the value of faith

[kostaglatov]

hello , im new to this and have no idea what the procedure is. I stumbled on this site and choosing the name kostaglatov naturally brought Solzhenitsyn to mind and i remember reading a passage where he addresses this very issue, that faith can be a debilitating force. well, there it is, nice to be here

[Gladys]

Welcome, Kostaglatov!

Faith is a force that marshals all that is important in life but scarcely amenable to reason. In particular, why I am here and where am I going? One alternative to faith involves resorting to debilitating rationalisations or oversimplifications.

[MANICHAEAN]

Just review for a moment the wide spectrum of those, who over the ages have attempted to explain faith and the different paths that they have trod. Faith can be inculcated from ones' family or educational background. There are those that, (as Gladys makes the point), try to reason it out & invariably fail as it is not in a reasoning dimension. Some strive, but never attain it. Others resist but reach out when lying in a void of despair & affliction.
I once visited an orphanage in the Nigerian bush where a nun with the help of four helpers was looking after about 30 abandoned kids. Some had been found on rubbish heaps, others were brought in where the mother was so poor she chose to give the child away, some deformed or with malaria, their hands restrained to stop them from hurting themselves further, others the offspring of prostitutes.
Free will comes into play. You have the option to walk away. You can question the existence of a God and therby of a faith.
Or a small question mark arises inside you & you ask could that nun be seeing in the faces of those kids, Christ himself in his wretched disguise.
Make your choice for you cannot be forsworn. But: "Beware lest ye find yourself in the company of angels".

[Babbalanja]

I once visited an orphanage in the Nigerian bush where a nun with the help of four helpers was looking after about 30 abandoned kids. Some had been found on rubbish heaps, others were brought in where the mother was so poor she chose to give the child away, some deformed or with malaria, their hands restrained to stop them from hurting themselves further, others the offspring of prostitutes.
Free will comes into play. You have the option to walk away. You can question the existence of a God and therby of a faith.
Or a small question mark arises inside you & you ask could that nun be seeing in the faces of those kids, Christ himself in his wretched disguise.
Make your choice for you cannot be forsworn. But: "Beware lest ye find yourself in the company of angels".
It seems lack of faith could better motivate someone to alleviate such suffering. If I believe there's a reward waiting in the afterlife for those who suffer here, where's the tragedy in their plight?

[MANICHAEAN]

I have no problem with suffering being addressed; whether it be by a "believer", a "non-believer" or dare I say a "skeptic"

I have no problem with motivation; whether it be for anticipated rewards in heaven, recognizing a distinction between standards of human behaviour, pity, or having nothing better to do.

The tragedy lies in walking away.

[Babbalanja]

I have no problem with motivation; whether it be for anticipated rewards in heaven, recognizing a distinction between standards of human behaviour, pity, or having nothing better to do.
Yeah, but there's a difference between doing good because of anticipated rewards and doing good because of a commitment to alleviating suffering.

Doing good in the hopes of a reward in the afterlife isn't moral, it's just conditioned behavior.

[MANICHAEAN]

Fine.
Then just do it, whatever your reason.

[kostaglatov]

hello everyone.
Let me first say that i have faith, but would find it very difficult to explain exactly what that faith entails. With respect to Gladys comment, i agree that faith can help us to find the courage and strenght to act in the face of adversity. For some faith provides the ultimate reason for what correct , noble and decent behaviour toward another individual. Granted these are subjective values, but in general must of us would agree what correct noble and decent behaviour is. Certainly we could agree on what it is not. But as Dostoyevsky said, "If God does not exist, then all things are permissable." The question i was getting at in my initial thread though, was can faith be crippling. Does faith sometimes act as an impediment to action. Solzhenitsyn touches on this very question in his Gulag, with respect to his own experience,and suggests that it may. I have faith simply because i choose to have it. Socrates may have been able to arrive at his faith through logic, but that is an achievement beyond the reach of most of us. For me , faith provides for the possibility of an Absoluteness in the most positive sense that we can comprehend, however vague that may be. And it allows for the possibility that we are a part of and connection with that Absoluteness.

[Gladys]

Yeah, but there's a difference between doing good because of anticipated rewards and doing good because of a commitment to alleviating suffering.

In all the world, does a single case of such pristine commitment exist?


Does faith sometimes act as an impediment to action?

The apostle James asserts that: 'faith without works is dead'. Faith is love in action.

[Babbalanja]

In all the world, does a single case of such pristine commitment exist?:confused:

I'd say it's pretty common. Why is that difficult for you to believe?

Regards,

Istvan

[blazeofglory]

Faith is a shaky and fragile emotion and it is likened to building a castle on the sand.

Faith has roots in fear.

People have faiths in the unknown, in the undefined. The unknowns we beleive are insubstantial or immaterial or sheer illusions.

