What is Faith?

[osgart]

Concepts are real in the sense of being mental objects. That means they are material due to living brains processing ideas with electrochemical phenomenon.

There are mice that exist in reality. The word "mouse" is the English symbol for this critter. I can say "mouse" and others will undestand this concept, and they know it represents a real thing. Then I can say "Mickey Mouse" and know this isn't a natural thing, but an idea that Walt Disney invented as inspired from actual mice. It can be represented in drawings, cartoons, and people in costumes. So to describe what is real in all this is dependent on the detail, and understanding of language and contexts. It's semiotics.

That's the claim, now how is that demonstrated? Where do I go to see this demonstrated?

Concepts define realities that exist, such as to care.

 

[CG Didymus]

So just the vague and general notions that are popular among religions.

There's lots of different God and Goddesses and concepts of God. The only important one in this thread is how do Baha'is define God. But if it's the real definition of God, then all the others are false. The problem then is... is the Baha'i concept of God really true? Who knows? To believe it, we have to believe what their prophet said as being the absolute truth. Can we say that? Or are there things that he said that are questionable? I think there is. So, some of us have our doubts about him really being sent by this invisible God of theirs.

And Baha'is now for two or so years haven't been able to provide satisfactory answers to our questions. So, they believe it. They have enough "evidence" to prove it to themselves. But, because we are blind to the "truth" of that evidence, we can't see it? That's like the emperor's new clothes in reverse. The kid that saw he was naked was blind to the fact that the emperor was wearing clothes... invisible clothes that could be seen only by those that believed. And who was really blind?

But again, I acknowledge, it works for them. But that doesn't make it true.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yet you go no further in explaining how I am blind. You can't explain the skill you claim is required. You don't explain a process by using this skill. This is what a bluff looks like.

This is one of their beliefs that I question...

"The Manifestations of God reflect divine attributes, which are creations of God made for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, onto the physical plane of existence.[6] All physical beings reflect at least one of these attributes, and the human soul can potentially reflect all of them.[7] Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Baháʼí Faith in the first half of the 20th century, described God as inaccessible, omniscient, almighty, personal, and rational, and rejected pantheistic, anthropomorphic and incarnationist beliefs.[2]"​

​

Of course, they are a little vague on who is and who's not a manifestation, but I've seen places where Adam and Noah are included. They, I believe, don't fit the definition of being a manifestation. Even Moses and Abraham don't. They too, had faults and were not "perfectly" polished mirrors reflecting God. Then it's questionable whether Buddha ever taught that there was a God, and then, even if it did, was it the God described by the Baha'is or a God like the ones taught in Hinduism?

Baha'is have gone back and retrofitted the other religions and their beliefs to fit into the Baha'i beliefs. And again, that works for them, but for anyone that studies religion for what they were and what they really taught and believed, would they agree with the Baha'is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All I notice is you being vague as if there's something to hide. Not my problem to figure out what you mean. It could be asomething you're still working on, and that has nothing to do with me. I like debate when others are clear in what they mean, because I can engage. I am indiffeent to being dragged into someone elses mental universe and having to fill in the blanks.

Valid is connected to justification. Now it is not written by me. Rather it is by Agrippa the skeptic.
So since you are so well trained in critical thinking, you already know what I am talking about.

I suspect Ella S knows.

 

[idea]

"It's not heaven to me unless everyone is there"

Even Hitler, Genghis Khan, Charles Manson, etc?

Yes. I believe it was their environment which caused them to act as they did. It is the fault of those around them as much as it is their fault.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do like @Trailblazer as a person, but she cannot handle corrections when she is shown to be wrong when debating. She will repeat the same logical errors and I could see it is hopeless so I quit trying to help her to see the flaws in her reasoning. Such attempts were viewed as a personal attack.

Right. I've considered limiting my responses as there is no breaking through. I've used the experience to explore various techniques to "getting through to someone" but nothing works.

I love debating/arguing/discussing the claims and beliefs of the Baha'is. I like the threads started by Baha'is because they almost always stir up some controversy. But with TB, I had to stop responding to her directly. It's been too much of the same stuff. And she, I'm sure felt the same way about me. In fact, I think several Baha'is are tired of me. It seems as though one of them has stopped responding to my posts. But as long as they keep putting out their beliefs/claims as being true, I will keep questioning those beliefs and claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love debating/arguing/discussing the claims and beliefs of the Baha'is. I like the threads started by Baha'is because they almost always stir up some controversy. But with TB, I had to stop responding to her directly. It's been too much of the same stuff. And she, I'm sure felt the same way about me. In fact, I think several Baha'is are tired of me. It seems as though one of them has stopped responding to my posts. But as long as they keep putting out their beliefs/claims as being true, I will keep questioning those beliefs and claims.

