# Is faith a rationalization? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246 "2007-05-23T17:34:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/21 "2007-05-23T19:24:00Z")
**Apos** I’ll give you a hypothetical example: Believer: I saw a UFO last night! Skeptic: Prove it! Believer: How do I prove that I saw it, it was last night, it’s gone now. Skeptic: How do you know it was a UFO? Believer: I know what I saw. Skeptic: How do you know what you saw was a UFO? Believer: It was there man, I saw it. This sort of exchange happens constantly. What people fail to point out or ignore is that the definition of a UFO is Unidentified Flying Object. So any flying object I see that is unidentified is by definition a UFO. Yet regularly you will have people think they are being skeptical by arguing some sort of lofty ‘fact based’ argument trying to make their opponent look dumb. It occurs on this board with remarkable regularity. I’ve made the argument many times, that the problem comes down to how people define things. I would not disagree that anyone who believes the bible just because is a nutter. If someone claims to have had a revelation, I would be just as much of a nutter to claim that they didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![truthpizza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@truthpizza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthpizza)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/22 "2007-05-23T19:24:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **begbert2** > > I think this hardly ever happens, that people have a subversive agenda and merely claim ‘faith’ even though they know perfectly well the “real reason” for their belief (something nefarious, presumably). I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t for a minute think these people are being intentionally deceptive. People often don’t know the real reasons they do or think things, so if they are offered up a positive sounding reason, “faith”, they happily and sincerely accept it. I’m just saying that if we look for the real reason they believe, it is that they have trusted people who have given them religious views. “Rationalization” to me implies that you convince yourself that you have a better reason for what you do (or in this case believe) than what the real reason may be. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/23 "2007-05-23T19:28:09Z")
**truthpizza** Faith isn’t a reason for things. It does not explain things in any way, or attempt to. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/24 "2007-05-23T19:40:15Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t for a minute think these people are being intentionally deceptive. People often don’t know the real reasons they do or think things, so if they are offered up a positive sounding reason, “faith”, they happily and sincerely accept it. I’m just saying that if we look for the real reason they believe, it is that they have trusted people who have given them religious views. “Rationalization” to me implies that you convince yourself that you have a better reason for what you do (or in this case believe) than what the real reason may be. [/QUOTE] That’s a rather curious definition of rationalization. But even so. We’re talking about people who specifically refer to faith as the reason for their belief, right? Ufo sighters don’t reference faith. Crazed racists don’t cite faith as the reason for their beliefs. No, the persons who reference faith explicitly are persons who are deliberately believing without available or sufficient proof, and know that that’s why they believe. I still think that when a person says that they believe because of faith, the vast majority of the time faith is the actual process by which these people arrive at their beliefs. Which is to say, they decide to believe it more, full stop. I also think that when people have other reasons that they themselves don’t realize, they _don’t_ use the term faith. They “have a feeling”, or “just know”, or something like that. They don’t call it faith. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/25 "2007-05-23T19:51:24Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Well, for example, beliefs can be based on “facts” that are false or nonexistent; that’s being mistaken or decieved, not having faith. [/QUOTE] We hold many beliefs in our brains:[ul]There is a tree in my yard. [li]The leaves of the tree will turn orange this fall.[/li][li]The tree is very beautiful.[/li][\*]Squirrels waving a magic wand caused the tree to grow there.[/ul]How the beliefs got there is hard to say and doesn’t really matter. We label some of them _facts_, some _opinions_, and others _faith_. One’s perception of the objective truth value and supporting evidence only influences which label we apply, but they’re all beliefs. Faith is a kind of belief. Whether it arises from delusion, deception, tradition, induction, or revelation doesn’t change the belief itself - only how it might cohere with your other beliefs (or the beliefs of others). ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/26 "2007-05-23T19:52:41Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] I don’t think most people make that rationalization mswas, and none so far here. Most of the critiques of faith are based on people laying out exactly why they have faith (and in some cases explaining that having faith WITHOUT reasons is precisely its virtue), not hidden experiences that no one is aware of or notified about. If someone has reasons to believe, then they don’t really need faith (though of course their reasons might be mistakes), even if those reasons are claimed personal revelation. Oftentimes people think certain events totally explainable or improbable when in fact they are pretty well-understood or inevitable. Witness things like “ghost” pictures, Jesuses that “appear” in toast, night-paralysis, NDEs, and so on. [/QUOTE] No one has faith without reason of some kind. How would they know what to have faith in without some reason for it? Sure, I have faith the world will become peaceful tomorrow. There is still a reason for that statement that is meaningful to me even if it isn’t probable. It is as MSWAS says. > [@](#): > > A common rationalization in this debate is the assumption that because you have not experienced something, that someone else has not either. No matter how much, or how hard, faith is belittled on this board, there is always a reason for it. Those with religious beliefs to a person has a reason for believing. Most have some personal experience with spiritual things that bolster their faith. They have seen prayer work, lives changed, and peace come to many. Faith is real, it is ok, actually it is necessary to live a peaceful life. Please not another “let’s bash faith thread” on the board. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/27 "2007-05-23T19:53:33Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] **truthpizza** Faith isn’t a reason for things. It does not explain things in any way, or attempt to. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Yes, of course. No one would use faith to, say, assert that God created the universe, or that someone was hit by lightning because he got God/Zeus/Og the Sky Bunny mad at him. ---
**Author:** ![truthpizza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@truthpizza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthpizza)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/28 "2007-05-23T19:58:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Key Lime Guy** > > True, I think ‘having faith’ is a different issue from following a specific religious doctrine. > > If we’re talking about why someone might follow a specific religious doctrine, then I agree with whoever pointed to ‘tradition’ as the primary motive. You could call that a rationalization, but I don’t see how it’s helpful to do so. > > Think of it this way: If you believe in a ‘higher power’ by experience, and you have an institution available by tradition to cultivate that belief (plus it offers other social benefits), then why not participate? The minutiae of the doctrine is often not taken especially seriously anyhow. A person doesn’t have to get too detailed in his/her beliefs before they cannot be explained solely by common experiences. Even that there is one God rather than several is hard to justify by experience, much less that accepting Jesus is necessary to be saved or that Mohammed is God’s messenger or that homosexuality is a sin. If somebody doesn’t go beyond what might be justified by the feeling that they have a soul or some such, even though they might attend church socially, I’m willing to consider that belief based on (weak) evidence. But any “faith” beyond that seems to come from believing what we are told or wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **mswas** > **truthpizza** Faith isn’t a reason for things. It does not explain things in any way, or attempt to. It seems to me, when pressed to explain why they hold religious beliefs, it is common for people so say it is because they have faith or their beliefs are based on faith. I agree that it doesn’t adequately explain anything. ---
**Author:** ![Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Key_Lime_Guy)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/29 "2007-05-23T20:11:14Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] A person doesn’t have to get too detailed in his/her beliefs before they cannot be explained solely by common experiences. Even that there is one God rather than several is hard to justify by experience, much less that accepting Jesus is necessary to be saved or that Mohammed is God’s messenger or that homosexuality is a sin. If somebody doesn’t go beyond what might be justified by the feeling that they have a soul or some such, even though they might attend church socially, I’m willing to consider that belief based on (weak) evidence. But any “faith” beyond that seems to come from believing what we are told or wishful thinking. [/QUOTE] I basically agree except for the perjorative language. You’d like everyone to develop their own original and unique theology? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/30 "2007-05-23T20:23:22Z")
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy] I basically agree except for the perjorative language. You’d like everyone to develop their own original and unique theology? [/QUOTE] For myself, I’d be satisfied if everyone reacted to all stories, tales, and assertions with a healthy dollop of incredulity. Not that they would reject _every_ secondhand assertion, mind you, but they’d at least consider whether the thing was likely and whether the source was any good before leaping whole-hog into belief. I don’t think you could call the results a theology, though. (Heck, I think that mostly they wouldn’t be all that original or unique.) ---
