h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Faith in what Ste? Do you mean faith in the fact that out of the billions of galaxies in the sky the 3rd planet from the Sun in the Galaxy of the Milky Way was visited by the one and only 'son of God' as predicted by the prophet Micah 800 years before, right down to the town of birth, and that the son of God was born to a virgin who became pregnant out of wedlock and conveniently married a man who claimed to be a direct descendant from a man called Abraham who in turn was a direct descendant from Noah of the deluge. And that this son of God performed tricks like removing madness from the mad and inserting it into the minds of pigs which then rushed to their death. Do you mean faith in this kind of Pythonesque God of The Life of Brian OR do you mean faith in the Muslim variant OR in the Hindu variant OR what? OR doesn't it matter so long as you have faith in the existence of a creator? Or do you mean faith in a church that constantly changes the rules to suit itself and spends money avoiding justice with respect to its dubious financial transactions and also the bizarre sexual practices of several of its representatives, waiting until its representatives grow too old, senile or infirm to testify in legal process, that helps Nazi criminals flee from Europe to South America,
that is responsible for the Inquisition, the bloody Crusades, the theft of treasures from all over the world especially Central and South America and the destruction of ancient civilisations, and now comes up with a strange 3 year rule with regard to homosexuals. Do you mean faith in that? Or the American Evangelical variant? Or what?
Or do you mean a simple faith in the unknown and unseen that everything is somehow ok, under control, under the invisible guiding hand of the creator. That the 2nd World War, the concentration camps, the gas chambers, the Hiroshima bomb, the Stalin genocide, the Viet Nam War,
agent orange, Pol Pot and the Cambodian genocide, are simple part of life's rich tapestry and all will be ok in the end.
When I look around what I see is a planet where everything is eating everything else. It defies explanation. As written in Ecclesiastics by 'the teacher' everything is Meaningless, Meaningless, Meaningless.
The only glimmer of hope I have is something told to me by a relative of mine a day or two after her loved one had died. The deceased reappeared briefly in a golden light, smiled broadly and said, "The Earth is not even that," and held the ends of his thumb and forefinger about an inch apart. And then vanished.

OK that was weird.

But to answer the first question - yes, my worldview is faith-based. That's what I meant by "holding fast" to the most correct information I have.

"Or do you mean faith in a church that constantly changes the rules to suit itself and spends money avoiding justice with respect to its dubious financial transactions and also the bizarre sexual practices of several of its representatives, waiting until its representatives grow too old, senile or infirm to testify in legal process, that helps Nazi criminals flee from Europe to South America, that is responsible for the Inquisition, the bloody Crusades, the theft of treasures from all over the world especially Central and South America and the destruction of ancient civilisations, and now comes up with a strange 3 year rule with regard to homosexuals
That the 2nd World War, the concentration camps, the gas chambers, the Hiroshima bomb, the Stalin genocide, the Viet Nam War,
agent orange, Pol Pot and the Cambodian genocide, are simple part of life's rich tapestry and all will be ok in the end."

Um, no, those things you named there are/were evil. As I think I've aaid before, there are two forces in this world. Good ... and Evil. It's not all that complicated to understand really.

So when the Catholic church became a purveyor of evil, that made the Catholic church evil. That is a pretty extreme statement, but if you look at it's history, that is the logical conclusion.
Nerd42

midnight: Faith in whatever you want. It seems that's the point oddly enough.

Nerd42: I thought faith was not about information. It is not a rational thing. What you describe seems to be not "faith" but "stubborness". Also, if your world-view is faith-based and you try and interact with people of reason don't be surprised when objective reality tends to disagree with your faith. I see it happening quite often, especially with fundamentalists who seem to do religion in a very 2-dimensional way.

Anyway, I'm not sure faith involves worrying about if you're "correct" or not. But more about a relationship with god, no?

Ste

"Nerd42: I thought faith was not about information."
Yes. This is not your fault. It's what alot of "church people" have been spreading for a long time. But actually faith is a way of dealing with information.

"It is not a rational thing."
That depends on what you mean by "rational" - as all worldviews are faith-based, and there is no objective viewpoint (besides God's but He is not availible for comment) by which to judge which is "more" faith-based than another. Science, for example, is a faith-based worldview.

