Which came First, Faith or ?

"It is as it is." - Edward III

0 Replies

Uh, what's reality?

0 Replies

First came social action, then came language to mediate and coordinate such action. That mediation segmented "the world" into "actors" and "objects" and this segmentation is what we call "reality".

Since we belong to different social groups which evolve lingusitic variations, such "reality" is relative,in flux and constantly subject to revision to meet the needs of evolving cooperative efforts. Some types of social groups evoke an actor called "a deity" which has "overall control in the realm of action". This concept is what we mean by (religious) faith from which flow particular parochial versions of "reality". These tend to be sociopathic because they are absolutist and entrenched rather than relative and flexible.

0 Replies

Reality is based largely on perception and that varies from person to person; someone who is color blind has a different perception/reality of the film Fantasia than someone who can see all the colors.

0 Replies

First came the beginning of sentient cognition, and with it, FUD (Fear, Uncetainty, and Doubt). Superstition developed therefrom, spawning faith. The capacity of ignorance to reinforce itself secured for - and ensures - faith an enduring role in the saga of humankind. Well demonstrated is that knowledge and reason are of little importance to or impact on those comforted by the irrational.

0 Replies

timber wrote:

Well demonstrated is that knowledge and reason are of little importance to or impact on those comforted by the irrational.

Stands to reason that those who are frightened by the irrational seek comfort from the irrational, lest their bubble burst. The same holds true the other way around I think.

0 Replies

BlaiseDaley wrote:

Uh, what's reality?

Definitions Merriam Webster
Reality: (n) 1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs *his dream became a reality* (2) : the totality of real things and events *trying to escape from reality* b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily3 : *reality TV*
-in reality : in actual fact

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

First came social action, then came language to mediate and coordinate such action. That mediation segmented "the world" into "actors" and "objects" and this segmentation is what we call "reality".

Since we belong to different social groups which evolve lingusitic variations, such "reality" is relative,in flux and constantly subject to revision to meet the needs of evolving cooperative efforts. Some types of social groups evoke an actor called "a deity" which has "overall control in the realm of action". This concept is what we mean by (religious) faith from which flow particular parochial versions of "reality". These tend to be sociopathic because they are absolutist and entrenched rather than relative and flexible.

So from your opinion reality is born from faith or what has come to believe? Or faith came first then what is known as reality?

0 Replies

BlaiseDaley wrote:

Reality is based largely on perception and that varies from person to person; someone who is color blind has a different perception/reality of the film Fantasia than someone who can see all the colors.

Therefore what is a rock to one person may be seen as a pillow by another. Which then means that if that person is hit by that rock it will not hurt because in his reality it is a pillow. Which then means that One was somehow able to change the composition of that rock through their perception? Which then means that reality is born of faith? Is that what you are trying to say?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

First came the beginning of sentient cognition, and with it, FUD (Fear, Uncetainty, and Doubt). Superstition developed therefrom, spawning faith. The capacity of ignorance to reinforce itself secured for - and ensures - faith an enduring role in the saga of humankind. Well demonstrated is that knowledge and reason are of little importance to or impact on those comforted by the irrational.

So then what you are saying is that what came first is some sort of reality albeit false, which then spawned or birthed some false creature called faith?

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
First came the beginning of sentient cognition, and with it, FUD (Fear, Uncetainty, and Doubt). Superstition developed therefrom, spawning faith. The capacity of ignorance to reinforce itself secured for - and ensures - faith an enduring role in the saga of humankind. Well demonstrated is that knowledge and reason are of little importance to or impact on those comforted by the irrational.

So then what you are saying is that what came first is some sort of reality albeit false,

Nope, you're projecting. Reality is an absolute, subject to no qualifier, independent of perception; reality incontravertably simply IS. Irrespective of how or by whom perceived or regarded, reality is imutable, concrete, unconditional. What "came first" was the beginning of sentient cognition, the ability to assimilate, correlate, appraise, and analyze data input with aim and effect not only of acting thereupon but also of abstracting from that data's relationship with other data conceptual constructs based thereon; contemplative thought.

Quote:

which then spawned or birthed some false creature called faith?

