Roy posed this question in a comment on my previous post which I forgot to address in my response.
…but what makes a relationship “real?” Or at least, what makes it more “real” than faith? Is it simply the physical presence? What about our relationships with loved ones who have passed on?
I think the question would be worth making a new entry for – as it’s a perfect opportunity to expound on what I’ve touched on before.
And I apologize in advance; because I will be forced to use a shit-ton of quotation marks here – because I have a sinking feeling I’m going to regret this particular topic of debate with a bonafide Philosophy teacher, and I will admit right off the bat that as far as verbal/written articulation is concerned, I’m probably going to look like an idiot – but I’ll try anyways 🙂
Recap
The thing that led Roy to ask this question was when I stressed the importance of real empirical human relationships over relationships that are simply based on faith.
The general claim was that I [personally] put more value in human effort rather than human “beliefs.” That is to say, I “judge” a person’s worth based on what they do – not necessarily the beliefs they hold. And the reason is because in context of a limited world view, I don’t believe that there is always one answer (that admits of no exceptions) to every issue – something which the tenets of a “belief system” 1 Which relies on ultimate, authoritative, and absolute truths tend to be by their very nature.
It’s sometimes tragic how people are convinced that the complexities of life and relationships can be distilled to something so simple, that you can just apply some “rule” without exceptions and that would be the end of it. This is even more tragic when they cause others (bonus points if those people care about them) to suffer because of actions/decisions made in that context.
It’s one thing to admit that we all have a limited world view, but another thing to not even try as hard as we can to look beyond this limit. 2 No matter how futile it may be, as we will never understand everything completely How people could one simply say “thou shall not kill” in context of the complexities surrounding issues such as euthanasia, or abortion? How could one can talk about the 7 deadly sins, yet fail to realize that we are sexual beings as well (and it’s importance to our species’ survival)? How dogma has managed to vilify something natural to humans (instincts, urges), as something seemingly so despicable and corrupted (original sin).
Addressing the Question
The thing about relationships being “more real” than faith is extremely difficult to answer given our limited world view. In fact, I do not even contest the “reality” of faith in and of itself. The act of believing is certainly a real, conscious decision [or action]. 3 It’s worth pointing out that having said that, it seems that even faith technically falls under the scope of conscious human effort. Which ironically, reduces its place in the “heirarchy of realistic significance” in a sense. But whatever; lets run with it anyway – for the sake of an engaged discussion. The issue is more of believing in something that ultimately might be untrue. Emotional benefits aside, faith by its definition implies the belief of something to be real (without proof) – but it says nothing about the thing being “believed in” to actually be real.
While both relationships and [the act of faith] are “real,” the “things” these two “states of action” are evaluating are quite different. The former, IMHO, is already “complete” proof/evaluation of itself – while the latter, while similarly “existing,” in a sense, requires “more” to actually mean anything. Simply put, the latter has to “assume” something to make an experience [in its context] “palpable” 4 Take note of the quotes … while the former already is a palpable 5 take note of the lack of quotes experience – whether or not we assume anything.
So I can have faith in a friend that says they’ll never betray me… until they do (and life has so many examples of that) So in that extremely common example, the existence of faith doesn’t necessarily justify the existence of what is being purported to be true (the friend’s loyalty) – the friend is still free to go either way; we have no power over that. Whether they vindicate or shatter that faith we put in them is entirely up to them. But there is no doubt that the relationship we have with that person is very real. Their ability to betray us can and will [inescapably] change the dynamic of the relationship – how much “more real” can you get than that?
Human effort and action have the power to make clear the authenticity of that which is being evaluated (the relationship) beyond any doubt. Our ability to respond or act is very much palpable, and even testable – and its precisely that ability to respond/act that makes it more valuable for me – so naturally I would far more prefer to apply that in the context of something similarly tangible; like an actual relationship between people – rather than acting based on some “unseen/unproven” force.
So, all things considered, my [current] stance is that yes, the physical presence does make relationships between people “more real” than faith (or relationships based on it). I don’t see why it’s unreasonable assume such; the fact that human relationships are present in the empirical domain should at the very least, put it above faith as far as the “hierarchy of realistic significance” goes.
Even Roy’s stipulation of relationships with loved ones who have passed on is no exception; those people were real. Whether their existence in our memories after they had “expired” constitute the type of “reality” were talking about is anyone’s guess. But they, at the very least, were tangibly real – and your relationships with them were, likewise, palpably real. That’s why losing them is most of the time, a painful experience, because there was a tangible thing that was lost.
Even an absentee father who has passed on did have a “tangible” relationship his child, albeit a lousy one. His actions of not being there for the child – and the child’s reaction of that fact (whether it be of understanding, forgiveness, or resentment/hatred) – are all tangible enough to [inescapably] influence the course of that relationship between each other. So regardless if the relationship was a “good” or “bad” one it still is (or was) one.
On a Personal Note
The reason why I put so much emphasis in real human relationships over dogma is because of real world implications both approaches can accomplish; our actions can affect relationships for better or worse. Having said that, my opinion is that it’s much better (and safer!) to attribute something fortunate/unfortunate to an actual legitimate cause. – because in the case of the unfortunate events, there’s accountability. This is of course all in context of human effort/decisions/actions.
