Rationalizing faith.

[Politesse]

Point of history:

Even online dictionary definitions have shifted to reflect common usage. Faith practically being synonymous with trust and confidence, etc. It's quite odd.

That's not the change. The idea that faith and trust are separate contexts is the change, a product of the changing philosophical and scholarly trends in European tradition. Faith, in Christian contexts, does and always did mean a personal relationship of loyalty and mutual trust/obedience; it is a translation of the ancient Greek term pistis, which held both meanings, likewise its Latin equivalent fides from which the English term is etymologically derived. They often were used in civil contexts to indicate legal relationships; for instance, a viceroy had the "faith" of his king, and something similar was being implied about Christ and his followers in relation to God, that they were adopted sons of God and therefore had the faith of and in God, a reciprocal relationship of faith and authority. No one predating the Renaissance ever talked or wrote about faith as though it were synonymous with "acceptance of a philosophical proposition". But cultures and priorities change over time. That new definition came to sit alongside the older sense of the word connoting trust and confidence, and both senses have been used (often interchangeably) in religious circles and secular contexts from the end of the Renaissance onward to the present. Four hundred years is a long time, and both definitions are commonly in use in our society at this point.

I wasn't disputing that the word 'faith' has been, and still is used in multiple ways, synonymous with trust, confidence, etc, just that this semantic drift creates sufficient ambiguity to allow theists to align and defend their faith, a belief held without the support of evidence, with trust or confidence.....which are not the same, thereby muddying the water.

I agree that the water is muddy, just not with your chronology of the concept. The ambiguity was always there, not of recent invention.

 

[DBT]

Hope may come in different flavours, a reasonably probable expectation at one end of the scale to an unrealistic belief at the other, from hope to faith.

 

[Politesse]

Hope may come in different flavours, a reasonably probable expectation at one end of the scale to an unrealistic belief/faith at the other.

Personally, I see religious faith in much the same light, and indeed see hope and faith as rather strongly interlinked concepts. Only zealots, politicians, and atheists have capital invested in a conception of faith as inherently unthinking.

 

[DBT]

I wasn't disputing that the word 'faith' has been, and still is used in multiple ways, synonymous with trust, confidence, etc, just that this semantic drift creates sufficient ambiguity to allow theists to align and defend their faith, a belief held without the support of evidence, with trust or confidence.....which are not the same, thereby muddying the water.

I agree that the water is muddy, just not with your chronology of the concept. The ambiguity was always there, not of recent invention.

I didn't give a chronology, the ambiguity has always been there. It just seems like technology, the internet more than anything else, has focused or intensified it in recent times. I could be wrong.

 

[ronburgundy]

Hope may come in different flavours, a reasonably probable expectation at one end of the scale to an unrealistic belief/faith at the other.

Personally, I see religious faith in much the same light, and indeed see hope and faith as rather strongly interlinked concepts. Only zealots, politicians, and atheists have capital invested in a conception of faith as inherently unthinking.

Hope as the basis of belief is "unthinking". It is believing something is true b/c you hope it is true, which given the two have zero logical relation is irrational. IOW, it is emotional based belief where wishful thinking is treated is interchangable with objective reality. The Bible and Christian theology make numerous references to the idea that faith is not merely hope with the acknowledgement that it might not be actually true, but is hope-based doubtless belief in the actual truth and reality of the idea (to the point of centering one's whole existence around it). It's only dishonest religious apologist that deny the inherent conflict between reasoned thought and faith as Abrahamic religion has always conceived and promoted it.

 

[DBT]

Hope may come in different flavours, a reasonably probable expectation at one end of the scale to an unrealistic belief/faith at the other.

Personally, I see religious faith in much the same light, and indeed see hope and faith as rather strongly interlinked concepts. Only zealots, politicians, and atheists have capital invested in a conception of faith as inherently unthinking.

Given degrees of probability for something to be true, or the likelihood of something happening as hoped for, perhaps faith is a less rational form of hope, which is why faith, but not necessarily hope, is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence in that context.

 

[Politesse]

The Bible and Christian theology make numerous references to the idea that faith is not merely hope with the acknowledgement that it might not be actually true, but is hope-based doubtless belief in the actual truth and reality of the idea (to the point of centering one's whole existence around it).

