Faith is not a Virtue
What was that we were just saying about Thought for the Day? Thought for the Day and the kind of emetic bullshit offered up there by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks? Who is, rumour has it, rather pompous, and a tad bossy. Now there’s a surprise.
Yes, Thought for the Day, we were talking about. So was Simon Blackburn in a lecture for the British Humanist Association a few years ago.
The debate in this country, and still more in the United States, too often aligns itself around a simple polarity. Are we to be religious? In that case, it is assumed, there are real truths, real standards, real values which we can use to guide our own behaviour and that of others. Or, are we to be atheists or agnostics? In that case, it is again assumed, there are no real truths or standards or values, and we fall prey to a variety of ailments: materialism, cynicism, nihilism, relativism. There is almost nothing that is right about this way of drawing up the issue, and the philosophical tradition has abundant resources to show that there is almost nothing right about it. Yet this tradition seldom gets its voice heard. It is not allowed on Thought for the Day, where bishops and rabbis and mullahs are given their daily, publicly-subsidized, advertising time.
It shouldn’t be called thought for the day at all, should it – not if real thought is actually ruled out. It should be called religious musing for the day.
Blackburn says a lot of good things in that lecture. He seems to have a habit of doing that, doesn’t he. Several people picked up that comment I wrote about ‘Religion and Respect’ the other day, and read and then wrote admiringly about R and R themselves – P Z at Pharyngula for instance. They find the article as target-hitting as I do.
I’ll just offer a brief sample of the good things for now, because I have to run off.
The first and all too often the last virtue of any of the monotheistic religions is faith, because it is faith that holds the flock together, and defines Us, inside, against Them, outside. But faith is not a virtue. Faith is credulity: the condition of believing things for which there is no reason. It is a vice, and it inevitably encourages other vices, including hypocrisy and fanaticism. It needs to be said, loudly, that it makes no more sense to talk of faith-based schools or faith-based education than it does to talk of superstition-based science or terror-based debate.
Yeah!! How many times have I said that, I wonder – faith is not a virtue. If I’ve said that once, I’ve said it several times. There’s another sweatshirt and bumper sticker and coffee mug saying for us – Chris put in a request for ‘Rootless Cosmopolitans’ a couple of days ago, which I strongly second; let’s add ‘Faith is Not a Virtue.’
Faith is by its essence the enemy of education, which teaches people to base beliefs on reason and on reason alone.
Precisely. Well that takes us all the way to page two – and I have to go. Read on.
In mingling the spiritual meaning of “faith” with its secular variations — hope, confidence, reasonable assumption, optimism, trust — the religious have managed to co-opt the positive emotions and experiences associated with the latter to enhance the presumed virtue of the former. Once again, as with “onto-religion,” I get the sense that there is a cheat going on, a quick and fast one being pulled by means of glib vocabulary and slight of hand. They shift meanings in a theological version of 3-card monte, and whichever one you pick, nope, you lose, that’s not what they meant.
I like the t-shirt slogan, and would like to also suggest the following, which I invented in a fit of exasperation one day:
“Your Spiritual Path is Stupid.”
That is sooo naughty, I would never wear it. In public.
Love that ‘Your spiritual path is stupid”, can we apply it to the yoga practitioners, new age healers and woolly-minded psycho-babblers of the self-help industry too?
BUT as for splitting off the good, secular meanings of ‘faith’ from the eeevil theist meanings, take a hike. Religion had it first, and gave it to you. Those good meanings came with the good sought from religion.
“BUT as for splitting off the good, secular meanings of ‘faith’ from the eeevil theist meanings, take a hike. Religion had it first, and gave it to you. Those good meanings came with the good sought from religion.”
Huh? No morality without religion? Says who? No sorting the worthwhile from the rubbish? It’s a package deal,is it?
In mingling the spiritual meaning of “faith” with its secular variations — hope, confidence, reasonable assumption, optimism, trust — the religious have managed to co-opt the positive emotions and experiences associated with the latter to enhance the presumed virtue of the former.
Which is the fallacy of equivocation, or, to make the joke I’ve been waiting ages for the opportunity to make, argumentum ad homonym.
“All religions have been made by men.”
Yeah, yeah so you have claimed before. And no doubt all the worlds’ evils are commited by white european males. Can you back this assertion up with any sort of evidence whatsoever, or is it just mantra?
