On Faith & Reason

[cybercoma]

religious faith has not.

Even as an atheist, I would disagree with this. I wish I had the energy to expound at length about it, but suffice it to say that I believe religious faith has brought us understanding into the nature of what it means to be human, the meaning of life and informs us of humanity's ways of struggling with mortality. These are things that "science" cannot touch. There's an element to human "consciousness" that is not merely a psychological process. There's a "spirit", and I don't necessarily mean soul, within all of us that shapes a broader collective social spirit, but is also shaped by it in an dynamic relationship that I don't believe can be explained by science. However, I still don't attribute these characteristics to God. This is something particular to being human and as such is not beyond humanity, but the very essence of it.

[cybercoma]

And can I just say this is one of the best topics this Religion & Politics forum has had. Great conversation in here.

[Oleg Bach]

God would favour the freedom fighter that we refere to as athesist - more so than the drone like dogmanitc devouted religious jerk...religion is politics and politics can not be trusted - at least the atheist can say one thing ---that they at least tried to be good and God like rather than behave like a cluster of bowing insects.

[Oleg Bach]

It is more and more difficult to find reason within complexity - it is a fleeting task. Religion is super complex and is altered constantly to supposedly fit the times...just like polls and politics...those in power do not want to lose power so they grant what they think the population wants - for instance if radical Muslims are full of hate - Islam grants them hate objects - it's all about emotion and the control of people through the complex and wavering cloud that is politics and religion - again - atheists are more holy than so-called believers - at least atheists practice free will and mind - exactly what God expects out of humanity - to reach the God head - not the dog head - that will say and do all perverse things for a chunch of meat.

[Michael Hardner]

It is more and more difficult to find reason within complexity - it is a fleeting task.

Reason is difficult... reading your post, I think there's something unnatural about it, as unnatural as civilized behavior is itself in a way. We have natural feelings of belonging, trust to those we love and avoidance to outsiders. Reason puts all people on an equal scale when it comes to facts and thinking: no fact should be discounted based on whom it came from.

More thoughts on this...

Reason has to be taught. Although we are natural thinkers, the modes of thought (language, mathematics) are learned.

Faith is born within us, in the form of trust. We have faith in our mothers from the time we're born, but somebody has to teach us to think.

Religious faith is, in the end, faith in people - that is, faith in the holy word that we are taught by ... our families, our elders, our community. So in the broader sense we all have a kind of faith. No one would believe in any theology unless it was explained to them by someone they trust.

For the thinking person, reason will always have an end and for some of these people faith can fill the void. There are, for example, religious scientists (real scientists) who believe in an afterlife and so on.

Just as we all have to work this out individually, we also constantly rework the relationship over all of society.

[Shwa]

On my faith ? Not at all. The question is whether people in general believe in science because they make a deep assessment of how much science has helped humankind, or due to faith. It seems to me that 'faith' in this sense can also mean following the wisdom of the crowd, whether the crowd follows religion or science.

The test of what people believe is based on their acts, such as flipping on a light switch, putting some groceries in the fridge or putting some gas in the car. Most people have a reasonable idea of how such things work, and an even better sense that should they not know, they can certainly find out to a very granular degree. Moreso nowadays, especially when they turn on the computer and go on the Internet.

People don't have faith in papal bulls, but maybe something else has replaced that ? How about popular consensus on things, such as that cutting taxes helps the economy ?

Papal bulls were the equivalent to laws. People had faith in them and still hold faith in the theological laws that are taught to them by their priests and ministers. But theological law no longer equates to civil law, let along philosophical law, if there is such a thing.

Not for me... but I think about things too much.

The self-reflective person may consider where their knowledge ends, and where their faith (if any) begins. The non-self-reflective person may simply believe what others tell them... which is faith.

I don't believe there is a non-self-reflective person in the world except for maybe the extremely mentally ill who lack insight into their illness.

However, not all areas of enquiry are self-reflective, or self-reflective to any certain degree so there will always be followers. But in the end, unless they spend their days in a yurt in Algonquin Park, their life is unavoidably saturated in the stuff of reason and they usually proceed along those lines.

