Faith as a Virtue?

October 25 will be election time again and this time we’re going to elect local candidates that will represent our baranggay. Funny that most of these aspiring candidates include Bible verses or the name of God on their campaign slogans and printed materials as if belief in God is a plus. It was not surprising that when Mrs. Aquino died in August 1, 2009, many reporters and articles (on newspapers, magazines, TV talk shows and the Internet) have pointed out her being faithful. The former President in known to her devotion to the rosary and the Roman Catholic Church.

I won’t criticize her on her personal devotion to God. That’s her business. What I’m after is how the common masses assume that when a person is devoted to God that makes him/her a good leader. As if faith is a positive virtue.

Believers assume everyone (even atheists and agnostics) have this er…faith. They say that non-believer have faith in the books that they read. They also say that we used faith daily in our lives. When we ride a taxi or a plane, we have faith that the driver or the pilot knew what he or she is doing. And so on.

So is this the same faith we used when talking about religious belief?

If you try looking in the dictionary, we see that faith is sometimes expressed to be synonymous with the word ‘trust’. Maybe that’s what some believers meant when they assume that even non-believers have faith. But we’re talking about faith in a religious sense. Trust or confidences about a high degree of belief are used for some certain claims or products. Well…your trust may be ill-based or inadequate. Your confidence from something or someone might be reasonable or unreasonable – but this is not the faith we are talking about. Trust or confidence doesn’t make a worldview. The faith that we are talking about doesn’t require any empirical evidences unlike some advertisements that show us data or statistics perhaps…Nope. This type of faith creates gods.

When our leaders rely in this kind of faith it means we as a nation are wishing for a Divine Providence to fix our problems by using His divine will for us…as if we can’t do it without the aid of a supernatural wishy-washy!

Hey! Believers will still insist that faith can strengthen our will. Just look at what happened in those miners that were trapped for two months in Chile, right?

Really huh? Remember that the will to survive is stronger that the will of God. If those miners surrendered their fate to the will of our Lord, I don’t think there will be any survivors left. Those Bibles and prayers just served as an inspiration to their will to live and even without those religious paraphernalia, the love to family and friends (plus the nature of the cave-in, air pockets, etc.) will also serve the same effect.

But was it an act of faith?

If we will define faith base on how religious believers define it then the answer is no. Even if those miners believed that God will save them, they still acted together to ensure their survival. The will to live is to cling on worldly matter, not on spiritual salvation.

Going back to the Philippine scenario. To believe that God will work a miracle to save your country is a different matter. When people start to believe that religious faith is a very important factor in selecting their leaders that spells trouble. Since God cannot (and doesn’t) speak certain people will claim to do the speaking for Him.

Bishops, priests, pastors and Ayatollah will imposed their doctrines and dogmas, their opinions based on their sacred writings to the rule of the land. Faith is now replaced by theocracy run by these “holy men.” Sacred books and divine knowledge will replace text books and science. Prayers will replace medicine and divine revelation will replace experiments.

The problems of this kind of faith are more than just believing, for this type of faith requires obedience and total control of someone’s life. Since this so-called “Supreme Being” is invisible, men will rely to the visible so-called self-appointed spokespersons of God, giving these “men of God” total power to control his life.

So this is what this faith can offer. It is an invisible shackle that some people are willing to place on themselves. It is a blindfold that believers willingly cover their eyes – a voluntary rejection of knowledge. A nation whose sovereignty wrapped by a thick veil of this faith is trap – it will never prosper and its people will remain ignorant. It will be ensnared in the doctrines of a few Ecclesiastical authorities.

Being a lifetime religious stooge is not a virtue.

It seems Mr. Pecebre was too eager to give a lecture on the benefits of post modernism that he seems to skip the premise of the article. When you are into writing the first thing you have to consider is the premise.

A premise is the purpose why you wrote the article. Premise is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved; a basis of argument. A proposition stated or assumed as leading to a conclusion.
So what is the premise of this article?

According to Ferdinand Brunetiere, the premise is the goal. John Howard Lawson says it is the root idea of the theme.
The article starts with the coming baranggay election, so basically it has something to do with the premise. That is where the article is going.

