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?

[jomifl]

Keyplus, it is interesting that you chose a headache as an analogy for faith. Surely there is more to it than that.
I imagine a headache could be described as an ache .. in the head. It might not convey the exact feeling but it would be somewhere near.
Likewise faith could be described as.. feeling at one with god or the universe... feeling an empathy with mankind... feeling that you belong in a large warm family.. feeling that your worth is recognised by a higher being... that everybody loves you.. Feeling that you will be rewarded for being good.
any of these? anything else?

[Zabadak]

Hi Jomifl. If I was accepting a "religionist" view of communist states, then I would concentrate on the atheism the leaders attempted to impose. I have already agreed that communist states were not a very good advertisement for running society on a scientific basis, but if you go back to their roots in Hegel, Marx and Engels, you meet with people who were most definitely attempting a scientific approach to history and the management of society. I have no quarrel with you on the megalomania, paranoia and of the leadership, but too often whole religions are dismissed because of the grotesqueness of their leadership - several current Islamic states, for example, Torquemada, any of the medieval bunch of corrupt popes, American cash register evangelists and so on. Communism was bad science, and rapidly became anything but scientific. But the roots are there. Science is not to blame, particularly, but denying the lineage is unsustainable in the light of any reading of history.

[keyplus90]

Yes you are right in that regard word “FAITH” is very broad. As someone earlier talked about love. Your wife/husband says he/she loves you. Are you sure? How can they prove? I believe faith mostly depends upon people and utmost trust upon those people. Someone comes and tells you (few centuries ago) that there is a place on the other side of the world (say Australia for argument sake). Now you have not seen nor is there any other way you can check that but it would all depend “WHO” told you about that. If he/she is someone you trust (depending upon other experiences) then you would believe although that still is blind faith. You buy on ebay and you trust person on the basis of rating given by others. That is faith too. List is endless but I believe we are talking faith in connection with religion and why is it virtual.

[sherminator]

"If he/she is someone you trust (depending upon other experiences) then you would believe although that still is blind faith."

interesting thought Keyplus. But if it was me and someone said they went to Australia I would need to see it for myself before i trully beleived! I would require evidence!

Same with Love. If a woman said she loved me I have certain values and traits that I would need to see and expeirience before I believed that she did love me!

So over to you Keyplus.....by your own definition.....prove to me that god exists!

[Zabadak]

Actually, and on the theme of faith as virtue, I rather think it's possible to have considerable admiration for those who continued to believe in the scientific principle as a basis of society in the communist states, despite the corruption, megalomania etc. of the leadership, as much as for those who sustained religious faith in the face of either state control or outright persecution.

[ludwig]

// Ever taken a car with a failed MOT to a vicar rather than a mechanic? //

Actually I did once. He told me to go away, because he didn't know anything about cars.

[society]

I've seen the headline for this thread in the grey box on the right side so many times, I thought the posts had accumulated at least 600 posts.

[naomi24]

zabadak, I'd call it an honest comment rather than a strange one. In an effort to endorse their belief the religious continually cite the views of 'experts' who make the right noises, but the right noises mean nothing because any 'evidence' we have is very dubious indeed. The fact is Jesus has been endowed with attributes he possibly didn't possess, with words he possibly didn't say, and with intentions he possibly didn't aspire to. The evidence of those who you say 'got called' is highly questionable, especially bearing in mind the myriad of alterations and amendments the gospels have been subjected to over the years. If we can indeed take the information we have as 'gospel' (which is doubtful to say the least) your example of Jesus claiming that his kingdom was not of this world appears to assume his intention was to form an alternative religion, but I would counter that with his instruction to his followers to 'keep the law', which strongly suggests to me that nothing was further from his mind. I think Erwin Rosenthal was right. If people really want to follow Jesus they should convert to Judaism. I strongly suspect that if Jesus knew what men had done in his name he'd probably turn in his grave. ;o)

Incidentally, with regard to communist states, I agree with Jomifl. You do appear to have accepted the propaganda of religionists.

I do hope Chakka is keeping up with this thread. If he isn't he has a lot of reading to do.

[Zabadak]

Propaganda of religionists? This is a historical, not a polemical question. Were Marx and his associates attempting a scientific analysis of history and social development? I have no difficulty in accepting that Russia was not Marx's chosen vessel: he expected his social programme to work out in Western Europe. And check out my caveats above. This is not a debate I'm that interested in, but I assure you I'm no victim of "religionists". Just a part time, dilettante student of history.

[Zabadak]

Hi Naomi (again): I liked Erwin, but his theories didn't find favour with many other scholars in the field. I rather feel a debate about Jesus in history might be rather sterile on this forum, with some refusing to accept any historical foundation at all, others wanting to push a particular theological viewpoint (rather like the gospel writers), and some, perhaps less afraid of the subject like yourself (if I've read you right) willing to treat the documents in the same way as any other historical resource. I do recommend Geza Vermes "Jesus the Jew" and most of the rest of his stuff as a non-polemical, genuine attempt to come to terms with the literature.

[jomifl]

Hi everyone, I will say ziss only once.
There is no connection between between science and politics.
Communism was not based on scientific principles, it was based on dogma just like religion and in time became a quasi religion as has been demonstrated by the millions of people who have perished in its name.
Anybody who thinks that science has anything to do with justifying any political movement has not the first clue as to what science is about. I am not going to explain it here because this is not the place for it.There are better qualified and more lucid scientists than me contributing to answer bank, so I suggest that if you want to know what science is start a new thread.
You may become enlightened.

[jomifl]

Hi keyplus I believe chakka said 'virtue' not 'virtual' though some, me included would say that faith is definitely virtual although they might dispute it being virtuous.

[Zabadak]

Hi Jomifl: I bow to your clearly superior knowledge and understanding. Will you tell Karl Marx or shall I?

[jomifl]

Hi zabadak, I am very sorry to have to tell you that Karl Marx the political idealist died quite some time ago. The other Karl Marx , the scientist, was never alive.

[jomifl]

Hi Zabadak, Karl Marx's opinion of himself doesn't really count for a lot, along with the rest of his ilk.

[Zabadak]

Perhaps we're talking two different understandings of Science. I always though it was knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematized and brought under general principles, and included branches such as social science and political science. Apparently that can't be true, as there is no connection between between science and politics.

[jomifl]

Zabadak, I'm not sure whether you intended your last remark to be ironic or sarcastic, it does not progress the argument.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Karl Marx was some kind of scientist. He was not, he was never educated in science, he never received any scientific training. His education was in law and he received his doctorate in law not in any scientific discipline. He had no more valid a claim to be a scientist than the pope
has or I have to be a lawyer.
Please stop attempting to promulgate this myth that communism was based on scientific principles, it was not.
Using arguments based on untruths disrespects the people contributing to this thread.

[Zabadak]

I am duly chastised. Last contribution to this thread.

[jomifl]

Politics can be studied scientifically, society can be studied scientifically.
Politics is about influencing people by using any means available whether or not truth and honesty is held hostage.
Science is about determining what is true. If dishonest arguments are used to prove a point then that is politics not science.