In Salon, Steve Paulson interviews Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, who call themselves “proud atheists.” But this post is not so much about their atheism as it is about language, concepts, and misunderstandings —
You have a fascinating observation in your new book about causation. You say the way we construct sentences, particularly verbs, has a lot to do with how we understand cause and effect.
PINKER: That’s right. For example, if John grabs the doorknob and pulls the door open, we say, “John opened the door.” If John opens the window and a breeze pushes the door open, we don’t say, “John opened the door.” We say something like, “What John did caused the door to open.” We use that notion of causation in assigning responsibility. So all of those crazy court cases that happen in real life and are depicted on “Law and Order,” where you have to figure out if the person who pulled the trigger was really responsible for the death of the victim, tap into the same model of causation.
I talk about the case of James Garfield, who was felled by an assassin’s bullet, but lingered on his deathbed for three months and eventually succumbed to an infection because of the hare-brained practices of his inept doctors. At the trial of the murderer, the accused assassin said, “I just shot him. The doctors killed him.” The jury disagreed and he went to the gallows. It’s an excellent case of how the notion of direct causation is very much on our minds as we assign moral and legal responsibility.
Rebecca, you’ve written a great deal about competing philosophical theories of language. Do you think our mind can function apart from language? Or does language define our reality?
GOLDSTEIN: Obviously, much of our thinking is being filtered through language. But it’s always seemed to me that there has to be an awful lot of thinking that’s done prior to the acquisition of language. And I often have trouble translating my thoughts into language. I think about that a lot. It often seems to me that the thoughts are there and some words are flitting through my mind when I’m thinking. So there’s something very separate between thinking and language. But that might vary from mind to mind.
As a novelist, this must be something you think about.
GOLDSTEIN: Very much so. My novels begin with a sense of the book, a sense of the place, and then I have to find the language that does justice to it. Strangely, I find that in my philosophical work as well. And in math; I’ve done a lot of math. I have the intuition, I’ll see it, and then I have to translate it into language. So I’ve always had a keen sense that thought does not require language.
The understanding that “the way we construct sentences, particularly verbs, has a lot to do with how we understand cause and effect” has been integral to Zen Buddhism for 15 centuries, and in Buddhism generally for a thousand years before that. I believe it originated in vedanta, a movement of Hindu that began ca. the 6th century BCE, possibly earlier. And of course it’s central to philosophical Taoism as well. I’m very happy to see that “America’s brainiest couple,” as Paulson calls Pinker and Goldstein, are finally catching up.
I wrote about the limitations of language in the Wisdom of Doubt series, but the Paulson article has inspired me to revisit the topic and take it a little further. And to do that I’m going to go out on a limb and discuss Chao Chou’s Dog, which is the first koan of the Mumonkon. (Please note that I’m not a Zen teacher, just a rather slow student, and will not provide anything approximating the answer.) Rinzai Zen students spend years meditating on this koan; it’s said that if you can resolve it, the other 800 or so koans aren’t so hard. Here is the case:
- A monk asked Master Chao Chou, “Does a dog have Buddha nature?”
Chao Chou answered, “Mu.”
And that’s it. Some explanation: Non-Chinese speaking Zennies are told that Mu means “No thing.” Chao Chou was a famous Chinese Zen master ca. 9th century, who sometimes shows up in literature as Joshu, his name in Japanese. “Buddha nature” is the reality that enlightened beings are enlightened to. It’s said that Buddha nature pervades the universe — that’s a line from common Zen liturgy. So, one might assume, Buddha nature pervades dogs, right? So, a dog should have Buddha nature.
But Master Chao Chou said “No thing.” Not ‘no,” but “no thing.” If a child had asked him the same question, he might have said “yes.” But a monk should be able to go beyond the words, to the meaning beyond the meaning.
The koan collection called the Mumonkon, which sometimes is called “The Gateless Barrier” or “The Gateless Gate,” was compiled by a Chinese master named Hui-k’ai (1183-1260) who also came to be called Wu Men (Chinese) or Mumon (Japanese), meaning “no gate.” Hui-k’ai/Mumon provided commentaries and capping verses to help the student along. The American Zen teacher Robert Aitken Roshi gives this translation of the capping verse to Chao Chou’s Dog:
-
Dog, Buddha nature —
The full presentation of the whole;
With a bit of “has” or “has not”
Body is lost, life is lost.
With a bit of “has” or “has not” — there’s that pesky verb. The way we construct sentences, particularly verbs, has a lot to do with how we understand cause and effect. It has a lot to do with the way we understand everything. If you think in terms of the dog having Buddha nature, then you’ve got two things — a dog, and Buddha nature — connected by the verb to have. But Mumon says no thing.
There’s a question being asked here, but as soon as you try to put the question into words, it’s wrong. You might be tempted to say, well, the dog doesn’t have Buddha nature, but what then is the relationship between the dog and Buddha nature? That’s still two things. The monk is being challenged to push beyond nouns and verbs and objects to directly perceive the nature of beingness itself, which cannot be explained with words. The koan is presenting something to be realized. It’s easy to come up with a conceptual answer — that the dog and Buddha nature are one — but just as the question cannot be conceptualized, neither can the answer, which is a matter to be resolved between teacher and student.
In the interview, Goldstein says, “I often have trouble translating my thoughts into language. I think about that a lot. It often seems to me that the thoughts are there and some words are flitting through my mind when I’m thinking. So there’s something very separate between thinking and language. But that might vary from mind to mind. … I have the intuition, I’ll see it, and then I have to translate it into language. ” Once we can conceptualize whatever’s clanking around in our heads, we can describe it with language. But concepts are an interface; they aren’t the thing itself. Realization outside of the conceptualization/language filter is what Zen and other mystical practices are all about. The kind of head work Goldstein seems to think is cutting edge has been going on for millenia.
But, of course, when you start talking about eastern mysticism to some folks, they put up all kinds of “this is just New Age claptrap” filters, and they don’t hear anything you say.
