achilles12604 wrote:Marriage is a poor analogy in this case as it is a "real" or tangible thing. Ideas or "faiths" are different from marriage in several ways. Marriage is ineffective by ones self. It is not contained within he person. In many ways there are items associated with marriage. Only the last one is applicable to faiths and then only if they choose to employ them. I for one do not wear a cross, or have fish on the back of my car. But I still have faith and beliefs associated with that faith.
Okay. Faith. Again I pursue the line that a within/without, inner/outer dichotomy is - though the common way of talking - a conceptual mistake when dealing with the mind/person. What is it about faith that is contained in the person that is not exhibited by behaviour?
Lets take two twins Joe and Moe. Lets say they both behave in exactly the same way. And lets say both exhibit no behaviours that would lead any observer to tell that either had faith. Neither go to church, read scripture or do or saying thing with any religious connotation. Lets say their behaviour are as identical as their DNA.
Now lets say each answers a tick box questionnaire. The first question is “Do you have faith in God?”. Moe ticks the no box, but for the first time ever Joe behaves in a different way to his twin and ticks the yes box. This is the only behaviour which has ever distinguished the two. Has Joe got something Moe has not?
What does it even mean for Joe to tick yes. He never prays. Never makes any commitments that Moe does not make. Does Joe even understand what faith means?
Lets say Moe has seen that Joe has ticked the faith box. Puzzled Moe points out that Joe blasphemes just like he does, that Joe subscribes to evolution and the best scientific theories available. When they talk about the creation of the universe both do not subscribe to any supernatural theories. In fact that is the next question they answered. To the question did God create the universe both Moe and Joe ticked No. In fact both are pretty scathing about scripture and all religious writings.
Moe points out this inconsistency to Joe and asks him again why he ticked the faith box. Joe shrugs and say that is the answer he felt he should tick, and that by ticking the box he is reporting a personal inner relationship he has with God.
‘What relationship?’ asks Moe a little exasperated..
‘My inner relationship’. Replies Joe. ‘Because it is within me you cannot see it?”
Ask to expand Joe declines. He tells Moe the tick in the box is all he has top say on the matter. Both give up on the conversation and go for a beer instead.
Over the next few years Joe and Moe’s behaviour mirror each other in every respect. No church, praying, scripture, or anything resembling a religious attitude ever manifest itself in either of their behaviours. Then over a beer one night Moe asks whether Joe still has that personal relationship with God.
‘Yep’ says Joe.
‘Well’ says Moe ‘I reckon anything you’ve got I must have too‘.
‘You got a relationship with god now?’ asks Joe.
‘Yep’ says Moe. ‘Must have if you’ve got one. We’re the same in every other respect.’
They say no more on the matter and go back to the beer and continue to live as they always have. Which is not very long. On the way home drunk driving both Joe and Moe are involved in some fatal accident. The funeral parlour attempts to ascertain their religious status. Asking friends and family the undertaker can find no suggestion that either Joe or Moe held any religious principles. Lets assume the undertakers enquiries are thorough, though he is missing is the questionaire and the last conversation Joe and Moe had over a beer. Otherwise he knows everything there is to know about Joe and Moe. There is absolutely nothing else to suggest either had faith.
In one last effort the undertaker digs up the questionnaire. As a result he decides to give Joe a religious service - though he wonders why. The undertaker suspects Joe probably ticked the wrong box by mistake. He give Moe a secular service.
Okay.....
Thanks for bearing with me on the tale of Joe and Moe. The point is that I’m hoping you would agree that Joe and Moe have a gossamer thin notion of what faith entails. What I am driving at is that the stuff that actually gives meaning to the word “faith” is the stuff that someone does, says, writes, and the social context in which these things occur. And it is not just Faith. No language is private because the sense and meaning of our words is public embedded in social context and an individuals behaviour within a social context.
Pain might be a vivid example. If we all were able to feel pain but no one ever exhibited pain behaviour I.e. people never retracted their hands from heat, or winced when they trapped their fingers in a car door, and people with heart attacks continued to work and chat until the very moment they dropped down dead, and then they'd fall to the ground chuckling not groaning - the word “pain” would make no sense. Like pain or pleasure you could say that faith is some personal experience. . But again the concept of “personal expereince” is meaningless without observable behaviour.
