On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:35 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:

> We should be clear that the idea that "faith" is a "label" for a "state of mind" is in itself debatable.
>
> I'd link it more closely to "brand loyalty" which is not a "mental state" per se.
>
> You commit, beyond what is reasonable in some way, to an ideology.  You become a "saint" by "club standards".
>
> Not a mental state, this "faith", not a "feeling" though specific feelings may be a *consequence* of one's faith (in a brand, religion, ideology, sports team etc.).   Iconography is important.

You just took a bunch of very different contexts and mashed them all together. And this distills truth and meaning how? I mean, what is your point here? From your mash up, what is your answer to the following two questions?

That's how it comes across to you because I think differently, but I would claim just as precisely if not more so, simply using different terminology.

In philosophy, we were coached away from the "labels for mental states" model of language, even at the BA level.

The relationship between religion and branding is very deep (same thing?).  Companies / religious institutions seek to create an "aura" (mystique) around various icons and logos, with ritual / lifestyle activities involved in some ways ("It's Miller time").  You need commercials and advertising to weave together the symbols.

As Wittgenstein put it, if I choose a rock and random and start praying to it every day, doing rituals, before you know it I'll be a religious convert to this new pet rock religion (paraphrase).


1. Is the faith in religion the same as the faith in science?

Is loyalty to this or that commercial brand or sports team different depending on whether we're talking secular or religious? 

Yes, in many ways, but also no in many ways.  The similarities deserve focus, not just the differences.
 
2. If not, then how are they different?

It often comes down to what people will put their lives on the line to defend / spread / advance.  If the compensation is sufficient, people will dedicate many hours to spreading Coca-Cola (the ritual drinking of same, leading to tooth rot and diabetes) around the world, but few if any would die for that brand, just to keep shareholders "in the money".

The most decorated Marine in US history, Smedley "Fighting Quaker" Butler ended up writing 'War is a Racket' (very short, on my Kindle) because he realized a lot of his men had died essentially for shareholder benefit.  He was seeing through the veneer of ideology used to inspire idealistic behavior among the young (self sacrifice) and warning them it was really just Coca-Cola in disguise. 

He was a veteran of the Banana Republic era and participated in the "Occupy Washington DC" movement in the Hoover years, mainly begging WWI vets to decamp given Gen MacArthur was a rabid idiot soon to come through trashing and thrashing in his brainless coward style (I'm no MacArthur fan if that's not obvious).  What had rendered Smedley cynical was the coup he'd been recruited to help with and the lackadaisical way Congress dealt with it, given many of them had been in on the plot (see Business Plot in Wikipedia).

What I'm saying is:  historically speaking, religions command brand loyalty to a high degree, to where personal self sacrifice is expected.  Secular institutions get that kind of loyalty as well, but usually only by imitating religion and often piggy-backing on it, the way US presidents have piggy-backed on Billy Graham at inaugurations and such.  Wrap the flag around a crucifix and you'll do better in the polls, at least in some zip codes.

Kirby

 

Bob Hansen