**Author:** ![truthpizza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@truthpizza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthpizza)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/31 "2007-05-23T20:29:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Key Lime Guy** > > I basically agree except for the perjorative language. > You’d like everyone to develop their own original and unique theology? I’d like whatever theology people have to be as true as possible. If people simply make up their own, it will probably be wrong. Unfortunately, if they listen to others, given the wide variance in religious beliefs around the world and over time, they’re likely to pick the wrong one. It’s good to listen to what other people have to say, but then examine various points of view, and whether they have sufficient evidence to back them up. If nothing is clearly correct, it’s fine to be in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Key_Lime_Guy)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/32 "2007-05-23T20:38:09Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] I’d like whatever theology people have to be as true as possible. If people simply make up their own, it will probably be wrong. Unfortunately, if they listen to others, given the wide variance in religious beliefs around the world and over time, they’re likely to pick the wrong one. It’s good to listen to what other people have to say, but then examine various points of view, and whether they have sufficient evidence to back them up. If nothing is clearly correct, it’s fine to be in doubt. [/QUOTE] 1. “Wrong” by whose standards? (yours) 2. I think most people of faith have a very healthy degree of doubt. You seem to be extrapolating from a false stereotype. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/33 "2007-05-23T20:43:10Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] It seems to me, when pressed to explain why they hold religious beliefs, it is common for people so say it is because they have faith or their beliefs are based on faith. I agree that it doesn’t adequately explain anything. [/QUOTE] Right, but faith didn’t implant the belief in their head. Either, God, experience, their parents, their priest, their bible or something of the like introduced them to the concept. I am not a big fan of reducing faith simply to ‘belief’. I think it is an amalgam of belief and trust. The faith is a property of being. A state of self ‘I am faithful’. A state of ownership, ‘I have faith’. A reason is an explanation of why it happened. Faith can be a reason for one’s actions, but not for one’s belief. One cannot be faithful to a belief prior to the receipt of that belief. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/34 "2007-05-23T20:45:13Z")
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy] 2. I think most people of faith have a very healthy degree of doubt. You seem to be extrapolating from a false stereotype. [/QUOTE] (Not directed at me, but fits my response as well, so: ) I don’t think that persons of faith -_any_ of the persons of faith I’ve known, exercise much doubt at all about their religions. About other things, yes. About their religions, no. ---
**Author:** ![truthpizza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@truthpizza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthpizza)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/35 "2007-05-23T21:03:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Key Lime Guy** > > 1. “Wrong” by whose standards? (yours) By the standard of the way the universe actually is, independent of what I or anybody else happens to think. > [@](#): > > 1. I think most people of faith have a very healthy degree of doubt. You seem to be extrapolating from a false stereotype. Some have a healthy degree of doubt. Some don’t. I’m not making a claim about how many are in each category, but there are certainly some people who are quite convinced of things that are wrong, and this can be a serious problem. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/36 "2007-05-23T22:28:26Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] … In particular, it seemed unlikely that [faith] could be an actual brain mechanism. Like our other organs, our brains seem to be extrememly well adapted for survival. Why would the brain have a mechanism which could generate beliefs that were independent of reality? This would detrimental to survival instead of helping it. … [/quote] If faith is not a brain mechanism, what is it? Where does it happen? Where is it stored? Don’t you consider rationalization to be a brain mechanism? (I prefer the term _brain state_ but mechanism works too.) Understanding faith as an instance of belief, an idea, a neurological expression, brain mechanism, or whatever is very consistent with Darwinian evolution. A child with some faith in adult judgement is more likely to survive than one who must learn of all dangers firsthand. (I think this example came from Dawkins.) Don’t confuse truth value with evidence. Faith in something objectively true is just as much faith as that in something objectively false. Neither belief is supported by evidence. Can faith exist without an object? Sometimes, the way you use faith, it seems you are