This relates to the scientism issue: what you "believe in" (faith) is different in kind from what you assent to as true (belief). Do you agree?

[Whateverist]

Science is the gold standard for determining what is factually true empirically. But what you count on in human affairs is rarely amenable to being determined with science. "Belief that" is about knowledge while "belief in" is about faith- which need not be about theism, though it can be and traditionally has been. So when you say what you count on in life as a human being, it isn't about science even though science can often contribute in some minor way even in life choices. But one doesn't "believe in science" and life demands that we cope with many social choices and matters of conscience whether we are religious or not (and I'm not). I think Iain McGilchrist expressed this much more thoroughly than I could in his first big book, The Master and His Emissary:

"Believing is not to be reduced to thinking that such-and-such might be the case. It is not a weaker form of thinking, laced with doubt. Sometimes we speak like this: ‘I believe that the train leaves at 6:13’, where ‘I believe that’ simply means that ‘I think (but am not certain that’. Since the left hemisphere is concerned with what is certain, with knowledge of the facts, its version of belief is that it is just absence of certainty. If the facts were certain, according to its view, I should be able to say ‘I know that’ instead. This view of belief comes from the left hemisphere’s dispositions toward the world: interest in what is useful, therefore fixed and certain (the train timetable is no good if one can’t rely on it). So belief is just a feeble form of knowledge.

But belief in terms of the right hemisphere is different, because its disposition towards the world is different. The right hemisphere does not ‘know’ anything, in the sense of certain knowledge. For it, belief is a matter of care: it describes a relationship, where there is a calling and an answering, the root concept of ‘responsibility’. Thus if I say that ‘I believe in you’, it does not mean that I think such-and-such things are the case about you, but can’t be certain I am right. It means that I stand in a certain relationship of care towards you, that entails me behaving (acting and being) towards you, and entails on you certain ways of acting and being as well. it is an ‘acting as if’ certain things were true about you that in the nature of things cannot be certain. … I think this is what Wittgenstein was trying to express when he wrote that ‘my’ attitude towards the other is an attitude towards a soul. I am not of the opinion that he has a soul. An ‘opinion’ would be a weak form of knowledge: that is not what is meant by a belief, a disposition or an ‘attitude’.

This helps illuminate belief in God. This is not reducible to a factual answer to the question ‘does God exist?’ … It is having an attitude, holding a disposition to the world, whereby that world, as it comes into being for me, is one in which God belongs. The belief alters the world but also alters me. … One cannot believe in nothing and thus avoid belief altogether, simply because one cannot have no disposition toward the world at all, that being in itself a disposition. Some people believe in materialism, they act ‘as if’ such a philosophy were true."

 

[vulcanlogician]

But what you count on in human affairs is rarely amenable to being determined with science.

I would agree with this. When we wonder if a romantic interest likes us in return, we don't resort to measuring her hormone levels or anything like that. I mean, we may look for "evidence" that she likes us back... (ie. she laughs at our jokes, her behavior around us)... but, for the most part, we take a "faith-based" approach to pursuing a lover. We take her out on a date. We hang out with her, have conversations... all this we do because we think that if there is a relationship to be had between us, it will manifest at some point.

Evidence has its place. If it becomes evident that she doesn't enjoy being around us (or something like that), we ought to pay attention. But the pursual of romance is not typically a venture whereby we examine the evidence and then go home and crunch the numbers to see if our love is required.

***

Though a committed proponent of scientism might argue here that in principle you could be scientific in one's romantic pursuits, and that such an approach would yield valid information, if it were (for some reason) socially permissible for one to gather a blood sample on a first date in order to measure hormone levels.

***

For me scientism succeeds when we are talking about empiricism and physical reality. Science is the best methodology we have for understanding the natural world. I might even agree with scientism that (in theory) science can give us better information about a potential lover than our romantic intuitions.

***

The only reason I don't count myself as a proponent of scientism is that science can't help me figure out certain things that I care about as a human being. For instance, what should I value in life or find meaningful? The best science can do here is say that value or meaning lies in the eyes of the beholder. True as that may be, investigations into such things as value and meaning can produce important insights. Insights that answer or satisfy my initial questions about value or meaning.

For this reason, science (IMO) isn't the only valuable way we have to learn about life and the world. Don't get me wrong: it is incredibly valuable. Indispensable.

It's just incapable of furnishing us with 100% of the answers we seek. And even if science answers 99.999% of all questions correctly, that still makes scientism, as a view, ultimately false.

