Is Faith Just Habit?

[MineralMan]

We humans do a lot of things out of habit. Once we develop habits, we are relieved of most of the decisions required to carry out actions. We drive out of habit, for example. If you had to actually think about the hundreds of decisions you make on your commute every morning, you'd go nuts.

Watch a pianist or a clarinet player. Through constant practice and repetition, a good player can look at music on a page and make it happen. The actual playing is a habitual action and is done without thinking about the process of producing the notes on the instrument. The interpretation of those notes during a performance does involve choices, but not the movement of the fingers and other parts of the body.

Faith is a similar thing, I think. Beginning as a child, we are taught to believe. We are given explanations of why we should that are understandable by a child. Over the years, those beliefs become habit and our faith is there, without really thinking about it or reasoning about it. Really, that's probably a good thing, since really investigating our beliefs and faith often leads to questioning them. It's easier to have a solid faith in religious matters if you just let it be and don't really think much about it.

Faith is a habit. We have it because we are in the habit of having it. It's easy. We learned it as children. We've practiced it for decades. Faith becomes automatic, just like driving a car down the freeway. We can think about other things as we do it without considering the faith much at all.

Faith doesn't really bear thinking about.

[NeoGreen]

1. Do you mean 'habit' similar to refering to one's 'cocaine habit'? (nt)

[MineralMan]

2. Well, that's sort of a different habit, but related.

Cocaine is addictive, and is rewarded by the pleasure centers in our brains. Faith or religion has a calming effect, I suppose, which is similar. Nervous? Anxious? Fearful? How does the saying go? Oh, yeah: "Give it to God."

Still, I'm talking more about habitual actions, not addictions. That would be a different post. Perhaps I'll write about that, too.

[MineralMan]

3. Here's something that relates to your question:

https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/11/30/spiritual-experiences-can-activate-brain-pleasure-centers/113230.html

Apparently, religious experiences are linked to the brain's pleasure centers, perhaps more like cocaine than I thought. Religious ecstasy is a real thing, to be sure. Interesting. Maybe religion is addictive.

[NeoGreen]

4. If I had the time, I would take issue with the...

..."maybe" in your last sentence.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, perhaps we can continue the conversation as the thread develops.

We may hear from "people of faith" in it.

[qazplm135]

8. it's addictive to addictive people

to others, it isn't. I know plenty of folks who are loosely or lightly religious, or who have a general belief in an afterlife or a God of some sort, but it doesn't really permeate their every day lives.

[msongs]

6. religion is learned behavior passed on from generation to generation. people who question

are silenced as much as possible

[MineralMan]

9. "Learned behavior" is pretty much the same as "habitual behavior."

Many people are "in the habit of" believing in religious "truths." Habits are powerful, and resist change. Religion is the same, in very many ways.

Is religion a good habit or a bad habit? That depends in large part on whether you are a believer or not. If you have religious faith, you probably think it's a good thing. If not, you probably have a different opinion.

You can explain to a smoker how bad that habit is for health. You can explain that the smoker always reeks of ashtray. In many cases, however, the smoker already knows those things, but is unable to stop smoking. You can explain to a religious believer that he or she exhibits bigotry against other religions or non-believers. You can explain that the belief is not evidence-based, but the believer will resist those ideas, sometimes to the point of violence.

It's hard to see the difference, really. I'm not sure at all that there is a difference.

[qazplm135]

7. faith is a way

to take a difficult, scary and depressing concept (personal annihilation) and in a pretty neat package disposing of that concept in a way that brings comfort to that existential dilemma.

Now, it's probably false comfort, and if you think too hard about it, it falls apart in the details, but if the alternative for many is existential crisis, well, whatever gets you through the day is fine with me so long as your comfort doesn't bring others pain.

[MineralMan]

10. "Personal annihilation?" Really?

I'm aware that I will not live forever. In fact, at age 73, that is obvious to me. I do not find the prospect to be scary or depressing, though. It is the reality for everyone who is alive now. It's more of a stimulus to keep doing things that are worthwhile than anything else. I cannot believe that there is some pie-in-the-sky deity that can change that. I've seen too many people at the end of their lives to be able to believe any such thing. I have attended too many funerals to think that there is any other path. I have sat at the bedsides of dying people too often to think anything different.

So, who is teaching people this "personal annihilation" nonsense? Why are people buying it? Are they truly comforted, or simply diverted from actually thinking about the limits of life?

Habits. Habits let us ignore reality, sometimes. I don't find that to be a positive thing at all.

[qazplm135]

45. Yes really

Personal: defined as you, the individual.
Annihilation: defined as complete destruction, nothing remains

Seems pretty accurate so what's your beef? It has zero to do, in and of itself, with a "pie in the sky deity."

