A Question of Faith

JippoKelly

Christianity and indeed may of the other religions place a large emphasis on faith. In fact Christianity actively encourages 'blind faith' - the belief in The Holy Trinity without any questioning.

My question is, in this day and age, when scientific and empirical research are offering us much more information about the way the universe operates, is it acceptable to blindly believe in God without a rational basis?

The Corinthian

For a start the concept of the Holy Trinity, while found in most Christian denominations and sects, is not found in all. Secondly, all religions are based upon faith - it’s kind of what makes them religions in the first place. Or do you know of any religion that’s principles and assumptions are based upon a scientifically deduced fact or even theory?

And that’s really the difference between belief in the supernatural and belief in the natural, in that they are both based upon different starting points or assumptions, from which the reasoning flows perfectly logically - in opposite directions.

And while one may scoff at the assumptions of the religious - be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan or Jew - one would also have to ask whether the assumptions that science is derived from are any more accurate. After all, the World was once scientifically proven to be flat. Leeching would be used to remove bad blood, which was the cause for all disease in the view of the, then, medical community. And Jews were proven not to be strictly human too, not so long ago, using scientific analysis. Is science any more reliable?

JippoKelly

I take your point on the Holy Trinity. My bad.

Faith is the starting point, I was never denying that. I accept that. Otherwise its not really a religion is it? But I was specifically talking about Blind Faith. The unqestionable belief in God that the Church has advocated in the past. Surely there should be some room for questioning the rationality of belief in God that has no element of reason or empricism behind it. Should we not question elements of religious belief? Should we have persisted in maintaining our ignorance?

And you're right, science isn't 100% reliable. But what eventually disproved the world being flat, and that leeches aren't the medical wonder they were previously believed to be? Further scientific discoveries.

That is my point. Science is an ongoing endeavour to understand the world and how it works. It's a constant evolution. It is the constant re-evaluation of the world around us. It doesn't offer all the answers, but what does?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by JippoKelly
Faith is the starting point, I was never denying that. I accept that. Otherwise its not really a religion is it? But I was specifically talking about Blind Faith. The unqestionable belief in God that the Church has advocated in the past. Surely there should be some room for questioning the rationality of belief in God that has no element of reason or empricism behind it. Should we not question elements of religious belief? Should we have persisted in maintaining our ignorance?

First of all, if you are discussing the authority of the Church, then you’re really discussing Roman Catholicism rather than Christianity in general, let alone religion. It was, after all, a lot to do with the authority of the Church, that Protestantism came into being.

And indeed, the reading and interpretation by the individual of the Bible is quite central to Protestantism - one of the reasons that there are dozens if not hundreds of Protestant denominations. Roman Catholicism works off a different core assumption, that that interpretation is centralised - one of the reasons that there have been only two major schisms in Roman Catholicism in two millennia.

Nonetheless, you should consider the principles of the logic involved. The Roman Catholic Church is a largely patriarchal organization and as such it’s perfectly logical that it should seek blind faith. A child does not seek to understand the reasoning of a parent, but simply accepts and trusts that the parent has his or her best interests at heart. The same goes for the Roman Catholic Church - accept that premise and the rest is perfectly logical.

Of course, I’m not saying you should accept it. I’m simply saying that all logic is axiomatic, and thus founded in assumptions. One can reason quite cogently complete tripe, based upon false axioms after all - and throughout history we’ve done so on numerous occasions.

So there is a level of blind faith in all logic. After all, had you considered what would happen to mathematics if one plus one wasn’t equal to two?

And you're right, science isn't 100% reliable. But what eventually disproved the world being flat, and that leeches aren't the medical wonder they were previously believed to be? Further scientific discoveries.

That is my point. Science is an ongoing endeavour to understand the world and how it works. It's a constant evolution. It is the constant re-evaluation of the world around us. It doesn't offer all the answers, but what does?

You’ll find that most religions (even Roman Catholicism) have re-evaluated and changed their views over time too. At much the same rate as science, curiously enough.

As for answers; look to religion, science, ideology, family, power - whatever floats your boat.

JippoKelly

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You’ll find that most religions (even Roman Catholicism) have re-evaluated and changed their views over time too. At much the same rate as science, curiously enough.

What caused the Catholic Church to re-evaluate and change their views over time? Was it a continuing concerted effort on their part to improve the Church and not just maintain the status quo, or was it more the necessity to become less dogmatic and more liberal to combat difficult questions being asked by scientific Freethinkers, which highlighted how unreasonable previously accepted religious beliefs were ?

Nonetheless, you should consider the principles of the logic involved. The Roman Catholic Church is a largely patriarchal organization and as such it’s perfectly logical that it should seek blind faith. A child does not seek to understand the reasoning of a parent, but simply accepts and trusts that the parent has his or her best interests at heart. The same goes for the Roman Catholic Church - accept that premise and the rest is perfectly logical.

I child is incapable of rational formal thought, and it accepts the reasoning of a parent as a consequence of its own ignorance as opposed to an acceptance of the parent's intelligence and good intentions.