Keep on peeling an onion penetrating into the insides of it removing layers and finally all you will arrive at nothing but the layer only.

Can faith have an answer to the universal question of existence?

I am skeptical about this, my friend.

[MANICHAEAN]

You surprise me blazeofglory. I had you down as one who had trodden the path of inner contemplation and had come out the other side with a faith in whatever ideals you today possess.

[kostaglatov]

hello all, well i see that there are some interesting comments here. Blazeforglory, to suggest that faith is a fragile emotion may reflect your thought , but it is a generalization unworthy of serious concideration. Who says faith is like a castle built on sand, or that faith is built on fear. And of course faith is built on the unknown, that is why it is faith.

[Gladys]

Yeah, but there's a difference between doing good because of anticipated rewards and doing good because of a commitment to alleviating suffering.



Originally Posted by Gladys
In all the world, does a single case of such pristine commitment exist?


I'd say it's pretty common. Why is that difficult for you to believe?

Don't you 'alleviates suffering', at least in part, because you perceive it is in your wider self-interest to do so?

[blazeofglory]

You surprise me blazeofglory. I had you down as one who had trodden the path of inner contemplation and had come out the other side with a faith in whatever ideals you today possess.

I do not hold on to a particular set of theories in point of fact. I have no obsession or fixation with particular theories. Of course today I may go to a Guru and his ideas may transform me and tomorrow I my meet a skeptic and his ideas may shake my faiths.

That is what happens to me. I want to honest to myself and to the rest of the world. I want to write what I may feel at the moment of writing or sharing what is the inside of me.

Yes now I feel that faith is very shaky. I know a few communities in Nepal with very orthodox people with their long-held Hindu traditions. And with a little dollars they became converted into Christianity. It is missionaries-schools, hospitals and charitable institutions doing something in the name of charity.

[DanielBenoit]

Faith is a shaky and fragile emotion and it is likened to building a castle on the sand.

Faith has roots in fear.

People have faiths in the unknown, in the undefined. The unknowns we beleive are insubstantial or immaterial or sheer illusions.

Keep on peeling an onion penetrating into the insides of it removing layers and finally all you will arrive at nothing but the layer only.

Can faith have an answer to the universal question of existence?

I am skeptical about this, my friend.


I disagree.

Now I am by no means a religous minded person, nor do I possess any clearly defined faith. But nor do I hold much faith in the postulations of rationalism (in a Cartesian sense).

I see faith in the way Kierkigaard sees it; as beyond reason, an existential embracment of the absurd. It is beyond thought and conforms to the absurd demands of God/the universe/nature etc.

Faith is the acceptance of the hopeless absurdity of the world. The godlessness of nature and the silence of the universe. And yet, it still believes, out of the absurdity of everything, in hope in hopelessness. It is that incomprehensible step, that leap, which Kierkigaard spoke so passionately about. It is hard enough to be accept absurdity, but heroically unimaginable to fully accept despair, but still have hope and faith.

[Babbalanja]

Faith is the acceptance of the hopeless absurdity of the world. The godlessness of nature and the silence of the universe.
No, it's not. Doubt is.

I don't think credulity is a virtue, but that's what people mean when they talk about faith. The faithful expect certainty for free, instead of realizing how arduous the task of belief really is. There are myriad ways in which we deceive ourselves, and we always have to be on guard against personal bias.

Regards,

Istvan

[blazeofglory]

Faith lives on and on until the mystery of the universe will be disclosed to us, and in point of fact that will never be.

In the Upanishads this world is called "Maya". With this word, a great word in eastern mysticism the world is likened to void, nothingness.

And with faith it is very easy to rest on a set of ideas and the questioning tendency of man stops at it.

We just believe that God made everything, this universe, man, flowers and the like. With this belief we do not seek or investigate. Science and Faith cannot side with each other.

Balance between science and faith is a dogmatic notion.

[DanielBenoit]

No, it's not. Doubt is.

I don't think credulity is a virtue, but that's what people mean when they talk about faith. The faithful expect certainty for free, instead of realizing how arduous the task of belief really is. There are myriad ways in which we deceive ourselves, and we always have to be on guard against personal bias.

Regards,

Istvan

No, in the Kierkigaardian sense, faith is a recognization of the rationality of doubt, and yet, still a belief in hope, out of the absurdity of it all. Please do not quote me out of context :)


Faith lives on and on until the mystery of the universe will be disclosed to us, and in point of fact that will never be.

In the Upanishads this world is called "Maya". With this word, a great word in eastern mysticism the world is likened to void, nothingness.

And with faith it is very easy to rest on a set of ideas and the questioning tendency of man stops at it.

We just believe that God made everything, this universe, man, flowers and the like. With this belief we do not seek or investigate. Science and Faith cannot side with each other.

