Let's discuss this thing called "FAITH!"

faith
Good points, Trespassers Will. I see that your reference to a husband's "blind" trust in his wife's fidelity is much like my notion of "faith" as an attitude toward Reality, that it is ULTIMATELY right and o.k.. Notice the upper case word. Relatively speaking things may not be right and o.k.--relative that is to our little biases, desires and interests.

0 Replies

Re: faith

JLNobody wrote:

Good points, Trespassers Will. I see that your reference to a husband's "blind" trust in his wife's fidelity is much like my notion of "faith" as an attitude toward Reality, that it is ULTIMATELY right and o.k.. Notice the upper case word. Relatively speaking things may not be right and o.k.--relative that is to our little biases, desires and interests.

JLN - It may just be that it is so late here, but I am having a hard time following where you want to lead. Can you give me an example or describe what you mean in another way? (Alternatively you could just tell me I'm dense! I promise not to take offense or consider it a personal attack. :wink: )

By the way, I like your sig quote. It reminds me of something I heard (but for which I can't offer an attribution): "It is not the absence of doing evil that makes one good; it is the absence of doing good that makes one evil."

0 Replies

faith
Trespassers Will, I agree completely that just because faith is blind, that does not make it bad. The faith I talk about--an attitude toward ultimate reality is also blind. Both may be good insofar as they are psychologically "nutritious," so far as they help people cope with or appreciate their lives, with all its pains, woes, and insecurities.
I also like your quotation. But this is more complicated than it appears: "doing good" can often be an expression of one's need for power over others. But on the whole I agree that it's better to do good than bad, even though one never knows if their good intentions may not result in unintended negative results. Not doing good--i.e., not trying to bring about benefits for one's fellow humans--when one can does seem to me to be a form of ethical irresponsibility and social immaturity.
Now the answer to your question is harder to articulate. I say that Reality (and don't ask me what I mean by that) is ULTIMATELY good, but not necessarily so at a "relative" level. By this I mean the following: I, for example, do not want to die but I also perceive that my death is good in that it is part of a universal "plan" (not literally a plan; that would require a planner) or Divine Pattern. It is my "little mind" (my ego-dominated perspective) that wants immortality (that considers death to be ultimately bad). But aside from the fact the attainment of immortality is impossible and the desire for it a guarantee of frustration, it would actually be, if attained, a profound misery. Consider the misery of not being able to die of having no hope for the peace of being as we were before we were born. When people realize the "naturalness" and Divine Necessity of their death, they are taking what may be called a "big mind" (or egoless) perspective. They still don't want to die because their egos want to be immortal, but they also know at another level that it is O.K. to do so.
I know this is unsatisfactory and full of quasi-religious notions like "divine" and zennish notions like big and little mind, but it's the best I can conjure right now.

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

Frank - I don't think anyone is denying that faith is an act of blind acceptance. I think the difference is that to the believer, the act of blind acceptance in-and-of itself has value....That faith is blind does not make it bad, it just makes it faith.

COMMENT:

Two things:

One, I have known and debated many, many, many people who most assuredly do deny that "faith" is an act of "blind acceptance." So often, that I thought it necessary to preface concern about this in my introductory comments.

Two, I did not say that faith was bad.

I merely mentioned that "faith" is a much over-rated human enterprise.

Blind acceptance is simply not something to crow about -- especially in the religious context.

Or at least, that is my opinion.

QUESTION FOR THE "FAITHFUL" AMONG US:

Do you agree that your "faith" is "blind acceptance?"

0 Replies

dys: Just pretend you are not home, it works for me!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

trespassers will wrote:
Frank - I don't think anyone is denying that faith is an act of blind acceptance. I think the difference is that to the believer, the act of blind acceptance in-and-of itself has value....That faith is blind does not make it bad, it just makes it faith.

COMMENT:

Two things:

One, I have known and debated many, many, many people who most assuredly do deny that "faith" is an act of "blind acceptance." So often, that I thought it necessary to preface concern about this in my introductory comments.

