In my last round of apologetics many of you asked what evidence I could possibly have that would be strong enough to make me believe in God. Richard Grant of The Scientist on the Nature Network has a great post addressing that question. Here's a snippet that I found particularly compelling:
To put it another way, people don't have faith, or believe in something they can't see, for no reason. In fact, if you talk to them you might find that they have very good reason (although not proof, and they'd happily admit as much) to have faith: on balance, given their experiences and the evidence they have seen, faith is a perfectly rational position. Faith is about weighing evidence, and then making a decision based on what you know so far. We have the phrase 'a leap of faith' for a reason. And perfectly sane, rational, sceptical people will make that leap because they think the evidence justifies that decision.I am developing a huge platonic science blog-crush on Richard Grant. Don't tell the ScienceBlogs bosses, though. I think that, because he's on the Nature Network, I am supposed to hate that guy.
[As an aside, I would like to know what Walter Isaacson thinks about Open Access. Click the links in the last paragraph for context.]
The article that has me all in a tizzy today is Bonnie Rochman's Why Catholic Indulgences Are Making a Comeback. Rochman's flippant writing about indulgences (see here and here) is the type of careless journalism that perpetuates stereotypes about the Catholic faith. She writes:
At the core of indulgences is sin, which can either lead to eternal punishment -- i.e., hell -- or time spent in purgatory, a place of suffering where imperfections are scrubbed away in preparation for entering heaven. Confession erases eternal punishment, but temporal punishment remains. Plenary, or full, indulgences are the equivalent of a get-out-of-purgatory-free card. Partial indulgences simply shorten your stay.
Catholics believe that we are called to confess our sins to one another (see here). We believe that Christ gave the priesthood the ability to forgive transgressions in his name when he told St. Peter, "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (see here)." But a prerequisite for this forgiveness and grace is perfect or imperfect contrition (sorrow at having offended God) on the part of the penitent and a sincere desire to not commit the offense again. We believe that we are called to confess once a year (our so-called Easter Duty). But it's not a magic eraser. It's an opportunity to reconcile yourself with the people you have wronged (including God) and then to do good works in an attempt to remedy the wrong you introduced into the world.
Nor is confession and penance a bribe from the church to make us feel warm and fuzzy, as Rochman describes:
Indulgences are a handy marketing tool for the church, a way of encouraging people to amp up their spiritual life.
Dr. Isis thinks Bonnie Rochman has done lost her mind. There's nothing warm and fuzzy about confession or penance. It's stressful, it's uncomfortable, and it is difficult to tell another person about a wrong you've committed. If anything, there are Catholics that stay away from the confessional for these reasons and there is no penance or indulgence without confession first.
But this is ScienceBlogs and what does Bonnie Rochman's asshattery have to do with science? Dr. Isis fears that this type of journalism, journalism which only skims the very surface of a topic catching the detritus that floats on said surface, is not unique to coverage of Catholicism. While there are undoubtedly gifted science journalists, most mainstream science coverage is on par with Rochman's article -- superficial, overally-generalized, and often inaccurate .
And Time Magazine wants us to pay for this crap?
Figure 3: Research material for Bonnie Rochman's article? I think I see the Virgin Mary in there on the left.
Education & Careers
Comments
My friend, this will be fun...
That being said, I agree that faith is faith. I don't agree with this:
Faith is belief in that which cannot be proved. Real evidence about reality NEVER justifies faith. It is possible to be a rational, skeptical person, and still have faith, but it is DESPITE your rationality and skepticism, not because of it.
Posted by: PalMD | March 1, 2009 3:36 PM
Ok, I see a lot of what, but still no why you believe. You have made a leap of faith--from what? You have said earlier that you looked at other belief systems--why leap in this direction?
I know that my opinion matters little to none at all (which is how it should be), but I have asked honest questions and am genuinely curious in the answers and the debate. And in truth, I am beginning to wonder if you know why you have made your particular leap. I could tell you what events led to my joining a church decades ago, and what events eventually led to my atheism; your first sentence led me to hope that I would read something of that sort here today, a timeline of your own leap of faith. You are under no obligation to share that with us, of course, but frankly I wish you would either tell us, or tell us that you will not tell us.
Don't like the stereotyping? Give us a real story, don't just complain about the ones you don't like.
