![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On faith.
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.
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.
no subject
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
"Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both instead of just one."
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)