quote:*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
Sorry. I didn't read back far enough.
Noemon, I agree that Hari shows promise. The opening post kinda raised my hackles, but it was lucid and polite enough that my first response seemed grossly out of proportion to the perceived offense, so I didn't even post it. I honestly don't think he meant to be offensive, and that's half the battle. I, for one, hope he continues to post.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I realize now that at the beginning I was coming of far too judgmental, and that was wrong. I am a believer, and i do believe in sinful man, but I also believe in God's beauty, and love, and grace, and there is beauty and wonder in humanity also, because of this. I simply meant that coming to a realization in my inadequacy has been one of the most liberating experiences of my life, and putting my life in the hands of one much more capable has freed me from so much of the burdens of this world.
A wise person told me that fear is the absence of faith. Whether you agree with it, it makes sense today. We live in a world (especially in Canada) where fear is a reality, its on our news, in our schools, in the way we raise our children (if i ever have kids I can better speak on this then). We are bullied by fear mongers every day - bird flu, hurricaines, global warming, food poisoning, e coli, cancer from eating anything, fat is it good or is it bad? - i could go on forever. We are induced into scared little children afraid to even leave the house - we become the agoraphobic earth people Asimov warned of. But to me, fear is not an option. Why should I be afraid? I have faith that this is not the end, so all I can do is go on living and trust these matters are in the hands of someone much more qualified to see the big picture.
But just in case, I've begun a strict regimen of licking every chicken I see, just small doses at first so I can build up immunity, while sitting next to a microwave oven that is always running, sitting in my hurricane proof bomb shelter eating only red meat, no carbs, and powering it all with wind turbines, solar cells and a man made waterfall. If only my flock of Seagulls hair didn't require so much hairspray, oh well, these old spray cans aren't bad are they? CFC's are good right?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is one notion I must continue to refute, because it is dangerous and I will never agree to hit.
Rakeesh equates Humanism in its base form to being the golden rule, and also strongly tied to religion.
Perhaps in some religions, man is the center, and we can all take solace in the power of positive thinking, but this is not the case in a truly monotheistic religion, nor can it be.
To call a monotheistic religion humanistic is quite a dangerous path. It puts man above God, and if you do that, you aren't left with much of a religion. Now, I am not denying anyone's right to be a humanist, that is not my place, but I simply wish to make the distinction.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say "quite a dangerous path" what exactly are you referring to? Is there a specific danger you have in mind, or are you thinking more along the lines of a "slippery slope" and we don't know where we'll end up, but it won't be good.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
slippery slope - that's it... now to me, a slippery slope might be deemed a dangerous path, unless you were toboganning, then it might be considered fun, although your mother might still see it as dangerous, especially if she was a fear monger.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'll be okay, Hari. It goes in spurts. A conversation will have everyone intersted and move really fast for a few hours, and then there won't be anything going on you want to talk about for awhile. Or we'll all have yelled at each other enough that everyone gets frustrated and gives up, except for one or two die-hards. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is that life is usually wrapt in contradiction, and yet I have little doubt regarding my belief in Christ.
Hari, the mere fact that you consider it a "contradiction" to have non-Christian friends and family suggests that you might not be as full of "contradictions" as you suggest.
quote:Doesn't belief in evolution require the same, if not more, faith than belief in Christ?
No. If you want more explanation of why, just ask.
That said, a belief in the inherent goodness of humanity does require some faith. But, then, I don't think there's a single atheist or agnostic on this board who'd suggest that all faith is bad. However, the idea that fear is MERELY the absence of faith is, IMO, grossly flawed and potentially dangerous -- because it suggests that the presence of faith is somehow proof against fear. The mere fact that so many people can have faith in Christ and yet fear, say, the influence of liberals in Hollywood -- or the Rapture, or Muslim infidels -- suggests that this is untrue. How many people have faith in our country, or in their families, and still fear for them?