So after the premise we go to a clash on something. In the case of this article it is not between science vs. faith but faith vs. faith.

Faith vs. Faith?
The article compares two types of faith. But since the article is supposed to be polemic in nature, it didn’t consider too much technical arguments.

But for the sake of Mr. Pecebre.

There are two types of faith…eh 3 actually: Rational faith, Kierkegaard Fideism and Wittgensteinian Fideism…But the article considered only two. Rational faith and religious faith.
Rational faith is faith guided by reason. According to Thomas Aquinas, faith finds support in the evident and irrefutable motives of credibility which assure us of the objective truth. That means faith on something must be first demonstrated by rational arguments. For rational theists this is possible with the use of logical statements known as “self-evident principle” – those statements that cannot be denied without assuming that it is true in the process of the denial.

Now let see…since I suffer hypertension I always take the food supplement “Alivio” as a daily maintenance. The product is said to be effective in lowering your BP. So how did I arrive in that conclusion?

Well…because the product is being indorsed by Dr. Gary Sy.
Technically speaking, that is faith.

I took it for granted because I have “faith” that Dr. Gary Sy is speaking the truth about “Alivio”. I don’t need to set-up a laboratory just to see if the claim is true. All I need to do is to accept that Dr. Gary Sy is a doctor that I always hear speaking on radio and that he knows what he is saying – that’s rationality for you. Rationalism says that we can determine all truth by logic.

a. Doctors who speak on radio programs know what they are talking about.
b. Dr. Gary Sy is a doctor who speaks on radio.
Conclusion: Dr. Gary Sy knows what he is talking about.

Remember, in rationalism we assume but we don’t prove. Self0evident proposition doesn’t require justification.

Now we go to the next kind of faith.

When Dr. Jose Rizal was debating about faith and reasoning to Fr. Pastell he said, “Mas’ que perfe, por raciocinio y por necesidad creo firmament el la existencia de un Ser creator.
(Though reasoning and by necessity rather than through faith; do I firmly believe in the existence of a CREATIVE Being.)

Fr. Pastel answered that his faith is blind as it knows nothing.
This is the other kind of faith I was talking about.

Technically speaking what I meant of religious faith is ‘Existential Faith’ (or what we now call Kierkegaard Fideism). This is base on Soren Kierkegaard view of faith. According to Kierkegaard, faith is higher than human reason (he calls this “religious faith”) and this faith will never be known by reason. So rather than focusing on objective truth, faith (as assumed by Augustine and Kierkegaard) is to believe on things that cannot be demonstrated by any means (whether empirical or rational). That’s why we don’t explain the concept of the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus and the dedication of the Qur’an by Angel Gabril to Muhammad in any rational explanation.

We also don’t rationalize why:
a.) If I blew myself together with a dozen Infidels I go straight to heaven.
b.) That Popes are infallible
c.) And that Jesus was born in a virgin.

These are statements of religious faith and Paul Tillich calls this as “idolatrous faith.”

So now you know the element of this article. Rational faith is what you use when riding a taxi or an airplane. It is the faith we use when choosing products on commercials. Religious faith is the one that create gods.

We now go to the connection of the premise with the ideas. Where do Filipino politicians come in?

In the last baranggay election have you noticed how some candidates used Bible verses or the word “maka Diyos” and “madasalin” in their campaign slogans and banners with gusto? Now that is not rational faith is it? Honesty is not self-evident with Filipino politicians.
Are we electing them because we assume God fearing people to be good and honest or are these politicians using these paraphernalia so voters will blindly vote them because these politicians reflect their religious faith?

And what will be the outcome?

Then the clerics that these politicians supported will have a good ground to meddle with the laws of the land…thanks to “utang na loob.”

You now have a good idea about the article.

23 comments

Pinoy Atheist November 6, 2010 At 12:31 am

It seems Mr. Pecebre was too eager to give a lecture on the benefits of post modernism that he seems to skip the premise of the article. When you are into writing the first thing you have to consider is the premise.

