Why does it make sense to rely upon "faith"?

[tonyrey]

Do you think you have rebutted the proposition that the most utilitarian and most reliable faculity that we possess is reason? If reason works as well as it does, then why migrate to something as fanciful as “faith”? Or do you think that my Uncle Louie is right about the composition of the moon?

By the way, I don’t think “faith” in any sense of its definition is anything other than “hope”. For example, if we say that we have faith that the moon id made of green cheese, doesn’t that more accurately translate to the hope that it is made of green cheese? We can’t know that the moon is made of green cheese because knowing is a function of reason. Faith is, I submit, a function of hope.

Faith in the power of reason implies that the power of reason is not an accident!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your “translations” would be ever so quaint were it not for their undercurrents of rage. They do, however, point up precisely why religion is so dangerous. Were it not for the secularization that the West has undergone in the last few centuries, and had the Church maintained its grip on western culture as it had in the centuries after Theodosious, I suspect that I would be in some Inquisitioner’s dungeon explaining my posts to you.

Will, you’re funny. Undercurrents of rage? We’ve been over this already. As I said before, “The translations were intended as hyperbole to emphasize how others might take your comments. Like I said before, nothing you said really offended me, personally.”
It’s disingenuous to use statements that were intended as a deliberate exaggeration to make a point as an example of how that author’s worldview is dangerous. It’s beyond a non sequitur.

Not to mention your gross mischaracterization of the Inquisition. First of all, most of what you’ve probably “learned” about it is a lie. Secondly, and most importantly, the Inquisition was never used to try to convert anyone to Christianity and was never directed against atheists. The Inquisition dealt strictly with professing Christians who were suspected of practicing Islam or Judaism but, more importantly, plotting to overthrow the government and return it to Islamic control:

"Isabella, in particular, was concerned about reports of conversos, purported Christians who had pretended to convert from Judaism but were still practicing their former religion. This was troubling, as it was reasonable to assume that those who were lying about their religious conversion were also lying about their loyalty to the united crowns and it was widely feared that Jews were again encouraging Muslim leaders to attempt the recapture of al-Andalus, as they had its original capture eight centuries before…

Despite its reputation as one of the most vicious and lethal institutions in human history, the Spanish Inquisition was one of the most humane and decent of its time, and one could even argue the most reasonable, considering the circumstances…

The Spanish Inquisition did not attempt to convert anyone to Christianity…

Torture was rarely used, and only when there was substantial evidence to indicate that the accused was lying…

In light of its nightmarish reputation, it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles.

If the Spanish Inquisition was, as historian Henry Charles Lea once described it, theocratic absolutism at its worst, one can only conclude that this is an astonishingly positive testimony on behalf of theocratic absolutism. It is testimony to the strange vagaries of history that it should be the Spanish Inquisition that remains notorious today, even though the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition." (full article here

So, not only was the Inquisition not nearly as horrific as you would like to think, it was also equally if not more politically motivated than religiously so. Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter as institutional atheism has shown itself capable of violence and destruction orders of magnitude greater than that of religion. Again, you are left with the fact that the atheistic regimes of the 20th century were responsible for more slaughter than all religious wars, etc. in recorded history. So if you’re going to throw stones, at least make sure you’re not throwing them at a mirage!

 

[tonyrey]

Will, you’re funny. Undercurrents of rage? We’ve been over this already. As I said before, “The translations were intended as hyperbole to emphasize how others might take your comments. Like I said before, nothing you said really offended me, personally.”
It’s disingenuous to use statements that were intended as a deliberate exaggeration to make a point as an example of how that author’s worldview is dangerous. It’s beyond a non sequitur.