Maybe. This conversation is bringing out these ideas for me just now, although I think I've thought about them before. I point this out for two reasons: one, so that you know that I'm not arguing a dogmatic position but rather exploring these ideas with you and two, to thank you for taking me on a small journey of thought and learning here.

I don't think you are a dogmatic type person, but more reasonable.

[ToadBrother]

Your post makes me think of something else: faith in science, and in scientific knowledge. Science can only tell us very little about the known universe, however it continues because we believe in it. It has helped us.

It continues because provides reliable results.

Can we prove it ? Is it a known fact that we're "better" than we would have been ?

There's an old expression in scientific circles; proof is for mathematics and liquor. Science provides the best explanations based on the evidence. It does not give certainty, save that certain theories are probably sufficiently well demonstrated that they approach, as much as anything can, truth.

As to whether we're better or not, well, let's see, we live longer, are generally far healthier, better educated and wealthier than we were before. A lot of that is down to science.

Some would say not; Jared Diamond, for example, has recently posted a condemnation of agriculture ("The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race") which is arguably the oldest civilizing technology we have.

I think Diamond's probably being a little tongue-in-cheek here. Without agriculture, there would be no large scale civilization. It's not an entirely positive development, but I'm awfully glad I'm sitting at a computer right now using my literacy skills that stem directly from the kind of societies that agriculture made possible, and not playing the much harder game of hunter-gatherer.

Would you care to live in a world where average lifespans where under 40, where there were no antibiotics, no prenatal care, where odds were that half your offspring would die before they reached their teenage years, where a large portion of every single day was dedicated one way or another to the direct activity of seeking food?

Besides, agriculture was invented thousands of years before even rudimentary science was developed.

Edited September 30, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Reason is difficult... reading your post, I think there's something unnatural about it, as unnatural as civilized behavior is itself in a way. We have natural feelings of belonging, trust to those we love and avoidance to outsiders. Reason puts all people on an equal scale when it comes to facts and thinking: no fact should be discounted based on whom it came from.

More thoughts on this...

Reason has to be taught. Although we are natural thinkers, the modes of thought (language, mathematics) are learned.

Faith is born within us, in the form of trust. We have faith in our mothers from the time we're born, but somebody has to teach us to think.

Religious faith is, in the end, faith in people - that is, faith in the holy word that we are taught by ... our families, our elders, our community. So in the broader sense we all have a kind of faith. No one would believe in any theology unless it was explained to them by someone they trust.

For the thinking person, reason will always have an end and for some of these people faith can fill the void. There are, for example, religious scientists (real scientists) who believe in an afterlife and so on.

Just as we all have to work this out individually, we also constantly rework the relationship over all of society.

That is as elequent as you can get - congrats on the clarity. Civilized behaviour is not taught - you are born with it - it is uncivlized behaviour that is taught. For instance a child sitting in a high chair is always willing to share their food...another instance - when I was very young my music teacher was this black lady with a brood of adopted black kids - They were the only black family for miles - infact I don't remember ever seeing black people ever - There was a son named Marvin - he was a delightful little boy - bright eyed and of wonderful spirit - after my music lesson - Marvin and I would go out to play - slide down the hills on his toboggan - I never once thought of Marvin as a stranger - or a person that was "Black" - he was simply Marvin - no one taught me the civilizing effects of tolerance...I loved Marvin for who he was - Marvin!

It is barbarism that is instilled in the young - it is taught - my friend Anatoly...was the son of some Russian friends - of all my parents friends his parents were different - The snarled - they hated they cursed - they taught their son the same - and I noticed that "Tony" when he had a son taught him to hate...in the end poor Tony suffered from cancer - he hated the idea of God - so I abandoned him to his hate and he died - which was wrong...I swear that it was prolonged intergenertional conditioning to hate that brought about his early demise....Michael - I do believe people are born in goodness - and evil is taught - evil is probably not the natural state - goodness and faith in God and goodness is probably the more natural state.