“Your Spiritual Path is Stupid.”
I’d buy one.
My suggestion for the B&W t-shirt:
‘Making Beefburgers Out Of Sacred Cows.’
Or, for the upmarket version:
‘Making Boeuf en Croute Out Of Sacred Cows.’
All religions have been made by men.”
It is a bit of a mantra for G, but it seems reasonable. The evidence that the Big 3 Abrahamic religions were devised by men is in pretty much every aspect. Unless you are suggesting that Mohammed and Moses and all those cats were really women dressed up?
You might argue that there have existed matriarchal religions – I believe a case has been made for Catal Huyuk in the Neolithic period and no doubt a diligent anthropologist could put forward a tentative theory for some isolated and long defunct tribal culture – but religion in the sense we are using here is universally male dominated.
One of the give-aways is the way in which all major religions have a ‘no girls in the club-house’ rule.
The evidence that all religions are patriarchal is so apparent that it is surely for you to put a counter argument?
>And no doubt all the worlds’ evils are commited by white european males.< It’s true. Michael Moore says so in *Stupid White Men*.
‘And no doubt all the worlds’ evils are commited by white european males’
Actually, Chrisper, it’s usually considered poor argument to ascribe to someone a view they have never remotely expressed.
No doubt you think all kittens should be fed into wood-chippers.
“The evidence that all religions are patriarchal is so apparent that it is surely for you to put a counter argument?”
Not really. It is for the person making the claim to substantiate that claim. Just as it is for the religious to demonstrate that their deity exists, it is not for me to demonstrate that it doesn’t.
As it happens though, in the previous thread, I posted a link to a page citing a number of religions started by women. (Through the simple method of googling “religions started by women”).
“Unless you are suggesting that Mohammed and Moses and all those cats were really women dressed up?”
I suggested no such thing. I disputed the assertion that all religions were started by men. (I also dispute the claim that any religion was started by a cat, Red Dwarf notwithstanding).
” but religion in the sense we are using here is universally male dominated. “
That sense being “those religions that were started by men” it seems. But that then becomes a tautulogy. Of course in the sense of religions-started-by-men, all religions were started by men.
“Actually, Chrisper, it’s usually considered poor argument to ascribe to someone a view they have never remotely expressed.”
ChrisM actually. I would respond to an argument with an argument. An argument wasn’t presented, a polemic was. And I was clearly being sarcastic rather than actually ascribing a view to anyone.
“It’s true. Michael Moore says so in *Stupid White Men*.”
;-)
I find that generally, Michael Mooore saying something is itself strong evidence for that something not being true. That said, I wouldn’t want you to think I can’t spot sarcasm.
Naturally I followed that link, but I don’t think a handful of small, short-lived off-shoots from Christianity, nor a recent Japanese cult count as ‘starting a religion’. And I doubt if getting into a discussion on Christian Science will prove productive.
When I said ‘religions as we are discussing them here’ I meant religions with a significant following and a coherent identity. Not the tautology you ascribe to me.
By the way, sorry I referred to you as ChrisPer. Unless you are, in fact the same person.
ChrisM
Cross-post.
I withdraw the kitten remark.
“By the way, sorry I referred to you as ChrisPer. Unless you are, in fact the same person.”
No apology required, I didn’t read it as an insult (from what I can recall, his posts are generally very good). But no, we are not the same person.
“When I said ‘religions as we are discussing them here’ I meant religions with a significant following and a coherent identity. Not the tautology you ascribe to me.”
Well that may be the religions you were disussing, but G’s assertions contained no such qualifier. And as the origins of most religions are lost in the mists of time, the fact is we don’t really know the genders of those who started them. If G had made the more reasonable assertion, that most religions are miscogynistic, I would have agreed. However, shrilly proclaiming that “All religions were started by men”, seems to be simple man-bashing, rather than a valuable insight.
“I withdraw the kitten remark.”
Hehe, no worries. I am a total cat person though, I wouldn’t dream of doing nasty things to kittens. Now yappy little dogs, could be a different matter.
Catal Huyuk, for what it’s worth, according to the last TV programme I saw on it, probably had a very patriarchal society — evidence from women’s leg-bones suggested they spent most of their time bent over a grindstone, and statuary was found showing this as a sexually-fetishized position.
