The Hebrews were horrified by the idea of child sacrifice. — frank

And yet their patriarch would have sacrificed his own son, and they still hold this up as a great example of faith.

Maybe the part about the test of faith was added later to a story which originally emphasized the angel's arrest of Abraham's hand and the presentation if the sheep that Abraham sacrificed instead. — frank

Rewriting the story is evasive. If you include the part about the angel staying his hand, you can't get rid of the part where he will obey and sacrifice his son.

This is often regarded as a story about faith, but it is more precisely about fear and obedience:

Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.(22:12)

I do think that it’s against human sacrifice, but I don’t think the warning is only against this practice, but warns more generally against blind faith. Abraham’s assurance to his son that ‘God will provide’ is often portrayed as blind faith, but I see this as the doubt in Abraham’s mind (in light of the promises made to him) that keeps his eyes open to an alternative (more accurate) interpretation of what was asked of him.

There is in the story no indication of a misunderstanding:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” (Genesis 22:2)

Abram hid what he was about to do from Isaac and his servants. — Fooloso4

We too readily assume that what is written as what ‘God said’ is in fact what God actually said, as if the words were God’s actual words. Given that we have yet to confirm this is even possible (and much reason to doubt), why do we accept this without question?

The simple fact that what is apparently commanded here is not what transpired, despite Abram following it to the letter, is indication enough for me that Abraham misunderstood what (if anything) was asked of him.

It is not about God, it is about faith in God, and it is god who told him to do this. — Fooloso4

No, it is about faith in what we think God is. And it is what Abraham thought was God who seemed to him to communicate this request. It was also what Abraham thought was God who intervened and provided an alternative sacrifice, apparently justifying the error as a test.

Certainty is a dangerous thing.

Some see this as exemplary, but others look at this example and recoil. It is not simply a matter of the absence of certainty. It is contrary to what we hold most dear. It is shocking and disturbing that he would have obeyed. Are you not certain that it would have been wrong to do this? — Fooloso4

I am not Abraham. It would have been wrong for me to do this, knowing what I know. But what is wrong for Abraham is to put his own fears and desires ahead of his relation to an infinitely significant existence, of which he was aware beyond conception. It’s only disturbing when we assume the command was beyond doubt. Abraham never assumed this.

Rewriting the story is evasive. — Fooloso4

Genesis is clearly a mash-up old Sumerian stories. Maybe we just haven't found the original Abraham and Isaac story in the archeological record yet.

do think that it’s against human sacrifice — Possibility

I was suggesting that the original story may have been.

We too readily assume that what is written as what ‘God said’ is in fact what God actually said, as if the words were God’s actual words. Given that we have yet to confirm this is even possible (and much reason to doubt), why do we accept this without question? — Possibility

If I am to discuss a story I take the story as it is written. If I read in a book:"Harry said" then I can safely say that according to the book this is what Harry said. If the book is a novel then the question of whether or not it was actually said goes no further. If the book purports to be historically accurate then whether Harry said this or if there even is a Harry comes into question. I do not read Genesis as history, and so the question of whether God said this goes no further than the story. I do, however, read it as a story about belief and faith.

The simple fact that what is apparently commanded here is not what transpired, despite Abram following it to the letter, is indication enough for me that Abraham misunderstood what (if anything) was asked of him. — Possibility

To me it is an indication that he did not want Abram to carry out the command. The story says nothing about a misunderstanding. But if I grant that it was a misunderstanding this still points to the danger. Many horrendous things are done because it is believed that this is God's will. In order to distinguish between what should and should not be done as a matter of faith we must turn to reason.

No, it is about faith in what we think God is. — Possibility

Perhaps that is true of some "we", but in the Jewish tradition God is ineffable. Faith is a matter of keeping His commandments.

But what is wrong for Abraham is to put his own fears and desires ahead of his relation to an infinitely significant existence, of which he was aware beyond conception. — Possibility

Since God says that Abram loved his son (22:2), "your son, your only son" (22:12) his desire would be to keep him alive. His proper relationship with God should be one of fear (22:12)

It’s only disturbing when we assume the command was beyond doubt. Abraham never assumed this. — Possibility

We are given no indication that he doubted, but even if he did, he was going to carry out the commandment.

Since we have strayed from the topic I will leave it here.

Maybe we just haven't found the original Abraham and Isaac story in the archeological record yet. — frank

That may be. But this is the story that has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.

That may be. But this is the story that has been passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years. — Fooloso4

True.