Later in the interview, Pinker and Goldstein go on about Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677). Spinoza is celebrated as a great rationalist who helped lay the groundwork for the Enlightenment. Goldstein says of Spinoza,
I also like the grandeur of his ambition. He really does believe that we can save ourselves through being rational. And I believe in that. I believe that if we have any hope at all, it’s through trying to be rigorously objective about ourselves and our place in the world. We have to do that. We have to submit ourselves to objectivity, to rationality. I think that’s what it is about Spinoza. He’s just such a rationalist.
And that’s fine. But Spinoza was no atheist; he was a pantheist. His answer to the question of the existence of God was that nothing exists but God. “Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived,” Spinoza said. “God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God.”
So, does a dog have God nature? And how close in understanding were Spinoza and Chao Chou? Not identical, I don’t think, but they were certainly pointing to the same thing.
This part of the interview pissed me off:
Steve, you recently waded into the controversy over Harvard’s proposal to require all undergraduates to take a course called “Reason and Faith.” The plan was dropped after you and other critics strongly opposed it. But the people who supported it say that every college graduate should have a basic understanding of religion because it’s such a powerful cultural and political force around the world. Don’t they have a point?
PINKER: I think students should know something about religion as a historical phenomenon, in the same way that they should know something about socialism and humanism and the other great ideas that have shaped political philosophies and therefore the course of human events. I didn’t like the idea of privileging religion above other ideologies that were also historically influential, like socialism and capitalism. I also didn’t like the euphemism “faith.” Nor did I like the juxtaposition of “faith” and “reason,” as if they were just two alternative ways of knowing. …
…But can you really equate religion with astrology, or religion with alchemy? No serious scholar still takes astrology or alchemy seriously. But there’s a lot of serious thinking about religion.
PINKER: I would put faith in that same category because faith is believing something without a good reason to believe it. I would put it in the same category as astrology and alchemy.
In his book Dynamics of Faith, the Christian theologian Paul Tillich wrote, very clearly, that “Faith is not belief and it is not knowledge with a low degree of probability.” He called Pinker’s definition of faith an “‘intellectualistic’ distortion of the meaning of faith.” This and other distortions of the meaning of faith have had a “tremendous influence over popular thinking” that “have been largely responsible for alienating many from religion since the beginning of the scientific age.” Tillich continued,
The most ordinary misinterpretation of faith is to consider it an act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence. Somethng more or less probable or imporbable is affirmed in spite of the insufficiency of its theoretical substantiation. … If this is meant, one is speaking of belief rather than of faith.
So if believing that some supernatural thing is real or true even if it can’t be proved is not faith, then what is faith? Tillich said,
Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned. … Faith as ultimate concern is the act of the total personality. It happens in the center of the personal life and includes all its elements. Faith is the most centered act of the human mind. …
…Faith is not an act of any of his rational functions, as it is not an act of the unconscious, but it is an act in which both the rational and the nonrational elements of his being are transcended.
I want to do a post or two just on Tillich some day; I don’t have time right now to do his work justice. But as I understand it, faith is a means rather than an end. It’s a means of engagement with something, and that something may be tangible or intangible, true or false. The something does not necessarily have a religious nature.
The kind of arrogance and ignorance by which Pinker dismisses “faith” as something like believing in magic is disturbing. It was his own prejudice and ignorance, not rational judgment, that inspired him to oppose the Faith and Reason class. Too bad.
Update: Neil the Ethical Werewolf has a post up refuting an op ed by Lee Siegel called “Militant atheists are wrong.” There’s a lot about Siegel’s arguments that are, um, flaky, and Neil makes some decent points. But Neil’s argument is mostly based on an assumption that faith equals belief. I’m afraid both Neil and Siegel miss the boat here.
I agree with what you said about faith being a means rather than an end, altough I think in the end there was some measure of rational judgement in Pinker’s opposition to the “Faith and Reason” class.
I took an Intro to Ethics class a few years ago at a college where one sort of class like that was required. I would not say that it really had a beneficial effect in getting students to think about faith, their own reasons for having it or not, and the source of ethics.
I also took a world history class about the same time. As far as survey classes go, five or ten years later I don’t think a lot of the students would have come away with much in the way of retained information. But they would have remembered the hinted biases of their professor on the subject. I may not remember which treaty ended the War of the Roses, but I do know my professor’s opinion on the Catholic Church.
In the end I think such a class would by it’s nature promote the idea that there is some sort of choice or trade off between the two, and seeing how the recent “faith-based” attacks on science have been going in this country, I think that students in universities would do better with a class on sheer logic, reason, and how to tell when a newsource is biased in it’s reporting.
In the end I think such a class would by it’s nature promote the idea that there is some sort of choice or trade off between the two, and seeing how the recent “faith-based†attacks on science have been going in this country, I think that students in universities would do better with a class on sheer logic, reason, and how to tell when a newsource is biased in it’s reporting.
I see no basis for your assumption. I personally have met mainstream theologians who understand “faith” the way Tillich did, not the way you do or the way Pinker does. Harvard is not exactly an academic backwater, and I suspect the faculty was thinking along the lines of providing students with scholarly background on faith and reason as understood by the great philosophers and theologians, not James Dobson. That’s a class I ache to have Pinker take. I’d like to take it myself.
Sheer logic and reason are excellent means for understanding, but it’s limiting to think they are the only means for understanding. Is not the point of education to broaden the mind?
The kind of arrogance and ignorance by which Pinker dismisses “faith†as something like believing in magic is disturbing.
Not to be antagonistic to the message but, when Tillich professes an understanding of faith, and holds himself out as a Christian theologian while doing so… doesn’t that kinda restrict or bias his attempt to convey that understanding honestly? It might be disturbing that Pinker dismisses the act of faith as akin to magic, but Christian scriptures market faith as a near prescribable formula that is very close to magic. ” Gold and silver,I have none..but in the name of Jesus, take up your bed and walk!”
