Faith. It's a word that's trumpeted by almost all religions. They say, "you just have to have faith". Do I? Why?
Here's something I don't get about faith. I think, most of the time, the word faith is used interchangeably with hope or desire. "I have faith that my cancer will be cured" translates to "I hope my cancer will be cured". "I have faith that so and so will do the right thing" translates to "I hope so and so will do the right thing". Most of us though, at least those of us who want what we're having faith in/hoping for to happen, don't just have faith; we do something about it! Most of those of us who are unfortunate enough to have cancer don't just have faith it will go away, we go to the doctor. Most of those of us who have a child that is turning to drugs don't just have faith that the addiction will go away, we intervene to try and get them to clean up their life. Some people might say that they have faith that the doctor will be able to cure their cancer or they have faith that intervening in their child's drug addiction will save them. But at this point, it's really not faith. You're taking an action that you know will statistically result in a better outcome. When your faith or hope becomes action, I think it ceases to be faith anymore and becomes playing the odds. I'm sorry, but pure faith just doesn't work. Ask any parent that's lost a child to a curable illness because they decided to have faith that God would heal them instead of taking them to the doctor and saving their life (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180116.stm). Relying on faith alone, in God or anything else, without action is a worthless gesture. To get the results that you want, you need to play the odds and perform actions that give you the best statistical advantage. This to me is just common sense.
Another thing I don't get about faith is that requiring followers of a religion to have faith without any objective evidence puts all religions on an equal playing field. Think about it. All religions are trying to get people to follow them with no objective evidence. If all you have to go on is faith, then how is one religion any more convincing than the other? Yet, this doesn't stop any follower of a religion from claiming that they've found the one true religion. It's also strange that religion is one of the only things in the world people are just willing to have faith on. You wouldn't just have faith that the suspicious person claiming to be a police officer to get into your house is a police officer, you would ask for identification or verify with the police station that that person is, indeed who they say they are. We wouldn't let this suspicious stranger into our house without verification, yet everyday billions of people let religion into their homes on pure faith, with no object evidence at all. And while the suspicious "police man" may only rob you or kill you, the effects of not verifying and believing religious claims can be far more damaging including mass genocide and the poisoning of the minds of endless generations.
I think people need to question supposed truths more and rely more on action than faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good job on having the courage to take on a controversial topic. I disagree on your comments. Faith != religion. Althought most people use it interchangeably, faith is more of having confidence of hope that something will work in your favor. Whether through divine intervention or not, people want to have faith - most people will believe what they want to believe. If they think God will intervene, then they will want to believe that. If they think that science will intervene, then they will want to believe that. If they feel that faith and action are required, they will pursue that. Faith is whatever you want it to be. Personally, I am a firm believer of the latter. Faith and action are required i.e. "I have faith that the action I am to take will serve me best". "I have faith that I will score an A in my exam." However, if I do not study and twiddle my thumbs expecting solely on relying on faith (whether from God or personal experience), that is pure retardation.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence are you looking for in God or a Higher Being? Do you want God to appear in front of you and perform some miracles before you have evidence? Everybody needs hope (whether in the form of God, inspiration, music), but to simply say that letting religion blindly into our hearts and houses is a skewed. (You have a right to your opinion by the way). Sure ask anyone if they will like God to appear and say that He is God, and that all the other religions are wrong. They will want that. But if they can't have that, then they will take the next best alternative (NBA) and have faith(confidence) that their choice is the right one. I don't question the need to question things in life rationally. Remember, all truths are what we make up of them and highly subject to perception. If religion A is the truth to me or the one that appeals most to my value-based system, then that is the truth I will believe in.. it may not be the right one (no one will know till they die, or perhaps never know), but that is what is the right one anyway? One more thing, having no religion is the same as having the religion of No Religion. Religion is a set of values of what you believe in a Higher, omnipresent source. So in a way, you are religious, and maybe I will question the way you let the religion of no God enter your house? You subconsciously ask the question "How do you know that there is a God?" ... I ask you "How do you know there isn't one?" If you are concerned with "then how is one religion any more convincing than the other?", then how is your religion (of no religion) any more convincing. Flawed.