saying faith can exist without it having to be faith in something. I don’t get that. ---
**Author:** ![Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Key_Lime_Guy)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/37 "2007-05-23T22:53:47Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] By the standard of the way the universe actually is, independent of what I or anybody else happens to think. [/QUOTE] I was under the assumption that we were talking about things that are not knowable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/38 "2007-05-23T22:54:41Z")
[QUOTE=truthpizza] In particular, it seemed unlikely that this could be an actual brain mechanism. Like our other organs, our brains seem to be extrememly well adapted for survival. Why would the brain have a mechanism which could generate beliefs that were independent of reality? This would detrimental to survival instead of helping it. [/QUOTE] Perhaps millenia of anyone insufficiently fervent about the local superstitions being ostracized or killed. A form of selective breeding for irrationality. ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/39 "2007-05-23T22:59:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I would not disagree that anyone who believes the bible just because is a nutter. If someone claims to have had a revelation, I would be just as much of a nutter to claim that they didn’t. Would you apply this reasoning to other, more falsifiable articles of religious faith? If I suddenly experienced an inexplicable yet overwhelmingly powerful flash of insight which convinced me that, say, concentrated prayer would definitely expedite the recovery of any sick person, would you consider me a nutter? Or would you consider yourself a nutter for considering the possibility that I might be a nutter? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![truthpizza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@truthpizza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthpizza)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246/40 "2007-05-23T23:41:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **the PC apeman** > > If faith is not a brain mechanism, what is it? Where does it happen? Where is it stored? Don’t you consider rationalization to be a brain mechanism? (I prefer the term brain state but mechanism works too.) I think faith is just a word, a meme if you will, that survives and is useful in the propagation of religion due in large part to its vagueness and sense of mystery. I am saying that when people invoke faith in a discussion, often what is really going on under the hood is that they have believed something people told them. Believing what you are told is actually quite valid as a brain mechanism and is useful for survival in most cases. Rationalization might be the product of brain mechanisms but I’m not ready to try to figure that out here. > [@](#): > > Understanding faith as an instance of belief, an idea, a neurological expression, brain mechanism, or whatever is very consistent with Darwinian evolution. A child with some faith in adult judgement is more likely to survive than one who must learn of all dangers firsthand. (I think this example came from Dawkins.) I agree, as long as we actually equate faith with believing what people say. At least to me, that wasn’t usually what I thought of when people talked of faith. > [@](#): > > Can faith exist without an object? Sometimes, the way you use faith, it seems you are saying faith can exist without it having to be faith in something. I don’t get that. When people use the word, it normally applies to some belief they have. I agree that it needs some object. Sorry if I was confusing. It might be helpful if I add some context as to why this seems important to me. As an atheist I am concerned about the fact that debates on religion typically get nowhere. I suspect that part of the reason is that all of us have some deep down reasons for what we believe but the actual details we argue about don’t involve these reasons. As a result, no matter how we do in the debate, our inner opinions aren’t affected. Often an atheist will demand evidence for why a theist believes what he does and will be told that he has faith. The atheist is likely to consider him an idiot because this is not a valid reason while the theist thinks the atheist has no heart because he doesn’t have faith. Perhaps the real reason the theist believes what he does is because it is inconceivable to him that his fine caring intelligent parents and his wonderful supremely confident minister and much of the rest of his culture could be dead wrong. This could be debated, but may not come up in the argument. If we recognize faith as really being belief in certain authorities, the subject will be on the table as it should be. We need to also recognize that the religion package typically comes with some additional memes: we should be proud of using faith as a reason for belief, people who believe our religion are favored by God, people who don’t believe are misguided or possibly evil, and of course our particular holy book has God’s seal of approval. If an atheist hope to make a case to a theist, he or she must address the fact that the validity of all these claims are only as good as the authorities who make them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-faith-a-rationalization/405246.md?page=3)