amount of "role playing" to be able to move into the more advanced morality systems. If you can't walk a mile in another man's shoes in the hypothetical, and most people aren't willing to actually to walk a mile in another man's shoes just to understand them, then why should we suppose that you will be able to relate to the other man?


This goes to you too Omar: Good people don't do bad things because of religion generally speaking. They just do bad things. But take a look at mass actions taken on behalf of religion and it starts with either an noticeably corrupt leadership or with some fringe of the masses which are not consisting of good people either and almost certainly would engage in even more prejudicial, hateful, and ridiculous activities in the absence of an institution to which they could devote themselves "fully" which preaches peace, tolerance, etc.

MTF

Are you suggesting that I am not capable of an 8-mile walk, of empathy, sympathy? because you are sorely mistaken, plus I have no clue what that has to do with the thread. In fact I think we've strayed a little too far from what the original discussion was betwen us two.

 

[fantome profane]

And while I agree that giving to charity because you are "stacking up points" is "less good" than giving to charity because you are consciously trying to help humanity, it does not necessarily follow that all people can rise to that level of thinking/maturity. Most people do not progress much beyond the early stages of Kohlberg's stages of morality. Most people are not well suited to critical thinking and abstract analysis.

I have to say I find this to be quite condescending to people in general and religious people specifically. Do you really believe that people who have this kind of “faith” (the “stacking up points for the big man” kind of faith) are incapable of advancing to a higher form of reasoning? Is it not possible that the only thing that is holding these people back is “faith”? Is it not possible that without this kind of “faith” many of these people would in fact move to a higher stage of morality? Should we be encouraging people to advance, or should we take the attitude that this is the best they can do? As I said it seems rather condescending to me.

 

[dragynfly0515]

In this thread I will define "Faith" as a belief/trust in someone or something and accepting it as true or untrue even if it goes against counter-evidence, reason, and/or logic.

By this definition I would say that this type of faith is not desirable and would actually be harmful. However, I would propose an intelligent faith that molds itself to one's observations of the world.

:candle:
Crys

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Are you suggesting that I am not capable of an 8-mile walk, of empathy, sympathy? because you are sorely mistaken, plus I have no clue what that has to do with the thread. In fact I think we've strayed a little too far from what the original discussion was betwen us two.

What I am suggesting is that most people cannot be bothered to live life in conditions similar to a person they mean to judge and most are not capable of the level of abstraction necessary to be able to do so hypothetically (ala imagination). Moral imagination is not exactly an easy quality to develop.

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I have to say I find this to be quite condescending to people in general and religious people specifically. Do you really believe that people who have this kind of “faith” (the “stacking up points for the big man” kind of faith) are incapable of advancing to a higher form of reasoning? Is it not possible that the only thing that is holding these people back is “faith”? Is it not possible that without this kind of “faith” many of these people would in fact move to a higher stage of morality? Should we be encouraging people to advance, or should we take the attitude that this is the best they can do? As I said it seems rather condescending to me.

Condescending? You might argue that, but then again if psychological studies have shown anything it is that a large portion of the population is not interested in developing abstract reasoning skills (and 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less which generally means that their ability to generate microcosms within their imagination is decidedly limited).

I believe that people who are incapable of advancing to higher forms of moral reasoning will necessarily gravitate towards those institutions which most resemble the type of moral reasoning they believe best.

Sure its possible that "faith" is holding some people back, but there are a vast number of people with faith that do manage to progress to more advanced moral reasoning (the highest stages psychology recognizes even). One might argue that some faiths do inhibit progression and that others expedite the process. But in the absence of some compelling evidence otherwise and based upon the fact that it is common knowledge that only minority of individuals are "fundamentalists" the world over and that there are members of all religions which manage to reach the highest stages, would tend to show that religion and moral reasoning have a very low degree of correlation.

And it seems rather naive to me to assume that there is no such thing as a lowest common denominator. Utopian experiments have failed time and time again throughout history because they failed to consider the lowest common denominator. In the absence of institutions which the lowest common denominator can interact with your society crumbles.