I got tired of their "this is true, prove me wrong" attitude when of course the burden of proof is upon a person claiming that something is true. None of them seem to understand that concept.

 

[CG Didymus]

I get along with people just fine, unless they misbehave..
..regardless of faith.

So, no matter what their religious beliefs may be, you are okay with them and can get along with them? Unless they misbehave? What do they have to do for you to consider them to be misbehaving?

 

[CG Didymus]

I got tired of their "this is true, prove me wrong" attitude when of course the burden of proof is upon a person claiming that something is true. None of them seem to understand that concept.

One of my complaints about the Baha'is is that they are supposed to be teaching about unity... to be finding the things we all have in common and focus on those. But, in reality, they are just as divisive as any of the other proselytizing religions. Why would they argue with Atheists about God being real when they know they can't prove it? Oh, but I forgot... They do have proof. Their prophet is the proof. And how do they prove he's telling the truth about his claims? Oh yeah, his character, his mission, his writings. Which to me still sounds like... because he said so.

Take care, obviously you haven't missed much... Same old arguments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do like @Trailblazer as a person

She's crossed a line with me recently referring to me twice as a sidekick. I don't tolerate or forgive disrespect unless it is followed immediately by an expression of remorse. Anybody can have a bad day and let something they didn't mean slip, but those people are unhappy about having offended another and want to control the damage immediately.

she cannot handle corrections when she is shown to be wrong when debating

She needs to be right despite accusing others of that, which she calls ego in them.

I've used the experience to explore various techniques to "getting through to someone" but nothing works.

That's one of the pleasures of this activity. I used to refer to it as humanist school, where humanists can come to learn from one another - the lecture part - and where they can examine the alternatives - the lab. I call that second part tapping the glass. It involves a kind of cognitive variation of empathy, but for the thoughts of others rather than their feelings. One tries to imagine what must be the case in the mind of another to hold the thoughts expressed, or in other words, how much of myself would need to be changed for me to hold such thoughts - to see things that way.

I think several Baha'is are tired of me

I think most RF Baha'i participating in these threads in the last year or two are tired of all non-Baha'is. None of them seem to like anybody who challenged their claims, and most become emotional and defensive in the process, all the while insisting that they have the answer to world unity. This is the value of the lab section of humanism school. This denomination is distinct from all of the others, but rather homogeneous in the RF sample.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, and so do all other humans than the special one. Are you the special one?

I accepted that my religion is probably not true with a heavy heart. It was against my bias and wishful thinking. Does this make me special?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accepted that my religion is probably not true with a heavy heart. It was against my bias and wishful thinking. Does this make me special?

No, wise.

 

[PearlSeeker]

All innovation in all walks of life starts with faith. Innovation often begins with a seed idea. It rarely begins with something tangible, that the doubter can see with their eyes or sense with their five sense. It is not until the innovation, takes on form in physical reality, so the doubter can see it and touch it, do the doubters suddenly believe. Faith has to dumb down, to be seen by those, without the gift of inner vision.

When Einstein developed his theories of Relativity, he had to first develop the math needed to explain his unique inner vision of space and time. Math allowed a way for some scientists to see his idea, based on their own faith in the infallible logic of math. Those who could not follow the new math, would still doubt his theory, since they needed to see a demonstration, in a practical and tangible way. To them only seeing was believing. So what was needed, was a further dumb down, to create hard experiments, that would allow even those, without inner vision, to also see. The innovator needs very little to know, but to get others on board, much more work was needed.

Next, to reach the layman, who does not understand base or raw theory, the complexity of math, or the direct experimental data, we often use the prestige of those who can, as a way to tell the layman what to think. This is the final faith and intuitive dumb down; school and media is the ground floor. From this ground floor, one has the tools to become faithful in your own innovation. Many will have good ideas. However, the dumb down process, from inner vision, will often become the rate limiting step, since appealing to all, top to down, is not easy.