Two, I did not say that faith was bad.

I merely mentioned that "faith" is a much over-rated human enterprise.

Blind acceptance is simply not something to crow about -- especially in the religious context.

Or at least, that is my opinion.

QUESTION FOR THE "FAITHFUL" AMONG US:

Do you agree that your "faith" is "blind acceptance?"

It seems like you are looking for someone to argue this point. While I don't doubt some people disagree, my point was that I have not seen any in here who seem to do so.

0 Replies

If faith is overrated - why are they now thinking it is some benefit in medicine and healing????

0 Replies

Ok maybe some think this it blind for me not.

Quote:

Reason cannot produce faith. Faith is always consistent with reason, yet reason cannot produce faith, in a Spiritual way of thinking. Faith sortof implies an assurance (which is another word for evidence, it may be hard to tell the difference between them - a big problem in all discussions our Faith at A2K) that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me. It is by this faith we are saved, justified, and sanctified.

"Think and let think" John Wesley
"If we cannot think alike, at least we may love alike" and "Can anything but love beget love?" John Wesley

0 Replies

faith
Husker, good rhetorical question. But the placebo effects of "faith" suggests no more than the notion that religious belief is comparable to a sugar pill--IMHO.

0 Replies

Quote:

David A. Gershaw, Ph.D.

placebo effect and psychotherapy

0 Replies

Not sure of where you think you are going with all that, Husker, but with all the respect in the world, it really doesn't back up your position -- nor does it argue against what I am saying.

If a person has "faith" (blindly accepts) that a particular thing will help him/her -- it appears that the person will be helped regardless of whether the thing the pesron "has faith in" has any real value or not.

If you think a sugar pill will cure your headache -- it has a better chance of curing it than if you think it won't.

But so what!

I certainly am not discussing whether having faith (blindly accepting) something does or does not result in benefit. I will freely acknowledge that many, many people find lots of comfort and other benefits in "faith in God."

But the question is not whether it can have a positive effect or not -- the quesion is: Is "having faith that there is a God" -- any different from "blindly accepting" that there is a God?

As for the other, really irrelevent thing that you raised, certainly here can be results from blind acceptance.

Sort of like the results obtained by witch doctors or Voodoo practitioners. The people who blindly accept (have faith) that the witch doctor or Voodoo priest or priestess can cause them evil -- have evil come their way.

But the question remains:

Is "faith" merely "blind acceptance" like I, and Tresspasser, say it is?

0 Replies

faith
So, Husker, you and Dr. Gershaw both believe that the main rationale (or justification) of religious faith is its healing function. Throughout the "anthropological" world and thoughout history the most "primitive" religions were actually medical institutions, and its shamans or curanderos were the precursors of priests. Now that scientific medicine has evolved, that rationale for religious belief has pretty much declined. But it is not gone completely: there are still religion-based medical systems, as in "Indian" rural Mexico, and the placebo oriented mind-body movement in western medicine ("psycho-neural-immunology"?),which I DO think has considerable merit. But I thought we were talking about the philosophical validity of religious faith, not the placebo effect of faith on medicine. And, by the way, I do NOT think that the placebo effect is ALWAYS and JUST a form of "fooling oneself."

0 Replies

faith
Frank, I posted my last message before reading yours. Good point, that vicitms of sorcerers WILL often die IF they know that they have been hexed. This phenomenon of "voodoo death" has been well documented in the anthropological literature. And it shows that "faith" can be a negative as well as positive phenomenon in terms of its placebo power.

0 Replies

faith
By the way, Husker, our repudiation of your attempt to validate "blind faith" by means of the placebo effect of any "faith" was not intended, I hope you know, as a critique of YOU. Indeed, I thought your infusion of that factor into the debate was a clever ploy and enjoyed very much trying to deal with it.
Also, primitive man is not accurately described as one who practiced only blind faith. He probably reasoned as well as the man on the street does in modern times. He even shows evidence of clever philosophical speculation. Science and philosophy are not quantum departures from his thinking; they are, I think, improvements on it, just as the thinking of the 27th century will have been built--as improvement--upon ours. I just hope they will not accuse us of resting solely on blind faith.

0 Replies

A humble confidence you have in something you can't prove to others.

0 Replies

If both faith and justice are blind, where do we stand, exactly?

0 Replies

Under the thumb of the capitalists!!!!

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

A humble confidence you have in something you can't prove to others.

If I could, I would prevail upon you to expand on this notion -- fleshing it out a bit, if you would.

My initial reaction was negative for two major reasons:

1) Very often "faith" is expressed in ways that are anything but "humble."

2) The fact that you cannot "prove" it to others is interesting, but for the most part (and I think always) the stuff that falls under faith...

...you cannot prove to yourself either.

No matter how you look at it, "faith" ends up being insistence (to one degree or another) that a guess about some unknown -- is correct.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

CerealKiller wrote:
A humble confidence you have in something you can't prove to others.

If I could, I would prevail upon you to expand on this notion -- fleshing it out a bit, if you would.

My initial reaction was negative for two major reasons:

1) Very often "faith" is expressed in ways that are anything but "humble."

2) The fact that you cannot "prove" it to others is interesting, but for the most part (and I think always) the stuff that falls under faith...

...you cannot prove to yourself either.

No matter how you look at it, "faith" ends up being insistence (to one degree or another) that a guess about some unknown -- is correct.

Through prayer I seek true faith. Yes there are those who express their faith in anything but humble ways but I have to question whether this is true faith or a mask they wear to hide their insecurities.

I can't prove my faith to others intellectually, but I can prove my faith to myself and for myself spiritually through sincere prayer in quiet humble ways. I don't need to proclaim my way is the right way or my way is the only way to others, just that my way is the right Way for me.

My experience has been that in quiet times is when I've come to know the Lord.

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
A humble confidence you have in something you can't prove to others.

If I could, I would prevail upon you to expand on this notion -- fleshing it out a bit, if you would.

My initial reaction was negative for two major reasons:

1) Very often "faith" is expressed in ways that are anything but "humble."

2) The fact that you cannot "prove" it to others is interesting, but for the most part (and I think always) the stuff that falls under faith...

...you cannot prove to yourself either.

No matter how you look at it, "faith" ends up being insistence (to one degree or another) that a guess about some unknown -- is correct.

Through prayer I seek true faith. Yes there are those who express their faith in anything but humble ways but I have to question whether this is true faith or a mask they wear to hide their insecurities.

Sounds to me as though you are saying that only people who conduct themselves like you are expressing "true faith."

Kinda weird. Isn't there something about avoiding "pride" in your religion.

Quote:

I can't prove my faith to others intellectually, but I can prove my faith to myself and for myself spiritually through sincere prayer in quiet humble ways.

Prove it???

What do you suppose it is that you would have to "prove" it?

If you are guessing that there is a God-- and you express "faith" in that guess -- that is all there is to it.

A guy could guess that he can teach an elephant to pole vault -- and have "faith" in that guess. He does not have to train an elephant -- nor does he have to get the elephant to pole vault -- in order to establish that he has faith.

"Faith" is simply insisting that a guess is correct. No big deal at all.

Quote:

I don't need to proclaim my way is the right way or my way is the only way to others, just that my way is the right Way for me.

I agree with you there, Bob. And I hope you don't think I am trying to make you wrong in this discussion. We are just discussing the nature of "faith" right now. Most people really do not look at what it actually is -- and use it almost as a throw away word.

Quote:

My experience has been that in quiet times is when I've come to know the Lord.

Whatever! I would like to ask you this question, though:

Since you are saying that in quiet times you have come to know the Lord -- just how do you tell whether or not you are deluding yourself about this?

How do you know it is really "the Lord" and not just your imagination?

0 Replies

Let's discuss this thing called "FAITH!"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know