Tillich professes an understanding of faith, and holds himself out as a Christian theologian while doing so… doesn’t that kinda restrict or bias his attempt to convey that understanding honestly? It might be disturbing that Pinker dismisses the act of faith as akin to magic, but Christian scriptures market faith as a near prescribable formula that is very close to magic. â€
Don’t blame scripture for that. This is a misunderstanding that came about, as Tillich as, at the beginning of the scientific age. This relates to what Karen Armstrong has written about literal interpretation of scripture, which is the result of a modernist way of reading scripture. People didn’t used to read scripture that way.
Oh come on, Maha. How many Joe Sixpack Christians have even heard of Tillich, let alone define faith as he does? You are, as usual when you deal with atheism, committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. For the vast majority of people in any given religion, faith is belief without evidence or despite contrary evidence; “I have faith because it is absurd” (Tertullian), “Reason is the Devil’s whore” (Martin Luther), etc. The advanced, ethereal concepts that you attack atheists for not engaging with are not representative. It is the Joe Sixpacks (and their counterparts in other societies) who support and enable Bush, Bin Laden etc, so atheists are right to point out the danger that this kind of blind unthinking faith poses for civilization.
I don’t know what the Harvard course is about, I would hope that it would try to get students to think objectively about their beliefs and how well (or not) they are founded. If so I would welcome it. But I’m sick and tired of the taboo that says religion must always get a free pass and must always have special protection against criticism however deserved or urgently needed.
How many Joe Sixpack Christians have even heard of Tillich, let alone define faith as he does? You are, as usual when you deal with atheism, committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
No, I’m saying faith has generally been X in most of the world’s great religions for most of world history going back to the Axial Age — about 25 centuries ago — and it is still X to many of us, even though a large faction of monotheism (and, note, I am not a monotheist) has been trying to turn it into Y for the past three centuries or so.
Why I Can’t Reason With Atheists seems to be that you refuse to acknowledge that there is any other form of religion than the one you despise. It so happens a lot of religious people, including more Christians than I’m sure you are willing to acknowledge, hate what has happened to religion and would like to reform it to something less like superstition.
I would hope that it would try to get students to think objectively about their beliefs and how well (or not) they are founded.
I’d prefer someone took a cluebat and beat the FAITH EQUALS BELIEF misconception out of their heads. I’ve given up on you.
I have been looking for some time to try and draw a good distinction between ‘ideology’ and ‘religion’, some useful description that would provide analytical leverage. Clearly it has something to do with the difference between ‘faith’ and ‘reason’. One significant problem with such an endeavor is that descriptions of ‘faith’ that might be any better than ‘belief without evidence’ tend to be essentially opaque like your Tillich quote above. Basically, if you already agree that there is such a thing ‘faith’ that is greater than ‘belief without evidence’, then the unclear explanations seem satisfying, I would say on an emotional/empathic level. That’s the basic problem with theology being used to prove the value of religion. It almost always requires believing in the conclusions before understanding the argument. Reason, on the other hand, generally requires that you only accept a few simple rules of logic and the validity of empirical observation. (Perhaps an act of faith?) These can then be used to build towards a wide variety of different conclusions. That is why enlightenment philosophers saw reason as a potentially universal language, while religion tended towards sectarianism.
Why not: Chao Chou answered, “Meow� An appropriate response to an ill-formed question.
Can a rock hope? I’d like to think so.
essentially opaque like your Tillich quote above.
Go back and read what I said about the limitations of language. I realize that Tillich must be mystifying to people who are not religious. I think what he’s talking about must be experienced to be understood.
It’s sort of like orgasm — you don’t know what it is until you’ve had one. You can conceptualize about orgasm all you like, but that ain’t the real thing. Along the same lines, you have to practice faith to understand faith.
Conceptualizations of faith are usually wrong. People often fall into the misconception that it is “emotional/empathic,” as you did. Empathic maybe; emotional no. Emotions can be involved, but not necessarily.
I’ve spent 20 years engaged in a mystical practice. I can read Tillich and understand exactly what he’s saying because it touches on my experience. Mystics of all the great religions generally can get together and compare notes and understand each other very well, even though the language and metaphors they use may be entirely different. It’s dogmatism, not faith, that tends toward sectariaism.
Reason is fine, but reason has the limitations of conceptualization and language. For me, trying to understand reality through reason alone is like trying to see with blinders.. It’s not wrong, just limiting. And note that I have little in the way of religious belief, and what little belief I have I’m trying hard to weed out. I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in souls, I don’t believe in heaven, I don’t even believe in reincarnation as the word is normally understood. You don’t need beliefs to be religious.
Many of the great Christian mystics of the Middle Ages, from Anselm to John of the Cross, had an understanding of “faith” that is closer to mine (and Tillich’s) than how it is presently being used — as belief. Anselm, who was the leading Christian theologian of the 11th century, said that believing what one thinks one ought to believe is not “faith,” but “dead.”
I have nothing whatever against science and reason. Many aspects of the world cannot be understood without reason, and I am a big proponent of logic. It’s not an either-or thing. The same person can apply logic to one situation and faith to something else, and there is no contradiction.
In fact, there’s nothing about my religion or the religion of a great many other people I know that is in any way contradictory to science and rational thinking.
An appropriate response to an ill-formed question.
The question cannot be formed with language or concepts. Yet it’s a valid question.
To be consistent:
Chao Chou answered, “Wu!” [Chinese]
Joshu answered, “Mu!” [Japanese]
Otherwise, keep making their heads explode, old friend. Whether they be fundie or scientismic.
Weasel — Thanks. I learned stuff in Japanese and I’m trying to learn the Chinese, since it’s more original, but I haven’t sorted it all out yet.
I always enjoy your posts in general, and those on faith and religion in particular, but I have a small nitpick. The Hindu religion is conventionally called “Hinduism” or “Hindu dharma” or “Sanatan Dharma”. It sounds awkward when you say something like “vedanta, a movement of Hindu …”
Bose — Nobody says “Hinduist.” I think the “ism” in “Hinduism” is not necessarily wrong, but it’s kind of redundant.
Yes, but would you be able to have had the faith to go further in meditative practice if that faith wasn’t initially grounded in valid reasoning? Of course not.
Thats the difference. Intelligent faith is a good thing. It leads to spiritual development. Blind faith, not so good, although you could get lucky if you have faith in the right system. But stubborn insistence in believing in something when all the evidence points to its contradiction, thats just stupidity. It doesn’t rise to a high enough level to be called faith, but unfortunately, thats the usage most often applied.
So you can’t have an intelligent conversation about the meaning of a concept if peoples’ understanding of it is totally different one to another.
quote:
“Bose — Nobody says “Hinduist.†I think the “ism†in “Hinduism†is not necessarily wrong, but it’s kind of redundant.”
Conventionally, a person who practices or belongs to the Hindu religion is known as Hindu, but the religion is known as Hinduism. Unfortunately, English is not known for its consistency of word forms. 😉
Calling Hinduism as “Hindu” is (grammatically) analogous to calling the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” Party, although I understand that you did not mean any slight by it.
By your own account, you and Pinker are much in agreement, differing only in semantics. Both of you reject belief; but to you ‘faith’ does not equal ‘belief’, for him it does. If you leave aside these word-definition differences, you and he are one.
Is there a word that means for Pinker what ‘faith’ means for you?
Maha, #6: I’ve given up on you.
It’s mutual. You are as willfully blind, uninformed and arrogant towards atheists as you accuse them of being. You think atheists come from another planet and know nothing about religion (despite the obvious fact that most of them were brought up in a religious tradition) and therefore anything they say can be dismissed out of hand. You attack them for criticizing what ninety-nine-point-nine-recurring % of religionists believe in, the kind of religion that has caused vast suffering and bloodshed throughout history, and you redefine religion, faith etc. to some obstruse, arcane concept shared by the other point-oh-recurring-one % of you in order to claim smugly that no true person of faith believes what the “fundamentalist atheists” are (rightly) attacking. (That’s what “No True Scotsman” means, look it up.)
I find it more than a bit dishonest, and I am especially offended by your accustations (in various other posts and comments) that all atheists are mindless clones who worship Christopher Hitchens. (I despise the man.)
Worst of all, by falsely claiming that an attack on any religion is an attack on all religion, you give cover and moral support to the extremists who preach harmful versions of religion. I’ve often noticed that “moderate” religionists may be much closer to atheists politically and ethically than they are fundamentalists, but when push comes to shove they will always line up with the latter against the former. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Wow! I don’t ususally read the comments here. I had no idea what a cat fight they are. I don’t have a dog in this hunt and I don’t know the various protagonists at all but I have to side with No More Mr. Nice Guy on this one. “Faith” doesn’t mean what Tillich says–he is offering *an interpretation* of a word that has had many histories and avatars within his own religious tradition, and which has other meanings and gaps in meaning in other religious traditions. He doesn’t have the last word on how any of us *need* to understand it. And his reading/understanding of it doesn’t trump anyone elses’.
That being said there is actually an ongoing public, political debate about religion and science in this country which uses the word “faith” in exactly the same way Pinker uses it. That is because the (gag) “people of faith” who have emerged onto the political stage have foisted that peculiar use of the word onto the rest of us. Pinker is responding, as most scientists would respond, to the fact that “faith” in modern american politics and society is not “opposed” to reason and science–it *opposes itself* to reason and science, to history, philology, and a host of other ooligies and oligies. That isn’t the fault of know nothign *atheists* but of no nothing *religionists.*
As No More Mr. Nice Guy has correctly observed most modern day atheists were, in fact, raised in some religious tradition and often have come to their atheism *through* religious experiences both profound and trivial. I’d point you towards Bart Ehrmann’s work as someone who started out as a serious believer and moved, through his studies, to a position much closer to unbelief if not outright atheism. But my point isn’t that theres a logical progression from religiosity and “faith” to science and unbelief. Just that the accusation that atheists *don’t know* about religion, or faith, or belief, or the divine like a person who has never had an orgasm doesn’t know wht an orgasm is is just absurd. You can’t know *what* another person has experienced from looking at their beliefs *now.* Just as there are many “people of faith” who actually doubt and despair there are many atheists who have been in touch with the divine, or think they have been.
aimai
You think atheists come from another planet and know nothing about religion (despite the obvious fact that most of them were brought up in a religious tradition) and therefore anything they say can be dismissed out of hand.
But I don’t care if atheists choose to be atheists. I’m fine with that. I have absolutely no desire to “convert” atheists. If you aren’t into religion, that’s grand with me. I don’t think you are a lesser person for it, any more than I think I’m a lesser person because I’m not into physics and have no idea why there is gravity. I assume the physics guys understand what they are doing, and leave them alone about it.
Likewise, where religion is leaving you alone, just leave it alone. If religionists are attacking you for being an atheist, let me know and I’ll defend you. I don’t like bigotry against atheism.
In other words, I sincerely respect atheism. I don’t just tolerate it — meaning I’m not just putting up with it because there’s nothing I can do about it — I respect it. I just wish you guys would show some respect for religion. You don’t have to agree with it, or even understand it, but you don’t have to foam at the mouth and attack at the mere mention of it, either.
FYI, A lot of people raised in a religious tradition never got beyond a childish understanding of religion. Therefore, it is not at all unusual for someone to have been raised in a religious tradition and still know little about religion beyond an infantile, superficial level. I blame churches for that.
Anyway, that’s why your argument that somebody who was raised in a religious tradition must know all about religion is bogus.
You attack them for criticizing what ninety-nine-point-nine-recurring % of religionists believe in
No, I think the really aggressive fundies are a minority even of Christians. Certainly, most Christian laypersons don’t get into the higher realms of theology, but they don’t have an absolutist, knee-jerk, literal understanding of religion, either.I’m sure you don’t agree with a lot of their beliefs — and they do have beliefs — and I don’t agree with their beliefs, either. But I have absolutely no problem with their beliefs and feel no urge to try to talk them out of those beliefs.
And I know very well what the “No True Scotsman” thing is, dear. That’s not where I am.
all atheists are mindless clones who worship Christopher Hitchens
Do you disagree with what he says about religion?
Worst of all, by falsely claiming that an attack on any religion is an attack on all religion,
I’ve never said that. I say an attack on all religion is an attack on all religion. Your argument is that an attack on all religion is not, in fact, an attack on all religion. That has a Zenlike ring to it, but it makes no sense.
I have said over and over again that if the crusading atheists qualified their attacks on religion so that their attacks are not, in fact, attacks on all religion, then I’d agree with most of what they say. But they rarely do that. They attack religion per se and paint all religion with the same broad brush, as do you.
And, may I say, you are so not helpful. Your hatred of religion is not rational; it is pathological. Chill.
Somewhat related, I’d like to offer something I heard over the car radio, while listening to our left wing radio station, KPFK‘s fundraiser:
“The Age of Pisces is about Belief, the Age of Aquarius is about Knowing”
When’s the last time you heard something like that spoken during a radio fund drive? And how serendipitous for this posting + comment thread.
Organized atheists also “oppose themselves” to religion, making themselves equally noxious as fundamentalists of any stripe. In that context, they assume a proselytizing posture that is decidely uncool and makes any argument they make sound ill-informed, no matter how logical it may be. They come from as close-minded a place as any jihadist or holy roller or whatever that they condemn.
“Faith†doesn’t mean what Tillich says–he is offering *an interpretation* of a word that has had many histories and avatars within his own religious tradition, and which has other meanings and gaps in meaning in other religious traditions.
The word can mean a lot of different things, but Tillich was a highly influential theologian in his day. Dismissing Tillich on matters of theology is a bit like dismissing Einstein about physics. Einstein might not have been right about everything he said about physics, but if you disagree with him you had damn well better know what you are talking about beyond a layperson’s level.
That is because the (gag) “people of faith†who have emerged onto the political stage have foisted that peculiar use of the word onto the rest of us.
I admit I have a real animosity to the phrase “people of faith” and fight it tooth and nail. One of the reasons I go on these diatribes is to explain why it’s a stupid phrase that shouldn’t be allowed to stand as a synonym for religion (see this post, for example). The fundies thank you for not backing me up.
As No More Mr. Nice Guy has correctly observed most modern day atheists were, in fact, raised in some religious tradition and often have come to their atheism *through* religious experiences both profound and trivial.
Yes, I know. I understand that very well. I was raised in the Bible Belt and can talk your head off about the insane things I saw religion do throughout my childhood. I’ve also met a lot of Christians-turned-Buddhists (as I am) who went through really horrific experiences with some traditions of Christianity. I’d like to do something about reforming that part of religion. That’s what I try to do when I write about religion.
It’s astonishing to me the way mere mention of “religion” is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. Lots of people really hate religion and hate everything to do with religion. They don’t discriminate between what’s haywire and what’s genuine.
Just that the accusation that atheists *don’t know* about religion, or faith, or belief, or the divine like a person who has never had an orgasm doesn’t know wht an orgasm is is just absurd.
You are distorting what I said. What I said about specifically about the practice of FAITH, only and specifically. Not religion, not belief. Faith only. Faith is not belief. Faith is not a synonym for religion. Keep it straight. Clearly, you aren’t getting it. Thank you for illustrating my point. Some things are hard to grasp through intellect alone; you need experience with it to understand it.
I only say people don’t understand religion when they write or say ignorant things about religion. I’m sure there are atheists who do have a pretty good understanding of religion. Unfortunately, these atheists are not the ones writing books and articles and blog comments attacking religion.
By your own account, you and Pinker are much in agreement, differing only in semantics. Both of you reject belief; but to you ‘faith’ does not equal ‘belief’, for him it does.
Wow, that’s … dumb. Pinker and I are poles apart in our understanding. I don’t reject belief except for myself. Belief can be a means to understanding, like training wheels, so what other people believe about God and Jesus and whatever is of no concern to me.. THE IMPORTANT POINT is that faith and belief are not the same thing.
Yes, but would you be able to have had the faith to go further in meditative practice if that faith wasn’t initially grounded in valid reasoning? Of course not.
Well, y’know, it didn’t really happen like that. I got into Zen meditation purely as a mental hygiene practice. I’d had a long struggle with clinical depression and I thought the intense concentration practice of Zen — which has no belief component — would help settle my head down some. It wasn’t until after I’d been sitting for awhile that I got interested in the religion of Buddhism. I don’t think I would have understood Buddhism in the same way if I hadn’t done the meditation first.
Reasoning? I don’t know about reasoning. I perceived a truth beyond reasoning and was drawn to that. Reasoning only goes so far.
Great post, Barbara. I am not much for deep thinking, and everything I know of Buddhism I learned here. If someone wanted to read something to prepare them for this topic, I have to recommend ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ by Robert Heinlein.
I see a few things that Tillisch says that faith isn’t. But he’s not especially clear on what faith is. He says:
Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned. … Faith as ultimate concern is the act of the total personality. It happens in the center of the personal life and includes all its elements
All I can get from this is that faith is some kind of all-consuming state of mind. But there are many different all-consuming states of mind, from obsession to depression to terror to bliss. A lot more will have to be said (and I’m sure Tillisch has more to say) before we’re clear on what faith is. Nothing he has said so far is particularly illuminating about what exactly faith is.
A lot of the things we ordinarily call ‘faith’ fit the model of belief. Having faith in someone and believing in them are very similar things. People can ‘lose their faith’ in the same circumstances in which we’d say they ‘stopped believing.’ We call those who have faith in God ‘believers.’
At least as far as the ordinary meaning of the word ‘faith’ is concerned, I think the belief model is right, and until I can get greater clarity on what Tillisch means, that’s what I’m sticking with.
Buddhism isn’t really a religion as that term is used. Buddha was big on reasoning.
Buddha didn’t want his followers to take his words on faith:
“As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, So, bhikshus, should you accept my words — after testing them, and not merely out of respect.”
and from a different sutra:
” . . . do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. . . . by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea “this is our teacher”.
. . . when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala) and wrong and bad, then give them up . . . . And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them.”
Good advice.
All I can get from this is that faith is some kind of all-consuming state of mind. But there are many different all-consuming states of mind, from obsession to depression to terror to bliss. A lot more will have to be said (and I’m sure Tillisch has more to say) before we’re clear on what faith is. Nothing he has said so far is particularly illuminating about what exactly faith is.
I quoted a couple of sentences out of a whole book, so I left a lot out. As I said, I have to do a couple of posts to do him justice. But Tillich’s (1885-1965) is the older and more universal point of view. The notion that faith is the same thing as belief is relatively newfangled, having developed in some parts of monotheism over only the past three centuries or so. Now it’s widely popular, yes, but it’s not exactly “the old-time religion.”
The best way I can explain faith is that its a means of engagement with something. The “something” can be a belief system, but not necessarily. It’s sort of the relationship between a cup and coffee.
Buddhism isn’t really a religion as that term is used. Buddha was big on reasoning.
Sorry, but as a Buddhist of 20 years I assure you that Buddhism is a religion. The notion that it isn’t a religion is based on a one-sided western misunderstanding of both Buddhism and religion.
Buddha didn’t want his followers to take his words on faith:
Exactly. FAITH AND RELIGION ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Faith is a component of religion, including Buddhism, but it’s not the only component. Faith is to religion what a steering wheel is to a car — not the whole thing.
“As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, So, bhikshus, should you accept my words — after testing them, and not merely out of respect.â€
and from a different sutra:
†. . . do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. . . . by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea “this is our teacherâ€.
. . . when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala) and wrong and bad, then give them up . . . . And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them.â€
Good advice.
Yes, but the means for the testing are practice and mysticism, not intellect. An intellectual understanding of Buddhism is a very one-dimensional understanding.
“The Age of Pisces is about Belief, the Age of Aquarius is about Knowingâ€
Thank you. I’m really bummed there was so much rancor about this post. I thought the part about language and thinking was a lot more interesting, but –whoo-hoo — the mere mention of the word “faith” caused people to fix bayonets and charge. People need to chill. I’m trying to shed some light on the subject, and discuss aspects of religion that don’t show up in the popular press, not convert anybody.
“I have said over and over again that if the crusading atheists qualified their attacks on religion so that their attacks are not, in fact, attacks on all religion, then I’d agree with most of what they say. ”
I do have to say that iirc Dawkins – who nevertheless seems, like some of his fellow authors, to have an absolute tin ear for religious-practices-in-culture – explicitly states in TGD that his arguments don’t apply to (and aren’t directed against) the faith of an Einstein or a Spinoza or probably – I’m not certain – a Tillich. But someone with a better memory/book in hand might be a better guide here.
I also have to say that the standard-issue atheist response – as in NMMr. Nice Guy!’s coment – is unfortunately relevant here. The analogy that springs to mind is of a principled and thoughtful conservative striving to explain that there’s far more to conservatism than the current crowd of anti-tax fundamentalists screeching about the islamo-mexi-homo-liberal-fascist threat in between torture-war-porn orgasms (no, I don’t know what that kind is like, and surely don’t want to). They’re right, of course, but it’s understandable that some folks might not see how this would have any relevance to the present situation. -And one can take the analogy further: the deliberate attempt by radicals to marginalize their moderate-to-liberal wing has a pretty exact counterpart in the faith sphere.
“ They’re right, of course . . .
Ah, just in case, let me emphasize that I’m using “they’re” as a gender neutral way of referring to the “principled and thoughtful conservative” – I read it over and realized how it kinda looked. . .
“I thought the part about language and thinking was a lot more interesting,
Oh, definitely. And personally, I’m not sure if this kind of argument is entirely sensible right now, given what we face. Of course, people have to do what they think best, but . . .
Dan — I’ve read what Dawkins says about Spinoza, and it’s pretty watered-down Spinoza. I don’t think he “gets” Spinoza; he’s sort of created a straw Spinoza who isn’t nearly as religious as Spinoza really was, and then he holds up the straw Spinoza as an example of an OK religious guy. I’m not reassured.
I think your analogy of conservatism is pretty good. Here and there you can find old-style conservatives who hate the new crowd as much as we liberals do. But the reactionaries have made themselves the face of conservatism in our culture. So people with a sense of history and a broader understanding of political science go around trying to explain that conservatism really is this other thing, not the barking whackjobs we see on Free Republic. But it’s hard to sell that to people who have never been exposed to anything else labeled “conservatism.”
I think it’s important to understand the distinction between current culturally popular understanding of religion versus what religion has mostly been around the globe through most of human history. Like it or not, people will be religious. Religion is hardwired into our species, I suspect. It’s important to be clear about what it is and not let the most ignorant, extreme, and aggressive factions of religion define religion and marginalize everyone else.
There’s no reason why not-fundamentalist religious people and atheists can’t work together to de-claw the Religious Right. But if non-religious people are going to get hysterical at the mention of the word religion, that’s a problem. And divided, we are conquered.
So angry and defensive after 20 years of practice?
and duh, faith and religion are not the same. I never said they were.
and Buddhism isn’t a religion like any other — despite monastic hierarchical structure lending to that appearance — its about training your mind. The point is to ultimately transform yourself from an ignorant schmuck into an enlightened being. The point is to end your own and others’ suffering. If you don’t see the reasonableness of Buddha’s path, why would you follow it? So, yeah, analysis is key.
You hear something, you think about it, you put it into practice, you think about the effects, you develop some faith, then you hear more, you contemplate, you integrate it into your experience, and so forth. How can you have faith in anything you haven’t studied and contemplated and tried?
I’m a utilitarian, and it’s going to determine a lot of the course of my life — defending utilitarianism as a philosophy professor and supporting political movements that advance the general happiness with my money and effort. It shapes what I eat (no factory-farmed meats) and how I spend my money (I have a disdain for luxuries that benefit only myself). It’s a pretty big deal in my life.