"What you describe seems to be not "faith" but "stubborness"."
It is posible that the two are closely related. As I belong to a church that values the unchanging nature of their ordinances, this statement sounds rather like something I'd hear at church - from someone trying to encourage a "stubborn" as you put it, attitude towards morals, values and ethics.

"Also, if your world-view is faith-based and you try and interact with people of reason don't be surprised when objective reality tends to disagree with your faith."
What is objective reality? Who defines it? The only reasonable answer I've found for these questions is God.

Atheists have no objectivity, as their ideology is, by it's very nature, (and not through emotional fault of it's practicioners) set against every other religion.

"I see it happening quite often, especially with fundamentalists who seem to do religion in a very 2-dimensional way."
How so?

"Anyway, I'm not sure faith involves worrying about if you're "correct" or not. But more about a relationship with god, no?"
Hmm. The word "faith" is taken to mean many different things, and is perhaps overused. Perhaps better terms could be or have been invented to describe the various aspects of it.
Nerd42

"But actually faith is a way of dealing with information."

That's the first time I've heard that one. Care to elaborate? Is it like a parsing mechanism to you in some way?

Though you have to be very careful equating science with religion, as if it is just another choice. They are *not* equivalents. This is where creationists fail. Science deals with stuff that's amenable to the scientific method. It's a tool. Religion deals with God. The two are not compatible - hence you can hold both concepts as true in your head. Science is not faith-based. It is evidence-based (with "evidence" being very carefully defined).

How many religious people believe in two faiths at once? Yet people of all faiths are able to believe in their own thing AND hold scientific knowledge to be truth. This alone sets science apart from religion.


"What is objective reality? Who defines it? The only reasonable answer I've found for these questions is God."

I may be biased, but I think science does that job pretty damn well. You would not agree, however, if you thought of science as merely another faith. Some parts of reality science cannot get at, but as long as scientists continue to know this then science will stay within the realm of objectivity and outside of the bounds of faith.

God is the polar opposite of "reasonable". It is the abandonment of reason and a retreat to non-thinking and just flat-out, plain "just believing". Just "knowing" ("intuiting", or whatever) isn't good enough.


"Atheists have no objectivity, as their ideology is, by it's very nature, ... set against every other religion."

I'm not sure I understand you here. Could you please explain further?


"I see it happening quite often, especially with fundamentalists who seem to do religion in a very 2-dimensional way."
"How so?"

For example, Christian fundamnetalists are biblical literalists and therefore can only take the most shallow (i.e., 2D) interpretation of their religion. I know numerous non-fundamentalist Christians and are constantly surprised and impressed at the depth of meaning in the bible. Fundamentalists miss out on that and *then* have the audacity to try and force their world-view (and associated twisted morality) on everyone else. It would be almost ironic if it weren't so painful and damaging.


"Hmm. The word "faith" is taken to mean many different things, and is perhaps overused. Perhaps better terms could be or have been invented to describe the various aspects of it."

Seeing as faith is officially a "mystery", perhaps it is futile trying to describe it. Though I would like to understand it better, to be honest. As an atheist it's the one component of human behaviour that I simple do not get at a visceral level.



Ste

Ste: "Faith in whatever you want. It seems that's
the point oddly enough".

Yes, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
What you offer is a universal truth. Like Lao Tzu
with a few words you have said something profound.

As Nerd said, we have the choice to be good or evil.

We can pass the beggar and turn away or place a coin
in his hat. It has nothing to do with religion
or the afterlife but has everything to do with the
choice between good and evil.

There's a fine poem by Robinson Jeffers called 'Shine,
Perishing Republic' (you can find it on the Wondering
Minstrels website) in which he gives advice to his boys.

midnight

I can just see the headlines now: "Ste Offers Universal Truth!". Maybe I can sell it by the pound.

Yeah, maybe the content of your faith isn't the point, but that you simply have faith. Even atheists have a tiny bit of faith when it comes down to it. Who knows. I don't.

Ste

In what, pray tell?

Absurd statement.

We've been through this in detail in other parts of the site, so I won't labour the point. But when it comes down to it there is no way to prove with certainty that God does not exist. The last little jump from saying "God almost certainly does not exist" (agnostic) to saying "God certainly does not exist" (atheist) is a leap of faith.

So not so absurd.

