Salvation
George H Smith remarks in his book Why Atheism? that salvation religion includes the belief that “at least some knowledge necessary for salvation requires faith in divine revelation, knowledge that cannot otherwise be justified through reason alone.” [p. 28 n. 1] That’s an interesting idea. It means that salvation religion believes in a god who is a terrible cheat and bully – one who makes “salvation” dependent on voluntary stupidity.
It also requires us (if we want “salvation”) to divide our thinking and functioning in two – because for ordinary purposes, faith is not the right way to go, it’s the wrong way. It’s wrong and we know it’s wrong. We don’t claim to use faith for purposes of ordinary inquiry. We may use it of vague guessworky subjective matters – the future, people, results of actions – in combination with more rationally-based knowledge, but we don’t use it of empirical subjects. On the contrary, we use maps and schedules and recipes and blueprints and we expect the people who make them to use something other than faith. Yet in this other area, the rules are completely different. Well why? Why do that? Why make different rules? Why give us a reliable way of finding out things, and then make it a condition of “salvation” that we not use it in this one important area? What kind of arrangement is that? A perverse, unfair, backasswards, unreasonable one, that’s what. If faith isn’t good enough for ordinary inquiry, why is it good enough for any kind of inquiry? Even in the more guessworky subjects, blind faith is no good. Blind faith in a person you have abundant reason to know is a malicious enemy is a bad idea. So what kind of god would make faith the right way to get knowledge in one area but not the other? A trickster? A demon? What?
In a way that doesn’t matter, because of course the real reason “faith” is necessary is the fact that there is no evidence. But in another way it does matter, because it means that people believe in a god who plays wicked games with human cognition.
Why am I suddenly replaying the late, great Bill Hicks’ “Dinosaurs in the Bible” routine…??
“A god who’s a f@ckin’ prankster, man…”
R.I.P. Mr. H.
Damn you, Andy Gilmour. It’s late and I was set for bed, but now I have to go on a Bill Hicks YouTube jag.
Yeah but but… Do people really use faith to perform their functions as a human being? To seek knowledge?
No, but that’s what I was saying. People use faith along with knowledge, experience etc to make guesses about the future, to make decisions, etc, but not to seek knowledge. (Well, apart from fans of Ouija boards, Tarot cards, palmistry, etc.)
I don’t find it that interesting.
I think it’s virtually tautological – to actually believe one needs salvation is to already have faith.
Might as well say you need faith to have faith.
I don’t think so, John. I think it’s saying that you need reason to know that you need faith to know that you don’t need reason.
Stupid, self-contradictory and circular. Sounds just like religion to me.
“Do people really use faith to perform their functions as a human being? To seek knowledge?”
Dubya and those who follow him certainly do. Of course it helps to have a Cheney in the background taking care of the empirical stuff. And that the point of the exercise isn’t seeking knowledge – as OB says.
Actually, I think Ophelia is radically underestimatining the role of faith in ordinary life. In real life the Dubyas and the Dicks aren’t neatly separated. Faith is taken as knowledge. People do crazy self destructive things when they know they’re “right” where ‘right’ means both ‘correct’ and “in the right” and everything in between.
It’s all in how you interpret the notion of function. People don’t use faith to perform their functions as human beings. Faith is humanity malfunctioning, not humanity functioning.
G. I think it was yesterday that you said (probably rightly) people inherit their faith from their parents, also a while back you spoke about people building mental walls to protect their faith from reason and scrutiny, do you think they inherit that wall along with the faith or do they build it later to protect their inheritance?
That is probably as clear as mud, hope you get my drift.
Because people should be allowed to believe whatever they feel like. I have problems with the blithe labelling of religious people as stupid or ignorant. It is lazy and untrue. It may be irrational, but that doesn’t necessarily equal unintelligent or of lesser intelligence. Dipshits like young-earth creationists are an easy target but considerate, thoughtful (even learned) people should be allowed to possess their oddnesses/belief.
But, when those beliefs overlap with others’ rights, there IS a problem. Hence, the importance of clearly defining and ensuring enforcement of those rights. There will (and should be) ongoing discussion as society/technology/life is not stagnant, but within a stout framework.
G. Tingey, the reason it is so difficult to get the message across is because . . . Taa Daa! They have faith! Which they use to block your message.
