It All Comes Down to Faith

[OmarKhayyam]

Perhaps a few words from my favorite priest:

"And I know, and recognized that day, that the same force, energy, sense, instinct, whatever, passion -- because religion can be a passion -- the same passion that motivates religious people to do great things is the same one that that day brought all that destruction. When they said that the people who did it did it in the name of God, I wasn't the slightest bit surprised. It only confirmed what I knew. I recognized it.
I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion. And I knew that that force could take you to do great things. But I knew that there was no greater and more destructive force on the surface of this earth than the religious passion."

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete as quoted here

 

[MoonWater]

Perhaps a few words from my favorite priest:

"And I know, and recognized that day, that the same force, energy, sense, instinct, whatever, passion -- because religion can be a passion -- the same passion that motivates religious people to do great things is the same one that that day brought all that destruction. When they said that the people who did it did it in the name of God, I wasn't the slightest bit surprised. It only confirmed what I knew. I recognized it.
I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion. And I knew that that force could take you to do great things. But I knew that there was no greater and more destructive force on the surface of this earth than the religious passion."

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete as quoted here

your point omarr?

 

[Falvlun]

french-kissing, siamese cousins.

Is wondering exactly how it is possible to have siamese cousins...

Faith is a euphemism for prejudice, there is no virtue in it.

In regards to the whole "faith involves prejudice" debate, I do agree that "bias" was the better word, since prejudice has negative connotations.

However, they essentially mean the same thing:
bias: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. (from dictionary.com)

I also do believe that faith, all faith, requires a degree of bias, since to hold a certain belief you must believe that it is somehow better, or more correct, than some other belief. Otherwise, why continue to hold that belief?

Even if one's religious belief is that all beliefs are equally valid pathways to God (or some such variation of belief equality), then you still must be prejudiced against those beliefs that claim absolute truth, or monopoly on the "only right way".

I think this is evidenced by the following such dichotomy:

But what you describe is only one kind of faith, often known as "blind faith".

Is there really an unbiased way to distinguish "faith" from "blind faith"?

This is one of the reasons I have not been convinced that there is any difference between the two.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is there really an unbiased way to distinguish "faith" from "blind faith"?

This is one of the reasons I have not been convinced that there is any difference between the two.

"Blind faith" is unwilling to the point of being unable to change a set of beliefs regardless of evidence, or even proof, that denounces certain aspects. In essence, someone who has blind faith has a closed mind.

Faith that isn't blind is not such. A person who has faith, but not blind faith, has an open mind, and is willing to question his or her faith, and even disregard certain elements of it should evidence or proof surface that contradicts them.

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps a few words from my favorite priest:

"And I know, and recognized that day, that the same force, energy, sense, instinct, whatever, passion -- because religion can be a passion -- the same passion that motivates religious people to do great things is the same one that that day brought all that destruction. When they said that the people who did it did it in the name of God, I wasn't the slightest bit surprised. It only confirmed what I knew. I recognized it.
I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion. And I knew that that force could take you to do great things. But I knew that there was no greater and more destructive force on the surface of this earth than the religious passion."

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete as quoted here

that's an astute quotation. Not sure what it has to do with the issue at hand, particularly, but it's very, very true.

I would add, though, from a Christian standpoint, that it's not supposed to be true. Xy is an inclusive religion -- not an exclusive religion. We're not supposed to fear the "other." We know that change is inevitable, and that, as far as immutability is concerned, that change is the only immutable thing. We must always have our bags packed and be ready to move out to uncharted ground. God is a God of change.

It's really sad that we've so entrenched ourselves in our dogmas that we can't move out, as we're called to do.

Thanks for posting that!

 

[Falvlun]

"Blind faith" is unwilling to the point of being unable to change a set of beliefs regardless of evidence, or even proof, that denounces certain aspects. In essence, someone who has blind faith has a closed mind.

Faith that isn't blind is not such. A person who has faith, but not blind faith, has an open mind, and is willing to question his or her faith, and even disregard certain elements of it should evidence or proof surface that contradicts them.

And who gets to decide the sufficiency of certain evidence or proof that requires a belief to be discarded?

Can you disprove a belief in Last Thursdayism? If I wholeheartedly believe that the universe was created last Thursday, what proof can you give me that I should abandon this belief? I believe most religious beliefs fall under the same category: they are unproved, unprovable, and ultimately, un-disprovable. That is why they are taken on faith.