Realistically and practically speaking, having accountability is a very good thing – because any “effect” can be clearly traced to its source; and in the event of an unfortunate event/disagreement, finding a clear source of contention allows us to immediately address and resolve an issue – all that’s required is that the parties involved take the time and effort to do so.
This is where decisions based on faith/dogma usually fail. When people decide based on faith, and [unfortunately] end up being agents of suffering, 6 Because when things go well, no one will bother to question why you decided the way you did instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they try to justify themselves based on dogma, they “cop out” essentially – they feel no accountability for their actions because they have the convenience of pointing to some unseen “force” as a justification. And when it boils down to opposing parties trying to have a reasonable dialog – how can one possibly have a reasonable discussion when the other is being… quite literally, unreasonable.
In that context, they fail (or refuse) to realize that as humans, we have the power to inject change in any of our relationships with the world for as long as we live and are capable of action. All the absentee father needed to do was show up, and things would’ve probably been very different (in a “good” way). An open mind admits of exceptions; that everything isn’t static – that conditions, people, events, situations change – and that nothing is absolute/final. Whereas Religion, like Roy said, tends to have a limited world view; but with ultimate and exclusive claims.
In my opinion, there should be no clear-cut “reference” one should use when dealing with relationships. Rather than relying on dogma, constantly evaluating and (re-evaluating) situations based on their context is a far more effective means of moving in this domain. The allowance of “exceptions” makes it possible for individuals to both achieve personal fulfillment (of being who they are without the fear of being judged), and keep their relationships with the world [and its inhabitants] “unruffled.” I mean even a person such as I would rather not “rock the boat” if I could help it – but at the same time, there are things I would like to do that normally would require challenging the “norm.” Being able to decide on a case-to-case basis allows for an optimal (and possibly balanced) course of action that achieves that “middle-ground” – what I like to call indulging responsibly. 7 Hows that for a clever contradiction of terms
Simply put, what’s “right” or “wrong,” or what’s “good” or “bad” would depend on the situation; after factoring all the other elements affecting it. I believe any decision a person makes will have it’s share of both positive and negative implications – and it’s a matter of deciding which course is “better” for you and the relationship. However, there is one clear thing that is present in this case; that no matter what you decide, there is accountability. You should be fully aware and informed when you make decisions – because, as I said every decision will have its share of positive and negative implications.
That’s why I consider human relationships, by virtue of their empirical reality, as “more real” than those based on assumptions (faith). And that’s why I value a person willing to prove their worth through actions… because talk is cheap 🙂 Actions speak louder than words.
Having said that, it constantly frustrates me that most people insist in letting something “less certain” (the things we assume to be true) override the value of something that’s already established to be more certain (the people and relationships right in front of us). It just boggles my mind.
Quick last point
Let me be clear on what I’m NOT saying. I’m not saying that just because I consider our relationships as “more real” than faith, that I’m implying the latter is not real at all. Like I said, both are real… but the question posed was what was “more real” – or what should be treated with more respect as far as living in our domain or reality goes. And that has always been pretty clear to me – I value what is real over what might be real.
Notes
| ⇡1 | Which relies on ultimate, authoritative, and absolute truths |
|---|---|
| ⇡2 | No matter how futile it may be, as we will never understand everything completely |
| ⇡3 | It’s worth pointing out that having said that, it seems that even faith technically falls under the scope of conscious human effort. Which ironically, reduces its place in the “heirarchy of realistic significance” in a sense. But whatever; lets run with it anyway – for the sake of an engaged discussion. |
| ⇡4 | Take note of the quotes |
| ⇡5 | take note of the lack of quotes |
| ⇡6 | Because when things go well, no one will bother to question why you decided the way you did |
| ⇡7 | Hows that for a clever contradiction of terms |
Even these examples have to be understood in view of historicity. The decalogue emerged in a certain context and, in my view, meant to underscore universal values instead of particular actions. “Thou shall not kill” sheds light on the sanctity of life, and principles such as double effect and proportionate reason allow for situations where loss of life might be permitted in order that the sanctity of life may be upheld (e.g. termination when childbirth endangers the life of the mother, if and only if there is no way to save both mother and child). The identification of lust as a sin does not preclude human sexuality; nor does the recognition of chastity as a virtue deny that human beings (men and women alike) can get really horny. Theology has come a long way since the middle ages, and is more cognizant of “human nature” (whatever that is), but it also continues to uphold these values. There’s a big difference between the promotion of a value and the enforcement of a law.
Might not the same be said of any human relationship? You discuss at length how human relationships (no matter their quality or duration) are, by virtue of being experiential, more concrete than the experience of faith in an Absolute. And I could not agree with you more; certainly, action and experience do more for us than any platitude.
Let me throw a monkeywrench into the works, then. What if we apply the same descriptions/criteria that we have for relationships with human beings to the experience/non-experience of faith in an Absolute/God? And here, I don’t simply mean a touchy-feely care bear simplification of faith; we bring everything in: all the risk, challenge, consolation, betrayal, disappointment, fulfillment of human relationships thrown into the mix. What happens when we look at faith as having the same dynamics as a relationship? How would that change our view of human relationships? How would that change our view of faith?