I suppose it is more rewarding for them emotionally to cling to certain beliefs as well. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that many people have it in the back of their minds that no matter how convincing an argument might be, that the universe is ultimately beyond our ken. To them, a good argument that contradicts what they want to believe might just indicate our inability to truly penetrate the mysteries of the universe. It’s the “limits of reason yada yada yada” thing.
George H Smith remarks in his book Why Atheism? that salvation religion includes the belief that “at least some knowledge necessary for salvation requires faith in divine revelation
I don’t think this is right. I’m not saying it makes anymore sense but the conventional order in salvation religions is for revelation to precede faith. Faith is born of the revelation, if you like.
“Yeah but but… Do people really use faith to perform their functions as a human being? To seek knowledge?”
Well, of course nobody actually does, because attempting to function as a human being on religious faith alone would quickly lead to death, or at best some kind of crippling accident.
That doesn’t stop religionists from holding up “faith” as the highest of all virtues, though.
“Because people should be allowed to believe whatever they feel like.”
There’s no “allowed” or “not allowed” to it. Barring the invention of mind control, there is literally no way for you or me or anyone else to prevent a person from believing anything they wish to.
Claiming that their beliefs are justified, or accurately represent reality, is another matter entirely, and of course that’s what religionists do. That’s the entire reason they are religionists, because they think their belief is justified and represents reality.
“do you think they inherit that wall along with the faith or do they build it later to protect their inheritance?”
I don’t think that most people set out to build a wall around their beliefs. It springs up because many people don’t take the time to fairly and honestly question the wisdom they received as children.
Of course, there are some extremely foolish people who do investigate their beliefs, realize that they don’t match up with the way the world actually works, and then gleefully set about walling out reality. But these are most likely the minority.
“Faith is humanity malfunctioning, not humanity functioning.”
G, yeah, you are so right. I know people who refuse to mix with certain people, because their “faith” dictates that they should not do so indeed. They deprive themselves of endless enjoyment because their “faith” will inevitably point the ‘faith’ finger at them, if they do not toe the line.
Eric: Hope you are feeling more perky?
“Because people should be allowed to believe whatever they feel like…[C]onsiderate, thoughtful (even learned) people should be allowed to possess their oddnesses/belief.”
Of course they should – and they are. But that doesn’t mean others should refrain from disagreeing with them, or pointing out flaws in the thinking, and so on. Or do you think it does mean that?
That’s a funny elision I see often, especially from people who have taken on a kind of mission to tell atheists not to be so ‘fanatical’ or noisy or confrontational or whatever it is: they seem to equate disagreement with coercion. But there is a big, big difference between disputing belief X and not allowing people to have belief X. If we try to do away with that difference, we become forbidden to say pretty much anything.
Shuggy, I think Smith’s version is compatible with yours. There’s the revelation, and faith in it is required for salvation. No?
“I don’t think that most people set out to build a wall around their beliefs.
Most people do not need to build walls around their beliefs – as the foundation walls, by their antecedents have already been securely grounded. They have inherited the walls that house their beliefs
“It springs up because many people don’t take the time to fairly and honestly question the wisdom they received as children.”
Yeah, I think wisdom alone is needed to question the wisdom received. Not time or honesty.
Faith Perfect Faith is the gift of Christ our Lord. That is what I was by the religious led to believe until I gained wisdom to question the faith.
I always remember being by the Sisters of Mercy told to never lose ‘the faith’ – hold fast on to it, no matter what came ones way in life. Faith will guide one through every aspect of ones’ moral life. Holding steadfast on to ‘the faith’ assured one of a life of purity of happiness and sanctifying grace. Faith was the penultimate compass, which guided one on the journey through life.
Eternal Salvation, in the next life, was the reward given by the good Lord for one that kept ‘the faith’.
“There’s no “allowed” or “not allowed” to it.”
Oh, but there is. This is related to the point that no-one should be coerced into revealing their beliefs and thoughts. Totalitarian states don’t stop you from thinking what you like, but they do put an awful lot of effort into suppression
OB, no, I don’t think people should refrain from disagreeing. Not at all. I thought I made that point in the second para. That discussion and dispute are healthy is a given.
I guess I get frustrated with those amateur psychology theories of believers = stupid, that’s all. Compartmentalised, perhaps, but most of us are.
dzd,
What is a religionist?
As for “honestly question”, honest is a loaded word. And anyway, it is extremely difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
DFG, yeh, I see.
Compartmentalized…that’s just it, I guess. Sure no doubt most of us are but on the other hand pretty much all of us could use improvement (cognitive improvement) so I think it’s worth pointing out ways we can improve.
