open Democracy News Analysis - faith in what?, - Comments

burrtaylor on "faith in what?"

burrtaylor — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:22:15 +0100

The faith question, unless you are a died in the wool .., is not too important, its more about what you understand/believe. If you have no funtamental beliefs, you need all the help you can find, and ideally that will come from a long stanting source that has spent centuries dealing with questions that you may raise. Choose your advice whith care. Pelagius

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:33:05 +0100

Incidentally, on the subjects of rightwing faith, persecution and psychopathology, the article linked below might be of some relevance. Among the topics covered are the notion of intrinsic ‘wickedness’, the problems of absolute morality and the venomous piety of the rightwing religious moralist Melanie Phillips. http://www.3ammagazine.com/nonfiction/2004/apr/rightwing.html

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:36:07 +0100

Rick, You’re welcome to disagree as deeply as you wish. I’d be surprised if you didn’t. Perhaps my estimation as to the underlying psychological motives is only partially the case. I have, you will notice, left room for other possibilities. Though you will also notice that the questions which I said give rise to my suspicions still hang in the air, conspicuously unanswered… And, besides, if my suspicions are correct, any church representative would be unlikely to admit to the psychological motives I’ve advanced, whether those motives were his own or those of his congregation. No-one likes to appear disingenuous, power-hungry or covertly malign - particularly the people who actually are those things. I notice that, when it suits you, you seek to divorce religion from its institutions and political ambitions. I think this is, again, rather disingenuous. One cannot make such a distinction in order to sidestep criticism of those institutions and ambitions, while elsewhere reifying those very same institutions and ambitions as what constitutes your faith. I refer you to your own words: “Faith is not private by its nature. It is not faith if it is not shared…” Thus, the sharing of a theological viewpoint (by means of likeminded groups, churches and political agendas) is what you claim gives faith its existence. Stripped of those institutions and agendas, faith – according to your own argument – vanishes into nothing. According to this view, personal experience of the numinous doesn’t constitute religious faith unless validated by scripture and consensus. Presumably, your view is that ‘true’ religious faith can only be achieved by attending church and poring over Bibles? And therein lies your own importance, power and authority… And, in much the same way, you’ve repeatedly conflated 'faith' (in the sense of non-specific interpersonal trust) with 'faith' meaning religious affiliation to some church. Clearly, these are not the same phenomena. You say: “faith is not private by its nature”, then you say “faith is personal.” Well, which kind of ‘faith’ are we discussing? You can’t shift definitions and fudge semantics to suit your slippery arguments. This is what I mean by the shifting of goal posts. You can’t use disingenuous wordplay in order to have it both ways. You go on to say: “You are projecting this ‘ideology’ on the Promise Keepers. This is not their doctrine -- it is a lie by way of a very deep distortion…” Well, I should point out that I’m simply referring to the Promise Keepers’ own promotional literature. I'm simply reporting that same literature's references to “making disciples of all nations” and “teaching them to obey” until the “end of the age.” Along with the numerous references to “His return to earth in power and glory…” And I’m merely referring to the claim that: “the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and life. It alone is the final authority…” The promotional literature also states that: “Nothing must divert us from carrying out our Lord’s great commission until His glorious return to reign in righteousness…” Oh yes, and the same promotional literature concludes: “Nothing must divert the church from its task of communicating the Gospel. So it must be till Christ comes again, not only for the Final Judgment, but to bring His church into the final glory. And so we say with great anticipation, ‘Even so, come, Lord Jesus.’” Now, I’m not a certified Biblical scholar, but that sounds like the Second Coming and Book of Revelations to me… I could, of course, go on at tedious length, but your defenses are obviously up, so I'm not sure how much that would achieve... You say: “I don't believe that you are dialoguing on this issue in any fairness at all…” I’m not sure what you mean by ‘fairness’ in this context. Perhaps you mean: ‘You’re not saying the things I expect you to say in order for me to look suitably virtuous and coherent, and thus win the argument.’ Or perhaps you mean: ‘You have to be politely inconclusive and not mention pertinent and unflattering facts.’ You say the Book of Revelations is “a book about the persecution of the church.” Well, arguably it is a book about persecution. Though I think I know who’s being persecuted in this apocalyptic ‘final glory.' And it’s not the Christians who love to cite it as a validation of their barely-concealed vindictiveness.