Posted by: Anon | March 1, 2009 3:53 PM
Oh, sheesh. Cut a sister some slack in not laying herself entirely on the line in a single post, anonymous commenter. I've thought often about what I might say, and how it might be received, but thought that Richard's thoughts on faith and reason were a good primer.
I have thought about how I might explain that I feel a deep spiritual connection to the Eucharist in a forum where a favorite expression is "Jesus Christ on a Cracker." Mine is not an individual conversion experience that can be described in a single 500 word post, but the deepening of a faith that I practice daily. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I explored other religions several years ago and did not experience the connection I feel to my current faith. But, what is that connection? I've tried to think about how I might describe the closeness to God I feel through the sacraments and devotion to the virgin.
So, I'm working on it. I am. But my description of my faith isn't going to change shitty journalism, is it Anon?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 1, 2009 4:38 PM
Well, your understanding of indulgences might be the ideal the Catholic church hierarchy would strive to inculcate in its adherents. But I can tell you that the version in the article you are so upset about is a lot closer to what is probably the general belief among the Catholics in my hometown. Yours is a very sophisticated version of the Catholic faith. Let me be clear, I do not mean this as an insult, to you or my hometown, but the working faith I grew up with was not terribly sophisticated, it was much more literal. We had a priest at one point who was relatively highly educated and had a rather sophisticated understanding of faith which he tried to preach to us (in a rather angry and condescending manner, which didn't help) and I think it mostly rolled over people's heads. We were comfortable with what we already had; who needed all that fancy language? Do you think most Catholics in the U.S. share your version of understanding, or the version put forward by this journalist?
Posted by: Zuska | March 1, 2009 4:56 PM
One thing I've always liked about catholicism is the sophistication.
As to anon, i'm actually not that interested in your own, er, conversion experience, whatever that may mean. I have noticed a strong tendency in catholics, as in my own community, for religion and culture to be closely intertwined. I did not "choose" to be a Jew, I just am. I "choose" to be one of those Jews who isn't particularly religious, but I am still deeply involved in my community.
Posted by: PalMD | March 1, 2009 5:10 PM
**head bowed in shame** I have admit that the journalist view of Catholicism's confession is the impression that I had of it, which was based on the information provided by catholic friends. It is nice to hear a different version.
On another note, your faith is expressed by your choice to practice Catholicism. Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindu's don't have a different faith. We all share the same faith/belief in God, we express that faith through different religions.
And on a completely different aspect of religion, Catholicism teaches you that I will go to hell because I do not believe in the holy trinity as being my only path to God. Do you really belief that good people like myself are going to burn in hell because we express our faith in God differently?
Posted by: ScientistMother | March 1, 2009 5:12 PM
you follow the intended spirit of the whole indulgence thing... i knew few like you when i was a part of that community. the fear of punishment aspect was pretty dominantly preached as i remember it. but i can't say i remember too much about those years in the first place.
Posted by: leigh | March 1, 2009 5:32 PM
Zuska, that's a hard question to answer. The Catholics I have interacted with in my life have shared this interpretation of confession and penance. Are there geographic or generational differences? There very well may be, but this is the interpretation that is outlined in the catechism and I hope it is the understanding held by most Catholics. My experience, however, is that when confession and penance are described in the popular media it is often as a practice indulged in by Catholics as a way to wipe the slate clean and as a magic painless cure for sinning -- as though Catholics think, "it's alright for me to do commit this act today because I can attend confession tomorrow."
ScientistMother, you make a valid point. The major world religions are largely unified by a belief in a common God. That said, Catholics do not believe that non-Catholics (and especially non-Christians) will "burn in hell" because of the difference in faith. Indulge me a few quotes from out Catechism (ie, teachings) and then join me again at the end:
That last part is key, I think and the word "know" means more than simply knowing of the existence of a Gospel or a church. It has been interpreted to mean "believe."
So, no, I don't believe you're going to hell ScientistMother, as much as you probably don't believe I am either (although some days I think I push my luck).
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 1, 2009 5:45 PM
I would disagree that Richard Grant is describing "Faith" in its most important (and further most Catholic) sense. When referring to "making a decision based on what you know so far", this implies you already have a prior framework established to determine the nature of a decision. It also implies that, should you learn more, you could change it.
