As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Can there be religion without faith?
Loren Michael
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This thread is in some ways a sequel to this thread, which I feel was ruined by the word "atheist" (which is a word I will not use, and I beg you all to do the same), and follows up some of the unaddressed points from this thread, around page 49 or so.
WARNING:
"Religion" and "faith" are both very mushy, porous words that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, so I'm going to define my terms right away to let everyone know what I'm talking about. If someone wants to address my points, accept my definitions first. If someone wants to use different definitions for those terms, by all means let everyone know what your definition is. I have seen far, far too many threads about these subjects ruined because people simply talk past each other when a simple check about what the hell you're talking about could make it all better.
For me, I'm going to define what I mean by faith and try very hard to never use it again in this thread, as that word is a particularly egregious offender in the "I can't tell what the hell you are talking about" realm, even when it's been defined. My use in the OP was only to get you to come into the thread in the first place. Sorry if you feel cheated.
When I say "religion", I'm using this definition, gleaned from Wikipedia:
Here Is What I'm Talking About:
I see a lot of people having fun and being in nifty religious communities and such, and I’d like a piece of that, but… there’s nothing out there that really suits me. I feel kind of like a Buddhist in a Christian world, except I’m not even a Buddhist.
As such, I want to either join or start a new religion for people similar to me, I want to be a part of something that can introduce a way of life and school of thought similar to mine to people who don’t currently share or know about it.
So, I defined "religion" above, but what the hell am I talking about? I don't believe in anything that's "supernatural". I think the meaning of the word itself is kind of convoluted and worthless. Can I take the definition from above, but accept that "...often ... supernatural..." is not the same as always supernatural? Can I have a religion that doesn't impel one to believe in magic, doesn't require one to believe things that are tenuous?
I don't see why not. And I don't see why I shouldn't.
The religion, Christianity, to take one example, is often derived from the perceived life of Jesus, as told in the bible, with lots of extrapolations made by examining the text. There are plenty of other flavors as well.
Could there be a religion based on materialistic determinism? My Facebook profile lists my religious views as being "Darwinistically cynical determinism". Can that be, or at least effectively sum up my religion? Can moral claims be derived from this view, can there be rituals that might be performed to, to... to do something?
I don't see why not.
When I tell myself to "be reasonable" when confronted with something that might cause me to be otherwise, isn't that a ritual? I have a bevy of similar mantras that have worked out pretty well for me (and I suspect I'm not alone in this respect). I have a number of outlooks on life, moral and otherwise, that are almost completely underwritten by an understanding of determinism.
Why is this not a religion? I think it is.
WARNING:
"Religion" and "faith" are both very mushy, porous words that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, so I'm going to define my terms right away to let everyone know what I'm talking about. If someone wants to address my points, accept my definitions first. If someone wants to use different definitions for those terms, by all means let everyone know what your definition is. I have seen far, far too many threads about these subjects ruined because people simply talk past each other when a simple check about what the hell you're talking about could make it all better.
For me, I'm going to define what I mean by faith and try very hard to never use it again in this thread, as that word is a particularly egregious offender in the "I can't tell what the hell you are talking about" realm, even when it's been defined. My use in the OP was only to get you to come into the thread in the first place. Sorry if you feel cheated.
When I say "religion", I'm using this definition, gleaned from Wikipedia:
…a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.
When I say "faith", I'm using this definition, which I pulled from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Now, with that out of the way...Here Is What I'm Talking About:
I see a lot of people having fun and being in nifty religious communities and such, and I’d like a piece of that, but… there’s nothing out there that really suits me. I feel kind of like a Buddhist in a Christian world, except I’m not even a Buddhist.
As such, I want to either join or start a new religion for people similar to me, I want to be a part of something that can introduce a way of life and school of thought similar to mine to people who don’t currently share or know about it.
