Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence.

Post Reply New Topic

I have just had a bit of a discussion regarding the historicity of the Bible, and his last post got me thinking. In it he stated that "I know it's not logical" and asked the question "but is faith ever"?

This made me question have I ever experienced faith? and I do not think I have,

My musings on this are;

Given lack of knowledge of the natural world I can see how superstition and therefore faith can occur, what puzzles me is the continuation of faith even though the person accepts reasoned argument and evidence which shows the framework on which the faith is based, is erroneous or at best deeply flawed. I used to think this was just plain obstinacy, but after my recent discussion I am wondering if it is something more, possibly some sort of OCD, where you know what you have faith in is illogical, but you are helplessly tied to it. In the case of religious faith unlike OCD there are of course benefits, you get to believe wonderful things about an afterlife and get a feeling of security in knowing a superior being loves you, but is this enough to maintain faith when the holder is able to acknowledge that the faith is illogical?



Edit:Reworked title to better present the subject I wish to address.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 24 Jul 2014, 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, because the two benefits you listed are just that enormous.

I have briefly experienced it. When somebody I loved died, I briefly did believe in heaven. I really, truly believed it and believing it got me through the funeral and the sad weeks and months afterward.

Then the belief wore off because it wasn't particularly deep. It was an emotional bolster when I really needed one but it was only a handful of neurons deep. Nevertheless, it felt real and comforting at the time. And I was sad when it left.

I have noticed that the people who can maintain faith even while acknowledging it is illogical do seem more mentally at peace than either me or religious people who do not acknowledge it is illogical. I pull back the curtain, study the inner workings that make religion so pervasive in the human psyche, and soldier on glumly noting that it is all just a dopamine illusion. Other people do that but then calmly replace the curtain, pat it back into place even as they know what's behind it, and enjoy the full dopamine benefits of being loved by God and imaging deceased loved ones in heaven.

You may well be onto something. Kraichgauer, the poster in question does seem at ease with life. Kudos to him. Unfortunately if it is a case of wilful and happy self delusion, I am unable to accomplish it.

The essence of faith, in my opinion, is that it provides some sort of psychological help or protection from adversity. It may also give believers a sense of purpose in life. To some who are living dreadful lives, faith in an afterlife may give them strength to live their day to day lives. For others, it may give them a sense of belonging i.e. to a group of similarly faithful and it gives them a social outlet (church/ mosque/ temple and related events) that otherwise they would not have. Some people create "God" as an imaginary friend in their mind - someone they can confide in and talk to in times of stress and hardship.

For the above reasons, logic and reality doesn't enter into the equation for these people. The truth / reality is less important to them than the apparent benefits they get from their religious beliefs.

Personally I'm unable to have religious belief or faith; I'm too drawn towards discovering the truth about reality and about existence. Perhaps a Matrix analogy is in order... I've woken up from the Matrix and live in a crappy underground hovercraft, eating gloop and never seeing the sky or sunshine and live in fear of destruction, whereas those who are still firmly attached to the Matrix are blissfully ignorant that it is all an illusion... and that steak tastes so nice whether it is real or not, similarly the sky is blue and the sun warms their backs, so they are more than happy to live the illusion than seek out the truth / reality. They will fight you tooth and nail to cling onto their illusion.

Even when faced with the reality of evolution, some try to bend their illusion or the facts concerning evolution so it all fits together without breaking their illusion. You can't get more in your face than evolution, but yet, believers either ignore evolution and simply don't think about it (ignorance is bliss) or they try to bend the facts to fit their religion and invent things like intelligent design. Some are in outright denial (young earth creationists). The "god" of reality is increasingly the god of the gaps and eventually there will be no place for any gods to hide. Some religious people are demonizing science in an attempt to protect their religious beliefs. The faithful will do anything to cling onto their beliefs. Their beliefs are far more important to them than reality.

I understand this Tallyman, but I am interested in those who continue to have faith even though they can rationally state that they know it is illogical. Kraichgauer stated this implicitly (Kraichgauer if you are following this thread this is not meant to mock or belittle your belief, Like Tallyman I am "drawn towards discovering the truth about reality and existence" and I genuinely find your position fascinating)

That some are able to identify that their belief is illogical yet still hold to it makes me think that on a neurological level something akin to OCD is at work. In this case unlike OCD people do not see it as detrimental to their well being. Possibly, as Janissy has already suggested, the mix of rational thinking combined with the ability to accept the facts yet not let them interfere with the persons fundamental belief, may well have a positive influence on their emotional wellbeing.