There is a saying; paraphrase, that a prophet is without honor in his home town. To people who know you, you are a regular Joe. They have a hard time with raw innovation ideas, since as the masses, they known they need many steps toward reassurance. To them, raw innovation in the hands of Joe, seems too far fetched. The stranger who does not know Joe, can infer extra prestige; bump him up the ladder, from the bottom to the middle, so the innovation is closer to being done.

Mathew 5:11-12; Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.

Innovation can be spooky and trigger the primitive fear of novelty, unless one also has the inner eyes of faith to see. The gift of inner vision is often a curse, if your inner vision sees and projects demons; fear of novelty. There are also good visions that edify, even with humble beginnings; this is it own reward.

Yes, at the beginning of something new and creative is intuition and imagination. But a scientific theory is not always true. It has to be verified or refuted.

This the opposite of dogmatic faith. It's open-mindedness.

 

[F1fan]

That's the claim, now how is that demonstrated? Where do I go to see this demonstrated?

I said a lot of things that are observed. What is your specific question?

Concepts define realities that exist, such as to care.

SOME concepts do. "Care" is a feeling and action, so has a real quality that the word corresponds to. There are many concepts that dont correlate to anything in what we can determine real, gods being an example. There are specific gods that are defined, like Zeus, but at best this is a fictional character in Greek lore. Apart from Gaia there are no gods I am aware of that exist independently of minds.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's to say, if eg God can't be found in the external world then the only manner in which [he] can exist is as a concept or thing imagined by a particular brain.

or read about in a particular book of scriptures.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What about a pair of figure skaters that know each other very well. Wouldn't they be operating on known trust of each other. When you trust someone you know you can depend on them rather than believe it to be so.

Yes. Sometimes trust is knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

All good and fine til you hone in on the abstract phenomenon itself. No one has ever observed a concept, nor a care. They can't be fully explained with physical terminology.

That is because they are not physical. They are derived from the soul, which is the person.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do like @Trailblazer as a person, but she cannot handle corrections when she is shown to be wrong when debating. She will repeat the same logical errors and I could see it is hopeless so I quit trying to help her to see the flaws in her reasoning. Such attempts were viewed as a personal attack.

Yet nobody can point out my logical errors and explain how I committed fallacies.
That is not fair debating when one has no evidence for their accusations.
Nobody goes into a court of law with no evidence.

I do not view anything as a personal attack unless it is a personal attack.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I choose to believe what Baha'u'llah wrote since I believe He speaks for God.
I believe that God inspires people directly and guides them through His inspiration, but that is not the same as speaking to them as He speaks to Messengers, to whom God reveals teachings and laws and His will for humanity in every age.

What do you think for example of Vassula Ryden and Donald Walsch?

 

[F1fan]

This is one of their beliefs that I question...

"The Manifestations of God reflect divine attributes, which are creations of God made for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, onto the physical plane of existence.[6] All physical beings reflect at least one of these attributes, and the human soul can potentially reflect all of them.[7] Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Baháʼí Faith in the first half of the 20th century, described God as inaccessible, omniscient, almighty, personal, and rational, and rejected pantheistic, anthropomorphic and incarnationist beliefs.[2]"​

​

Of course, they are a little vague on who is and who's not a manifestation, but I've seen places where Adam and Noah are included. They, I believe, don't fit the definition of being a manifestation. Even Moses and Abraham don't. They too, had faults and were not "perfectly" polished mirrors reflecting God. Then it's questionable whether Buddha ever taught that there was a God, and then, even if it did, was it the God described by the Baha'is or a God like the ones taught in Hinduism?

Baha'is have gone back and retrofitted the other religions and their beliefs to fit into the Baha'i beliefs. And again, that works for them, but for anyone that studies religion for what they were and what they really taught and believed, would they agree with the Baha'is?

The Baha'i can hijack threads pretty quickly. I don't see their theology very well designed. The writings are poorly written and have such little content that it is tedious to mull through. Baha'u'llah really needed a creative writing class so he could learn to be concise. But even the supernatural claims are so vague and improbable that a mountain of faith is needed to buy into it.

I've noticed a truce between fairly fervent Christians and the Muslim, and they limit their interactions to the narrow set of ideas they agree on. Oddly the Abrahamics believe in a God they can connect with, so a huge disagreement with Baha'i. That is a major issue and I'm surprised more Abrahamics don't argue for their view of God. It could be a realization that all theists are agnostic at the core, and personal belief is hands off at the risk of exposing the self's view.