(no subject)
Jan. 29th, 2006 08:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookofmirrorsI finally got around to reading this article, which I *think* I got from thinkmonkey.
For the most part, I agree with the article. Faith isn't based on reason, and actions based on faith aren't based on reason, either. (They might ALSO follow the basis of reason, but if faith is your primary motivation for an action, then it's merely a happy coincidence that reason agrees. A faithful person, in my experience, will often discard reason in favor of faith.) I can even agree that acting on faith, in the end, allows one to act without justification. (Or, at least, any justification other than the faith itself, and whatever belief system goes with it, whether personal or canon.)
But faith as a moral failing? I can't see that. I mean... there's no justification for morality, either, in my book. Morality is as ambiguous as faith. Doing something (or not doing something) because it's moral or immoral is as flimsy as doing something on faith. I'm thinking one's morals are based on one's faith, anyway. I would think that if you were to take an atheist, who doesn't ascribe to any particular faith, and ask him/her about morals, they couldn't give you a reason why one particular thing was amoral and another wasn't. Even in the absence of faith, morals are arbitrary. We just decide what sets off our "wrong" meters (conscience, if you will), and what doesn't, and act accordingly. I'm guessing that's a form of faith in itself. Faith in one's self to be able to discern "right" and "wrong", using something as "arbitrary" as gut feelings.
Unless you do the kinesiology thing. Then you're into a whole different ballgame, which is possibly scientifically validatable.
Anyway, just pondering. Feel free to jump in.
thinkmonkey.For the most part, I agree with the article. Faith isn't based on reason, and actions based on faith aren't based on reason, either. (They might ALSO follow the basis of reason, but if faith is your primary motivation for an action, then it's merely a happy coincidence that reason agrees. A faithful person, in my experience, will often discard reason in favor of faith.) I can even agree that acting on faith, in the end, allows one to act without justification. (Or, at least, any justification other than the faith itself, and whatever belief system goes with it, whether personal or canon.)
But faith as a moral failing? I can't see that. I mean... there's no justification for morality, either, in my book. Morality is as ambiguous as faith. Doing something (or not doing something) because it's moral or immoral is as flimsy as doing something on faith. I'm thinking one's morals are based on one's faith, anyway. I would think that if you were to take an atheist, who doesn't ascribe to any particular faith, and ask him/her about morals, they couldn't give you a reason why one particular thing was amoral and another wasn't. Even in the absence of faith, morals are arbitrary. We just decide what sets off our "wrong" meters (conscience, if you will), and what doesn't, and act accordingly. I'm guessing that's a form of faith in itself. Faith in one's self to be able to discern "right" and "wrong", using something as "arbitrary" as gut feelings.
Unless you do the kinesiology thing. Then you're into a whole different ballgame, which is possibly scientifically validatable.
Anyway, just pondering. Feel free to jump in.
