On faith.

[katsaris]

I have a great disliking for *faith*. Religious faith, that is. It seems to me one of the few personality flaws that are still presented to the world as a virtue in an almost uncontested manner.

Such dislike has been there for a *long* while, but it has gotten more intense since the Muhammad cartoons issue, after the whole screaming of "murder those who called our faith murderous" thingy. Only one concession I'd give those people -- I'd call all faith murderous, not just *theirs*. Or atleast all faith that tries to extend itself beyond the personal sphere.

I'm tolerant of faith to the extent that I'll be tolerant of any personal kink or fannish perversion. Tell me you find inspiration/comfort in Christianity/Judaism/Scientology/whatever and fine with me. Try to convince me that *your* faith is objectively better than the others, and I'll mock you to your face. "So your god commanded the green stripes rather than the purple dots?"

Arguing this in Rantburg brought forth the quite predictable responses: "blahblah, how can you say that the faith that commands "don't do to others what you don't want them to do unto you" is the same as the one that commands "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them?"?"

Why, in the exact same way that I can say that the die that rolls 6 is the exact same die that may roll 1 in the next throw. When you've already chosen "blind faith" as your moral arbiter, you can't convince me by appealing to humanism or compassion and empathy or reasoned ethics that your faith is better -- because IF it had been humanism or empathy or reasoned ethics that led you to obey such commandments, then it wasn't really *faith* that led you to them, and so faith attempts to take credit where none is due to it.

And if "faith" did indeed lead you to obey such nice commandments, then you are no different that the people who dice rolled a different number and therefore their faith led them to obey "blow yourself up near a bunch of civilians" instead.

Faith as a virtue is afterall by definition the refusal to allow reasoned ethics or human compassion in deciding right from wrong. You only need to have faith in your sacred (ptui) scripture.

---

I can only have faith in people instead. People exist and the few I feel I really know, I'd be willing to trust with my life, in the same way that I trust gravity with the planet's atmosphere. As dear old Spock once said "When you let an anvil go in a g-positive environment, you don't need to see it to know that it will fall." I really like that comment. It's one of the more "awwww, that's touching" phrases of our Vulcan friend.

So faith in people -- yes. But faith in gods and scripture? That stinks to me so vilely that it irks me the two concepts even use the same word to describe them.

Comments

[evilstorm.livejournal.com]

Brilliant insight.

I believe that I'm going agnostic, somewhat. What's between you and whatever God you believe in is between you and God. No one else's business, but neither do you get to foist it off on anyone else, either.

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

Heh -- I didn't really consider it as "insight", but rather as more of a rant to let off steam pn my part... but hey, if you think so, thanks and glad you liked. :-)

[evilstorm.livejournal.com]

Well, rants are very often educational. It's good.

[skaly.livejournal.com]

I wish I had answers, or even a strong opinion for that matter. I see what faith does to the world, but I still covet it for myself. Maybe I've been fooled by all the hype, that people of faith are happier or that they struggle less.

What you propose--having faith in people--seems more preposterous to me than having faith in God. The greatest argument against the existence of God is to look at His creation. Faith doesn't kill people. People kill people. Faith is just the weapon they use.

Seeing all this, I wish I could find the answers I need without resorting to faith, or I wish I could just accept that there are no concrete answers and that my life will be fine whether or not I seek them out. But one of the great virtues of humanity is the struggle for answers, and I fear that if I give up on the possibilities of God and religion, then I am forever closing the door that stands between me and peace of mind.

On the other hand, they say ignorance is bliss. My problem is that I want to know, and the only way to truly know things in this world is to suffer for the knowledge. Maybe I just don't have the mettle.

I think it is strange, these tests of the spirit. I don't know if I'm stronger for renouncing faith or weaker for it. People seem to settle on their own answers and become stronger for it, but right now my philosophy is verging on "all things are true." Which, of course, means all things are false as well.

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

Faith doesn't kill people. People kill people.

*Some* people kill people. *Some* people are evil bastards. I'm not asking you to have faith on people you don't know (though I can admire the people brave enough to do it); even more so I'm not asking you to have faith on those who've proven themselves untrustworthy.

But having faith on people who *have* shown themselves to be true is not nearly as irrational as the concept of religious faith.

Faith is just the weapon they use.

It seems to me that religious faith uses people as often as people use it. A contaminating meme with its preachers to spread it and its foot-soldiers to smash the opposition. I've often heard "For the good of the faith", "for the good of christianity", and so forth.

Faith just a weapon that people use? Alas, if only! In a world containing suicide bombers, people are just as often the weapons that faith uses. Which is one more reason to hate it IMO: if it helps transform human beings into mere tools for its benefit.