So, I defined "religion" above, but what the hell am I talking about? I don't believe in anything that's "supernatural". I think the meaning of the word itself is kind of convoluted and worthless. Can I take the definition from above, but accept that "...often ... supernatural..." is not the same as always supernatural? Can I have a religion that doesn't impel one to believe in magic, doesn't require one to believe things that are tenuous?
I don't see why not. And I don't see why I shouldn't.
The religion, Christianity, to take one example, is often derived from the perceived life of Jesus, as told in the bible, with lots of extrapolations made by examining the text. There are plenty of other flavors as well.
Could there be a religion based on materialistic determinism? My Facebook profile lists my religious views as being "Darwinistically cynical determinism". Can that be, or at least effectively sum up my religion? Can moral claims be derived from this view, can there be rituals that might be performed to, to... to do something?
I don't see why not.
When I tell myself to "be reasonable" when confronted with something that might cause me to be otherwise, isn't that a ritual? I have a bevy of similar mantras that have worked out pretty well for me (and I suspect I'm not alone in this respect). I have a number of outlooks on life, moral and otherwise, that are almost completely underwritten by an understanding of determinism.
Why is this not a religion? I think it is.
Loren Michael on
0
Posts
Well,
Religion requires unfounded claims outside the realm of human-created definition. This is what separates religion from philosophy. If the concepts you're dealing with don't exist independently of human creation, they're not religious.
can't it just be a philosophy of life?
you can have people gather around and be friends and do things (you can call them rituals if you want), but why does it have to be a "religion"?
why can't it just be like a "community" of do-gooders or philosophers or rationalists or whatever?
Now, you can have a philosophy that you live by that you treat with religious dogmatism, but that doesn't make the philosophy a religious one.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etkp7tQG-_A&feature=related
- A set of beliefs and practises
- often entered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature
- and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.
Since points 2 and 3 are optional, that leaves only point 1 as the real definition of a religion. Which is to say, any set of beliefs and practices is a religion.To take an example: being a social conservative implies a set of beliefs (that the old ways are best) and practises (defending the old ways against liberals who want to change them) (yes I'm well aware that's a large simplification of what being a conservative is about, but this isn't a politics thread so let's skip the 50-page debate on the tenets of conservatism please). So does that make being a conservative a religion? By your definition, it would seem so.
If you're comfortable with using a definition that allows such a level of generality, then sure, your having a belief in determinism and applying it in practise gives you a religion. So does everyone else. In fact, by that definition, I'd say most people have several religions by that definition.
You bastard, now I want a big steak and some nice red wine.
And that would take me like two week's worth of grocery monies for me.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
My clumsy summary of what Durkheim says is, although there is no god or any other supernatural agencies (in his opinion) then religion as a social institution appears from a historical point of view to have been essential to things like social cohesion, people living happy and moral lives, the maintenance of a feeling of meaningfulness in life and so on and so on. And while he sees alternatives to those religious institutions arising, alternatives which are in some ways superior, he also sees that there are essential parts of a person's life which are not catered to at all by these new institutions. He's particularly concerned by the growth of feelings of "anomie", by which he means the feeling that a person has when they don't have a framework of meaning in which to place their lives, and so develop a restless sense that they might as well do anything at all, or equally, not do anything at all. One could make an argument that "anomie" is another word for depression.
He writes speculatively about the possibility for the development of some kind of "civic religion", which would serve the functional purposes of religion without the supernatural baggage... and while he tries to be hopeful about it, one gets the sense that there are serious obstacles to the development of such a thing. Anyway, if you're interested in this stuff, I recommend the book - there are usually cheap copies to be found in 2nd-hand bookshops and the like.
But you'd still have to establish faith in something. In reason, in humanity, perhaps.
A religion oriented around humanism would be quite functional and beneficial, I think.
I don't see how that would be the case.
I think the hard part would be getting any emotional payoff from it, which is what most people want out of their religion.
