SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : The Death of Faith

Monday
September 12, 2005

The Death of Faith by John Hospers

What is it that prompts people to entertain such beliefs and continue to hold them throughout a lifetime, even in the face of contrary experience? Some say it is “hope, grounded in the promises of Scripture;” others, that it is hope entertained in desperation; others, that it is “believing something you know darned well isn’t so.” For the most part, believes Sam Harris, it is the psychological difficulty or inability to face reality, the fact that “this is it” and death ends our mortal existence. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (14 messages)

Post 0

Monday, September 12 - 7:40am

Link

Edit

Nice work John.

Most people today, however, do not read such passages, or even know that they exist. They are somewhat embarrassed if they happen to come across them, but if they are committed to believing that the entire Bible is the Word of God, they dare not openly reject such passages -- since they are apparently “stuck with them,” they simply ignore them or “pay them no heed.” But they cannot reject them outright if their eternal salvation depends on acceptance of the entire Bible.

Christians deal with this discrepancy by talking about a new covenant with Christ. His sacrifice, of dying for our sins, somehow negates the necessity for stoning sinners to death.

These superstitious beliefs are, without doubt, oddly strange. But there has never been a lack of them. They are, in one sense, a primitive kind of philosophy. Does this mean that man has a craving for philosophy or for religion? One or the other? Both?

Post 1

Monday, September 12 - 9:45am

Link

Edit

Man, by his nature, has a craving for knowledge, and can choose to act or not on this nature by a process of inquiry and discovery. This applies even to the devoutly religious. The devoutly religious, however, will turn this quest into a desire to attain "religious knowledge," which, in part, is a futile attempt to reconcile their mystical beliefs in light of the cold, dispassionate logic that disproves it. In other words, they're wasting their time, seeking comfort from the laws of physics that will one day stop their beating hearts. It's the philosophy of fear, and I don't need to dwell on names like Osama bin Laden and Pat Robertson to prove to you just how that philosophy reveals itself in our world. (I am not, BTW, equating the two in moral terms).

Post 2

Monday, September 12 - 11:21am

Link

Edit

There is more to it than that - the earliest viewing of the nature of the world around took place in prehistoric times, and was tied with the notion of analogies as means of seeking to explain... but analogies, to the ignorant, quickly turn to actuals - and tho invisible, seemingly very plausible [by occam's razor even] - thus the birth of religion, primitive philosophy in that it seeks answers to unknowns, but false in seeking then thru other than natural causes...

In this day and age, when it should be philosophy being chosen, that is discarded as being of no practical value, only conversations among ivory towered recluses - at least thus is the popular view... and this is philosophy's own fault...

Hence the still reliance on religion, despite its failings - because, all in all, it is still perceived as the most 'realistic' of placing values and understandings among the ordinary folk...

The beauty of Rand's works is that she altered, to many, that perception of the unpractical of philosophy - only time will tell how successful it will be in persuading others to shift from religion...

Post 3

Monday, September 12 - 7:37pm

Link

Edit

John Hospers,

We have independent evidence for the existence of Jesus...

Do we? Please provide a reference. As far as I know, there is no historicity of Jesus beyond the self-referencing and doctored Bible, and a few documents that have been shown to be forgeries.

In my "The DEFINED Kind James Bible", the passage about killing people who suggest to worship other gods is Deuteronomy l3:6-l0 not Deuteronomy l3:7-ll.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 13 - 6:46am

Link

Edit

The central idea of the book is valid: reason must triumph over faith. This is a book an Objectivist should have written. While Harris falters at times, he does get the main point across. Regardless of doctrinal differences, the rejection of reason in favor of faith leads to disastrous results.

Hospers’ recommendation – the cultivation of moderates “who don’t take their faith very seriously” – is trivial. With any irrationality, it is better that people become lax or lapsed. Part of the problem is that Harris doesn’t do justice to the doctrinal features and historical practice that makes Islam’s challenge to moderation difficult. The differences matter, perhaps not as much as the similarities, but they are still significant if one wants to avoid a rationalistic projection of Christianity onto Islam that is common today.

I suggest that this is an opportunity for Objectivists. Conservatives claimed the threat of communism was a vindication of faith. We knew better. The left, of yesteryear, postured as the champions of reason and reality. We knew better. This is a chance to argue how reason liberated man and how the religious right and the secular left neither understands nor upholds what has made Western Civilization great: reason.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 13 - 7:01am

Link

Edit

Especially when Eco tell us, “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.”

Post 6

Tuesday, September 13 - 8:36am

Link

Edit

Eco, as in Umberto Eco?

Post 7

Tuesday, September 13 - 11:06am

Link

Edit

Yes, Umberto.

Post 8

Tuesday, September 13 - 9:47am

Link

Edit

Considering all the contentions on this list, one wonders about the Randian idea that there are no conflicts among men if they use reason in good faith.:-)

--Brant

Post 9

Tuesday, September 13 - 1:13pm

Link

Edit

What a come-down - I enjoyed The Name of the Rose... very sherlockian...

Post 10

Tuesday, September 13 - 2:14pm

Link

Edit

Eco tell us, “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.”

The question that comes to mind is by whom is the Enlightenment seen this way? From the statement by itself, it's impossible to know whether Umberto Eco agrees with the sentiment.

Post 11

Tuesday, September 13 - 5:16pm

Link

Edit

Jillian-

The question that comes to mind is by whom is the Enlightenment seen this way? From the statement by itself, it's impossible to know whether Umberto Eco agrees with the sentiment.

That's a sharp question there. From what I know of Eco I would say that he agrees, but I like the way you refused to be led to a conclusion by that statement.

Post 12

Tuesday, September 13 - 8:31pm

Link

Edit

I assumed he didn't agree with the sentiment because of the "is seen as the beginning" rather than having "is the beginning."

Sarah

Post 13

Wednesday, September 14 - 7:43am

Link

Edit

Umberto Eco postulates something he calls syncretism, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth . . . there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.”

Reinterpreting that ‘obscure’ message accounts for today’s nihilist, anarchistic philosophers who spin great clumps of contradictory information into an accreted, lithified whole, and the convoluted conspiracy theories with which we are barraged.

Young minds are taught that firmly held convictions and clear visions of the truth are ‘worthless hallucinations of the mind’, and that truth and fact are judgmental.

Eco delivers the coup de grace with “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity.”

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/14, 7:45am)