All that I have done that was evil within my life span is something that I had learned from others - there is no such thing as original sin - YET I have seen children that are mutations of nature - who are just plain nasty - and it would take a lot of effort to bring them around to a normal condition...BUT the condition of evil might just also be a biological dysfunction due to strange combinations of genes that should have never united to create a child.

[Michael Hardner]

The test of what people believe is based on their acts, such as flipping on a light switch, putting some groceries in the fridge or putting some gas in the car. Most people have a reasonable idea of how such things work, and an even better sense that should they not know, they can certainly find out to a very granular degree. Moreso nowadays, especially when they turn on the computer and go on the Internet.

I think you're right. The gifts that science gives are concrete and visible, and therefore we have faith in science. People had faith in the shaman, the priest and the medicine man but they couldn't deliver like science did.

Faith in science is faith in reason, not the same as blind faith or as pure reason. As you point out, there aren't any non-reflective people in the world but there are likely a large number who don't think about why they believe in science. They're not reasoning it out to any great degree, but their beliefs are based on a societal shift towards reason.

I don't think you are a dogmatic type person, but more reasonable.

Like I said, I think too much.

[Michael Hardner]

As to whether we're better or not, well, let's see, we live longer, are generally far healthier, better educated and wealthier than we were before. A lot of that is down to science.

I think Diamond's probably being a little tongue-in-cheek here. Without agriculture, there would be no large scale civilization. It's not an entirely positive development, but I'm awfully glad I'm sitting at a computer right now using my literacy skills that stem directly from the kind of societies that agriculture made possible, and not playing the much harder game of hunter-gatherer.

There is a serious body of criticism about the ills of our modern world. I take part in BurningMan, which is a festival that turns society upside down for one week in the desert. 50,000 people live with no money, no specialization, no modern identity, no conveniences and no rules. It certainly feels more natural than living off a specialized skillset, in an urban 9-to-5 environment.

Food for thought.

Would you care to live in a world where average lifespans where under 40, where there were no antibiotics, no prenatal care, where odds were that half your offspring would die before they reached their teenage years, where a large portion of every single day was dedicated one way or another to the direct activity of seeking food?

I couldn't live in that environment, nor could any of us but it's a bit of a false dilemma.

We could have more faith (in the form of trust) in our everyday lives, without losing the knowledge that science has already given us.

Besides, agriculture was invented thousands of years before even rudimentary science was developed.

Agriculture is arguably the first science and the first technology. I suppose you could count that stick that the monkeys used in 2001:A Space Odyssey.

[Michael Hardner]

That is as elequent as you can get - congrats on the clarity. Civilized behaviour is not taught - you are born with it - it is uncivlized behaviour that is taught. For instance a child sitting in a high chair is always willing to share their food...

Always ? I don't think so. You may have well behaved kids, which is skewing your sample set.

Michael - I do believe people are born in goodness - and evil is taught - evil is probably not the natural state - goodness and faith in God and goodness is probably the more natural state.

Maybe it's better to say that people's natural good and evil are easier to see when they're babies ? That they learn how to sublimate the evil urges and to be less selfish ?

In any case, 'civilization' doesn't mean "good behavior", it means behaving according to 'civic life', literally meaning life in the city, I believe. Mesopotamia was where we learned to be civilized, and they didn't have indoor plumbing either. Those cities were awful, brutal places but people at least learned to live with each other in a manner.

[Oleg Bach]

Always ? I don't think so. You may have well behaved kids, which is skewing your sample set.

Maybe it's better to say that people's natural good and evil are easier to see when they're babies ? That they learn how to sublimate the evil urges and to be less selfish ?

In any case, 'civilization' doesn't mean "good behavior", it means behaving according to 'civic life', literally meaning life in the city, I believe. Mesopotamia was where we learned to be civilized, and they didn't have indoor plumbing either. Those cities were awful, brutal places but people at least learned to live with each other in a manner.

Firstly - no matter how grand a city is - they are all shit holes of clustered humanity - living in their own crap no matter how perfumed that crap might be...it's still un-natural perverse and dirty - as far as healthy human existance is concerned. The kids I am talking about are those that are not my children but children in general that I have observed - as I said - all kids who are properly nurtured tend to copy the example - they enjoy the power of being kind and will not hesitate stuffing a bit of their food in your mouth - this might be partly learned but not completely.

Ancient places like Mesoptamia were brutal - but so is Toronto - We have learned to shine things up and are conditioned to be blind to the condition of suffering and common stress...we are told that which is evil is actually good - some believe it and others see it for what our modern city is - brutal - not much has changed in 5000 years - we still are pressured to run like rats...and careerists might put on nice clothes and a strong face but they are all stressed out and usually drunk by Friday afternoon in a vain attempt to escape the brutality.

If you look at modern urban life for what it is - you will frazle and become alienated and "disabled" as far as functioning in the artifical and brual environ - most of us are dellusional and suffer but dare not cry out..for fear of abuse - Interestingly enough - those that abuse themselves usually do it in order to avoid abuse by others - In other words if you whip yourself at least you are in control of said whip - Michael - I have faith in the natural world but not much faith or belief in human constructs - sorry...but I KNOW how good life could be - most except things as they are and suffer in silence ....

[Michael Hardner]

Firstly - no matter how grand a city is - they are all shit holes of clustered humanity - living in their own crap no matter how perfumed that crap might be...it's still un-natural perverse and dirty - as far as healthy human existance is concerned.

Yes, and this is "civilization".

Ancient places like Mesoptamia were brutal - but so is Toronto - We have learned to shine things up and are conditioned to be blind to the condition of suffering and common stress...we are told that which is evil is actually good - some believe it and others see it for what our modern city is - brutal - not much has changed in 5000 years - we still are pressured to run like rats...and careerists might put on nice clothes and a strong face but they are all stressed out and usually drunk by Friday afternoon in a vain attempt to escape the brutality.

Civilization is as it was.

If you look at modern urban life for what it is - you will frazle and become alienated and "disabled" as far as functioning in the artifical and brual environ - most of us are dellusional and suffer but dare not cry out..for fear of abuse - Interestingly enough - those that abuse themselves usually do it in order to avoid abuse by others - In other words if you whip yourself at least you are in control of said whip - Michael - I have faith in the natural world but not much faith or belief in human constructs - sorry...but I KNOW how good life could be - most except things as they are and suffer in silence ....

You're moralizing here, and it is distracting from the discussion at hand.

Reason and faith are neighbours, and they have to work things out - or more accurately we have to work things out for them. One or the other needs more space, as history marches on, for some reason. Maybe we've had *enough* reason, and we want to *believe* a little, and not think so much... or maybe we've had enough of slick talking demagogues, and it's time to think a little...

In either case, there's a fight a brewin' just as with you and your smelly neighbours.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, and this is "civilization".

Civilization is as it was.

You're moralizing here, and it is distracting from the discussion at hand.

Reason and faith are neighbours, and they have to work things out - or more accurately we have to work things out for them. One or the other needs more space, as history marches on, for some reason. Maybe we've had *enough* reason, and we want to *believe* a little, and not think so much... or maybe we've had enough of slick talking demagogues, and it's time to think a little...

In either case, there's a fight a brewin' just as with you and your smelly neighbours.

I don't fight with my neighbours...and my neighbours do not smell - the rich and the poor all get along in my hood - it is very civil...there is love in the air when you step out into the street...Michael - You seem to have this thing about making peace with everyone - when there is already peace - maybe you are institutionalized and behind the times? You might think that I am intolerant...the air is thick with tolerance in my world. There are unreasonable people in my midst - and I am kind to them - as for moralizing - we are not animals - even the old bikers that I know conduct themselves in a civil manner - because they are intelligent and know we must all survive and get along. "smelly neighbours" - where did that come from - prejudice or the lack of full informative communication from myself _ I will try to be more open in the future - I even have faith in the faithless.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't fight with my neighbours...and my neighbours do not smell -

Nothing personal... I just took this from your post above.