Ste

"That's the first time I've heard that one. Care to elaborate? Is it like a parsing mechanism to you in some way?"
First of all, faith is not a fundamentally religious concept. It is merely the assumption of the truth or falseness of information.

I sometimes find "assumption" to be a better word.

Thus, to believe in anything is to have faith. For example, the statement "I think therefore I am" (which many people put forward as the basis for so-called "scientific" worldviews) can only be true if one assumes (or has faith) that one is thinking. Even before you consider whether you exist, how do you really know you are thinking? Answer: you don't, thus "I think therefore I am" is a statement of faith.

"Though you have to be very careful equating science with religion, as if it is just another choice. They are *not* equivalents."
I didn't say they were equivalents. They are actually two very different, though related fields.

"This is where creationists fail. Science deals with stuff that's amenable to the scientific method."
That's true! However, evolution does not. I submit to you that evolution is not science, neither is it scientific. It is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.

"[science] It's a tool. Religion deals with God. The two are not compatible - hence you can hold both concepts as true in your head."
Wait a second ... are you sure you typed that right? I'm not being sarcastic here. Read that over again carefully please and ensure you are saying what you really mean to say here... because first you say "the two are not" then you say "you can" ... seems like you're contradicting your previous sentence.

"Science is not faith-based. It is evidence-based (with "evidence" being very carefully defined)."
Evidence is faith-based. Define "real" for me. One's belief in the existance of alleged "evidence" is faith-based.

"How many religious people believe in two faiths at once?"
That depends on your definition of the word "faith" ... I would fit into that category under my definition of the word.

"Yet people of all faiths are able to believe in their own thing AND hold scientific knowledge to be truth. This alone sets science apart from religion."
Not sure where you're going with this ... but probably my other comments in this post cover it.
Nerd42

Oh, uh sorry about posting twice, but I'd like to add a sentence at this point in my previous post:

"Though you have to be very careful equating science with religion, as if it is just another choice. They are *not* equivalents."
I didn't say they were equivalents. They are actually two very different, though related fields. But they are both faith-based.
Nerd42

Religious faith is different from the everyday use of the word. It's not just "trust". It's a specific thing that talks about divine and how it its truths are beyond logic. No? You're not just hoping you're right, but developing a relationship with the divine via prayer and meditation that goes farther than mere reason? Right?


""I think therefore I am" (which many people put forward as the basis for so-called "scientific" worldviews)"

I don't think that's correct at all...


"That's true! However, evolution does not. I submit to you that evolution is not science, neither is it scientific. It is a philosophy, not a scientific theory."

Erm, I think I'd strongly disagree with you there. So much so that this thread will quickly become a evolution vs creation one. I don't think that'll be too popular. To stop that happening why don't you drop over to my personal space and we can debate it there. Evolution is a hard science backed up by rigorous experimentation and a strong mathematical core. Science agrees.


"Wait a second ... are you sure you typed that right? I'm not being sarcastic here. Read that over again carefully please and ensure you are saying what you really mean to say here... because first you say "the two are not" then you say "you can" ... seems like you're contradicting your previous sentence."

Yes. Read it carefully. Because science and religion are not compatible with each other, people *can* hold both concepts in their heads without contradiction. My point is that if science is like any other faith this would be impossible. People all over the world of all faiths believe in their God(s) AND hold science to be true at the same time. I don't think many protestants are also catholics. There's not a bunch of shinto-muslims running about. Only fundamentalists have any problem with science because of their shallow, inflexible, literal interpretation of their holy texts.


"Evidence is faith-based. Define "real" for me. One's belief in the existance of alleged "evidence" is faith-based."

'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.' - Philip K. Dick. This applies to science. Data are data.


"That depends on your definition of the word "faith" ... I would fit into that category under my definition of the word."

See my first paragraph. I feel your definition is a little shallow and simple.


Ste

Related question: Do you believe there is an objective reality out there at all?

<<"Science is not faith-based. It is evidence-based (with "evidence" being very carefully defined)."
Evidence is faith-based. Define "real" for me. One's belief in the existance of alleged "evidence" is faith-based.>>

<>

Part of the definition of evidence *depends* on there being an objective reality out there. And this is where an element of "faith" appears to be necessary. in as much as that we have no confirmation of this independently of our senses.

