Max has provided us a forthright and clearly thought out critique of "Faith" as a virtue. I completely agree. While reasonable humans may disagree about lots of things, we as a rationalist community should ALL be articulate about something very straightforward: One should have GOOD reasons for believing something to be true. Believing things on faith instead of evidence is corrosive to pretty much everything. I also like that Max referred to one my favorite authors, (I am just re-listening to his last book) David Deutch, who speaks of human progress as a function of having "GOOD EXPLANATIONS". Here's a quote from me you're free to use with or without attribution: "Faith is the new "F-word"." I also enjoyed the dialogues below. Ideas matter, and facts matter. Sam Harris articulates this in his classic book, "The End of Faith." Let's grow up as a species, and stop defending religious nonsense based on superstitions and faith.
"In today’s world, a much bigger problem than existentialists are those activists who push their emotions as if they were facts and outrage as if it were an argument..." So let me get this straight: people who *reason* on the basis of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate chaos is real, or who bear witness to the genocide of Palestinians by Israel (a genocide confirmed by the overwhelming majority of genocide scholars, by the UN, and by Israel's own B'Tselem human rights organisation) and therefore *reason* that becoming activists to fight these abuses of human life, rights, dignity and of the earth itself, are merely "pushing their emotions". Outrage, of course, can be a perfectly rational reaction to facts, particularly when the means to mitigate the horrible reality of those facts have been entirely co-opted by bad actors.
I can see how such reasoning people might be a "problem" for you, lacking as they do any kind faith that a billionaire, LLM-powered, techbro "singularity" will save them.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, Mike. Can you give me a direct pointer? It doesn't sound like a good representation of my views. I really don't even understand what it is that you say I think, so I don't know anyone who denies that the climate changes. What I do think is that some people who take an extreme Apocalyptical view of global warming -- contrary to the evidence and very far from even any supposed consensus -- are replacing traditional religions with a new environmental religion. (This has been going on at least since the 1970s.)
Hi Max. As we discussed some years ago, I still disagree with your characterization of faith. And I don't think you've adequately addressed my criticisms of your characterization.
I just read it all the way through. I think we actually agree on pretty much everything EXCEPT how we prefer to use the term "faith." Maybe you would be satisfied if you did a find-and-replace on "faith" with "irrational faith" or "blind faith."
I come from one tradition and you come from another. That effects the way we prefer to define the term. I have tried to be very clear about how I define it. I resist using “faith” to mean “trust” or “rational trust” or “reasonable reliance” because it then fails to distinguish between two basically opposed approaches.
Our language may be part of the problem. “Rational” can mean a belief or action that you have rationally justified (consciously based on evidence, experience, and logic) but it can also mean a belief or action that is not strongly justified but that does not contradict a person’s experience or other beliefs. We could call the second of these “nonrational” but I’m not really happy with that. I prefer to reserve “nonrational” for things like our taste preferences – I prefer coffee to tea; you prefer vanilla to caramel.
In some of the cases you discuss, the term “trust” is a good replacement for “faith.” This is a blurry area. Trust can be based on past experience with a person (or people in general) and is therefore rational but it can also go beyond the evidence. This gets tricky, because there can be rational reasons for going beyond the evidence. (But: “Trust but verify.”)
You say that we cannot wait for absolute answers before acting. Obviously true. But I do not see that as a reason to affirm faith. We have to look at the evidence and arguments that weight either for or against action in a particular context. “You can wait for more evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or you can begin cleaning up your act.” This is an unfortunate example for you to choose! I would respond that you can also you can recognize the enormous cost of suppressing growth and forcing uneconomical, unreliable, and intermittent energy systems before they are ready, noting the very minor costs of global warming (and the infrequently mentioned benefits – such as the tremendous global greening that is underway).
“For example, most logical systems assume non-contradiction, and various operations for coupling, decoupling, and otherwise operating on propositions. Logic doesn’t prove these axioms and methods. They are assumed, which is an act of faith, as I’m using the word.” Okay, but it is definitely NOT faith as I’m using the word.
