Author Topic: Faith vs blind faith  (Read 87681 times)

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #950 on: October 22, 2017, 09:40:04 PM »
 

Happy to answer that if you’d like me too, but it’s the wrong question. It’s not “who”, but rather “what status do they attach to them?” that matters. In secular societies no-one claims the values to be revealed words of gods – they’re worked toward bottom up rather than top down, they’re provisional, tentative, subject to change etc. And that it seems to me is key to avoiding the excesses that dogmatic certainty apparently inevitably brings.     
Sounds like sincere moral endeavour of an actual unfeasible not practically existing type.
I was surprised to see you include a "worked toward" as though there is a moral destination. Nice sounding but too vague to tell us anything. Sounds exactly like science and overall side steps the question.......

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #951 on: October 23, 2017, 10:37:42 AM »
ekim,

Quote
Yes, I'm sure that the objectives will appear to be secondary as discussion is most often about organised religion rather than personal transformation and this will suit the power hungry organisers.

That wasn’t the point – it’s more fundamental than that. Either you privilege claims of fact that are articles of “faith” over just guessing or you don’t. 

Quote
To try and answer your second point, I would say that part of the problem is that nobody can seem to define what 'deity' means and the 'bottom up' religious organisers project appropriate qualities upon that term which might correspond to their cause.  An emergent property of this might be a celestial carrot and stick King which a terrestrial ruler can then emulate.  You can see a similar situation with the 'bottom up' method you mention.  The philosopher Karl Marx proposed that religion was the opiate of the masses and from his philosophy a terrestrial Kim Jong-un has emerged with his own brand of opium.  I suspect that in both cases it is the power hungry human ego (self) which has not "transformed" and which corrupts, whether it be religious or political.

The difference I think between top down and bottom up is that some will, as an article of faith, believe there to be a god whose inerrant words are available to us “top down”, while others think we build morality (and aesthetics, and language etc) for ourselves “bottom up”.

You should read the rest of the Marx quite by the way; it’s rather beautiful:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
"Don't make me come down there."

God

SweetPea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
  • John 8:32
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #952 on: October 23, 2017, 11:16:41 AM »
bluehillside....

Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....

                                                        God Hates Religion


    A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.

    The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

    Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

    It is the propensity of man to formulate religion ­ to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!

more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html
                                                                         
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love and of a sound mind ~ 2 Timothy 1:7

floo

  • Guest
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #953 on: October 23, 2017, 11:19:31 AM »
bluehillside....

Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....

                                                        God Hates Religion


    A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.

    The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

    Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

    It is the propensity of man to formulate religion ­ to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!

more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html
                                                                         

That would be amusing if it wasn't such a load of complete nonsense! Christianity is a religion just like any other!

SweetPea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
  • John 8:32
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #954 on: October 23, 2017, 11:26:09 AM »
Floo, read the whole article. As ekim explains in his excellent post #930..... "It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed."
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love and of a sound mind ~ 2 Timothy 1:7

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #955 on: October 23, 2017, 11:31:53 AM »
Sweet Pea,

Quote
Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....

                                                        God Hates Religion


    A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.

    The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

    Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

    It is the propensity of man to formulate religion ­ to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!

more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html

I don't doubt that you're well-intentioned, but why is it worth reading as it just assumes "God" (and apparently a hating one at that) as its premise?

Would you read an article of the musical tastes of leprechauns? Why not?
"Don't make me come down there."

God

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #956 on: October 23, 2017, 12:23:07 PM »
bluehillside....

Religion IS a man-made concept. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.. Jesus Christ is very real. This is well worth a read....

                                                        God Hates Religion


    A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.

    The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

    Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

    It is the propensity of man to formulate religion ­ to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion!

more here: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html
                                                                         

You say: 

'Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behaviour to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the moulds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society'.

How do you substantiate this idea of yours SweetPea, only nobody has managed to do so yet?

The evidence does indicate that the church supports Tottenham Hotspurs with a cockerel on so many of their spires.

ippy

floo

  • Guest
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #957 on: October 23, 2017, 12:24:04 PM »
Floo, read the whole article. As ekim explains in his excellent post #930..... "It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed."

