July 9, 2013
-
Faith
Discussing religion with a believer, for me, is like driving into the cul-de-sac from my old neighborhood. The houses in this neighborhood had a high turnover rate, so every time I drove down it there would be something new to see; a different car in the driveway, a new basketball hoop set up over the garage, a fat man sunning himself in a kiddie pool on the front lawn. But the drive always ended at the unkempt house at the end of the block. Its windows are boarded up, the grass is dead, the porch is full of carpenter ants; but for some reason the owner refuses to let the dilapidated peace of shit go to let the city planners continue the cul-de-sac into a true road and make some real progress.
The same is true for the back and forth I exchange with any believer. I’ll occasionally see some new sights in a familiar neighborhood, but we always end up at that rotting, dilapidated obstruction to getting somewhere meaningful: Faith.
Nobody has ever explained to me why having faith is considered a good thing. As far as I can tell, its the equivalent of saying “it’s true because I’m wishing it was true really super hard.” Faith is a word you use when you’re out of reason and logic. It halts any progression of the thought process you’re on.Our scientific history has been made almost exclusively by people who did things not on faith. Newton could have taken it on faith that gravity was a magic trick from God, but instead he used his reasoning to formulate mathematical formulas that dictate how the natural phenomena of gravity works. Galileo could have taken it on faith that the sun revolves around the earth, but he broke free of this dogma (at great risk to his livelihood and his life at the hands of the faithful). Paul and David Merage could have taken it on faith that you couldn’t create a microwaveable sandwich burrito, and if they had we’d never have gotten Hot Pockets.
Now there are those that tell me I just put my faith into science instead of religion, I call bullshit, and refer you to Brian Cox:
You can’t back up faith with evidence. If you could, it wouldn’t be faith. That’s what makes science so awesome. Faith is just the obstacle in the conversation we’re trying to have. If you’re going to decide that “faith” is the answer in our discussion, why not just start there instead of spending 30 minutes listing so-called miracles or showing how irreducible complexity disproves evolution or pointing out successful Biblical prophecies? If “faith” is enough of an answer, why bother with giving any other answers?The truth is, “faith” isn’t an answer. I don’t even believe it to be a virtue. I have never had anybody successfully describe how belief in something without proof is a positive thing. I can’t consider a single scenario where someone’s life would be improved by taking something as fact without proper evidence. And let’s face it, if faith were considered an all-around good thing, I’d stop having people try to insult me by derisively claiming “atheism is just as much of a faith as Christianity.”
I know it looks like the road dead-ends at a cliff up ahead, but just have some faith and you’ll make it across the canyon just fine.
Comments (23)
Now there are those that tell me I just put my faith into science instead of religion.All the times when science declared something to be true and later found out they were wrong, those that believed it to be true at the time it was declared true, were believing it to be true by faith in what science told them was true. The things that you are putting your faith in right now to be true because science says so, could turn out to be false 10 years from now. Feels like I’m in that same cul-de-sac.
Faith is present in science as well. Unless one has personally conducted every experiment relative to any position on anything, they are putting faith in the scientists that are telling them what happened in the experiments. It’s not quite on the same level, but it’s still there. There are plenty of theists that have witnessed what they believe to be evidence of their God or deity. Quite possibly more than atheists that have personally witnessed results of science experiments. So, really, which side is using faith more?Because you have not personally witnessed the “big bang,” you are putting your FAITH in that it happened.
@musterion99 - Except that most scientists are typically upfront about current views being based on the current best evidence we have. It’s a community that’s open to change and new breakthroughs, even if that leads to paradigm shifts. So it’s not quite faith to believe in the currents views–it’s empiricism based on the current facts (and open to the idea that there might be facts we don’t know about or facts we are currently misinterpreting).By comparison, most religions are not very open to changing views or abandoning previous positions.Take the following example: If in 10 years, there is a scientific breakthrough that very convincingly shows that there was some fundamental problems with how we are currently approaching evolutionary biology, my guess is that Krisko would be very excited. New breakthroughs are exciting stuff! By comparison, if you had a spiritual vision in 10 years where a figure that appears to be God tells you that your religious belief system is wrong and you need to drastically change some of your views, how would you feel? You could dismiss the vision. You could tell yourself it was the devil trying to trick you. Or you could believe in it and follow the advice given. Maybe this would be an exciting experience for you, but if it were me I would be terrified of leaving behind the faith I had the previous beliefs. For me it would be a depressing, frightening thing, no matter what path I decided to choose.Science is made to be constantly updating itself. With faith it’s possible–but that doesn’t seem to be part of the normal process.
