• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion = Blind Faith ?

crimsonlung

Active Member
No, if you think about it, they are not.


What? So Israel was never a kingdom in antiquity, the romans never occupied the region, and a man named Mohammed(sp) never existed? Perhaps you should revise your hyperbole.


Why did all the ancient past events happen in the ancient past? Really?


I don't know a Christian who would say anything like that... if you took the time to look into it there are many claims of Christian miracles in the modern era.


Many people claimed to have part of it in the past...

Your twisting words like I would expect a Christian to do.

1. Instead of saying no, how about you explain why you say no, this is a religious debate forum, not a "Say No and shuttup" forum.

2. Your comparing history to mysticism. There is a difference between Columbus sailing the ocean and a man by the name of moses opening up the Sea. There is a huge difference between a man dying on a cross then being resurrected and Romans occupying a country. One is believable, the other sounds like a fairy tale, guess which is which? Apples to Oranges.

3. Your saying Ancient past as if it actually happened, but you don't know, and there is no proof. So you can't call it our past. Howabout you read the rest of my posts in this thread before opening your mouth.

4. And what claims of Christian miracles? I can guarantee you there is a logical reason behind every single one of them. Simple fact is, EVERYONE has a camera, if there was a miracle happening, why isn't it being recorded? I don't care if a friend of yours said he had an out of body experience, there is no proof, so it didn't happen.

5. Keyword, "claim"
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
So your saying I would have to be a part of the religion to believe those stories, this proves my blind faith point in its entirety.

Why do I have to be a Jew to make sense of Moses? Parted the Sea? Have you seen someone today part an Ocean? So why do you believe this happened? Do you think the story is untrue but you still believe in other aspects of the religion? Please explain.

First of all, I think that it is of deeply secondary importance whether the Parting of the Sea of Reeds happened precisely as written, or in some other fashion, or whether the parting of the sea was merely a poetic metaphor used to illustrate our ancestors feeling that God was protecting them as they fled their former lives as slaves. The point is that we believe that God has been with us, has given us support and comfort, was instrumental in our becoming free from slavery. Whether that aid took the exact shape written in the text or was more subtle, or more metaphysical, or whatever, is simply not important.

But I personally do believe that the sea could have parted. I think that there was a Moses, and he was a prophet, and part of being a prophet was the ability to perform theurgic magic on a scale we don't see anymore, since the age of prophecy ended long ago. I think that God provided unique events like that to occur because those kinds of gripping, mass events were what our ancestors understood. They were simple people, who were experiencing very trying things with limited knowledge and experience. I think God gave them things that would be immediately translatable into the stuff of legend. It was a bedrock, a foundation for building something on.

I do think miracles still occur, but I think they are rarer, subtler, much easier to lose in the crowdedness of modern existence. And I think that this is because God expects us to learn and to grow, and to rely ever more on our developing minds, our developing philosophical keenness, our developing abilities to be spiritually disciplined. And because part of our task as human beings is to learn to become better on our own, and not to consistently rely on God to discipline us if we become unruly, or save us from one another.

In any case, regarding what I said about probably being unsatisfied with the theological answers religions pose about the issues you raise: you can be a non-Jew and believe some of the miraculous events in the Torah, just as you can be a non-Christian and believe that Jesus could work the wonders he is described as working, or a non-Muslim and believe that Muhammand might have caused the moon to seem to split. But to accept the premise of why such a thing might have happened as written, or why such another thing might not have happened as written, or why such things no longer happen, I think one has to have made the initial decision that one is a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, and will be willing to approach thinking about these things from the perspective of the religious culture that one has chosen to be a part of.

This is not a question of blind faith, but of having made decisions about who one is or is not. Nobody is forcing you to be anything you don't wish to be. If you find the beliefs of Jews or Christians or Muslims objectionable, then don't be one. Be something else. I am a Jew. I decided to practice Judaism not merely because I was brought up a Jew, but because, after having a revelatory experience, I looked around for the religious system that seemed to me to be best suited to balancing modern life and tradition, belief and questioning, spirituality and practical ethicality, and decided carefully that Judaism was the one. That doesn't mean that I am a fundamentalist, or that I uncritically accept at face value every story in Torah or every teaching of the Rabbis of the Talmud: it means that I have chosen, based on the things that I do find compelling, that I do find meaningful, that I do find acceptable, to trust that some of the things I don't find compelling, or meaningful or acceptable at face value might be so, and that I should follow them regardless, on the assumption that one day I will understand the whys, the wherefores, and the entirety of the truths of our existence. And in some measure, the way I decide what to believe literally, what to believe metaphorically, what to trust on faith, what to reinterpret, and what to disbelieve or to try and change, is entirely through the lens of Jewish thought.