Balance between science and faith is a dogmatic notion.

Yes I agree, it's just that science can't do much when we want to look into ourselves as human beings. Psychology may be able to do it well, but it can only limit itself so much to just human thought and behavoir, and only in a detached scientific way. Though, faith isn't very helpful in this matter though.

(I really hope this doens't come out with me sounding like I'm denouncing science or psychology, because I'm NOT)

[Babbalanja]

Yes I agree, it's just that science can't do much when we want to look into ourselves as human beings.
It can, if you believe that DNA is the basis of heredity. The genetic component for what we are as humans (including much of our tastes, ills, and behavior) is immense.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

It can, if you believe that DNA is the basis of heredity. The genetic component for what we are as humans (including much of our tastes, ills, and behavior) is immense.

Regards,

Istvan

Yes of course, but what it implies is done through philosophical discourse.

The fact that all life on earth is derived from a common ancestor is an amazing thing. But what it implies in relation to us as human beings is beyond science, for science may be able to show what is, but it cannot show what it means or implies to us, it cannot raise questions such as that of what it means as human beings to be violent, bored, suicidal, thoughtful, etc. It can give the data and you reach your own conclusions based on your epistemoligical approach.

As I said, it can show us that we are made of cells and those cells are a part of every other living organism, and within those cells are atoms, atoms being within every piece of matter in the universe, etc., but to ask what does that mean to us, or how does it effect our morality or whatnot, is beyond science. Science can only approach the human condition from a detached state.

*edit*
Also, science is a closed system and thus cannot step outside itself. Like other systems of logic or mathematics, it can only do what its postulations demand of it.

[Babbalanja]

The fact that all life on earth is derived from a common ancestor is an amazing thing. But what it implies in relation to us as human beings is beyond science, for science may be able to show what is, but it cannot show what it means or implies to us, it cannot raise questions such as that of what it means as human beings to be violent, bored, suicidal, thoughtful, etc. Yes it can, since our traits are part of our evolutionary heritage. We're still working with the genetic, perceptive, and emotional apparatus that our ancestors had on the savannah. In particular, understanding the cognitive biases that we inherited helps defend us from the kind of phenomena for which our simian heritage seems to have instilled a bottomless appetite: cults, conspiracy theories, and witch hunts.


As I said, it can show us that we are made of cells and those cells are a part of every other living organism, and within those cells are atoms, atoms being within every piece of matter in the universe, etc., but to ask what does that mean to us, or how does it effect our morality or whatnot, is beyond science. Science can only approach the human condition from a detached state.I agree that ethics can't be subjected to the scientific method. However, let's admit that we can't know what "the human condition" is and make moral decisions until we define our place in what we currently understand of reality. Just to give the most obvious example: if our genes determine such a considerable part of who we are, shouldn't that fact inform debate on ethics and "free will"?

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

Yes it can, since our traits are part of our evolutionary heritage. We're still working with the genetic, perceptive, and emotional apparatus that our ancestors had on the savannah. In particular, understanding the cognitive biases that we inherited helps defend us from the kind of phenomena for which our simian heritage seems to have instilled a bottomless appetite: cults, conspiracy theories, and witch hunts.

We are speaking of methodology here. Again, science can discover these truths, but to make the decision of how they are relevant or what they imply is beyond science. Things like how our ancestors behaved or what chemical substance we are composed of and how that effects your existential outlook on life, is beyond the reach of science.

For example, you find that knowledge of our evolutionary history will help defend us from the downfalls of humanity (so do I), but in doing so, you make the leap outside of science into ethics and history.


I agree that ethics can't be subjected to the scientific method. However, let's admit that we can't know what "the human condition" is and make moral decisions until we define our place in what we currently understand of reality.

Yes, but science too is subject to the limits of perception and is not the begin all, center of knowledge. Science is founded upon the epistemic idiosyncracy (if you will) of human reason. We think in terms of causality, of science, inherietley. Knowing the basic rules of logic is knowing the syntax of our thoughts, as if looking into an infinite reflection of ourselves.

Again, science is not self-reflective and thus is an incomplete system.

[Babbalanja]

Things like how our ancestors behaved or what chemical substance we are composed of and how that effects your existential outlook on life, is beyond the reach of science.
I'm not disputing that science and ethics are two separate matters. But science informs our understanding of the human condition: we're not immortal, we're constrained in many ways by our genetic heritage, and prey to the contingencies of Nature like disaster and disease.

I think we're in agreement here, Daniel. I was only responding to your statement that science can't do much when we want to look into ourselves as human beings.

Regards,

Istvan

[blazeofglory]

While science is rooted in empiricism, syllogisms, logical notions or observational or experimental methodologies, faith is something different, not founded on reasons or observational methodologies.