@whataboutbahb- Except that most scientists are typically upfront about current views being based on the current best evidence we have.That’s a moot point. It doesn’t change anything I said about faith. So it’s not quite faith to believe in the currents views–it’s empiricism based on the current facts (and open to the idea that there might be facts we don’t know about or facts we are currently misinterpreting).It is faith. You’re just reluctant to admit it.Take the following example: If in 10 years, there is a scientific breakthrough that very convincingly shows that there was some fundamental problems with how we are currently approaching evolutionary biology, my guess is that Krisko would be very excited. New breakthroughs are exciting stuff! It would also prove that Krisko was believing by faith something that wasn’t true. Thank you for confirming what I said.By comparison, if you had a spiritual vision in 10 years where a figure that appears to be God tells you that your religious belief system is wrong and you need to drastically change some of your views, how would you feel? That’s a subjective experience and wouldn’t prove I was wrong before. At least I admit to faith.Science is made to be constantly updating itself.That’s a red herring concerning my comment. I never denied that.
Krisko:You might be underplaying the role of faith some. You say, “Faith is a word you use when you’re out of reason and logic,” which seems right. But it seems to me that reason and logic do run out, in terms of trying to explain everything. I think it’s revealing that Wittgenstein, one of the smartest men of the 20th century (and one of the greatest logicians of all time), concluded that logic can only take us so far, and he was a mystic of sorts.If you want a good defense of the idea and value of faith, I would recommend Kierkegaard. Very basic summary of some ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology
@musterion99 - You don’t seem to understand the difference between 1) believing something to be most likely true based on the evidence you have and 2) faith. For the latter, there is a lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that something is most likely to be true. THAT’S WHY IT’S FAITH. If the current evidence you had made it seem more likely than not that X was true, then no faith should be needed to believe X. It does not require faith to believe in X when is it more likely than not to be true based on our current evidence. New evidence might show that it now seems more likely than not that Y is true. Well, guess what? We should now believe Y. That’s rationality–not faith.
@musterion99 - As I mentioned in my comment to Krisko, I do think it’s impossible to live life without faith in some very basic underlying premises in life. My comment wasn’t trying to prove that there is no place for faith in life. It was just trying to contest what I thought was a bad comparison.One example: I think believing the world around us is real requires faith. There’s really no way to gather evidence on this point. This could be an illusion, we could be being tricked by an evil demon, we could be a brain in a vat, we could be in a computer program, we could be just a part of God’s thoughts. Unless there’s a Matrix like situation were we start to get the impression that reality might not be reality, it seems hopeless to try and prove empirically that the empirical world exists. I think it makes pragmatic sense to act like it does, but I think it’s ultimately faith to believe in the world around you.
@whataboutbahb - Initially this post was about debating somebody, then they finally say “well I guess you just have to have faith.” I put down the post for awhile, picked it up later and kept writing, but on a slightly different tack. So yeah, I can see what you’re saying. And I’ll check out Kierkegaard… someday. I’m not big on philosophy.
@whataboutbahb -You don’t seem to understand the difference between 1) believing something to be most likely true based on the evidence you have and 2) faith.Again, that’s a completely moot point when it applies to people that believed something that science was telling them was true but it wasn’t. You’re the one that doesn’t seem to understand. Your other statements are just red herrings.
@musterion99 - The fact is that when we believe something to be true because the current science backs it up, even if we end up being wrong, our wrongness is rooted in more knowledge than simple “I think I’ll believe this to be true.” We’re always operating on incomplete knowledge. The point is to take the knowledge available to us at the moment and making the best assumptions possible based upon what we have.
@musterion99 - Um…what? Science doesn’t “tell” scientists what is true and what is not. Scientists base conclusions on currently available information. When they get more information or they are better able to interpret the information they already have, that might change their previous conclusions. Since you might not understood that point, let me give you a very basic example: Scientists are aware of Fact 1 and Fact 2 (and no other facts that seem applicable). Based on Fact1 and Fact2, it is more likely than not that Conclusion 1 is true. No faith involved; rather, they are coming up with the best conclusion that reflects the currently known facts. But wait! Scientists have now discovered Fact 3. The combination of Fact 1, Fact 2, and Fact 3 NOW make it more likely than not that Conclusion 2 is true. Thus, their belief shifts–as it should. Scientists didn’t believe Conclusion 1 based on faith–they believed it based on the best evidence that was currently available to them. And now they believe Conclusion 2 based on the best currently known evidence. What would be faith would be the additional conclusion that no new facts will ever be found to alter their belief in Conclusion 2 (and thus they should be 100% confident in Conclusion 2). But they don’t do that. They will believe in Conclusion 2 until new facts or new understandings of current facts become known. Stop calling explanations you don’t understand red herrings. Either provide some sort of reason for why you don’t think it’s applicable or ask for a more in-depth explanation.
@GodlessLiberal - Yeah, I think I get where you’re coming from. I don’t like it when people think we should ignore current evidence that we have because of faith in a contradicting belief. All beliefs should be open to scrutiny. If the evidence starts to point in a different direction from a person’s belief, they should adjust their views accordingly. Resorting to faith in an instance like this is just seems a cop-out. (But in instances where it seems like we don’t have any good evidence or facts, then faith can play a more prominent role.)