People seem able to live with all manner of apparent internal conflicts and contradictions in their lives. I'm not sure faith is OCD related though. Take the examples of spouses who continue to love and live with abusive partners knowing rationally that they would be better off leaving them. People seem to live in all manner of contradictory life styles, so maybe living with the contradictions of faith isn't especially difficult, especially if it is emotionally positive for them. It would certainly be interesting to hear Kraichgauer and other believers take on this.

Either view could be rational. I see faith as logical. But my worldview accepts that there is a God and assumes no need to prove God is, but rather that there is a need to prove that God is not. The opposite view assumes God is not and demands proof that God is.

Everyone operates on faith at some level. You can't prove rationality through rational without circular reasoning, just as an example. To use something we call "logic" at all is itself a leap of faith since you're basing your conclusions on something that itself is based on unproven assumptions. Math/science are full of unproven assumptions without which we lack even the language to describe math/science concepts.

The choice towards spiritual faith and the choice towards naturalistic faith are fairly evenly rooted in logic. If religion isn't logical, neither is irreligion. If you don't want a God, you're not compelled to believe in Him any more than I'm compelled to believe in evolution (I don't entirely DISbelieve evolution, but nothing can compel me to believe or accept it. I could, if I wanted, call solipsism and choose not to believe I'm in the house I'm actually in?I don't actually believe I'm a brain in a vat, but I'm not compelled to believe otherwise, either). It's a choice to make whether we want to believe one way or the other, and regardless of which view you take, the choice ultimately isn't purely logical.

For pities sake acceptance of theories which agree with experiment is not faith. Yes yes I know you have a bizarre notion that an acceptance that the scientific method works Is an example of faith, again, all I can say to that is if a theory is backed up by expirment in nature then the probability that it is correct is far greater than a belief that either, disgree's with experiment or an experiment cannot be designed to test it.

Yep. What DentArthurDent said.

This is why many poll questions about evolution are poorly phrased when they ask if you "believe" in it. One does not need to "believe" in something that has so much physical evidence it happens. One either accepts it as an observable testable fact of nature or one doesn't. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Asking if someone "believes" in evolution is similar to that old joke question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Unwarranted invalid assumptions are built into the phrasing of the question.

Irrelevant. Evolution is just an example. You trust in a process of assessing data that yields that conclusion. What is your basis for trusting the method at all? Can you prove something like the scientific method without using circular reasoning? Or are you content in ASSUMING that underlying principles that guide the scientific method are enough, i.e. without proving them? If the method doesn't require its own proof, then you are basing your decision to use it squarely on faith. This is not a problem for religious folks.

A notable difference is that there are multiple independent lines of EVIDENCE for evolution, you seem to be missing that key point. Also, this evidence only makes sense if evolution happens and in particular falsifies a young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible. It isn't a case of looking at the same evidence only with different world-views as some creationists claim.

Bicyclinguitarist you are missing his point. Angelrho accepts the evidence for evolution arrived at via the scientific method. He just does not accept the scientific method as valid until the method itself is shown to be true. This then of course leads to an infinite regress and is his basis for claiming we have "faith" in the scientific method. By arguing this way, he refutes the concept that the method can validate itself as evidenced by our present level of knowledge. Its his way of not arguing with the evidence and still being able to accept biblical creation.

By what means?

He is waiting for God to show him the truth of it.

Thats his point, there is none, according to him any solution to this problem leads to infinite regress and ipso facto Faith. He rejects as circular reasoning the idea that the scientific method can validate itself by its success, because as we cannot prove it to be true, how do we know its conclusions eg Theory of Evolution are true. He is bordering on Epistemological nihilism.

Like I said, its his vehicle to have faith in creation whilst accepting the evidence for evolution as determined by the scientific method.

I don't think he can be said to have reached that far. He seems stuck in a limbo between metaphysics and epistemology.