Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[KLewchuk]

Side note: no problem about the format issues, KL. Once I saw it, I was able to sort it back out. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Sorry; think you are throwing up a straw man and false choice on this. "Secular Atheism" is a term for a certain ideology which you briefly describe and I recognize. However, Eastern philosophy does not focus on narrative in this way and is consistent with meaning, evolution, reason, and science.

Well, if you admit Secular Atheism is "a certain ideology...I recognize," then it's certainly not a "straw man." It may be the wrong "man" to describe your view...I can't say, because I wasn't trying to attribute it to you...but it is a very influential Western ideology, as you recognize...not a straw man at all.

As for Eastern Philosophy (I presume you mean Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and their related systems), unfortunately for the East, they are not at all consonant with science. Science is a product of the West, and that's why the West had an Industrial Revolution while the East was still essentially backward. And it wasn't that there aren't enough intelligent people in India, China or environs, of course; we know THAT isn't true. Rather, the problem was that their cherished religions did not provide adequate grounds for thinking scientifically at all, and only once they started to shed them was science a thing they could conceive or start to practice. Clearly, they've done better since.

Why didn't they have what they needed to imagine science? Well, because most of those religions are polytheistic or agnostic, and don't even argue for linear time, let alone a single, coherent universe governed by a Creator who establishes law-like regularities. To anticipate those things, you've got to believe, like Bacon, in a single, coherent, law-giving God. After that, you can secularize it if you wish, and get Modernity. But you're never going to get it in the first place if you can't exercise the faith to believe the world could be, and should be, a place that is rationally governed and composed by physical laws.

Here is a difference. If you are modern, you can critically investigate a narrative and ask, "is it true"? Certain Christians must take the narrative "on faith".

Oh, the old contrast between truth and faith? That's a myth, I'm afraid.

"Faith," contrary to Atheist legend, is not "believing what you know ain't true," or "believing without/contrary to evidence." For a Christian like, say, Francis Bacon, it means only to rest one's conviction on the best available evidence, and expect regularities because of the regularity of His character...which is what science is supposed to do, actually. It takes for granted an orderly, law-governed universe.

This is a big topic, but the old faith-science dichotomy is quite false, both historically and philosophically. The Scientific Method itself (the hypothesis-testing-conclusions procedure) was only created in the 17th Century, and by Bacon, who was not only the leading philosopher of science, but an ardent Christian theologian as well. One glance at his short essay, "Of Truth," for example, will show you that. https://www.bartleby.com/3/1/1.html

I see that PoMo does the same, the evidence does not support the narrative of power that they assert.

Which one?

You simply "believe" that the person doesn't exist and everything is a social relation based on power "praise be to Derrida and Foucault and Leotard (i.e. the holy PoMo Trinity).

The view that all narratives secretly hide "the will to power" actually goes back to Nietzsche, who was Foucault's biggest influencer. And Nietzsche was an Atheist of the most ardent sort, but nowhere near young enough for Postmodernism. He died in 1900, before even Modernism even reached its zenith.

But the other one, "the person doesn't exist"? I don't recognize that one from Postmodernism. Do you have a source for that one?

Will respond to one idea tonight; maybe others shortly. I strongly disagree with your concept of faith vs reason. The concept of reason is being convinced of truth based on evidence and rational inquiry. Faith is believe without evidence (i.e. in things unseen). At the extreme, evidence is the enemy of faith. The more outrageous the claim, the greater the faith required to believe it. Hence, irrationality can strengthen faith. Mr. Alan Watts commented on this.

[Immanuel Can]

Please clarify. Which critics have a point: the critics of post modernism, or the post modernist critics (of everythihg)? That last paragraph could mean either and I don't want to respond 'til I'm sure what you're saying.

Does it matter? If the criticisms are at all apt, then they are apt.

Various critics in the vaguely PoMo camp emphasize different things, of course. Not all say the same at the same time.