“The creative power of trust may be seen even in matters as common as love.” Trust is not faith, at least in the sense that I have defined it. Continuing to expect good treatment from someone who has systematically abused you for years does involve faith.
No doubt this will not resolve our disagreement. I really do think the issue is a terminological difference (although one that matters) rather than any real disagreement about how to think sensibly.
By the way, I should add that I despise (yes, that's a strong word intentionally chosen) the way that fundamentalist Christians have abused the word "faith." And I'm more than happy to criticize that with you.
As a brief aside, I probably generally agree with you on global warming.
Regarding "faith," I agree that our disagreement is largely terminological, and one that matters. But it matters not only in the way you seem to suppose.
The most powerful ideology in human history and contemporarily, Christianity, uses "faith." And interpretation of the texts that govern its use of "faith" is contested. Arguably those texts are, on the whole, more supportive of positions that you and I could agree on than of positions toward which we probably both feel considerable antagonism.
You're choosing an approach that is more likely to alienate more religious people unnecessarily. Why not take a narrower stand that invites your religious allies to join you? At least potentially, we far outnumber your anti-religious allies.
The fact that Christianity uses faith so prominently is not in the least a motivation for me to use it as you prefer!
In the end, I sense that your preferred use of "faith" is a way to try to exempt appealing but highly implausible beliefs from critical evaluation. That's a big reason why I will stick with my usage. Yes, I'm happy to build bridges but this is a line I will not cross.
There’s little appealing or plausible about fundamentalist Christianity. And why would I wish to exempt anything from critical evaluation? To the contrary, I’m asking you to evaluate your characterization of “faith” critically instead of inadvertently supporting its worst abuses by privileging those who contend for them. There’s real power on the line — far more than anything like merely emotionally appealing beliefs.
Max has provided us a forthright and clearly thought out critique of "Faith" as a virtue. I completely agree. While reasonable humans may disagree about lots of things, we as a rationalist community should ALL be articulate about something very straightforward: One should have GOOD reasons for believing something to be true. Believing things on faith instead of evidence is corrosive to pretty much everything. I also like that Max referred to one my favorite authors, (I am just re-listening to his last book) David Deutch, who speaks of human progress as a function of having "GOOD EXPLANATIONS". Here's a quote from me you're free to use with or without attribution: "Faith is the new "F-word"." I also enjoyed the dialogues below. Ideas matter, and facts matter. Sam Harris articulates this in his classic book, "The End of Faith." Let's grow up as a species, and stop defending religious nonsense based on superstitions and faith.
Why bother even using the words "belief" and "believe" at all? They seem to me to be inseparable from "faith"...
"In today’s world, a much bigger problem than existentialists are those activists who push their emotions as if they were facts and outrage as if it were an argument..." So let me get this straight: people who *reason* on the basis of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate chaos is real, or who bear witness to the genocide of Palestinians by Israel (a genocide confirmed by the overwhelming majority of genocide scholars, by the UN, and by Israel's own B'Tselem human rights organisation) and therefore *reason* that becoming activists to fight these abuses of human life, rights, dignity and of the earth itself, are merely "pushing their emotions". Outrage, of course, can be a perfectly rational reaction to facts, particularly when the means to mitigate the horrible reality of those facts have been entirely co-opted by bad actors.
I can see how such reasoning people might be a "problem" for you, lacking as they do any kind faith that a billionaire, LLM-powered, techbro "singularity" will save them.
You lost me a few years ago arguing climate change was followed by religious zealots.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, Mike. Can you give me a direct pointer? It doesn't sound like a good representation of my views. I really don't even understand what it is that you say I think, so I don't know anyone who denies that the climate changes. What I do think is that some people who take an extreme Apocalyptical view of global warming -- contrary to the evidence and very far from even any supposed consensus -- are replacing traditional religions with a new environmental religion. (This has been going on at least since the 1970s.)
Hi Max. As we discussed some years ago, I still disagree with your characterization of faith. And I don't think you've adequately addressed my criticisms of your characterization.