Fear is more than the absence of faith. It is the essence of attachment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom - I've read, I've studied, I've even once BELIEVED in evolution (belief - implies faith) - and yet it does require faith - were you there when we sprang out of nothingness? is there a fossil record of the nothingness from which we came? You have to have faith that evolution occurred because the record is so incomplete. And that is ok, there's nothing wrong with that, scientists use faith all the time - if they didn't have faith in their theories (a theory implies a lack of factual support, and thus faith in it is necessary) why would they continue to search for evidence for it?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:After reading of his life, it is clear that Asimov was an athiest, and yet he saw an inherent 'goodness' in humanity, a 'natural morality' if you will. Such a thing is a lovely pie in the sky idea, but doesn't have much grounding in reality. One need only take a quick glance within themselves to realize that most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
This is not true. I have taken much more than a quick glance within myself and others and have found a very clear universal goodness within people, which often can be framed as issues of self-interest (since many people are interested in being good) but which is nevertheless fundamentally good. Therefore it is not true that one "need only" take a quick glance within themselves to see what you are saying is true. You need a more convincing reason.
quote:Because if we were the be all and end all, wouldn't that be kind of depressing?
Why? Of all the things that could be the be all and end all of this world, I would think we'd be the least depressing. If God had a good reason for making the world, I would think "for the sake of human beings" would be a pretty good one.
quote:To call a monotheistic religion humanistic is quite a dangerous path. It puts man above God, and if you do that, you aren't left with much of a religion.
Why does a humanistic religion have to put man above God? That's not necessarily what humanism means.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, thanks. Slippery slope arguments are not very compelling, IMO. I mean by that that a vague worry of general decline is sort of part of the human condition -- each generation sees the next generation as...well...degenerate.
If all of that were really true, however, I think it's safe to say that human beings would have been reduced to a greasy stain on the forest floor by now.
The very fact of our longer-term survival through a long series of successively "worse" generations would seem to argue that there's more to humanity than sin and degradation.
Or, of course, God's (nearly?) infinite patience...
Ultimately, I think that religion operates best at the individual level. If you have personal slippery slopes, that's one thing. But slippery slope arguments for all of humanity are just not convincing.
For example, I know some Biblical literalists who assert that any departure from the exact wording of their particular preferred (English) translation of Scripture is a "slippery slope." They deny the role of the mind in interpreting scripture on a personal level. I understand the logic -- they need something "solid" upon which to build their faith, and they've decided that Scripture IS (must be) that solid foundation. I think they take it too far in asserting that there is no other pathway to enlightenment -- even among Christians. But they are HUGE believers in the "fact" that the rest of humanity is on a slippery slope because they don't believe like they do.
What I'm trying to say is that whenever someone identifies themself as a Christian and starts talking "slippery slopes" I tend to just nod politely and wander off somewhere.
Not that this younger generation isn't degenerate, mind you!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've even once BELIEVED in evolution (belief - implies faith) - and yet it does require faith - were you there when we sprang out of nothingness?
If you believed in evolution, you clearly never understood it. And, yes, I'm hardly surprised that someone who merely "believed" -- in a religious sense -- in a scientific theory had little difficulty replacing that belief with nonsense. (If you want to debate evolutionary theory, let me know and I'll dig up a few threads. Warning, though: historically, Creationists have had their hats handed to them in these threads.)
I submit that your use of the word "faith" in this context is somewhat misleading. By your logic, you "believe" and "have faith" in gravity, electromagnetic fields, chromosomes, and subatomic particles. "Faith" when used in a religious sense is not up to the same standard, I'm afraid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Ultimately, I have just learned to discount people's opinions when they stray from their area of true expertise.
It's possible for even a brilliant man like Asimov to have merely a layman's casual knowledge of a vast many topics -- especially complex social issues -- and his opinions should be treated pretty much the same way one would treat the opinion of just about any other person who lacks real depth of knowledge in a specific area.
I so agree. I remember when I first came across his Asimov on the Bible. My first reaction was to laugh. My second reaction was to wonder if he was as faux-knowledgable in all the other areas he claimed to be knowledgable about.
