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

[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.