Theophobia

[Canadian_watcher]

Have we ever agreed upon a clear definition here of what "faith" is and is not?

I think, for the purposes of this thread, we have decided that it is a belief system that is spiritual in nature. We excluded faith in things like "the bus will arrive on time" and we said that what we are discussing is separate from organized religion.

[American Dream]

Have we ever agreed upon a clear definition here of what "faith" is and is not?

I think, for the purposes of this thread, we have decided that it is a belief system that is spiritual in nature. We excluded faith in things like "the bus will arrive on time" and we said that what we are discussing is separate from organized religion.

So how can we distinguish faith which is not religion from faith which is?

It seems like we're taking about an ecology in which all these exist and the quasi-absolute separation you seem to positing is questionable...

[Canadian_watcher]

Have we ever agreed upon a clear definition here of what "faith" is and is not?

I think, for the purposes of this thread, we have decided that it is a belief system that is spiritual in nature. We excluded faith in things like "the bus will arrive on time" and we said that what we are discussing is separate from organized religion.

So how can we distinguish faith which is not religion from faith which is?

It seems like we're taking about an ecology in which all these exist and the quasi-absolute separation you seem to positing is questionable...

I think that that is your problem, not mine. I have no problem in distinguishing between the corrupution of some elements of organized religion and the purity of faith.

[American Dream]

Have we ever agreed upon a clear definition here of what "faith" is and is not?

I think, for the purposes of this thread, we have decided that it is a belief system that is spiritual in nature. We excluded faith in things like "the bus will arrive on time" and we said that what we are discussing is separate from organized religion.

So how can we distinguish faith which is not religion from faith which is?

It seems like we're taking about an ecology in which all these exist and the quasi-absolute separation you seem to positing is questionable...

I think that that is your problem, not mine. I have no problem in distinguishing between the corrupution of some elements of organized religion and the purity of faith.

Yes- but you are positing a "faith" which is embedded in a matrix of cultural givens and not necessarily separated from what you call "religion" quite so easily at all...

[Canadian_watcher]

Yes- but you are positing a "faith" which is embedded in a matrix of cultural givens and not necessarily separated from what you call "religion" quite so easily at all...

What I am positing is that there are people who recoil at the very mention that someone has 'faith' in either organized religion or in some sort of metaphysical belief system... I am positing that - particularly on the left and particularly among intellectuals there is a taboo on faith which makes non-believers automatically question the mental capacity of believers.

It's a don't ask don't tell scenario. Do you support the premise behind don't ask, don't tell?

[brainpanhandler]

we said that what we are discussing is separate from organized religion.

Huh?

From the article in the OP:

Theophobia
Just a few days ago, I was discussing a mutual friend with a former colleague. The latter was astonished by our mutual friend’s Christianity: “What’s up with that?!” he exclaimed, expressing bewilderment and even nervousness at the thought that a well-regarded – indeed, by academic standards, famous – professor could believe in the existence and beneficence of an omniscient and omnipotent God. If was as if our Christian friend had declared that the world was flat or was dabbling in alchemy. My former colleague even worried that, if a serious academic could believe in God, he was capable of believing in, or attempting, anything -- attempting to walk across the East River unaided by a water taxi, gunning down students in hallways, speaking in tongues at a faculty meeting, you name it.

Admittedly, my former colleague is an extreme case, but I have more frequently encountered less intense versions of what I will call “Theophobia” – the academic’s irrational fear of, or intense discomfort around, theist and, in particular, Christian, beliefs.

And I thought you had defined faith as belief in that which cannot be proven, which is different than "a belief system that is spiritual in nature". But oh well. How do you define "spiritual"?

For the record, belief in that which cannot be proven is highly destructive in that it is thought stopping. By your original definition, which had to be wrestled out of you after several pages, faith begins where thought ends. I was ok with that.

The semantic issues here are all the result of the subject matter being immune to rational, empirically based analysis. I don't think we're going to find a common language. Proof itself of the destructive effects of "faith" on free thought.

I'll take my impure thoughts over the purity of faith any day.

[Searcher08]

AD - there are nuts in every walk of life. Lots of rapists. Lots of child molesters. Lots of murderers...


...People need something to believe in, to work towards, to put their stock in... I can think of worse things than a belief that
simply being loving and courageous will reward you.

Ok- but isn't there something about "faith" itself that can be part of the problem, too?

My understanding of how perception works is that it is a self-organising process, one where a pattern of neuronal activity is laid down (according to very phyical principles of neuronal behaviour) and that that pattern itself then has a direct effect on incoming information

A passive system information system is one like a filing cabinet, where the existing information doesnt actively interact with new incoming information. A new file comes in, it goes into the cabinet, the end.

An active information system is one like a rain in a rainforest. A drop goes down a tree branch. The next drop lands somewhere slightly different, travels for a few millimetres then links up with the previous one. This process repreated thousands of times, over different scales, gives rise to trickles, creates streams flowing into tributaries. What has happened before actively interacts with what is present

In a this way, perception gives rise to beliefs which then influence what one physically perceives.

It also means that there is natural tendency is to become prejudiced and invested in the value of what one already believes - and think this actually means something.

It doesnt - it is just the process of how neuronal network behaviour forms perception.

Why is this really important?
Because traditional right/wrong logic-based thinking comes from a view of perception as a passive system. Things are or they are NOT. We seek to eliminate the false and shall be left with the truth. We are objective actors, engaging in our thinking like a good surgeon at work.

But we are not. Our brains are pattern making perception systems.

The problem is, the brain is brilliant at forming patterns. A small piece of perceptual input triggers a neuronal pattern that activates muscles that press the cross the road button on a pedestrian crossing. We dont need to think about crossing the road as the 'road crossing pattern' is present - if we did life would be very very inconvienient so patterns are great.

This brilliant self-reinforcing pattern-forming process adapts our perception based on what we believe.

This is what makes challenging our own patterns so important - we are hard wired for righteousness.

In our own perceptual world, what we believe makes perfect sense.

[American Dream]

Yes- but you are positing a "faith" which is embedded in a matrix of cultural givens and not necessarily separated from what you call "religion" quite so easily at all...

What I am positing is that there are people who recoil at the very mention that someone has 'faith' in either organized religion or in some sort of metaphysical belief system... I am positing that - particularly on the left and particularly among intellectuals there is a taboo on faith which makes non-believers automatically question the mental capacity of believers.

It's a don't ask don't tell scenario. Do you support the premise behind don't ask, don't tell?

So this whole thesis centers on the oppression of those who talk about their spiritual beliefs by those who question those beliefs?

[brainpanhandler]

Yes- but you are positing a "faith" which is embedded in a matrix of cultural givens and not necessarily separated from what you call "religion" quite so easily at all...

What I am positing is that there are people who recoil at the very mention that someone has 'faith' in either organized religion or in some sort of metaphysical belief system... I am positing that - particularly on the left and particularly among intellectuals there is a taboo on faith which makes non-believers automatically question the mental capacity of believers.

It's a don't ask don't tell scenario. Do you support the premise behind don't ask, don't tell?

So this whole thesis centers on the oppression of those who talk about their spiritual beliefs by those who question those beliefs?

Er, no. I don't blame you for thinking that, but apparently cw does not feel oppressed at all.

[American Dream]

I am positing that - particularly on the left and particularly among intellectuals there is a taboo on faith which makes non-believers automatically question the mental capacity of believers.

Who could deny that there are hardline atheists in this world?

I personally think there are a good number of incredibly smart- and highly admirable- people who claim spiritual principle.

[Canadian_watcher]

And I thought you had defined faith as belief in that which cannot be proven, which is different than "a belief system that is spiritual in nature". But oh well. How do you define "spiritual"?

You guys are all being purposely difficult. Faith - as in "I have a set of beliefs in things that cannot be proven which automatically means they are spiritual or metaphysical in nature."

For the record, belief in that which cannot be proven is highly destructive in that it is thought stopping.

and for the record THAT is precisely what I'm addressing in this thread. You cannot seriously re-read what you just wrote and not believe that you have a bias and prejudice problem on your hands.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that belief in things that have been disproved is destructive. Belief in things that cannot be proved (yet) is the source of all progress.

By your original definition, which had to be wrestled out of you after several pages, faith begins where thought ends. I was ok with that.

don't be an arse. I didn't say that anywhere.

The semantic issues here are all the result of the subject matter being immune to rational, empirically based analysis.

No, the issue here can be measured and is quite obviously something that can be rationally discussed. The issue here is not the merits of faith (although you and others keep trying to make that the issue) - rather it is whether or not there are people who will automatically negatively prejudge others if those others admit to being faithful.

[Canadian_watcher]

Yes- but you are positing a "faith" which is embedded in a matrix of cultural givens and not necessarily separated from what you call "religion" quite so easily at all...

What I am positing is that there are people who recoil at the very mention that someone has 'faith' in either organized religion or in some sort of metaphysical belief system... I am positing that - particularly on the left and particularly among intellectuals there is a taboo on faith which makes non-believers automatically question the mental capacity of believers.

It's a don't ask don't tell scenario. Do you support the premise behind don't ask, don't tell?

So this whole thesis centers on the oppression of those who talk about their spiritual beliefs by those who question those beliefs?

Do you think the verb "oppress" has the same meaning as the verb "prejudge?"

[Canadian_watcher]

I am positing that - particularly on the left and particularly among intellectuals there is a taboo on faith which makes non-believers automatically question the mental capacity of believers.

Who could deny that there are hardline atheists in this world?

I personally think there are a good number of incredibly smart- and highly admirable- people who claim spiritual principle.

Do all atheists denigrate people of faith then? My husband doesn't.

I am glad to hear that you feel that way.

[Canadian_watcher]

oops double post.

[brainpanhandler]

The issue here is not the merits of faith (although you and others keep trying to make that the issue) - rather it is whether or not there are people who will automatically negatively prejudge others if those others admit to being faithful.

Oh. Well that's easy and didn't need 30 pages to hash out. The answer is an emphatic yes, of course there are. I don't think anyone participating in this thread fits that description, including me, of course.