Actually, I suppose it’s not a fetish to do it doggie-style, but that’s getting off-track. Men, huh!
“All religions have been made by men.”
Substitute humans (which is how I read it) and it seem self evident.
“Substitute humans (which is how I read it) and it seem self evident.”
So self-evident that I cannot beleive that this was what was meant. It is possible that G used term “men” to describe humans, but I think unlikely.
‘a list of “testable propositions” I keep putting up, in the hope that raional persons might notice.’
Ah – there’s your problem right there. No rational persons around here. We’re all a pack of raving woo-wooers. No wonder no one has noticed!
“It can be tested and disproven, i.e. it is an hypothesis, in the scientific sense.”
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. So I am not sure your claims explain a phenomenon. They are descriptive claims.
“I was applying it to present-day, observable major religions.”
Well initially you said ALL religions.
“You are welcome to diprove this hypothesis.”
It is not a hypothesis though, it is a collection of statements purporting to describe religions.
And you made the claim, it is for you to substantiate it, not for me to disprove it. If I claim I am 7 foot tall, it is not for you to disprove it, it is for me to prove it. Or perhaps more topically, I could claim there was a god who watches over all of us. I don’t suppose you would be very impressed if I claimed this and said “disprove it”. If I made the claim (and I surely never would, being a miltant atheist), it would be down to me to substantiate this claim.
“Others are:
All religions, kill, enslave, and torture.
All religions are based on fear and supersition , and are blackmail.
Take it away and tst it, peoples!”
Again, it is for you to substantiate the claim. You would need to list all religions. You would also need to find out the gender of the person who started each one to show that you claim that they were all started by men (the claim that I took issue with).
“BTW, to stop further argument, I’m male, and pink, but I am not blaming pink people, so don’t put words into my mouth.”
I was not putting words into your mouth, I was being sarcastic.
I assumed from your email address you were female. Your gender is really beside the point though. Anti semitic comments are not any less anti semitic if utter by a Jewish person. Being white and male doesn’t automatically mean that therefore you cannot say anything that is anti male, or anti-white.
“I’m quite capable of getting into trouble, without assistance, thank,you!”
I am not sure that you are in any trouble. Your untestable assertion that all relgions were started by men is though. (Untestable because we have no way of knowing the gender of the people who started every religion).
CrisPer wrote:
“BUT as for splitting off the good, secular meanings of ‘faith’ from the eeevil theist meanings, take a hike. Religion had it first, and gave it to you. Those good meanings came with the good sought from religion.”
No, religion did not have it first — not unless you define “religion” so broadly it includes everything positive we do or have ever done. Hope, confidence, reasonable assumption, optimism and trust have their origins in our interactions and experiences in this world, and so of course they are also involved in religion — because religion is a distinctly human pursuit. Every soaring, noble spiritual feeling has an analog here on earth. That’s why religion seems so familiar and desirable; it’s not introducing strange, awkward, passions which are difficult to learn or relate to. It simply introduces strange, awkward facts.
Of course you’re free to speculate that we actually got our good secular faiths and human propensities from God, but that’s saying something different. Secular forms of faith have been around as long as people have. The idea of trusting a loving friend or hoping for a happy life didn’t need to be secretly cribbed from the Bible — or from a more generalized notion that there might be some better sort of loving friend and happy life “out there.”
Religious faith is usually specified as a particular variation that “gives substance to things hoped for, and evidence of things not seen” when it comes to truths about Spirit. It is not used as a reasonable working assumption which can and will change to fit new circumstances — mostly because religious faith is usually unfalsifiable. In its purest form, religious faith exults in NOT having sufficient worldly evidence to justify belief rationally. This is supposed to signify an ability to reach out to or connect with God through a “higher” means.
When there’s no REAL connection with God, though, it just makes for pointless, close-minded dogmatism. People who think faith in God is a virtue are often quick to agree it’s a vice — for those other people with the wrong gods.
I said way back:
“As for splitting off the good, secular meanings of ‘faith’ from the eeevil theist meanings, take a hike. Religion had it first, and gave it to you. Those good meanings came with the good sought from religion.”