A premise is the purpose why you wrote the article. Premise is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved; a basis of argument. A proposition stated or assumed as leading to a conclusion.
So what is the premise of this article?

According to Ferdinand Brunetiere, the premise is the goal. John Howard Lawson says it is the root idea of the theme.
The article starts with the coming baranggay election, so basically it has something to do with the premise. That is where the article is going.

So after the premise we go to a clash on something. In the case of this article it is not between science vs. faith but faith vs. faith.

Faith vs. Faith?
The article compares two types of faith. But since the article is supposed to be polemic in nature, it didn’t consider too much technical arguments.

But for the sake of Mr. Pecebre.

There are two types of faith…eh 3 actually: Rational faith, Kierkegaard Fideism and Wittgensteinian Fideism…But the article considered only two. Rational faith and religious faith.
Rational faith is faith guided by reason. According to Thomas Aquinas, faith finds support in the evident and irrefutable motives of credibility which assure us of the objective truth. That means faith on something must be first demonstrated by rational arguments. For rational theists this is possible with the use of logical statements known as “self-evident principle” – those statements that cannot be denied without assuming that it is true in the process of the denial.

Now let see…since I suffer hypertension I always take the food supplement “Alivio” as a daily maintenance. The product is said to be effective in lowering your BP. So how did I arrive in that conclusion?

Well…because the product is being indorsed by Dr. Gary Sy.
Technically speaking, that is faith.

I took it for granted because I have “faith” that Dr. Gary Sy is speaking the truth about “Alivio”. I don’t need to set-up a laboratory just to see if the claim is true. All I need to do is to accept that Dr. Gary Sy is a doctor that I always hear speaking on radio and that he knows what he is saying – that’s rationality for you. Rationalism says that we can determine all truth by logic.

a. Doctors who speak on radio programs know what they are talking about.
b. Dr. Gary Sy is a doctor who speaks on radio.
Conclusion: Dr. Gary Sy knows what he is talking about.

Remember, in rationalism we assume but we don’t prove. Self0evident proposition doesn’t require justification.

Now we go to the next kind of faith.

When Dr. Jose Rizal was debating about faith and reasoning to Fr. Pastell he said, “Mas’ que perfe, por raciocinio y por necesidad creo firmament el la existencia de un Ser creator.
(Though reasoning and by necessity rather than through faith; do I firmly believe in the existence of a CREATIVE Being.)

Fr. Pastel answered that his faith is blind as it knows nothing.
This is the other kind of faith I was talking about.

Technically speaking what I meant of religious faith is ‘Existential Faith’ (or what we now call Kierkegaard Fideism). This is base on Soren Kierkegaard view of faith. According to Kierkegaard, faith is higher than human reason (he calls this “religious faith”) and this faith will never be known by reason. So rather than focusing on objective truth, faith (as assumed by Augustine and Kierkegaard) is to believe on things that cannot be demonstrated by any means (whether empirical or rational). That’s why we don’t explain the concept of the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus and the dedication of the Qur’an by Angel Gabril to Muhammad in any rational explanation.

We also don’t rationalize why:
a.) If I blew myself together with a dozen Infidels I go straight to heaven.
b.) That Popes are infallible
c.) And that Jesus was born in a virgin.

These are statements of religious faith and Paul Tillich calls this as “idolatrous faith.”

So now you know the element of this article. Rational faith is what you use when riding a taxi or an airplane. It is the faith we use when choosing products on commercials. Religious faith is the one that create gods.

We now go to the connection of the premise with the ideas. Where do Filipino politicians come in?

In the last baranggay election have you noticed how some candidates used Bible verses or the word “maka Diyos” and “madasalin” in their campaign slogans and banners with gusto? Now that is not rational faith is it? Honesty is not self-evident with Filipino politicians.
Are we electing them because we assume God fearing people to be good and honest or are these politicians using these paraphernalia so voters will blindly vote them because these politicians reflect their religious faith?

And what will be the outcome?

Then the clerics that these politicians supported will have a good ground to meddle with the laws of the land…thanks to “utang na loob.”

