Faith vs. Facts(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Faith vs. Facts
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/opinion/sunday/t-m-luhrmann-faith-vs-facts.html
3 comments
Would you say that the Christian belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is one of those "fact-beliefs" or "faith-beliefs"?
This is likely heresy, but the virgin birth is not really central to Christianity. It ties the events of the NT with certain readings of the OT as prophecy. It's part of the Nicene creed, although not the original version. OTOH, short of a Pastwatch type invention, there's absolutely no way to resolve it to anyone's satisfaction.
I really don't like it when religion is attacked. Not all religions believe the same thing. Sure you got some forms of Christianity that believe in creationism and others in evolution. Some that don't want vaccination and others that do. You'll find it is the radical religions that you have to watch out for, not the moderate ones. Not every religion is the same.
> Not all religions believe the same thing. ... Not every religion is the same.
The article doesn't even suggest anything of the sort. Further, it extends "religious thinking" to include things that aren't religious in the usual sense (anti-vaxxers, for example). The entire point of the article is that there is a different kind of thinking going on when the belief is "religious" vs when it's a belief about reality.
As the article states:
> when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts. > ... > scholars have determined that people don’t use rational, instrumental reasoning when they deal with religious beliefs.
Which, if true, should be:
1) fully grappled with, and
2) actively opposed.
Magical/religious/superstitious thinking leads to strongly held beliefs that are impervious to being updated by evidence in a rational manner. Some of these beliefs might be benign or even pro-social -- true -- but at best this process of gaining beliefs is definitely unreliable. At worst, well, we know how it ends at worst.
The article doesn't even suggest anything of the sort. Further, it extends "religious thinking" to include things that aren't religious in the usual sense (anti-vaxxers, for example). The entire point of the article is that there is a different kind of thinking going on when the belief is "religious" vs when it's a belief about reality.
As the article states:
> when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts. > ... > scholars have determined that people don’t use rational, instrumental reasoning when they deal with religious beliefs.
Which, if true, should be:
1) fully grappled with, and
2) actively opposed.
Magical/religious/superstitious thinking leads to strongly held beliefs that are impervious to being updated by evidence in a rational manner. Some of these beliefs might be benign or even pro-social -- true -- but at best this process of gaining beliefs is definitely unreliable. At worst, well, we know how it ends at worst.
What if every (or even most) religion also has radicals following it? Can you think of a religion without a radical flavor?
Maybe it's some people that are radical, and are attracted to local religions, and then religion gives them an outlet for belief that doesn't require the feedback with reality cycle that shapes many other actions, letting them become more unhinged over time.
Maybe it's some people that are radical, and are attracted to local religions, and then religion gives them an outlet for belief that doesn't require the feedback with reality cycle that shapes many other actions, letting them become more unhinged over time.
[deleted]
I didn't really see the article as "attacking" religion and am surprised you do. I have however noticed some religions have a pervasive tendency to claim they are under attack.
[deleted]
The author on the other hand, seems to confuse "faith" with "blind faith". "Faith" is simply the behaviour today in the light of facts which have been established in the past. For instance, the author herself has faith in how the world will continue to operate today, based on our understanding of how it operated yesterday. "Blind faith" on the other hand has nothing to do with facts as it is not concerned for them in the first place, this is not the "faith" of Christianity which is concerned for truth.
Coming back to objective faith, belief in the historical Jesus of Nazareth falls apart if he was not in fact historical, since faith in him depends upon historical facts. As Paul of Tarsus said:
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." - 1 Corinthians 15:14-15
It is all the more surprising that this same Paul of Tarsus, also known as Saul, had previously persecuted the church, according to Luke's account in Acts 8:
"On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison."
See Paul Barnett's "Jesus And The Logic Of History" for the historical method as applied to Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog....