On the Philosophy of placing Faith in Plausibilities

[Divine Insight]

Hamsaka and I have been having a conversation on the topic of "Secular Faith" in another thread and got that thread way off topic. So I thought I'd continue the conversation here in the Philosophy forum. Others are free to jump in and offer their views, opinion, and/or arguments, etc.

Here is where we left off. In the next post I will respond to some of these comments made by Hamsaka.

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 11:57 am Post subject:
Hamsaka wrote:

Then what WOULD be a reasonable use of faith?

And how skillful is it to make major life decisions for yourself and others based upon faith? What we decide for ourselves always effects other people, so that is not a necessary distinction. Am I mixing up belief and faith as you distinguished between them, though? You said previously:

Quote:
I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in a supernatural essence to reality.


What role does faith have in your quote above, or does it?

You ask very interesting questions. I would love to respond to them in more detail, but this thread is probably not a good place for this conversation. I'm not sure where it belongs though. Possibly in philosophy?

I wondered about that too, if this was not the best place to have this discussion, but it is a discussion I'm getting a lot out of, too
(Fixed: We're now in the Philosophy Forum)

I think the role of faith has to do with our worldview. After all, I openly confess that a purely secular worldview that imagines that life is nothing more than a freak materialistic accident does nothing at all for me. That "worldview" is actually pretty darn depressing if you ask me. It may possibly be true. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still depressing.

When I was making my years-long transition to being good and done with theism, the 'purely secular worldview' you describe (freak materialistic accident) was VERY unappealing. And didn't seem quite right. If nothing else, my brain recognizes patterns that may or may not be there, so which patterns are valid and beneficial to put 'faith' in, regardless of whether they are there or not ?

I'm a nut for documentaries about cosmology and the quantum universe, beginning with Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was a kid. Sagan's descendents (Tyson, Krauss, and so on) are SO damn excited and inspired by what they study and teach that it has caused me to question my assumptions about a purely secular worldview being cold materialism. They sure don't sound or act like proponents of cold materialism Instead they propose naturalism, which as a definition, would include human pattern-projecting as part of the naturalistic universe, and just as vital a component of an objective reality as carbon-based life.

I openly confess that, for me, a worldview that there is something mystical and potentially eternal going on provides me with far more optimism and inspiration.

Same here -- which is why I have revamped my assumptions about a purely secular (ie non-faith based) world view. It might not be a tick tock, tick tock impersonal chancey accidental process at all -- a few more doors are opened, that's all, and the new 'rooms' yet to be explored, but the doors are open and the definition changed.

And if it IS a purely chanced-up accident -- WOW!! Before much of my inner work along these lines, I didn't feel very WOW about it, because I am human, and I can't totally escape wanting to understand my 'place' in this (possibly) mechanistic, materialistic and impersonal quantum accident called life.

As long as I feel connected in some way, even cold impersonal materialism becomes warm, meaningful and wondrous.

This underscores the theist's 'war' on materialism. Atheists present a dilemma just by existing, a kind of insult, to theists. Not sure if that goes both ways . . .

Atheist paradigms threaten to 'rob' theists of what provides for them, deep meaning -- but deep meaning is JUST as important to atheists! Yanno? We aren't different in that regard, with that need.

[Divine Insight]

When I was making my years-long transition to being good and done with theism, the 'purely secular worldview' you describe (freak materialistic accident) was VERY unappealing. And didn't seem quite right. If nothing else, my brain recognizes patterns that may or may not be there, so which patterns are valid and beneficial to put 'faith' in, regardless of whether they are there or not ?

On a personal note: Unlike many atheists my path away from a specific theism (Christianity in my case) did not automatically lead me to pure atheism. In fact, when I came to the conclusion that the Bible was false and Jesus was not the begotten son of God, this didn't cause me to stop believing in a God generically. This is because for me religion was never "God" to begin with. So the loss of a religion does not automatically mean there is no "God".

However, the very term "God" may not be how those religions envision "God" to be either. God may not be an invisible Santa Claus (or Zeus). "God" may be something else entirely. So, for me personally, I was never faced with the dichotomy of "Christianity versus Atheism". I simply didn't see the world as being that black and white.

So I didn't lose "God" when I realized that Christianity is false. If anything I actually gained a far greater understanding of a much greater concept of "God". One that is not nearly as egotistical as the God of Christianity.

Also, when you speak about recognizing patterns, or making sense of the world, I have also come to the realization that my imagination is as much as part of this reality as anything. I still believe that if something can be imagined, then it may well be possible in some situations. In fact, our very reality may be nothing more than an imagined dream. This is what many mystics believe. And I'm not prepared to dismiss this just because some atheists aren't willing to consider it. After all, why should I bow down to their limited imagination?

I'm a nut for documentaries about cosmology and the quantum universe, beginning with Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was a kid. Sagan's descendents (Tyson, Krauss, and so on) are SO damn excited and inspired by what they study and teach that it has caused me to question my assumptions about a purely secular worldview being cold materialism. They sure don't sound or act like proponents of cold materialism Instead they propose naturalism, which as a definition, would include human pattern-projecting as part of the naturalistic universe, and just as vital a component of an objective reality as carbon-based life.

There are many ways to think of our reality. I can't imagine Tyson running around screaming in ecstasy, "I'm part of a freak accident how wonderful!"

Obviously Tyson recognize that there is order to the universe, and he realizes that this order has ultimately caused his evolution and existence. So he now feels like he is part of something much "bigger". But if the thing that is "bigger" is just a freak meaningless accident, then what's so exciting about that?

I think that deep down Tyson realizes that he is part of this universe, and he sees the universe itself as being something "bigger" of which he is merely a part of. However, I think it's very important to realize that this view falls flat on its face in the mud when we start talking about our conscious awareness as being nothing more than an "emergent property". Actually if that's true, then we aren't part of something much "bigger". On the contrary we would be totally isolated and fleeting.

I think that even deep down inside Tyson recognizes that we are this universe in some very deep and profound sense. This is actually a mystical view. In fact, it's the core of many mystical views.

I openly confess that, for me, a worldview that there is something mystical and potentially eternal going on provides me with far more optimism and inspiration.

Same here -- which is why I have revamped my assumptions about a purely secular (ie non-faith based) world view. It might not be a tick tock, tick tock impersonal chancey accidental process at all -- a few more doors are opened, that's all, and the new 'rooms' yet to be explored, but the doors are open and the definition changed.

I agree, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this worldview. On the contrary this would be a very respectable scientific hypothesis. Whether we can currently test it or not is totally irrelevant. Science is filled with hypotheses that are currently untestable.

And if it IS a purely chanced-up accident -- WOW!! Before much of my inner work along these lines, I didn't feel very WOW about it, because I am human, and I can't totally escape wanting to understand my 'place' in this (possibly) mechanistic, materialistic and impersonal quantum accident called life.

As long as I feel connected in some way, even cold impersonal materialism becomes warm, meaningful and wondrous.

Not for me. Being connected to a totally meaningless freak accident doesn't do much for me. It would still be a totally meaningless fleeting existence. That may be the truth of reality, but if it is, don't expect me to get excited about that.

This underscores the theist's 'war' on materialism. Atheists present a dilemma just by existing, a kind of insult, to theists. Not sure if that goes both ways . . .

The real problem with most "Theism" is not that they merely want people to believe in a magical "God", but they want people to believe in a very dogmatic and highly defined egotistical God, who demands very specific things from people. Things that in many cases are actually immoral.

I have no sympathy for any theists who demand a specific egotistical God. Especially one who is associated with drowning people, or having an innocent demigod nailed to a pole to make his points.

Some religions are simply offensive, not only to humanity and all that is moral, but they are offensive to the very concept of "God".

I think these religions that demand that God is a sick demented egotist are truly at the heart of the whole issue of spirituality, and mysticism. If these religions hadn't made spirituality and mysticism into something so utterly disgusting most scientific-minded people probably wouldn't find spiritual ideas to be so repulsive.

Atheist paradigms threaten to 'rob' theists of what provides for them, deep meaning -- but deep meaning is JUST as important to atheists! Yanno? We aren't different in that regard, with that need.

The sad part about it is that it really doesn't need to come down to a war between atheists and theists. That war began precisely because "Certain Religions" demand that their egotistical Gods be worshiped and obey according to very specific dogma.

That's the real problem.

Spirituality and mysticism aren't really problematic at all on their own. It's only when they are filled with dogma that makes "God" into an egotistical fool is when they become problematic.

That's the real problem right there.

There's nothing wrong with having faith in possibilities. But there is something wrong with making "God" into an egotistical fool who is claimed to hate everyone who doesn't worship and obey him. And that's precisely what these Abrahamic religions have done.

That's where the problem resides IMHO. Period amen.

[Hamsaka]

Just FYI, I look forward to responding (have lots of thoughts!) but I've come down with some bronchial virus hell. Whatever I write sounds like it was written by Dayquil. So another day or so . . . thank you for starting this thread DI

[Divine Insight]

Owl pray to the dragon Dayquil and ask that he huff and puff and blow a mighty flame of supernatural fire onto those evil bronchial viruses incinerating them into the bowels of hell.

[center][/center]

[Hamsaka]

LOL thank you waaahhhh getting sick is for other people, that's why I became a nurse.