Not to mention your gross mischaracterization of the Inquisition. First of all, most of what you’ve probably “learned” about it is a lie. Secondly, and most importantly, the Inquisition was never used to try to convert anyone to Christianity and was never directed against atheists. The Inquisition dealt strictly with professing Christians who were suspected of practicing Islam or Judaism but, more importantly, plotting to overthrow the government and return it to Islamic control:

"Isabella, in particular, was concerned about reports of conversos, purported Christians who had pretended to convert from Judaism but were still practicing their former religion. This was troubling, as it was reasonable to assume that those who were lying about their religious conversion were also lying about their loyalty to the united crowns and it was widely feared that Jews were again encouraging Muslim leaders to attempt the recapture of al-Andalus, as they had its original capture eight centuries before…

Despite its reputation as one of the most vicious and lethal institutions in human history, the Spanish Inquisition was one of the most humane and decent of its time, and one could even argue the most reasonable, considering the circumstances…

The Spanish Inquisition did not attempt to convert anyone to Christianity…

Torture was rarely used, and only when there was substantial evidence to indicate that the accused was lying…

In light of its nightmarish reputation, it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles.

If the Spanish Inquisition was, as historian Henry Charles Lea once described it, theocratic absolutism at its worst, one can only conclude that this is an astonishingly positive testimony on behalf of theocratic absolutism. It is testimony to the strange vagaries of history that it should be the Spanish Inquisition that remains notorious today, even though the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition." (full article here

So, not only was the Inquisition not nearly as horrific as you would like to think, it was also equally if not more politically motivated than religiously so. Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter as institutional atheism has shown itself capable of violence and destruction orders of magnitude greater than that of religion. Again, you are left with the fact that the atheistic regimes of the 20th century were responsible for more slaughter than all religious wars, etc. in recorded history. So if you’re going to throw stones, at least make sure you’re not throwing them at a mirage!

… A really powerful post with irrefutable facts.

 

[Gaber]

I would just like to point out the futility of all of the people on here who are trying to make catholicism and christianity a matter of logic. The whole idea of faith is that it is completely separate from logic. It is entirely illogical. Logic would dictate that one could not take a piece of bread turn into a person who lived 2000 years ago. This is why people who rely on facts and logic to define their world and their beliefs can’t reconcile with the pure lack of logic in religious beliefs such as this.

Hi Decarlec, Welcome to the forums! I am happy to see that your entry splash is a note of good sense. Looking forward to seeing more.

 

[tonyrey]

I would just like to point out the futility of all of the people on here who are trying to make catholicism and christianity a matter of logic. The whole idea of faith is that it is completely separate from logic. It is entirely illogical. Logic would dictate that one could not take a piece of bread turn into a person who lived 2000 years ago. This is why people who rely on facts and logic to define their world and their beliefs can’t reconcile with the pure lack of logic in religious beliefs such as this.

People who rely on facts and logic to define their world can’t swallow the pure lack of logic in the blind faith that rational, purposeful beings have been magically produced by irrational, purposeless particles…

 

[meme1961]

davidv;9452913:

I was referring cult leaders. The one that I recall is a group in South America. Was it Jonestown? Anyway, a few dacades ago. and of course, “true believers” (people acting on faith) periodically act out on some mischief. The horrific acts of the 9-11 bunch is another example of “faith” driven hysteria.

Yes, I also know it seems reasonable to you otherwise, I wouldn’t think you would hold such beliefs. My question simply is why? It makes no sense to me and I am wondering how it is that people of faith can hold beliefs which appear to defy reason.

Because what we have faith in does not, in fact, defy reason.

A possible problem here is that you may be working with an incorrect definition of the word “reason.” Reason is not restricted to natural philosophy. Reason is one of the tools, and part of the discipline of the general philosophy. It is only atheists, and mostly those who have studied no philosophy what so ever, who automatically limit the tool of reason to “the objective” only.

But, let’s start with the most fundamental statement of faith: “What I perceive to be real, is real.”

As we know, not all that we perceive to be real, is real. We also know that there are things we can’t perceive, but are none the less real. As we acquire or create the tools to perceive more than we used to be able to perceive, we have faith that what we can now perceive (gamma rays, for instance) existed before we developed the instruments to “perceive” them. We do not, however, have proof of that. But reason tells us it is the most likely thing to believe, while simultaneously not proving that that is the case.