[Immanuel Can]

I strongly disagree with your concept of faith vs reason. The concept of reason is being convinced of truth based on evidence and rational inquiry. Faith is believe without evidence (i.e. in things unseen).

I realize this is a very convenient depiction of the situation for people who are at pains to dismiss faith. However, it has the distinct liability of being representative only of the most mystical and extreme interpretations of "faith," and of failing to reflect the way most genuine faith operates.

"Faith" is not a free-standing thing. It's "Faith-IN" something. What is that something that faith is "in"? The answer determines the quality of the faith involved.

Faith in the integrity of a known liar is "bad faith." Faith in winning the lottery is "bad faith." Faith in an airplane to be capable of conveying one to destination is reasonable faith. And, faith in modern medicine, though not always met with fulfillment, is also generally good faith. But here's the real kicker: how does a scientist know his experiment will yield results that are important? In fact, how does he even know what is a fit subject of scientific inquiry? And when he publishes his results, how does he know he's right?

Answer: he doesn't. But he has faith. He believes he has found something worthy of study. He believes he has found the most telling experiment for it. He has faith his results will be reliable, and he demonstrates that faith by publishing his findings, not fearing that he will humiliate himself by having made some obvious error.

Now, I know you'll say "that's not faith." But it is.

And as a person of faith myself, I can tell you that I do not have faith in nothing. I demand evidence and reasons, like any sensible person should. Moreover, I'm not at all inclined to be gratuitously trusting of people; I try only to put faith in those that are worthy of faith. But for all of us, there are questions where the available evidence, no matter how compelling, is not quite enough to get us over the line of total certainty about X or Y. And whenever that takes place, and to the extent that it does, we all require faith.

You do not know you will not die tomorrow. But faith gets you out of bed in the morning. You do not know your car won't crash on the way to work; but you have faith it won't. You do not know absolutely that your wife loves you; but you have faith she does...and I trust that in that, your faith stands on good reasons.

[Scott Mayers]

[Accidental posting without the quote. This is corrected in the following post so that readers know who I'm responding to.]

[Scott Mayers]

I strongly disagree with your concept of faith vs reason. The concept of reason is being convinced of truth based on evidence and rational inquiry. Faith is believe without evidence (i.e. in things unseen).

I realize this is a very convenient depiction of the situation for people who are at pains to dismiss faith. However, it has the distinct liability of being representative only of the most mystical and extreme interpretations of "faith," and of failing to reflect the way most genuine faith operates.

"Faith" is not a free-standing thing. It's "Faith-IN" something. What is that something that faith is "in"? The answer determines the quality of the faith involved.

Faith in the integrity of a known liar is "bad faith." Faith in winning the lottery is "bad faith." Faith in an airplane to be capable of conveying one to destination is reasonable faith. And, faith in modern medicine, though not always met with fulfillment, is also generally good faith. But here's the real kicker: how does a scientist know his experiment will yield results that are important? In fact, how does he even know what is a fit subject of scientific inquiry? And when he publishes his results, how does he know he's right?

Answer: he doesn't. But he has faith. He believes he has found something worthy of study. He believes he has found the most telling experiment for it. He has faith his results will be reliable, and he demonstrates that faith by publishing his findings, not fearing that he will humiliate himself by having made some obvious error.

Now, I know you'll say "that's not faith." But it is.

And as a person of faith myself, I can tell you that I do not have faith in nothing. I demand evidence and reasons, like any sensible person should. Moreover, I'm not at all inclined to be gratuitously trusting of people; I try only to put faith in those that are worthy of faith. But for all of us, there are questions where the available evidence, no matter how compelling, is not quite enough to get us over the line of total certainty about X or Y. And whenever that takes place, and to the extent that it does, we all require faith.

You do not know you will not die tomorrow. But faith gets you out of bed in the morning. You do not know your car won't crash on the way to work; but you have faith it won't. You do not know absolutely that your wife loves you; but you have faith she does...and I trust that in that, your faith stands on good reasons.