Forgive the delay in responding; I was caught up in some other issue of the technological persuasion. (My desktop got all messed up and I had to fix it, lest lose all work data – gotta pay the bills first hehehe)
With regards to the Church being more cognizant in the modern world (as well as its historical roots). And that for the most part, the “presentation” of these values have remained “unadjusted” since their inception – as general guides of virtue, and not as laws to be enforced. This is a very good point you have raised – and I don’t contest it. Which is why I mentioned in the previous post that I still believe in the church’s “intentions” and “goals.”
The real issue is how the masses, with our limited world view, tend to interpret its teachings – and induce real effects on our domain of existence because of it (especially when the effect is a negative one).
I realize this statement can obviously lead to rhetoric such as “if it’s humans that are the problem, why are you questioning the church and its teachings?” – and that I guess is the reason why this debate has never been, nor ever will be resolved – because it’s a chicken and egg thing. But the funny thing here is that, while that discussion alone has its various points from either side worth considering, the “thesis” of my previous post (which I admit probably got lost because of the complexity of the topic, as well as my lousy writing) was pretty simple: which should be considered more pertinent, more relevant, and ultimately more important in context of the effects of human action; relationships with fellow humans, or relationships with metaphysical constructs? And I guess my stance has always been clear on that 😉
To me, it’s like medical science vs. alternative medicine. While the latter may or may not be legitimate (as far as having the chances to be the ticket to curing a disease), it is safe to assume that most intelligent humans would put more priority in the former because of its being more reliable than the latter. Even in the case of an “evasive” medical condition – any apparent and immediate symptom is always addressed immediately – regardless if the doctor is aware of the underlying condition. It just makes more sense to do it that way.
Simply put, if I have a headache, there [should be] no harm in consulting a faith healer just in case there’s some demon trying to break my mental barriers and ended up affecting me physically as well. But all the same, if it were me, I’d probably try the more “empirical” solutions – like considering relieving eye strain, taking a break from what I’m doing, massaging my head, or even popping a pill… you know, the more “obvious” stuff.
Same goes with me prioritizing relationships with people and God. The former is simply more pertinent in every aspect I can think of… which is why I put more stock in that.
Now, viewing faith in context of a relationship is a very interesting topic, as we discussed in IM – as it is exactly how I (and you, for that matter) see my faith as (which is why I ultimately, at this point, still believe). In fact, I was talking to Cris about it just last night and she feels the same way (with the relationship angle of believing)
The difference with my point of view to say, yours and Cris, is that I do not necessarily feel compelled to accept the “bells and whistles” attached to His image (i.e. omni-benevolence or omniscience, or being a personal being), or His very existence for that matter, as an absolute – I simply don’t know – I will never claim that it is absolutely true (the faithful) or absolutely false (Harris, Dawkins, et all). I guess my faith is more of a “hope” in that sense. Call me a doubting Thomas 🙂
I obviously resonate more with Harris’ points in his talk. His example of misconstruing the value of rocks, or the “inner lives” of insects vis-a-vis our “moral obligations” with creatures we consider to be of “more significance” (e.g. the primates), while trying to prove a totally different point, is a good example of the thing I’m trying to say; that there are right and wrong answers to His nature, His power, or even His very existence – and we could be right or wrong about the assumptions we make of them.
So going back to my example of a having faith in a friend; it would be good for us to pay attention to the “thing” we are evaluating now that we’re talking about faith in the context of a relationship. The relationship exists, and the friend exists – but what we are “testing” by faith (ironic usage of the term, I know) is their loyalty, not their existence, nor the relationship’s existence. And that “loyalty” could be real or delusion – regardless of the faith we put in it. If they stick by us, then we are vindicated, if not, then our faith was all for naught – simple as that. Yes we could synthesize happiness all we want and say stuff like “well, it’s better to think the best of people” – sound advice even. But it still doesn’t change the fact that you have been betrayed, and all your “faith” in that friend ultimately meant nothing to them.
Now, here’s where our approach on a relationship with God diverge significantly: God’s existence as a product of faith. To me, is a totally different thing from the other type of relationship I mentioned. Yes, we have (or possibly created) this “real” relationship (delusional or otherwise) with Him (or the concept of Him, at the very least) – but again, that which we are evaluating now (His existence, not the relationship) is not as clear cut as testing the existence of the former scenario (between actual humans in the same physical domain)
When viewed in this context, when something goes awry in an empirical relationship; it’s easier for one to evaluate if and where one has failed, or if and where the other has failed; accountability. And the existence of such is what makes it possible to find actual solutions instead of going around in circles with rhetoric. And I believe that was the one thing that you agreed with me on 😉
I personally believe that the world would probably be in much better shape if people act in the interest of their relationships with others, rather in the interest of their relationship with an unconfirmed invisible force. But interesting enough, when it comes to pitting Religion against these actual human relationships, they do the opposite – and I find it strange for that to be the case – not surprising, but strange nonetheless.