But there is no real equivalence between faith in the existence of God, and faith in an independent reality, for one may give up the former and still make sense of the latter, but if you give up the latter then - what?

Noggin

"First of all, faith is not a fundamentally religious concept."

One might also, just as relevantly, state that gullibility is not fundamentally a religious concept. As P.T. Barnum said "There's one born every minute."

"It is merely the assumption of the truth or falseness of information."

No - it is the assumption of the truth of falseness of information, not only in the *absence* of confirmatory evidence, but sometimes in the teeth of *contradictory* evidence. The last bit is crucial.

For instance - my central heating broke down. I assumed (i.e. I didn't check) that the pump was running, and that there was not enough water in the system. I topped up the water. It didn't work. My assumption was incorrect. So... I checked. And the evidence was that the pump was not running. Did I continue to assume the pump was running? Hardly. I replaced it.

If I had had "faith" that the pump was running, I would not have NEEDED to check. Indeed, it would have been heresy to check. If I'd depended on my faith in the pump, I'd still be shivering. Assumption is NOT the same as faith.

"I sometimes find "assumption" to be a better word."

I like the Dilbert/Dogbert exchange on this.

Dilbert: "I'll just assume it's OK."
Dogbert: "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U".
Dilbert: "... 'and ME'."
Dogbert: "That's what I said."

"Thus, to believe in anything is to have faith."

Um... possibly. Let's see, what example do you give...?

"the statement "I think therefore I am" [...] can only be true if one assumes (or has faith) that one is thinking."

I hardly know where to begin making fun of this. Let's see...

I have faith, Nerd42, that whatever it is YOU are doing, it's not "thinking" in the definition of the word with which I am familiar. Given that, I can see why YOU don't automatically assume that YOU are thinking.

However, for the rest us - i.e. *conscious* humans - the very act of noticing that you're thinking *requires* one to be thinking.

This is so blindingly, teeth-clenchingly obvious that the fact you can't see it makes me wonder how it is you're able to function at all without someone standing behind you continually reminding you to breathe in. Perhaps this is the role God takes in your life?

If you consider that harsh, let me ask you - as you sit there, pondering the phrase "I think, therefore I am", if (as you suggest is possible) you're NOT thinking, what IS happening?

"Even before you consider whether you exist, how do you really know you are thinking? Answer: you don't, thus "I think therefore I am" is a statement of faith."

This is definitely one of the funniest things I've heard for a while. How do I know I'm thinking???

I come back to the idea that personally, I can see why YOU would doubt that YOU are thinking, Nerd42, because the demonstrated quality of the thoughts you express is so poor that they hardly warrant the name.

However... if you're going to go down the route, not only of questioning the existence of objective reality, not even merely questioning your own objective existence, but questioning your SUBJECTIVE existence - not even necessarily believing you're even thinking - then I'm afraid you're into literally mindless solipsism. It is (and I'm sure it's not the first time I've thought this of you...) completely pointless talking to you about ANYTHING.

It's tedious enough when discussing philosophy dealing with the adolescent's response "I don't have to believe what you say because you can't prove to me that you exist."

But you've taken a leap beyond that immaturity into even more stupid territory. If you leave open for yourself the retreat of "well, you can't prove to me that *I* exist", no debate is possible at all. Unless one can agree on some pretty basic and reasonable starting points - and the existence of an objective reality is one of them - then you are, pardon the phrase, just having a mental wa*k, which is quite impressive given a non-existent mind/penis.

"I submit to you that evolution is not science, neither is it scientific. It is a philosophy, not a scientific theory."

False.

Like Ste said, this could very quickly and tediously become evolution vs. creation. However, you've just excellently demonstrated that you have no idea what evolutionary theory is, so there's no point having that conversation.

You're wrong, we can move on.

"Evidence is faith-based. Define "real" for me. One's belief in the existance of alleged "evidence" is faith-based."

See above explanation why, if you pursue this line of argument, you're not worth talking to - indeed, why it's not even worth you talking to yourself...

"How many religious people believe in two faiths at once?"

Um... I'm reliably informed that in the far east it is relatively common for people to hold to more than one religion at a time. It is only (or mainly) the Abrahamic religions whose imaginary friend of choice is a jealous, capricious, sadistic genocidal maniac. However, those religions that allow belief in others are hardly likely to be the kind of ones that deny the evidence of objective reality, even if they question its very existence.