Kudos that unlike 99% of humans who've ever lived, you don't fear death.
You are clearly better than the rest.

You don't have to "teach" someone to fear death and the annihilation of oneself.
It's a recognized primal drive to live and keep on living out of fear of death.

It's that which LEADS to religion or some other means of self-comfort to deal with that concept.
It's WHY the brain often generates NDEs to help the mind cope with the looming loss of self.

You appear to be operating as if I am theist advocating for the truth of religion, or even the need for it.
I am not.

I do understand why it exists, and I understand why it gives folks comfort.

[czarjak]

11. Wrapping hateful ignorance in religion is a hard habit to break.

[in2herbs]

12. Religion and faith are not the same, but too many people conflate the two.

People practice religion and their religious behavior is based on beliefs handed down by others. Faith/spirituality is an individual, ever-flowing, intangible, and loving emotion that exists deep within our hearts and souls prompting us ever outward and onward, selfishly helping others.

One must live their faith every moment of every day. It is a conscious decision. It is not a habit.

[edhopper]

13. Isn't faith

also knowing God doesn't want Gay people to marry,
Preventing woman from having abortions because they have faith God opposes it.
Not accepting evolution because faith the Bible tells us differently.
Killing people with another faith because your faith says they are blasphemers.

[Mariana]

23. I don't think that's the definition of either faith or spirituality. nt.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. If you really want to separate faith from the bad things it encourages, it is.

Ain't the semantic gymnastics of apologetics grand?

[guillaumeb]

14. If faith does not really bear thinking about,

why so many posts about faith?

Any belief system can become a habit, theism in all of its forms, and atheism.

[edhopper]

15. did you really miss the meaning of that last line?

or is this just a sad failure at trying to be clever?

[guillaumeb]

16. It is neither failure nor falure.

It is simply an observation.

[edhopper]

17. so you did miss what was meant

okay

[guillaumeb]

18. No, I simply pointed out the obvious.

[edhopper]

19. read it again

and maybe you can get what he meant by not thinking about faith.

or, continue to make a fool of yourself.

your call.

[guillaumeb]

20. Joining the choir with insults?

What I wrote, that you perhaps missed:

Any belief system can become a habit, theism in all of its forms, and atheism.

[edhopper]

21. What you wrote is this

"If faith does not really bear thinking about,
why so many posts about faith? "

Obviously not understanding what the OP meant.

[MineralMan]

32. Subtlety escapes many people.

That last sentence was meant to make people think. Failing that, misunderstanding is assured.

[Permanut]

22. Atheism is not a belief system..

any more than baldness is a hair color, or

"Off" is a TV channel.

This has been explained before, but needs to be addressed every time it comes up.

Disclaimer: I am not an atheist.

[Mariana]

24. He knows that. He's baiting. nt.

[trotsky]

26. It's important to remember that gil insists no one can define religion for a believer...

but that he can define atheism for atheists.

[MineralMan]

35. And yet, he refuses to define his own beliefs in any significant way.

Perhaps he can't "bear" to think about them...

[Major Nikon]

46. He's pointing out the obvious

To the imaginary fan club.

Meanwhile the explanation of how a rejection of a belief system is a belief system is conspicuously abscent. I guess the idea is the more times you repeat gibberish the less it becomes gibberish.

[trotsky]

25. The latter. n/t

[MineralMan]

31. Because this is the Religion Group, where matters of faith are

Last edited Wed Jul 25, 2018, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

topical. Why do you question my choice of subjects? Do I offend you with my posts?

If you find a post not to be of interest, it's easy enough just to ignore it.

You appear to have misunderstood the sentence, too. Think twice.

[heaven05]

28. faith is belief in

things unseen.

[MineralMan]

33. Or things unreal.

There are many religions and many deities. All but the one you believe to be real are false. Think about it.

[heaven05]

36. oh, I have thought

about god, religion(s)and practised in most of them. I found them ALL wanting and in some cases racist, sexist and scams to fill those goddamn pass around plates. I was run out of one mainstream church only because my Significant other was a different race than I.

Typical ameriKKKan reaction to their theologies and the preacher/pastor and their interpretation of their holy books and words. Just look at some Muslims who will blow themselves to pieces due to an interpretation of a holy book and words. All religions are false, scams or the personal fiefdoms of some person posing as holy. Megachurch leaders/pastors/preachers seem that way to me in some way or another.

Oh, believe me, I have had a thought or two "about it". I have a personal faith and that is where I leave it...

[WhiteTara]

29. I say Pavolian

[Glamrock]

30. I think for many

It's more of a label than a habit. How many Christians do you know that actually follow the word of Christ for example? Not many in my experience.