One would hope Roman Catholics are capable of rational thought and as such should not blindly accept the dogmas and preachings of the Church, but that they would rationally weigh up the pros and cons of their religion or at least bear them in mind. Blindly accepting the dogmas of the Church is a promotion of ignorance and is thus potentially dangerous.

And is it right that the Church should be a patriarchal organisation? Such organisations are traditionally authoritarian, oppressive and reluctant to change. Kind of goes against the notion of a benevolent God.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by JippoKelly
What caused the Catholic Church to re-evaluate and change their views over time? Was it a continuing concerted effort on their part to improve the Church and not just maintain the status quo, or was it more the necessity to become less dogmatic and more liberal to combat difficult questions being asked by scientific Freethinkers, which highlighted how unreasonable previously accepted religious beliefs were ?

Are you turning this from a philosophical discussion on Christianity and religion to one of history and politics of the Roman Catholic Church?

I child is incapable of rational formal thought, and it accepts the reasoning of a parent as a consequence of its own ignorance as opposed to an acceptance of the parent's intelligence and good intentions.
But does a child know that it is incapable of rational thought?
One would hope Roman Catholics are capable of rational thought and as such should not blindly accept the dogmas and preachings of the Church, but that they would rationally weigh up the pros and cons of their religion or at least bear them in mind. Blindly accepting the dogmas of the Church is a promotion of ignorance and is thus potentially dangerous.

So what? People go their entire lives blindly accepting truths and dogmas - Marx only considered religion the great opiate of the masses because the television hadn’t been invented yet. And science without restraint is hardly immune from abuse either...

Anyhow, you asked about the reasoning behind faith, not the morality. That’s a different discussion.

And is it right that the Church should be a patriarchal organisation?

What has right and wrong to do with this? We’re discussing reason and logic, not morality - that faith, like science is based upon presumptions, from which everything is quite reasonably arrived at, not that one is good or evil.

As I said, that’s a different discussion, and one I doubt I’d entertain. I don’t do morality.

Such organisations are traditionally authoritarian, oppressive and reluctant to change. Kind of goes against the notion of a benevolent God.

So what? What’s that got to do with the price of loves and fish?

JippoKelly

I did not ask about the reasoning behind faith. I was asking if faith alone without any rational analysis of it is acceptable.

And again I'm not saying that science is without its faults. You seem to imply that I am trumpeting science over religion. That's not what I intend to do. Science can of course be abused. Figures like Mengele spring to mind.

My qualm about blind faith is that it is a victory for ignorance and serves to retard intellectual progress. Without questioning the merits of any particular system or ideal, the system or ideal can never be improved. It is the re-evaluation and critical analysis of previous mythological explanations that led to the birth of many of the religions that are present today. Yet the Church placed (it's not quite as strict today, by admission) emphasis on faith without question and a person of a cynical mindset could say that this emphasis on blind faith was purely to prevent any other explanation (metaphysical, scientific, or otherwise) from usurping the Church's position in society.

And the Church is meant to be a source of morality. Do Catholics not at least obtain some sense of their morality from moral guidelines set down by the Church? So in the lives of Catholics their faith and morality are inextricably linked. It is nigh on impossible to have any discussion about faith or religion without some mention of morality.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by JippoKelly
I did not ask about the reasoning behind faith. I was asking if faith alone without any rational analysis of it is acceptable.

And I answered repeatedly that it is perfectly rational. It just happens to be based up on a different premise to the one you would support. That premise, assumption, axiom, faith or whatever you wish to call it may be flawed, but that’s a separate discussion again and, let’s face it, what axiom is not flawed?

And again I'm not saying that science is without its faults. You seem to imply that I am trumpeting science over religion. That's not what I intend to do. Science can of course be abused. Figures like Mengele spring to mind.

I was comparing one philosophical outlook against another. Both perfectly logical, both based upon assumptions and both equally prone to erroneous conclusions (often due to their assumptions) and abuse.

My qualm about blind faith is that it is a victory for ignorance and serves to retard intellectual progress. Without questioning the merits of any particular system or ideal, the system or ideal can never be improved.

That’s fine if you approach the subject logically from the premise that all systems are inherently flawed. If you don’t and your basic axiom is that it is not flawed, but divine, then what you’ve suggested is moot.

And the Church is meant to be a source of morality. Do Catholics not at least obtain some sense of their morality from moral guidelines set down by the Church? So in the lives of Catholics their faith and morality are inextricably linked. It is nigh on impossible to have any discussion about faith or religion without some mention of morality.

It appears nigh on impossible to have a discussion about faith or religion without it suddenly becoming about politics. There are plenty of other religions (and ideologies out there) that make use of faith (some call it patriotism even ) - yet you return to one denomination of one religion repeatedly.

No. Morality is irrelevant to a discussion about reason. Logic is amoral, after all.

JippoKelly

I apologise for repeatedly returning to the Catholic Church. It is the only denomination I have any true experience of, unfortunately.

I suppose I can not argue with the fact that if the premise you wish to reason from is divine then there is no need to question it. And thus faith without question would be reasonable.

The validity of this premise is of course debatable but, as you rightly said, that's another discussion entirely.

Doctor Funfrock

I belief there is a god! How could there not be? ww)