You now have a good idea about the article.

pinoy_atheist November 6, 2010 At 12:26 am

So now I leave Mr. Pesebre’s post modern world and enter the world of Saussure and Levi-Strauss so I can answer his criticism in the comforting bounds of rationality.

Since he’s talking about scientific inquiries then I have to answer him on the hehehe…paradigm of science and not faith (That Thomas Kuhn for you guys).

In science, empirical evidence means an inductive approach that bases its explanation on which can be directly observed in a repeatable manner or that can be analyzed for statistical significant. Remember, when we talk about empirical evidence…this is not internal to science. Evidence for scientific claims and theories are not simply data, sense perception and rational evidence but of experiential evidence and reason working together. But keep in mind that such evidence must be objective not subjective or context-dependent and it must also not be pure logical (they must be worldly). So science is a combination (note the word “combination”) of empirical evidence and reason.

Now, there are no modes of inference in science and there are no scientific method “exclusive” to science that guarantee to produce true result (NO TRUE TEST).

Observation is a part of the process, but we need to use a combination of induction and deduction…why? So we can form a hypothesis and a theory NOT a construct?

Construct?

Construct are non-testable statements to account for a set of observations.

And what does positivism has to do with my article?

I dunno.

Positivism holds that any proposition which cannot ultimately be reduce to a simple statement of fact, special or general, can have no real or intelligible sense. Does this apply on my article or my state of mind when I wrote this article as Mr. Pesebre suggested?

No…because the article is dealing with faith which according to Auguste Comte can’t be used in scientific method.

Remember, the article is a polemic on the relationship between Filipino politicians and religious faith and not an article for Scientific America.

It is quite nice for Mr. Pecebre to use his time to lecture me about scientific method, induction, proposition, scientific inquiry and being a freethinker.

Thank John Philip…but…

Mr. Pecebre should realize that what I wrote was a social criticism article. So that means (borrowing Mr. Pesebre’s own idea) the article is in the paradigm of a social critic and not a scientist.

There is a difference between social criticism and science. When we talk about science and its methods it is in a process (though not rigid) that we call hypothetico-deductive method so every word that Mr. Pesebre was whining about falls to this paradigm, while in social/political criticism there is a personal interpretation. In the sex, race or religion of the subject; Let us just say that in social criticism if the premise is true the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow.

pinoy_atheist November 5, 2010 At 11:19 pm

Mr. Pesebre started his critique of my article on stating some advantages in a post modern world…ah…OK.

Frankly I don’t buy this. Post modernism doesn’t built, it pull things apart.

If I will submit my rationality on Mr. Pesebre’s suggestion and post modern outlook, then everything becomes arbitrary as what author/ theistic philosopher/scholar David L. Haberman says, “Everything falls into linguistic nihilism, making all philosophical statements worthless before it begin.” That means the word “freethinker”, rationality, faith, atheist, falsified, modus podens, proposition – all of them are…well…means nothing.

In a post modernist view, there is no absolute truth. Philosophical discourses are merely illusions. So that means even Mr. Pesebre’s 46 meaning of the word “run” are nothing but ‘jiggery-pokery’ (borrowing Jacques Derrida’s term).

So base on Mr. Pesebre’s post modernist world…eh…every word he wrote as comments are well…meaningless.

Mr. Pesebre is now facing a dilemma. He wants me to define what is “scientific inquiry” and “empirical evidence” while employing post modernism. Damn! How will I do that? How will I define something if truth and reality has an equal opportunity of being legitimate due to personal or cultural circumstances?
If I will define “empirical evidence” as an animal with four legs that howls every night, am I’m wrong? Weh? Remember, according to post modernism, truth is a personal choice.

And how can we use falsification in a post modern world? There is no such thing as scientific method in a world where truth is relative. According to Paul Feyerabend rationality and evidence are no more than rhetorical bullying. Perception? It is just a bias conformity to one’s paradigm. Rational evidence? Feyerabend says that “rationality” rest on certain dogmas that cannot be justified (Against Method p. 295)
So what does Mr. Pecebre’s post modernist world offers? You got it…MORE QUESTIONS!