Faith is action in the absence of certainty, and is a key aspect of the scientific method. Without it, no experiments would ever be conducted. There is a common misunderstanding that faith is the absence of doubt, but this is not the case. Faith always carries with it the possibility of doubt, too often ignored, isolated or excluded in pursuing an illusion of certainty. Science does this too, but where the scientific method ensures ongoing critique and correction of erroneous beliefs in light of this ever-present doubt, institutionalisation in both religious and scientific structures serve to protect and preserve tradition by concealing doubt and uncertainty. I think language is a key problem area here. — Possibility

I agree with you that there is no certainty, other than the tautological. You seem to be saying that we have faith in the experimental method, and in our own abilities to rationally understand, and that these things we cannot be certain of. If that is what you are saying I agree, but although faith operates in the absence of certainty, I would still maintain that there is a distinction between believing and acting in the absence of empirical evidence, and believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. Of course a Christian can claim that the bible constitutes evidence, but it seems clear that it cannot constitute what could be counted as empirical evidence.

Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything. — Fooloso4

No, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is the paradigm of faith in one's own imagination. It is entirely devoid of any rational conception of a God. It is faith in voices in the head, in hallucination, delusion and psychosis. Of course Abraham could have no conception of those things, but he came good in the end.

It is entirely devoid of any rational conception of a God. — Janus

That is correct, his is not a God of reason, but of will. He is in this way similar to Job's God and the God of Ecclesiastes. A God whose will cannot be understood by humans.

How is faith is a rational conception of God different from faith in rational conception, that is, faith in reason?

That is correct, his is not a God of reason, but of will. — Fooloso4

So back in the day, if you went to war with your neighbor, you were pitting yourself against their gods. Nobody wants to have a philosophy professor for their primary deity because that would attract attack.

This is supposedly the reason the Phoenicians were happy that everyone thought they did child sacrifice: because only a bad-ass god would require that.

Faith is action in the absence of certainty, — Possibility

Well, that's a different view to that espoused by others.

So what we have is that acting in the absence of certainty is rational, even inevitable, and perhaps praiseworthy. Cool, I won't disagree.

But nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy. But unfortunately common. Would you agree to that?

Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything. — Fooloso4

Abraham showed himself to be willing to commit a heinous act at the command of his god. A god of whom he had direct evidence in the form of burning bushes and such. He wasn't acting on uncertainty. He chose to do what was wrong, as an act of submissions to authority. The lesson we are suppose to take form this is that one ought do as on is told.

I'm not keen on it.

So back in the day, if you went to war with your neighbor, you were pitting yourself against their gods. — frank

Good point. Having a god who is to be feared can work in your favor, but you really have to be careful, his anger can turn against you.

So maybe the story of Abraham and Isaac is not about faith at all, but about fear.

Christians generally prefer a god of love, but given what happened to Jesus in the hands of the Romans, he does not look like a good choice to lead you into battle either.

...an early (mis)understanding of God. — Possibility

Apologetics.

You're getting your stories mixed-up but I agree.

So maybe the story of Abraham and Isaac is not about faith at all, but about fear. — Fooloso4

I think it's traditionally taken by Jews and Christians as an allegory. Fundamentalists take it literally.

Christians generally prefer a god of love, but given what happened to Jesus in the hands of the Romans, he does not look like a good choice to lead you into battle either. — Fooloso4

Yes. Things changed. Jesus was the sacrifice.

A sign of our audience that a thread on science has become one of biblical interpretation.

A different blowfish.

You're getting your stories mixed-up — Fooloso4

An indication of my level of interest.

I think it's traditionally taken by Jews and Christians as an allegory. — frank

Right, but the question is what does the allegory mean?

Things changed. Jesus was the sacrifice. — frank

From the story of Abraham: "your son, your only son".

An indication of my level of interest. — Banno

Yeah, I was going to comment that you were probably not a fan.

My view: it is part of our intellectual, spiritual, and cultural history.

If one reads Descartes' Meditations in light of the Genesis story of knowledge and the tower of Babel, what Descartes was up to takes on a whole new meaning. A topic for another thread.

Right, but the question is what does the allegory mean? — Fooloso4

It could be about obedience or a foreshadowing of the crucifixion.

How is faith is a rational conception of God different from faith in rational conception, that is, faith in reason? — Fooloso4

I'm not sure I did say that there is a difference. My main point was that faith is belief, not in spite of the (empirical) evidence (the implication being that there is empirical evidence against the belief), but despite the lack of evidence either way.