Oh? I for one would be interested to see your homework on this.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Bible and Christian theology make numerous references to the idea that faith is not merely hope with the acknowledgement that it might not be actually true, but is hope-based doubtless belief in the actual truth and reality of the idea (to the point of centering one's whole existence around it).

Oh? I for one would be interested to see your homework on this.

The analysis ronburgundy made is pretty much describing the basis of Pascal's wager, frequently used by evangelical Christians in attempts to convince people to accept the faith.

 

[Angry Floof]

Religious belief doesn't come in through reason or rational examination. The rationales from the religious are after-the-fact justifications, not reasons, and certainly not the reasons they believe. That all happened in other areas of the brain.

 

[fromderinside]

It's just that they shameless substitute false witness to a reality that they subscribe to in order to belong to that group that believes in heaven and life after death.

Fear of mortality and many other shortcomings in life leaves life after death as an awesome opiate which intoxicates us all to some extent.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's just that they shameless substitute false witness to a reality that they subscribe to in order to belong to that group that believes in heaven and life after death.

Fear of mortality and many other shortcomings in life leaves life after death as an awesome opiate which intoxicates us all to some extent.

And using their brains to justify supernatural belief is just a waste of frontal lobes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's just that they shameless substitute false witness to a reality that they subscribe to in order to belong to that group that believes in heaven and life after death.

Fear of mortality and many other shortcomings in life leaves life after death as an awesome opiate which intoxicates us all to some extent.

And using their brains to justify supernatural belief is just a waste of frontal lobes.

Unnatural belief (pretending) has been selected for so it must have survival value. Maybe the religious flavor only really does have value with regard to the group. It obviously helps people deal with fear, and fear of death is real enough for humans who dwell on it.

At its most basic it's supply and demand, a kind of group therapy. Some people are able to enrich themselves and exploit that fear and prey on those who cognitively have no other way to deal with their condition. That's the unfortunate part.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's just that they shameless substitute false witness to a reality that they subscribe to in order to belong to that group that believes in heaven and life after death.

Fear of mortality and many other shortcomings in life leaves life after death as an awesome opiate which intoxicates us all to some extent.

And using their brains to justify supernatural belief is just a waste of frontal lobes.

Unnatural belief (pretending) has been selected for so it must have survival value. Maybe the religious flavor only really does have value with regard to the group. It obviously helps people deal with fear, and fear of death is real enough for humans who dwell on it.

At its most basic it's supply and demand, a kind of group therapy. Some people are able to enrich themselves and exploit that fear and prey on those who cognitively have no other way to deal with their condition. That's the unfortunate part.

Sometimes traits persist simply because they don't kill us or prevent us from mating. Religion would fall under animal brain reflexes, which of course are conducive to survival. It's just lower brain activities with emotionally provoking stories on top.

 

[steve_bank]

Animal brain reflexes? A bit on the ignorant side

Religion is one manifestation of a basic human trait. Identifying with a tribe.

We see it in sports. People identify strongly with home pro teams, and will defend them against verbal attack, and take offense when their team is attacked.

Religion serves a useful purpose. In colonial times and today a church was the community center that provided social services of the day. It is a unifying influence. Here in Seattle Mt Zion is an icon for black civil rights and has a number of social programs. Pre pandemic they were open for breakfast every day for all. There is an area Sikh temple that seves weekly meals, a tradition from the main temple in the Punjab India.

There are positives and negatives to religion just like anything else.

 

[DBT]

Eternal life in paradise, reunion with loved ones, free of aging and disease, live happily forever and ever, amen, praise the lord, is quite a sell....

 

[Angry Floof]

Animal brain reflexes? A bit on the ignorant side

Religion is one manifestation of a basic human trait. Identifying with a tribe.

We see it in sports. People identify strongly with home pro teams, and will defend them against verbal attack, and take offense when their team is attacked.

Religion serves a useful purpose. In colonial times and today a church was the community center that provided social services of the day. It is a unifying influence. Here in Seattle Mt Zion is an icon for black civil rights and has a number of social programs. Pre pandemic they were open for breakfast every day for all. There is an area Sikh temple that seves weekly meals, a tradition from the main temple in the Punjab India.

There are positives and negatives to religion just like anything else.

Tribalism is very animal brain. But I was thinking more along the lines of fear, hijacked by religious fear mongering, beyond just the fear of being kicked out of your tribe, which is also a consistent theme of religious fear.