Unlike many things that people today call ‘faith’, however, my being a utilitarian is based on a philosophical argument that gives me reasons for believing as I do. (It’s a little long to get into here — I’m hoping to write it up as a book — but I can give you links if you’re really curious.) If I became convinced that the argument were wrong, in the way so many arguments are, a lot of my behaviors would change.
Is this a kind of faith, in the way Tillisch uses the word? If so, I’m thinking that modern exponents of Tillisch should probably find a different word than ‘faith’ for the concept he’s addressing — perhaps, ‘way of life’ or something like that.
The basic idea behind much of what’s being debated isn’t that we are scientifically removed from morality. In fact, I feel its quite likely the opposite. Siegel seems to infer that the scientific revolution removed morality from within our society which was previously fostered by religion. Morality, from our perspective, was only brought on by religion because society had become so ridden with problems. However Kant nicely described that a scientific understanding of ethics would include the pragmatic need for ethics because we need a system for limiting what can and cannot happen.
I would recommend a wonderful book written around the 1960’s for anyone interested in the gray area where mysticism based on religious practices and radical interpretations of scientific insight converge. Its by Alan W. Watts and is called The Wisdom of Insecurity. Watts’ analysis of scientific reasoning comes down to this: if we objectively approached our own lives, we would come to the conclusion that we will die. Our impending death makes us furiously try to satisfy all our desires like cancer patients given unlimited wishes from the Make a Wish foundation. Unfortunately, what happens is something more like the world today: we use up all the natural resources without thinking about the consequences, hurt others in getting what we want, and generally try to avoid pain and conflict as much as possible.
Scientific reasoning, then, would show us the absurdity of living this lifestyle. What we come to see, however, is the opposite of what Siegel really claims: we don’t live in a secularist society at all. In fact, we are following the same preconditioned religiously-influenced assumptions that our Western ancestors accepted naively during the Middle Ages. We are still thinking in religious terms for something to save us, for a priest or a teacher to come save us, or for any choice but to realize that we are the only ones in charge of our own lives.
Zen Buddhism also offers a good story exemplifying how we rely too much on authorities for our knowledge. A disciple comes up to a Zen master and asks him what nirvana is (ultimate reality). The Master replies, “Kill me, and you’ll learn.” Buddhists are almost always pacifists, so this order definitely contradicted the disciple’s vow, but he felt compelled to do so. He came at his master with a dull knife laying nearby, but only managed to scrape a metal pan the master had placed over his heart. The master then said, “Good. Now you are ready to learn.” The point is thus- by expecting someone to give you the answers, you are limiting what you will eventually perceive.
This is what science is truly about – finding the nature of reality for yourself. Even if we utilize complex systems of analysis (whether linguistic, philosophical, mathematical, or otherwise symbolically representing reality) we are always limited by the system’s parameters. Godel’s theorems offer some light onto this.
As for the difference between belief and faith which seems to have caused such a polemic here, I’d recommend James P. Carse’ Finite and Infinite Games. While he seems to be quite an armchair philosopher himself -as a scholar I don’t trust many books without detailed appendices and indexes;)- he makes a good point about the difference between believing and having faith. Faith is a component of accepting that which cannot be explained. Religion used to try and explain the world’s beginning; this function has now been taken over by science, which in turn admits its own theories are just that, theories. They aren’t the Truth (to use such an outdated term in our postmodern world view) but hints at the Truth. Faith is completely accepting of the rational but the paradoxical. Quantum mechanics says that I could be dead and alive at the same time if the probability of my death was unnoticed and hinged at a 50% chance either way. This seems paradoxically impossible, but the math shows its true: I am alive-dead. It is a state of both, encompassing both. Whereas a person who believes in the Tripartite nature of God in Christianity is dealing with a contradiction in math (i.e. 1=3), the quantum scientist deals with a paradox in our normal method of thinking. One is based off reason and synthesizes many forms of rationality, while the other demands that we accept its “Truth” even without any sort of justification other than dogma.
I also believe Dawkins mentioned this example at one point during a book reading at the former Randolph-Macon Women’s College. Here’s a good example of what we might consider “faith” versus “belief” for our discussion here:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8033327978006186584&hl=en
I’m really bummed there was so much rancor about this post. I thought the part about language and thinking was a lot more interesting, but –whoo-hoo — the mere mention of the word “faith†caused people to fix bayonets and charge.
I learned the hard way that some subjects quickly exhaust a medium’s bandwidth, creating massive misunderstanding and even ruined relationships, and so I learned to not even visit these treacherous spaces via email or blogging. Some subjects require at minimum a telephone conversation, or better, face to face. Most of this experience was painfully gained through email, which is not the same as blogging, but it isn’t that different either. It’s too bad, as some readers will take your meaning correctly, but that’s how it seems to be.
Eventually (if we don’t destroy ourselves first), scientific investigation will fully explicate human neurology and be able to describe exactly what happens when brains think. Gradually, this knowledge will become explainable to laypersons, and we will begin to realize that, as nice as our religious/philosophical/mystical feelings and thoughts make us feel, it’s all physicochemicobiological after all. Not that this new understanding should make us feel bad about our belief/faith in religions…just that such feelings (and all others) have their bases in the brain and no basis outside it.
Gradually, this knowledge will become explainable to laypersons, and we will begin to realize that, as nice as our religious/philosophical/mystical feelings and thoughts make us feel, it’s all physicochemicobiological after all.
All religious understanding comes through our bodies, just as we understand everything else. This does not invalidate it, and I find it curious that so many seem to think it does. I object strongly to your notion that religion is just “feeling.” Not at all. There are other ways of engaging with reality besides cognition and emotion.
bhakti_tonglen:
I like your definition of faith — “Faith is completely accepting of the rational but the paradoxical.” That’s a mystical way of looking at it — fully engaging and entering into the paradox with whole body and mind until there is resolution. Sorta like koan study.
