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?

[keyplus90]

Sherminator – What proof would you like to see before you believe in someone who tells you about Australia (as in my example)?

And once again what proof would you ask your wife/woman to provide you to prove that she loves you?

I will leave God bit as I do not want to change the subject.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, the subject's already been changed, so you may as well answer Sherminator's question properly rather than asking him a pointless question to avoid the issue.

[chakka35]

You're right, naomi: i do have a lot of reading to do and I'm so heavily involved in a project at the moment (and I don't mean the new Quiz!) that I will still have to leave it for a day or two.

The task of commenting will not, though, be as onerous as the volume of replies might indicate, because most of them, many of them interesting, do not address my question.

I did NOT ask:

Why do people have faith?
Why and how do people defend their faith?
How does that faith affect their lives?
What does having faith reveal about the mindset of the believer?

I asked: why is faith considered a virtue?

I'll be more specific and provocative: faith is easy and cheap. It requires no thought, analysis, reason or intellectual justification. A person of faith says, in effect: "This idea appeals to me. I will believe it. No..my mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."

People are fully entitled to make decisions like that, but why is such mindlessness considered a virtue?

[Old_Geezer]

I have 'blind credulity' in my senses, and my ability to reason. I never realised before, I must be some kind of nutter, it's not a virtue at all. I shall close down and not think or feel any more then. Ommmmmmmmmm.....

[naomi24]

I think I answered it Chakka - although I do realise the thread has strayed somewhat off course. (I already have about 30, but anticipate the inevitable slow down fast approaching). :o)

[mibn2cweus]

Faith in reason is quite possibly the most egregious application of faith of all leading one to believe they have the justification of reason for believing what they do while having negated the process entirely. Having faith in reason, especially with regards to ones own ability to reason without fully understanding the nature of the process, is in fact acting in defiance of and in opposition to reason . . . erm . . . in another thread perhaps.

[jomifl]

Hi OG, our primary senses are probably one of the most unreliable sources of information we have. What is warm to one person to another seems cool, some people are colour blind, we are colour blind compared to some other creatures that can see infra red and ultraviolet. Some people are tone deaf. Some have a poor sense of taste. I could go on. I might be able to estimate the air temperature to within 3 degrees C but a themometer can be a thousand times more accurateIt was only when science inspired technology to measure things against agreed reference points that any real progress could be made in expanding knowledge.

[Zabadak]

This is for Naomi24, on "the inevitable slow down fast approaching"
If I may be permitted, as an unenlightened lackey of religionists, disrespectful of other people on this thread, propagating arguments based on untruths, to break my own word and add one more comment. Though a newcomer to this side of AB (I normally confine myself to the Listener threads) I suspect one of the reasons the debate grinds to a halt is that people like me, trying cheerfully to join in, get seriously disappointed by the invective that comes their way should they cross some otherwise invisible frontier. You have been kind enough not to join in (though you did endorse the religionist comment!), for which my thanks and appreciation.
I suspect too our rather cosy thread has been usurped rather by the front page news that Stephen Hawking has eliminated the need for God once and for all. Now there's clever!
For Steve5, I believe in cricket and have great faith in the virtues it espouses and develops, which is why I am saddened by the current, apparent apostasy of those who reject its values and cheat.
For those who can't see beyond the notion that all people of faith are credulous, unthinking, irrational idiots without any redeeming virtues into some more reasoned debate, cheers, have a nice life, see you on the other side.

[naomi24]

Zabadak, you misunderstand. The slow down I referred to relates to the quiz that Chakka mentioned in his last post, which he and I do regularly. Nothing to do with this thread or AB.

[Zabadak]

Sorry Naomi, I did indeed misunderstand. Still, it got me back on the thread one last time, eh?

[mibn2cweus]

"For those who can't see beyond the notion that all people of faith are credulous, unthinking, irrational idiots without any redeeming virtues into some more reasoned debate, cheers, have a nice life, see you on the other side."

When faith is laid down as some kind of invincible trump card over reason, rational debate has ended . . . by default. Declaring that faith is somehow superior to reason works just fine . . . until someone with an ace high straight flush calls your bluff and demands to see your five aces.

[naomi24]

^^ Love it!!

