Essay: The Diversity of Faith
Oct. 28th, 2009 08:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutContinuing the topic of faith, here's the third part of my 4-part essay, which I've just translated.
The Diversity of Faith
In order to answer the question "why do we believe?", we should make a distinction between the various nuances of the act of believing. Of course, being reasonable people, who acknowledge the groundlessness of faith as a source of knowledge, the question actually is: "why do believers believe?" From the point of view of the thinking individual, believers could be generally put into two groups:
1. Those who believe in irrational assertions but do not have the pretense that their attitude to these assertions is necessarily a source of knowledge about the world. This group includes those individuals who often use phrases such as "I believe in friendship", "I believe in love", "I believe in good"... even "I believe in destiny". In fact, these phrases express hope in the respective subject, and when such an individual says "I believe in justice", they actually express their wish to live in a world predominantly ruled by justice. There is nothing abnormal in such a construct, it is just that "faith" here has a completely different meaning from that in the next group.
2. Group two includes those who accept unproven and/or unprovable assertions as truth, and who have the pretense that these assertions are part of the objective reality. Such assertions could be for example "the elementary particles are strings", "extra-terrestrials exist", "there is a small tea-pot currently orbiting around the Sun, just between Mars and Jupiter", or "Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and after we die he will decide whether our souls deserve to go to Hell or Heaven", and so on.
The first type of believers are not that interesting, and as long as people stating such type of faith refrain from the pretense that they are talking of objective characteristics of the world (notice the difference from the assertions in the second group), everything is all right.
What is really interesting is the second group, and specifically that special segment which are people with a fundamentalist attitude to the issue. I deliberately gave the above four examples, each of them with their specifics. And, risking a repetition, and acknowledging that this is exactly the area where the believer fails to recognize the absurdity of their position, I shall again analyze the key differences between these examples.
Notice that accepting any of these four assertions as 100% truth is absurd (of course, to a different extent, and in different nuances; but in its generality, they're all irrational):
Assertion 1: "The elementary particles are strings".
The question about the scientific hypotheses was examined in the previous part of the essay. Therefore, here I'll only briefly summarize that, although there are serious grounds for "believing" that the elementary particles are strings which vibrate in different frequencies and thus differ in their properties, the belief in the veracity of this assertion is irrational, because it is still not a scientifically proven fact. It is just an assertion, which stems from a number of proven scientific facts (more precisely, theories, which have been proven with a great accuracy). In this sense, any scientist who "believes" in String Theory, could be considered part of the first type of believers - those who by using the verb "believe", are actually expressing their hope and/or wish that a given assertion is true, without having the absolute pretense that it is such. The level of absurdity in this case is minimal and on most occasions is due to an improper choice of terms, which however does not deprive the assertion from a strong connection to the objective reality. Besides, I am sure that any scientist who slips into the trap of saying that "the elementary particles are strings", in a follow-up conversation would admit that this is only a hypothesis, which he only wishes were truth.
Assertion 2: "Extra-terrestrials exist".
This one was given as an example which requires an agnostic approach, as there hasn't been even one documented and verified evidence of the existence of extra-terrestrial life; however, there are calculations which show that its existence is highly probable. The reasonable position on this issue would therefore be "I do not know whether extra-terrestrials exist", and the one hundred per cent belief in the veracity of this assertion - let us call that 'conviction' - is already an inadequate (reason-wise) position with a level of absurdity exceeding that of the previous case. Notice the nuance: the String Theory (above) is the mathematically simplest way to unify the fundamentally different quantum world of the microcosmos with the general theory of relativity, ie String Theory is a direct consequence (albeit not yet proven in practice) of all knowledge that we have at this point. In this case though, as far as the existence of extra-terrestrials is concerned, the 100% believer in his turn has only some probability calculations at his disposal (and even those are too vague), which are only remotely based on facts leading in the same direction.
Assertion 3: "There is a small tea-pot currently orbiting around the Sun, just between Mars and Jupiter".
Here, much unlike the preceding two cases, there is faith in an assertion, which excludes the possibility of being disproven. No-one could either confirm or deny the existence of such an object. We could keep inventing assertions of this type indefinitely, therefore the groundless acceptance of any random assertion of this sort would have been a precedent, which would imply that anyone could uncritically accept any such assertions (for instance, the one claiming that it is not actually a tea-pot, but a tea-urn). That is why such assertions which definitely include the impossibility of their veracity being proven or disproven, should simply be ignored. Declaring them to be true is an act of cretinism, to say the least (unless the believer could be so kind to explain why we should believe that that object is a tea-pot rather than a tea-urn... or why not a frying pan), while trying to prove them untrue is merely a waste of time.
Assertion 4: "Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and after we die he will decide whether our souls deserve to go to Hell or Heaven".