ReplyDelete"I disagree on your comments. Faith != religion."
ReplyDeleteWhat I was trying to equate was the concept of faith and hope. I would agree, faith is not the same as religion. However, unlike most things, religion requires the follower to have faith as there is no object evidence available.
Thanks for the comment.
"What evidence are you looking for in God or a Higher Being?"
ReplyDeleteI don't really know. See my post on the subject- http://agnostablog.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-would-it-take-for-you-to.html. If anyone would know what it would take to convince me, it would be an all-knowing God.
"Sure ask anyone if they will like God to appear and say that He is God, and that all the other religions are wrong. They will want that. But if they can't have that, then they will take the next best alternative (NBA) and have faith(confidence) that their choice is the right one."
I disagree. First, I don't think that having faith that God exists merely for lack of any evidence is the "next best alternative". If I have no good reason to believe in something, why would I bother to believe in it? Also, there all other alternatives; lack of faith for example.
"Remember, all truths are what we make up of them and highly subject to perception."
Again, I disagree. Where it is possible to have actual truth (the existence of something or the non-existence of something, how events did or did not take place, etc), truth is absolutely not subjective. There are instances in life where interpretations must be made where truth cannot exist. However, these interpretations cannot be regarded as true or false, they are merely interpretations.
"If religion A is the truth to me or the one that appeals most to my value-based system"
This sounds like you're not really interested in truth with regards to religion, you are more interested in what is comfortable to you. Keep in mind, just because you believe something, doesn't make it true. Just because I believe if I jump out the window I can fly, doesn't make it so.
"One more thing, having no religion is the same as having the religion of No Religion."
That is a logical contradiction. A true dichotomy would be either I have religion or no religion. If I have no religion then I therefore cannot have the "religion" of "no religion". Atheism and agnosticism is not a belief, it is a lack of a belief.
"You subconsciously ask the question "How do you know that there is a God?" ... I ask you "How do you know there isn't one?"
I do not know for a fact that there is no God and I am completely open to being convinced. Also, you cannot prove that something does not exist. No one has ever seen a five headed dog with eagle wings, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, since we have never seen one, there really isn't a good reason to go ahead believing that there is such a thing.
"If you are concerned with "then how is one religion any more convincing than the other?", then how is your religion (of no religion) any more convincing."
Again, I don't consider my lack of belief to be a "religion". However, my beliefs are based on evidence not merely on faith, so I would say that my "religion" has a leg up with regard to credibility than other "religions".
Taking an extreme case (like the man who prayed, but did not take his daughter to the doctors) and making a general statement about all religions or religious people is simply poor logic. Again, we know in statistics that extreme cases are disregarded because they do not represent the average population. The Bible does not instruct Christians to "just have faith." James 2:14-17 says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
ReplyDeleteHi Scott,
ReplyDelete"Taking an extreme case (like the man who prayed, but did not take his daughter to the doctors) and making a general statement about all religions or religious people is simply poor logic."
I agree that it is an extreme case, but I think it is a valid one. This is a circumstance that can only be brought about by belief.
"James 2:14-17 says..."
I was not aware of that verse from the bible. That clarifies things. Thank you! :-)
How do you feel regarding the requirement of faith making all religions have the same likelihood of truth?
Hey Vin,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the "praying man" is valid in the sense that it is a true story and that type of thing does happen unfortunately due to incorrect teaching or misunderstanding about faith and/or biblical teachings, but I don't think it is valid as representational of Christians or other religious individuals.
I'm not sure I understand fully what you're getting at with the last question, but I'll give it some thought to see if I can wrap my head around it.
Faith is not something one has to have, but something one chooses to have.