You missed the point of the meaning of the quoted statement regarding 'faith'. The problem regarding 'faith' is about "Faith", a kind of proprietary belief that 'faith IN faith' is something that people should believe in when this is only a mechanism for insincere demands of OTHERS to trust YOU (or 'ownself') in contrast to particular beliefs that have dubious established reasons.

Religious declarations of 'faith' is an IMPOSED belief because it demand others to trust what the speaker is declaring is something they have 'faith' in when the tactic itself is only to beg others NOT to trust normal everyday reasoning, ....like the fact that you cannot demonstrate your God's existence.

This is related to the "positive thinking" salesmen who attempt to MOTIVATE others to trust that one can get what they want for PRETENDING it to be true. This is the "fake-it-until-you-make-it" logic where those who already have success think that they EARNED their fortune FOR simply PRETENDING it PRIOR to the reality. This kind of rationizing is more often a means to get others to NOT look at whether you gained your fortunes fair or not. It is a confidence tactic intent on saying, "you too can succeed as I have, even if all evidence goes AGAINST this. You just have to have MORE 'faith'". This is wishful thinking and hints more about the capacity of the person's promoting this as beind decievers.

So, for instance, if I have evidence that you are a criminal, for instance, you would want me or others to NOT look at this actual evidence as justified to doubt you. Rather, you want others to GAMBLE (ie, have faith in) you, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

All religious thinking has this property. It is insincere because it is expecting others to do the actual work, including their 'god', by mere begging (praying) as though the act itself has magical power to BE 'evidence'.

[Immanuel Can]

'faith IN faith'

That's redundant.

There is no such thing. Faith that lacks any grounding in a particular person, body of facts or rationality is mere fantasy. And it's a fantasy to think that everybody thinks that's what faith is.

Religious declarations of 'faith' is an IMPOSED belief because it demand others to trust what the speaker is declaring is something they have 'faith' in when the tactic itself is only to beg others NOT to trust normal everyday reasoning, ....like the fact that you cannot demonstrate your God's existence.

Well, I'm sorry to say, and it can sound unkind...it's not meant to be. But you don't really know how Christians think at all. Just as one philosophical example, take John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, "God" (IV). Whether you believe his argument or not, you can see he's not grounding it in a kind of "faith" that takes no thought for "normal everyday reasoning" or "demonstration." Rather, he's proposing to reason from undeniable facts accessible to every person.

So Christians don't think what you think they think.

All religious thinking has this property.

Well, then, the only conclusion has to be that Christianity is not religious. And, I suppose, I must not be religious either. And I would certainly accept that conclusion.

[RCSaunders]

Please clarify. Which critics have a point: the critics of post modernism, or the post modernist critics (of everythihg)? That last paragraph could mean either and I don't want to respond 'til I'm sure what you're saying.

Does it matter? If the criticisms are at all apt, then they are apt.

Various critics in the vaguely PoMo camp emphasize different things, of course. Not all say the same at the same time.

What I'm asking is which critics are you talking about: that is, the critics who criticize POMO, or the POMO critics themselves. It makes a big difference, doesn't it?

I'm guessing you mean the post modernists as the critics. Is that right?

[Immanuel Can]

What I'm asking is which critics are you talking about: that is, the critics who criticize POMO, or the POMO critics themselves. It makes a big difference, doesn't it?

Oh, I see.

I'm guessing you mean the post modernists as the critics. Is that right?

Yes, that's right.

I'm saying that Modernists should listen to the criticisms they're getting, dismiss those that are lunatic criticisms (and believe me, in Postmodernism there are some loony criticisms), but be ready to take onboard all those critical points that could stand to improve on Modernism.

Which seems to me a pretty fair thing to do. PoMos tend to be extreme...but they're not always wrong.

[KLewchuk]

I strongly disagree with your concept of faith vs reason. The concept of reason is being convinced of truth based on evidence and rational inquiry. Faith is believe without evidence (i.e. in things unseen).