John Paraiso October 29, 2010 At 6:14 pm

By the way, according to you: Now am I critiquing your fairly by not bringing up good points from your essay? Well, I am merely commenting some points. I would have done so later on but I'm limited because i'm merely commenting.

John the Atheist: Ok lang po yan @ Mr. Pesebre. I really don't care if you like my posts or not. Remember, I'm a polemicist not an apologist @ Mr. Pesebre. If you have some issues regarding the post, spill it out.

Mr. Pesebre: I don't understand why you think I was referring to FF leadership, when contextually my comment was about leadership over your post.

Well because you have to drag Jong's name (Innerminds) and the rest of the FF on it @ Mr. Pesebre. I see it as a way of building an intriga po. Maybe next time po, it's better that we stick on the issue rather than dragging other people that wasn't even mention in the article. I think it's less malicious po if we do that. Para na rin po mabawasan ang hindi magandang sagutan.

Mr. Pesebre: I apologize that you were offended by this. But the context of my comment was on the partnering of the empirical with the rational. I was making a critique of your scientific method which I think was Baconian only.

John the Atheist: I accept your apology. Again it seems better than comparing me to at least 1000 members of the Filipino Freethinkers. Mahirap naman po kasing mag-generalized po diba? To judge me that quick by comparing my to a thousand or more eh…well seems to be to unfair, don't you think? I don't think ako lang ang "bad seed" ng Filipino Freethinkers. Hehehe!

Anyway, sabi ko nga what is past is past and I don't need to dwell to much of this.

Again thanks for your comments and don't worry, I will answer your legitimate inquiries @ Mr. Pesebre.

- PinoyHeathen October 30, 2010 At 6:15 pm
  
  Mr. Pesebre and Pinoy Atheist: Now, we're talking! Thanks to both of you. We can all be civil here. Both of you have good points and debate well. I enjoy your posts, I'm sure others do too!
  
  PinoyHeathen
  
  - pinoy_atheist October 31, 2010 At 5:30 pm
    
    Ganyan lang talaga ang buhay @ PinoyHeathen. Nobody's perfect…but a small cup of hot coco can sometimes makes wonder.
    
    - John Phillip Pesebre November 1, 2010 At 5:26 pm
      
      At sa kaso mo, Choco Fudge sa McDonald. Naalala ko nilibre kita.
      
      - PinoyHeathen November 2, 2010 At 5:53 am
        
        Hey, how about me? I like choco fudge too!
John Paraiso October 29, 2010 At 6:01 pm

Kalimutan na natin yan @ Mr. Pesebre. You seem like a nice guy @ Mr. Pesebre. I just hoped we met in a more peaceful circumstances.

Seriously I enjoyed your comment posts @ JP hope you and your family a very nice days ahead.

Now to PinoyHeather (tama ba spelling ko?)…since I just don’t have the heart to let a good man down, I’m reconsidering my option and I will grant your request. Sasagutin ko po ang mga tanong ni Mr. Pesebre.

I just hope for your consideration and patience. Medyo uunahin ko lang po muna ang trabaho and a little personal life issue, tapos po eh babalikan ko po ito. Until then.

To both you and Mr. Pesebre, hope you have a wonderful days ahead.

- John Phillip Pesebre October 30, 2010 At 5:50 am
  
  John bossing, nag meet na tayo dati sa MacDonalds sikatuna nung ka debate mo yung fundie baptist na babae.
  
  - pinoy_atheist October 30, 2010 At 4:08 pm
    
    Gosh! Don'e tell me you're…sino ba yun? If my memory serves me right your name has something to do with a certain video game…was it Decard Cain…right?
    
    Ah…nice meeting you again @ Decard. Pasensya muna ha…medyo maikli pisi ko ngayon. My mom is in the hospital kasi eh. Ok naman na sya kahit papaano…but alam mo naman what stress can do.
    
    Sabi ko nga, tatapusin ko lang lahat ito and I will be again indulge myself sa issues that you posted. Until then.
    