For instance in some scriptural text the sun revolves round one part of the earth and this faith is still deeply rooted in some communities if Asia countries.

It seems faiths are shaky and unfounded on facts. Yet faith is a very integral part of life. The problem with science is it cannot answer some of our fundamental questions like the origin of this universe. Of course some scientists have hypothesized ideas of creation but they are not convincing or most of us are skeptical about them. Man is such an animal who is endowed with the capacity for thinking and that is why he imagine things beyond measurement of then empirical sciences.

Man unlike the rest of animals cannot rest on foods, sleeps and sexes. Man questions some very serious subjects like the origin of life, death, afterlives and the like.

Man cannot satisfy himself with the idea that everything ends up with death and he believes that after death another journey begins and death is a short respite in endless journeys of life.

That is why faith is strongly held by humans from time immemorial to this age of chips.

Now even after so much advancement in science and technologies faith is still very deeply entrenched in human life.

[DanielBenoit]

While science is rooted in empiricism, syllogisms, logical notions or observational or experimental methodologies, faith is something different, not founded on reasons or observational methodologies.

I agree with you blaze that faith is founded upon groundless postulations. But so is reason, though in a far more structured and rationalistic way. Reason too is founded upon baseless postulations which we take for granted because of their supposed "self-evidence".

The point is, is that everything is groundless, and that any sort of hope for some kind of meta-narrative on life, death, God and the universe, is futile and rather naive.

[blazeofglory]

I agree with you blaze that faith is founded upon groundless postulations. But so is reason, though in a far more structured and rationalistic way. Reason too is founded upon baseless postulations which we take for granted because of their supposed "self-evidence".

The point is, is that everything is groundless, and that any sort of hope for some kind of meta-narrative on life, death, God and the universe, is futile and rather naive.

That is why this universe is a mystery and people try to solve it mystically.

[Babbalanja]

I agree with you blaze that faith is founded upon groundless postulations. But so is reason, though in a far more structured and rationalistic way. Reason too is founded upon baseless postulations which we take for granted because of their supposed "self-evidence".

The point is, is that everything is groundless, and that any sort of hope for some kind of meta-narrative on life, death, God and the universe, is futile and rather naive.Oh, brother.

Daniel, let's keep our wits about us here. Just because human constructs are ultimately self-validating is no reason to dismiss them all as equally useless and futile. To assert that the meta-narrative of reason hasn't told us anything more valid about life and our universe than that of faith is to admit that you're less than fully engaged with the legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

I'm not saying that, science as a tool has helped immensely. Both pragmatically and systematically science has outvalued faith. But in relation to the ultimate questions of the universe, it is just as helpless as faith. Science works perfectly fine with what it does, all I'm saying is that it has its limits.

[Babbalanja]

I'm not saying that, science as a tool has helped immensely. Both pragmatically and systematically science has outvalued faith. But in relation to the ultimate questions of the universe, it is just as helpless as faith.Depends on what you think the 'ultimate questions' are.

And I already went at it with you on that point: science helps us understand who the human is, what his evolutionary and cognitive heritage is, what his capabilities and shortcomings are and why, and whether his place in the universe truly agrees with his perspective on the matter. Among the 'tools' of humanity, faith is merely there to pander to humanity's wishful thinking and inflated sense of self-worth.


Science works perfectly fine with what it does, all I'm saying is that it has its limits.Then say that. Don't say it's as 'groundless' as credulity.

Regards,

Istvan

[blazeofglory]

Science works perfectly fine with what it does

What call science is the study of natural phenomena and spiritually we want to go beyond the domain natural phenomena and that is wherein the problem lies.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
hello , im new to this and have no idea what the procedure is. I stumbled on this site and choosing the name kostaglatov naturally brought Solzhenitsyn to mind and i remember reading a passage where he addresses this very issue, that faith can be a debilitating force. well, there it is, nice to be here

[togre]

It's alive. It's alive!! IT'S ALIVE!!!!!

Okay, got that out of my system. To the OP:

I am incredibly uncomfortable speaking of "faith" as an abstract. I don't think you can make statements that apply to all faith and are meaningful.

What I mean is, faith or belief, is inextricably connected to its object--what is believed. To the extent that this object is true, faith is a wonderful good. To the extent what is believed is not true, accurate or factual, faith is at best tragic, at worst catastrophic to this life and beyond.

The OP used the term 'debilitating." That's a very interesting word. I can see in it the image of someone faced with "progress" but holding back from embracing the change because of faith. Again, is what is believed actually true? If no, then debilitating is a charitable description. If yes, then faith has become an anchor that is holding a ship from the shoals.

I really, really wish all I've said thus far would be uncontroversial and our only argument would be over, "what is true?' but I'm afraid difference are even deeper than this. <sigh> Postmodernism.