ChatterBank0 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.
Woofgang, can I comment on your question? One point often made by religionists is “what is to stop people raping and murdering each other if there is no belief in God?” which I believe should be answered with “Is that why you don’t?” I would hope not. So I would turn that round and ask is it only a belief in God that makes people nice to each other? I would also hope not. And frankly I think it’s a moot point and religion does not make people nicer to each other. Far from it.
I don’t object if religion makes people nicer to each other, but I would certainly question their motives. What is it they say? Oh yes. “I’ll get my reward in heaven”.
I don’t object if religion makes people nicer to each other, but I would certainly question their motives. What is it they say? Oh yes. “I’ll get my reward in heaven”.
Meglet, i get my reward here, if not every day then most. I am not even sure that heaven exists. I agree that there can be other factors that stop people raping and murdering as well as belief in God..the law for one! I am not here to support, excuse explain ANY organised religion or to persuade people to adopt my "way" I am just, like everyone else, stating my opinion because TBH I got a bit fed up of the usual "people who believe in God are idiots" stuff
Hi jomifl. I've only been arguing for the possibility of God: I fully accept that the question the existence of God is not subject to proofs, though many have tried, and many will be satisfied by the proof(s) they have, whether experiential or even philosophical. I wouldn't want to claim that God exists in the same way that Mount Snowdon exists, nor would I want to put God out on the far reaches of knowledge - I actually distrust the notion that "God" is the explanation of anything we don't know or understand. Any "God" worth putting faith in has got to be a lot closer than that.
I'm very unimpressed with the kinds of arguments that start with unicorns in the Amazon, or parallels with Father Christmas or trolls. Simply not in the same category.
There have been attempts to build societies on a rational, scientific basis, and certainly on an anti religious basis: the Soviet Union and communist China to name but two.
It's a personal conviction of mine that the worst thing that happened to Christianity was when Constantine made it a state religion. Whatever you may believe about the founder of Christianity, he and his early followers weren't interested in ordinary political or social power. Religions generally don't give a good account of themselves when they try and run states.
It's been a while since I last indulged in this particular debate: to everyone who has kept it rational, thanks for your contribution. It's been fun.
I'm very unimpressed with the kinds of arguments that start with unicorns in the Amazon, or parallels with Father Christmas or trolls. Simply not in the same category.
There have been attempts to build societies on a rational, scientific basis, and certainly on an anti religious basis: the Soviet Union and communist China to name but two.
It's a personal conviction of mine that the worst thing that happened to Christianity was when Constantine made it a state religion. Whatever you may believe about the founder of Christianity, he and his early followers weren't interested in ordinary political or social power. Religions generally don't give a good account of themselves when they try and run states.
It's been a while since I last indulged in this particular debate: to everyone who has kept it rational, thanks for your contribution. It's been fun.
Woofgang, I get my reward here too, but I don't need a belief in God to do something nice.
To expand on my earlier point, there have been some interesting studies done by behavioural economists that show that when a person is aware of being observed, they more often than not demonstrate altruistic behaviour. However when they are not aware of being observed then their behaviour changes significantly and they are far less altruistic. So I think that if a person believes their actions are being observed by God then they will act in a more altruistic manner. Is this objectionable? Perhaps not per se. But I would rather people be nice for nice's sake than than believe they will be rewarded (or punished) for their actions in an afterlife. If that is not a position you subsribe to then fair enough, but a lot of religious people do.
To expand on my earlier point, there have been some interesting studies done by behavioural economists that show that when a person is aware of being observed, they more often than not demonstrate altruistic behaviour. However when they are not aware of being observed then their behaviour changes significantly and they are far less altruistic. So I think that if a person believes their actions are being observed by God then they will act in a more altruistic manner. Is this objectionable? Perhaps not per se. But I would rather people be nice for nice's sake than than believe they will be rewarded (or punished) for their actions in an afterlife. If that is not a position you subsribe to then fair enough, but a lot of religious people do.
My position may be a little different. Just because I'm an atheist, that doesn't mean that I don't respect the right of anyone to believe whatever they want. There's a big difference between respecting people of faith (which I sometimes do) and respecting what they believe (which I don't). I don't believe that "faith is a euphemism for blind credulity." Blind implies that they haven't thought about it - and many of them have thought about it very deeply. To them, faith IS evidence. It's a long time since I read a Bible (I prefer to get my evidence from science) but I do remember a verse that says "Faith is the substance of things hoped for - the evidence of things not seen." You and I might see that as a paradox, but it clearly is meaningful to millions of people in the world. There is also a saying in science - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Atheism obliges us to be doubting Thomas's and assume that only what we see is true. But even in science there are many uncertainties - do parallel universes exist? Science never claims certainty - and I don't think we should either.
Woofgang, I don't think religion does make people nicer to each other - in fact quite the opposite. Apart from convincing themselves that their place in heaven is assured, even the religious who relish helping others carry with them the additional agenda of 'spreading the word' and hence potentially messing with people's minds. I firmly believe the world would be a far better place if religion had never been invented.
Zabadak, I presume when you talk about the founder of Christianity, you're talking about Saul of Tarsus?
Zabadak, I presume when you talk about the founder of Christianity, you're talking about Saul of Tarsus?
Hi again Zabadak, I was wondering if communist Russia and China would be put forward as example of states run on scientific principles. There are no scientific principals in politics. China and Russia were despotic oligarchies of the worst kind. Every aspect of life was subjugated to the political imperative. Some aspects of scientific thinking were perverted beyond recognition particularly genetics which had to conform to the party dogma in the most ludicrous way(look up Lysenko). Would I be correct in suspecting that the idea that they were run on scientific principles was put forward by a religionist with an axe that needed sharpening. Enough for now I am off to practice my saxophone.