SoRB

<> (Noggin)

This is good. What are your thoughts on that, Nerd?

Re: Ste's question about there being an objective reality, there may well be but how would we know since everything we are able to perceive is always subjective? One might be able to imagine an objective reality but we can only *experience* it through our own subjective perception of things. At least, that is how it seems to me.


az

In his excellent novel 'This Thing of Darkness' Harry Thompson writes of the Tierra del Fuegians belief of God as 'a black man hiding in the woods'. It starts like that. So let's develop it from there.

Sooner or later, someone a little more intelligent and beligerent than the rest of the local populus realises that this 'black man hiding in the woods' idea offers unlimited potential as a people control system and a way of lining his own pockets at the same time. A few followers jump on the bandwagon - they're a kind of 'police' - but for the sake of image they take the name 'priest'.

That's religion dealt with.

But there is something that is beyond the limitations of religion and that is what Ste calls 'faith in whatever you like'. It is a faith in the undetectable and the unknowable. The faith in the idea that there really is 'a black man hiding in the woods' or whatever else you want to have faith in. This 'faith beyond religion' brings me to the idea that everyone can have his own personal one-to-one faith relationship with the 'black man in the woods' or even in nothing. And why not?

Two skunks in conversation:
She - What's that smell?
He - I stink. Therefore we are!

Drago (my new easy-to-remember name)

[Reality is that which refuses to go away]
I like that. Definately gives the lie to "making up your own truth."

Ladies and gentlemen, /I/ believe in objective reality.

I do not understand why/how you do/can.

That is because I understand that my worldview is faith-based, whereas you refuse to admit this.

One cannot believe in the existance of objective reality without faith.

It is like logic.

Logic is a method for taking information and implying other information. However, at some point, the original information has to be /assumed/ true. Otherwise, one is practicing circular logic.
Nerd42

<>
Hmm ... when I argue that truth is a constant, I do not mean to argue that everything is the same. Things are generally different from each other. I don't know why I seem to be drawing 'equivalencies' between everything to you.

However, I would put both in the same category - as both are statements of faith and you can't bring me an objective observer who can tell us that one involves "more" faith than another.
Nerd42

Hello Nerd,

I surprised myself by being a little dissapointed you didn't drop on by to my personal space. I was also a little dissapointed you didn't comment on my understanding of faith as opposed to yours. Ah well.

"Ladies and gentlemen, /I/ believe in objective reality."

As I thought you did. I just wanted to get on the same page.

"I do not understand why/how you do/can."

I do. As Noggin rightly said, science depends on the assumption that there is an objective reality out there. It's not faith as religious people know it, more of a pretty damn good assumption that holds true as far as we know. We'd otherwise have to be *seriously* wrong about everything.

"That is because I understand that my worldview is faith-based, whereas you refuse to admit this."

We are not refusing to admit this. We are just being reasonable and refusing to equate the two processes:

"I don't know why I seem to be drawing 'equivalencies' between everything to you."

You are equating science and religion, not everything. You are saying that they depend upon the same faith in the same way and to the same amount. You are arguing that they are merely two different "world-views", as if there is a choice between the two. In fact, they are very different philosophies. One starts with a fair assumption and subsequently uses a strict thought algorithm to answer questions about reality, the other depends upon religious faith that requires one to go beyond reason and logic when answering questions of the divine. If this false dichotomy that you seem to be setting up were true, then people would not be able to believe in their God and, say, evolution. However, the vast majority of people of faith get this, fortunately.

Anyway, you said: "However, I would put both in the same category - as both are statements of faith and you can't bring me an objective observer who can tell us that one involves "more" faith than another."

But that was what Noggin was getting at when he argued that faith in a God vs faith in an objective reality cannot be placed in the same category. You must agree that a small, perfectly reasonable leap of faith/assumption regarding reality surely cannot be compared to spiritual faith in an unseen, unheard, massively powerful sentient being that we have no evidence for? Making a comparison between the two is really stretching it too far.

What you're arguing is that having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is the same kind of thing as having faith in invisible silent pink unicorns. It's not going to wash.


Hey SoRB,

"Um... I'm reliably informed that in the far east it is relatively common for people to hold to more than one religion at a time."

I had no idea. How enlightened. Is it the good ol' Buddhists again?


Ste