(Nice to see you here, man. @Polymath257 ... this is Whateverist from AF.org if you didn't already know.)

 

[Whateverist]

I would agree with this. When we wonder if a romantic interest likes us in return, we don't resort to measuring her hormone levels or anything like that. I mean, we may look for "evidence" that she likes us back... (ie. she laughs at our jokes, her behavior around us)... but, for the most part, we take a "faith-based" approach to pursuing a lover. We take her out on a date. We hang out with her, have conversations... all this we do because we think that if there is a relationship to be had between us, it will manifest at some point.

Evidence has its place. If it becomes evident that she doesn't enjoy being around us (or something like that), we ought to pay attention. But the pursual of romance is not typically a venture whereby we examine the evidence and then go home and crunch the numbers to see if our love is required.

***

Though a committed proponent of scientism might argue here that in principle you could be scientific in one's romantic pursuits, and that such an approach would yield valid information, if it were (for some reason) socially permissible for one to gather a blood sample on a first date in order to measure hormone levels.

***

For me scientism succeeds when we are talking about empiricism and physical reality. Science is the best methodology we have for understanding the natural world. I might even agree with scientism that (in theory) science can give us better information about a potential lover than our romantic intuitions.

***

The only reason I don't count myself as a proponent of scientism is that science can't help me figure out certain things that I care about as a human being. For instance, what should I value in life or find meaningful? The best science can do here is say that value or meaning lies in the eyes of the beholder. True as that may be, investigations into such things as value and meaning can produce important insights. Insights that answer or satisfy my initial questions about value or meaning.

For this reason, science (IMO) isn't the only valuable way we have to learn about life and the world. Don't get me wrong: it is incredibly valuable. Indispensable.

It's just incapable of furnishing us with 100% of the answers we seek. And even if science answers 99.999% of all questions correctly, that still makes scientism, as a view, ultimately false.

(Nice to see you here, man. @Polymath257 ... this is Whateverist from AF.org if you didn't already know.)

Looks like we're in the same boat about valuing science highly for the tool it is wherever it applies while also recognizing that isn't everywhere. As long as you're outing people maybe you can dox Polymath too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is the gold standard for determining what is factually true empirically. But what you count on in human affairs is rarely amenable to being determined with science. "Belief that" is about knowledge while "belief in" is about faith- which need not be about theism, though it can be and traditionally has been. So when you say what you count on in life as a human being, it isn't about science even though science can often contribute in some minor way even in life choices. But one doesn't "believe in science" and life demands that we cope with many social choices and matters of conscience whether we are religious or not (and I'm not). I think Iain McGilchrist expressed this much more thoroughly than I could in his first big book, The Master and His Emissary:

Well, yes. As for your qoute, here is a related one:

Trust is not of our own making; it is given. Our life is so constituted that it cannot be lived except as one person lays him or herself open to another person and puts him or herself into that person’s hands either by showing or claiming trust. By our very attitude to another we help to shape that person’s world. By our attitude to the other person we help to determine the scope and hue of his or her world; we make it large or small, bright or drab, rich or dull, threatening or secure. We help to shape his or her world not by theories and views but by our very attitude towards him or her. Herein lies the unarticulated and one might say anonymous demand that we take care of the life which trust has placed in our hands.

K.E. Løgstrup The Ethical Demand (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1997) p.18

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear @FaithNotBelief,

I like the wording in this text you referred to; it makes goods sense to me.
Thanks for providing it.

“This helps illuminate belief in God. This is not reducible to a factual answer to the question ‘does God exist?’ … It is having an attitude, holding a disposition to the world, whereby that world, as it comes into being for me, is one in which God belongs. The belief alters the world but also alters me. … One cannot believe in nothing and thus avoid belief altogether, simply because one cannot have no disposition toward the world at all, that being in itself a disposition. Some people believe in materialism, they act ‘as if’ such a philosophy were true."

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[danieldemol]

Science is the gold standard for determining what is factually true empirically. But what you count on in human affairs is rarely amenable to being determined with science. "Belief that" is about knowledge while "belief in" is about faith- which need not be about theism, though it can be and traditionally has been. So when you say what you count on in life as a human being, it isn't about science even though science can often contribute in some minor way even in life choices. But one doesn't "believe in science" and life demands that we cope with many social choices and matters of conscience whether we are religious or not (and I'm not). I think Iain McGilchrist expressed this much more thoroughly than I could in his first big book, The Master and His Emissary:

I'm afraid I can't really make head or tail of what you are saying. I believe in science because I don't personally have the time/resources/knowledge to personally reproduce every experiment ever done.