Goodnight
Goodnight
Naomi 24 touché. I once had an interesting argument with Erwin Rosenthal, celebrated if slightly left field expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls who advanced the well known theory (from a Jewish perspective) that Jesus was a mensch, even a good jewish boy, but Paul messed the whole thing up and turned it into a religion. Shouldn't have left myself open by being so coy. Saul was not particularly enthusiastic about political power either: tended to be a bit too laissez faire for my liking. Jesus was the one who talked of his kingdom being "not of this world" "I don't think he meant Venus) and encouraged his followers not to look for power and precedence, Pity later followers didn't actually follow: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." (Chesterton).
Oh, and before anyone else starts up the stuff about how I can't prove Jesus ever existed - not to your satisfaction I can't. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying nanana I can't hear you.
Oh, and before anyone else starts up the stuff about how I can't prove Jesus ever existed - not to your satisfaction I can't. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying nanana I can't hear you.
jomifl I agree absolutely. I wouldn't say they were perfect attempts to run states on scientific lines, but that was their lineage - and not one just dreamt up by a religionist, whatever that is. See my comments on Christianity as a state religion just below your last.
I hope your saxophone music provides you and your hearers a transcendent experience of a world beyond worlds. The best music does that, I find.
I hope your saxophone music provides you and your hearers a transcendent experience of a world beyond worlds. The best music does that, I find.
Roy, ha ha! Yes, I'm quite certain that there is probably no god. :o)
Zabadak, I'm not asking you to prove to me that Jesus existed. I think he probably did - but since Christianity didn't exist at the time, the only perspective Jesus can be viewed from is a Jewish one. As unsavoury as it may be to Christians the fact is he was a Jew, he wasn't the founder of a new religion and he didn't lead Christians.
Zabadak, I'm not asking you to prove to me that Jesus existed. I think he probably did - but since Christianity didn't exist at the time, the only perspective Jesus can be viewed from is a Jewish one. As unsavoury as it may be to Christians the fact is he was a Jew, he wasn't the founder of a new religion and he didn't lead Christians.
According to Naomi Faith is considered virtue because someone tells us he has and we believe him. Although I am sure the subject of the question is that why should we believe him because he can’t prove that to us? Same way someone tells me he has headache and although he can’t show me that either but more likely I would believe him with no hesitation. Now where is the difference? I believe the only difference is that we might have experienced “headache” sometimes so we know about that and do not ask other person to prove that.
Now just imagine if come across someone who has never experienced headache. How would you convince him? You can’t show that can you?
Now just imagine if come across someone who has never experienced headache. How would you convince him? You can’t show that can you?
Naomi 24: What a strange comment! I greatly value the perspective of the Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes, to my mind one of the best and most rigorous commentators on the life, times and documentation of Jesus the Jew. I absolutely concur that he did not "found" a religion - for the most part, contemporary Judaism seemed to be sufficient for him, albeit with a few adjustments to mitigate some of the more fanatical extremes. No, he didn't lead Christians, but the evidence seems to be that those who got called Christians followed - or tried to follow - what they understood of him and his perspective not on the existence of God - that was taken for granted - but on his nature.
As for the communist states, I would argue that they followed a religion all their own, based on a bastardised "scientific" view of history and social order and hostile to more conventional religious expressions. Both gave way pretty quickly to personality cults in which Lenin/Stalin and Mao stood in as ersatz messiahs. Humans apparently have to have faith, even if it is in a bloke with political power and an unlimited capacity for deception.
Night night!
As for the communist states, I would argue that they followed a religion all their own, based on a bastardised "scientific" view of history and social order and hostile to more conventional religious expressions. Both gave way pretty quickly to personality cults in which Lenin/Stalin and Mao stood in as ersatz messiahs. Humans apparently have to have faith, even if it is in a bloke with political power and an unlimited capacity for deception.
Night night!
-- answer removed --
Good morning, looks like another lovely day
Hi again Zabadak, The lineage of the chinese and russian communist states had absolutey nothing to with science( though they may have claimed otherwise). They were based on the unrealistic ideals of overzealous political idealists and run by a self serving oligarchy bordering on the paranoid. You have accepted the propaganda of religionists(presumably) hook line and sinker. As I implied in an earlier posting, if you provisionally accept unverifiable statements after a while they become accepted as true in your brain. It is essential to question statements at the beginning preferably starting at an early age and before the irrationalists get a grip. If one has a reasonable mental model of the known environment then erroneous claims and attempts at deception will not fit comfortably into it and will raise suspicions. If lot of unconnected facts are learnt then lies and deceptions will just sit comfortably along with all the others.
Hi again Zabadak, The lineage of the chinese and russian communist states had absolutey nothing to with science( though they may have claimed otherwise). They were based on the unrealistic ideals of overzealous political idealists and run by a self serving oligarchy bordering on the paranoid. You have accepted the propaganda of religionists(presumably) hook line and sinker. As I implied in an earlier posting, if you provisionally accept unverifiable statements after a while they become accepted as true in your brain. It is essential to question statements at the beginning preferably starting at an early age and before the irrationalists get a grip. If one has a reasonable mental model of the known environment then erroneous claims and attempts at deception will not fit comfortably into it and will raise suspicions. If lot of unconnected facts are learnt then lies and deceptions will just sit comfortably along with all the others.
