"We can only do our best to make sense of this chaos - through Reason or Faith - neither is intrinsically "better" despite how sure you think your way is better."
My point is not necessarily that my conclusions are correct - but that my approach to the world is correct. I look at the fruits of faith and see people forcing human sacrifices and wasting time drawing pretty circles (ala Misnagid) instead of taking positive action in times of trouble. Then I look at the fruits of science and reason and see men on the moon, vaccines, and computers.
No amount of faith is going to help you when you feel your first heart attack. But a miraculous, reason derived pill of nitroglycerin can.
Faith is indeed intrinsically faulty and is much more likely to lead you dead wrong than right. Reason isn't perfect, but at least you have a fighting chance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
so now systematically making my way through the posts (why, you might ask, am I spending so much time here? I think I’m sort of fascinated by you, maybe b/c my brother is basically the same way but isn’t the type to explain my his views so extensively, or maybe b/c I’m sort of the same way but not quite at the same degree...), I have to say I disagree on this one. Yeah, faith may be faulty, but to say it hasn't gotten people through some rough spots is probably not scientifically true. Concrete studies show that religious people are happier than non-religious people. It may not be God, but clearly the act of faith adds something to people's lives. I know a bunch of Holocaust survivors who will say that the only way they managed to keep going and not throw themselves into some barbed wire, was a belief in God that gave them the strength to go on. Sure, it may not be scientific, but I think to say it doesn't help at all misses something of great importance.
Sarah,
In another post of mine I say that I recognize the emotional value of faith. If you want to feel good, faith is a good way of getting there. But if you want to know how the world really is, fact-based understanding is surely the better bet.
Positive beliefs in general are good for one's health. But my example in this post was a specific case where you've got a decreased flow of blood to the heart. Having faith isn't going to suddenly unclear that clog. I meant "help" in a physical way to save your life, not in an emotional way like you'll be calmer when you die.
BTW, I'm honored to be found so fascinating. ;-)
So, I guess if your only goal is a fact-based understanding of the world, yeah, faith or a belief in God really has no place. And of course, being a girl, I probably see this more, but there is an emotional side to people which I think you may not be placing enough value on. I mean, if science helps a person unclear their heart clog, and faith prevents a person from comitting suicide, whose to see that the value of one is so much less than the other? My problem is not with faith itself as much as the "my faith is right, your faith is wrong" type of religions we see today, and the type of faith which disregards science and everything its proven. But when science and faith go hand in hand, I think the latter can provide a nice complement and the result can be something pretty amazing...
Sarah,
What is faith? It's believing things to be true without or despite the evidence. How can that go hand in hand with empiricism which is the exact opposite? You'd need to have some sacred cows. If you're a true scientist, you'd have to be skeptical of supernaturalisms.
It's not about having merely a "fact-based understanding of the world" but a true and accurate understanding. Faith is usually wrong. It just so happens that our best method for understanding the world is through facts.
Faith isn't inherently a bad thing, I just don't see it as a necessarily useful thing. Why can't people get their emotional kicks without appealing to non-truths? Having dedicated beliefs, dogmas, to give you meaning to live is a sad commentary on humanity.
"Faith isn't inherently a bad thing, I just don't see it as a necessarily useful thing. Why can't people get their emotional kicks without appealing to non-truths?"
I understand your desire for the complete usefulness of things. And I get the question too - coming from your perspective, it would seem desirable for everyone to get their "emotional kicks" from truth. But I don't think you can take God away from most people. For whatever reason, it seems to be an idea that will not go away, no matter how hard people try, and when it doesn't add anything bad to the world (and I acknowledge that there's a lot of room for the bad, but I think the bad will manifest itself in other ways when you take away God too), I don't really see a huge problem.
Sarah,
I'm not the kind of person who'll say "I have all the answers, you must do what I say and think what I think." Because I recognize my limitations and I know that I could be completely wrong.
The belief in God brings a lot of people comfort and far be it from me to take that away from people. But I won't promote what I don't believe either. So this site is my message, I'm not forcing anyone to read it or agree with me.
And some, who I've seen probably couldn't handle what I've got to show, I've told them to take a walk and ignore me.
What I am against is fundamentalism and dogmaticism. Maybe God does exist. All I'm saying is that people shouldn't feel 100% sure of that. I can't imagine people killing or dying in the name of a being who they aren't sure exists.
So then, would you be against moving to Israel and joining the IDF? Or would you consider that more nationalistic?
Sarah,
Israel is a nationalistic state and it's existence is predicated on Jewish nationalism. There are plenty of people out there who see it only on religious grounds, but I'm not one of them.
I am a zionist and my feelings toward Israel are founded in terms of history and brotherhood, not destiny.
So I'm not against moving to Israel or joining the IDF based on any philosophical reasons.
Post a Comment