It's like Tom Clancy. I read Red October and the rest of the Jack Ryan books, and then he wrote The Sum of All Fears. He'd strayed into an area he didn't know much about, and it was laughable. The action was great. The dialogue was great. The plot was riveting. But only as pure fiction, entirely detached from reality. And it made me wonder if he was as inaccurate when it came to the Soviets and the Japanese.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By your logic, you "believe" and "have faith" in gravity, electromagnetic fields, chromosomes, and subatomic particles. "Faith" when used in a religious sense is not up to the same standard, I'm afraid.
Why not? We DO have faith in gravity, electromagnetic fields, chromosomes, etc, don't we?
The only significant difference between that faith and religious faith is that YOU have the former but not the latter. YOU happen to think that scientific evidence is a good reason to have faith in something, but "because the Bible says so" is not. That does not make your faith in conclusions based on scientific evidence any less of a faith than the faith of those who come to religious conclusions based on what the Bible says.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have faith in those things because of the evidence and testing that support them. I think that's a much more significant difference than what you're saying is the only one.
Added: Your last two sentences weren't there originally. I don't buy that proposition.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have faith in those things because of the evidence and testing that support them.
Why do you think religious people have faith in God? It's because of the evidence they believe they have for his existence - religious texts, personal experiences, observations about the world around them, or even the mere fact that people they trust told them it was true.
Faith does not just appear, even in religion. It arises when a person sees some sort of evidence for something - enough so to convince them that it is true. Even the Disciples didn't just believe in Christ for no reason - they had to see evidence of miracles first.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've read, I've studied, I've even once BELIEVED in evolution (belief - implies faith) - and yet it does require faith - were you there when we sprang out of nothingness?
Evolution is a theory of how life changes over time, Hari. It doesn't address how life began.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think religious people have faith in God? It's because of the evidence they believe they have for his existence...
I'd have thought so, but I've actually had several religious people insist that this is NOT the case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: There's a world of difference between the kind of evidence you're talking about and the kind of evidence -- and note that I also included testing -- that is used to support scientific theories.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd have thought so, but I've actually had several religious people insist that this is NOT the case.
Yes, but I am usually inclined to think they are mistaken. Ask them more questions and see if there really is something that led them to believe what they do - even if they don't call it evidence. I am religious and my faith is based in certain evidence - but not of the scientific variety!
quote:There's a world of difference between the kind of evidence you're talking about and the kind of evidence -- and note that I also included testing -- that is used to support scientific theories.
Yes, they are very different types of evidence. But does that make the faith drawn from one type of evidence not faith? I don't see why it should. That'd be like people who have faith based on an actual personal religious experience claiming that their faith isn't really faith, because their evidence is a better sort than those who believe based solely on the Bible's word.
It is still the same basic idea - jumping from a conclusion supported by some evidence to a belief that you have confidence in. It's still faith, or the equivalent, regardless of what type of evidence supports it and how good you personally think that evidence is.
As a side note, I suspect that you have tested very very few of the scientific theories you believe in. If you are like me, you have read most of them in books, and believe in those theories only because someone has told you that someone else has tested them and determined them to be true.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it boils down to "is this scientifically and independently testable," Tres. Even if twinky hasn't personally verified the existence of quarks, he knows that it's possible for people who try to do so reliably.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insisting that two things are equivalent doesn't make it so. I don't think your analogy is valid.
Also, I don't think your last point is particularly relevant. If the testers are trustworthy -- for instance, subject to the stricutres of the scientific method and peer review -- it doesn't matter whether I did the testing myself. Part of the point of science is applying a single "standard" to each hypothesis. Religion doesn't have the same rules.
All of this is to say that if you're going to define "faith" broadly for the purposes of this discussion, then yes, people have "faith" in scientific theories. However, such a statement does not, contrary to what you suggest, imply any equivalence between science and religion. The basis for and nature of the "faith" are fundamentally different.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it boils down to "is this scientifically and independently testable," Tres. Even if twinky hasn't personally verified the existence of quarks, he knows that it's possible for people who try to do so reliably.
Yes. Not only is the proposition falsifiable, but there is a mechanism in place for encouraging reality to resist that assumption -- i.e., the point of science is to keep trying to prove assumptions wrong. That's the core of how null hypotheses function.