We have tools for thinking about this stuff. We have an enormous body of exegetical parables and examples of how to sift and re-sift text for meanings on a limitless number of levels. We call that literature Midrash. We have a tradition of not interpreting the Torah on the simplest, literal level, but on deeper levels of meaning, to provide different and sometimes unexpected insights as to how God wants us to behave, or why God may have commanded this or that thing, and how to reinterpret, and how to innovate in our understandings of text. We call this tradition Halakhah. We have a vast body of literature commenting on the Tanakh and offering multiple interpretations, viewpoints, techniques for understanding things complexly and without resort to the simplest, literal level. We call that literature Parshanut. The point is that there are always ways to formally re-examine or question or hypothesize about our texts and traditions.

And informally, sometimes you believe what your heart tells you to, or your gut feeling tells you to. This is spirituality. It's not laboratory science. And if you're looking for scientific proofs, you're looking for the wrong things. Because the point of stories about miracles is really not to give you a history lesson that shows you what kind of dandy special effects God can produce. The point is to teach something about the depth of God's love and commitment to His creations, to teach something about the importance of a moral or ethical issue, or how strongly our ancestors felt about something, or how difficult their choices were. Miracles are just secondary.

And in the end, experience of the metaphysical or the spiritual is subjective. It cannot be proven objectively. So one either experiences it, or decides to believe in it, or does neither.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
1. Instead of saying no, how about you explain why you say no, this is a religious debate forum, not a "Say No and shuttup" forum.
Because they are not... most of them are based on experiences shared by the religious community. The Christian religion, the one I am most familiar with, is based largely on experiences(still ongoing) of people with God.

Those that have had no experiences whatsoever base their beliefs on the experiences of the many others.

2. Your comparing history to mysticism.
I compared nothing. I only noted that your hyperbole perhaps needed revising given that it was incorrect :p

3. Your saying Ancient past as if it actually happened, but you don't know, and there is no proof. So you can't call it our past.
There is no proof the vast majority of events happened.

Howabout you read the rest of my posts in this thread before opening your mouth.
'Howabout' you stop trying to tell me what to do...

4. And what claims of Christian miracles?
Well, the miracle of the Holy Fire happens every year. Various medical miracles, apparations, etc.

I can guarantee you there is a logical reason behind every single one of them.
Of course there is, even if it lacked a scientific explanation there would be a logical reason. Perhaps you meant to suggest that there is a naturalistic reason.

Simple fact is, EVERYONE has a camera
That is about as far from a simple fact as a statement can get.

I don't care if a friend of yours said he had an out of body experience, there is no proof, so it didn't happen.
Neither have I care for your care. Proof is not requisite for reality.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I absolutely agree with all of the above. That's why it generally falls on the individual to believe or not believe.
I don't see it that way. When something is not known, I think it's a bit inappropriate to either believe it or disbelieve it. I might as well flip a coin, right?

Instead, when something is not known, I admit I do not know it, though I do side with the more apparent or default position. So for instance, if we know that there has never been a solidly scientifically proved supernatural thing like levitation or psychics and whatnot, and we know there are a lot of fraudsters and even magicians out there that can create truly remarkable illusions, and we know that throughout human history most supernatural claims have eventually been assigned proven natural explanations as science has grown to fill the gaps, then I think it's reasonable to say that the burden of proof lies solidly with those making the remarkable claims.

That is, I have to side with Carl Sagan and say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and tentatively side with the argument that such claims are most likely not true.

-Lyn
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
one more to the list .......
the earliest and atheistic school of hinduism, the Samkhya philosophy
To my knowledge, it still involves metaphysical things, such as the concept that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe rather than an emergent property that certain things possess.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
If you think about it, all religions are based on blind faith. There is not a shred of real life to anything in the Bible, in the Torah, in the Koran. Where are the miracles today? You ask a Christian or a Muslim that, you will get a half baked answer about the religious times being over. Or, you will get the "But your heart is beating and the grass is growing" answer. Why did all the mysticism and elaborate stories such as Noah and his Arc conveniently happen at a time where we cant prove its existence?