Are you familiar with the Buddhist teachings of the Two Truths (absolute and relative)? Some of your comments seem to be groping in that direction.
What Siegel says about religion and morality is bunk, albeit common bunk. I address the same basic ideas here.
I’m not much of an Alan Watts fan, although I never read his book on Insecurity. His books on Zen are riddled with misconceptions and misinformation and persuade me he didn’t know mysticism from spinach.
FYI, nirvana is not ultimate reality, although exactly what it is I cannot say. It’s a Sanskrit word meaning “to extinguish” or “snuff out.” Your story seems to be a variation of the old “when you meet the Buddha on the road” thing. You are right that Buddhism is all about finding answers for yourself, through guided discipline, but that’s because any answers that can be conceptualized and explained with words are not the real answers.
I’ll try to get around to looking at the video today, but I can’t right now. (I tend to prefer transcripts because I can read a whole lot faster than people speak.)
and duh, faith and religion are not the same. I never said they were.
But you speak of them as if they were, which tells me you are not clear on the point.
and Buddhism isn’t a religion like any other — despite monastic hierarchical structure lending to that appearance — its about training your mind. The point is to ultimately transform yourself from an ignorant schmuck into an enlightened being.
You already are an enlightened being; you just haven’t realized it. And so far, you haven’t said anything that isn’t generally true of all the religions related to vedanta.
The point is to end your own and others’ suffering. If you don’t see the reasonableness of Buddha’s path, why would you follow it? So, yeah, analysis is key.
Not analysis; practice. A great deal of the practice makes no sense; it’s only by doing it that you begin to see the value of it. Zazen is a good example. What’s the point of sitting on a pillow in silence, hour after hour? There’s no sensible explanation for this. The “results,” and I use the word loosely, were very different from what I imagined before I did it. After a while you see, but the “seeing” is not an intellectual or conceptual understanding, nor is it emotional.
You hear something, you think about it, you put it into practice, you think about the effects, you develop some faith, then you hear more, you contemplate, you integrate it into your experience, and so forth. How can you have faith in anything you haven’t studied and contemplated and tried?
Why don’t you find a teacher and get some real experience with the practice? Then you’ll get it, maybe.
Neil — “Is this a kind of faith, in the way Tillisch uses the word?”
I don’t think so, but sometimes it’s hard to tell. You seem to have purely an intellectual/rational approach, which is fine, but faith is more of a whole body-and-mind engagement. It’s centered in the self, not in the brain.
pmont says Eventually…scientific investigation will explicate human neurology
That’s a good example of faith. There’s no way that you can know, rationally, that science will answer more questions than it eventually raises (look at cosmology and physics for a good example), yet you have an irrational expectation that “religious feeling” will be explained away through biochemistry in a way that “rational thought” will not. Those preconceptions of the dichotomy between “reason” and “faith” are based on nothing at all except, somewhere deep down, a circular justification. (As is that of everyone–the famous example is Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”)
My personal definition of faith (in many ways dictated by my long-ago readings of Heidegger, Buber, and yes Tillich) is that for everyone–religious or not–there is a foundational sine qua non of belief which supports everything else, and below which there is essentially nothing. And that’s faith. Faith that we are indeed conscious actors; faith that the sun will rise in the morning; faith that God loves us; faith that our wives and husbands and children love us; whatever. I.e., even the most staunch rationalists will eventually admit that you gotta start somewhere. (Not an unreasonable assumption, but not a totally rational one, either.)
Maha, I always enjoy these discussions. But the rationalist arguments against faith are more political than intellectual or philosophic. Eventually you’ll wear your opponents down to the point where they admit that they’re more concerned with the less-spiritual aspects of a religious culture, and that their primary targets are fundamentalists/evangelicals rather than religious people in a broader sense. But no sooner do you stop your conversation than a new one starts, with the same people attacking religious faith as “stupid.” They don’t care.
Halfdan — nice; thanks.
I just wish you guys would show some respect for religion. You don’t have to agree with it, or even understand it, but you don’t have to foam at the mouth and attack at the mere mention of it, either.
Speaking of language, about this assertion that faith does not equal belief – well, I grew up with a bunch of people who call themselves believers. Pesky word. And if you told them that their faith didn’t mean that they had to believe in a God or a heaven or hell, all of which had specific attributes, they would have thought you were nuts. Of course, I know a lot more Catholics than Buddhists.
Mithras–but if you asked them if there were a difference between “believing in God” and believing in the existence of, say, Froot Loops, of course they would admit that they’re using the word “believe” in different ways. So the distinction between “belief” and “faith” is less descriptive of everyday discourse than it is a distinction for the purpose of differentiating the two concepts.
if you asked them if there were a difference between “believing in God†and believing in the existence of, say, Froot Loops, of course they would admit that they’re using the word “believe†in different ways.
In both cases to say “I believe in X” (whether X is God or Fruit Loops) means you believe X exists, is real. But when someone says “I believe in God”, they also mean that they subscribe to the idea that pursuing a relationship with God leads to harmony, salvation or rebirth. But, I submit, virtually no one pursues a relationship with something they don’t think is real. So, my Catholic friends would say, “I believe that God is real and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light”.
And implicit in the belief that X exists is that not-X doesn’t exist. It’s nice for a believer to say “X takes an infinite number of different forms so I respect those who follow a different path”, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t deal with the fact that the overwhelming majority of believers don’t think like that. Rather, they think that those who don’t believe as they do are inferior. Which brings me to this:
It’s sort of like orgasm — you don’t know what it is until you’ve had one. You can conceptualize about orgasm all you like, but that ain’t the real thing. Along the same lines, you have to practice faith to understand faith.
All humans have the potential to experience orgasm, a fundamental part of our sexuality. Those who can’t are usually considered damaged in some way, either physically or psychologically. So, this analogy implies that those who do not experience faith are similarly damaged. It is the equivalent of an atheist claiming that belief in God is just like a belief in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. It is not respectful, it is condescending.