Note, though, that "falsifiable" is a bit of a hand-wavey term. Elsewhere on this site, someone has raised the concern that whatever evidence comes up seems to be reinterpretable to support global climate change theory, and so -- in that case -- the falsifiability of the proposition is being called into question.
It's a good question from an intelligent poster. I wish I knew more and could puzzle through it for myself.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My faith is not based on evidence, it is based on choice. Now, having made the choice to believe in a God of infinite love, I see the "evidence" of God's hand in my life all the time. But my faith is not dependent on that. I believe that this core choice to believe is stronger than "evidence" - that I would still choose it even if my other senses couldn't support it.
And, Hari, Christianity is a pretty "big tent". I, for example, believe that we are created good, just as all of God's creation is good. And I recall that the Holy Spirit, which I believe is present in each of us, "with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified".
Good thing we got that monotheism/trinity thing safely categorized as a mystery back in the fourth century, eh?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tres - you see what I am getting at - thank you - my point is that faith is unavoidable, no matter how much evidence or support there is, we are still human, and as such, not all knowing.
Yet I would take it even one step further, but in so doing probably annoy everyone again - I have faith because I have faith, not because the evidence has led me in that direction, that starts to errode faith. the point i guess is that there is no talking me out of that faith - it is beyond reason. Now to many that probably is a terrible thought, but think about it. Has anyone here who has posted on this topic shown any indication that they might change their stance? Not likely - we all have faith that our ideas are correct - our belief is so strong, that while supporting evidence is handy, we likely would still hold on to it, unless some major evidence came to contradict it. All of us hold to some faith that is beyond reason (unless that reason hits us with a hammer and gives us no choice), and it is ok, no, not just ok, it is good. It is what makes it so impossible for us to agree on this issue, and yet it sets us apart. So, shall we take it on faith that we must agree to disagree?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
A wise person told me that fear is the absence of faith. Whether you agree with it, it makes sense today. We live in a world (especially in Canada) where fear is a reality, its on our news, in our schools, in the way we raise our children (if i ever have kids I can better speak on this then). We are bullied by fear mongers every day - bird flu, hurricaines, global warming, food poisoning, e coli, cancer from eating anything, fat is it good or is it bad? - i could go on forever. We are induced into scared little children afraid to even leave the house - we become the agoraphobic earth people Asimov warned of. But to me, fear is not an option. Why should I be afraid? I have faith that this is not the end, so all I can do is go on living and trust these matters are in the hands of someone much more qualified to see the big picture.
I can understand where you're coming from on this, Hari, and there are people of many faiths that would agree with you--it's a pretty central concept in everything from the Bagavad Gita to Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.
The thing is, if you're going to operate as though the material world is real, a little fear is a good thing. Too much fear is debilitating, obviously, but too little fear can be deadly. You know how mice have an instinctual aversion to the scent of cats? Take an ordinary mouse and let it catch a whiff of cat and it'll exhibit all the signs of being afraid. There is a parasite, however, that spends part of its life cycle in mice, and part of it in cats. When infected with this parasite, mice completely lose their fear of cats. I'm sure that it must be nice for them, being liberated from fear that way. Well, nice right up until the point where the cat's paw pins them to the ground, anyway. At that point I expect that it sort of sucks. Fear, in moderation, is an adaptive trait in the material world.
In terms of the threats that exist toward humanity, fear can serve as a motivator for positive change. We're scared at the moment the bird flu is going to mutate into a human to human transmissible form, and that fear is driving us to work on ways of limiting the impact of the disease once it does so (whether we'll be successful or not I'm not sure. I hope so). Without fear I don't think that we'd be motivated to try.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again Noemon, you've trumped me - i played the left bauer, but you still had the right. (sorry, i play too much Euchre)
I agree with you - fear, in moderation, as is the case with pretty much anything, is healthy, and important. But I still hold to my view that we are too easily swept up into a panic frenzy over every new little fear.
Take for example the "SARS outbreak" a few years back in Toronto. It pretty much destroyed T.O.'s reputation, and it is still recovering. But consider that only a few hundred people got it, and only a handful of those actually died. Considering that during the same time frame hundreds died from the common flu, its quite shocking how panic stricken everyone became. Food for thought I guess (unless you're eating beef... then beware of the mad cow)
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Insisting that two things are equivalent doesn't make it so.