If I am to discuss a story I take the story as it is written. If I read in a book:"Harry said" then I can safely say that according to the book this is what Harry said. If the book is a novel then the question of whether or not it was actually said goes no further. If the book purports to be historically accurate then whether Harry said this or if there even is a Harry comes into question. I do not read Genesis as history, and so the question of whether God said this goes no further than the story. I do, however, read it as a story about belief and faith. — Fooloso4

About an author’s perspective on belief and faith, read in the context of a culture that equates worship with living sacrifice - understanding ‘God’ in exploring the threshold between life and death. It’s a mythical journey that Abraham takes here. The question of whether he ought to make the journey is irrelevant - as a long-dead ancestor he’s a character in a story, a heuristic device, not a moral being in the world.

But if I grant that it was a misunderstanding this still points to the danger. Many horrendous things are done because it is believed that this is God's will. In order to distinguish between what should and should not be done as a matter of faith we must turn to reason. — Fooloso4

Agreed. It is reason that Abraham brings to the relationship.

Perhaps that is true of some "we", but in the Jewish tradition God is ineffable. Faith is a matter of keeping His commandments. — Fooloso4

I’m not defending a particular tradition. I think most religious and atheistic traditions misinterpret faith within an illusion of certainty.

Since God says that Abram loved his son (22:2), "your son, your only son" (22:12) his desire would be to keep him alive. His proper relationship with God should be one of fear (22:12) — Fooloso4

Says who? The amount of times the words ‘do not be afraid’ is attributed directly to ‘God’ would dispute this.

We are given no indication that he doubted, but even if he did, he was going to carry out the commandment. — Fooloso4

Yes, we are - Abraham said ‘God will provide the offering’. This is no less certain than the implied intention derived from his actions. Be mindful of ‘reasonable’ assumptions - the point here in understanding faith is to recognise the lack of certainty either way.

My point in pursuing this is to show that faith is neither exclusive to religion, nor the absence of either doubt nor reason, but certainty. It may be slightly tangential, but how we respond to uncertainty is nevertheless important to understand in this discussion ‘in praise of science’.

A problem occurs when one's faith in reason is given the absolute authority of God. As if any conclusions that they have arrived at rigorously are true. I am not accusing you of this, but speaking generally. Those doing philosophy often fall into the trap of assuming truth based on reason alone.even if they do not involve the authority of God. They mistake argument for evidence.

You seem to be saying that we have faith in the experimental method, and in our own abilities to rationally understand, and that these things we cannot be certain of. If that is what you are saying I agree, but although faith operates in the absence of certainty, I would still maintain that there is a distinction between believing and acting in the absence of empirical evidence, and believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. Of course a Christian can claim that the bible constitutes evidence, but it seems clear that it cannot constitute what could be counted as empirical evidence. — Janus

Personally, I think faith in our own abilities to rationally understand everything is as misplaced as faith in the bible, but that’s another discussion. Suffice to say that the bible no more counts as empirical evidence than our current level of rational understanding.

I agree that there is a distinction between acting in the absence and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. The first requires faith, the second does not. But we rarely trouble our conscious thoughts with believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence, do we?

It’s a mythical journey that Abraham takes here. — Possibility

I don't buy it. But I am not going to argue the point.

a heuristic device, — Possibility

But the story is such that what one takes from it the that one should blindly and unquestionably obey what God commands.

It is reason that Abraham brings to the relationship. — Possibility

If he brought reason to the relationship he would have baulked and challenged God. He actually did this later when God was ready to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.

Says who? — Possibility

I provided the reference. Proverbs says "wisdom is fear of the Lord".

‘God will provide the offering’. — Possibility

He says this to Isaac who is about to be slaughtered. The angel stopped him from doing what he was about to do and would have done if not stopped.

I don't buy it. But I am not going to argue the point. — Fooloso4

Nor I.

@Possibility, again, would you agree that acting in the absence of certainty is rational, even inevitable, and perhaps praiseworthy; but nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy?

But nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy. But unfortunately common. Would you agree to that? — Banno

Yes, I’d agree to that - and actively involved in the cultural structures of both science and religion, unfortunately.

Here's the Pinker talk mentioned earlier:



Perhaps raising it will amount to throwing the religious blowfish back.

Here's a transcript: https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_is_the_world_getting_better_or_worse_a_look_at_the_numbers/transcript?language=en