To me, the thing that separates religion from philosophy isn't faith, but worship. So what would a Darwinstically cynical determinist worship?
bolded part i think is definitely true.
what
atheist only means you don't believe in a deity.
however there are forms of religious faith that are not theistic or centered around a deity.
if you also do not believe in those, atheist as a term doesn't really cut it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Exactly.
The new atheism has at its core a simple epistemological principle: do not believe in any idea unless you have seen objectively verifiable evidence supporting that idea.
However, one can be an atheist (in sense of "I do not believe in God") yet also believe in things that fail the evidence-based litmus test of the new atheism (such as, say, reincarnation).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If you are going to be inherently skeptical of any proposal that does not have verifiable evidence to support it, there is a word to describe you: skeptical. You are a skeptic.
But debating about the term atheism is exactly what the OP didn't want, so let's drop it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
oh okay
what's the term for "i don't believe in gods or ghosts or magic or any of that"
Skeptic.
Cool, that works.
With respect to the disagreement part of your post, observe the definition that I used. Also, I don't know what you said in the rest of your post, insofar as it made no sense to me. Please clarify, if it's still relevant.
First, and most important, why not? Second, are "philosophies of life" as useful for social cohesion as a religion? Are they as politically powerful? Are the benefits the same? What does "philosophy of life" even mean, and how is it distinct from the definition of religion that I am using?
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=5493943&postcount=1
I agree with you, Richy.
I assume you're talking about Unitarian Universalists, and I was a part of the UU church until about ten years ago. I assure you, every joke about them is at least 80% true. They simply are extremely incohesive, lack a shared vision, and aren't a terribly compelling institution except for a minority of extremely non-confrontational and/or very confused people. Both of my parents still go (largely for the coffee and community afterwards, and they regularly regale me with stories of how incredibly unsatisfying and incoherent the average sermon is.
Humanism is perhaps closer to the correct track, but it has always struck me as an ideology for individuals, not lending itself effectively to social cohesion and community.
Pony, this thread is for the express purpose of exploring the red statement that I quoted. Could you flesh that out a little, and/or provide an argument, please?
Regarding the bolded bit, given my own experience as an emotionally extremely satisfied individual, *I* don't think it's particularly hard. That said, my experience is uniquely my own, and I agree that it's not something that's necessarily easy to reproduce. I think articulating an emotionally satisfying worldview is certainly something worth exploring, however.
Worship: I'm not certain about this being a necessary feature. I'm not completely clear on what you mean by it, but if it's something roughly in line with "reverence toward and object or concept", I don't think there is a dearth of ideas, people, and phenomenon worthy of reverence. Perhaps you could elaborate, ask_lesko?
...
Finally, itylus, I recall you recommending that book to me, and it sounds both compelling and interesting, but I am sadly in a place that has a dearth of English books.
I see it as the primary thing that separates religion from philosophy and science. All are interested in truth, but religion adds worship of the Truth that it finds. So I'd call it necessary to make it religion over philosophy.
So what is worship? My definition would be "love and devotion to something above." Maybe above all, maybe just above normal. It's stronger than respect or even reverence. I revere the U.S. Constitution but don't worship it. I also think that worship includes sacrifice. Either of time, money, attention, whatever, to demonstrate devotion.
Not the clearest thoughts, but there it is.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
no specific reason. it does smack of wanting to be "different" and "edgy" just for the sake of being different and edgy though. i also think trying to label yourself as a religion likely brings upon your group more headaches than benefits.
i mean, seriously, let's pretend everyone in your group understands perfectly and abides by your definition of "religion". how many people in the real world will see it that way?
i say, just call it as it is. what you're proposing is not a religion as one would understand the word in a casual sense. it's just a group of people with similar interests. and that's fine.
sure. i mean there are lots of institutions that arent centered around religion that are powerful and socially cohesive. occupational communities and racial communities spring to mind. isnt the corn lobby like hugely powerful and responsible for much of the world's evils? what about racial groups? i bet most large corporations wield immense power and have wonderful internal communities.
i think benefits and power come from group activity, not necessarily from what that group specifically holds up as it's reason to be a group.
