Should be ought be faith

Almost boagie, but not quite. Should be, ought be + faith = I think it is. Faith, that is true faith, is never about stating anything that is unprovable as fact. I know many others would disagree with this. Some believe that blind faith is the only true faith, that we shouldn't think about it, we should just say that we know that it is true, and that saying that we only think that it is true is a weakness. But, quite simply, those people are delusional. I wouldn't link myself to them in any fashion, but I won't give up my faith because of their delusional state of belief any quicker than I will for a doubter's lack of belief. I simply don't see it as unreasonable to say, "I don't know what the truth is, but I think this is the truth..."

For some people, maybe.

Faith is a word that has a variety of uses, even in religious contexts. As always, when the topic is religion and philosophy, if you are unwilling to take into account the nuances of the subject, you're wasting time.

If we take faith as the trust an individual has in compassion, then faith is a statement of what man ought to do given the nature of reality. So, in this sense, faith is not a dream that tries to ignore reality, but an ideal to be pursued because of reality. Man is usually a brutal beast, but he can be compassionate.

Solace,

Well I certainly cannot argue with that, being and being in the world is a mystery for us all. I just can not in all honest say that I believe some ancient text that states that supernatural occurances happen in this given time, and I believe a supernatural being came down to earth to save humanity. Yours is a more reasoned response to the mystery, personally I think spirituality should embrace the wonder. I guess I would classify myself as a pantheist, it is a lot less problematic.

Didymos Thomas,

I suppose if following a given spiritual displine increases ones compassion that says a lot in its favour, but I don't believe it necessary to buy into a host of absurd statement about the supernatural. I guess we are in disagreement about the basic nature of man, it is this nature that created all the religions to begin with and to my way to thinking, compassion is innate.

Absolutely. Somewhere along the way religion lost its wonder for what can be and started making things what is. It stopped asking questions and started making unverified and unverifiable answers. Essentially, it lost its purpose for being what it was to begin with, and became something that it was never intended to be. So we have what we have today; religions that care more about the present answer than about yesterday's question. And half the time the answer turns out to be to a question that was never even asked.

Solace,

We are not so very far apart in our beliefs then, from what you have stated above, personally I get more of a spiritual feeling from looking at the Milkyway on a dark country night then I could from any cathedral. With wonder like this comes the feeling of the sublime. I might ask you why are you not a pantheist, wonder is alive and well in this approach, no claims of the certainty of knowledge reguarding the orgins of the earth and being.

You're right - one does not have to accept absurd spiritual claims in order to cultivate compassion. I would argue that absurd spiritual notions will only distract a spiritual practitioner from cultivating compassion.

Compassion is natural to man, but generally in very limited amounts. You have even argued that all human action is selfish, that is, not compassionate. Most human action is selfish. Compassion, like any other good habit, is something that needs to be practiced. For example, music is innate to man, but to be a decent musician you have to practice.



Me too. I've seen beautiful cathedrals all over my own country and in Europe, but none can compare to the beauty of nature. At least in my eyes.

Didymos Thomas,

"You have even argued that all human action is selfish, that is, not compassionate." Yes it is true that functionallly man cannot act against his own will and so in action he is fullfilling the demands of his will. Campassion being the source of all morality in that this same principle of selfish action is expanded in the recognition of the self in others. I might add that recognizing the self in other creatures is also the source of compassion towards animals. I personally have never run into another explanation of the source of compassion that made as much sense. Your point though about compassion taking practice is well taken, indeed if the environment is a threating one it is difficult for compassion to manifeast.

It seems the issue of selfishness is a matter of how we define the word. Material for another thread.

You make a good point about environment, which is extremely influential. I do think that any environment can be overcome with practice, however difficult. And thus the value of faith (in this particular context); in difficult circumstances, practicing compassion is a burden. The greater trust or faith you have in compassion, a trust ideally gained the same way the trust of a friend builds, the better prepared you are to practice compassion under trying circumstance.

I think that somewhere along the way the compassionate have become replaced by the passionate. Religions made the mistake of putting those passionate to their faith above those who were compassionate to the needs of people who were outside their faith. And gradually the distance between the two groups grew and, in some cases, even fractured. So that now we look at the structure of just about any organized religion and find that the ones at the top are, like the song said, "so heavenly minded that they're no earthly good", while a few who have no position or influence try their best to help whomever they can.