Karl said:
“Huh? No morality without religion? Says who? No sorting the worthwhile from the rubbish? It’s a package deal,is it?”
Well Karl, as you are very bright I will assume that you rushed through reading my post – because your response is a non sequitur. I hold that morality is utterly separable from religion; what I suggested is that the MEANING OF THE WORD ‘FAITH’ was not splittable into religious ‘eeevil’ meanings from secular ‘gooood’ meanings. The grounds I offered were arguable, I agree.
ChrisM, thanks for the compliment! Moreover I concur with your assessment that we are different people :-)
David said of conflating the supposed two meanings of ‘faith’:
“Which is the fallacy of equivocation, or, to make the joke I’ve been waiting ages for the opportunity to make, argumentum ad homonym”.
LOL! Sir, I bow to your wit!
You can spin it any way you want, dude. But as Sastra pointed out, all you’re doing is claiming religion as the fount and origin of all those positive qualities by simply redefining all those positive qualities as emanating originally from religion. Circles may be appropriate in feng shui design, but they have no place in sound argument.
“I hold that morality is utterly separable from religion”
So you keep saying…but only after people call you out on earlier posts of yours that make vague insinuations to the contrary.
Karl, my project here is not to claim special privilege for religion, but to challenge the patronising and foolish stereotypes of religious believers that occasionally spoil the good thinking to be found here.
Sastra’s lead comment on this thread tried to deny the virtues implicit in the word ‘faith’ from applying in the religious context, and called it a cheat; but I maintain that is itself a manipulative device.
Those ‘virtuous meanings’ of the word are used in both religious and non-religious discussion, and the desire of non-theists to delegitimise the discourse of theists is not adequate reason to disbar them from the use of a word in its several meanings.
Well –
“BUT as for splitting off the good, secular meanings of ‘faith’ from the eeevil theist meanings, take a hike. Religion had it first, and gave it to you. Those good meanings came with the good sought from religion.”
Is that actually true? As a matter of chronology? I don’t know, myself. It seems to me that ‘faith’ as a synonym for religion has come strongly into fashion quite recently, and that in the past it was more often used with an accompanying qualifier – ‘religious faith’ or similar. Anyone have an OED?
At any rate, leaving aside chronology for the moment – I don’t see why the two meanings are not two meanings rather than one. Having faith in a person does mean something different from having faith in god. Having faith in a person never means believing, without evidence, that the person exists; having faith in god pretty much always does mean believing, without evidence, that it exists. It means other things in addition, but that first item seems to be a pretty basic difference.
ChrisPer wrote:
“Sastra’s lead comment on this thread tried to deny the virtues implicit in the word ‘faith’ from applying in the religious context, and called it a cheat; but I maintain that is itself a manipulative device.”
I think you misunderstood my point. I was not claiming that religious faith doesn’t or couldn’t involve “hope, trust, confidence, reasonable assumption and optimism.” All of that could certainly be included in spiritual piety. I am not trying to “delegitimize” their use by theists.
I was pointing out that “hope, trust, confidence, reasonable assumption, and optimism” are not *exclusive* to religious faith. They can also be formed and based on purely secular foundations, with none of the mystical or anti-empirical implications of the more specific religious meaning.
So when people take loose, casual definitions of faith and insist they’re the same thing as religious faith, it’s not just a matter of being sloppy. They’re consciously or unconsciously trying to win approval points by equivocating. Religious faith becomes inescapable. If you have confidence in anything, trust anything, hope or assume or feel sanguine about an outcome, then that’s supposed to be just like believing in God.
Except, more often than not, it’s not.
faith
c.1250, “duty of fulfilling one’s trust,” from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides “trust, belief,” from root of fidere “to trust,” from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.
(Borrowed from the Online Etymology Dictionary)
Thank you twiliter! Very helpful.
Sastra, you put that beautifully. I toast Minerva in your honour, with my employer-provided coffee.
Twiliter, well done! I was wrong.
When Sean Carroll says something about relativity that I don’t already know, (almost all of it),
When Sean B. Carroll says there have been fruit flies born with legs coming out of their heads,
I take it on faith that they are right. If evidence exists, I have not seen it.
This is, by most definitions, faith.
When Phred Felps says something about God’s opinion on a topic, I require evidence,
Felps’ opinions are not faith. They are idiocy.