The framework may itself rest on other beliefs. Ultimately, however, there is some underlying basic propositions, either held via circular reasoning ("The Bible is Inerrant, because God says so in the Bible!"), or as an explicit assumption ("Logical Inclusive Disjunction is Commutative.") I would consider these tenets to be held via Faith, but the sort of belief Dr. Grant's passage refers to as a form of Inference, or perhaps Trust.
I've tried to indicate such terminological distinction previously. Protestant tradition of the "inerrant" flavor does not facilitate distinguishing them (EG: Hebrews 11:1); however, Catholicism is more nuanced in discourse.
The question would be, is the position held as the result of more basic first principles, and thus "science" or "knowledge"; is it held as such a basic principle, unquestioned because there is no more basic frame with which to question it; or purely held true in and of itself directly via Divine Authority, and thus truly what the Church teaches as constituting "Faith"?
The last, in turn, begs the question: is such revealed truth distinguishable from any other idea held by the human mind; and if so, how?
Posted by: abb3w | March 1, 2009 5:59 PM
I am glad that you don't believe that I am going to hell, I personally am not quite as sure (sure that I am not going to hell) :) You are the first Catholic (or Christian) I have met that does not believe that non-believers will go to hell. Even if you take "know" to mean "believe" it is my own choice to not believe. So could you really say that I would be in the category of "those who, through no fault of their own, do not know"
Oh and popular media totally protrays Confession as a way to wipe the slate clean.
Posted by: ScientistMother | March 1, 2009 6:06 PM
That's really interesting SM. I would still say, yes. I think the key is in following something you believe to be true in keeping with your conscience. You have never believed my faith and rejected it. At the heart of John Paul's papacy was an attempt at the reunification of the major world religions and a call to treat each other with charity. My church hasn't always been perfect at this, but I still think it is an important contemporary goal.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 1, 2009 6:28 PM
I did not "choose" to be a Jew, I just am.
I can't help but disagree. I was raised in a Jewish community, I went through all the motions as a child and I even enjoyed it. However, as an adult I don't care about or involve myself with the Jewish community. Sure I have the whole slew of childhood memories and experiences that would make me a Jew, but I don't see myself as Jewish at all. You choose to be a Jew, in much the same way that I choose not to be a Jew, by identifying as one.
Posted by: LostMarbles | March 1, 2009 6:32 PM
Isis, oh please. People think that confession wipes away all sin and then one is free to sin again because that is exactly how the Church treats it. That is how priests in the church treat it. How in God’s name were so many priests able to abuse so many children with the knowledge of so many higher ups, and I presume the priests that they “confessed” to. I could understand once, maybe a couple of times, but dozens or hundreds?
I appreciate that this may sound like Catholic-bashing; it is not intended to bash individual Catholics, only the Catholic hierarchy which is not practicing what they preach.
I was dumbfounded when the current Pope made a speech where he blamed God for being silent about the Holocaust.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/pope_auschwitz.html
"In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can be only a dread silence, a silence which itself is a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?"
If the leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the most religious and spiritual of all Catholics, the person with (supposedly) the closest connection to God is so deaf that he was unable to hear God’s message that genocide is not ok, why was he chosen to be the Pope? I can hear God saying “genocide is not ok” and I don’t believe God even exists.
The reason that “God was silent” was because all those good German Catholics who were killing all those Jews, gypsies and others were going to confession and being absolved of their sins. Then they could go and do it again, and again, and again, and again. Until they lose their “faith” and the “magic” of the confessional didn’t work anymore and their humanity surfaced and they couldn’t do it any more.
That is what happened in Argentina too. When the “disappeared” were thrown out of planes into the sea, those who did the throwing “confessed”, were “absolved”, and went on to do it again, and again, and again.
This is the problem with all top-down hierarchies. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nothing built from the top down is stable. It has to be built from the bottom up.
Posted by: daedalus2u | March 1, 2009 8:38 PM
I do think it's a mistake to assume piety in people who happen to go to church just as I think it's a mistake to assume that people outside of church are damned. Moreover, it seems beyond logic to assume that everyone of a particular standing in a church (like a priest or bishop) is an awful person who doesn't care about the nature and frequency of what is being confessed. Some of the most adamant persons for human rights come from the church. I'm not Catholic so I must say that I couldn't name names about people working in Latin America through various trials and tribulations. However, the story of St. Herman of Alaska is definitely one to consider if you are wanting to see people work on behalf of the poor and oppressed among indigenous Americans.