Hi Lincoln. I looked through my previous posts on rationality and found a link you posted. I presume that is the one to examine: https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/10/dynamic-faith-in-pancritical.html
Yes. That's the one. You commented on it previously, suggesting an approach that I'd likely agree with. I'm no fan of irrational faith.
I just read it all the way through. I think we actually agree on pretty much everything EXCEPT how we prefer to use the term "faith." Maybe you would be satisfied if you did a find-and-replace on "faith" with "irrational faith" or "blind faith."
I come from one tradition and you come from another. That effects the way we prefer to define the term. I have tried to be very clear about how I define it. I resist using “faith” to mean “trust” or “rational trust” or “reasonable reliance” because it then fails to distinguish between two basically opposed approaches.
Our language may be part of the problem. “Rational” can mean a belief or action that you have rationally justified (consciously based on evidence, experience, and logic) but it can also mean a belief or action that is not strongly justified but that does not contradict a person’s experience or other beliefs. We could call the second of these “nonrational” but I’m not really happy with that. I prefer to reserve “nonrational” for things like our taste preferences – I prefer coffee to tea; you prefer vanilla to caramel.
In some of the cases you discuss, the term “trust” is a good replacement for “faith.” This is a blurry area. Trust can be based on past experience with a person (or people in general) and is therefore rational but it can also go beyond the evidence. This gets tricky, because there can be rational reasons for going beyond the evidence. (But: “Trust but verify.”)
You say that we cannot wait for absolute answers before acting. Obviously true. But I do not see that as a reason to affirm faith. We have to look at the evidence and arguments that weight either for or against action in a particular context. “You can wait for more evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or you can begin cleaning up your act.” This is an unfortunate example for you to choose! I would respond that you can also you can recognize the enormous cost of suppressing growth and forcing uneconomical, unreliable, and intermittent energy systems before they are ready, noting the very minor costs of global warming (and the infrequently mentioned benefits – such as the tremendous global greening that is underway).
“For example, most logical systems assume non-contradiction, and various operations for coupling, decoupling, and otherwise operating on propositions. Logic doesn’t prove these axioms and methods. They are assumed, which is an act of faith, as I’m using the word.” Okay, but it is definitely NOT faith as I’m using the word.
“The creative power of trust may be seen even in matters as common as love.” Trust is not faith, at least in the sense that I have defined it. Continuing to expect good treatment from someone who has systematically abused you for years does involve faith.
No doubt this will not resolve our disagreement. I really do think the issue is a terminological difference (although one that matters) rather than any real disagreement about how to think sensibly.
By the way, I should add that I despise (yes, that's a strong word intentionally chosen) the way that fundamentalist Christians have abused the word "faith." And I'm more than happy to criticize that with you.
As a brief aside, I probably generally agree with you on global warming.
Regarding "faith," I agree that our disagreement is largely terminological, and one that matters. But it matters not only in the way you seem to suppose.
The most powerful ideology in human history and contemporarily, Christianity, uses "faith." And interpretation of the texts that govern its use of "faith" is contested. Arguably those texts are, on the whole, more supportive of positions that you and I could agree on than of positions toward which we probably both feel considerable antagonism.
You're choosing an approach that is more likely to alienate more religious people unnecessarily. Why not take a narrower stand that invites your religious allies to join you? At least potentially, we far outnumber your anti-religious allies.
The fact that Christianity uses faith so prominently is not in the least a motivation for me to use it as you prefer!
In the end, I sense that your preferred use of "faith" is a way to try to exempt appealing but highly implausible beliefs from critical evaluation. That's a big reason why I will stick with my usage. Yes, I'm happy to build bridges but this is a line I will not cross.
There’s little appealing or plausible about fundamentalist Christianity. And why would I wish to exempt anything from critical evaluation? To the contrary, I’m asking you to evaluate your characterization of “faith” critically instead of inadvertently supporting its worst abuses by privileging those who contend for them. There’s real power on the line — far more than anything like merely emotionally appealing beliefs.