Nor does insisting they are not.
quote:If the testers are trustworthy -- for instance, subject to the stricutres of the scientific method and peer review -- it doesn't matter whether I did the testing myself.
And if the Bible is trustworthy, it doesn't matter if we've actually witness those miracles ourselves. But how do you know testers and science textbooks and Bibles are trustworthy or not?
quote:All of this is to say that if you're going to define "faith" broadly for the purposes of this discussion, then yes, people have "faith" in scientific theories. However, such a statement does not, contrary to what you suggest, imply any equivalence between science and religion. The basis for and nature of the "faith" are fundamentally different.
I agree completely with this. I don't imply that science and religion are equivalent. I'm only implying they are both based on evidence, and also both require faith of some sort.
I feel the need to make this point because people often imply that because religion is based on faith, it is not based on evidence. And others imply that because science is based on evidence, it has no use for faith. Neither of these is true. What IS true is that science and religion are based on different types of evidence, which are convincing to different degrees to different people. And hence science and religion also require different degrees of faith for different people.
When Tom says that religious faith isn't up to the same "standard" as scientific faith, all he is really saying is that he trusts scientific evidence but doesn't trust the sort of evidence needed to believe religiously. And that's no suprise, because he isn't religious. But he should not expect his point to be at all convincing to Hari, who apparently DOES find religious evidence convincing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My faith is not based on evidence, it is based on choice. Now, having made the choice to believe in a God of infinite love, I see the "evidence" of God's hand in my life all the time. But my faith is not dependent on that. I believe that this core choice to believe is stronger than "evidence" - that I would still choose it even if my other senses couldn't support it.
But here's what I don't understand: Why would you choose to do anything unless you had a reason to? Why would you choose to believe without having a reason to think you should?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: I agree with you - fear, in moderation, as is the case with pretty much anything, is healthy, and important. But I still hold to my view that we are too easily swept up into a panic frenzy over every new little fear.
Now that I absolutely agree with. Y2K, SARS, Monkeypox, the subject matter of virtually any local 10:00 News broadcast--we're very good at trotting out boogymen to terrify ourselves with.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have faith because I have faith, not because the evidence has led me in that direction, that starts to errode faith. the point i guess is that there is no talking me out of that faith - it is beyond reason. Now to many that probably is a terrible thought,
Yes, to me that is a terrible thought. Without reason, faith like that seems very similar to the faith of a rabid dog that everything that moves is out to kill them and must be bitten. (Or perhaps a less agressive metaphor would be the faith of a drug user that, hey, it's all good.)
quote:. . .but think about it. Has anyone here who has posted on this topic shown any indication that they might change their stance? Not likely -
OK, if you wish to not annoy many of us, you need to temper sentences like this. Many of us may not have shown an indication of willingness to change our stance to you and on this thread, but most of us are willing to do so in the face of a well-reasoned arguement. I, for one have changed my stance on many things since joining Hatrack, and even more things thoughout my life. You don't know any of us well enough to make such blanket statements.
quote: we all have faith that our ideas are correct - our belief is so strong, that while supporting evidence is handy, we likely would still hold on to it, unless some major evidence came to contradict it.
I can't parse this sentence because it seems to contradict what you wrote before it.
quote:All of us hold to some faith that is beyond reason (unless that reason hits us with a hammer and gives us no choice), and it is ok, no, not just ok, it is good. It is what makes it so impossible for us to agree on this issue, and yet it sets us apart. So, shall we take it on faith that we must agree to disagree?
Can you show me which faith I hold that is beyond reason? And I'm baffled how you declare something "good" and then support it only with the idea that this "good" thing makes agreement impossible.
Furthermore, I don't take it on faith that we must agree to disagree. I may come to that conclusion (and quickly if you choose to retreat into faith beyond all reason), but I'll have to be shown through the evidence of corresponding with you before I'll accept it as true. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Ah, Dag. I thought you were referring to
quote:*laugh* Oh, my poor little victim.