The article, which I have read is complete garbage, it makes assertions about a god which probably doesn't exist, with no evidence to support them. Christianity is a RELIGION created by the unpleasant creep Paul, without his literary overproduction I suspect we would never have heard of the long dead Jesus.

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10396
  • God? She's black.
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #958 on: October 23, 2017, 01:39:07 PM »
Floo locuta est, causa finita est. ::)
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #959 on: October 23, 2017, 01:48:50 PM »
enki,

Quote
I have never been averse to the idea of a person thinking that there is something outside oneself which one feels that they can relate to in some way.

I’m “averse” to it only in the sense that I see no reason think it’s true, but in general terms I agree with sentiment.

Quote
If this results in rituals and practices which stengthen this resolve while leading to a responsible and beneficial effect on the individual then I feel that I have no cause to challenge that individual and their chosen attitudes at all as long as their particular ways do not exhort others to do the same  or try to impose their views on others.

That opening “if” is critical though. What if in instead it leads to say, teaching children that gay relationships are “sinful”? Indeed, what if “the individual” in this case is the teacher who does thereby feel strengthened in his “resolve”? Carrying an idea in your head is in other words one thing, but acting on it has consequences for other people that may actively be harmful.

The problem I think is the status we still afford to religious beliefs in education, in legislature, in the media, in public discourse generally. If instead we treated each religion as a private members’ club just as we do, say, the flat earth society, then whatever the members got from their rituals and sense of community would be just a matter for them and so treated accordingly. That is, when we stop privileging “faith” over just guessing then those who would use that rationale for malign actions would no longer be able to hide behind the respectability given to them by those who use the same rationale for benign ones.       

Quote
For my part, I see myself as an integral part of this world and hence I feel no need to worship anything particularly or subjugate myself in any way. I simply to try to understand myself which includes being aware, taking responsibility for and attempting to minimise what I judge to be my failings and seeking to encourage and act upon what I judge to be my better points. In this I always try to listen to the views of others, as indeed they can be very valuable, but it is my own mind that has to be the final arbiter as to how I develop.

I doubt that this is very much different from what lots of people seek to do, but I can only reiterate that in my case I feel I have no need for any outside agency(i.e. a god) to help me on this path.

As you probably expect, that makes sense to me too.
"Don't make me come down there."

God

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #960 on: October 23, 2017, 01:50:10 PM »

That wasn’t the point – it’s more fundamental than that. Either you privilege claims of fact that are articles of “faith” over just guessing or you don’t.
... or the believer can refrain from making claims, persist with the method proposed by his faith and see if it reveals a fact or truth,  until then 'maintain a noble silence'.
Quote
The difference I think between top down and bottom up is that some will, as an article of faith, believe there to be a god whose inerrant words are available to us “top down”, while others think we build morality (and aesthetics, and language etc) for ourselves “bottom up”.
.... or it could be that both are 'bottom up' because they are projections of human imagination to satisfy particular desires.

Quote
You should read the rest of the Marx quite by the way; it’s rather beautiful:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
... and perhaps now we can replace the word 'religion' with 'communism' or 'consumerism' or 'alcoholism' or 'facebook' etc.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 01:56:05 PM by Nearly Sane »

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #961 on: October 23, 2017, 01:57:25 PM »

ekim,

Quote
... or the believer can refrain from making claims, persist with the method proposed by his faith and see if it reveals a fact or truth,  until then 'maintain a noble silence'.

There isn’t a method (unless you think faith itself to be a method), and nor therefore is there a means to investigate whether you’ve found a “fact or truth” or nothing at all.   
 
Quote
.... or it could be that both are 'bottom up' because they are projections of human imagination to satisfy particular desires.

It seems to me that there’s no “could be” about that at all – of course both are bottom up. What I was talking about though is that there are some who believe that some truths are revealed top down.

Quote
... and perhaps now we can replace the word 'religion' with 'communism' or 'consumerism' or 'alcoholism' or 'facebook' etc.

Dogmatic beliefs of any kind, not just religious ones will tend to lead to bad outcomes I think. 
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back. - Al Swearengen, Deadwood.

Enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3870
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #963 on: October 23, 2017, 02:25:32 PM »
enki,

I’m “averse” to it only in the sense that I see no reason think it’s true, but in general terms I agree with sentiment.

That opening “if” is critical though. What if in instead it leads to say, teaching children that gay relationships are “sinful”? Indeed, what if “the individual” in this case is the teacher who does thereby feel strengthened in his “resolve”? Carrying an idea in your head is in other words one thing, but acting on it has consequences for other people that may actively be harmful.

The problem I think is the status we still afford to religious beliefs in education, in legislature, in the media, in public discourse generally. If instead we treated each religion as a private members’ club just as we do, say, the flat earth society, then whatever the members got from their rituals and sense of community would be just a matter for them and so treated accordingly. That is, when we stop privileging “faith” over just guessing then those who would use that rationale for malign actions would no longer be able to hide behind the respectability given to them by those who use the same rationale for benign ones.       

As you probably expect, that makes sense to me too.

Thanks for the reply, Blue. I completely agree with your sentiments. The 'if' is indeed critical. My judgement would certainly be that a teacher, for instance, attempting to influence his/her pupils in the direction of seeing gay relationships as sinful, would be an instance of exhorting(i.e. putting pressure on) others to think in the same way. As a former teacher who taught many subjects including RE, I was at great pains to show a student teacher for whom I was responsible and who was somewhat of a Christian evangelist, that they had no business whatever to allow their personal views to interfere with the teaching of RE, just as I, as an atheist, should have exactly the same restrictions.

Ideally of course my long standing view is that RE should become part of a much broader subject encompassing ideas and thoughts from many sources which have had strong cultural influences throughout the world.

Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #964 on: October 23, 2017, 02:44:19 PM »

There isn’t a method (unless you think faith itself to be a method), and nor therefore is there a means to investigate whether you’ve found a “fact or truth” or nothing at all.   
 
There are many methods, examples are the Noble 8 fold path of Buddhism, the variety of Yogas in Hindu religions, Jesus' metanoia, meditation .... a quote from Muhammad .... An hour of meditation is worth more than goods deeds done by men and spirits.  Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity.   'Faith', to me, is persistence with a method in the belief that the outcome with be a revelation of an inner 'truth' of a deeper state of being, which may be given different names like heaven, paradise, nirvana, bliss, peace, satchitanada.  The difficulty is that it cannot be presented as an objective fact.  You have to demonstrate it to yourself by being the experimenter, the laboratory and the conclusion of the experiment.  It is also difficult to communicate to others which is why the language of myth is used rather than logic.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #965 on: October 23, 2017, 02:51:23 PM »
ekim

Quote
There are many methods, examples are the Noble 8 fold path of Buddhism, the variety of Yogas in Hindu religions, Jesus' metanoia, meditation .... a quote from Muhammad .... An hour of meditation is worth more than goods deeds done by men and spirits.  Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity.   'Faith', to me, is persistence with a method in the belief that the outcome with be a revelation of an inner 'truth' of a deeper state of being, which may be given different names like heaven, paradise, nirvana, bliss, peace, satchitanada.  The difficulty is that it cannot be presented as an objective fact.  You have to demonstrate it to yourself by being the experimenter, the laboratory and the conclusion of the experiment.  It is also difficult to communicate to others which is why the language of myth is used rather than logic.

This seems to me to be fine as a rationale for an altered mental state, but how would you know whether or not you’d actually identified a “fact or truth” rather than just, well, an altered mental state?

You’re playing here I think with the ambiguity in the terms “fact” and “truth”. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 04:52:00 PM by bluehillside »
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3870
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #966 on: October 23, 2017, 03:06:03 PM »
There are many methods, examples are the Noble 8 fold path of Buddhism, the variety of Yogas in Hindu religions, Jesus' metanoia, meditation .... a quote from Muhammad .... An hour of meditation is worth more than goods deeds done by men and spirits.  Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity.   'Faith', to me, is persistence with a method in the belief that the outcome with be a revelation of an inner 'truth' of a deeper state of being, which may be given different names like heaven, paradise, nirvana, bliss, peace, satchitanada.  The difficulty is that it cannot be presented as an objective fact.  You have to demonstrate it to yourself by being the experimenter, the laboratory and the conclusion of the experiment.  It is also difficult to communicate to others which is why the language of myth is used rather than logic.