Then you placed God in the picture and it got event more confusing for me. Your quote appears to be saying it doesn't seek to factually address the question of whether or not God exists then asserts that God is part of the world anyway.

I believe in a sort of God possibly because I was indoctrinated to or perhaps as a sort of crutch, or perhaps due to some reason I'm not aware of, but I think in many ways I behave as though materialism is true because I don't believe in a God that intervenes in the material realm. So I go about my life without expecting either help or reprisal from God. I'm not sure why I'm telling you this exactly other than it seems like your OP is a sort of intro to your belief in God so it seems fair since you showed me yours to show you mine.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Faith, as Leo Tolstoy observed, is a spiritual condition, a manifestation of divine grace. In this sense, it is not an intellectual or philosophical position; it's a way of being in the world, a gift from a God we may not even have believed in up to that point.

 

[Whateverist]

here is a related one:
K.E. Løgstrup The Ethical Demand (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1997) p.18

Thank you for that! I agree with the sentiment and the emphasis placed on trust as well as its source. It is providence whatever its source may be. I personally see the source as lying in the depths of our being but the main thing is to recognize we didn’t make it by our deliberate efforts. The same is true for the way things come to our attention. Selection is done on another, pre-conscious level. That gift enables us to enjoy our awareness of many subtler things in life like love, beauty, goodness, truth and meaning. We don’t have to run around anxious about a thousand things falling prey to every conspiracy. Maybe this is the ‘secret’ of grace. Indeed it is a gift - whatever we msy believe about the source.

 

[Whateverist]

Faith, as Leo Tolstoy observed, is a spiritual condition, a manifestation of divine grace. In this sense, it is not an intellectual or philosophical position; it's a way of being in the world, a gift from a God we may not even have believed in up to that point.

I don’t use “God/gods” myself just because that carries so much baggage and saddles us with much which might rub us the wrong way. I prefer a place holder for the something more and deliberately avoid pinning it down as if it were just one more phenomenon in the world. So sometimes I use Whateverist as a username to indicate my allegiance to whatever it is that does so much for us. To say it is outside the world (supernatural) or outside of me, is more than I know. It doesn’t really matter except that our intellect likes to be placated. So mine likes to think of it psychologically.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don’t use “God/gods” myself just because that carries so much baggage and saddles us with much which might rub us the wrong way. I prefer a place holder for the something more and deliberately avoid pinning it down as if it were just one more phenomenon in the world. So sometimes I use Whateverist as a username to indicate my allegiance to whatever it is that does so much for us. To say it is outside the world (supernatural) or outside of me, is more than I know. It doesn’t really matter except that our intellect likes to be placated. So mine likes to think of it psychologically.

Yes, a lot of people like to avoid the 'G' word because of it's connotations. And then sometimes, the word itself obscures it's subject. I understand the reluctance.

Who would have thought a three letter word could carry such weight?

 

[Whateverist]

I'm afraid I can't really make head or tail of what you are saying. I believe in science because I don't personally have the time/resources/knowledge to personally reproduce every experiment ever done.

Then you placed God in the picture and it got event more confusing for me. Your quote appears to be saying it doesn't seek to factually address the question of whether or not God exists then asserts that God is part of the world anyway.

I believe in a sort of God possibly because I was indoctrinated to or perhaps as a sort of crutch, or perhaps due to some reason I'm not aware of, but I think in many ways I behave as though materialism is true because I don't believe in a God that intervenes in the material realm. So I go about my life without expecting either help or reprisal from God. I'm not sure why I'm telling you this exactly other than it seems like your OP is a sort of intro to your belief in God so it seems fair since you showed me yours to show you mine.

You’re right of course that science is reliable where it applies. It is the gold standard where empirical matters are concerned. But I wouldn’t say I “believe in it” because that feels like a category error to me. Science is complex but is the sort of thing you can master if you have what it takes and apply yourself. It is about knowledge, but not the much more densely complex knowing of persons or places which you can become increasingly familiar with over time but can never know completely. In many languages there are two different verbs for these two different ways of knowing. In French there is savoir for knowing facts, definitions and other finite things. For the densely complex knowing there is connaitre. English leads to confusion by letting factual knowledge and limited familiarity be muddled.

 

[Whateverist]

(Nice to see you here, man. @Polymath257 ... this is Whateverist from AF.org if you didn't already know.)

