The Lord of the Rings

[Prodigal_Son]

Re: Bill Hicks’ faith
If this is secular faith, it explains why secularists generally assume that religious faith is fluff - they assume it’s the same as secular faith.

I’m curious Prodigal: how would you interpret Hicks-faith from the perspective of Tillich-faith?

Tillich might say that it is unrealistic for people to help each other if they do not have hope that stretches beyond their anxiety. There are people for whom “enjoying the ride” means manipulating and abusing others.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Because they talked about belief while the whole point of the Boromir story was that belief does not distinguish the characters. they all had the same beliefs but only one of them was without faith.

Boromir was not faithless; he was a man like all men. Boromir recovered from his madness and repented of his act, but too late to save the two hobbits and paid with his life defending them.

Christianity and other religions give us ways of talking about faith. What the story of Boromir suggests to me, since it was written by a Christian writer, is that this same faith that is associated with Christianity can still be talked about without reference to Jesus or God or Satan or divine purpose, etc. Do you think you could explain faith to someone without religious language? Care to give it a try?

Best,
Leela

I don’t follow what belief or faith you are referring to Boromir lacking. The only relevant context of Boromir’s faith and belief with respect to Catholicism would be his belief in Eru Ilúvatar as described in the Silimarillion’s opening chapters.

That was an underlying premise. Boromir walked with the immortal elves and though he had never seen the Lords of the West he knew his own heritage from whence Aragorn proved his claim to be Lord of Gondor, and not Sterward like his father was and he would have been. Was his failure (lack of faith) more like that of Pilate, Judas and/or Peter’s?

The Hobbit is not a Lamb or is it? Gandalf returned from Khazad dum and Bilbo and Frodo set sail in the end. 3000 years of recorded human history explains faith summed up fair enough in a Catholic Bible. Taken as a whole it is the best expression we have of God because of Christ, not despite Him. Faith in that is simple and obvious to many. Boromir only proved human.

 

[Leela]

Hi All,

I never intended to take the Boromir story all that seriously. I just wanted to use it as a starting point and as an illustration that faith is not the same thing as belief. I think belief is too often touted as faith, which one big reason why we nonbelievers aren’t buying what the priests are selling.

I set out in this thread to redescribe faith as being opposed to despair rather than to disbelief–as something that can be talked about without reference to gods or acceptance of claims as historical fact. Another notion called “hope” is also the opposition of despair, so it also seems important to distinguish hope from despair, so I will try to clarify with the following discussion.

These two notions, hope and faith, seem to be contradictory:

Hope: The notion that our personal investment in making the world a better place is sustained by the belief that things actually can get better.

Faith: The notion that the world as it is now is perfect and that changing it would only ruin it.

How do we reconcile the drive to improve ourselves and our world with a sense of the world as it is as already perfect? We are sustained in our efforts by our hope that what we do matters–that we can improve the world and ourselves. This hope sustains us even through hard times because we believe things can get better and that our hard times are only temporary. The wise among us have recognized that while we can’t stop the waves, there is an ocean of calm beneath the waves–the highs and lows of life. They find bliss in identifying with this ocean of calm rather than with the waves, the static patterns. This is what Buddhists refer to as “180 Zen”–identifying with “Big Self” rather than “small self.”

While this is a nice nourishing place to visit as many do throgh prayer or meditation, it is nowhere to stay for long. It is in fact nowhere. The wisest among us have not only quit trying to stop the waves, they have also learned to surf. Nirvana is samsara. “Big Self” is “small self.” The despair of “small self” is the absurdity of thirsty water. It is a baby crying when it has everything it needs. The wise still invest whole-heartedly in the betterment of the world, but all the anxiety is gone. What we do does matter, but it is part of the inexorable ongoing process of life. Nothing we could ever do could stop this relentless process, nor would we ever want it to stop. The world is unfolding exactly as it should be, and we and all of our highs and lows are part of this process. This is “the return” in the hero’s journey. This is competing the circle of “360 Zen.” This is Buddhahood. This is sainthood. This is faith, and this sort of faith is not a hostage to any belief.

This is also why I am so unimpressed by the “I have something that you don’t have” claims to faith made by many of the “faithful” I encounter. It seems to me that what they have are beliefs rather than faith. If their beliefs help them achieve faith, then super, but those claiming to have been “reborn a new being in Christ Jesus” so often seem to be the same a**holes they were before their “miraculous transformative experience.” They still have all the usual anxiety are just as prone to the same despair as the rest of us non-Buddhas and non-Saints.

Best,
Leela

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi All,

I never intended to take the Boromir story all that seriously. I just wanted to use it as a starting point and as an illustration that faith is not the same thing as belief. I think belief is too often touted as faith, which one big reason why we nonbelievers aren’t buying what the priests are selling.

I set out in this thread to redescribe faith as being opposed to despair rather than to disbelief–as something that can be talked about without reference to gods or acceptance of claims as historical fact. Another notion called “hope” is also the opposition of despair, so it also seems important to distinguish hope from despair, so I will try to clarify with the following discussion.

These two notions, hope and faith, seem to be contradictory:

Hope: The notion that our personal investment in making the world a better place is sustained by the belief that things actually can get better.

Faith: The notion that the world as it is now is perfect and that changing it would only ruin it.

How do we reconcile the drive to improve ourselves and our world with a sense of the world as it is as already perfect? We are sustained in our efforts by our hope that what we do matters–that we can improve the world and ourselves. This hope sustains us even through hard times because we believe things can get better and that our hard times are only temporary. The wise among us have recognized that while we can’t stop the waves, there is an ocean of calm beneath the waves–the highs and lows of life. They find bliss in identifying with this ocean of calm rather than with the waves, the static patterns. This is what Buddhists refer to as “180 Zen”–identifying with “Big Self” rather than “small self.”

While this is a nice nourishing place to visit as many do throgh prayer or meditation, it is nowhere to stay for long. It is in fact nowhere. The wisest among us have not only quit trying to stop the waves, they have also learned to surf. Nirvana is samsara. “Big Self” is “small self.” The despair of “small self” is the absurdity of thirsty water. It is a baby crying when it has everything it needs. The wise still invest whole-heartedly in the betterment of the world, but all the anxiety is gone. What we do does matter, but it is part of the inexorable ongoing process of life. Nothing we could ever do could stop this relentless process, nor would we ever want it to stop. The world is unfolding exactly as it should be, and we and all of our highs and lows are part of this process. This is “the return” in the hero’s journey. This is competing the circle of “360 Zen.” This is Buddhahood. This is sainthood. This is faith, and this sort of faith is not a hostage to any belief.

This is also why I am so unimpressed by the “I have something that you don’t have” claims to faith made by many of the “faithful” I encounter. It seems to me that what they have are beliefs rather than faith. If their beliefs help them achieve faith, then super, but those claiming to have been “reborn a new being in Christ Jesus” so often seem to be the same a**holes they were before their “miraculous transformative experience.” They still have all the usual anxiety are just as prone to the same despair as the rest of us non-Buddhas and non-Saints.

Best,
Leela

I think you’re saying something actually rather similar to the Christian, at least the Christian who knows what he’s talking about. Faith affirms that the world (by which I mean “everything”, although not “every thing”) is good. How is it good? Well, we only have one perspective on its goodness, a perspective that is mediated through our consciousness.

From the perspective of consciousness, we are capable of grasping the goodness of the world intuitively, through the spiritual experience (which is largely the same, whether Christian, Buddhist, or otherwise). But we cannot sustain this experience beyond the moment, but instead we are inundated with evidence that the world is not good (or not as good as we’d like). This undermines our faith, and moves us toward despair. But this dialectical process seems necessary if the spiritual experience is to contain actual insight: if we generally considered the world a good place, we would not have the necessary awakening (or nirvana) at the realization of its goodness.

This is all part of the Christian faith, as it is a part of every faith I have come into contact with.

Christians define hope differently, however. Hope is not about changing the world. Hope is about having a spiritual experience that never ends – about having knowledge of God.

And if God doesn’t exist, then how do we validate the substance of the spiritual experience? How can we affirm that the world is good, if our feelings that the world is good are merely biological impulses?

 

[fhansen]

Hi All,

I never intended to take the Boromir story all that seriously. I just wanted to use it as a starting point and as an illustration that faith is not the same thing as belief. I think belief is too often touted as faith, which one big reason why we nonbelievers aren’t buying what the priests are selling.

I set out in this thread to redescribe faith as being opposed to despair rather than to disbelief–as something that can be talked about without reference to gods or acceptance of claims as historical fact. Another notion called “hope” is also the opposition of despair, so it also seems important to distinguish hope from despair, so I will try to clarify with the following discussion.

These two notions, hope and faith, seem to be contradictory:

Hope: The notion that our personal investment in making the world a better place is sustained by the belief that things actually can get better.

Faith: The notion that the world as it is now is perfect and that changing it would only ruin it.

How do we reconcile the drive to improve ourselves and our world with a sense of the world as it is as already perfect? We are sustained in our efforts by our hope that what we do matters–that we can improve the world and ourselves. This hope sustains us even through hard times because we believe things can get better and that our hard times are only temporary. The wise among us have recognized that while we can’t stop the waves, there is an ocean of calm beneath the waves–the highs and lows of life. They find bliss in identifying with this ocean of calm rather than with the waves, the static patterns. This is what Buddhists refer to as “180 Zen”–identifying with “Big Self” rather than “small self.”

While this is a nice nourishing place to visit as many do throgh prayer or meditation, it is nowhere to stay for long. It is in fact nowhere. The wisest among us have not only quit trying to stop the waves, they have also learned to surf. Nirvana is samsara. “Big Self” is “small self.” The despair of “small self” is the absurdity of thirsty water. It is a baby crying when it has everything it needs. The wise still invest whole-heartedly in the betterment of the world, but all the anxiety is gone. What we do does matter, but it is part of the inexorable ongoing process of life. Nothing we could ever do could stop this relentless process, nor would we ever want it to stop. The world is unfolding exactly as it should be, and we and all of our highs and lows are part of this process. This is “the return” in the hero’s journey. This is competing the circle of “360 Zen.” This is Buddhahood. This is sainthood. This is faith, and this sort of faith is not a hostage to any belief.

This is also why I am so unimpressed by the “I have something that you don’t have” claims to faith made by many of the “faithful” I encounter. It seems to me that what they have are beliefs rather than faith. If their beliefs help them achieve faith, then super, but those claiming to have been “reborn a new being in Christ Jesus” so often seem to be the same a**holes they were before their “miraculous transformative experience.” They still have all the usual anxiety are just as prone to the same despair as the rest of us non-Buddhas and non-Saints.

Best,
Leela

In Catholicism, both faith and hope are oriented towards being able to believe in things that we cannot know with any kind of empirical certainty (faith), and being able to have trust and confidence that those things-or promises- are true for us (hope). This is so because ultimately people need to believe in the future-that it not only includes a better life now in some way but that this life does not end with annihilation-otherwise, what’s the point? This is why hope, in Christian parlance, of necessity includes a belief in the afterlife.

 

[Leela]

In Catholicism, both faith and hope are oriented towards being able to believe in things that we cannot know with any kind of empirical certainty (faith), and being able to have trust and confidence that those things-or promises- are true for us (hope). This is so because ultimately people need to believe in the future-that it not only includes a better life now in some way but that this life does not end with annihilation-otherwise, what’s the point? This is why hope, in Christian parlance, of necessity includes a belief in the afterlife.

I understand that idea of faith in Christianity is tied up in belief. That is exactly the concept of faith that I have been railing against in this thread. If faith depends on a belief it is a hostage. It is not the sort of faith that I am interested in.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I think you’re saying something actually rather similar to the Christian, at least the Christian who knows what he’s talking about. Faith affirms that the world (by which I mean “everything”, although not “every thing”) is good. How is it good? Well, we only have one perspective on its goodness, a perspective that is mediated through our consciousness.

From the perspective of consciousness, we are capable of grasping the goodness of the world intuitively, through the spiritual experience (which is largely the same, whether Christian, Buddhist, or otherwise). But we cannot sustain this experience beyond the moment, but instead we are inundated with evidence that the world is not good (or not as good as we’d like). This undermines our faith, and moves us toward despair. But this dialectical process seems necessary if the spiritual experience is to contain actual insight: if we generally considered the world a good place, we would not have the necessary awakening (or nirvana) at the realization of its goodness.

This is all part of the Christian faith, as it is a part of every faith I have come into contact with.

Christians define hope differently, however. Hope is not about changing the world. Hope is about having a spiritual experience that never ends – about having knowledge of God.

And if God doesn’t exist, then how do we validate the substance of the spiritual experience? How can we affirm that the world is good, if our feelings that the world is good are merely biological impulses?

I’m glad that you see alot of common ground between the notion of faith that I am interested in and Christian faith. We both think that there is a lot to talk about in regard to faith even after we subtract factual belief from it. Would you agree that what I am talking about seems completely alien to most Christians who claim to be “people of faith”? Would you agree that one can possess this treasure of faith without assenting to any specific claims about the factuality of historical events?

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

I understand that idea of faith in Christianity is tied up in belief. That is exactly the concept of faith that I have been railing against in this thread. If faith depends on a belief it is a hostage. It is not the sort of faith that I am interested in.

Best,
Leela

Yes, but with an undergirdment for that faith, a conscious belief in facts relating to it and that support it, people have a stronger sense that all is well, purposeful, worthwhile.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m glad that you see alot of common ground between the notion of faith that I am interested in and Christian faith. We both think that there is a lot to talk about in regard to faith even after we subtract factual belief from it.

Agreed.

Would you agree that what I am talking about seems completely alien to most Christians who claim to be “people of faith”?

No, I would disagree here. There is a difference between what people talk about and what people experience. Many Christians talk about God and the truth as if we knew it empirically beyond any doubt – which, we would both agree, to some extent precludes faith. But I think that Christians do this, often, in order to reassure themselves. In the Western world, it is considered wrong to act on incomplete evidence, and so there is a temptation to pretend that our evidence for God is complete.

In the silence of their hearts, many, many Christians have a faith that is rooted deeply, although this faith coexists with anxiety. It is hard to communicate about this kind of faith, especially in conversations with nonbelievers.

Would you agree that one can possess this treasure of faith without assenting to any specific claims about the factuality of historical events?

I am quite sure that one can have contact with this treasure of faith without believing in certain events recorded in the gospels, but I am not sure that such a faith would be efficacious in producing hope and love. Mind you, even the best Christians have a very hard time *possessing *faith from moment to moment, and certainly they do not always act in perfect hope and perfect love.

 

[Betterave]

Hi All,

I never intended to take the Boromir story all that seriously. I just wanted to use it as a starting point and as an illustration that faith is not the same thing as belief. I think belief is too often touted as faith, which one big reason why we nonbelievers aren’t buying what the priests are selling.

I set out in this thread to redescribe faith as being opposed to despair rather than to disbelief–as something that can be talked about without reference to gods or acceptance of claims as historical fact. Another notion called “hope” is also the opposition of despair, so it also seems important to distinguish hope from despair, so I will try to clarify with the following discussion.

These two notions, hope and faith, seem to be contradictory:

Hope: The notion that our personal investment in making the world a better place is sustained by the belief that things actually can get better.

Faith: The notion that the world as it is now is perfect and that changing it would only ruin it.

How do we reconcile the drive to improve ourselves and our world with a sense of the world as it is as already perfect? We are sustained in our efforts by our hope that what we do matters–that we can improve the world and ourselves. This hope sustains us even through hard times because we believe things can get better and that our hard times are only temporary. The wise among us have recognized that while we can’t stop the waves, there is an ocean of calm beneath the waves–the highs and lows of life. They find bliss in identifying with this ocean of calm rather than with the waves, the static patterns. This is what Buddhists refer to as “180 Zen”–identifying with “Big Self” rather than “small self.”

While this is a nice nourishing place to visit as many do throgh prayer or meditation, it is nowhere to stay for long. It is in fact nowhere. The wisest among us have not only quit trying to stop the waves, they have also learned to surf. Nirvana is samsara. “Big Self” is “small self.” The despair of “small self” is the absurdity of thirsty water. It is a baby crying when it has everything it needs. The wise still invest whole-heartedly in the betterment of the world, but all the anxiety is gone. What we do does matter, but it is part of the inexorable ongoing process of life. Nothing we could ever do could stop this relentless process, nor would we ever want it to stop. The world is unfolding exactly as it should be, and we and all of our highs and lows are part of this process. This is “the return” in the hero’s journey. This is competing the circle of “360 Zen.” This is Buddhahood. This is sainthood. This is faith, and this sort of faith is not a hostage to any belief.

This is also why I am so unimpressed by the “I have something that you don’t have” claims to faith made by many of the “faithful” I encounter. It seems to me that what they have are beliefs rather than faith. If their beliefs help them achieve faith, then super, but those claiming to have been “reborn a new being in Christ Jesus” so often seem to be the same a**holes they were before their “miraculous transformative experience.” They still have all the usual anxiety are just as prone to the same despair as the rest of us non-Buddhas and non-Saints.

Best,
Leela

Very nice Leela,

I don’t think most believers have had or claim to have had “miraculous transformative experiences” - is that your impression? That’s also not what believers believe to generally be the case (just facts).

Don’t you see a problem with detaching faith from belief? It’s not like anyone is going to stop having beliefs. You can go Zen and detach from them, but 360 Zen (or whatever you want to call it) gets you back to beliefs; you still have to decide what to believe… yet this believing certain facts is supposed to be detached from your faith? I see this making sense from a theistic perspective where you’re concern is with God, who transcends all your finite beliefs, but if your concern is with the world, you must believe that your beliefs are implicated in your worldly involvement and that they matter. Why just talk about faith being ‘held hostage’ by beliefs (is this confirmation of the claim that faith is compatible with believing anything, as long as one is not ‘held hostage’ by one’s beliefs - whatever that means to you)? Don’t you need something more constructive than that?

I think courage and constancy is necessary to not be held hostage to your beliefs, to have intellectual honesty, the courage to truly ask questions about your basic principles. But that’s not faith, and that’s not for everyone (in my view anyway).

 

[Verisimilitude]

I understand that idea of faith in Christianity is tied up in belief. That is exactly the concept of faith that I have been railing against in this thread. If faith depends on a belief it is a hostage. It is not the sort of faith that I am interested in.

Best,
Leela

The hostage escapes if belief contradicts faith so there never really is a hostage unless you make up your own facts.

…the notion of faith that I am interested in and Christian faith. We both think that there is a lot to talk about in regard to faith even after we subtract factual belief from it…Would you agree that one can possess this treasure of faith without assenting to any specific claims about the factuality of historical events?

I get now that you do not associate catholic theology with historical events as a fact to argue here. Your reference to Boromir’s lack of faith seems to me now as if you meant his faith in the Fellowship to succeed. Sorry, I have never associated the type of faith one has in a worthy task as the same type of faith one has in the thing that makes the task worthy.

Can you define what your faith calls worthy to be a treasure? I do not know if you believe in one god, many or none to define the wisdom of your faith.

I think of this book as a treasure because it strengthens my faith.

Sirach Chapter 15

10 For wisdom came forth from God: for praise shall be with the wisdom of God, and shall abound in a faithful mouth, and the sovereign Lord will give praise unto it.
11 Say not: It is through God, that she is not with me: for do not thou the things that he hateth.
12 Say not: He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of wicked men.
13 The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it.
14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.
15 He added his commandments and precepts.
16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.
17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt.
18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:
19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing.
20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth al the work of man.
21 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin;
22 For he desireth not a multitude of faithless and unprofitable children.
newadvent.org/bible/sir000.htm

 

[Leela]

Yes, but with an undergirdment for that faith, a conscious belief in facts relating to it and that support it, people have a stronger sense that all is well, purposeful, worthwhile.

Once the building has been constructed, whatever scaffolding that was used along the way can be discarded. On the other hand, if the scaffolding was built into the building, whatever threatend the scaffolding also threatens the building. One’s faith is then subject to attacks on beliefs and is then a hostage to those beliefs. If you were one day convinced that one of the claims to historical facts is false, your faith would be in danger. But if your faith does not depend on any belief, new evidence and arguments cannot shake your faith.

 

[Leela]

The hostage escapes if belief contradicts faith so there never really is a hostage unless you make up your own facts.

You are correct that if the beliefs upon which you’ve built your faith turn out to actually be true, there is no problem. One who’s faith relies on such beliefs must always hope that her beliefs are never shown to be false and must deny any evidence and arguments that put her beliefs in question. I would think that this would represent a sort of anxiety which is the opposite of faith or a desire to not know what is true in case your beliefs turn out to be false.

 

[fhansen]

Once the building has been constructed, whatever scaffolding that was used along the way can be discarded. On the other hand, if the scaffolding was built into the building, whatever threatend the scaffolding also threatens the building. One’s faith is then subject to attacks on beliefs and is then a hostage to those beliefs. If you were one day convinced that one of the claims to historical facts is false, your faith would be in danger. But if your faith does not depend on any belief, new evidence and arguments cannot shake your faith.

But the foundation cannot be discarded and I’m not sure how long the building can really be expected to last without one.

 

[Leela]

Don’t you see a problem with detaching faith from belief?

No, though I understand that for some, beliefs provide important scaffolding to help build faith. But I see all teaching in matters of faith to be taken as only provisionally true or rather as tools for overcoming certain obstacles to faith where the question of truth or falsehood isn’t even of issue since faith isn’t an intellectual construct or a structure of the mind but rather an attitude–a way of being completely present to the joys and sorrows of life without anxiety. A spiritual teacher may teach something like “Jesus is God” to do the equivalent of stopping a baby from crying so she can hear the next teaching. If such teachings are tools, then holding on to them as dogma is like carrying a boat with you for the rest of your life when it has already done its job in carrying you across the river. In this way of thinking, a dogma is a finger pointing to the moon. If you are looking at the finger you aren’t seeing the moon. Once you see the moon, you can see that lots of different fingers could point someone to the same place, but you no longer need any of them.

It’s not like anyone is going to stop having beliefs. You can go Zen and detach from them, but 360 Zen (or whatever you want to call it) gets you back to beliefs; you still have to decide what to believe… yet this believing certain facts is supposed to be detached from your faith? I see this making sense from a theistic perspective where you’re concern is with God, who transcends all your finite beliefs, but if your concern is with the world, you must believe that your beliefs are implicated in your worldly involvement and that they matter. Why just talk about faith being ‘held hostage’ by beliefs (is this confirmation of the claim that faith is compatible with believing anything, as long as one is not ‘held hostage’ by one’s beliefs - whatever that means to you)? Don’t you need something more constructive than that?

I think courage and constancy is necessary to not be held hostage to your beliefs, to have intellectual honesty, the courage to truly ask questions about your basic principles. But that’s not faith, and that’s not for everyone (in my view anyway).

Of course we always have beliefs. What I’m arguing is that faith and belief are different dimensions of experience. While beliefs may be understerstood as habits of action, all habits of action and all human experience are not necessarily exhausted by beliefs. I’m not saying that we don’t also need to have good beliefs. I’m saying that conflating beliefs with faith can be an impediment to having faith as well as to having good beliefs. It is an impediment to having faith because people may think that they have accomplished all the spiritual work possible by simply holding the right beliefs. They may think that they have faith when they are still anxious and have really only assented intellectually to a certain set of facts. It is an impediment to belief because beliefs may be accepted dogmatically rather than provisionally and open to new and better beliefs.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

But the foundation cannot be discarded and I’m not sure how long the building can really be expected to last without one.

We disagree about whether beliefs can serve as a foundation for faith probably because we diagree about whether beliefs themselves can have a philosophical foundation. What theory of truth has ever been discovered that can tell us which of are beliefs are actually true or false? Without such a foundation for beliefs, beliefs can’t be a foundation for faith.

 

[fhansen]

We disagree about whether beliefs can serve as a foundation for faith probably because we diagree about whether beliefs themselves can have a philosophical foundation. What theory of truth has ever been discovered that can tell us which of are beliefs are actually true or false? Without such a foundation for beliefs, beliefs can’t be a foundation for faith.

Yes, and of course now we’re talking about what Christians assert, which is that the faith we innately have and that humans need to maintain can be given foundation directly by the God who founded all things. If this is true, then belief can be foundational to faith. And, again, I’m honestly not sure how long the building can be expected to stand without it, especially when storms hit. How strong can faith be without an object to believe in?

And why object anyway? The concept of God is at least not unreasonable and the concept of a Christian God, who is believed to be the very basis and foundation at a universal level of love and goodness is certainly not opposed to human goals that aspire towards the outworking of those virtues, even while humans, whether inside or out outside Christianity, may not or may not persist in heeling to the concept of such an aspiration.

 

[Leela]

I am quite sure that one can have contact with this treasure of faith without believing in certain events recorded in the gospels, but I am not sure that such a faith would be efficacious in producing hope and love. Mind you, even the best Christians have a very hard time *possessing *faith from moment to moment, and certainly they do not always act in perfect hope and perfect love.

Much agreement. I enjoy conversing with you.

I think faith and The Kingdom of God that Jesus talked about are the same thing:

Jesus spoke of “entering it” and said that children were already inside it. He told a scribe who answered question well, that he was not far from it.

“The coming of the Kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce ‘Look, there it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

“For this teaching which I give you is not hidden from you, and is not far away. It is not in heaven, for you to say, “Who will go up to heaven and bring it down for us, so we can hear it and do it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, for you to say, “Who will cross the sea and bring it back for us, so that we can hear it and do it?” But the teaching is very near you: it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.” Deuteronomy 30:4

– a very Zen view of the Word of God, don’t you think? It can’t be written down, explained, or even understood, but it can be lived.

But what about those of us who are not Zen masters? One important teaching that Jesus seems to have given us in addition to what was taught by other great spiritual teachers is not just how to be a living Buddha or a Saint but what to do for those of us who are not ready to be Buddhas and Saints. That is, to forgive one another.

“There is not one mortal virtue that Jesus inculcated but Plato and Cicero did inculcate before him. What then did Christ inculcate? Forgiveness of sins. This alone is the gospel and this alone is the life and immortality brought to light by Jesus.”— William Blake

 

[Leela]

Yes, and of course now we’re talking about what Christians assert, which is that the faith we innately have and that humans need to maintain can be given foundation directly by the God who founded all things. If this is true, then belief can be foundational to faith. And, again, I’m honestly not sure how long the building can be expected to stand without it, especially when storms hit. How strong can faith be without an object to believe in?

It’s a reasonable question to ask whether faith butressed by belief is stronger than faith viewed as independent of belief. I don’t want to give a dogmatic one-size-fits-all answer. It may very well be that some people’s beliefs actually do deepen their faith. What is interesting to me is that even if this is true, it wouldn’t matter whether or not the beliefs that are good for buttressing faith are actually true until those beliefs come under fire from facts.

The other interesting aspect of your comments is that you’ve accepted, for the sake of the discussion anyway, that faith is not equivalent to belief, and you have been willing to talk about faith in the terms I proposed as whatever is left of faith once we subtract belief from the usual understanding of faith. In the usual discussions between atheists and believers in this forum, belief is taken to be, for the sake of discussion with nonbelievers, whatever is left of belief once we subtract faith. In those discussions faith is put forth as the foundation for belief, while in this discussion, you are putting forth belief as the necessary foundation for faith.

And why object anyway? The concept of God is at least not unreasonable and the concept of a Christian God, who is believed to be the very basis and foundation at a universal level of love and goodness is certainly not opposed to human goals that aspire towards the outworking of those virtues, even while humans, whether inside or out outside Christianity, may not or may not persist in heeling to the concept of such an aspiration.

I don’t have any problem with religious practices that help people to be better more loving individuals. My objection is to the dogmatism that so often accompanies such practices which divides rather than unites us. In this thread I am objecting specifically to the “I have something that you don’t have”-smugness of many believers who seem to me to actually have little of the sort of faith I am interested in. I object to being viewed as somehow lacking by such people, and I object most of all to being viewed as morally objectionable by such people because of my lack of belief in religious dogma.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

In this thread I am objecting specifically to the “I have something that you don’t have”-smugness of many believers who seem to me to actually have little of the sort of faith I am interested in. I object to being viewed as somehow lacking by such people, and I object most of all to being viewed as morally objectionable by such people because of my lack of belief in religious dogma.

How do you interpret all these objections you have in the light of your ‘faith’? Are they the result of a lack of faith on your part? Or are you happy to dogmatically affirm them? What if your attitude struck someone as smug and as an impediment to truth faith? What would this show?

It seems your first objection must have something to do with your clinging to the belief that believers do not have something that you don’t have. Are you being held hostage to this belief? Or is this just a ‘good’ belief in your mind? (Is it ‘scaffolding’ stuck inside your ‘faith’?) (I assume you don’t want to say it’s a ‘true’ belief?)