This, in fact, touches on the edge of the natural philosophy. It is important to note that natural philosophy (“science”) is based on a set of axioms . . . of statements of faith. Reason shapes faith, faith is the basis of reason. The two are not causally related, they are part of a whole (think: a rolling wheel, part reason, part faith), which is why Catholicism, the True Faith, is a religion of faith and reason, not just faith. Take away one or t’other, and you no longer have the Truth.

The existence of God is one of the easiest of the proofs in the general philosophy. I leave it to you to work out on your own, or to study in the works of the Masters, as you choose.

Miracle, by the way, is not defined for Catholics as you would have it. Same word, different meanings. Part of the journey is “learning to speak Catholic”, and that task is non-trivial, take it from a former Protestant!

 

[meme1961]

Over-reacting? to something as trivial as being called ignorant?

Is it so impossible as to toally defy consideration? I am ignorant about an infinite number of things. How about you?

Altogether, I am not sure that we disagree on the way we should live our lives at least not in the essentials of doing good, avoiding hypocracy, treating others fairly, being civil as well as many of the core teachings of Christ (examples of which I alluded to above, eg the “eye/plank” principle).

Thank you for laying out part of your faith. Please now give a reasoned argument to justify it.

However, where we “disconnect” is when I ask: why do these priciples, on which we have no disagreement, have to be bound up with the mysticism that your faith teaches?

For starters, it is not mysticism. This is your fundamental mistake.

As I have argued before, my perception is that , in the extreme, faith drives some rather ugly impulses.

It also drives a lot of the most beautiful and meaningful actions ever recorded in human history.

To speak of faith, without specifying what you believe in is to deliberately obfuscate the dialogue.

I cited Jonestown as an example in one of my “post musings”, but, all faiths, it seems to me, have the potential to manifest in hyper-ugly form.

Blind faith can justify anything. Fortunately, Catholicism is not a religion of blind faith.

But the blind faith of atheism has murdered more than 156 million human beings in the last 110 years.

Faith has also created the longest lived, largest, most influential charitable instution on Earth: Holy Mother Church.

Again: it isn’t a question of whether or not you have faith. All human beings have faith. That is pretty much what defines “to be” human: human beings are the animal that believes.

The question is: what do you believe in, and why?

Christianity’s history in Europe, after it gained the favor of political power waxed as violently as any other during various periods.

Wrong. When science is mis-used for political purposes, does that prove that science is evil?

When God’s Church was hi-jacked by politician’s, to be used as a tool for political purposes, those politicians did evil. But this historical evil is not a history of Christianity, it is yet another historical example of good things being mis-used by human beings to gain evil ends.

In the last several decades, as the western world became more secularized,

And as it has, it has become more and more evil.

this has not been so much the case, but, always (in my view) that potential is there–seething, as it were, below the surface. Some of the anger I have felt directed toward me ( “ignorant heretics”, for example) is some evidence (at least to me) of the rage that is always just under the surface.

Look around, and you will seek historical examples of secularism demonstrating blind faith, seething rage, and many murderous impulses.

Where we disagree of couse is how we fix “us”. I think the days of mysticism must come to an end and we must embark on a reason based quest for a proper ethic, a proper worldview (what the Germans would call a weltanschalung) and a methodolgy toward problem resolution grounded in science.

I agree. I did that. Which is why I converted to Catholicism.

My conversion was the result of one of the most intense, longest, most carefully reasoned arguments I have ever made.

I hope this clarifies my position.

How can one believe that one does not believe? This is something you still need to clarify.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think a better question would have been when does it make sense to rely on faith.

 

[meme1961]

I would just like to point out the futility of all of the people on here who are trying to make catholicism and christianity a matter of logic. The whole idea of faith is that it is completely separate from logic. It is entirely illogical. Logic would dictate that one could not take a piece of bread turn into a person who lived 2000 years ago. This is why people who rely on facts and logic to define their world and their beliefs can’t reconcile with the pure lack of logic in religious beliefs such as this.

