I got your notification for this comment at the same time that I am reading a very interesting article on Nautilus about the spiritual journey of Albert Einstein - We Are a Part of Infinity I think there are individuals who share Einstein's perspective (tied in with the concepts of the Atman and the Brahman). Here is a quote from Einstein summarizing it: “If one wants to value society and, beyond that, what is alive, and rejoices in the fact that consciousness exists, it is impossible not to acknowledge the highest stage of consciousness as the highest ideal.” A good supplemental read (on Nautilus) is this: Is Everyone the Same Person? The only way to make sense of our self is to expand it Holding fast to the shared-self view (there is only one person, and that person is all of us), “egoism would be not only morally unjustified but altogether irrational.” So, the just society may very well be predicated on the Oneness of all humans, and approaching life with that in mind.
Unjust vs. unjust-looking ... hmm ... I guess I mean things that might seem unjust to some, but may be just for the majority. Take for instance prison sentences. Or the possession of nuclear weapons. Same thing with muscle.
I think this reflects justification, rather than being “just” or “justice” These three words - just, justice, justify - all relate to how we treat other people, whether at the individual or institution level but, IMO, have different meanings. Just – an adjective – achieves the highest good, restores a balance Justice – a noun – the rendering to someone of what they are “due” – as in the fair and impartial application of the law, without arbitrariness Justify – a verb – provide reasons that defend and explain one’s actions So, in the case of a prison sentence – they can be justified (punishment, deterrence, retribution, keep society safe) – but, in purely absolute terms, fall short of being “just” or “justice” if trauma in the offender’s life led them to break the law. In a “just” society, what is “due” to the offender is reconciliation and rehabilitation, if “just justice” is about restoring a balance. Then, the whole of the person is taken into account, not solely judged on one act. Indigenous Healing Circles and Healing Lodges – like the Waseskun Healing Centre north of Montreal, a minimum-security prison where Indigenous men convicted of crimes are called residents rather than inmates – provides a good model for how this can be achieved. As an elder at the Centre says: Surely, this approach more closely aligns with what is "just." So, the just society should ensure that all its citizens are fed, housed, kept safe, and receive a good education.
What is faith and what role does it play in our lives? I don’t mean religious faith, but rather the human capacity to believe in whatever. Kant tied faith to acting morally. But what if you put your faith in an immoral being? Does faith crucify reason, as Kierkegaard said? Or does faith need reason? Does faith fool? “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard Buddhists equate faith with trust. Is trust an important element of faith? Is faith a matter of will or intellect? Cause or effect? Motivator or result? Necessary for human survival?
*** WARNING: LONG. But you already knew that, didn't you? *** None of us can know everything, so it may be that any interaction humans have with each other involves a degree of faith. If I go to the store and buy some sweets, I have faith that the storekeeper won't overcharge me, and he has faith that the sweet-maker won't paint the green sweets with arsenic to make them more attractive (as, horrifyingly, happened in early Victorian Britain). But we also have laws for this, so the degree of faith is low. On the other hand, if I sign a contract with an employer, I have faith that they will keep that contract and not summarily dismiss me, and they have faith that I will do my job diligently and not slack off. We all have faith in our politicians, however infinitesimally small. We must take it on faith that they will do their jobs and behave honourably. It's not as if we can watch what they do, every minute of every day. All we can do is hope that they keep faith with us, as they hope that we will re-elect them. Therefore, faith and hope are closely linked. Putting your faith in an immoral being, as you say, is an obvious mistake. But if that being is mortal (e.g. a politician), then we must have faith that he will be duly punished -- hence the concept of karma. If that being is immortal as well as immoral ... then we have a problem. (Another problem is how you define morality; acts like theft and murder that religion traditionally calls immoral are only immoral because religious leaders say so, but I believe words like "immoral" or "evil" or "sin" are just words, and don't mean much. More seriously, acts like theft and murder break the trust that we must all have in each other in order to form a community. If none of us can trust anyone else not to steal or kill, how can a community -- e.g. a tribe, a village, a city, or a state -- be born? We must find that trust, and as the Buddhists noted, another word for trust is "faith"). I don't know that I agree with that quote from Kierkegaard, because he declines to define what he means by "true". Truth is not self-evident. Real life is much more complicated than math; in math, 1 + 1 = 2. In real life, 1 + 1 can be 3 or 0 or 2.5. It depends on your perception. Faith is not a matter of intellect, because intellect always seeks new answers to the questions we have asked and new questions to answer, and faith relies on the answers we've already been given. In other words, intellect relies on query, which faith precludes. It seems more reasonable to me to suppose that faith is a matter of will. I will it to be so, therefore it is. My will is stronger than yours, so I impose my faith upon you and call it the natural order. Is faith necessary for human survival? Perhaps. It is necessary that we trust, and have faith in, each other -- because without trust, we cannot have relationships, and without relationships, we are nothing. Similarly, a deity requires faith, because without faith, he/she doesn't exist. (But, says man, the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?) Is faith in a god or goddess necessary for human survival? That is a more difficult question. It seems to me that, toward the beginning of human evolution, our cave-dwelling ancestors looked toward the sky, and what they saw frightened the loincloths off them. They wanted some explanation for what they saw -- the death and rebirth of the sun, the appearance of the moon and stars, the phenomena of rain and thunder, if only to satisfy their own inner cravings for answers; and thus shamans were born, and in exchange for their interpretations of natural phenomena, they were given more meat, more bread, and a place closer to the fire. This was the beginning of religion. But humans had survived for centuries, even millennia, before religion was born, so that leads us to our next question: Is religion necessary for human survival? Does religion still have a place today, in a world where we have (or think we have) all the answers? Considering it carefully, I think the answer is yes. We know infinitely more than our cave-dwelling ancestors about medicine and art, architecture and warfare, and all the other things that make up civilization. But we still don't know what happens when we die, and this is where religion may play a part. (Come to think of it, religious leaders also don't know that; but they say they do, and they say it with such firm conviction that I'm not inclined to argue, if only to avoid arguments and being turned into smoking boots by some celestially-directed bolt of lightning). Anyway, sorry for going on and on about this. But you did ask.
Blimey, I like a shot of good street haribo but laving them with venom*? Surely it is too far! But yeah - good post. Most of knowledge, faith and belief is basically probability. I am 99% ok with that * I know, I know - venom = injected. I just like the word. It's all green and spiky.
I think about this a lot. I am not religious - I would say I am agnostic. But a religion is more than a faith in something incorporeal. It's a belonging and identity. That is a very powerful and compelling thing. People kill for it. One is at risk, outside of its auspices.
Good points. So faith in fellow human beings is required for normal social interactions. Interesting! I'm not sure I believe in karma. I am trying to read this in terms of cause and effect. Or are you saying it is like a circle? - will > faith > will I think it's interesting how you keep equating faith with trust. But sometimes faith is blind? I've read that religion is a by-product of the evolution of our mental capacity to form theories of mind - the ability to make inferences about the mental states of others - an ability necessary for social interaction. Then it happened that humans assigned mental states to supernatural beings - like gods. And that gave some humans tremendous power. Thank you for your thoughtful reply!
I think it means as opposed to blind faith. Buddhists do not ask for blind faith, but rather that you grow through the Buddha's teachings on a road to enlightenment. But after reading Rath's reply, I can see that trust applies to a lot of different faiths
IT can be anything - celebrity worship, supporting a team in football, a cult, a club, a church, family, a nationality, a type of person - a type of identity, or all of the above. It's not necessarily a bad thing or the sign of a weak mind. It's up there with all the other lizard brain survival mechanisms which I posit we humans still have and that have served us well some of the time.
That's interesting - casting worship as a survival mechanism. Maybe it does give a sense of purpose? But I do wonder how that sense of purpose can be better directed?
I think it possibly does give a sense of purpose, a sense of being protected, and a sense of belonging. Who wouldn't want that? Whether there's anything objectively real behind it is secondary at best.