[Zabadak]

Bless you! I'm glad you have such confidence in your rationality. I don't have any aces up my sleeve, and I haven't laid down "faith" as a trump card. I just have a lot of cheerful questions, the biggest, but not the only one, being "why?"

What's the point of all this hoax?
Is it the chicken and the egg time, are we just yolks?
Or perhaps we're just one of God's little jokes...

Is life just a game where we make up the rules,
While we're searching for something to say,
Or are we just simply spiralling coils,
Of self-replicating DNA.

(thanks Python, couldn't have put it better myself).

Reason takes us so far: perhaps to Dawkin's point that the question of meaning has no meaning. It's perfectly possible that the search for meaning has no answers, that it is itself a delusion, and if that's where you place your bet, good luck to you: I hope your flush doesn't get busted. That the conclusion doesn't work for me, that I prefer to go on exploring (and including fields such as aesthetics, the sense of right and wrong, transcendence and even spirituality), does not mean I am laying down my "irrational certainties" against your rationality or claiming superiority for faith over reason. My position is not "better" than yours, but I do not think it deserves just to be dismissed as credulous, unthinking, irrational, or idiotic. Your call.

[Zabadak]

Hi Noth3. I haven't actually read your post, but it's mere presence here has convinced me that it must be the most considered, insightful and conclusive contribution in all the varied history of philosophy. Well done!

[mibn2cweus]

Zabadak, Noth is apparently not the only one oblivious to the content of this thread although they at least have the excuse of not having read it.

If reason has failed to provide you with satisfactory answers to life’s persistent burning questions perhaps it is not so much a matter of reason abandoning you as of you abandoning reason in your search for a viable alternative. Inherent in the act of embracing faith is disregard for the means and denial of the need to confirm the validity of your beliefs.

Accepting that reason is limited is to acknowledge that reason is a process and is thereby limited by the extent to which that process is understood and has been carried out. That is no reason to throw up imaginary walls simply because you choose to be dissatisfied with how far your limited current understanding of the process of reason has brought you like a child who has not yet learned to distinguish its parents as providers from withholders. Reason is not an automatic process like digestion and vision. Reason is a potential which can only be realized by ones choice to learn the process and use it driven by the benefits derived from ones success in implementing it.

The deeper meaning you seek can only be derived from a prerequisite understanding of the basics from which it follows and the noble purpose it serves. The meaning of meaning is inherent in defining what it is, not what it has in isolation from that which gives it meaning, that which it defines; life, reason and happiness.

Supposition is the first step in acquiring and assimilating knowledge. But the process doesn’t end there, in denial of doubt and absent of understanding. Such is the empty promise of faith which can only be fulfilled through a process of verification and integration with existing knowledge through a process of reason. Reality offers no shortcuts to the satisfaction that can only be derived from the effort of achieving

[mibn2cweus]

. . . what is real. I tell you this not to be mean but because I don’t think you realise what you’re missing. Other than an irrational hope of getting something for nothing I can see no other reason for an appeal to the illusion held out by faith.

Perhaps I could go on but at this point I need some confirmation that I am not simply wasting my time and subverting Chakka‘s thread. I think that’s a reasonable request.

[Zabadak]

mibn2cweus. Firstly, thank you for taking time to reply. People on this thread have been too eager to categorise me as a religionist, a "blind believer" (ergo stupid, immature or whatever). I have been arguing that reason is not the only faculty that we engage when seeking to understand what and who we are, and what the nature of our environment is. It's a damn good one, and certainly helps to cut through the garbage. I have not been arguing that, because reason has its limits, we should therefore surrender it to any passing cultic fancy, a particular religion, or some other irrational comfort zone. I'm a fan of TS Eliot's "we shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time". I KNOW I haven't arrived yet, that's what makes life interesting. Care to define that sneaky term you dropped into the mix "happiness"?
On Chakka's original question, before it got diverted into other discussions. If it really is "Why is faith (defined as irrational/unquestioning belief in some religious system) considered a virtue?" then there's no worthwhile debate. Faith that is considered a virtue has more to do with the faithful, dependable, reliable aspects of that slippery word. Virtue itself is a pretty slippery term.

[mike11111]

"However, we must also question their intellectual credibility."

In that case, how do you explain the fact that some of the most intellectual thinkers of our time, e.g. the current Archbishop of Canterbury, are deeply religious?