What is Faith?

[Meow Mix]

Presuppositionalism.

Not quite. It's more usually, and usefully, called joyful participation. The "God" so believed in is believed in because it exists and is real, in exactly the same way the world exists and is real.

But that requires justification, which you are saying doesn't exist for such people. This doesn't add up.

 

[Willamena]

But that requires justification, which you are saying doesn't exist for such people. This doesn't add up.

No, I'm not. I guess what was said earlier was forgotten. Justification isn't required.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, I'm not. I guess what was said earlier was forgotten. Justification isn't required.

But it is, if something is supposed to exist. Maybe we're talking past each other.

Nobody doubts that people BELIEVE.

Atheists doubt that the thing believed in exists -- which requires justification to suppose exists, by anyone.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

But it is, if something is supposed to exist. Maybe we're talking past each other.

Nobody doubts that people BELIEVE.

Atheists doubt that the thing believed in exists -- which requires justification to suppose exists, by anyone.

The justification used by theists (A profound relationship or connection with God, miracles etc..) however is usually subjective, unprovable scientifically*...which is the other issue.

Unless you count the lesser anthropological argument cited by many scientists to explain the presence of life which is somewhat un atheist and almost religious a view*

 

[jarofthoughts]

The justification however is usually subjective, unprovable scientifically...which is the other issue.

Subjective justifications are fine when we are talking about ice-cream flavours, but when the subject is what reality consists of and not you'll need more than mere opinion or even conviction. The best method we have come up with for describing reality is the scientific method and it has been wildly successful at it.
Thus, unless one has objective empirical and scientific evidence, then the whole thing is a non-starter, or at least, it should be.

 

[darkendless]

The justification used by theists (A profound relationship or connection with God, miracles etc..) however is usually subjective, unprovable scientifically*...which is the other issue.

Thats what gives religion credibility, it is outside testable realms of science and has thus remained outside the grasp of empircism.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Subjective justifications are fine when we are talking about ice-cream flavours, but when the subject is what reality consists of and not you'll need more than mere opinion or even conviction. The best method we have come up with for describing reality is the scientific method and it has been wildly successful at it.
Thus, unless one has objective empirical and scientific evidence, then the whole thing is a non-starter, or at least, it should be.

The scientific method is limited by our subjective relationship as four dimensional observers within and part of the observable multidimensional finite universe.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The scientific method is limited by our subjective relationship as four dimensional observers within and part of the observable multidimensional finite universe.

That is not entirely correct. We are indeed exploring the unknown lands beyond these four dimensions and our tools of observation are continuously being refined and advanced. Some of these explorations are still being done in a theoretical fashion, like with Superstring Theory, but this is a temporary limitation. The Scientific Method got us there and it is that very method that will get us further.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Thats what gives religion credibility, it is outside testable realms of science and has thus remained outside the grasp of empircism.

And for some of us that is exactly what removes its credibility utterly and completely.

 

[darkendless]

And for some of us that is exactly what removes its credibility utterly and completely.

We are in agreement on that one.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That is not entirely correct. We are indeed exploring the unknown lands beyond these four dimensions and our tools of observation are continuously being refined and advanced. Some of these explorations are still being done in a theoretical fashion, like with Superstring Theory, but this is a temporary limitation. The Scientific Method got us there and it is that very method that will get us further.

M theory is proving popular.

You misunderstand my meaning I think.

You cannot measure what lies outside of the box or view the box from afar whilst you are still inside of it...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

And for some of us that is exactly what removes its credibility utterly and completely.

Which religion are you talking about?

I say this because they vary considerably in cosmology and their interpretation of human origins and life in general.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You cannot measure what lies outside of the box or view the box from afar whilst you are still inside of it...

Not to invoke Plato's cave metaphor here but you are now postulating that there is something outside the box, in this case the "box" of observable reality, which is exactly the same claim that is made by every religion in the world.
Until someone can provide evidence that there exists anything outside observable reality their opinions about the "outside" are largely irrelevant.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Which religion are you talking about?

I say this because they vary considerably in cosmology and their interpretation of human origins and life in general.

Doesn't matter. If they postulate something outside of observable reality and therefore something which cannot be empirically shown to be correct then they fall into the same category.

 

[Sunstone]

...which is exactly the same claim that is made by every religion in the world.

You're on dangerous ground with that whopper. For instance: Where in Zen is such a claim made.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You're on dangerous ground with that whopper. For instance: Where in Zen is such a claim made.

Now we're getting down to subjective interpretations, but I have always seen Zen as more of a philosophy than a religion, and as we all know it is entirely possible to practice Buddhism without postulating anything supernatural. However, if and when Buddhists, Zen or otherwise, do postulate a supernatural force of some kind, then they too fall into this category.

 

[Sunstone]

...I have always seen Zen as more of a philosophy than a religion...

I am well aware of how many Western atheists and agnostics redefine Zen and Buddhism from religion to philosophy in order to make reality fit their assumptions about it. Yet, the fact remains that Zen no more resembles the Western philosophical tradition than it resembles Christian theology. It's a religion.

However, if and when Buddhists, Zen or otherwise, do postulate a supernatural force of some kind, then they too fall into this category.

Your claim is rendered invalid by the fact some Buddhists and some (almost all) Zen practitioners do not postulate unobservable "forces of some kind".

 

[darkendless]

Out come the technical police, ensuring no stereotypes or invalid assumptions are made since 87'

 

[Sunstone]

Out come the technical police, ensuring no stereotypes or invalid assumptions are made since 87'

\

Nice. Are you the self appointed and self important forum police, then? If you can't get technical about religion on a religious forum, where can you get technical about religion?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am well aware of how many Western atheists and agnostics redefine Zen and Buddhism from religion to philosophy in order to make reality fit their assumptions about it. Yet, the fact remains that Zen no more resembles the Western philosophical tradition than it resembles Christian theology. It's a religion.

From Wikipedia: 'Buddhism (Pali/Sanskrit: बौद्ध धर्म Buddha Dharma) is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one")'.

In other words; There are more than one view of this.

Your claim is rendered invalid by the fact some Buddhists and some (almost all) Zen practitioners do not postulate unobservable "forces of some kind".

What about the concept of "Buddha nature" that permeates all of existence? I am aware that not all Buddhists see it as "supernatural", but if it is not a part of observable reality then its claim is as unsubstantiated as that of a god or gods, which means that it fits nicely into the category I described.