Posted by: Academic | March 1, 2009 9:14 PM
In my Catholic high school, I noticed that my Catechism/Religion Class instructors significantly contradicted one another when they explained absolution and salvation to us.
My ninth-grade instructor, a priest, said, "Now, I know you all are thinking that it's not very fair for people who have been bad all of their lives to confess [during Extreme Unction] and then get to go to heaven, right? What about all the people who were good all their lives? Well, the thing is, heaven is like different types of houses. There are shacks, and there are mansions. You may lead a bad life, and be forgiven at the end of it, and then go to heaven. But all you'll get is a shack."
(Then how is it heaven? thought the fourteen-year-old unbaptized heathen from a then-lapsed Protestant family, incredulously. But she had zero courage as a high-schooler and therefore said nothing.)
My tenth- and twelfth-grade instructor, a layperson, said, "There's no hierarchy in Heaven. That's what purgatory's for. You can be forgiven before you die, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you won't have to do penance in purgatory. After you become like a saint who got to go straight to Heaven after death, then you can join the other saints in their state of perfect happiness with God."
My eleventh-grade instructor, a (very conservative) priest, said, "This is how salvation works. Roman Catholics are saved first, because they are followers of the one true faith. Other Christians are saved second. After them: the Jews. This is what Jesus said. Yeah, there's a provision for the salvation of pagans and others who have never been introduced to Christianity:
"However, that's just for people who have never heard of Jesus Christ before. If they have, and they have refused to convert to Christianity anyway, then there's a distinct possibility that they will not be eternally saved."
My tenth- and twelfth-grade instructor, whose views were more liberal, replied to this assertion: "The Catholic Church recognizes that it is wrong for a person to contradict his or her own conscience. In the event that a person genuinely does not believe in the Catholic faith, and would have to lie to profess belief in the Catholic faith, then that person can still be saved, because God knows that person's heart." This was her interpretation of the same passage.
Like Dr. Isis, all of my instructors emphasized that one shouldn't take the sacrament of Confession without genuinely intending never to repeat the sins confessed again. It was not carte blanche to do whatever you wanted. They were so big on this that I began to suspect that public misunderstanding of Catholic Confession was some sort of touchy subject. Nor, said they, should anyone take Confession without a willingness to confess all the sins, whether venial or mortal, that appeared on the list of sins that we took with us to Mass.
This made Confession tricky for those of my Catholic friends who did not believe that swearing, masturbation, necking, drinking alcohol and working on the Sabbath constituted any kind of sinning, and who had no intention of quitting any of these things, either. They took Confession anyway.
To this day, I wonder how on Earth my confused teen self would've handled this, had I been Catholic. Sure, I firmly abstained from drinking, making out and dancing with myself (though this last was really, really hard. I'm just telling the truth, here. High school sucked enough already), but Sunday was just another day for me and, meanwhile, I gleefully swore like a sailor. What were you supposed to do, then, when you wanted to confess something like sneaking out at night and epically TPing the house down the road with a hundred dollars' worth of toilet paper? (Or something that was bad for real, like hitting someone.) Secretly disagree with your priest about what were sins and what weren't? Or just never go to Confession, and ask for a blessing at Mass instead of Communion? What if you (dutifully) worried about dying without absolution?
Interestingly, none of my instructors discussed the sin of attrition, which I read about on my own. It's kind of tangential to this thread, yeah. I'm also an atheist who has stopped fretting about it. At the time, though, it made sense to me that "God" would want people to do good things exclusively out of love for God, especially if the Church counted your love of other people as manifestations of your love of God. Today, the idea of doing the right thing out of fear of punishment or greed for reward still (not entirely rationally) disgusts me to the bone. I can't help thinking that authoritarian institutions like religions (whether we're talking Christianity or Objectivism) tend to foster a neurotic way of interacting with other people and the rest of the world.
(That isn't me trying to be insulting. That's just me voicing my major problem with the concept of "sin", without which there would be no need for Confession.)