You misunderstood. Catholicisim is a religion of faith and reason. You made the jump to logic (in effect, you created a straw man argument).

Catholicism is not a religion of pure faith, either, thus your second point is also a straw man.

You are also incorrect in defining faith as totally separate from “logic”. Faith and reason are two parts of a whole when it comes to knowing the Truth. Reason, lacking faith, has no foundation and collapses into irrelevance. Faith, lacking reason, is nothing but pure, human construct, and thus has no anchor. It is only when we don’t try to artificially separate the Truth into two falsely independent things that we can, in fact, find the Truth.

Logic will not tell you anything you don’t already know. To know, is to have a “justified true belief.” In other words, before logic can even be used, you must exercise both faith and reason.

Thus, you can’t form your beliefs based on “facts” and “logic”. (Note: there are many different systems of logic. Which logic were you referring to?), because before you even have either, you have to exercise both faith and reason.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think a better question would have been when does it make sense to rely on faith.

As life is an ephemeral and unpredictable thing, we all rely on faith all day, every day. Every person alive, noone excluded, operates on certain assumptions that they themselves have not empirically verified. The notion that science is the only way of knowing undermines no less than one of the most fundamental elements of human society: personal relationships, which are, by the admission of our own language, based on faith.

 

[meme1961]

Do you think you have rebutted the proposition that the most utilitarian and most reliable faculity that we possess is reason? If reason works as well as it does, then why migrate to something as fanciful as “faith”? Or do you think that my Uncle Louie is right about the composition of the moon?

Yes, you have been rebutted. Because absent faith, there can be no reason.

Consider the maths. Any math, for that matter. All mathematical systems are based on axioms. Axioms are, quite literally, statements of constructed faith. Math, of course, has no relationship to reality, thus one can choose any axioms one wishes when constructing a mathematical system.

Absent such axioms, no process of mathematical reasoning or logic can be performed, as no mathematical system even exists.

Faith is the foundation of a system of reasoning. Your lack of self-introspection prevents you from being cognizant of what you believe in, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do have faith. Faith is neither “fanciful”, nor less utilitarian or less reliable than reason. In point of fact, faith is the first cause, though absent reason, faith is like a mathematical system . . . there is no relationship to reality.

By the way, I don’t think “faith” in any sense of its definition is anything other than “hope”.

Thus your misunderstanding . . . we aren’t even speaking the same language.

For example, if we say that we have faith that the moon id made of green cheese, doesn’t that more accurately translate to the hope that it is made of green cheese?

No. It means nothing what so ever, because out of context, I have no idea whether you believe that the moon is made of green cheese because you have a reason to believe so or not. By the way, why do you believe the moon is made of green cheese?

We can’t know that the moon is made of green cheese because knowing is a function of reason. Faith is, I submit, a function of hope.

Knowing is a function of both faith AND reason. To “know” is to have a “justified true belief.”

Note the word “belief”, which is a synonym for faith. Fundamentally, you must have faith to even start reasoning, and then you must have faith in what your reasoning tells you. Of course, all human reasoning is incomplete. Which is why you must have faith: to create the foundation of the system of which you reason, and to fill in those parts that you can’t reason about.

 

[nute]

Your “translations” would be ever so quaint were it not for their undercurrents of rage. They do, however, point up precisely why religion is so dangerous. Were it not for the secularization that the West has undergone in the last few centuries, and had the Church maintained its grip on western culture as it had in the centuries after Theodosious, I suspect that I would be in some Inquisitioner’s dungeon explaining my posts to you.

Stop Will. I reject your notion that secularism has saved the world and that sectarianism threatens it. The inquisitions of the middle ages are often mischaracterized. Often times the accused could say I repent and they’d be let off no questions asked. Another point Will, the church did not control local kings or politics in the middle ages. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for political, not religious reasons. Sadly, the king who ordered her execution is probably a relative of mine.