Thanks Marie what led you to question your faith? was it Goldenridge or would you have questioned anyway.
How can they question their beliefs if they inherit a wall dzd as DFG says how can you reason your way out of something you were never reasoned into.
I have met people 50 times smarter than myself(not hard to do) who not only have faith (that they seem to have just got from their parents) but also seem to never even think to question it.
And that’s it, Richard. But also, why do they NEED to? What advantage does it offer them?
Not sure if you’re allowed to link in here, but I encourage you to have a look at:
http://www.fatherbob.com.au/
A hero of mine. A cranky bugger, too. Represents the positive side of x-tianity.
Thanks for that I may even send him some cash,it takes me back, as a young tyke I hitch hiked around Australia and met loads of those mision types, no questions asked you could look in and they would feed you.
There’s the revelation, and faith in it is required for salvation. No?
Yeah, it’s just that I don’t think in salvation religions faith is understood as a way of knowing things. Rather, because one knows something already – i.e. receives the revelation – one has faith. Grace through faith and this not of yourselves and all that… (Paul in Romans)
As a nine year old said to me the other day – “I don’t believe in god, because if there was a god he wouldn’t have made someone like me – who doesn’t believe in him”
“Thanks Marie what led you to question your faith? was it Goldenridge or would you have questioned anyway.”
No way would I (personally) have questioned my faith. I simply did not have the wherewithal. Faith was given to me – and one does not look a gift horse in the mouth. It was an an unanswered living. It was a way of thinking, a way of being, a way of life. It was cultural. It vitually controlled me. I knew no better.
But then one fine day:
By a fluke. Pure accident. I started gaining B&W Wisdom in the aftermath of mentally battling with Sr. Helena O’Donoghue’s (Provincial leader (Leinster Province) of the Sisters of Mercy, Ireland) evidence to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2006. She ascertained that abuse of children (which occurred every single day) in Goldenbridge was not harsh and that children were not overly damaged by it. Almost everything that came out of her mouth on the day was third hand knowledge. She undermined the pain of countless victims/survivors of institutional abuse. She was not interested in relaying the truth to CICA. I was staggered to see then that the religious were only trying at all costs to preserve their own faith. Also, the diabolical behaviour of the Christian Brothers when in giving an apology to those who spent time in the industrial schools, which they ran in Ireland – they included one word which was so offensive to all those concerned. The word was “if” we abused you – we are sorry. BTW, the Sisters of Mercy revoked their apology at the CICA. I was wrought and shaped and brainwashed by these religious people and perhaps would almost have forgiven them if they had said Sorry we put our hands up and apologise for having in the past wronged you – but instead they went into complete denial. I saw the light of day when I first got a glimpse of a world without religion. I believed all my life that good people only were people of Faith. Not any more.
“If”
That’s terrible.
Compare the considerably more generous apology of the Canadian PM last week for their residential schools.
Yeah, OB, I was at a meeting only the other night (concerning an impending Christian Brother Demo outside Dublin Castle) and I heard from someone present, that an apology was given to the Canadian native Indians. I believe, by all accounts, that the government will be reimbursing them with C$25, 000. A miniscule amount, in comparison to Awards handed out to Irish victims or/and survivors of industrial schools.
Undoubtedly, there will be begrudgers out there (by the score) who will condemn the native Indians for being in receipt of government monies.
Unfortunately, it comes with the territory.
Generous with apology – mean with Awards and vice versa.
Its almost like you were shocked out of your faith Marie,why were you put in Goldenridge?
(No way would I (personally) have questioned my faith. I simply did not have the wherewithal. Faith was given to me – and one does not look a gift horse in the mouth. It was an an unanswered living. It was a way of thinking, a way of being, a way of life. It was cultural. It vitually controlled me. I knew no better.)
O.B If Marie and others inherit their faith along with an almost complete inability to question that faith,wouldnt that go some way toward answering the question that you often ask about why faith claims are not given the same level of scrutiny that other claims get?
Richard, Marie-Therese has two articles about Goldenbridge on B&W, the answer to your question is there.
Yeah, Richard, you hit it on the nail. I was completely stunned. No other world outside of ‘faith’ for me, virtually existed at all.
Even in the more guessworky subjects, blind faith is no good.
Exactly. Faith isn’t the same as intuition or imagination. A lot of religious people will claim that it is. They’ll use “faith” as synonymous with any non-logical thought process, but in fact it’s not.