As assertive as this claim may be I cannot help but feel that I have formulated an argument that debases religion's epistemology (a philosophical position of how one obtains knowledge). Which usually consists (in all cases I have come across) some vague mix between faith and revelation. They use which ever one is convenient at the time.
These arguments usually go something like this:
- "Well, you just need faith" or
- "Well, you just need to pray about it, and god will let you know"
I am sure it is put differently then this is most cases, but the essence is the same.
Argument from Faith
I will define faith as thus:
"Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim." -Wiktionary
Now something important to understand in this definition is proof. What is the purpose of proof? To prove something is to establish truth values and relevance.
So it can be said that faith is the statement that: it is virtuous to believe in things lacking truth-values. Or perhaps in a less neutral way we could define faith (as in the virtue of faith) as the belief that is it virtuous to believe in something for no reason at all.
Faith has clear problems which lead to the excuse of revelation (which we will get to a little later) and I believe that everyone including the religious know it.
If we believe in things without truth-values (and if god is beyond matter then by definition there is no way to establish truth-values on him) then all belief is arbitrary. If truth-values are irrelevant to belief then 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are on equal ground. Ultimately without truth-values having one belief over the other is pointless. So the belief in faith makes no sense. Might you have faith to not believe in faith? I see no reason why not.
Argument from Revelation
At this point the argument from revelation comes into play. Some religions may not like the word revelation, but the only point I am trying to make is most religions believe that there is some way to make the belief in god relevant to you usually by him "manifesting" himself to you. The way each religion might claim he does this is not important.
It is here that we get to the heart of the matter. If you have revelation of some kind then what is the use of faith? In itself I have no problem with the argument from revelation. If there is a way to figure out that god exists and to make his existence more relevant then say a pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, then I think that's great! But it is when we put faith and revelation side by side then it becomes a problem, because the two ideas are not compatible.
Revelation: implies that there is a way to determine truth-value to the concept of god (and usually a specific religion also). Or in other words, it is good to believe in something for a reason.
Faith implies that empirical reasons are irrelevant to a system of belief. Or that it is good to believe in something for no reason.
So I suppose my criticism of "revelation" is that if it such a useful tool to making god a relevant claim and determining truth-value, then why is faith still important?
Perhaps I can offer my answer?
Because there is no reason for believing in god, that is why faith is still around. If revelation actually worked then faith would be useless. If there was a reason to believe in god, then we wouldn't have to make it a virtue to believe in things for no reason.
So it can be seen that faith has no way of determining truth-value from one belief to another, and revelation is not compatible with the premises of faith. Thus the union of faith and revelation has failed and is simply applying principles inconsistently.
Either knowledge is gained by the establishments of truth-values by reasoning and evidence or there is no knowledge. So, is there a reason to believe in god or isn't there? That must be decided.
Posts
5 comments:
Intriguing.
But I can't help but note, when taking a sociological approach to the matter of religious faith and revelation, that faith for many different cultures serves more functions than just "morality control".
For example, many aspects of Hindu religion, while all may seem simply rooted in a belief system, actually serve important economic, geographical and agricultural functions. (Like refusing to kill and eat cows, for example. I wont go into detail but I recommend checking it out. Very interesting)
Sometimes faith is the only way for these cultures to remain true to vital laws of survival (which they may even be unaware of themselves).
While, yes, you have proposed a viable arguement as to the logic that facilitates faith (no true-values, so forth), but what you must realize is that faith in religion is so deeply intertwined within the socioeconomic structure of different cultures that to simply call it "illogical" is not only stating the obvious when looking at the surface of religion (ex. sacred texts), but suggesting that faith is a "behavior" rather than, at times and in ways that may not be immediately visible, a functional institution.
There are many things that we as members of a society must have faith in, and if "god" can keep an uneducated, starving Hindu farmer from eating his cow but then, in the rainy season, starving to death because he has no way to plow his crops, we cannot assume that faith as a whole has no place in survival of their culture and others. (including ours)
I enjoy your blog. - jayme (from myspace. haha)
Well I think I understand better then most people that faith and religions are simply more then a behavior, they are a deeply engraved bigotry. Becoming an atheist was the hardest choice of my life. But I believe it is also the most rewarding choice of my so thats why I share my beliefs.
I have no doubt that religion serves as some kind of function maybe like racism did in the south just less then 100 years ago. I suppose the question is would you be willing to apply your argument consistently? Seeing how it could just about justify anything.
Try it with racism
"but what you must realize is that [RACISM] is so deeply intertwined within the socioeconomic structure of different cultures that to simply call it "illogical" is not only stating the obvious when looking at the surface of religion (ex. sacred texts), but suggesting that faith is a "behavior" rather than, at times and in ways that may not be immediately visible, a functional institution."
How about homophobia?
"but what you must realize is that [HOMOPHOBIA] is so deeply intertwined within the socioeconomic structure of different cultures that to simply call it "illogical" is not only stating the obvious when looking at the surface of religion (ex. sacred texts), but suggesting that faith is a "behavior" rather than, at times and in ways that may not be immediately visible, a functional institution."
You can literally apply this argument to every possible social problem. Because by definition social problems are a cultural phenomenon.
Also I don't believe the problem of faith and revelation is a common knowledge... not from my experience.
But there is clearly times in history when we have made progress. Consider the enlightenment for example. If you are implying that approaching faith is much more difficult then say correcting someone who argues 2+2=5, then yes I totally agree, but i don't think that means it not worth taking a shot.
also, thank you for the comment :D I really do appreciate it.
well you certainly did point out all the holes in my argument didnt you ;)
but believe me, i am outspokenly anti-religion.
if not hopelessly so.
haha well I do appreciate the criticism, especially that one. Because I can tell you put some thought and time into it
Post a Comment