Rick on "faith in what?"

Rick — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:16:39 +0100

Dear David, Pardon me if I deeply disagree. I do not believe you are getting anywhere near the "heart" of religion in your critique. David Wood's comments... repression of independent spiritual beliefs is an intrinsic part of any institutionalised religion. Organised religion is politics not spirituality…” Was refering to Institutions -- they are a culture bound formula that seek to get people to function together in an orderly way. You have incapsulated what you liked from this statement and carried it one step too far. It isn't religion David is speaking of, but the institutions that represent them (always less then ideal of course). the history of all religion -- including Chrisitian is full of examples of bad institutions -- many that did not represent the religion well. Examples? The Catholic Church when it's Pope was in France (Man was that a mockery of Christianity!) The Ottaman Empire that tried to exterminate the Armenians in 1915 -- their government still denies this atrocity, but at least Christians can worship in that country now. And today Many of us look down on Farwell and his little Kingdom he's building in Virginia, Jim Baker if you heard of him, the list can go on and on. But we could say the same thing about any human run institution. All political affiliations are frought with peril and tyranny. Human history is a never ending cycle of oppression and conflict to end it. Institutions serve both sides of this never ending cycle. Some Institutions have liberated the oppressed (Chrisitians institutions have a long history of this all over the world). Some institutions oppress. That is the nature of all human organization. You said, " Perhaps ‘religion’ exists in order to keep subscribers fixated on the mortal world of covert vindictiveness and the struggle for social power. Clandestine egomania, masked as selfless virtue, would hold obvious appeal for those who are both seething with resentment and embarrassed by their unattractive condition. " These are very powerful opinions and extremely presumptuous. For someone who aspouses to be a devoted doubter, you can make some very broad theoretical assertions based on very thin evidence. Faith communities are extremely diverse in any one faith -- even Christianity, but certainly all religious belief systems. What makes them tick is nothing like controling people, but the emotional connectedness that is essential for human beings who are ALL social beings and MUST have interdependent relationships to SURVIVE. Faith communities when they are functioning at their best fill this need holistically -- that is the people look after one another, support and encourge one another. In any such community, political power is always an issue. Who makes the decisios and how are they arrived? Here communities can be very dysfunctional or functional depending on how this is answered. I have been apart of very healthy religious communities and some pretty sick ones. Your statement is so vague and general it does not constitute reality. In fact, David I think you need to take into consideration some anthropological realities when you talk about world order, corporations and governments and how THEY presumbably RUN things. I think you will find that social order and the FAITH that makes ALL socieites work operates on a level more fundamental then the foundational principles of government and business. Governement and bussiness depend UPON CULTURE and the social underpinnings to function -- NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Yours in Faith and Reason, Rick

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:10:07 +0100

David W, I think we’re getting somewhere close to the heart of the phenomenon called ‘religion.’ You say: “It seems clear to me thought that repression of independent spiritual beliefs is an intrinsic part of any institutionalised religion. Organised religion is politics not spirituality…” Indeed. With no other credible explanation being offered, one can only assume the obvious explanation to be true. Institutional religions are largely defined by their extermination of metaphysical alternatives, particularly those which, by implication, question the premise of churches, politics and social coercion. (Again, the Gnostics come to mind as a pertinent example.) Until someone can answer my previous questions, it is hard not to arrive at the conclusion that institutional religion is not even remotely concerned with metaphysics or the numinous. Indeed, one might suppose it exists precisely to occlude such possibilities. Perhaps ‘religion’ exists in order to keep subscribers fixated on the mortal world of covert vindictiveness and the struggle for social power. Clandestine egomania, masked as selfless virtue, would hold obvious appeal for those who are both seething with resentment and embarrassed by their unattractive condition. Certainly, it is hard not to notice the dishonesty of religious institutions, which are, it seems, anathema to the very metaphysical notions they use as a sales pitch. At least global corporations, political parties and most other power-seeking entities are fairly transparent as such. Only children and the most naïve of adults would accept the altruistic mission statements of our chief political parties, international banks and corporate giants as being their sole reason to exist. In comparison, religious institutions seem positively clandestine and fearful of discovery; which, of course, is all the more reason to view them with suspicion. And, as far as I’m aware, political parties and corporations generally confine their ambitions to ruling the world, or owning it. Even they don’t seem intent on bringing about its annihilation.

