Faith is not a virtue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDal8b6-X5o"]Faith is not a virtue - YouTube

 

Sorry. Too long.

 

I'd say it's a necessity, if we think of faith as willingness to make assumptions that seem reasonable about reality and trust them at least tentatively. Santayanna speaks of "animal faith" in a world outside ourselves, with natural laws we can discern through reason and science. Not everyone on Hip Forums is willing to make these assumptions. I have faith in reason and science, and in an objective reality independent of myself. Atheists don't like to use the five letter "F" word, but it's faith nonetheless. What else would it be? Richard Dawkins has faith that science has figured out how the integrated complexity of organisms and the universe developed and that the scientific method will enable us eventually to answer the big questions, to the extent that they can be answered. I'm using "faith" here in Luther's sense of a "joyful bet"--not in Sam Harris' concept of faith as "unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern". I reject blind faith and insist that faith must be consistent with logic and science, and supported by substantial evidence. I'm not alone in this. Distinguished scholars like Marcus Borg, Robin Meyers, Phillip Gulley, and most mainline Christian theologians.

The atheist on the video correctly defines faith as fidelity or trust, and yes, it is the same attitude that induces us to trust our lovers--sometimes to be disillusioned. But love requires an element of trust--a presumption that the one who seems so loving and perfect isn't cheating on us. Without that, the relationship probably wouldn't survive. As Reagan said (re Soviet arms treaties), "Trust but verify"! Good advice. I hold all beliefs tentatively, pending further evidence.

 

well conventionality is not a virtue. consideration is.

faith is really a side issue, of neither intrinsically bennifit nor harm.

one can have faith in invisible people who live down by the creek, or dance in the wind, or curl up on top of your covers next to you when you go to bed at night. such beliefs won't make you popular among the more fanatical of village idiots, but faith in a maybe, is relatively harmless.

expecting anything invisible to always be there for you in some material way, is perhaps asking and expecting a bit much though. if that were something that could be counted on, would all the millions down through the thousands of years, who have been torched for their beliefs ever have been? no matter how much their blood may have moved their causes forward, could they not have been advanced in some other and somewhat less painful way?

 

I agree faith is not a virtue. I see it as a mental illness or possibly a genetic disorder.

 

And yet your posts display uncritical faith in science. The fact that you don't acknowledge it as "faith" but prefer the term "trust" doesn't change the reality of what it is. The persistence of religious faith is evidence of its evolutionary value in giving humans the will to endure and strive despite their knowledge that their time on earth is limited.

 

Faith is a blessing.

Didn't watch video, responding to topic.

 

It might be possible that the majority of people in human history have been mentally ill or physiologically degenerating, but you need to account for the origin of this problem. Isn't it more likely that a characteristic such as "faith" -- in life, in Truth, or in God -- rather developed out of some necessity?

 

Trust is something you come to after a long process of give-and-take. You can think of this as just an advanced form of pattern recognition. Faith is something completely different. It involves believing a thing with no supporting evidence. One is the rational acceptance of learned knowledge, the other is wishful hoping which to a person who bases their life on logic is worthless.

I got this off the Web, but think it covers the issue better than I have the time to do right now.
Trust in Science vs. Faith in Religion - What's the Difference?
By Austin Cline
I don’t have faith in science, I trust it. I trust it like I trust that the roof over my head won’t cave in, or that the bridge I went over every day all summer wouldn’t collapse. I trust these things because they have a record of working, similar things have a record of working, and those records indicate to me that they will continue to work.

Faith, in the conventional, religious meaning, is completely different. Faith implies that there’s not necessarily a proven record, and in with religious faith there’s none at all. This means that you’re taking it “on faith”. You have no reason to believe that anything a religion says is true, it’s all faith.

Science is a method of gathering knowledge, and the knowledge that has been gathered through that method. Science works. It works every time you start your car, every time you flip a switch, every time you use GPS to find your location, every time you fly. The list is enormous, and a full description of the triumphs of science would fill pages and detail nearly everything we know about the way the world works. That is why I trust science, and whether or not you want to admit it, you do too: the conveniences of modern living are the results of science, you can’t trust them without trusting it.
So if both believers and non-believers trust in science and the scientific method in approximately the same way, then believers would not be justified in expecting non-believers to explain, defend, or justify that trust. If believers trust in science in about the same way as non-believers, then they can be expected to understand that this isn't at all the same as the sort of "faith" which is expected of them in the context of their religion — and so they should never try to compare the two as if they were identical.
Finally, so long as believers argue that we should have religious "faith" alongside trust in science, then by adding this extra "something" they are obligating themselves to support, defend, and explain that "something." This is analogous to how both believers and nonbelievers accept the existence of the natural world, but believers add in as an extra a "super"-natural realm. Since they are adding something extra to reality, they assume an obligation to support, defend, and justify that. If they cannot, then they have no business asking anyone else to believe as well — and they can't claim that their own belief is very rational or reasonable.

