Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why is faith considered a virtue?
144 Answers
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes he was
It's simply intellectual surrender - the equivilent to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening to anything you're saying"
But prove me wrong
Show me you're rational - pass Karl Poppers test
What edidence would you accept to show that you're wrong - I don't care how far fetched it it - acknowledging that something would prove you wrong is the tochstone of rationality
It's simply intellectual surrender - the equivilent to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening to anything you're saying"
But prove me wrong
Show me you're rational - pass Karl Poppers test
What edidence would you accept to show that you're wrong - I don't care how far fetched it it - acknowledging that something would prove you wrong is the tochstone of rationality
-- answer removed --
jomifl: Thanks, it's good to get a response that relies on reason rather than invective. I kind of agree that religion, and especially dogmatic religion, can be a problem (that's probably an understatement of where I'm coming from. I think there's a big difference between the kind of faith which is defined in terms of "my system is right and anything else is wrong" and faith/trust that we are more than the sum of our parts. Religion at its best gives scope and expression to that human search for truth, as does science at its best. SOME forms of science fit quite happily into that "I'm right, you're wrong" category, pronouncing on things it has no business spouting about. Music is a very good case in point: scientific analysis of music at best is only marginal in helping us to appreciate its beauty or the alternative universes it opens up for us.
I know Steve - but there is this great religion myth that science is based as much on faith as religion and I can't let it pass unchallenged.
Without wanting to draw a comparison between the actual ideas - you wouldn't let it pass if someone tried to claim that racism was or should be a perfectly acceptable ideology
In the same way I feel too many people have worked too hard and suffered too much to let pass the idea that science is really just the same as religion when you boil it all down
Without wanting to draw a comparison between the actual ideas - you wouldn't let it pass if someone tried to claim that racism was or should be a perfectly acceptable ideology
In the same way I feel too many people have worked too hard and suffered too much to let pass the idea that science is really just the same as religion when you boil it all down
Jake-the-Peg: If (as some scientists have claimed to show) race was a contributing factor in intelligence levels or even moral sense (racism of a kind) why would that not be acceptable? Where do you get this notion that racism is not a perfectly acceptable ideology?
Please don't assume from this that I espouse a racist attitude. I am merely hypothesising.
Please don't assume from this that I espouse a racist attitude. I am merely hypothesising.
Jake the peg
Can I conceive of something that would prove me wrong. Well, let me see. I believe that there is more to life and understanding the universe in which we live than can be resolved by pure reason: I've already given some of the categories that I think fall outside the scientific method. I have not argued that "science is based as much on faith as religion" (not quite anyway). Nor have I argued that science is just the same as religion. Is there more out there than we can test? I think there is, and ironically (Steve 5) I think notions of good and evil are themselves part of the demonstration. I'm not sure what test could be devised to establish once and for all that scientific mechanism is all there is. Perhaps you'd like to propose one?
Can I conceive of something that would prove me wrong. Well, let me see. I believe that there is more to life and understanding the universe in which we live than can be resolved by pure reason: I've already given some of the categories that I think fall outside the scientific method. I have not argued that "science is based as much on faith as religion" (not quite anyway). Nor have I argued that science is just the same as religion. Is there more out there than we can test? I think there is, and ironically (Steve 5) I think notions of good and evil are themselves part of the demonstration. I'm not sure what test could be devised to establish once and for all that scientific mechanism is all there is. Perhaps you'd like to propose one?
We know that there are more things out there than we can test that is so obviously true that it is a straw man argument.
However the fact that we may never be able to prove seperate Universes is no reason to believe in Father Christmas or trolls.
You don't need to know everything to realise that belief in a God is irrational.
You appear to be dodging the question on evidence so let me clarify.
Is there any evidence that you can conceive of that would cause you to believe that there is no higher entity commonly referred to as God?
However the fact that we may never be able to prove seperate Universes is no reason to believe in Father Christmas or trolls.
You don't need to know everything to realise that belief in a God is irrational.
You appear to be dodging the question on evidence so let me clarify.