David Wood on "faith in what?"

David Wood — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:22:14 +0100

> By ‘religion’ I mean institutional religion > (with its need for churches, politics and an urge for > territory and social control), as opposed to personal > spirituality (which generally sees no need for such > contrivances). Well yes, exactly. The reason I originally broke with the Christian mainstream was precisely for this reason. This was also the point of the brief historical references that I made, which Rick regards as evidence of a lack of a true Christian relationship with God. It seems clear to me thought that repression of independent spititual beliefs is an intrinsic part of any institutionalised religion. Organised religion is politics not spirituality. > You may have noticed that I’ve repeatedly asked why a > personal relationship with divinity should need > reinforcement by means of churches, evangelism, > law-making and political influence. You may also have > noticed that no answer has been forthcoming. Though > Rick has said, rather cryptically, that “faith is > not private by its nature. It is not faith if it is > not shared…” He is simply wrong about this. Faith is a personal commitment. It has nothing necessarily to do with 'powers and principalities'. Unfortunately faith and belief are open to manipulation by those with political agendas and desire for worldly power. Being a footsoldier for the apocalypse is no different from being a naive campaigner in a political party. Message was edited by: David Wood

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:05:42 +0100

Ian 13, I take your point about how theologians and churches have often exploited the ambiguities of language in unsound ways, claiming ‘special status’ as a result. Actually, I don’t think that “trying to intuit the nature of god [is] a special category of enquiry…” Faith that is derived from scripture, from deduction and from wishful thinking dressed up as reasoning is invariably subject to the epistemological problems we’ve discussed. Hence my doubts as to the validity of (and motives behind) such ‘faith.’ I merely acknowledge the possibility that there could be perceptual states that have different qualities and different implications. By this I mean, there could be modes of perception that have features (both in terms of content and the means of comprehension) that are not entirely covered by the epistemology we have discussed. That said, theologians and believers don’t seem to claim such experiences as the origin of their worldview. And, as I’ve said, I find this rather odd. You say: “I'll describe myself as ‘far from convinced that there is anything to religion.’ Maybe you can too…” Actually, I think there is a great deal to religion, and much of it is repellent, regressive and malign. By ‘religion’ I mean institutional religion (with its need for churches, politics and an urge for territory and social control), as opposed to personal spirituality (which generally sees no need for such contrivances). You may have noticed that I’ve repeatedly asked why a personal relationship with divinity should need reinforcement by means of churches, evangelism, law-making and political influence. You may also have noticed that no answer has been forthcoming. Though Rick has said, rather cryptically, that “faith is not private by its nature. It is not faith if it is not shared…” Again, the obvious question is: why? How can one’s experience of God in any way be compromised or diminished by the existence of non-believers? Is religion, like politics, simply a game of numbers, in which whoever gets the most subscribers is powerful and can therefore claim to be 'right'? With no alternative explanation forthcoming, one is inclined to suppose that churches are merely power-seeking entities with a vaguely metaphysical veneer. The reason they exist and seek to expand is, therefore, presumably much the same as it is for any large corporation, with all that entails… Rightwing politicised churches such as the aforementioned Promise Keepers repeatedly claim the shield of ‘apolitical’ status, as if their social and political agendas could somehow be air-brushed away as merely ‘spiritual’ and private. Yet, in November 1996, PK’s Raleigh Washington asserted: "I think Promise Keepers will become the model organization for every Christian movement in this country. ... There is no way the group can restrict itself when it comes to public policy. We are producing leaders in this organization. They will enter the political sphere..." Given the PK movement’s fundamental (but rarely publicised) belief in eschatology, this ‘good news’ is rather disturbing, and for rather obvious reasons…

ian_13 on "faith in what?"