[skaly.livejournal.com]

Religious faith placates the spirit, but it doesn't make anyone wiser. Some religious people are very wise, and others are suicide bombers. Unfortunately, the more you know about the world, the harder it is to have faith in it.

I think my beliefs are of the "get your own house in order" kind. Know yourself, your strengths and weaknesses, so that you may in turn come to know others. Too many people decide that religion and faith can provide them with all the answers that they will ever need, and so they stop looking and they learn nothing.

People need to continually ask the tough questions, if for no other reason than to keep their brains active long enough to recognize when they are being exploited. Rhetoric kills.

[skaly.livejournal.com]

Guess the quote:
"Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both instead of just one."

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

"Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both instead of just one."

Religious faith is probably that sort of high-heel shoes that shine prettily but make it harder to go anywhere, not easier. Helping you go anywhere was never their point.

Making you look (or feel) good perhaps, or merely serving the desires of their marketers, yes. But utility is not their purpose.

[skaly.livejournal.com]

So you're saying faith has no role to play in progress. Perhaps, if you look at the bigger picture, that appears to be true. In the bigger picture, human beings appear ignorant and violent and self-serving. In the bigger picture, human beings aren't worth it. But if you look at individuals, I think you will find people who struggle to realize their ideals, and cannot do so without both reason and faith, religious or otherwise. It's the individuals who make it all worthwhile.

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about "progress" in some vague, inhumane, collectivist manner. I am also talking about the lives of individual human beings -- I know no "bigger picture" than that really.

We may disagree on the usefulness of faith, but I don't see how you somehow came to the conclusion that I don't care about the individuals.

Over at Adam Cadre's commentary on New Orleans, he mentions some of the residents' quotes:
"I'm not running from God. I'm going to sit right here and let King Jesus ride on."
"I just kept saying 'Hold that water! Hold that water, Jesus!'"

How many *individuals* you think died because they decided they didn't want to run from God? Or because they thought that saying "Hold that water, Jesus" was gonna help them?

I'm pretty sure "faith" was Bush's reason to disregards all the possible catastrophes that could (and eventually did) occur in Iraq.

So don't tell me about "individuals", as if I am only discussing the progress of cold science (or something) in assaulting religious faith. It's ruined individuals' lives that I'm talking about. In their ones and their millions both.

[skaly.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that I implied anything. Although on closer examination I guess one can find an insinuation that you hadn't thought about individuals, which is obviously wrong, because you do. You're a highly moral person, one of few that I admire. You see that religious nuts out there are ruining lives, and you condemn religious faith. Makes perfect sense, and I'm sorry if poor writing made my thoughts unclear.

The only thing you say that really bothers me is the implication that we would be better off without faith. We don't really know that. I think you and I both believe that people have incredible potential, but I am not so sure they can realize their potential without something to have faith in. Perhaps religious, perhaps not. Again, we can't possibly know for sure. I'm not yet ready to write faith off as one of humanity's greatest blunders. Though it is up there.

[skaly.livejournal.com]

Come on, you're not still mad at me are ya? I was using the general "you"!

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

No, no, I'm not mad at you at all. I wasn't "mad at you" before either.

Just cranky. *g* As the mood in the originating post indicates. Really I wouldn't get "mad" at such a minor thing.

[shadmere.livejournal.com]

Babylon 5!? =Þ

All faith is chosen. Even blind faith is chosen--it's just chosen thoughtlessly. And like many things done thoughtlessly, it can be destructive without the person even noticing. (Because, being thoughtless, they're not even paying attention.)

Having faith in "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself" is different than having faith in "Kill the unbelievers." Simply because the statements are different. As I said, one chooses their faith. I can have faith in the first because I agree with it.

My faith is mostly based on the Christian Bible. However, do I believe in the ban? That all who do not worship YHWH should be put to death, and their posessions burned? No, I don't. Because regardless of the fact that it's in the Bible, I don't believe that. I choose my belief.

Jesus is quoted as saying, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom." He is also quoted as saying, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." The first one does not sound right to me. The second one does. Whether both or either were said by Jesus or whether the statements were put in by later editors, I have faith in the second.

The Bible can be taken in terrible ways if one only looks at certain passages, and it can command monstrous actions. But if a book both commands you to "hurt those who disagree" and to "do not hurt others just because they disagree, love them instead," what does a person do? Choosing pain over love is a personal choice, not an aspect of faith.

The highest axiom I have is that "Love is right." I have faith in that above all else, and everything else I believe must conform to that faith. Is that such a bad faith?