Why is faith considered a virtue?

[chakka35]

Religionists on this site and elsewhere in the world of belief always quote faith as a virtue, something to be proud of.

Why?

'Faith' is a euphemism for 'blind credulity' or 'belief without the need for evidence'. Why is that something to admire?

Suppose I were to claim that there are unicorns in the Amazon forests. Asked for the evidence for my claim, I reply that I have no evidence, purely faith. Would people step back from further questioning and say in hushed tones "Oh, my word, isn't his faith wonderful! We must respect that."?

Of course they wouldn't. They'd dismiss my claim with a shrug and a vague idea that I was some sort of a nutter. So why is 'faith' looked at in such a different light when it refers to gods and the like?

[jake-the-peg]

I think you have it in "Why is religion ring fenced against logic?"

Because of what happens when you open that little Pandora's box

You apply logic to a little bit of a religion and you have to apply it to more and more.

So God created the Universe - who created God? - don't know go away!

Can God create a stone he can't move? why is there evil in the world?

When you start applying logic to religion you rapidly get to the point where the only answer is "Because it says so in my magic book"

Religions know this it's happened to them again and again - that's why they hide from logic and reason and make a virtue out oof Faith, out of not questioning, out of obedience.

This is the Faustian bargain religion makes. Accept our teachings and observe our rituals and don't rock the boat. In return you will get community, belonging, fellowship and the chance to feel part of something much bigger than yourself.

Many people are more than willing to sign up to that

[potterfan3]

When someone asks me why I believe Jesus died and rose again I can point to historical evidence, I don't just have my faith.

[Zabadak]

jake-the peg. You reference one experiment among many: given your confidence in scientific procedure, you need to acknowledge that the experimental results so far are not conclusive. I personally don't see how they could be - too many variables, including, for example, the one that god might just throw in the odd curve ball just to mix things up a bit. Maybe she's like that. In any case, your observation does not negate the truth that many surgeons see prayer as a critical part of their dealings with patients. They might be wrong, but they still do it and belief in its significance.
You are also misreading my contributions. I am posing questions, not putting forward a faith position (or any other kind of position) that is invulnerable to debate. Generally what annoys me in this kind of debate is lack of cogent reasoning coupled with the assumption that we know absolutely what the other person's perspective is.
I am very fond of rationality. I just don't accept that scientific method is the only tool we have in the rationality box.

[Zabadak]

Jake-the peg. On pilots and training. A pilot needs to be able to take fast decisions, relying on his judgement, especially when things go horribly wrong. For some pilots, part of the process of developing and maintaining that kind of personal strength is bound up in their commitment to a religious or philosophical community or system. I'm not aware of airlines that include RE as part of their training, but I'll bet there's some for whom pilots with religious faith are regarded as an asset rather that an irrational liability. Apart from those who flew their hijacked planes into the twin towers, that is.

[jomifl]

zabadak
'I just don't accept that scientific method is the only tool we have in the rationality box.'
explain please

[Zabadak]

And while you're at it, what kind of scientific question is "why is there evil in the world?"?

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Well the full question is usually, if there is a loving god, why is there evil in the world?

[jomifl]

Just to get back to chakka's original question; football fanism is a small subset of religion.eg
Dad was a manu supporter , i'm a manu supporter all othe teams are rubbish and their supporters are Salad Chefs and deserve a good kicking.
It is regrettably a part of some humans nature, some people have to belong unquestioningly to a club of some sort. manu of CofE.

[jomifl]

Zabadak
"why is there evil in the world?"?
is not a scientific question but a philosophical one, I think you have just demonstrated that you do not understand what science is.

[jake-the-peg]

So what evidence will you accept to prove that you are wrong?

[Zabadak]

Good question jomifl. I think we respond to the world around us in a complex range of ways. We might like to think we can be purely rational, and a lot of the way we work does depend on scientific method especially since Newton: we do this, it works, we'll go on doing it if we want the same thing to happen. But we also apply other filters to experience: a sense of wonder, imagination, poetry, aesthetics and the idea of beauty, a sense of right and wrong, even the simple question "is this all there is?".
I love the curious position of the human race: I can encompass the whole universe in this little mind, yet still "there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[ttfn]

Why not?
Each to his own. If you need proof you may have to prepare for disappointment. I don't believe that makes those who do believe faith to be a virtue wrong.

[jomifl]

thats not nice Ed. not all salad chefs are dossers..( d=t)

[naomi24]

Potterfan3, //When someone asks me why I believe Jesus died and rose again I can point to historical evidence, //

Really? Do please show us.

[jake-the-peg]

jomifl the question of evil in the world can be examined with logib

(Thanks to Waldo who first showed me this argument)

We are told that there is evil in the world because of man's free will

Question - is there free will in Heaven?
If there is no free wil in heaven - that's not much of a heaven is it?
If there is free will in heaven there must be evil in it - again not much of a heaven.

Cue religionists to come in with the trump card

"Ah but God is so wonderous he can square this circle in ways we cannot perceive to give us free will and abolish heaven"

But if God can do that, God could have done that on Earth

Therefore the only rational conclusion is that God wants evil in the World


This is why religion does not like to submit itself to rational analysis it quicly deteriorates into nonsense and the religious go and hide from reason by saying things like "there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

[jake-the-peg]

Naomi - why do I feel an appeal to the supposed Josephus passages coming on?

[KARL]

I rather think the answer lies in the fact that not too many centuries ago almost everything about health, natural phenomena including disasters, plagues, etc. was a total mystery and people instinctively pondered why these things were as they were. This is why different people at different times came up with a tapestry of explanations - a kind of philosophical analysis mixed with social observation and comment and (just to spice it up) lots of local customs. Back then and until quite recently, your religion identified the group/tribe you belonged to - this being important due to the suspicion and fear of "them" (the others). Admiration for the faithful may actually have had as much to do with admiration of their overt loyalty to the group/tribe as their faith in the dogma and rituals. As Richard Dawkins has said, now that we have discovered the answers to, and gained control of lots of the consequences of, the issues that worried our ancestors there is reason for real concern over the fact that religion is still used to divide humanity into "us and them". Here I use the word religion to cover religious practice as evidenced in/by the groups that promote it - in this respect religion retains its very dubious attribute of being a tool for those who want to manipulate and control, it is in many respects an instrument of power. The overwhelming majority of those who follow conventional religions do so as a direct result of to whom and into which society they were born - which proves something but certainly not that there is a god or what he/she/it expects of us.

[KARL]

Part 2
There is a sort of secular equivalent to "blindly" believing and admirinbg faith and that is the conventional attitude to military "heroes" - martyrs to a cause. The victorious are allowed to indulge in this, the losers not (i.e. the correct and incorrect cause - substitute religion for the analogy to become plain). Disrespect/desecration/whatever of the names/memory/etc. of someone who fell (or not) in the pursuit of a goal set by a government is frowned upon or punishable by law, dissenters may find themselves on very difficult territory (compare stoning for questioning the dogma). Some (how many ?) would say there is something backward/primitive in glorifying the actions of those who went out with the express aim of killing "them".

Religion is here just as armed conflict is and there are disbelievers and dissenters. But would it not be nice if people were able to bring the fanatics, etc. into the fold and agree to disagree ? There really is no need for antagonism - discussion and debate is fine but I suspect we can/could all live without converting the other to our precise point of view. Let us pray.......

[jomifl]

zabadak, you do have a point in drawing a distinction between the rational mental processes and the emotional ones. These two aspects of the intellect are not evenly distributed thoughout humankind. It is when one area impinges on another that we get problems, We quite happily accept that people have their own unique taste in music and (mostly) wouldn't dream of telling them they are wrong. musicians don't take a stand on scientific matters. The religious establishments try to have a foot in both camps by issuing dictats based on religious dogma that affect the practical world that non religious people inhabit yet denying them the right of criticism. That is where the problem lies, why the world is overpopulated and everything that follows from that.

[Zabadak]

jomifl: I'm sorry, this is in danger of getting a bit piecemeal. I didn't pose the question "why is there evil in the world?" as a scientific one. Jake stuck it in as a supposed trump card.
And Jake: it's very easy to "win" an argument when you're supplying both sides of it. Shakespeare was certainly not hiding from rationality when he gave the "more things in heaven and earth" words to Hamlet, rather (and amazingly in the age in which he was living), he was engaging an a very similar argument to this one. It's jut ridiculous to posit that "religions...hide from reason and make a virtue out of faith, out of not questioning". Some do, but you're making a serious scientific error on the lines of
"All dogs have four legs. This creature has four legs. This creature is a dog"