Don't you think the people of the times of Noah would of kept that arc in a Museum or at least have some piece of it? Or what about the cross Christ was allegedly crucified on, don't you think they would have that kept somewhere? Its not every day a man comes back to life, and I guarantee you if something like that happened today, it would be historically preserved. We have hieroglyphs from BC still intact that tell a useless story about a king, but the son of the thing that created humankind comes down to Earth, dies, comes back to life, and we have nothing to prove it but a book that says it happened.

It seems that all religions require a leap of blind faith which is disguised as a "relationship with god."

Thoughts?

You nailed it. Congrats.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Can you clarify by what you mean by covenantal?
It means that our religion isn't about theology, but how we behave toward one another.

Would you say that prayer and meditating in UU is necessary, or merely common? It's not in the principles (at least not specifically).
Well, I've never attended a service that didn't include both.
 

crimsonlung

Active Member
Because they are not... most of them are based on experiences shared by the religious community. The Christian religion, the one I am most familiar with, is based largely on experiences(still ongoing) of people with God.



Those that have had no experiences whatsoever base their beliefs on the experiences of the many others.


I compared nothing. I only noted that your hyperbole perhaps needed revising given that it was incorrect :p


There is no proof the vast majority of events happened.


'Howabout' you stop trying to tell me what to do...


Well, the miracle of the Holy Fire happens every year. Various medical miracles, apparations, etc.


Of course there is, even if it lacked a scientific explanation there would be a logical reason. Perhaps you meant to suggest that there is a naturalistic reason.


That is about as far from a simple fact as a statement can get.


Neither have I care for your care. Proof is not requisite for reality.

Based on experiences shared with the Christian religion, sounds a little cult-like don't you think?

There is proof the mast majority of events existed, we have several books and several historians bringing the word down. What does Christianity have? A single book full of fairy tales and obvious predictions that don't make sense historically or "naturally." If somebody said Christopher Columbus had angel wings and shot fire from his mouth in the history books, people would question its integrity. Scholars would condemn the books from reaching history and label it as Science Fiction. And thats why we don't teach the Bible in school anymore, or even mention it on TV. Mother goose could tell better stories.

Show me one person without a camera or access to one. Go to any spot on this Earth and find a place where a camera doesn't exist within a mile. And if your saying the incredibly minute parts of the world that do not have cameras are where these miracles are happening, then maybe you should think hard about what your actually believing in.

Proof is not a requisite for reality, but that is my point exactly, your blindly following a cult religion. Without proof, how do you know something exists? I see my hand, therefore I know it exists. I see my penis, therefore I know it exists. I don't see God, so how do I know he exists? I don't.

Tell me, do you think you sound smarter or that your making a point by speaking in 3rd person? This is the year 2010, your not even quoting from the bible, more bible brainwashing.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Based on experiences shared with the Christian religion, sounds a little cult-like don't you think?
Why would it sound cult-like? Scientific method works based on the repeated and shared experience/observation of the results of an experiment.

There is proof the mast majority of events existed
No, there is not. There is no proof for what the vast majority of us do throughout the vast majority of our days, and we live in the age with the most readily available proof for everday occurances.

What does Christianity have? A single book
And the testimony of ~2000 years of believers experiencing Christ ressurected.

Show me one person without a camera or access to one.
Not where I am... Most of the world is not as fortunate as I am to live in a fully developed country. I'd fairly wager a large portion of most African countries, some South Asian, South American, Eastern European, Chinese, Polynesian Islands, Central Americans, etc. would not have access to Cameras.

Go to any spot on this Earth and find a place where a camera doesn't exist within a mile. And if your saying the incredibly minute parts of the world that do not have cameras are where these miracles are happening, then maybe you should think hard about what your actually believing in.
Not all of the world is the West, and most of it is unfortunately not as prosperous.

Proof is not a requisite for reality, but that is my point exactly
It directly contradicts the point you made 'You don't have proof, it did not happen'.

Without proof, how do you know something exists?
Induction and Deduction spring to mind.

Tell me, do you think you sound smarter or that your making a point by speaking in 3rd person?
Where did I use 3rd person?
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
It seems that all religions require a leap of blind faith which is disguised as a "relationship with god."

You really don't know what you're talking about and this annoys me. Your upstartedness and your cockiness annoy me.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
What is the point of saying that people who have a stance are biased towards it? If such a statement is to have some meaning, additional information must be supplied.
 