@whataboutbahb - *slow clap*
@GodlessLiberal - The fact is that when we believe something to be true because the current science backs it up, even if we end up being wrong, our wrongness is rooted in more knowledge than simple “I think I’ll believe this to be true.”lol – What a bunch of nonsensical double talk. You guys resist admitting it’s faith. We’re always operating on incomplete knowledge. The point is to take the knowledge available to us at the moment and making the best assumptions possible based upon what we have.That doesn’t negate anything I said but confirms it. It’s still faith.
@whataboutbahb - Semantics. It doesn’t matter if it’s science or scientists. The outcome is the same. You’re jumping through hoops because you just refuse to admit it’s faith. Meh, I’m bored with this. I’m done.
@musterion99 - You’re starting to sound like Curtis. All you’ve done on this post is repeat the same manta “it’s the same thing; it’s still faith” despite having been given clear explanations by two different people on why it’s not. If you have particular problems with either explanation, by all means go into detail why. But instead you just keep parroting the same response.Glad to hear this apparently pointless discussion is over.
This was a very thought provoking post and I enjoyed reading the exchanges between everyone in the comments. As I’ve mentioned in the past I am a Bible College and Seminary graduate who spent many, many years in the ministry. I left the ministry several years ago primarily because it became increasingly clear that I no longer believed the vast majority of what I was espousing. Since then I’ve struggled to define what “faith” now means to me (and it seems to change on a daily basis.) I am a firm believer in science just like you are. In fact, my son is a professor of neuroscience at the University of Maine and he does research on the effects of religion on the brain (I think you would find his research fascinating.) I agree completely that there is no logical reason for me to hold on to any remnants of faith, but I find it nearly impossible to let go of faith completely. Is it because it was engrained in me as a child? Perhaps. Is it because I have some latent fear that if I abandon it completely I may pay for that disbelief if there is, in fact, an after life? Maybe. Is it because I have so much of my life invested in it that to admit it has no validity would be tantamount to saying my life was wasted? More likely. In your post you said “I have never had anybody successfully describe how belief in something without proof is a positive thing.” My initial reaction to that would be to say if faith gave me some sort of emotional comfort then perhaps that is a positive thing. However, as I think about it, wouldn’t seeking emotional comfort in something that has no basis in fact be the definition of mental illness? All intriguing questions.
@GodlessLiberal - http://i.imgur.com/Cub5F7B.gif@ColdSkivvies - To piggyback on the last point in your comment, I think faith in the divine and in an afterlife can be a positive thing–it could increase happiness, reduce anxiety, etc. (Though, depending on the particular beliefs of the religion it may have the opposite effect–compare fire & brimstone churches with universalist churches). And there is nothing wrong in seeking comfort through non-rational methods (though, I might dispute that metaphysical beliefs could be grouped into rational versus nonrational, since I think it’s something beyond our reach to empirically study and try to understand). Our brains are full of cognitive quirks and flaws–gaining emotional comfort from nonrational things is already fairly common. I think self-awareness of what is occurring is usually a good thing, but that doesn’t make it crazy to seek out emotional comfort in what may seem to be nonrational ways. There’s a ton of different examples that could look a lot different, but here’s one that might be more relevant to the current discussion: Suppose you have a loved one die in an awful car accident. Based on the evidence, it seems more likely that the person suffered greatly for a few minutes before finally dying–BUT there is also a smaller possibility that they were killed instantaneously. It might be easier to believe that they died instantaneously. You recognize it’s the less likely of the two options, but it brings you comfort to believe in the less likely option. (But note that I’m talking about belief here, not knowledge–claiming to KNOW that the person died instantaneously seems to be less intellectually honest and maybe less healthy.)(I would try to make the above paragraph more clear and concise, but I have a lot of studying to get back to! Sorry for the word vomit/rant!)
The kind of faith I have in God is the kind of faith one has in a good friend, close brother, or loving father. I don’t need evidence to believe He’s got my back. I can’t imagine the life of terror the faithless must live, with the inability to trust anyone.
@FringeChristian@revelife - I trust many people, because they have demonstrated that my trust is well-placed. I have had back and forth interactions with these people, and they have a history of being trustworthy. Does that mean with 100% certainty that the next time I trust one of them I won’t be hurt? No, of course not. But it’s not “faith.” I have evidence that these people are worthy of my trust. I’m not walking up to a stranger and spilling my secrets. THAT would be faith.
@GodlessLiberal - That’s a very deterministic view of people. Are you excluding the possibility of free will? Also, what of those, like myself who claim back and forth interaction with God? Tell me what you think is the difference between faith and trust, I tend to use them interchangeably with one specific difference.
@FringeChristian@revelife - Faith: The belief in something without or in disregard to the truth.
Whether we call it faith or trust, God has mine. He has kept His promises.