ian_13 — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:15:17 +0100

David, I think I better understand why you feel the word agnostic should be used when talking about god, and that your main reason is that this word exists and exists for the purpose of putting quote marks around things like 'knowing' and 'god'. Yet I am quite happy for you to put quote marks around 'facts'. As I have tried to imply all along, all of our knowledge is provisional and is only ever 'knowledge'. I thought that this was commonly understood, even if often forgotten in the heat of argument. I suppose where we differ is that I don't see how trying to intuit the nature of god can be a special category of enquiry. (One that, for example, requires special terms to do the work of quote marks.) 'Knowledge' is 'knowledge' whatever it is knowledge of. I think letting those who advance religious hypotheses claim that they are working in a special area of epistemology is part of what has helped them to weather the rise of the scientific method (you have already identified the other things that have helped them last so long). For this reason I'd urge you to drop the word "agnostic" as unhelpful jargon, if you think doing so might shed a clearer light on the arguments of believers. For my part, knowing that "atheist" can sound close-minded I'll try to work around using it. I'll describe myself as "far from convinced that there is anything to religion". Maybe you can too. By the way, I have to agree that a workhorse god would be profoundly disheartening. Well, I don't want to interrupt your dissection of Bush's Christian vision. Sadly, it is a very serious topic.

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:33:27 +0100

Rick, I don’t think you’re particularly slow to learn. The distinction I'm highlighting (i.e. between having a belief and entertaining a hypothesis) is not commonly acknowledged, by believers or atheists. It is, nonetheless, an important distinction to make. ‘Belief’ generally implies some kind of emotional preference or commitment - some need (whether explicit or subconscious) that the object of belief should be true, and ultimately rewarded. The term ‘belief’ is very often emotionally loaded, and charged with ill-defined personal desires and associations. And hence the passions that can be easily aroused… It is, however, perfectly possible to entertain a hypothesis - or entertain any uncertain yet irrefutable possibility – with none of the same emotional bias as to the outcome. One might simply note the possibility and attempt to bear it in mind. Or, one might try to remind oneself of the existential uncertainties inherent to any given situation. In either instance, it is largely possible to do this with little or none of the emotional bias that is common to ‘belief’. That’s about as clearly as I can state my point. Perhaps it’s not an entirely obvious one to make, but, as I said, I think it’s a rather important one to grasp. You say: “Therefore all facts as they are now understood are really entertaining hypotheses? If this is your epistemology, then I can buy what you have to say about faith…” Bingo! As I said to Ian 13, there are severe and inconvenient limits on what one can be sure about, both with respect to God's alleged existence and nature, and with respect to the (apparent) physical world. Philosophically speaking, all facts are conditional, rather than absolute. Whatever absolutes may or may not exist in this universe, human beings apparently have no access to them. (Though, of course, the faithful might argue otherwise…) I think we’re starting to get somewhere…

Rick on "faith in what?"

Rick — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:52:49 +0100

Ok David Therefor all facts as they are now understood are really entertaining hypothesis? If this is your epistomology than I can buy what you have to say about faith. If it isn't, I don't see the logical consistency in your argument. I'm not trying to "move goal posts" as you love to suggest. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm simply trying to make sense of your philosophical underpinnings. Perhaps I'm a slow learner.

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:48:53 +0100

Rick, You say: “Those are not answers anymore than I've proved God… All knowledge has an element of faith. You won't agree and you refuse to disagree…” I'm not sure what more you want, or what more I can say to please you (or, for that matter displease you, if that is what you want). You seem to want me to either endorse a series of doubtful or false premises, or to disagree with them for the sake of perversity and knockabout sport. But since you appear all too willing to disregard inconvenient answers and necessary distinctions, and since you keep shifting the goal posts as and when it suits, it's not clear how I can fulfil your expectations. The problem seems to be a failure on your part to discriminate between two distinct psychological processes. I will say this once again: Entertaining possibilities and hypotheses is not the same thing as having a belief in any (or all) of those possibilities and hypotheses.

Rick on "faith in what?"

Rick — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:31:33 +0100

David, Those are not answers anymore than I've proved God. You can talk about the laws of physics as some sort of constants that we can count on at least for now, but it does not do away with the fact that all knowledge has an element of faith. You won't agree and you refuse to disagree.

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:12:17 +0100

Ian 13, I think I've accidentally answered some of your (many, many) questions in my latest post to Rick. I may return to the board later and give your questions more attention. However, right now I'm hungry, so eating seems in order...

David Thompson on "faith in what?"