Here is where the real fun begins. This assertion contains so many problems in itself that, in order to realize the full extent of its absurdity or to accept it as truth, we should break it down into its composite parts. So let us start from the beginning:
4.1. It speaks of a man called Jesus Christ. The least the believer should do is to provide evidence that such a person ever existed in the first place. Julius Caesar also lived more than 2,000 years ago, but present historians even know the exact date of his death. Whereas, on the question abut the very existence of a person called Jesus Christ, as a historical person, there is no consensus between the present historians, let alone about the date of his birth and death.
4.2. The second problem here of course is the birth by a woman who was a virgin. This part of the assertion contradicts all, and I mean all observations made about the human race up till the present day - namely, that it is impossible for a woman whose ovum has not interacted with a male spermatozoon, to give birth. Here I should parahpraze Carl Sagan, who says that extreme assertions need extremely strong proofs. In this case, we have an assertion which is unnatural, therefore all the believer could do is to escape through the conveniently defined back-door whose purpose is exactly to save them from such complicated situations - "God is almighty and He did so that Mary was impregnated without an act of copulation".
4.3. The third problem concerns something which was mentioned in the tea-pot example. Both Heaven and Hell are areas beyond our reach of perception, ie we cannot prove their existence, but by definition we could not disprove their existence, either. And, since as stipulated, it is pointless to contemplate on the question if there is a small tea-pot orbiting the Sun, it is similarly illogical to contemplate over the concept of Heaven and Hell, since these two terms have no relation to the objective reality of the world we live in - there is no way we could either be convinced in their existence, or their non-existence at all.
In this last example, we can see the whole illogism of all the preceding examples, but in an extremely condensed way: there is no fact or phenomenon in the world which could serve as a ground for the above assertion, and neither is there any objective necessity of proving it (unlike the String Theory for example); just like in the case with the extra-terrestrials, there is no direct evidence for the existence of a real person named Jesus Christ, who performed the acts of the Biblical Jesus (but of course it is possible that such a person did exist, since this name has had such a profound impact on human history); moreover, this assertion contains unnatural elements, which would even make us reject it (the problem of virginity); and on top of that there is the use of concepts, which, by definition, are beyond our perceptions, ie no matter how hard we try, there is no way we could ever prove the existence of Heaven and Hell. In other words: the belief in such an assertion is the utmost example of stupidity and absurdity, and the problem is that most assertions on which most religions are based, do have an equally (if not even more) absurd character.
The present essay (which is part of a series of essays) primarily examines the religious belief in stable self-sufficient and self-defined doctrines such as the latter, which however have only a remote relation to reality, no matter how much they have been promoted as absolutely veracious. It is the reasons for the emergence of this type of faith that will be discussed in the next part.
The Diversity of Faith
In order to answer the question "why do we believe?", we should make a distinction between the various nuances of the act of believing. Of course, being reasonable people, who acknowledge the groundlessness of faith as a source of knowledge, the question actually is: "why do believers believe?" From the point of view of the thinking individual, believers could be generally put into two groups:
1. Those who believe in irrational assertions but do not have the pretense that their attitude to these assertions is necessarily a source of knowledge about the world. This group includes those individuals who often use phrases such as "I believe in friendship", "I believe in love", "I believe in good"... even "I believe in destiny". In fact, these phrases express hope in the respective subject, and when such an individual says "I believe in justice", they actually express their wish to live in a world predominantly ruled by justice. There is nothing abnormal in such a construct, it is just that "faith" here has a completely different meaning from that in the next group.
2. Group two includes those who accept unproven and/or unprovable assertions as truth, and who have the pretense that these assertions are part of the objective reality. Such assertions could be for example "the elementary particles are strings", "extra-terrestrials exist", "there is a small tea-pot currently orbiting around the Sun, just between Mars and Jupiter", or "Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and after we die he will decide whether our souls deserve to go to Hell or Heaven", and so on.
The first type of believers are not that interesting, and as long as people stating such type of faith refrain from the pretense that they are talking of objective characteristics of the world (notice the difference from the assertions in the second group), everything is all right.
What is really interesting is the second group, and specifically that special segment which are people with a fundamentalist attitude to the issue. I deliberately gave the above four examples, each of them with their specifics. And, risking a repetition, and acknowledging that this is exactly the area where the believer fails to recognize the absurdity of their position, I shall again analyze the key differences between these examples.
Notice that accepting any of these four assertions as 100% truth is absurd (of course, to a different extent, and in different nuances; but in its generality, they're all irrational):
Assertion 1: "The elementary particles are strings".
The question about the scientific hypotheses was examined in the previous part of the essay. Therefore, here I'll only briefly summarize that, although there are serious grounds for "believing" that the elementary particles are strings which vibrate in different frequencies and thus differ in their properties, the belief in the veracity of this assertion is irrational, because it is still not a scientifically proven fact. It is just an assertion, which stems from a number of proven scientific facts (more precisely, theories, which have been proven with a great accuracy). In this sense, any scientist who "believes" in String Theory, could be considered part of the first type of believers - those who by using the verb "believe", are actually expressing their hope and/or wish that a given assertion is true, without having the absolute pretense that it is such. The level of absurdity in this case is minimal and on most occasions is due to an improper choice of terms, which however does not deprive the assertion from a strong connection to the objective reality. Besides, I am sure that any scientist who slips into the trap of saying that "the elementary particles are strings", in a follow-up conversation would admit that this is only a hypothesis, which he only wishes were truth.