Well, kinda-sorta, I s'pose. Having no basis from which to assess data in light of unavailable discovery and learning, while yet having an inate need or desire to understand, folks proposed and embraced fanciful assumptions, projections, seeking to explain (thereby gaining some measure of control over) that unexplained by contemporary knowledge, understanding, and technology. Knowledge and understanding of reality is irrelevant to faith; the key property and sole function of faith is comfort, it is an imagined shield from the real unknown.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

Knowledge and understanding of reality is irrelevant to faith; the key property and sole function of faith is comfort, it is an imagined shield from the real unknown.

But aren't knowledge and understanding of reality direct products of faith?
Faith might be seen as institutionalised guesses and knowledge the continual refinement of those guesses into closer and closer congruence with reality but a reality only described by the language of the faith and the guesses and the congruence being, in the limit, unrealisable and that is a reality too.

If FUD led to incomplete knowledge (irrational and superstitious if you like) and then to more rational knowledge with faith bridging the gap then faith has an important role until complete knowledge is obtained and is a necessity to the growth of knowledge.

One might assume that for FUD (and faith) to disappear knowledge would have to be complete and that the capacity for the growth of knowledge towards completion will disappear once the mainsprings (FUD and faith) disappear. That would explain the intransigent, stubborn, self righteous pedanticism of the faithless because also disappearing would be FUD.

Perhaps the American movie industry, by linking FUD to weakness and its opposite to sexiness (John Wayne et al) for political reasons has resulted in a fear (who doesn't want to be sexy) of exhibiting signs of FUD and if this fear over-rides the natural fear of the unknown it could be classed as "perverted" unless there is no unknown or there is no fear of it. The priest persuades Cagney to go to the chair as a coward doesn't he? Cagney was intending doing a Gary Gilmore who was on a suicide mission. Cagney was of course acting but the scriptwriter was real enough.

Thus fear of exhibiting fear, uncertainty and doubt would have a perverted tone and possibly suicidal tendencies which may well be repressed into the subconscious by exhibitions of fearlessness, certainty and the faith that knowledge can become complete and, as evidence to the contrary is all around, this would cause exaggerated denial mechanisms which would render the victim anti-social in settings where people have the normal and evolved quantities of FUD. Such people would then obviously congregate together for comfort and even develop their own language and networks and seek to get everybody down into the hole they are in where those established in the hole can boss them around.

The statement-

Quote:

Knowledge and understanding of reality is irrelevant to faith; the key property and sole function of faith is comfort, it is an imagined shield from the real unknown.

might be valid if "faith" is replaced by "faithlessness". In which case the fear might be a fear of not being in control, bossing people and animals and things, or a fear of admitting that fear of the unknown is quite natural and we have evolved with it intact and thus that the absence of this fear is perverted.

Just so, faith comforts those with a fear of the unknown and faithlessness comforts those with a fear of loss of control or admitting they are anti-social or both. To not seek comfort is the essence of the ascetic and can result if taken seriously in self-punishment such as bread and water diets, hair shirts and cold beds and other more advanced techniques which some sophisticated city ladies have found it profitable and easy to provide the conditions for. Both are an imagined shield from the real unknown, which is the Self. "Know thyself", the man said.

Quote:

Reality is an absolute, subject to no qualifier, independent of perception; reality incontravertably simply IS.

Reality, from a human perspective, has no existence without the language, and the concepts derived from language, to describe it. From a non-human perspective what would it matter?

0 Replies

We all look out our own little perceptual windows, into the land of reality.
Some have clearer windows than others.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Nope, you're projecting. Reality is an absolute, subject to no qualifier, independent of perception; reality incontravertably simply IS. Irrespective of how or by whom perceived or regarded, reality is imutable, concrete, unconditional. What "came first" was the beginning of sentient cognition, the ability to assimilate, correlate, appraise, and analyze data input with aim and effect not only of acting thereupon but also of abstracting from that data's relationship with other data conceptual constructs based thereon; contemplative thought.

Okay we agree. Reality is independent of faith, which then means that it came first?

timberlandko wrote:

Knowledge and understanding of reality is irrelevant to faith; the key property and sole function of faith is comfort, it is an imagined shield from the real unknown.