David Thompson — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:02:17 +0100

Rick, You say: “You must assume some reality that you BELIEVE is not a ‘dream’… We cannot reason without faith in something… You have not addressed this in all our debate and continue to avoid it...” Indeed, logic proceeds from a necessary hypothesis, for instance the hypothesis that there is an objective physical reality, and that the laws of mathematics and physics address that apparent reality in a self-consistent manner. That initial hypothesis is, ideally, tested by the subsequent coherence (or incoherence) of observation and by the coherence of what is built upon it. As I’ve said, one ultimately has only one’s perceptions of the apparent physical world, and of one’s position within it. The true nature of the situation one finds oneself in is, to say the least, not entirely clear. One can only look for patterns and inconsistencies in the hope of fathoming more. Yes, Rick, one takes risks. Metaphysical risk is, I think, unavoidable, by definition. For instance, I have no absolute and irrefutable way of knowing that the stairs I walk down every day will not disappear tomorrow. They might (for the sake of argument) vanish while I am halfway down them, which would be rather inconvenient. Yet I manage to walk up and down the stairs without being paralysed by great waves of existential anxiety. This is thanks in part to an interest in philosophy. (See my earlier quote by Bertrand Russell.) But entertaining possibilities (for instance, the possibility that the stairs may spontaneously vanish) is, as I’ve previously and repeatedly said, not the same thing as believing in them. Despite your accusations of evasion, I think I’ve answered your questions (as best I can) here, and in several earlier posts.

ian_13 on "faith in what?"

ian_13 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:44:39 +0100

David, please ignore this if you begin to suspect this is just a question of semantics. But I thought I could use 'atheist' to describe a person who was pretty damn sure that god as popularly described doesn't really exist - perhaps because, as popularly conceived, he is an incoherent concept. I'd then use 'believer' for someone who perhaps had niggling doubts but was pretty sure that their god ruled the universe and sometimes listened to their prayers. Then 'agnostic' would serve me for someone who had never really thought about religion and didn't want to give offence, or someone who had thought long and hard and still found it very difficult to decide the likelihood of certain miracles or what god thought about our massacres. You seem to be saying that you -would- describe yourself as agnostic about spiritualism, but I had thought you would say you didn't currently believe in it. Yet would you say you were agnostic about any area of science that was still hotly debated? And to make it quite clear that you are a person with an open mind, would you not need to say you were agnostic about all commonly accepted facts as well? I'm just wondering if we need to use this word agnostic to say we are open to new evidence. For my part I think an interesting god would be one that could be discerned. The sort that couldn't surely would not be worth bothering about, like enumerating angels on the head of a pin. The great thing about a discernable god is that it could be proven to exist like any other aspect of nature, and then put to work helping us with moral dilemmas and worshipped. An exciting new world. Your hypothetical question about what if our perceived existence was a dream suggests that you think knowing god is a special category of enquiry, different from music criticism and moral calculation. Or would you ask the same question of someone trying to convince you that Dylan's best work was behind him? I'm not saying that it is an irrelevant perspective to step back and question the nature of reality. But I'm not yet convinced that it has to intrude on this discussion of faith. (Especially as Rick has taken your hypothetical question to vindicate his desire to build his arguments upon whichever premises he finds most reassuring.) Dawkins's passion can be off-putting, but are there places where you think it has plainly made him close-minded? I don't think of him as a person who fervently -believes- (hallelujah) in the non-existence of god, more as one who is irritated by the nonsense that, I think you'll concede, believers and their polite sympathisers can sometimes spout. That said, I'm sure he does believe that god doesn't exist, but in the same way that he believes a 1000 volt electric shock will kill you. A serviceable certainty that does not shut down intelligent discussion (of, say, wattage).

faith in what?,

newboy — Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0100

I'm reading a profile of Kofi Annan in the Mar 13th issue of The New Yorker where there is an account of his and the UN's actions - or inaction, rather - with respect to the catastrophe in Rwanda, despite the fact that they had advance warning of what was going to happen. In the face of that account I'm inclined to sympathize with the point of view of those who have decried the UN's failure to act vis a vis Iraq. So I ask: what is one to have faith in? On the whole I don't believe in "faith" in the abstract - belief in things unseen and unproven - so let me say, what do those of you who ar Read the rest of this post...