, but I see you were referring to
quote:*laugh* You make some assumptions here that I think are grossly flawed.
Sorry. I didn't read back far enough.
Noemon, I agree that Hari shows promise. The opening post kinda raised my hackles, but it was lucid and polite enough that my first response seemed grossly out of proportion to the perceived offense, so I didn't even post it. I honestly don't think he meant to be offensive, and that's half the battle. I, for one, hope he continues to post.
Sorry, Karl. I didn't even see the second *laugh*.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now to many that probably is a terrible thought, but think about it. Has anyone here who has posted on this topic shown any indication that they might change their stance?
Well, yes. If you can prove to me, for example, that evolution is a load of bunk, I'll change my mind.
quote: When Tom says that religious faith isn't up to the same "standard" as scientific faith, all he is really saying is that he trusts scientific evidence but doesn't trust the sort of evidence needed to believe religiously.
Specifically, I trust both logic and reproducible evidence. It is my assertion that these are superior tools to those used by religious faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres - you are right, I do have a reason for my faith - but i still believe my faith came first. make sense? probably not... oh well
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel the need to make this point because people often imply that because religion is based on faith, it is not based on evidence. And others imply that because science is based on evidence, it has no use for faith.
I think those who make such statements are using "faith" to denote religious faith and "evidence" to denote scientific evidence. I tend to notice a different implication being made -- the suggestion of equivalence that I alluded to earlier. I think that may have to do with our respective positions. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: To call a monotheistic religion humanistic is quite a dangerous path. It puts man above God, and if you do that, you aren't left with much of a religion. Now, I am not denying anyone's right to be a humanist, that is not my place, but I simply wish to make the distinction.
Hari, don't you think it might be more productive to first ask what someone means by "humanistic"? I mean, you're assuming it means putting man above God. I don't think that's a correct definition of the term at all. It's certainly not the way I use it.
Dialogue works better, I think, if you first check to see that you're using terms the same way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, I think I understand what you are saying about faith. I think that my faith is similar. Where I have trouble is with trying to equate religious faith with belief in scientific evidence. It is like trying to compare apples and quarks. Two totally different processes and it is inappropriate and even dangerous to conflate them. While my reason informs my faith, it does not command it. I hope that, should I lose my reason, my faith will remain.
And Karl and Tres, I get that this can be a horrible thought. Faith that is beyond reason (not contrary to, but beyond) is terrifying. It is not safe. Whether or not it is good depends on what you choose to believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belief is such an interesting thing. In many instances, such as, I suspect, here, it serves at least as much to define reality as to describe it.
Hari tells us that he's basically an evil person, and I see no reason to doubt him. He probably does look inside himself and see no reason to help other people besides selfish ones.
But it seems to me that it's hardly fair to describe everyone as being as evil as Hari. For myself, I feel a strong drive to help others. It fulfills me, brings me joy, and is something I choose to do in an attempt to bring the world more towards what I'd like it to be. As part of this, I've met and befriended loads of people, from all different backgrounds - including Christians - who also are very dedicated towards helping others.
I've also, as part of my profession, studied groups and historical cultures where selfless altruism was the norm. Again, these groups spanned many different backgrounds and included Christians.
One thing all these people were similar on though, is belief. That is to say, in my experience not one of them believed what Hari said, that all people everywhere only help others out of selfishness. In general, the people who claim to believe this, however, do act like Hari describes.