I realize this is a very convenient depiction of the situation for people who are at pains to dismiss faith. However, it has the distinct liability of being representative only of the most mystical and extreme interpretations of "faith," and of failing to reflect the way most genuine faith operates.

"Faith" is not a free-standing thing. It's "Faith-IN" something. What is that something that faith is "in"? The answer determines the quality of the faith involved.

Faith in the integrity of a known liar is "bad faith." Faith in winning the lottery is "bad faith." Faith in an airplane to be capable of conveying one to destination is reasonable faith. And, faith in modern medicine, though not always met with fulfillment, is also generally good faith. But here's the real kicker: how does a scientist know his experiment will yield results that are important? In fact, how does he even know what is a fit subject of scientific inquiry? And when he publishes his results, how does he know he's right?

Answer: he doesn't. But he has faith. He believes he has found something worthy of study. He believes he has found the most telling experiment for it. He has faith his results will be reliable, and he demonstrates that faith by publishing his findings, not fearing that he will humiliate himself by having made some obvious error.

Now, I know you'll say "that's not faith." But it is.

And as a person of faith myself, I can tell you that I do not have faith in nothing. I demand evidence and reasons, like any sensible person should. Moreover, I'm not at all inclined to be gratuitously trusting of people; I try only to put faith in those that are worthy of faith. But for all of us, there are questions where the available evidence, no matter how compelling, is not quite enough to get us over the line of total certainty about X or Y. And whenever that takes place, and to the extent that it does, we all require faith.

You do not know you will not die tomorrow. But faith gets you out of bed in the morning. You do not know your car won't crash on the way to work; but you have faith it won't. You do not know absolutely that your wife loves you; but you have faith she does...and I trust that in that, your faith stands on good reasons.

You missed the point of the meaning of the quoted statement regarding 'faith'. The problem regarding 'faith' is about "Faith", a kind of proprietary belief that 'faith IN faith' is something that people should believe in when this is only a mechanism for insincere demands of OTHERS to trust YOU (or 'ownself') in contrast to particular beliefs that have dubious established reasons.

Religious declarations of 'faith' is an IMPOSED belief because it demand others to trust what the speaker is declaring is something they have 'faith' in when the tactic itself is only to beg others NOT to trust normal everyday reasoning, ....like the fact that you cannot demonstrate your God's existence.

This is related to the "positive thinking" salesmen who attempt to MOTIVATE others to trust that one can get what they want for PRETENDING it to be true. This is the "fake-it-until-you-make-it" logic where those who already have success think that they EARNED their fortune FOR simply PRETENDING it PRIOR to the reality. This kind of rationizing is more often a means to get others to NOT look at whether you gained your fortunes fair or not. It is a confidence tactic intent on saying, "you too can succeed as I have, even if all evidence goes AGAINST this. You just have to have MORE 'faith'". This is wishful thinking and hints more about the capacity of the person's promoting this as beind decievers.

So, for instance, if I have evidence that you are a criminal, for instance, you would want me or others to NOT look at this actual evidence as justified to doubt you. Rather, you want others to GAMBLE (ie, have faith in) you, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

All religious thinking has this property. It is insincere because it is expecting others to do the actual work, including their 'god', by mere begging (praying) as though the act itself has magical power to BE 'evidence'.

No; let's get precise. If I believe "X", I could ask "why" I believe in "X". If I believe in "X" based on evidence and reason, that that is the basis for my belief. If the basis of my belief is "faith", then evidence and reason are irrelevant. I may study apologetics, but if all the arguments were proven faulty would I change my belief. It depends, if my belief was based on faith I surely would not since the arguments were not the basis of my belief.

[KLewchuk]

'faith IN faith'

That's redundant.

There is no such thing. Faith that lacks any grounding in a particular person, body of facts or rationality is mere fantasy. And it's a fantasy to think that everybody thinks that's what faith is.

Religious declarations of 'faith' is an IMPOSED belief because it demand others to trust what the speaker is declaring is something they have 'faith' in when the tactic itself is only to beg others NOT to trust normal everyday reasoning, ....like the fact that you cannot demonstrate your God's existence.

Well, I'm sorry to say, and it can sound unkind...it's not meant to be. But you don't really know how Christians think at all. Just as one philosophical example, take John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, "God" (IV). Whether you believe his argument or not, you can see he's not grounding it in a kind of "faith" that takes no thought for "normal everyday reasoning" or "demonstration." Rather, he's proposing to reason from undeniable facts accessible to every person.

So Christians don't think what you think they think.

All religious thinking has this property.

Well, then, the only conclusion has to be that Christianity is not religious. And, I suppose, I must not be religious either. And I would certainly accept that conclusion.

Not quite; I could write a story about the god Marduk and not believe that Marduk truly exists... that is fantasy. Faith is the basis for believing that Marduk exists based on the story.

[Immanuel Can]

Faith is the basis for believing that Marduk exists based on the story.

"Bad faith" is. Good faith is premised on evidence and reasons, and is nothing different from what all of us do every day, really. It's all just a question of what your faith is in...but it's not optional to have faith.

[Immanuel Can]

If the basis of my belief is "faith", then evidence and reason are irrelevant.

Not at all.

"Fatih" has transitive intent, as I say...that is, it's always faith IN something. But there certainly are bad forms of belief. The thing that makes something worthy of faith is the evidence and reasons that there are to justify trust in that thing.

[KLewchuk]

If the basis of my belief is "faith", then evidence and reason are irrelevant.

Not at all.

"Fatih" has transitive intent, as I say...that is, it's always faith IN something. But there certainly are bad forms of belief. The thing that makes something worthy of faith is the evidence and reasons that there are to justify trust in that thing.

Immanuel, I think you are misusing the word faith.

Faith can be used multiple ways but I will draw a distinction between two. First, if I jump off a building I can believe in or trust in or have "faith" in the expectation that I will fall. If someone asked me for the basis of this belief, or trust, or faith, I would likely say that I've learned it through critical thinking, observed things falling, etc. In this sense, faith is synonymous with belief. This is not a religious use of the term. I can say that I have faith in science but the basis for that faith is not faith but rather critical and empirical.

Second, is the typically religious use of the word as the basis for belief. There are some mainstream religious beliefs that are pretty irrational. Although some may try to provide a rational basis for such beliefs, others simply "take it on faith". In other words, faith is the basis for the belief.

My comments above were not with respect to "faith" as trust but rather "faith" as the basis for belief. If one accepts faith as the basis for belief, evidence and reasons are irrelevant.

[Immanuel Can]

If the basis of my belief is "faith", then evidence and reason are irrelevant.

Not at all.

"Fatih" has transitive intent, as I say...that is, it's always faith IN something. But there certainly are bad forms of belief. The thing that makes something worthy of faith is the evidence and reasons that there are to justify trust in that thing.

Immanuel, I think you are misusing the word faith.

Not at all. If you looked at the case of John Locke, for example, you'll see he makes absolutely no appeal to anything an ordinary person cannot understand or experience.

Even if you don't buy his line of argument, it's clear evidence that Theists do not think "faith" is what you think they think it is. And a whole lot more of that can easily be supplied, actually.

... faith is synonymous with belief.

That's quite right, actually. If look in the New Testament, for example, you'll often find the exact same word is used for "faith" and "belief." It's like "to faith" is a verb there, as it is in the original Greek.

I can say that I have faith in science but the basis for that faith is not faith but rather critical and empirical.

Really? I highly doubt that.