 

Simply, no. You are devoted by nature, to the idea that you have a protector out side of you. That is why you buy insurance. That is why we field armies. So strong is our impulse to devotion, that as a child you would defend your parents no matter the brutality they had visited on you.

Frankly, that trusting nature is what makes it possible to accept as fact, to the extent we do, that we have opportunity in life. What you are referring to is political awareness, not trust.

 

Good post! As I understand it, the central distinction is between having confidence in something that you've had experience with before and having confidence in something you haven't. The problem is: (1) science as a process of inquiry works well but only within a relatively narrow range of activities: (1) rigorous testing of falsifiable hypotheses that are capable of rigorous testing; (2) eliminating Type One (false positive) errors; and (3) identifying a body of reliable knowledge that can meet the highest standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by peer consensus). Where circumstances permit these conditions to operate, science is great. Although the results might still not be "true", they're the best we fallible humans can do, and I'm willing to go with them on that basis--which is why I reject New Earth Creationism. However, many of life's interesting questions can't be answered by these methods, or are unlikely to be answered by them in our lifetimes. If science were the primary tool our ancestors had going for them, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we'd be extinct. Humans are pattern-seeking animals, and that became critical to our survival. Some of the patterns we discern in our environment are illusions, and science can help us spot those Type 1 Errors. But Type 2 errors can get you killed; (e.g, there is no scientific proof that eating these berries will kill me, so until the FDA bans them, I'll go ahead. And so we make our way on the basis of some folk wisdom and lots of old wives tales, like taboos against eating tomatoes, shellfish, etc.

We might also want to engage in the processes shaping the political, economic, and social worlds that can have positive or negative effects on our survival, prosperity, or survival. Are you planning to vote? Many people don't think it matters, but I think it did matter whether or not Al Gore or G.W. got elected back in 2000. We don't know what Al would have done, but I betcha he wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq. I plan to vote, and have my opinion about whether Obama or Romney would be the better candidate. I base my opinion on the available evidence, including things no respectable scientist would touch with a ten foot pole--like demeanor and lots of value judgments about their views on the economy, morals, and social welfare and foreign policy. The alternative--suspend judgment until we have scientific proof-- won't work, for reasons too obvious to further elaborate upon. To answer such questions, the best we can do is to rely on reason and substantial evidence, which is the rough and ready standard our government administrators use to approve regulations--enough to convince a reasonable person to take action, although other reasonable persons might draw the opposite conclusion. And if substantial evidence isn't available, I trust my ability to size up a situation and make the right decision on the basis of my reasoning ability, my personal experience and intuition. And sometimes I turn out to be right.

I believe in God because I think it's a plausible explanation of the integrated complexity of the universe, and provides a basis for hope and meaning. More importantly, I believe in the teachings and example of Jesus and the Buddha because, in my judgment, they provide a way of interacting positively and harmoniously with humankind. Science has nothing to say about that. I call this faith, in Luther's sense of a "joyful bet". I have hopefully several decades more of living to go, and spending them suspending judgment on the interesting questions seems boring as hell. Besides, morality and ethics are important, and science is unhelpful on those subjects (Sam Harris' effort notwithstanding). I wouldn't say it's blind faith, because it's not inconsistent with the available evidence, and I realize that I could be wrong. Is belief in the multiverse science or faith? None of this can be proven.

 

:2thumbsup::2thumbsup:

 

Loaded question.

Notice how he removed the word THEORY and twisted it into multiverse science, as if it was not the theory that it is. Religious are always twisting and perverting science to make their false points.

Science is always evolving, changing it's knowledge base, adapting new theories and probabilities with new information, always questioning. Religion made up its mind thousands of years ago and locked the doors.

"Each of my science books said; this is why we think this, this is how we figured it out, and this is what we still don't know. That I can Trust, and it inspires me to contribute. Conversely, religious books claim to already know everything we'll ever need to know, even though the never explained anything, and you're forbidden to question them. Instead you should believe them without suspicion simply because they said so, even when they've already been proven wrong."
- AronRa

 

To some people it is, others not so much. It's that simple.

 

I think you misread the sentence. It doesn't say "multiverse science", as though multiverse is modifying science. It asks the question whether or not the multiverse is science or faith. So perhaps your paranoia is showing.