Peace in the world has not been achieved, yet there has been no shortage of secular attempts to bring it about. I doubt there are many atheists in fox holes, one comes to realize in war that God’s merciful hand is needed in the world.

I’d say that the one who is angry Will is you. People make mistakes when they are angry and they also don’t hear let alone interpret properly what people are telling them.

 

[ReapReason]

Stop Will. I reject your notion that secularism has saved the world and that sectarianism threatens it.

If its a choice between the inquisition and the secularisation of “law”, then I welcome secularisation.

The inquisitions of the middle ages are often mischaracterized.

This is true, but it would be an equal miss-characterisation to claim that unjustifiable evils did not come at the hands of the inquisition.

Often times the accused could say I repent and they’d be let off no questions asked.

Do you really think that this justified the existence of the inquisition?

 

[prodigalson2011]

If its a choice between the inquisition and the secularisation of “law”, then I welcome secularisation.

This is true, but it would be an equal miss-characterisation to claim that unjustifiable evils did not come at the hands of the inquisition.



Do you really think that this justified the existence of the inquisition?

Perhaps you should go back and read the article I provided for Will. Are you aware that the Inquisition, which spanned several countries, was responsible, on average, for only 3 deaths per year? And that the motivations behind it were more political than religious? People TRIED to be tried by the Inquisition rather than the alternative secular courts because the Inquisition was infinitely more humane.

 

[ReapReason]

Perhaps you should go back and read the article I provided for Will. Are you aware that the Inquisition, which spanned several countries, was responsible, on average, for only 3 deaths per year? And that the motivations behind it were more political than religious? People TRIED to be tried by the Inquisition rather than the alternative secular courts because the Inquisition was infinitely more humane.

Its irrelevant. Compared to today, this does not mean that the conceptions driving the inquisition and the actions that were consequent were morally acceptable or good for society. I don’t care how better-off a person is in a Catholic court.

 

[ReapReason]

listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/

“30 years later, the Council of Constance ended “the three popes’ reign” and elected Alexander V, who immediately denounced Wycliffe as a heretic, had as many of his books burned as could be found on the Continent and in England, excommunicated and consigned to everlasting flames from the moment of his death. In 1428, Pope Martin V had him dug up and burned at the stake.”

Reading this, I do not what any Pope to have political power ever again.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Its irrelevant. Compared to today, this does not mean that the conceptions driving the inquisition and the actions that were consequent were morally acceptable or good for society. I don’t care how better-off a person is in a Catholic court.

It would behoove you to understand exactly what conceptions drove the Inquisition, as well as what actions were ACTUALLY taken, before you make assertions about its moral acceptability.

 

[ReapReason]

It would behoove you to understand exactly what conceptions drove the Inquisition, as well as what actions were ACTUALLY taken, before you make assertions about its moral acceptability.

Do you have good reason to think that I don’t know? If not, your post amounts to nothing more than an emotional outburst with no content.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Do you have good reason to think that I don’t know? If not, your post amounts to nothing more than an emotional outburst with no content.

Firstly, there was nothing emotional, and certainly nothing of the nature of an outburst, in that post. I’m noticing a pattern in many conversations here. In lieu of a true counterpoint, a charge of being “emotional” or “angry” is thrown out where it clearly doesn’t apply. It’s happened in this thread, in fact.

Secondly, yes, I do have a good reason for thinking such. Namely, your previous comments which betray an extremely exaggerated sense of the "horror"of the Inquisition.

 

[ReapReason]

Secondly, yes, I do have a good reason for thinking such. Namely, your previous comments which betray an extremely exaggerated sense of the "horror"of the Inquisition.

Conspiracy theories aside, If that is really the case, and not simply what you wish to attribute to me, then you can demonstrate rationally exactly why my statements are exaggerated; rather than simply assert error where there is none.

Try to avoid creating straw-men when replying to this post. I know its challenging, but its certainly possible.