Is there any evidence that you can conceive of that would cause you to believe that there is no higher entity commonly referred to as God?
i have every faith that chakkas question about unicorns in the amazon forest will be answered one day.
personally i woulnd't think you were a nutter. a bit like those who say they see ghosts. its what they believe in, however spurious. just happpy to let you and them ghostielovers sit in a corner and dwell in your own beliefs.
personally i woulnd't think you were a nutter. a bit like those who say they see ghosts. its what they believe in, however spurious. just happpy to let you and them ghostielovers sit in a corner and dwell in your own beliefs.
Hi Jake. Thanks for clarifying. So far we have been debating "faith", the acceptance of ideas when there is insufficient scientific evidence to back them up. I have been arguing that there are some aspects of human experience which are outside of the category of "things that cane be verified by scientific method" - not just stuff we don't know yet, but stuff for which scientific method is inappropriate. Believing in parallel universes or not only matters to me if we can find a way of dodging between them: it doesn't come into the same category as (for example) concepts of good and evil which you seem to espouse when you suggest racism as a practice we would all regard as evil. I'm quite happy to accept that, within such terms, a lot of what believing in religion produces is "evil" - we can all trot down the list, and if we feel like it, show that trying to build a society on scientific method hasn't got too good a track record either.
For my part, I haven't owned up to believing in "a God or higher power". I just don't see how scientific method can be applied to this category. I don't see how any kind of experimental method can rule out (or in) the possibility. Feel free to propose one.
For my part, I haven't owned up to believing in "a God or higher power". I just don't see how scientific method can be applied to this category. I don't see how any kind of experimental method can rule out (or in) the possibility. Feel free to propose one.
Chakkas original comment was "why is faith considered a virtue?". Contained within the statement was the mention of religionists - so we all know that the type of faith that chakka is specifically referring to is that of religious faith.
We have, I think, also all agreed that faith, in this context, is the belief in a "higher power" or supernatural being, in the absence of any sort of compelling evidence. And yet, such faith is applauded and paraded by the faithful themselves, for no very good reason that I can see.
I would agree with the point underpinning chakkas question - such religiously inspired faith is deserving of no special respect, nor would I consider it a virtue.
I have no quibble with individuals if they wish to partake of a religion - But they should be challenged at every step when they preach the superiority of their moral compass, or deny scientific fact in favour of a belief construct.
We have, I think, also all agreed that faith, in this context, is the belief in a "higher power" or supernatural being, in the absence of any sort of compelling evidence. And yet, such faith is applauded and paraded by the faithful themselves, for no very good reason that I can see.
I would agree with the point underpinning chakkas question - such religiously inspired faith is deserving of no special respect, nor would I consider it a virtue.
I have no quibble with individuals if they wish to partake of a religion - But they should be challenged at every step when they preach the superiority of their moral compass, or deny scientific fact in favour of a belief construct.
"I would agree with the point underpinning chakkas question - such religiously inspired faith is deserving of no special respect, nor would I consider it a virtue.
I have no quibble with individuals if they wish to partake of a religion - But they should be challenged at every step when they preach the superiority of their moral compass, or deny scientific fact in favour of a belief construct."
As the first answerer, a self confessed person of faith I agree with you.
I have no quibble with individuals if they wish to partake of a religion - But they should be challenged at every step when they preach the superiority of their moral compass, or deny scientific fact in favour of a belief construct."
As the first answerer, a self confessed person of faith I agree with you.
That's the problem in my view Naomi.
We are expected to give special pivileges and allowances because of religion and that is wrong in my view.
Why is the church any more worthy of my respect than say, Sainsbury's?
Why must children be taught religion in schools at all?
Why should religious movements be free from constraints of the law that I am not free from?
I see no virtue in irrational beliefs.
We are expected to give special pivileges and allowances because of religion and that is wrong in my view.
Why is the church any more worthy of my respect than say, Sainsbury's?
Why must children be taught religion in schools at all?
Why should religious movements be free from constraints of the law that I am not free from?
I see no virtue in irrational beliefs.
Science deals with discovering and understanding the nature of existants. Within that discipline 'god' is nowhere to be found. It is the furthering of our understanding about the nature of nature that excludes the possibility of that which in principle must exist to be investigated. It is not science which exhibits the propensity to ride on the coattails of religion . . . it is in fact the other way 'round.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago