Do other religions require faith?

[TomH1]

An interesting argument, but I disagree.

Then you disagree with a number of Jewish authors. I did not construct this argument. It is what I have read in many books on Judaism. Of course, Jews believe in one God (and very much reject our doctrine of the Trinity), but observance is more important in Judaism than in one’s belief.

 

[LilyM]

annem:

An interesting argument, but I disagree.

Then you disagree with a number of Jewish authors. I did not construct this argument. It is what I have read in many books on Judaism. Of course, Jews believe in one God (and very much reject our doctrine of the Trinity), but observance is more important in Judaism than in one’s belief.

I highly doubt that one could do all the “right” things according to Judaism, but reject the existence of God entirely (or, say, worship one or more of the Hindu pantheon) and still be considered to be OK spiritually.

I am sure that there are core beliefs about God or the gods, aka faith, that one must have in any religion.

It seems to be true that at least some other religions are less concerned with folks having the “correct” beliefs about the nature of God. I don’t think that means that they aren’t based on faith though.

 

[annem]

Then you disagree with a number of Jewish authors. I did not construct this argument. It is what I have read in many books on Judaism. Of course, Jews believe in one God (and very much reject our doctrine of the Trinity), but observance is more important in Judaism than in one’s belief.
*

*

Yes, that’s true. And I would have agreed if the Maccabean revolt had ended and no more wars had started. But then there was Jewish-Roman war, Bar Kokhba war, both of which were fought together by all the various clamorous Jewish groups, because, at core, they really did hold one idea in common, a belief in the one, true God. After reading a lot on the subject, I came to that conclusion, although many would disagree with me.

I would point out, many of the Jewish historians who would disagree with me fall into the minimalist camp, and are never happy discussing anything to do with God.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I wouldn’t single out the event of the Exodus for Judaism. If any event must be believed in, it is certainly the revelation to the entire Jewish people of the receiving of G-d’s Law at Mount Sinai by Moses.

 

[Neithan]

Does the intellectual assent to the revelation on Mount Sinai, I mean holding the belief itself, have any bearing on the righteousness of a Jew? If he or she follows the Mosaic law, does it matter if they believe a particular fact of how the law was revealed? Even so, is the concept of eternal happiness in heaven a more likely consequence of believing the law was revealed? I think especially of the ancient sect of the Sadducees when I consider that it seems faith — defined as a fusion of trust in revelation and hope for salvation — is not essential to Judaism.

 

[annem]

From the books I have, it appears the Sadducees, the wealthiest group because they collected the monies from being priests, were a small group. Perhaps no more than 10% of all the Jews. Certainly the majority of the other groups believed in some form of heaven.

Which, once again, leaves all the groups with one thing in common: a belief in monotheism.

What do you think?

 

[Dovekin]

I choose the Exodus as the event that defines the people that God chooses. It continues to do this by the means of the Seder, making new generations part of God’s chosen people. The Law serves this purpose, of enabling Jews to be God’s chosen, but it is God’s choice of the slaves in Egypt and accompanying them for 40 years in the desert.

I suppose this is a very Catholic view of this. You have a Jewish view, which is probably more accurate. I am not arguing with that view, just explaining my thinking.

 

[Neithan]

Certainly the majority of the other groups believed in some form of heaven.

That may be true, but can we say that the Sadducees were any less Jewish?

Certainly they believed in monotheism: a belief in one supreme being. As we know, that belief does not in itself require faith, even if most people who believe it, believe it on faith: it’s an acknowledgment of natural reasoning.

What is essential for Jews in their covenant between God and Israel: does it include faith, or is that unnecessary as long as ritual righteousness is pursued by an obedience to the Mosaic laws? We might say “both/and” but while that may be further motivation for obedience, the Sadducees did not have faith, while they did have a commitment to the law.

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for bringing this up, as it contrasts starkly with the typically esoteric Indian/Dharmic religions, presenting some direct comparisons to exoteric concepts and alleged interactions with God. Did Madhvacharya claim, like Zoroaster and Muhammad, that something was revealed to him — in his case, I suppose, by what he calls Vishnu? Or were these proposed like philosophical ideas, metaphysical possibilities? Is there any requirement to believe something that promises salvation?

 

[BornInMarch]

In the study of religion the distinction is made between Orthodoxy (which emphasizes belief) and Orthopraxy (which emphasizes action).

In a strictly orthopractic religion you don’t need any faith at all, merely adherence to rules and observance of the rituals. To use Roman Paganism as an example, if you pay Jupiter his dues then you’re held to be pious even if you don’t really believe he exists.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for bringing this up, as it contrasts starkly with the typically esoteric Indian/Dharmic religions, presenting some direct comparisons to exoteric concepts and alleged interactions with God. Did Madhvacharya claim, like Zoroaster and Muhammad, that something was revealed to him — in his case, I suppose, by what he calls Vishnu? Or were these proposed like philosophical ideas, metaphysical possibilities? Is there any requirement to believe something that promises salvation?

Madhvacharya wrote extensive commentary on the Brahmasutra, and said the authority of it was based upon his personal encounter with Vishnu (in the form of Vyasa).

Madhvacharya taught that meditation on the form of Vishnu is critical to obtain his grace. Through free will a person can choose this.

 

[Neithan]

Madhvacharya taught that meditation on the form of Vishnu is critical to obtain his grace. Through free will a person can choose this.

OK that seems more in line with its esoteric roots: Do this and you will find enlightenment. Rather than requiring God to save us, through our own efforts we can obtain divine power.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Madhvacharya taught that meditation on the form of Vishnu is critical to obtain his grace. Through free will a person can choose this.

OK that seems more in line with its esoteric roots: Do this and you will find enlightenment. Rather than requiring God to save us, through our own efforts we can obtain divine power.

Not really. Madhvacharya says that there is predestination and an eternal heaven and hell, and that eternal salvation is possible through the continuous practice of bhakti (devotion), yet it is not guaranteed. There is always a distinction between Vishnu (God) and between any reincarnating beings, and it is not that one discovers finally that one is God, so I am not certain what you mean by divine power. From faith comes grace and then from grace comes Moksha.

 

[Neithan]

Divine power is some realization of a potential good from a supernatural source, for a supernatural end. I suppose I’d have to look into it myself, but it would be esoteric unless there is some revealed fact. It does seem to have at least a partial eschatology if there is a “final reincarnation”; but that seems reserved only for a few. It really seems like Madhvacharya came in contact with some occidental ideas and tried to syncretize. If he did come up with it all on his own, that might lend further credence to the argument from desire.

 

[arthra]

Is Christianity unique in its requirement for faith in a fact? Or do different religions just require faith in different facts? If my understanding of other religions on this point is inaccurate, please correct.

Neithan…thanks for your question. I haven’t posted on this forum for quite some time.
As a Baha’i I’ll attempt to share a Baha’i view of Faith here:

Faith and reason are attributes of the human soul through which insights and knowledge can be gained about the physical and the spiritual dimensions of existence. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states: “ By faith is meant, first, conscious knowledge, and second, the practice of good deeds. ”1 He describes reason as “ the first faculty of man ”2 and notes that reasoning power “ singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. ”3 “ God has given us rational minds for this purpose, to penetrate all things, to find truth. If one renounce reason, what remains? ”4 Faith and reason together make it possible to discover the powers and capacities latent in individuals, and in humanity as a whole, and enable people to work for the realization of these potentialities.

https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/ever-advancing-civilization/faith-reason

 

[Neithan]

Thank you for sharing the Baha’i view. That does seem to be a practical definition of faith. Is there a revealed event that is a required belief in Baha’i to fulfill some kind of happy eternal destiny?

 

[Vico]

Divine power is some realization of a potential good from a supernatural source, for a supernatural end. I suppose I’d have to look into it myself, but it would be esoteric unless there is some revealed fact. It does seem to have at least a partial eschatology if there is a “final reincarnation”; but that seems reserved only for a few. It really seems like Madhvacharya came in contact with some occidental ideas and tried to syncretize. If he did come up with it all on his own, that might lend further credence to the argument from desire.

Upon what do you base your opinion that only few attain Moksha?

His works have been analyzed and shown no evidence of Christian influence. He was a monk trained in the Advaita Vedanta school (non-dualism) but rejected it – founding the works instead on his realist epistemology.

 

[Neithan]

Upon what do you base your opinion that only few attain Moksha?

From what you’ve stated: that some attain Mukta, while other nitya-samsarans continue to be reincarnated forever, and some tamo-yogyas are damned. This is assuming quantitative and qualitative dualism.

His works have been analyzed and shown no evidence of Christian influence.

I was thinking perhaps Islamic influence.

I believe we have an innate desire for personal communion with the divine, and realism is based on natural reasoning, so I’m sure it’s possible that Madhvacharya somehow acknowledged these ideas, working to correct the nihilism and epistemological errors he saw in the other schools.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Upon what do you base your opinion that only few attain Moksha?

From what you’ve stated: that some attain Mukta, while other nitya-samsarans continue to be reincarnated forever, and some tamo-yogyas are damned. This is assuming quantitative and qualitative dualism.

His works have been analyzed and shown no evidence of Christian influence.

I was thinking perhaps Islamic influence.

I believe we have an innate desire for personal communion with the divine, and realism is based on natural reasoning, so I’m sure it’s possible that Madhvacharya somehow acknowledged these ideas, working to correct the nihilism and epistemological errors he saw in the other schools.

However, the word some cannot be equated with the word few for some is an unspecified amount (but could also mean great, as in some effort).

I haven’t encountered any claim that Madhvacharya was influenced by Islam.

Madhvacharya was said to be very intelligent and very knowledgeable even as a child, and was schooled in the monastery by Achyutapreksha, and notably, with constant disagreements with his teacher, who was eventually convinced of Dvaita.

In addition there are many Bhakti paths of spirituality that involve the necessity of faith.

 

[Peaceable]

Most modern Hindu traditions would equate Moksha with being with God/ union with God, which is the ultimate goal in Hinduism. The more agnostic view you describe is more consistent with Buddhism than Hinduism/or nonextant strains of Hindu thought (just like Arianism and Gnosticism are not typical active mainstream Christian Views). Lots of discussion of faith in Hindu thought.