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | March 1, 2009 9:35 PM
"And perfectly sane, rational, sceptical people will make that leap because they think the evidence justifies that decision."
Right! Just look at all the evidence that those who invested in Madoff's schemes saw, made a leap of faith and discovered that the evidence is actually a lie and their faith was greed.
Yes, perfectly sane, rational, skeptical people will make a leap of faith because they have the ability to justify an illogical decision either by persuading themselves or being persuaded by someone else that this leap of faith will benefit them in one way or another. Gamblers are making leaps of faith all the time against all evidence.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 1, 2009 9:53 PM
I find this whole discourse very interesting, because though I am not Catholic, I am considering raising my daughter in the Catholic faith, because my husband is a lapsed Catholic, and because they have relatively cheap good private schools.
Two questions:
1) you never addressed indulgences
2) How do you feel about the position of women within the Catholic Church's heirarchy?
Posted by: Courtney | March 1, 2009 10:46 PM
ScientistMother, come to Europe and you will find plenty of Christians who would be amazed at the very thought of you burning in hell. Many of us over here are quite liberal, even the Catholics.
@Courtney #16: We're raising our children to be Catholics, but we also take them to Quaker meeting. We're both cultural Catholics, although my personal beliefs are far closer to the Quaker Testimonies than to the Catechism.
When we started attending again, we chose a parish that reflected our particular needs and values. Although you are assigned to your home parish by vocation, nothing stops you from attending other services. (In fact, in Cologne, Germany, which has a huge density of catholic churches, people self-sort such that there is a family church with lots of crawling toddlers etc). Likewise, here in edinburgh, there's a parish that lovingly welcomed the child of two lesbians - the baptism contained a prayer for the parents' relationship to be strong, iirc. So, choose your parish wisely.
Also, Rome is far away. This means that you may well find women in a variety of active, prominent roles in your chosen parish. Remember we have a shortage of celibate priests. Personally, I think that I will see married priests and female priests in my life time.
Posted by: perceval | March 2, 2009 3:42 AM
This might be true for some people but I feel such people are exceedingly few and far between. For the majority of people on the planet, faith is about believing what your parents/priest/peers tell you to believe from a very early age. This belief, along with the idea that to stop believing or to question it is wrong, is then ingrained. It has nothing to do with weighing evidence at all, at least not for most religious people.
Even if the evidence idea were true, the fact remains that there is nothing which can seriously be called evidence for gods or the like. Yeah, there are some old books but that's about it. Fluffy concepts like "the beauty of the world", personal feelings or dead-end concepts like irreducible complexity just don't cut it. You have to seriously weaken your definition of 'evidence' before that argument stands up.
Posted by: Cannonball Jones | March 2, 2009 4:40 AM
If you really interested in a possible scientific explanation of why some perfectly sane, rational, skeptical people are willing to make an illogical leap of faith, read the presentation of my colleague and neuroscientist per excellence, Robert M. Sapolsky upon receiving the 2002 "Emperor Has No Clothes" award. It is brilliant.
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 2, 2009 10:02 AM
I have no comment on other people's, like your's, rightness or wrongness of choices to believe. But here's my 2-cents: See, I used to be a spiritual person. I grew up Catholic and while it largely affected me only in the chronic guilt area, I had a very deep, profound, emotional religious experience one evening at a youth group meeting as a teenager. For a while, I thought that was my proof of Jesus. It meant a lot to me. But then I learned about temporal lobe epilepsy and once only timing and coincidence were there as my inner evidence, the shine rubbed off the whole thing.
Now, I can see how when faced with a similar choice, other people might not let the shine rub off and might maintain their faith in the whole possibility that God put those connections in our temporal lobes so s/he could talk to us. But, that was too much of a stretch for even my science-fiction-loving brain. It just doesn't work for me, and I'm okay with that.
Posted by: Arlenna | March 2, 2009 12:40 PM
This thread is fading, but I just wanted to reiterate the point Catholicism *does not believe* that non-Catholics are going to hell, since Scientist Mother said she'd never heard it said before. The idea of "justification by faith" is more popular among some of the Protestant Christian denominations and was a major bone of contention when the early groups were splitting off. The arguments get pretty complex on both sides, but for today's purpose, lets just categorize it under the "don't lump all Christians together" ideas.