honestly, im not sure how "philosophy of life" is distinct from the term "religion" as you are using it. however, im quite certain that philosophy of life is very distinct from the term religion as normally used.
in other words, i dont know why you want to use the word religion, but give it a totally different meaning.
i can call my philosophy of life something like "objective truth", but what does that do for me or anyone? does it suddenly make what i do more convincing or lend legitimacy to my point of view?
i think in order for your proposal to have any utility, the proposal itself must have inherent value, regardless of how you label it. you can call it a religion, an association, a company, a social circle, a book club, whatever.
but personally, i think you're focusing on the wrong issue. what should be more important to you is figuring out how to gather the community you are describing and ensure that it can act together with one voice. once you have gathered the group / association / community, the social cohesion, political power and benefits will follow.
and you won't have to call it a religion, because it's not one (at least not in the real world).
And I think that Loren's definitions make allowances for that. If we define a religion as "a set of beliefs and practises" and one lives one's life according to these beliefs, then one has an implicit faith that those beliefs are true. That's using the OP definition that faith is a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". As far as I know, no set of beliefs (that can be labelled as "religion" in the context of this thread) have been proven true through logical inference or material evidence.
So to answer the question that is the thread title, and using the definitions in the OP, I don't think there can be religion without faith. The simple act of picking a religion, a set of beliefs by which to guide your life, implies faith, an unproven belief that said set of beliefs is right.
Take determinism, which is the topic matter of this thread. In my limited understanding - and feel free to correct me if I get it wrong - it is a theory that all our actions and reasoning are solely governed by the predictable and quantifiable interactions of elementary particles with no allowances for free will, and that if we could measure and quantify all particles in the universe then we could predict exactly who will do what when and where. That is unprovable. Measuring and quantifying exactly all particles in the universe, or in a subset thereof, is physically impossible (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and so on), so it will never be possible to prove or demonstrate determinism. But Loren seems to have derived a set of beliefs based on determinism and practises them in his life (i.e. a religion by this thread's definition), and in doing so makes an assumption that determinism is true despite a lack of solid logical proof for it (i.e. faith).
Well, it is possible to have religion without faith. Like, you're born into religion and raised according to its teachings, but instead of having faith in those teachings you're just going with the motions because that's just the way you were brought up and you can't really be arsed to do anything about it. I don't see that requiring faith.
Going away from that set definition business just quick; Myself (and just a few others I know of) while having faith (and following a religion thusly) tend to treat the religion as more of a code of conduct. How we carry ourselves, interact with others, etc. Then again, the definition talks about religious law, etc, so I suppose it's not that far off.
The seven principles :
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
It's still a little fuzzy, but perhaps, again, take this to determinism. Given determinism, everyone on earth is literally doing the best they can. They really have no choice in the matter. When a person fucks up, when there is a "failure of humanity" on any level, when a person does even the most heinous crime, he is only doing the best he can.
Given determinism, hatred, even anger are entirely baseless- they are without logical grounding. Yes, we certainly feel them still, but even a moment of reflection can turn anger at some asshole into sadness about the human condition.
At this point, another reflective moment might lead one to ponder what might be done. Given that we're all essentially prisoners of our respective histories, it seems like the only useful thing to do is improve the human condition. To maximize overall happiness. If we're all prisoners of our destinies, we might as well be happy prisoners, right?
How do we maximize overall happiness? Convince everyone to be thoroughly self-sacrificing. To hold doors open whenever the amount of trouble we save them is even infinitesimally greater than the trouble we take. We should, in short, go through life considering the welfare of everyone else exactly as important as our own welfare. That is, love everyone else as we do ourselves.
So, perhaps elevating the human condition, and "worshiping" the agents involved (our fellow humans). Sacrifice for them, love them as we do ourselves.
I would hope to do something a little more focused, a little more concerned with being ideologically influential while being less concerned with membership.
