Comments on: Faith, organized religion, spirituality

By: Philocrites

Philocrites — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:54:50 +0000

Tillich describes faith as “ultimate concern” or as the state of being ultimately concerned. In other words, it’s a word for the existential condition of being committed to something beyond oneself. It isn’t necessarily independent of rationality, although the intensity of experiencing one’s ultimate concern usually defies a strictly rational explanation.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:37:36 +0000

I have not read his work. Is he defining faith as the desire for an end that comes independently of a rational analysis? Or is it the end desired that is the faith?

It could be both I suppose, faith as a verb, and faith as a noun.

Why people have faith is an interesting question, but for how people “faith” as answered by a psychologist I would suggest Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling On Happiness.

It cannot ultimately answer the question “why”, no science can I think, but it can show that a lot of aspects of the faith experience are natural consequences of the “how”.

By: Philocrites

Philocrites — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:55:35 +0000

Tillich was being analytical in attempting to describe faith. He wasn’t defending faith: He was simply saying that all human beings discover themselves in the grip of ideas and commitments that are compelling to them prior to rational analysis. His definition of faith doesn’t valorize it. He says (using biblical language) that there are divine and demonic faiths, and then says (using his more existentialist language) that our ultimate commitments can be more or less deserving of our commitment.

Tillich’s analysis of faith actually helps to show why most appeals to faith are misguided. He talked about how nationalism, racism, ideology, and religious triumphalism (“my faith is better than your faith”) are idolatrous. Why? They are overly loyal to something that isn’t truly ultimate.

But he also saw that the experience of faith — the experience of feeling compelled by an ideal or commitment, including things like nationalism or even atheism — reveals something true and meaningful about human life. Our capacity to make commitments, to latch onto metaphors and ideas and models, to see our lives in the context of some larger purpose (“secular” or “religious”) is what is deepest about us.

By: David

David — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:08:26 +0000

Q: If we call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?

A: Five?

Q: No, just because we call a tail a leg, doesn’t mean it is a leg.

The odd thing about this is, if enough people — if most people — call a tail a leg, then it becomes a leg. But until then, if we go around making up our private definitions of commonly held words, then we’re just inventing word games and making it hard for other people to understand us.

Even if Paul Tillich told you that a tail is a leg, it still isn’t.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:26:01 +0000

Mike: I am definitely with you on using experience and reason as the primary sources, while recognizing that even a stopped clock (the scriptures) can be right twice a day. I think that’s great that you are dropping the word faith in the context of “most probably.” It really is too confusing, and apologists exploit that confusion. Thank you, on behalf of all the atheists who pull their hair out when they have to explain for the fifth time that atheism is a faith in the same way that bald is a hair color!

By: Citizen

Citizen — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:17:27 +0000

If that’s your project, then could you please find a way to confine it to liberal religious people?

The way I see it, religious liberals need the multiple definitions of the words in order to contest more “traditional” people for understandings of religion. You don’t like the way those words are used by those others, because they exclude your understandings. Then I come along and seem like I want to uphold the traditional understanding, and that’s a problem for you.

But here’s the thing: I don’t think it does anything for me if the definition of religion is expanded, or the definition of faith is expanded. I shouldn’t have to fall into categories religious people prize to get respect. I suspect I’d go along with it if it were the only way to stop religious people from hating and fearing atheists, but it would taste bitter in my mouth, and it shouldn’t come down to that.

I’m not a part of your intra-religious competition with exclusivist co-religionists, but at the same time, I can’t ask for understanding on my own terms, and not grant you understanding on yours, even though I disagree with them.

So if you could somehow make your expanded definitions only apply to people who want and need them, not people who have abandoned the whole framework, that would really be a much better way. It wouldn’t magically create complete agreement between liberal religious people and non-religious people, but it would do something.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:56:55 +0000

If tradition is seen as merely past experience then by all means consider it. But if that be the case then I would take those four considerations down to two: experience and reason.

Experimental caution is good advice that could be justified by tradition. But I accept it based purely on experience and reason.

As a non theist I of course reject scripture unless it coincidently also agrees with reason and experience.

Citizen: I agree completely. I will cease to use the word faith to mean most probable.

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:47:47 +0000

Okay, I think I’m closer to getting it now. It’s sounds like a matter of fairness to you.

But, yes, it is hard for me to think of folks as not “faithing,” for all the reasons I’ve tried to lay out. I think I understand why you don’t like being told you have faith in the way that it’s usually meant.

I want to make sure you know that I’m not using “faith” or “religion” in the same way they do. I don’t like the way they use them either. What I’m trying to do is take those words back.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:40:15 +0000

The message I receive when people use words with religious connotations to describe me, a non-religious person, is this: “I have to define you according to my own worldview. I cannot understand you on your own terms, I have to redefine you so you still involve religion somehow.” Is it honestly that hard to think of non-religious people without saying things like “atheists have faith” or “atheism is a religion?” (you didn’t say the last one, but it is in the same vein.)

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:31:05 +0000

Which would be fine to say, even if I don’t like it or don’t agree.

I don’t understanding why “faith” is such an offensive word for you. I take you at your word, but I still don’t think I’m wronging you by saying otherwise.