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
My "religion," my "faith;" begins with a group of four: I love Gwyneth Paltrow. Other than absurd, I don't know what another would call it. But this crazy infatuation has served a purpose:

Me----my Gwynnie thing----god.

The Gwynnie thing is like a cantankerous telescope; and we all know god is an elusive bugger. But I hypothesize that rather than an article of blind faith, all religions see inward to the collective unconsciousness; and god is the personalization of that unconsciousness. The curator of the museum of mind that we all share.
 

arun

Member
If you think about it, all religions are based on blind faith. There is not a shred of real life to anything in the Bible, in the Torah, in the Koran. Where are the miracles today?

Hinduism has got two sides, the theory which teaches there is God,soul,reincarnation etc.. and the practicals which is Raja-Yoga .Raja-Yoga requires no belief.We should believe in God when we see him,face to face,in this life itself.

Religion is based on the miraculous experiences of its founders like Jesus,Allah,Buddha and Rishis and we also can have such experiences .What they did,we can do.That's what the science of Raja-Yoga teaches.
______________________________________

Here are some excerpts from chapter Raja Yoga, Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda :

So far, then, we see that in the study of this Raja-Yoga no faith or belief is necessary. Believe nothing until you find it out for yourself; that is what it teaches us. Truth requires no prop to make it stand. Do you mean to say that the facts of our awakened state require any dreams or imaginings to prove them? Certainly not. This study of Raja-Yoga takes a long time and constant practice. A part of this practice is physical, but in the main it is mental. As we proceed we shall find how intimately the mind is connected with the body.
________
Each soul is potentially divine.
The goal is to manifest this Divinity within by controlling nature, external and internal.
Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy — by one, or more, or all of these — and be free.
This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details.
________

All our knowledge is based upon experience. What we call inferential knowledge, in which we go from the less to the more general, or from the general to the particular, has experience as its basis. In what are called the exact sciences, people easily find the truth, because it appeals to the particular experiences of every human being. The scientist does not tell you to believe in anything, but he has certain results which come from his own experiences, and reasoning on them when he asks us to believe in his conclusions, he appeals to some universal experience of humanity. In every exact science there is a basis which is common to all humanity, so that we can at once see the truth or the fallacy of the conclusions drawn therefrom. Now, the question is: Has religion any such basis or not? I shall have to answer the question both in the affirmative and in the negative.

Religion, as it is generally taught all over the world, is said to be based upon faith and belief, and, in most cases, consists only of different sets of theories, and that is the reason why we find all religions quarreling with one another. These theories, again, are based upon belief. One man says there is a great Being sitting above the clouds and governing the whole universe, and he asks me to believe that solely on the authority of his assertion. In the same way, I may have my own ideas, which I am asking others to believe, and if they ask a reason, I cannot give them any. This is why religion and metaphysical philosophy have a bad name nowadays.Every educated man seems to say, "Oh, these religions are only bundles of theories without any standard to judge them by, each man preaching his own pet ideas." Nevertheless, there is a basis of universal belief in religion, governing all the different theories and all the varying ideas of different sects in different countries. Going to their basis we find that they also are based upon universal experiences.

In the first place, if you analyse all the various religions of the world, you will find that these are divided into two classes, those with a book and those without a book. Those with a book are the strongest, and have the largest number of followers. Those without books have mostly died out, and the few new ones have very small following. Yet, in all of them we find one consensus of opinion, that the truths they teach are the results of the experiences of particular persons. The Christian asks you to believe in his religion, to believe in Christ and to believe in him as the incarnation of God, to believe in a God, in a soul, and in a better state of that soul. If I ask him for reason, he says he believes in them. But if you go to the fountain-head of Christianity, you will find that it is based upon experience. Christ said he saw God; the disciples said they felt God; and so forth. Similarly, in Buddhism, it is Buddha's experience. He experienced certain truths, saw them, came in contact with them, and preached them to the world. So with the Hindus. In their books the writers, who are called Rishis, or sages, declare they experienced certain truths, and these they preach. Thus it is clear that all the religions of the world have been built upon that one universal and adamantine foundation of all our knowledge — direct experience. The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their future, they saw their eternity, and what they saw they preached. Only there is this difference that by most of these religions especially in modern times, a peculiar claim is made, namely, that these experiences are impossible at the present day; they were only possible with a few men, who were the first founders of the religions that subsequently bore their names. At the present time these experiences have become obsolete, and, therefore, we have now to take religion on belief. This I entirely deny. If there has been one experience in this world in any particular branch of knowledge, it absolutely follows that that experience has been possible millions of times before, and will be repeated eternally. Uniformity is the rigorous law of nature; what once happened can happen always.