For example, this belief has been found to correlate very strongly with the extrinsic side of the Allport's intrinsic versus extrinsic religion scale, so much so that it is often considered part of the extrinsic axis. And people who score highly on the extrinsic side tend to exhibit more selfish behavior and beliefs than both people who score highly on the intrinsic side and the population in general. For example, they exhibit significantly higher levels of prejudice, they show far less spontaneous altruistic behavior, and they show a much stronger affinity towards authoritarian beliefs and behavior. In the classic Milgrim experiment, they conform at significantly higher levels, which basically means they're more willing to kill people because a man in a lab coat tells them to. They display significantly lower levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity and fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
The world is a different place for these different groups of people, and, I imagine, for Hari and myself. But the main source of this difference seems to lie, not in the external world, but in our internal beliefs. Hari believes he is evil and can do no better. I think as long as he believes that, that this is going to be true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, this belief has been found to correlate very strongly with the extrinsic side of the Allport's intrinsic versus extrinsic religion scale, so much so that it is often considered part of the extrinsic axis. And people who score highly on the extrinsic side tend to exhibit more selfish behavior and beliefs than both people who score highly on the intrinsic side and the population in general. For example, they exhibit significantly higher levels of prejudice, they show far less spontaneous altruistic behavior, and they show a much stronger affinity towards authoritarian beliefs and behavior. In the classic Milgrim experiment, they conform at significantly higher levels, which basically means they're more willing to kill people because a man in a lab coat tells them to. They display significantly lower levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity and fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
Fascinating, MrSquicky. Thanks for the detail and references -- I'm going to look this one up.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I was trying to say (and I guess I didn't put it clearly) was that what was missing in his books was the fullness of character that OSC has, and from that I made the (unsafe) leap of saying that that fullness was derived out of OSC's faith.
In this "unsafe leap" you assume that all theists can write better characters than atheists. I think your "unsafe leap" is more of a cliff jump. You cannot take two books out of the trillions that have been written and make an assumption like that. You sound like one of my horrible English essays which makes sweeping assumptions out of very little to go on.
quote:We live in a world (especially in Canada) where fear is a reality,
Have some perspective. The amount of real fear and doubt (even for atheists) in Canada is minimal. Possibly it is one of the safest places in the world. If you see fear around you in things like the tiny threats of e coli and bird flu- if these are the sort of things that only your faith keeps at bay- you are seriously misguided.
quote:most of their positive motivations are based on self-interest and have little to do with a 'universal goodness'.
You assume that goodness and self-interest are mutually exclusive; you can be one, or, at the other end of the spectrum, you can be the other. You cannot say that because it implies that a person without self interest is totally good, which of course is untrue.
I can have the 'purest', most selfless ideas and I can be a brutal murderer. I can serve myself, and be loved and good. These two things are not on the same spectrum.
quote:A wise person told me that fear is the absence of faith.
EDIT: A lack of fear is the absence of common sense. What's that story where the man facing a flood refuses to be saved by a rowing boat and helicopter because he trusts in God? It is okay to be rightfully afraid of dangerous and scary things, because that fear is what drives us to do the right things.
I do fear environmental disruption, and so I try to reduce my own personal impact on the world. I fear dying or being injured in a car crash, so I wear a seatbelt and I drive safely. I fear the house burning down, so I blow out the candles before I leave the room and check the oven when I go to bed. I fear racism and violence and so I oppose it. Our fears are part of what makes us act the way we do, and they are part of what makes us act and achieve: if we do not fear, what is there here on earth to do- and you cannot deny that some things at least are wholly earthly.
posted
If I can dig up the the thread, CT, I did a whole tihng on this a couple of years ago, complete with some references. It went quite a bit further afield than this, though. If you're interested in following the idea I'd suggest locus of control, dominance/submission, and ambiguity/uncertainty tolerance as good terms to throw in as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. I remember that thread very vaguely -- I was in the middle of doing a lot in my life that time, and I wasn't doing much more than skimming. Glad it came up again. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They display significantly lower levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity and fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
And then they become Republicans...
Calm down, I was joking.
Seriously, I do think that religion of any "brand" can be used to either make you feel different or more "special" than other people or it can be used to encourage you recognize the inherent "specialness" in all of humanity, indeed in all of creation. I hope that I choose the latter. I try to.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You see? You're selfish after all. You only help people because doing so 'fulfills' you and 'brings you joy...'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You skipped the third part. And saying that is like saying that I only eat because it makes me feel good. It's absurdly reductionist.
I help because empathy and altruism are part of my core nature. If you want to label that as selfish, then everything is selfish and the term loses all discrimatory meaning. I help because it's what I do, not because I'm looking to get something out of it.
---
CT's here's the thread (I kick in around the third page). It's a lot less complete than I remembered but there you go.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Nice to have you around.)