If there are positives to religion, they are human positives, which can be examined by humans and can be secular in nature. Supernatural beliefs rarely apply to benign religions much less religious ideas that inspire people to be better than hijacked animal brain reflexes and more aware than a blind obedience machines, though there are exceptions, such as Quakers.

Any cultural ideas can be unifying! They don't have to be religious! In fact, I would ask, as I have asked numerous times before of religious believers and apologists, name one good thing in human experience that cannot be had without religion. I've never gotten an answer because there isn't one!

Everything you think is good in religion is good in general culture, just as everything bad in religion is also of human creation. Religion is a human artifact, a human creation, and not the other way around. The religious ideas and practices that inspire people to be better people are also human creations and can be had in a secular society. Just add supernatural beliefs and tribalism and culture becomes religion.

One more point to remember: if all of human history and knowledge were to disappear, religion would probably reappear, but not exactly the same beliefs or stories or concepts. But science, if what remained of humanity in this hypothetical were as curious as we are now, would re-emerge with exactly the same conclusions and constants, as well as the same approach to what is not known. A humanity that can only create religion and not science will not likely last long, as religion doesn't offer knowledge or information about the world we actually live in and must navigate to survive and thrive.

 

[Angry Floof]

Eternal life in paradise, reunion with loved ones, free of aging and disease, live happily forever and ever, amen, praise the lord, is quite a sell....

Yep, because no human has ever experienced any of that, least of all the mouthpieces insisting that it's real.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's just that they shameless substitute false witness to a reality that they subscribe to in order to belong to that group that believes in heaven and life after death.

Fear of mortality and many other shortcomings in life leaves life after death as an awesome opiate which intoxicates us all to some extent.

And using their brains to justify supernatural belief is just a waste of frontal lobes.

Unnatural belief (pretending) has been selected for so it must have survival value. Maybe the religious flavor only really does have value with regard to the group. It obviously helps people deal with fear, and fear of death is real enough for humans who dwell on it.

At its most basic it's supply and demand, a kind of group therapy. Some people are able to enrich themselves and exploit that fear and prey on those who cognitively have no other way to deal with their condition. That's the unfortunate part.

All of that is possible without religion. Religion doesn't provide either tribalism or collectivism, but can reinforce either, among other things. We already have all those things we need and have needed to survive. The religious stories and beliefs don't matter. Religion is when ignorance hijacks those animal brain responses and then reinforces any number of human tendencies through stories and ideas, including fear and hate mongering.

We are no longer ignorant and there is no longer any excuse to pretend that supernatural beliefs and stories are the source of anything good in human nature or societies.

 

[steve_bank]

The last time I looked we are animals, with a thin cultural veneer of isolation from our genetic disposition.

In the day the Grateful Dead was very much a tribal phenomena among its followers-devotees. In many ways pop music has replaced religion, people quote lyrics as theists do scripture, and elevate musicians to a mystical prophet status, as with Bob Dylan.

Repeating I said religion is one manifestation among many.

It is easy to see it on religion if you are secular, much harder to see it in yourself. It requires introspection.

 

[Angry Floof]

The last time I looked we are animals, with a thin cultural veneer of isolation from our genetic disposition.

In the day the Grateful Dead was very much a tribal phenomena among its followers-devotees. In many ways pop music has replaced religion, people quote lyrics as theists do scripture, and elevate musicians to a mystical prophet status, as with Bob Dylan.

Repeating I said religion is one manifestation among many.

It is easy to see it on religion if you are secular, much harder to see it in yourself. It requires introspection.

It certainly does, and I'm sure you will be happy to know that authority worship, conform-or-die, might-is-right, exclusivity, punishment of outgroups, discouragement of questioning, etc., etc., all the stuff that makes religion the tribalistic, inhumane poison that it so often is, and truly, deeply is in the U.S. at the moment, are not in my repertoire of responses to the world around me.

But, like you suggest in your post, although in a rather different direction, if you don't think like that, how would you recognize any other way of thinking or perceiving the world?

I've already been religious. I've already experienced religious belief (as well as some of the ecstatic sort of experiences that the religious call "God"), and just like when you learn how a trick is done you can no longer be fooled by it, it wouldn't be possible for me to return to religious beliefs beyond those that are based in the natural world.