    - John Phillip Pesebre October 30, 2010 At 5:46 pm
      
      that was the day after you got hit by a train
      
      - pinoy_atheist October 31, 2010 At 5:29 pm
        
        Yep…I remember that. Nice meeting y7ou again @ Decard.
John Phillip Pesebre October 26, 2010 At 8:11 pm

ON SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
//"what does this have to do with religious faith? Is JC saying that religious faith is the same as scientific inquiry? I don't think that when we talk about religious faith, we are dealing with scientific inquiry."//

Yun na nga eh. You were assuming that all religious faith have nothing to do with scientific inquiry. This is easily falsified by providing proof of one religious faith that has to do with scientific inquiry. That's the reason why I'm bringing this up to you. I happen to belong to those people who see that faith as having to do with scientific inquiry.

So dito sa last post mo binanggit mo ulit: "We know for a fact that when speaking of religious faith, we are not talking about any type of empirical facts not even a glitch of scientific inquiry." Now let us employ for a moment a scientific method to test this statement. Granting that this is an antecedent to a modus ponens, what sort of induction did you facilitate to arrive at this alleged axiom. Kaya nga tinanong kita kung anong gusto mong sabihin ng "empirical facts." Let's say this is a rational conclusion or a presupposition, may you please give us at least 2 antecedent propositions from where this conclusion is derived.

Now baka sabihin mo ganito, "I wasn't talking about the paradigm of scientific inquiry but the paradigm of faith." That explains my first question. Ang premise ko is that if you are freethinker you will facilitate an open mind on things so that by stripping faith of any semblance of goodness (as what you have done in your essay) you are not facilitating a freethinker posture. Yun lang naman. Naghahanap lang ako ng proof na you have critiqued fairly. Now am I critiquing your fairly by not bringing up good points from your essay? Well, I am merely commenting some points. I would have done so later on but I'm limited because i'm merely commenting.

ON LEADERSHIP
When you said "The posts were a little pangit na so I have to remove them…" that's exemplifying leadership over your post. I don't understand why you think I was referring to FF leadership, when contextually my comment was about leadership over your post.

ON CASTING THE FIRST STONE
You posted my comment "And to think that Pinoy Atheist belongs to a group that champions "rational" thinking, I wonder why he's forgetting that rational evidences are required also of modern scientific inquiry." I apologize that you were offended by this. But the context of my comment was on the partnering of the empirical with the rational. I was making a critique of your scientific method which I think was Baconian only.

pinoy_atheist October 26, 2010 At 6:55 pm

Oh and by the way, is this a comment without malice or not @ Pinoy? Let see…"And to think that Pinoy Atheist belongs to a group that champions "rational" thinking, I wonder why he's forgetting that rational evidences are required also of modern scientific inquiry. "

So what "rational evidences" I forgot to say when I made an article about religious faith and what does it have to do with my membership with FF? What serious response should I give a man intoxicated with hate and pre-judgement against me? Did I cast the first stone? Is that comment not really out of line with the article? I dunno, do you have a better idea?

PinoyHeathen October 26, 2010 At 8:46 am

I don't know why the other comments about this article have been removed. I don't see anything wrong with them. Mr. Pesebre has been very reasonable and professional with his responses, and never sarcastic or obnoxious. I think that his comments are not really out of line with the article and he deserved a more serious response from Pinoy Atheist. John, I know you are capable of responding to him. I'm a fan of yours and I have always read your postings. We freethinkers should be capable of accepting criticism sometimes.

PinoyHeathen

- pinoy_atheist October 26, 2010 At 6:36 pm
  
  To PinoyHeather,
  
  The posts were a little pangit na so I have to remove them since Una, it really has nothing to do with the article.
  
  Sinabi ko naman po, if the posts were about the article, I will gladly respect and answer them. Mr. Pesebre was asking about scientific inquiry. Pinoy…may I call you Pinoy? We know for a fact that when speaking of religious faith, we are not talking about any type of empirical facts not even a glitch of scientific inquiry.
  
  Second, let me indulge with his statement, " it is empirical evidence that gives a true test of the scientific inquiry." Now tell me @ Pinoy, what does this have to do with religious faith? Is JC saying that religious faith is the same as scientific inquiry? I don't think that when we talk about religious faith, we are dealing with scientific inquiry.
  