[MineralMan]

34. Yes, of course.

Following teachings means learning them and thinking about one's actions. If you are merely a "habitual" follower, you needn't bother will those things. Most Christians have only a passing knowledge of the teachings of their religion, but they have faith, nevertheless.

[Mariana]

37. Actually, a lof them follow the word of Christ

as they interpret it. I have no talent for interpreting plain prose so as to make it mean the opposite of what it actually says, but some people are very good at that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Kinda like how people think Jesus was a hippy running around quoting John Lenon lyrics at people?

I've always found that strange. I mean, all those passages about sending people to hell are right there printed on the pages, for all to see. It's almost like these people didn't read the book at all.

Oh, wait. We were supposed to ribbing Republican Christians, weren't we?

[Major Nikon]

47. Hard to say, really

All we have are 4th person at best accounts. There is and always will be a considerable debate among theologians as far as what the “word of Christ” actually is. It’s safe to say that not all that’s been attributed to him was actually his words and there’s certainly far more he said that’s been lost to time.

For all we know, Christ was a charlatain and a religious huckster who himself didn’t practice what he preached. The type of people you mentioned might be not that far off.

[Glamrock]

48. That's a fair point.

[Pendrench]

39. Hi MineralMan - Another interesting post (thank you very much!)

I agree that there is always the possibility of my faith becoming merely habit - especially for someone like myself (a 52 year old practicing Catholic), since ritual plays such a large part in the Mass as well as other RC ceremonies.

So what I try to do is use that repetition as a goad to search for something new, and not fall into inattentive routine.

For example, I can either say a prayer by rote (such as the Our Father/Lord's Prayer), or I can actually think of the meaning of these words, and how I can/should apply them in my life.

The same is true when the priest performs the Eucharistic consecration - I have literally seen this thousands of times, but I try to make sure that I fully appreciate (what I believe to be) both a sacrifice and a gift.

In short, I try to be in the moment, rather than thinking of what else I could be doing, and this helps me to keep my faith fresh, as well as challenging.

Anyway, those are just a few of my personal thoughts.

Thank you again - wishing you well and peace.

Tim

[MineralMan]

40. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Different people approach their religious beliefs differently, that's for sure.

[Pendrench]

41. Agreed - I also wanted to say that I greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate

in these interesting discussions.

Best to you -

Tim

[Karadeniz]

42. sorry I'm late...

You are so right! At what point is faith that is condoned by the Church and society actually blind faith? There is nothing good about blind faith! That's just Orwellian.

As far as the Christian religion is concerned, that got screwed up a minimum of 1700 years ago when churchmen decided it would be a good idea to create a dogma under the auspices of a pagan emperor. What could go wrong? As a result, the Nicaean creed and others "brought everyone together" by telling you what to believe and it pretty well focused on Jesus' earthly existence. Christianity became faith in Jesus as opposed to faith in Jesus' teachings (which leads to soul improvement), a priority Jesus would disavow. Despite there not being a shred of historical evidence for the Jesus portrayed in his "biographies," believing in what one couldn't know or be proven became normal. That's blind faith and violates "you will know by experience the Truth and the Truth will set you free." Knowledge, not faith, is what should be important. Also, not passive faith but active good works and good thinking should prioritize faith in Jesus' earthly existence. Thinking that one is a good Christian because of one's blind faith and uncritical acceptance of all things literal is passive, allowing all the passive Christians to rest assured that they'll be forgiven and spend eternity is some reality they don't have a clue about...soooo much easier than standing up to racism, otherness, and actually putting in the effort to do what Jesus actually said you have to do, to be.

Maybe we should write a creed to replace the crapola ones!!!!!

Take care.

[MineralMan]

43. You're not late at all.

With more and more churches focusing on Paul's letter, his grouchy opinions are more followed than the namesake of the religion's sayings.

And that's just one of the planet's religions, divided into tinier and tinier fragments as it is.

[edhopper]

44. Why was faith not needed in the Bible?

We are told we don't need proof of God because then we would not need faith.
But in the Bible God shows himself to everyone. He talks to people, performs miracles, has display after display of his power.
Even Jesus did his miracles and appeared after his resurrection to prove he was God or the son of God or both.
He even appeared to Paul, who really started Christianity and never met Jesus alive. So Paul was not going by faith alone, but the proof he saw.
Why does God only allow for faith now when he didn't in any of the stories that formed the worship of him?

[Major Nikon]

49. I have a red phone to the almighty

It comes in handy when someone pretends to speak for Him when you want to verify such things. So far He says they are all full of shit.