In a recent discussion of abortion, I was reminded by a philosophical ally that there are those who have faith AND believe in human rights for women. It got me thinking about the difference, not really in the definition of faith, but how its applied. It seems to me there are two ways that faith exists.
For some people their faith is a product of their morality and, by learning the truth, they come to know god. For others, their morality is a product of faith and truth is a pre-existing shape to which reality must be molded. No doubt, some people possess such a rigid idea of morality and faith that no new information can be allowed to challenge it. Others are happy to see their morality and faith evolve with the addition of new facts.
So, my question is, does anyone believe that what their god prefers can be different than what makes sense for human, civil society? Or, do you believe that what is right for humans MUST naturally be consistent with morality and adjust your faith accordingly.
Would you describe your faith as rigid or flexible and how does that make it work better for you?
How do you reconcile your faith when what your faith demands is inconsistent with what you or others need to be happy?
Just curious...
The problem with religion is that they justify our morality by saying that this is what God wants. That's it. There is no attempt to understand WHY we do certain things and not others, on their own terms.
To give an example: let's say you have two little kids who clean up their room, bathe regularly, and don't pull their little sister's hair. They are both good kids. So you ask the first one the reason for WHY he does those things, and he may tell you "because mommy said so". That's all he's got. In the absence of mommy, he cannot imagine why those things may be intrinsically good or bad, or how to even begin to judge those activities on their own merits, regardless of what mommy may say. His standard of what is right or wrong is just what mommy says. It's based on extrinsic reasons and authority. He has not really thought through the reasons for why doing those things may or may not be important.
The other kid, however, has learned to think through WHY he does what he does based on the merits of the actions themselves. When asked why he cleans up his room, for example, he may say "because I might lose my toys in all the clothes on the floor", or when asked why he bathes, he may say "because I would smell yucky and no one would want to play with me".
So now let's say these two kids grow up to be teenagers. There is a weekend coming up when their parents tell them they will be out of town. Who, when he finds out there is no longer any external moral authority to tell him what to do or not to do, to punish or reward him with extrinsic rewards to "being good", is going to be more likely to throw a giant keg party and trash the house? Who would you expect to be able to think through issues in a prudent, well-reasoned, way? Who would you expect to be able to negotiate among competing demands, to think through difficult ethical dilemmas, to negotiate and compromise with others with competing, but often equally legitimate demands?
It seems to me that the person who relies just on external commands will be incapable of thinking through issues on their own merits, of reasoning, negotiating, and compromising with others, of exercising sound judgment in difficult situations. All he's got to justify why he does what he does or why thinks what he thinks is that "because God said so". It's a conversation stopper. It's a thought-stopper.
And that is anathema to living in modern, civil, pluralistic, democratic societies.