  Maybe if we can make an article about scientific inquiry..JC's questions and comment will suit it better.
  
  Third, what about those statement of me looking for some er…what? Leadership in FF? Gosh, it never even entered my mind @ Pinoy. To indulge in some kind of showbiz intrigues is really not my cup of tea. I don't even have any idea where in my article did I seek leadership in FF? Kuntento na po ako sa mga leaders dito like Redtani, Geric ang Jong (Innerminds) and yes I DON"T INTEND TO BE ANYONE HERE IN FF. Satisfy na akong maging follower when it comes to the Filipino Freethinkers.
  
  That's why I erased those following comments and I just save the first comment that JC have posted @ Pinoy.
  
Galdys Jimenez October 25, 2010 At 5:26 am

Just love John Pesebre's Comment… thanks

John Phillip Pesebre October 21, 2010 At 8:14 pm

@John Paraiso: Are you saying that you are not at all involved in any scientific procedure with what you just posted?

@Mimi, Are you also saying that John Paraiso did not employ any scientific procedure whatsoever?

Mimi, also, I don't see any relevance in the discussion for your comment about "nitpicking." If you dismiss my comment as nitpicking, can you please give me a definition what a nitpicking IS NOT? Also you employed hyperbole with "a gazillion irrelevant philosophical references." May you please site criteria that I committed that made my comments irrelevant? I just want to know whether you committed nitpicking and irrelevance.

You can also humor me as you respond to these questions of mine. I think I need a good chuckle right now.

mimimarquez October 21, 2010 At 8:01 pm

bwahaha, that's what I've been trying to figure out myself, did Mr. Pesebre read the same article?
the word 'science' has been mentioned exactly only once.. as in 'scientific textbooks'… nowhere else.

has apologists now been reduced to nitpicking one's choice of terminology then citing a gazillion irrelevant philosophical references?

- John Phillip Pesebre October 26, 2010 At 2:45 am
  
  May you please provide warrant to your assessment that I was nitpicking.
  
John Phillip Pesebre October 21, 2010 At 5:29 pm

In a postmodern world, a word can no longer have a univocal meaning (the word "run" I heard has 46 meanings). In fact postmoderns, decontstruct a lot. All to often, I see that relativizing a term is one of the best ways for postmoderns to drown the real meaning of something. This has blindsided Pinoy Atheist. He attacked a highly deconstructed term so much so that, it seems, he can no longer establish a "freethinker" posture in discussing the term in its good points and entertaining falsifications. Not even an existential discussion of the term faith seems to matter now because Pinoy Atheist has spilled the baby with the bathwater. Yet to be fair to him (and I'm not saying that faith has only existential value), he seems to put a relationship with faith and good existential benefit when he said,

//"Those Bibles and prayers just served as an inspiration to their will to live and even without those religious paraphernalia, the love to family and friends (plus the nature of the cave-in, air pockets, etc.) will also serve the same effect."//

Yun naman pala eh.

Moreover, we have a glimpse as to how Pinoy Atheist understands scientific inquiry, for he says:

//"The faith that we are talking about doesn’t require any empirical evidences unlike some advertisements that show us data or statistics perhaps."//

I wonder what he means by "empirical evidence" here? Is it sense perception? I await his response, because if it is indeed sense perception then he is positing an outdated positivist method. Also, we are, I think, three centuries removed from Francis Bacon for Pinoy Atheist to SEEM to say categorically that it is empirical evidence that gives a true test of the scientific inquiry. And to think that Pinoy Atheist belongs to a group that champions "rational" thinking, I wonder why he's forgetting that rational evidences are required also of modern scientific inquiry.

I like a person who provides answers to questions, but if he generates more questions than answers, then it is best to reconsider and to study further.

Tweets that mention Faith as a Virtue? | Filipino Freethinkers -- Topsy.com October 21, 2010 At 10:18 am

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tania Arpa, Dean Jorge Bocobo and Tikyo Intramuros, FilipinoFreethinkers. FilipinoFreethinkers said: NewPost: Faith as a Virtue? http://j.mp/d4xmfV […]