Joeman said:
I think the newest modern day definition of faith is to be dishonest with your own belief.
The problem with any belief is that it cannot exist per se, it needs some sort of *content*. It is probably due to basic principles of the organisation of our brain to have some sort of belief and surety (since the brain works with abstractions, and is there to make the organism be able to orientate itself in the environment).
The content of this belief depends on time, society etc. etc. though.
Once accepted, it is not so much about *what* it is that you believe, but *that* you believe.
If, say, a Christian is supposed to give up his Christian belief, to him, this also means giving up the immanent brain ability -- and nobody can afford that!
It is the same as if you'd ask me to give up my belief in rational thought and accept some other belief. I couldn't do it -- and it is not because I would find that other belief "irrational" or "stupid" or "out of date" -- it is simply because I would have to give up my self.
In the end, *all* thinking is eventually circular and self-referential. The difference between various belief systems is only in how they verbalize and evaluate this circularity and self-referentiality.
I could say: I believe in something if I see that it is in accordance with my knowledge of the newest scientific research and if it is presented as proper argument structures. But this belief in the "rationality" is still *just* a belief, noting more. It differs from the religious belief only in that it is a lot simpler -- but this doesn't make it any more true or any more worth.
You cannot discard any belief, but you can discard actions taken in the name of this belief. This discarding takes place on the basis of some values, standards and morals.
In regards to values, standards and morals, all rational thinking falls short, as it inevitably comes to the conclusion that all values, standards and morals are *relative*. Science cannot postulate what is valuable, what is a standard and what is moral -- these terms are not in the domain of science.
Religion has it easier here, as it (clearly) *postulates* values, standards and morals.
So, if you have *immanent* values, standards and morals, you are subscribing to some sort of non-scientific ideology, whether you are aware of it or not. Maybe you are subscribing to "absloute natural morals" -- but this is still your scientific interpretation of them ...
Fact is, human society is impossible without a set of values, standards and morals. Religious systems may be cruel -- but they are clear. Some of those religious systems are out of date, certainly -- but nobody has come up with a plausible and acceptable new one, have they? So the old ones have to do, with all their inconsistencies, circularities, obvious self-referentiality ...