This idea is particularly important to me. I had (have) some wonderful, atheist friends in high school that I looked at as examples of how I should be living. I was not going to join any faith that said that I was going to heaven and they weren't (especially since I was sure it was the other way around.) Before going through confirmation, I made darned sure I wasn't becoming an adult in church that condemned my friends. Later, when I felt farther from Catholicism and was exploring other faiths, one of the reasons I returned was because most of the others I looked into had the justification by faith rule and that's a deal-breaker for me.
Also to SM: I agree with your second paragraph completely! It is a beautiful and succinct way of expressing an idea I've had trouble putting into words, thank you!
and an aside to #17: there's plenty of liberal Catholics this side of the pond too! we're just not as loud and obnoxious as the conservative ones ;)
Posted by: Claire | March 2, 2009 1:10 PM
"You have never believed my faith and rejected it. "
So, Zuska (am I right, a lapsed catholic?) *is* going to burn in hell?
I continue to find your willing to engage in this discussion fascinating. Interesting too, that the Grant quote is meaningful to you, because it sounds like utter gibberish to me.
"Faith is about weighing evidence, and then making a decision based on what you know so far."
I thought that "weighing the evidence and making a 'decision' based on what you know so far" was hypothesizing, and that the next step is that you rigorously test your "decision" (of course, it's not a decision, since testing might alter it). It is precisely this definition of "faith" that makes no sense to me (or at least, if accepted cannot fit within my rational framework of the world).
Posted by: neurolover | March 2, 2009 1:58 PM
Dr. Isis, you begin your post by saying that you have been asked for evidence for your god-beliefs, and in response you direct the readers to a post where Richard Grant explains that his god-belief is the result of evidence. Yet not evidence is presented by either parties, so I do not understand how his post is at all helpful.
Dr. Isis: "It's an opportunity to reconcile yourself with the people you have wronged (including God) and then to do good works in an attempt to remedy the wrong you introduced into the world."
This is the first time I have seen the confession explained in such a way that barely mentions God at all. Forgiveness from God is the most important point, and the only thing that will save your soul from hell if you have sinned. Everything else comes second and is optional. Or am I wrong? Are Catholics taught that you MUST right your wrongs with the people you have sinned against in order to enter heaven?
Clair said: "I was not going to join any faith that said that I was going to heaven and they weren't (especially since I was sure it was the other way around.)"
They're atheists. Have they ever committed blasphemy? Then according to the region you joined they have committed a mortal sin and if they remain atheists they are going to hell to be tormented for all of eternity.
Posted by: jake | March 2, 2009 2:32 PM
I must disagree with Grant and you, Isis. Faith is defined as believing something without any evidence. In most cases I've found that where evidence and faith get lumped together it's only so that the evidence can be viewed through the lens of faith (fitting the evidence to the conclusion). Faith is by definition not rational, but once you have evidence faith is unneccesary (you don't have faith in gravity, you have evidence that it acts upon objects).
I would also comment that while you're very ideal version of indulgences and confession is lovely, it's not the reality and I think the journalist was right, though perhaps he could've provided the historical background. Historically indulgences were a "get out of jail free" card given or (more usually) bought to insure one would not go to hell for a particular action. And no matter how guilty (and Catholics are damn good at feeling guilty) one feels when confessing "sins" it doesn't appear to stop most from committing them as others have already well noted. Thus indulgences and confession look to me like a nice way for the priesthood to retain control and that's about it. Not a whole lot different from some of the Born Again Christian groups who believe that as long as you believe in Jesus you're going to heaven no matter what you do.
Either way it leads to ugliness where one can justify doing moderately awful things because they are one of the "saved".
-- from a family of lapsed Catholics --
Posted by: Sarah | March 2, 2009 2:34 PM
I have just had a coughing fit and splorted coffee all over my previously white keyboard. Seeing pictures of yourself with a heart 'Shopped over them might have something to do with it. I'm sure there's a theological lesson there somewhere.
Anyway, I have pulled several punches because that post was a primer for the next one (and I really didn't want to lose the extremes of my audience, although that aim might be laid aside in the interests of sanity), which is being written in the breaks during my preparation for moving half way round the world. I will say that some people seem to be getting stuck on the 'faith=no input from reason at all' thing, which is somewhat puzzling. For me, yeah, I have reasons to believe. But they are anecdotal to the discussion I'm leading up to.