I think what happened for you is probably what happened for me, and for practically every other scientist alive. When we were in junior or perhaps high school, some very impressive man in a lab coat taught us there was a thing called "science." Until then, we had known nothing at all about it. He told us that if we followed the methodology he would teach us, we would learn things. And so we put faith in him. And it turned out that he could teach us some stuff, and some of it really worked. Some of it did not, and our experiments sometimes went sideways; but we remained committed to his method, because he assured us it was basically sound, even when it didn't seem to work out perfectly. We trusted, and followed, and we learned.

It was only after we learned how to do science that we found empirical confirmation for any of it. We didn't know it would work out going in, and there was nothing at all empirical about what introduced us to it. We discovered science by faith. And we're glad we did. But the evidence came afterward, not before.

Although some may try to provide a rational basis for such beliefs, others simply "take it on faith". In other words, faith is the basis for the belief.

This is still incorrect. You can even tell by your own syntax there. For you write "take it on faith." What is the "it" there? What's the noun for which the pronoun substitutes?

Faith is always "in" something. It has an "it" in which one is trusting. And the quality of the "it," or the thing your faith is "in" decides the quality of the faith.

[KLewchuk]

Not at all.

"Fatih" has transitive intent, as I say...that is, it's always faith IN something. But there certainly are bad forms of belief. The thing that makes something worthy of faith is the evidence and reasons that there are to justify trust in that thing.

Immanuel, I think you are misusing the word faith.

Not at all. If you looked at the case of John Locke, for example, you'll see he makes absolutely no appeal to anything an ordinary person cannot understand or experience.

Even if you don't buy his line of argument, it's clear evidence that Theists do not think "faith" is what you think they think it is. And a whole lot more of that can easily be supplied, actually.

... faith is synonymous with belief.

That's quite right, actually. If look in the New Testament, for example, you'll often find the exact same word is used for "faith" and "belief." It's like "to faith" is a verb there, as it is in the original Greek.

I can say that I have faith in science but the basis for that faith is not faith but rather critical and empirical.

Really? I highly doubt that.

I think what happened for you is probably what happened for me, and for practically every other scientist alive. When we were in junior or perhaps high school, some very impressive man in a lab coat taught us there was a thing called "science." Until then, we had known nothing at all about it. He told us that if we followed the methodology he would teach us, we would learn things. And so we put faith in him. And it turned out that he could teach us some stuff, and some of it really worked. Some of it did not, and our experiments sometimes went sideways; but we remained committed to his method, because he assured us it was basically sound, even when it didn't seem to work out perfectly. We trusted, and followed, and we learned.

It was only after we learned how to do science that we found empirical confirmation for any of it. We didn't know it would work out going in, and there was nothing at all empirical about what introduced us to it. We discovered science by faith. And we're glad we did. But the evidence came afterward, not before.

Although some may try to provide a rational basis for such beliefs, others simply "take it on faith". In other words, faith is the basis for the belief.

This is still incorrect. You can even tell by your own syntax there. For you write "take it on faith." What is the "it" there? What's the noun for which the pronoun substitutes?

Faith is always "in" something. It has an "it" in which one is trusting. And the quality of the "it," or the thing your faith is "in" decides the quality of the faith.

Omer gerd, no.

Watts does a great explanation of this, but it isn't at hand.

First, we have belief. Let's pick an "it". Let's try "transubstantiation" (i.e. the belief that the bread and wine transform into the body of Christ when digested). Many have realized that this is a belief that cannot be rationally justified nor argued. If it is to be believed, it must be accepted "on faith" (i.e. belief without rational justification). If I understand you correctly, you will then argue that you cannot have "faith" in transubstantiation but in something else. Agreed, you believe something "on faith" because you have vested authority to something other than rationality. It may be a book, a community, a person, whatever. However, as stated, some see "faith" as a higher value than rationality. It doesn't take faith to believe the rational, it takes faith to believe the irrational. The greater the irrationality, the greater the faith.

Let me explain it this way. If you can convince me of something through rational argumentation and critical inquiry, faith is not required. If you can definitively argue that God exists, you do not have to have faith in God. Faith is belief in absence of evidence.