Hi @Polymath257. @vulcanlogician is absolutely right, I used to post at AF.org and atheistdiscussions too. And just so everyone knows, I was only kidding him about the 'DOXing'. I wasn't intending to hide that but I was curious who you posted as back there because I don't recall a "Polymath" person. A PM is fine if you don't mind letting me know. Just curious is all. I don't remember a lot about AF.org and I know usernames change over time for a lot of folks but I am curious.

I don't have good many good memories from that place but I certainly did like some of my fellow participants even if I didn't always see eye to eye with the ruling class.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Faith, as Leo Tolstoy observed, is a spiritual condition, a manifestation of divine grace. In this sense, it is not an intellectual or philosophical position; it's a way of being in the world, a gift from a God we may not even have believed in up to that point.

I think your reply captures a lot of Tolstoy's thinking, but I don't think Tolstoy can be summed in absolutes like "faith is a spiritual condition."

Sure, if you read Tolstoy, you may see that he does argue the point that faith must be that that transcends intellect... or you may find the idea "intellectual life and faithful life are different" in Tolstoy's thinking.

But I don't think you'll ever see him draw a stark boundary between the two. After all, this man felt the ache of inner dishonesty... in a visceral way... when he accepted communion. (I refer to the passage in the Confession where Tolstoy decides to take communion and experiences agony as a result)...

Were faith some sort of "spiritual condition" that Tolstoy promoted, he would have simply accepted communion... no agony necessary. But he doesn't preach any such homily in his Confession. Rather, he expresses how difficult faith is because of the fact that reasonableness and honesty are competing virtues. And, one might even argue that Tolstoy thought that reasonableness and honesty were just as central to following Christ as faith is.

Tolstoy is interesting because he is in constant tension with the ideas of faith and reasonableness. The division between the two, and their possible reconciliation is something he spends a lot of time thinking about. But never does he brashly endorse faith over reason.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think your reply captures a lot of Tolstoy's thinking, but I don't think Tolstoy can be summed in absolutes like "faith is a spiritual condition."

Sure, if you read Tolstoy, you may see that he does argue the point that faith must be that that transcends intellect... or you may find the idea "intellectual life and faithful life are different" in Tolstoy's thinking.

But I don't think you'll ever see him draw a stark boundary between the two. After all, this man felt the ache of inner dishonesty... in a visceral way... when he accepted communion. (I refer to the passage in the Confession where Tolstoy decides to take communion and experiences agony as a result)...

Were faith some sort of "spiritual condition" that Tolstoy promoted, he would have simply accepted communion... no agony necessary. But he doesn't preach any such homily in his Confession. Rather, he expresses how difficult faith is because of the fact that reasonableness and honesty are competing virtues. And, one might even argue that Tolstoy thought that reasonableness and honesty were just as central to following Christ as faith is.

Tolstoy is interesting because he is in constant tension with the ideas of faith and reasonableness. The division between the two, and their possible reconciliation is something he spends a lot of time thinking about. But never does he brashly endorse faith over reason.

Yeah, Tolstoy was a child of the enlightenment. A Confession records his efforts to reconcile his deep spiritual need with his intellectual honesty. But it should be remembered that Tolstoy was an artist first and foremost; artists and poets are often the true visionaries this world, I believe. As an artist he didn’t have to justify or reconcile contradiction or paradox; artists embrace the irrational, the intuitive and the magical.

It’s a profound intuitive mysticism, rather than any intellectual or theological dogma, which is in evidence throughout War and Peace. The faith he referred to as a gift of grace, is best evidenced in Prince Andrei Bolkonskoy’s epiphany on the battlefield at Borodino, when he was suffused with a perfect and selfless love for all mankind, in the most improbable circumstances.

Tolstoy was denied communion in later life incidentally, because he was excommunicated by the Patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, and that clerical judgement was never rescinded. That’s one reconciliation which was never forthcoming; how much sorrow, if any, this caused him, we can only speculate.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yeah, Tolstoy was a child of the enlightenment.

He was, but he was also a skeptic of the enlightenment, especially ideas concerning "progress."

"I did not notice this at the time. Only now and then would my feelings, and not my reason, revolt against this commonly held superstition of the age, by means of which people hide from themselves their own ignorance of life. Thus during my stay in Paris the sight of an execution revealed to me the feebleness of my superstitious belief in progress. When I saw how the head was severed from the body and heard the thud of each part as it fell into the box, I understood, not with my intellect but with my whole being, that no theories of the rationality of existence or of progress could justify such an act; I realized that even if all the people in the world from the day of creation found this to be necessary according to whatever theory, I knew that it was not necessary and that it was wrong."