I'm also wondering if, maybe, the salvation can be left in, just taking out the unrealistic and incomprehensible "supernatural" bits of it.
Well, as I said before, I got that definition from Wikipedia. A quick glance at dictionary.com lists more of the same, and even a few that are even kinder to the idea of a faithless faith, so it's not "my definition" of religion, per se. There's also a fairly common argument within the evangelical community to label evolution and, sorry for bringing it up when I expressly forbade it, atheism religions (though the reasons are malign, of course, the sentiment is out there)...
Basically, I don't think it would come as a complete surprise to a lot of people. As for people "not seeing that way", well, religion is amazingly porous and non-distinct in definition. Again, everything I've mentioned pertaining to the definition of religion hasn't sprung from any contortions, it's merely noting the paucity of anything even close to concrete definitions that would exclude this idea.
Earlier in this post I laid out a proposal that included group activity and an argument for its value.
Rather, I think such a person has a different set of beliefs, one which includes the idea that it's better to mimic people around him to avoid confrontation and/or to keep on old habits he was raised with and focus his attention on other matters. Practically speaking he will behave exactly like a member of the religion he was brought up with, but the set of beliefs causing the behaviour are completely different. That would make him a member of a different religion, though one that is indistinguishable from the original religion from the outside.
And like anyone else, our person would have faith that his belief in non-confrontation or that other matters are more important to focus on is the right one.
Sorry for not defining that term.
Simply put, we are all products of our genes and our environment, neither of which is under our control. Everything we do, everything we will do, is subject to these two forces, and we can't do anything about it, as we are all thoroughly within the prison of genetics and environment the moment we are conceived.
One could try to articulate that there is something more, but one will immediately find such a something impossible to visualize or articulate clearly , for anything that is not in our genes or environment is imperceptible, and I would argue, largely inconceivable.
The measuring particles thing is Laplace's demon, which is an interesting hypothesis that fits within a deterministic frame.
Still, the part I bolded requires some degree of faith, in my opinion. A lot of people try to change themselves through conscious effort - fighting back against the impulses that their genes and environment dictate - and some even claim to succeed. Other people do things on a whim that seem to defy all social or genetic programming; the classic example of someone risking his life to save a complete stranger would apply here.
I'd be a bit more comfortable with an engineering metaphor, given my professional training. You're basically saying that humans are machine, playing out an internal program that has been dictated by genetics and environment. But you're also making two assumptions, that it is impossible for the machine to modify that program by itself (self-determinism, people changing themselves) and that it is impossible to act in contradiction with the program (free will, risking yourself for a stranger). These are two assumptions I do not believe you can prove (and therefore require faith), and a lot of people would provide evidence to the contrary that you cannot disprove (and therefore would have to account for on faith, by saying something along the lines of "there has got to be a genetic/environmental explanation for this behaviour that we do not know yet").
Again, everything that you do and will do is dictated by what has come before. Every decision you make and will make is a product of your environment reflected off what is in your brain. This includes conscious decisions. The conscious decision to change your behavior isn't freed from the confines of your brain and body, and anything that would "seem to defy all social and genetic programming" would apparently not.
I'm comfortable with the analogy of machines, but I'm not suggesting that one's program can't e modified. I'm simply saying that the modifications are necessarily dictated by the programming.
I'm not sure what place the situation of "risking one's life for a stranger" has in this discussion (as you seem to be suggesting that genetics and environment can't account for someone risking his life for a stranger...?) and "free will" is pretty much inconceivable.
Want to hang out?
Freemasons. Less patchouli stench, more getting shit done. Like fighting those bastards in the Illuminati.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbf_7B9dGw0
Edit: Different video, should be about 3:20 ish into this one
Saying religion is explicity defined as just "A set of beliefs and practices" is, according to the vast majority of definitions, severely oversimplifying the issue. "A set of beliefs and practices" can be something as simple as "I believe when the phone rings there is someone calling me. In practice, I pick up the phone with the hope of finding out who it is"