Hi Ekim,

It cannot be presented as an objective fact because it doesn't fall into that category. You are absolutely correct in that you can only demonstrate it to yourself, in which case it has to compete with every other 'truth' which can only be demonstrated to yourself, whether any two are contradictory or not. Because of this, anyone's 'inner truth' has equal validity. If we seek to establish any of these 'inner truths' as distinct from the inner workings of the mind, then we have to rely upon some method which can surmount this problem. So far, to my knowledge, none has been found.
Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright

Owlswing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6945
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #967 on: October 23, 2017, 04:44:19 PM »

Floo locuta est, causa finita est. ::)


At least she speaks in English!
The Holy Bible, probably the most diabolical work of fiction ever to be visited upon mankind.

An it harm none, do what you will; an it harm some, do what you must!

Robbie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #968 on: October 23, 2017, 04:52:21 PM »
Indeed.
Floo has spoken, the case is closed, sounds better in Latin though.  More final.
True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,
          What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #969 on: October 23, 2017, 05:08:22 PM »
Sweet Pea,

I don't doubt that you're well-intentioned, but why is it worth reading as it just assumes "God" (and apparently a hating one at that) as its premise?

Would you read an article of the musical tastes of leprechauns? Why not?
What about an article on the musical tastes of an intelligent designer who is independent of the universe he has created?

floo

  • Guest
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #970 on: October 23, 2017, 05:15:47 PM »
At least she speaks in English!

Yes I do, I started talking at an early age and haven't stopped since. ;D

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #971 on: October 23, 2017, 05:24:57 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
What about an article on the musical tastes of an intelligent designer who is independent of the universe he has created?

Do you have an argument for this designer of the universe that doesn't work equally well for leprechauns?
"Don't make me come down there."

God

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #972 on: October 23, 2017, 05:37:51 PM »
ekim

This seems to me to be fine as a rationale for an altered mental state, but how would you know whether or not you’d actually identified a “fact or truth” rather than just, well, an altered mental state?

You’re playing here I think with the ambiguity in the terms “fact” and “truth”.
I'm not sure what you are asking.  Aren't altered mental states the truth of that state?  If you are aware that you are in a state of depression or a state of elation couldn't you declare that as a fact or as the truth of your mental state?  The difficulty would be in expressing the validity of it to those who have never experienced the same.

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #973 on: October 23, 2017, 05:39:23 PM »
Hi Ekim,

It cannot be presented as an objective fact because it doesn't fall into that category. You are absolutely correct in that you can only demonstrate it to yourself, in which case it has to compete with every other 'truth' which can only be demonstrated to yourself, whether any two are contradictory or not. Because of this, anyone's 'inner truth' has equal validity. If we seek to establish any of these 'inner truths' as distinct from the inner workings of the mind, then we have to rely upon some method which can surmount this problem. So far, to my knowledge, none has been found.
Yes, that's fair enough.  I would add that many of the techniques are about either stilling the mind or consciously entering a still inner space.  As soon as you 'seek to establish', or analyse, the inner stillness is lost and you are carried away on a train of thought. 

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Faith vs blind faith
« Reply #974 on: October 23, 2017, 05:44:56 PM »
ekim,

Quote
I'm not sure what you are asking.  Aren't altered mental states the truth of that state?  If you are aware that you are in a state of depression or a state of elation couldn't you declare that as a fact or as the truth of your mental state?  The difficulty would be in expressing the validity of it to those who have never experienced the same.

No, what these things give you is “true for me only” beliefs. One man’s personal belief in unicorns is epistemically identical to another man’s personal belief in “God”. The problem comes when people overreach into calling the content of these beliefs "facts" because there’s no logical path from faith to objectivity.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 05:47:34 PM by bluehillside »
"Don't make me come down there."

God