The teachers of the science of Yoga, therefore, declare that religion is not only based upon the experience of ancient times, but that no man can be religious until he has the same perceptions himself. Yoga is the science which teaches us how to get these perceptions. It is not much use to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, because people never went to the fountain-head; they were content only to give a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite. The modern idea, on the one hand, with the "learned" is that religion and metaphysics and all search after a Supreme Being are futile; on the other hand, with the semi-educated, the idea seems to be that these things really have no basis; their only value consists in the fact that they furnish strong motive powers for doing good to the world. If men believe in a God, they may become good, and moral, and so make good citizens. We cannot blame them for holding such ideas, seeing that all the teaching these men get is simply to believe in an eternal rigmarole of words, without any substance behind them. They are asked to live upon words; can they do it? If they could, I should not have the least regard for human nature. Man wants truth, wants to experience truth for himself; when he has grasped it, realised it, felt it within his heart of hearts, then alone, declare the Vedas, would all doubts vanish, all darkness be scattered, and all crookedness be made straight. "Ye children of immortality, even those who live in the highest sphere, the way is found; there is a way out of all this darkness, and that is by perceiving Him who is beyond all darkness; there is no other way."

continued in next post:
 

arun

Member
The science of Râja-Yoga proposes to put before humanity a practical and scientifically worked out method of reaching this truth. In the first place, every science must have its own method of investigation. If you want to become an astronomer and sit down and cry "Astronomy! Astronomy!" it will never come to you. The same with chemistry. A certain method must be followed. You must go to a laboratory, take different substances, mix them up, compound them, experiment with them, and out of that will come a knowledge of chemistry. If you want to be an astronomer, you must go to an observatory, take a telescope, study the stars and planets, and then you will become an astronomer. Each science must have its own methods. I could preach you thousands of sermons, but they would not make you religious, until you practiced the method. These are the truths of the sages of all countries, of all ages, of men pure and unselfish, who had no motive but to do good to the world. They all declare that they have found some truth higher than what the senses can bring to us, and they invite verification. They ask us to take up the method and practice honestly, and then, if we do not find this higher truth, we will have the right to say there is no truth in the claim, but before we have done that, we are not rational in denying the truth of their assertions. So we must work faithfully using the prescribed methods, and light will come.

On the extraordinary phenomena:

"Since the dawn of history, various extraordinary phenomena have been recorded as happening amongst human beings. Witnesses are not wanting in modern times to attest to the fact of such events, even in societies living under the full blaze of modern science. The vast mass of such evidence is unreliable, as coming from ignorant, superstitious, or fraudulent persons. In many instances the so-called miracles are imitations. But what do they imitate? It is not the sign of a candid and scientific mind to throw overboard anything without proper investigation. Surface scientists, unable to explain the various extraordinary mental phenomena, strive to ignore their very existence. They are, therefore, more culpable than those who think that their prayers are answered by a being, or beings, above the clouds, or than those who believe that their petitions will make such beings change the course of the universe. The latter have the excuse of ignorance, or at least of a defective system of education, which has taught them dependence upon such beings, a dependence which has become a part of their degenerate nature. The former have no such excuse. For thousands of years such phenomena have been studied, investigated, and generalised, the whole ground of the religious faculties of man has been analysed, and the practical result is the science of Râja-Yoga."

On the need of Yoga:

'' What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite. "
"The second obstruction is doubt; we always feel doubtful about things we do not see. Man cannot live upon words, however he may try. So, doubt comes to us as to whether there is any truth in these things or not; even the best of us will doubt sometimes: With practice, within a few days, a little glimpse will come, enough to give one encouragement and hope. As a certain commentator on Yoga philosophy says, "When one proof is obtained, however little that may be, it will give us faith in the whole teaching of Yoga." For instance, after the first few months of practice, you will begin to find you can read another's thoughts; they will come to you in picture form. Perhaps you will hear something happening at a long distance, when you concentrate your mind with a wish to hear. These glimpses will come, by little bits at first, but enough to give you faith, and strength, and hope....
But we must always remember that these are only the means; the aim, the end, the goal, of all this training is liberation of the soul. "
 
Last edited:
Top