*** Sorry, Sorry ... Long again. Please bear with us. *** Hmm ... I think what I mean is, in a competition between faiths (e.g. a religious war), if the winning side is zealous enough, he/she would try to wipe out the losing side's symbols of faith. For instance, look what happened in Afghanistan, when the Taliban blew up those giant Buddha statues. If you go further back in history, you would find many more very painful examples of which I refer to. The Romans destroying the Temple and ancient Jerusalem, for instance. Anyway, once the victors achieve victory, they will impose their faith (i.e. religion) on the losers, and rationalize it as "the natural order". (It's the way it was supposed to be. Our will is stronger than yours! Our gods are better! Etc.) That's obviously not a good thing, but it's the way it's always been. True, faith and trust are closely linked. Just think how faith in a god started, back in our cave-dwelling days. *plays the harp* Everyone was sitting around in caves, and the biggest guy around was Phillip. (Or maybe Jod, or Og, or Zug, or whatever. Let's call him Phillip, 'cos that's easy). So Phillip was the biggest, strongest guy, and he would slap people down and take their fish, so everyone prayed to Phillip. The prayer went something like "Ohhhhhhh Phillip! May you not slap us down, or stick your fingers in our eyes, and take our fish! Amen!" Then one day, a lightning bolt struck Phillip down. And everyone said, "Uh-oh! There's something bigger than Phil!" *whistle* That's what I mean by someone else "imposing his faith upon you", etc. That's how prayer started: "Here's a burned offering, just do us a favour and don't smite us with lightning, OK?" It was a matter of trust, a deal with a deity. "Here's an ox sacrifice, Mighty Poseidon -- just don't sink our ships!" and so on. It's also true that people say that faith is blind, but in the old days -- the days of ancient Babylon, Greece, Egypt, Rome, the Norse gods, whatever -- faith was very much not blind. People knew who the gods were, and what they did, and how to appease them. The same thing was the case during the Middle Ages: there were things you did on Saints' Days (to appease the saint), and and things you did to appease God (because he was a vengeful god), and things you did to appease Jesus (like eating fish on Fridays), and so on. Then, gradually, these became traditions, and people forgot why you did them. Folk traditions also have their roots in appeasing angry spirits - for instance, hanging a horseshoe above the door of a blacksmith (to stop the vicious elves from causing mayhem), or taking path A through the forest and not path B -- because path B leads to Baba Yaga. (Eek!) And some childhood monsters (e.g. Jenny Greenteeth, or Baba Yaga) also stem from folk traditions - e.g. telling a child "Don't go near the stagnant pond, or Jenny Greenteeth will get you!" because it's easier than saying "Don't go near the pond, because it's slippery and you might fall in and drown." Children find it easier to believe in monsters than to understand cause and effect. I'm sorry, I got distracted. I was just trying to say that faith wasn't always blind. Before about the early 1900s, the vast majority of people had faith in God, or at least a god (of whatever description). I'm not sure when that kind of faith began to decline, but even now, many people believe in a deity. It's easy to see why: if we don't, that means we are alone in a universe that's much too big for us, and most of which is hostile to us. In a situation like that, it's comforting to think there's something else out there, either benevolent (as in the modern god) or malevolent (as in gods for most of our history). For the record, I am neither agnostic or an atheist, but a humanist. I don't know if to believe in any kind of god, but I do believe that if a god exists, and if he/she/it is good or kind or benevolent, then that goodness and benevolence exists in all of us, and it's up to us all to 'awaken that light' and help as many people as we can. It's my hope that if we can all do that -- the whole human race, no exceptions -- then war and poverty might be eliminated, and something akin to heaven might dawn. Hey, I'm allowed to dream, right?
Kind of a side-issue, but I was fortunate enough to visit those Buddhas of Bamiyan back in 1978, before the country descended into chaos. I hope I never forget their quiet majesty and impressive appearance overlooking the landscape. Their destruction was hardly a religious act, simply arrogance and callousness. Buddhism was not at war with Islam (Afghanistan had long been a Muslim nation), the Taliban were at war with humanity.
I think the origins of religion do lie in trying to give reason to random events. There must be some supernatural agent causing both the good and the bad stuff. It's all tied in with the unique human capacity to ask, "Why?" Again, this is contingent upon the evolution of the human capacity to assign mental states to (not only other humans but) supernatural beings - our evolution of the capacity to form theories of mind Believing in a story without any evidence for it, without any rationality attached to the belief, is indeed blind faith The reasons that humans attach themselves to deities are certainly varied, but I think the primary goal is to explain the unexplainable Einstein and Pantheism would disagree this is. rather than "out there" it is more comforting (and positive) to think that "divinity" is "in here" - inside everything that exists, including every human being, rather than something separate from us.