--Tolstoy

 

[RestlessSoul]

He was, but he was also a skeptic of the enlightenment, especially ideas concerning "progress."

"I did not notice this at the time. Only now and then would my feelings, and not my reason, revolt against this commonly held superstition of the age, by means of which people hide from themselves their own ignorance of life. Thus during my stay in Paris the sight of an execution revealed to me the feebleness of my superstitious belief in progress. When I saw how the head was severed from the body and heard the thud of each part as it fell into the box, I understood, not with my intellect but with my whole being, that no theories of the rationality of existence or of progress could justify such an act; I realized that even if all the people in the world from the day of creation found this to be necessary according to whatever theory, I knew that it was not necessary and that it was wrong."

--Tolstoy

Sounds like that experience might have contributed to the unwavering pacifism he espoused in later life. And fighting in the Crimea as a young officer, of course.

Another intriguing contradiction I find with Tolstoy, is that both War and Peace and Anna Karenina reveal a deep rooted love of the motherland, an instinctive patriotism that seems out of place in a progressive European thinker. One finds this with other Russian writers like Dostoevsky, Bulgakov, even and especially the dissident Solzhenitsyn; so I guess it’s a Russian thing, that emotional attachment to Holy Mother Russia - the language, the people, and the wilderness are regarded as sacred by most Russians, it seems.

 

[Esaurus]

As for the statement,
"This relates to the scientism issue: what you "believe in" (faith) is different in kind from what you assent to as true (belief). Do you agree?"

I will say it this way: Faith is simply trust. One would believe the words of a person that he trusts.

A merchant cannot survive without the trust (faith in) of his customers.

We trust (have faith in) the field of science as a means of deepening knowledge of truth around us. The Random House Dictionary defines scientism as "the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists." Scientism may be a way to misuse the field of science.

When it comes to the God of the Bible, the issue is whether we trust Him and His word or not.

ELD

 

[Whateverist]

We trust (have faith in) the field of science as a means of deepening knowledge of truth around us.

For empirical truth about the world I certainly put more stock in science than in anything else. But for the truth of who we are, what is meaningful and what is good to pursue, science has nothing to offer. That is no mark against science.

The Random House Dictionary defines scientism as "the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists."

That seems like a simplistic sense of the word unrelated to its current use as misapplication.

Scientism may be a way to misuse the field of science.

Bingo!

When it comes to the God of the Bible, the issue is whether we trust Him and His word or not.

As a non, I think adherence to the Bible understood as prescriptive propositions serves to obscure whatever God actually is as a living influence in people’s lives. Certainty in propositions alleviates the need for faith and undermines real religious experience.

 

[Esaurus]

For empirical truth about the world I certainly put more stock in science than in anything else. But for the truth of who we are, what is meaningful and what is good to pursue, science has nothing to offer. That is no mark against science.

Truth revealed to us in the field of Science is found only in the natural realm. Truth as for who we are and for what is meaningful in life is found only in the spiritual realm. But do we believe there is such? It's up to you and me whether we do so or not. Let us please not rob ourselves of this precious knowledge revealed to us!

As a non, I think adherence to the Bible understood as prescriptive propositions serves to obscure whatever God actually is as a living influence in people’s lives. Certainty in propositions alleviates the need for faith and undermines real religious experience.

I say again that whether we think or believe the Bible and if there's spiritual truth or not is up to you and me. It is still with us if we don't believe it. Reality will catch up with all of us in due time. I can only declare that God reveals and proves Himself by His word if we only trust Him and His word.

ELD

 

[Audie]

As for the statement,
"This relates to the scientism issue: what you "believe in" (faith) is different in kind from what you assent to as true (belief). Do you agree?"

I will say it this way: Faith is simply trust. One would believe the words of a person that he trusts.

A merchant cannot survive without the trust (faith in) of his customers.

We trust (have faith in) the field of science as a means of deepening knowledge of truth around us. The Random House Dictionary defines scientism as "the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists." Scientism may be a way to misuse the field of science.

When it comes to the God of the Bible, the issue is whether we trust Him and His word or not.

ELD

It's easy to see a customer.
"God" is undetectable. Shows all the
characteristics of the nonexistent.
Faith in "god" is just faith / overconfidence in
ones self.