As for the open mind vs the closed mind distinction, what criteria do you use to judge which sort of mind a person has? How do you know that that person has never questioned his faith? I highly doubt that there is any human in the world that has not experienced doubt at some point.

Furthermore, how is faith different in a closed minded person vs an open minded person? Faith itself, as a belief in things unproved, remains unchanged, regardless of the sort of person in which it resides.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

your point omarr?

If you seriously have to ask . . . no answer would suffice.

 

[MoonWater]

If you seriously have to ask . . . no answer would suffice.

Translation: I had no point I just felt like posting it.

Or is there some other conclusion I'm supposed to draw from this cop out of yours:

that's an astute quotation. Not sure what it has to do with the issue at hand, particularly, but it's very, very true.

Cause apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't grasp the point you are trying to make.

 

[Riverwolf]

And who gets to decide the sufficiency of certain evidence or proof that requires a belief to be discarded?

The individual. No one else has the authority.

Can you disprove a belief in Last Thursdayism? If I wholeheartedly believe that the universe was created last Thursday, what proof can you give me that I should abandon this belief? I believe most religious beliefs fall under the same category: they are unproved, unprovable, and ultimately, un-disprovable. That is why they are taken on faith.

It's your responsibility to question your faith, in this case, and test it to see if it's true.

As for the open mind vs the closed mind distinction, what criteria do you use to judge which sort of mind a person has? How do you know that that person has never questioned his faith? I highly doubt that there is any human in the world that has not experienced doubt at some point.

That's not for me to decide; that's up to the individual. Not my problem or business if someone else is closed-minded.

Furthermore, how is faith different in a closed minded person vs an open minded person? Faith itself, as a belief in things unproved, remains unchanged, regardless of the sort of person in which it resides.

It's hardly closed-minded to believe in things unproven. It IS closed-minded to believe in things that are DISproven.

 

[cottage]

Hmm. I understand this quotation to fall more in line with your example of having faith that it will rain sometime this month.

Not sure that I agree with your assertion that if people have faith in God, they do so "suspending reason in the process." If, as I posited in a post a little earlier, faith is a way of understanding the world in theological terms, then reason certainly is part of that process (at least in cases where the theology proves out in the world around us.)

Faith in God to the extent that 'There is no God' is said to be false, is the suspension of reason. This is not by any means to say 'There is no God' is true. But if the proposition cannot be affirmed by appeal to reason, ie where a contradiction settles the matter in either case then any assertion, for or against, is held from dogma.

 

[Quagmire]

So, instead of making further inane comments, why not inform me of the question you want answering? And then you could answer the two specific and reasonable questions that I asked you so that I can establish what your objection is.

Over to you.

Lets start small by seeing if I can get you to give a legitimate answer to one of the questions I already asked;

You lost me. In what way does this; "But where does the prejudiced view that 'there is no God' is false find it inception?" equal this; " So, yes, faith is prejudiced by definition".

And please don't tell me you already answered this. All you did was rephrase your original assertions.





[/quote]

 

[OmarKhayyam]

That being said, I'm not sure I would define that particular practice as "faith." "Dogmatism" and "faith" are not the same thing.

And the good Father is telling you they ARE.

I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion.

Religious faith IS BLIND; always and necessarily so. If you weren’t looking for some final absolute all encompassing eternal answer you would not bother with these myths at all.:shout

They are silly on their face and have no more claim to rational attention than the scribblings of a 5 yr old. UNLESS you imbue them with some eternal supernatural power "beyond logical understanding." Some "intuition" you create that makes sense of the nonsensical. And having done that you must NOW believe it. Else the absurdity of what you have just done is all too clear. And now that have done it - swallowed whole the crap you created - it becomes the "absolute" in your life with which there is no compromise. Add a little pathological paranoia and VOILÀ - 9/11.

Exactly what the good Father recognized before he was told anything about who or what.

 

[painted wolf]

Or you look to myths to teach lessons about how to live and questions about human nature to ponder.

They can also have deep meaning for understanding how your ancestors thought and lived and what values they felt it was important to pass down. How they define humanity and what issues they struggled with.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Or you look to myths to teach lessons about how to live and questions about human nature to ponder.