Oh, and my wife thinks your shoes are cool. I think your shoes are cool.
Posted by: rpg | March 2, 2009 4:16 PM
rpg,
What is so puzzling about the fact that so many believers use a different definition of faith from your own? Show me any definition of faith that you think is a stereotype and I'll show you someone who actually believes that stereotype is true for themselves. It is extremely presumptuous to define faith on behalf of all the faithful people of the world, you can only honestly define it (to such a specific degree) for yourself.
Posted by: jake | March 3, 2009 10:08 AM
I wonder what evidence religious fanatics have to support their faith and fanaticism.
You can check the tip of that evidence here:
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/religious-fanatics/
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 3, 2009 11:19 AM
And, of course, if we'll allow God into our schools, where the evidence of his existence can be taught, faith and science will be one!
http://www.youtube.com/user/jwin1990
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 3, 2009 12:04 PM
I know you already addressed someone who mentioned that, while the shoutout to evidence is nice, there's little of it actually in this post...
I had asked what I wanted to ask a couple posts ago, so I won't bugs you anymore about it. I am thoroughly enjoying these posts though.
So I'm keepin' my eye on you, in the meantime.
:)
Posted by: Muse142 | March 3, 2009 12:39 PM
I am sure that by now someone will blame me of trolling, posting comments in response to this Isis's post. But the real reason for my persistent return to your faith postings, Isis, is the great difficulty I have understanding yours and other scientists' and physicians' ability to ignore the great contradictions between the science you do and the faith you have. I surmise that my continually return to your blog has much to do with the fact that I really enjoy reading many of your posts and also admire the role model you have become to so many women who have aspirations in academia. Of course, you Isis, are not fanatic about your faith; you pace carefully, while exposing yourself to potential redicule and sarcasm, which takes great courage. These very traits are the ones that also allow you to do great science. Nevertheless, the science - faith contradictions led many scientists astray. One should only take a glimpse at the Discovey Institute to see the mockery that "faithful" scientists can make of themselves and of science. Take for instance the posting on their website by M. Egnore, M.D., a neurosurgeon who believes in and promotes ID: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/03/an_open_letter_to_the_society_2.html
If you could stomach to read his posting througout, you would hopefully be able to comprehend my bewilderment at such exhibition of total contradiction between scientific evidence and faith.
I hope that my harping won't prevent you from musing in the near future on these contradictions right here on your blog.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 3, 2009 12:39 PM
Sarah: "Faith is defined as believing something without any evidence."
As Taner Edis has pointed out, this isn't quite true. There are different working definitions of "faith" floating around. Some, both theist and atheist, use "faith" to mean "belief without evidence," while others use it simply as a synonym for "trust," while still others are ambiguous about what they mean by "faith." It is foolish to state absolutely that faith is just belief without evidence, since that is a forced fit to the facts on the ground.
That said, pretty much all the definitions of "faith" center around trust, and one can say that faith essentially is trust without much risk of contradiction from religious believers. From there, one can point out that trust is not always a virtue. To trust someone or something with a good track record is reasonable. To trust someone or something on shakier grounds, not so much.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 3, 2009 1:57 PM
JJ, that was the point I was trying to make. The current Pope was unable to hear God say "genocide is not ok" (by his own admission). What basis is there for thinking that he is able to hear messages about transubstantiation and things that are much more complex and subtle than “genocide is not ok”?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary deafness (not being able to hear that “genocide is not ok”) does not lend credence to high fidelity hearing and understanding of subtle, complex and extraordinary claims (transubstantiation).
Posted by: daedalus2u | March 3, 2009 4:03 PM
Jake, the problem I'm having is with non-believers making unwarranted presumptions.
Posted by: rpg | March 3, 2009 4:49 PM
rpg,
Again, you could easily find any believer that believes that faith is defined as [fill in the blank]. So it is not helpful at all to say that 'faith means X and this is how it is used' because who are you to say that their definition is wrong? If you want to be honest, you can only say 'faith means X to me and this is how I use it.'
Posted by: jake | March 3, 2009 5:33 PM