Case in point: Sports. Modern day gladiators basically. Why are sports teams and loyalty to one specific team so important to people in general? It has nothing to do with the practical value of any given sport nor does it have anything to do with the practical value of being a fan. So why are so many people sports fans? Its the same reason why Rome built the Colosseum: to "appease the mob." And it is for this very same reason that the USA's founders were deathly afraid of actual Democracy; they likened it literally to mob rule. They opted for a system which was governed (run) by the elites (presumably to be the intellectual elite, but this has obviously not quite been true).

Is this an elitist view point? I am willing to admit that if it isn't, then it certainly flirts with the edge of being so. But until someone can show me a nation, state, or something of commensurate size/stature that has a lowest common denominator of around an IQ of 120 (that is to say that only statistical outliers exist beyond that point), then it is not plausible to presume utopian ideals or institutions will succeed.

MTF

 

[nonbeliever_92]

By this definition I would say that this type of faith is not desirable and would actually be harmful. However, I would propose an intelligent faith that molds itself to one's observations of the world.

:candle:
Crys

Could you elaborate please? What is this "intelligent faith" and could you please provide examples. Is this faith valuable? Is it a virtue?

 

[dragynfly0515]

Could you elaborate please? What is this "intelligent faith" and could you please provide examples. Is this faith valuable? Is it a virtue?

I would define intelligent faith as the opposite of how the original post defined it: a faith in someone or something that does not run contrary to evidence, reason or logic. If evidence, reason and logic support the theory of evolution, then I would say that a faith that took the theory of evolution into account would be an intelligent faith, as opposed to a blind faith that rejected the theory despite the evidence. I stated that such a faith as the original post defined could actually be harmful. The resistance of the Catholic Church to the discoveries of Galileo comes to mind.
I think an intelligent faith that is in harmony with evidence, reason and logic is valuable.

:candle:
Crys

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I would define intelligent faith as the opposite of how the original post defined it: a faith in someone or something that does not run contrary to evidence, reason or logic. If evidence, reason and logic support the theory of evolution, then I would say that a faith that took the theory of evolution into account would be an intelligent faith, as opposed to a blind faith that rejected the theory despite the evidence. I stated that such a faith as the original post defined could actually be harmful. The resistance of the Catholic Church to the discoveries of Galileo comes to mind.
I think an intelligent faith that is in harmony with evidence, reason and logic is valuable.

:candle:
Crys

Yet, I don't find this to be faith. If you have reason, logic, or evidence, you wouldn't need faith. You would state that reason logic or evidence as support for your belief. This intelligent faith that you speak of seems to be just rational thinking. People only say they have faith when they really have no good reason to hold confidence in something.

 

[dragynfly0515]

Yet, I don't find this to be faith. If you have reason, logic, or evidence, you wouldn't need faith. You would state that reason logic or evidence as support for your belief. This intelligent faith that you speak of seems to be just rational thinking. People only say they have faith when they really have no good reason to hold confidence in something.

I guess the reason I'm calling it faith is that I believe in some things that cannot yet be proven or may never be proved, but I do not believe in things that have been disproved or run contrary to reason, logic or evidence. The faith you speak of, to believe in something despite evidence or reasoning to the contrary, I do not have. You are correct, by your definition, I do not have faith.

:candle:
Crys

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Would you please provide me with an example of something that you believe that cannot yet be proven or may never be proven becuase I believe we may agree on some of those beliefs.

 

[dragynfly0515]

Would you please provide me with an example of something that you believe that cannot yet be proven or may never be proven becuase I believe we may agree on some of those beliefs.

My personal observations and experiences lead me to believe that there are beings of both benign and malevolent nature that I cannot see or experience with my senses that have an interest in humans and can produce effects that are beneficial or detrimental to us. I cannot prove this, it is merely my conclusion based on my observations.

:candle:
Crys

 

[nonbeliever_92]

My personal observations and experiences lead me to believe that there are beings of both benign and malevolent nature that I cannot see or experience with my senses that have an interest in humans and can produce effects that are beneficial or detrimental to us. I cannot prove this, it is merely my conclusion based on my observations.

:candle:
Crys

Observations such as what, if I may ask?