This is where you are greatly mistaken. Some people can choose to have faith in what they have no knowledge or understanding of. But to categorize all faith as being derived by individuals who had or have no knowledge and understanding of reality is absolutely wrong. Faith is based on reality. Some may be based on false reality but reality non the less

The faith that an individual has in a doctor is based on reality. The reality is that doctors are able to cure diseases. The faith that you have in brushing your teeth is based on reality. The reality is if you don't take care of your teeth they will decay faster and your breath will smell worse.

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Nope, you're projecting. Reality is an absolute, subject to no qualifier, independent of perception; reality incontravertably simply IS. Irrespective of how or by whom perceived or regarded, reality is imutable, concrete, unconditional. What "came first" was the beginning of sentient cognition, the ability to assimilate, correlate, appraise, and analyze data input with aim and effect not only of acting thereupon but also of abstracting from that data's relationship with other data conceptual constructs based thereon; contemplative thought.

Okay we agree. Reality is independent of faith, which then means that it came first?

timberlandko wrote:
Knowledge and understanding of reality is irrelevant to faith; the key property and sole function of faith is comfort, it is an imagined shield from the real unknown.

This is where you are greatly mistaken. Some people can choose to have faith in what they have no knowledge or understanding of. But to categorize all faith as being derived by individuals who had or have no knowledge and understanding of reality is absolutely wrong. Faith is based on reality. Some may be based on false reality but reality non the less

Sorry, partner, its your error - reality is subject to no qualifier, it simply is, it cannot be "false" - the very concept of "false reality" is absurd, an oxymoron, irresolvable, a paradox, an irresolvable conundrum, self cancelling, meaningless.

Quote:

The faith that an individual has in a doctor is based on reality. The reality is that doctors are able to cure diseases. The faith that you have in brushing your teeth is based on reality. The reality is if you don't take care of your teeth they will decay faster and your breath will smell worse.

Here you illustrate the absurdity of your proposition. The "faith" to which you allude in your examples is based on reasonable expectation of future events conforming to observed and verified prior practice. That is rational assumptive projection deriving from concrete, independently verifiable, readilly duplicable, multiply cross-corroboratable experience. No such concretely experiential basis pertains to religious faith, which by definition perforce is irrational as ultimately foundational to religious faith is the supernatural, a thing, condition, or state of being never observed, beyond observation, unsupported by any evidence.

Now mind you, that is not to say there is no such thing as the supernatural, nor is it to say there may be no god or gods, it simply is to say there is no evidence of such, no rational, objective, evidence-supported, independently verifiable, reproducible, cross-corroborative basis from which to assert there may be.

I submit that religious faith and superstition cannot be differentiated from one another in objective, academically sound, forensically valid manner. That is not a belief, it is not an assumption, not a preference, nor a projection, it is a fact, based on observation, not faith. It is real.

0 Replies

timber-

You know very well timber that I have already differentiated religion and superstition. They may have overlapping frontiers to the unobservant but they are not the same.They can be said to be opposites in a lot of cases.
Self as object would be superstion. Other, the not self, as object is religious.

I agree that some religious practice would come under the definition of superstition and possibly a great deal in some heretical positions. But to continue conflating the two is obstinate and can only be to shore up previous error.

0 Replies

Reality came first. Reality is the universe which is the source of the sensory data that we filter and interpret to form a personal picture of our world and the denizens therof. We may falsely perceive or interpret reality, but reality itself cannot by definition be "false."

Faith is a culturally-approved rationalization for modifying our perceptions/interpretations of stark reality into a kinder, gentler version that is more comfortable to deal with.

0 Replies

I too depart from timber's notion of "absolute reality". The argument against "naive realism" is that perception is active not passive. Or as Heisenberg said "We never observe "the world" only the results of our observation activities" (paraphrase). It follows that "absolute reality" is a metaphysical abstraction. What we have instead are highly subscribed functional versions of "current reality" from "science", and hotly disputed different versons of a mythical "absolute reality" from religionists which have a limited local function of providing a psychological insurance policy against the fears of a meaningless existence or anticipated mortality.

0 Replies

But timber is tough.

He can stand up to-

Quote:

meaningless existence or anticipated mortality.

even when it's in his bathroom mirror. timber needs no comforts. He considers them akin to dummies. (Comforters I believe Americans call them.) He narrows his eyes, grits his teeth and stiffens his upper lip. It is quite admirable realistically.

0 Replies

Which came First, Faith or ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know