Assertion 2: "Extra-terrestrials exist".
This one was given as an example which requires an agnostic approach, as there hasn't been even one documented and verified evidence of the existence of extra-terrestrial life; however, there are calculations which show that its existence is highly probable. The reasonable position on this issue would therefore be "I do not know whether extra-terrestrials exist", and the one hundred per cent belief in the veracity of this assertion - let us call that 'conviction' - is already an inadequate (reason-wise) position with a level of absurdity exceeding that of the previous case. Notice the nuance: the String Theory (above) is the mathematically simplest way to unify the fundamentally different quantum world of the microcosmos with the general theory of relativity, ie String Theory is a direct consequence (albeit not yet proven in practice) of all knowledge that we have at this point. In this case though, as far as the existence of extra-terrestrials is concerned, the 100% believer in his turn has only some probability calculations at his disposal (and even those are too vague), which are only remotely based on facts leading in the same direction.
Assertion 3: "There is a small tea-pot currently orbiting around the Sun, just between Mars and Jupiter".
Here, much unlike the preceding two cases, there is faith in an assertion, which excludes the possibility of being disproven. No-one could either confirm or deny the existence of such an object. We could keep inventing assertions of this type indefinitely, therefore the groundless acceptance of any random assertion of this sort would have been a precedent, which would imply that anyone could uncritically accept any such assertions (for instance, the one claiming that it is not actually a tea-pot, but a tea-urn). That is why such assertions which definitely include the impossibility of their veracity being proven or disproven, should simply be ignored. Declaring them to be true is an act of cretinism, to say the least (unless the believer could be so kind to explain why we should believe that that object is a tea-pot rather than a tea-urn... or why not a frying pan), while trying to prove them untrue is merely a waste of time.
Assertion 4: "Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and after we die he will decide whether our souls deserve to go to Hell or Heaven".
Here is where the real fun begins. This assertion contains so many problems in itself that, in order to realize the full extent of its absurdity or to accept it as truth, we should break it down into its composite parts. So let us start from the beginning:
4.1. It speaks of a man called Jesus Christ. The least the believer should do is to provide evidence that such a person ever existed in the first place. Julius Caesar also lived more than 2,000 years ago, but present historians even know the exact date of his death. Whereas, on the question abut the very existence of a person called Jesus Christ, as a historical person, there is no consensus between the present historians, let alone about the date of his birth and death.
4.2. The second problem here of course is the birth by a woman who was a virgin. This part of the assertion contradicts all, and I mean all observations made about the human race up till the present day - namely, that it is impossible for a woman whose ovum has not interacted with a male spermatozoon, to give birth. Here I should parahpraze Carl Sagan, who says that extreme assertions need extremely strong proofs. In this case, we have an assertion which is unnatural, therefore all the believer could do is to escape through the conveniently defined back-door whose purpose is exactly to save them from such complicated situations - "God is almighty and He did so that Mary was impregnated without an act of copulation".
4.3. The third problem concerns something which was mentioned in the tea-pot example. Both Heaven and Hell are areas beyond our reach of perception, ie we cannot prove their existence, but by definition we could not disprove their existence, either. And, since as stipulated, it is pointless to contemplate on the question if there is a small tea-pot orbiting the Sun, it is similarly illogical to contemplate over the concept of Heaven and Hell, since these two terms have no relation to the objective reality of the world we live in - there is no way we could either be convinced in their existence, or their non-existence at all.
In this last example, we can see the whole illogism of all the preceding examples, but in an extremely condensed way: there is no fact or phenomenon in the world which could serve as a ground for the above assertion, and neither is there any objective necessity of proving it (unlike the String Theory for example); just like in the case with the extra-terrestrials, there is no direct evidence for the existence of a real person named Jesus Christ, who performed the acts of the Biblical Jesus (but of course it is possible that such a person did exist, since this name has had such a profound impact on human history); moreover, this assertion contains unnatural elements, which would even make us reject it (the problem of virginity); and on top of that there is the use of concepts, which, by definition, are beyond our perceptions, ie no matter how hard we try, there is no way we could ever prove the existence of Heaven and Hell. In other words: the belief in such an assertion is the utmost example of stupidity and absurdity, and the problem is that most assertions on which most religions are based, do have an equally (if not even more) absurd character.
The present essay (which is part of a series of essays) primarily examines the religious belief in stable self-sufficient and self-defined doctrines such as the latter, which however have only a remote relation to reality, no matter how much they have been promoted as absolutely veracious. It is the reasons for the emergence of this type of faith that will be discussed in the next part.