It's good to hear, but a sidebar to the discussion.

[Oleg Bach]

Nothing personal... I just took this from your post above.

It's good to hear, but a sidebar to the discussion.

The way I came to faith was through reason - prolonged thinking about issues concerning the human condition - I guess I am what they call a gnostic - salvation through knowledge. I did a study for a few years and tossed out the garbage _ I wanted to know the absloute truth - embrace cold reality - my faith came at a price - the abandonment of anything that was not logical - It did not diswade me or remove me from the idea of God - it just made it more reachable - more pragmatic...It was a quest.....dangerous - and daring - but it had to be done - faith delivers truth. BUT real knowledge and faith also bring on human loneliness.

[Oleg Bach]

Not to sound to weird - but once you step into the light - you can not go back - that is faith - to be totally alone in the universe with a cold and distant companion called God...scarey but someone has to do it.

[ToadBrother]

There is a serious body of criticism about the ills of our modern world. I take part in BurningMan, which is a festival that turns society upside down for one week in the desert. 50,000 people live with no money, no specialization, no modern identity, no conveniences and no rules. It certainly feels more natural than living off a specialized skillset, in an urban 9-to-5 environment.

Food for thought.

And what exactly does one week demonstrate? These people are bringing their food, water and other substances with them. Do you actually think that represents some sort of counter-culture anti-civilization example of anything? It's a festival where people act silly for a few days before going back to their real lives.

Agriculture is arguably the first science and the first technology. I suppose you could count that stick that the monkeys used in 2001:A Space Odyssey.

Rubbish. Science is a very specific epistemological system; methodological naturalism. It did not exist at the birth of agriculture. The early stages of agriculture were in fact rather brute (ie. slash and burn agriculture) and in the early stages actually considerably harmful to the local ecology; for instance some areas of Iraq cannot be farmed even today because poor farming techniques from thousands of years ago left far too much salt in the soil.

Not even the ancient Greeks had science as it has been known since the Enlightenment. They certainly laid some of the bedrock, but science is fundamentally a modern discipline. The first farmers in Mesopotomia, Egypt, along the Indus River and in China did not possess anything approaching a scientific approach. Trial-and-error alone is not science.

Edited October 1, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Salt in the soil was the result of one group vanquishing another - During wars the conquering forces would "salt the fields" . It prevents the common culture from re-establishing itself in the vanquished area - food could not be produced..It was rather an act of spite and made the land useless for the loser and the winner.

Agriculture originated the day a human being figured out that if he put water on a wild eatable plant - that he could do what the rain did - create more food than was available through the strick and unpredictable laws of nature. It was the manipulation of existing food sources - if a primative was feeding off of a cherry tree - he could stay longer by watering the tree...hence the assistance to nature is what created civilzation - not the domination of nature.

There was a time when a hunter gathering group could survive by working 3 hours a day....now with so-called civilization - the group must work 6 too 12 hours a day to survive - there really has not been any progress as far as the quality of human life on earth - other than perhaps longevity through modern medicine...perhaps a person living in the old natural world for 30 years had a fuller and more enjoyable life than the modern man who lives to 80?

[Michael Hardner]

And what exactly does one week demonstrate? These people are bringing their food, water and other substances with them. Do you actually think that represents some sort of counter-culture anti-civilization example of anything? It's a festival where people act silly for a few days before going back to their real lives.

Demonstrate ? It doesn't demonstrate anything. It's a party - a camping party. But experiencing it for that minimal length of time makes you appreciate the social clothing of civilization.

Rubbish. Science is a very specific epistemological system; methodological naturalism. It did not exist at the birth of agriculture. The early stages of agriculture were in fact rather brute (ie. slash and burn agriculture) and in the early stages actually considerably harmful to the local ecology; for instance some areas of Iraq cannot be farmed even today because poor farming techniques from thousands of years ago left far too much salt in the soil.

It involves observation, hypothesis and experimentation so agriculture is a form of science.