They can also have deep meaning for understanding how your ancestors thought and lived and what values they felt it was important to pass down. How they define humanity and what issues they struggled with.

wa:do

This says nothing about belief in god(s).

 

[painted wolf]

Does it have to?
It addresses this issue:

If you weren’t looking for some final absolute all encompassing eternal answer you would not bother with these myths at all.

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Does it have to?
It addresses this issue:
[/color][/font][/font][/color]

wa:do

Sorry, with no quote, I assumed you were responding to the OP.

 

[painted wolf]

s'cool... I should have quoted.

wa:do

 

[sojourner]

Religious faith IS BLIND; always and necessarily so. If you weren’t looking for some final absolute all encompassing eternal answer you would not bother with these myths at all.:shout

Religion isn't about looking for absolute answers. It's about finding absolute identity.

Some "intuition" you create that makes sense of the nonsensical.

I disagree. Very often, intuition creates more questions than it answers and usually creates a certain "nonsense" out of the sensible, as in: "Those who save their life will lose it."

And having done that you must NOW believe it.

I've done nothing. I've created nothing. The intuition comes, and is there. And it's not always advisable to try to make sense of it.

Else the absurdity of what you have just done is all too clear. And now that have done it - swallowed whole the crap you created - it becomes the "absolute" in your life with which there is no compromise.

There is very little in my spiritual experience that is absolute, other than God, who is Light and Life.

Add a little pathological paranoia and VOILÀ - 9/11.

Exactly what the good Father recognized before he was told anything about who or what.

Dogma. But not faith. The "good Father" is off base here.

 

[MoonWater]

That being said, I'm not sure I would define that particular practice as "faith." "Dogmatism" and "faith" are not the same thing.

And the good Father is telling you they ARE.

I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion.

Religious faith IS BLIND; always and necessarily so. If you weren’t looking for some final absolute all encompassing eternal answer you would not bother with these myths at all.:shout

They are silly on their face and have no more claim to rational attention than the scribblings of a 5 yr old. UNLESS you imbue them with some eternal supernatural power "beyond logical understanding." Some "intuition" you create that makes sense of the nonsensical. And having done that you must NOW believe it. Else the absurdity of what you have just done is all too clear. And now that have done it - swallowed whole the crap you created - it becomes the "absolute" in your life with which there is no compromise. Add a little pathological paranoia and VOILÀ - 9/11.

Exactly what the good Father recognized before he was told anything about who or what.

Dogma and faith are not the same. You can have one without the other. For instance I myself have faith, but follow no dogma. The mythology I have I recognize as mythology, I don't take it as fact, and there is nothing absolute in my beliefs. You may consider my faith blind but how can it be when I am more than happy to question and explore every nuance both within my own faith and within others. I also know that I am by no means the only person of faith is like or partly like what I have just described.

It seems to me all the "good father" was saying was acknowledging the fact that just like any other tool religion and faith can be used for both good and ill, it all depends on the person and the purpose behind the use.

Try as you might Omar you will find that very few indeed fit into the narrow box you wish to squeeze us into. As such you would do better not to waste your time trying.

 

[Falvlun]

The individual. No one else has the authority.

Ok. So who would ever say: "They just completely disproved my belief in XYZ, but I'm still going to believe in XYZ." Would it not be more reasonable to assume that they simply didn't feel their belief was sufficiently disproven?

Under this criteria, how could anyone be accused of having blind faith?

It's your responsibility to question your faith, in this case, and test it to see if it's true.

And yet apparently you believe some people have not sufficiently tested their faith, by your belief that there is a difference between blind faith and regular faith.

If all these are simply up to the individual to decide-- which I agree-- then you really can't distinguish "blind faith" from ordinary "faith"... except by your own prejudice of what constitutes blind faith, and what constitutes regular faith.

That's not for me to decide; that's up to the individual. Not my problem or business if someone else is closed-minded.

It might not be your problem or business, but you certainly appear to be able to pass judgement upon someone to be able to label him "close-minded" in the first place.

If it is all "up to the individual" how are you able to get inside his head to find out that he is close-minded?

It's hardly closed-minded to believe in things unproven. It IS closed-minded to believe in things that are DISproven.

And exactly how are things of a religious or spiritual nature disproven?

Heck, even with all the scientific support for evolution, it does not disprove the possibility of Creationism.