I was responding to a post about faith, trust and science. The point I was making at the very end relating to the multiverse theory is pursued at length in an article by Bruce Mazer in Skeptic Magazine, entitled "A Case for God', in which he compares evidence for the fine-tuning argument with evidence for the multiverse counter-argument and concludes:"I suggest that if it is acceptable to postulate the existence of hypothetical universes, then it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God." Now who are you callin' a pervert? As for the changing, adaptable nature of science, I couldn't agree more. That's why I accept evolution, whether or not it's true, and reject the position of Creationists and ID subscribers, who test no theories of their own but spend their time marshaling arguments against Darwin. But if you'd been reading my posts instead of ranting against them, you'd know that. Some Christians I know think faith enables them to bypass the painstaking tedium of gathering evidence and testing theories, and to arrive at the Truth by reading the Good Book. I don't believe that the Bible was intended as a science book, or that anything it says is reliable concerning the nature of the universe or the origin of living things. But I also question that we can be confident of arriving at whole Truth by science alone--certainly not in our lifetimes--for reasons I think I've adequately explained in my previous post.

 

This is very good.

 

Close, but no cigar. It describes the primitive level of faith held by religious fundamentalists, but fails to grasp what many non-fundamentalist believers mean by faith. Some fundamentalists I've met seem to view faith as a kind of personal revelation of truth given to them by the Holy Spirit. This absolute truth is superior to the relative, tentative knowledge provided by science, and since it is already certain, it must be defended at all costs, lest the believer be confused by the facts. The Progressive Christians I hang with regard faith as a bet they make when the available evidence is ambiguous--nothing more than that, and therefore more likely to be wrong than a tested scientific theory would be.

What happens in situations where there is no record of working, or the record is limited and/or ambiguous? Do we flip a coin or proceed on the basis of evidence which falls short of scientific? And what is considered "scientific"? There's a loose way of using the term "science" in which even library science would qualify. But the science most of us respect is more rigorous. The price of rigor, however, is that certain questions aren't addressed at all, or if they are, are addressed poorly (I'm thinking of those dreadful experiments on the efficacy of prayer). In the last analysis, it comes down to judgment. Do the so-called "soft" sciences and the humanities contain useful insights or are they just useless nonsense? I'm betting on useful insights. I'm also willing to resort to personal experience, street wisdom, and personal experience, and to use the "substantial evidence" test instead of the higher level of evidence required for a truly scientific conclusion.

Cline speaks of "working", butwhat does "working" mean? A bridge works if it holds up while we go over it (Some of our Oklahoma bridges are suspect in that regard). And a GPS works if it accurately gets us from here to there (Mine has let me down from time to time). The criterion of "working" is used by philosophical pragmatists to evaluate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Pragmatism has been attacked by some philosophers like Bertrand Russell as not really getting at "the truth" (i.e., reality), but pragmatists reply that truth in Russell's sense is unattainable in many important areas, and that "what works" isn't chopped liver. The pragmatist position in religion and theology has been elaborated at length by skeptic and fideist Martin Gardner. By this criterion, a belief is true if it works for you.

I'm a pragmatist (or fideist) on God and Religion. When I say I have faith, I mean that I'm betting on a set of propositions that seem to work for me. I became a Progressive Christian as a result of an episode that could be called a "moment of clarity" (religious experience, psychotic break, etc.) that caused me to view reality in a fundamentally different way. The new perspective made sense to me, made me feel better, improved my relations with people, and seemed to make me more effective in my various roles in life. Of course, reality checks are always useful, since it's possible for delusional people to feel good; so I think it's important to subject these ideas to scrutiny. I'm acutely aware of the assumptions and evidentiary limitations of my beliefs, possibly more so than some atheists are of theirs. But if I had taken a really scientific approach, I'd still be waiting in misery for science to tell me what is real--which on that matter it's reasonable to suspect it will never do. And I'd still be confused and miserable. Life is too short!

Let me be clear. I'm not advocating the post-modernsit view that science is just another "story", on a par with Hope Indian legends or New Age pseudoscience. Where a scientific track record is available, I go with it as the very best we can do, whether or not it is "true" in Russell's sense. Faith is a last resort, but a necessary one in a universe of ambiguity.

 

Faith in god, or simply confidence in life is only ambiguous to the extent that you would attempt to have illusion be real. Nothing real can be made unreal and any doubt we have does not come from observation but from some superstition we might maintain about the world.

The progressive christians I hang with don't save for a rainy day, they change the weather.

 

If the position of Delphic Oracle ever comes back, you should try out for the job.

 

I don't understand the reference.