Not even the ancient Greeks had science as it has been known since the Enlightenment. They certainly laid some of the bedrock, but science is fundamentally a modern discipline. The first farmers in Mesopotomia, Egypt, along the Indus River and in China did not possess anything approaching a scientific approach. Trial-and-error alone is not science.

I think it's a little too stringent to not call pre-scientific method science "Science". Of course it was primitive, but there was something there beyond praying to gods.

[ToadBrother]

It involves observation, hypothesis and experimentation so agriculture is a form of science.

Surely you must realize that this is a ludicrous oversimplification of what science actually is. I'll repeat, science as we understand it has existed for less than 500 years. The ancients weren't idiots, but a quick glance at the amount of rubbish that got thrown in with reasonable deductions indicates that they did not have a well formulated methodology. Even by the Enlightenment, Newton could expend as much energy on alchemy as he did on optics and the laws of motion.

I think it's a little too stringent to not call pre-scientific method science "Science". Of course it was primitive, but there was something there beyond praying to gods.

It's too stringent, because to apply the term in its proper context pretty much undermines your point. I'll repeat, the modern notion of science did not exist 500 years ago, let alone 5,000 years ago.

[ToadBrother]

Salt in the soil was the result of one group vanquishing another - During wars the conquering forces would "salt the fields" . It prevents the common culture from re-establishing itself in the vanquished area - food could not be produced..It was rather an act of spite and made the land useless for the loser and the winner.

That's salting fields, a deliberate act (as in what the Romans did to Carthage). I'm referring to salinization of soils due to poor agricultural techniques which cause salts to concentrate in the upper layers of soil.

[Oleg Bach]

So nature is science? So the proof of the existance of creation is all around us..we are submurged in science - in creation - in law - we all live within the body and mind of God. It makes sense and it is reasonable that there is not much difference between science and God - as I have always said of Charles Darwin, he disected parts of creation...of nature and of law in order to gain a more godly understanding of science. There is no need in my mind for mankind to wage war - a war between God and science. People should relax and except the idea that there is no conflict between faith and science. It might all stem back to a type of jealousy or envy or rebellion against a father figure - a GOD....we see it in human behaviour on a daily basis - that those that come lately try to over power those that came before..Like a son who wants to take that place of authorship by ousting his creator - his father - I see it with my youngest son....BUT - it is out of order to mess with natural order - I have seniour authorship in the grand scheme of things - and when I disappear - he can take my throne - those who dispise the idea of a God are impatient and want power now---they do not want to wait for the natural order to complete it's cycle.

[cybercoma]

I'm being ignored in this thread. You people make me sad.

[Michael Hardner]

Surely you must realize that this is a ludicrous oversimplification of what science actually is. I'll repeat, science as we understand it has existed for less than 500 years.

Ok - but science as the pure pursuit of thought vs. intuition or superstition is more what this about isn't it ? When we talk about faith vs. reason, we're ostensibly talking about how these two modes of thought interact today, but this is an older question than 500 years.

There must have been a point in pre-civilization when somebody in the tribe was arguing for planting seeds in manure (based on observation) and a holy man was arguing for sacrificing to the gods.

The ancients weren't idiots, but a quick glance at the amount of rubbish that got thrown in with reasonable deductions indicates that they did not have a well formulated methodology. Even by the Enlightenment, Newton could expend as much energy on alchemy as he did on optics and the laws of motion.

Still... there was progress... someone was using reason.

It's too stringent, because to apply the term in its proper context pretty much undermines your point. I'll repeat, the modern notion of science did not exist 500 years ago, let alone 5,000 years ago.

I agree.. but I get the feeling that you're seeing this discussion as faith vs. reason - as in which is better. Humans evolved with both traits - the question I'm asking is: how do they live together in the individual.

Religious faith is faith in religious teachings - and teachings aren't possible without a teacher. So I would argue that faith is a form of belief in people. Religious people believe what they were taught.

Reason, though, is solitary. I sat in religion class and listening to the teachings came up with questions that didn't add up in my mind. Eventually, I gained a new faith in collective wisdom and in institutions and my religious faith declined.