It's called "FAITH" because it's not knowledge

Religious or Non-Religious;

I encourage you to join the debate!!!

Non-belief or belief - i feel it is important to share ideas and philosophy regarding Religion, faith.

Here, an interesting and insightful argument from Christopher Hitchens. Clearly highlighting some of the key arguments that the theists have for their belief in "GOD" and their particular religion, and some clear assertions on the Atheist stance:-



I think it is important to note that not all Atheists or Non-believers are arrogant, smug and zelous. Atheism have no "goals", and I, as many others, do not wish to "indoctrinate" anyone but encourage them think for themselves.

Again, anyone is welcome, i encourage civil discourse!!!

A&A

First, I love the title of the video!

And I agree with his stance here. Strange things supposedly happened in the bible, but I tend to believe that they were skewed and highlighted to push an agenda of control.

I have to disagree with the blanket premise that faith is not based on knowledge. It is my own assertion that true faith is most certainly based in knowledge.

I trust that my mate is truthful and loyal to me based on my knowledge and personal experience with her. Therefore, I have much faith in her.

The average working man has faith in his employer that he will receive compensation in the given time period, based on personal experience that said employer has not failed in the past.

Many who subscribe to evolution as the origin of species, do so because they have studied the work done by scientists, and have concluded that the work has merit. But the element of faith is still in play because although they base their belief in knowledge gleaned, they must of necessity trust in the character and truthfulness of those publishing the work.

My point being. While some people exercise blind faith in many areas of their life. Faith should not, and does not have to be blind, or without knowledge.

reply to post by Klassified


What you say is true. The problem is the OP is referencing the blind kind of faith that religion relies upon. You are talking about something different.

Mind you, many will say their religious faith is based on their experience with it. Their belief supposedly is sustained by "results". Ironically belief itself is one the most potent forces on this earth and can indeed seem almost causative.

It is a tough one to sort out, but once you realize faith itself has power, it pretty much does not matter what the faith is about; only what the purpose is. If it helps people be better people, then yay!

reply to post by awake_and_aware
awake_and_aware,

You state -

"I think it is important to note that not all Atheists or Non-believers are arrogant, smug and zelous. Atheism have no "goals", and I, as many others, do not wish to "indoctrinate" anyone but encourage them think for themselves."

You do have a "goal" or you wouldn't be attempting to teach the things you do. You are a teacher of what you believe.

I do think for myself and I don't like videos and some guy that weaves a web to try to catch you up. Tell me yourself what you want to have me understand and I can get back to you but I can't to him. Spin your own yarn.

Knowledge, True knowledge is knowing Him who is all Wisdom and understanding and you guys go around and try to dispell that. Go ahead you are making your own bed.

Until you know Him you can not have the understanding He is the beginning and the end of all things. You will have to be broken and fall upon that Rock or it will never happen. That is the reason I don't contend much with unbelievers.

It is just as futile for you to contend with me as I now know He is who He says He is and there is no doubt in me.

Truthiron.

The following is also related to the Gnostic teachings of Eikasia, Pistis, Dianoia, and Nous or Turiya.

"Consciousness knows directly the reality of each natural phenomenon and can manifest it through the Inner Mind.

"To open the Inner Mind would be the appropriate thing to do in order to remove ourselves from the world of doubt and ignorance.

"This means that only by opening the Inner Mind will genuine faith be born within the human being.

"Viewing this question from another angle, we would say that materialist skepticism is a characteristic peculiar to ignorance. There is no doubt that learned ignoramuses are 100 percent skeptical.

"Faith is the direct perception of what is real, it is fundamental wisdom; it is the experience of that which is beyond the body, the affections and the mind.

"We must distinguish between faith and belief. Beliefs are found stored in the Intermediate Mind. Faith is a characteristic of the Inner Mind.

"Unfortunately, there is always a general tendency to confuse belief with faith.

"Although it seems paradoxical, we emphasize the following: “Those who have true faith do not need to believe.”

"This is because genuine faith is living knowledge, exact cognition, and direct experience.

"For many centuries people have confused faith and belief. Now it is very difficult to make them understand that faith is true knowledge and never futile beliefs.

"The sapient function of the Inner Mind has as its intimate resource all that formidable data from the wisdom embodied in Consciousness."

- Samael Aun Weor

It is taught that in order to truly comprehend the above, we need to Meditate.

Originally posted by Klassified
I have to disagree with the blanket premise that faith is not based on knowledge.

I don't think the premise is that faith is not based on knowledge. Rather faith is NOT knowledge. Some people say they know God or know there isn't a God, but I don't think they can KNOW either way. We cannot know what we do not know. And no matter what anyone says, that's the truth at this time.

I see where you gents are coming from. But that perspective is philosophical in and of itself. If we say faith is not knowledge, then by that standard, we can know nothing with any degree of certainty except that which we have personally experienced. Because other than what we have personally experienced to be true, all else is faith based. And by faith, I mean what we believe to the point of conviction, and are therefore, willing to act upon, and live by. And by that measure, knowledge becomes a series of subjective life experiences leading right back to faith, because our subjective life experiences lead us to make assumptions based on the knowledge we have.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be confusing, or talk in circles. My premise is that knowledge inherently breeds a certain amount of faith because of the subjective assumptions we as humans continually make. Therefore, knowledge and faith are only seperated by definition. But in practice, they go hand in hand. One can hardly exist without the other in the human experience.

But in dictionary terms, I see your point.

I hope I made all that at least somewhat cohesive.

BTW BH. That signature is cool.

reply to post by Klassified


Although, i can understand your sentiments; i feel that faith is not based on knowledge. Perhaps religion once was based on evidence, by ancient man but currently as we know it no theologian, historian, archealogist, mathematician, or scientist has ever demonstrated or gave a rational case for the existence of a Supernatural deity. Especially not the specific descriptions of each religion.

I'd prefer to remain sceptical (agnostic) rather than blindly believing in doctrine or even "evidence" that has been found wanting.

I think the "i don't know" approach in regards to the source of the universe/our reality, is modest and humble enough.

While i have to concede "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", i believe the religions of man to be false because there are the following possibilities:-

1) All of the religions are true (impossibility due to contradictions in doctrine)
2) One of the religions is true
3) All of them are untrue.

I THINK it is #3 personally. It's perhaps ironic that they had no knowledge of the planet they existed on, let alone the knowledge of the solar system and that they existed in a "gallaxy", yet still claimed to know the creator of the universe, and automatically know his desires.

Do you not find this at least suspicious? It's just seems remarkable that he'd pick Planet Earth out of all the universe and communicated through a book filled with half-baked sloppy moral teachings? I think it's more likely that it is the creation of man, not God himself.

I don't believe the rituals prescribed by, or the stories told by various religions, but I do believe in faith.

Whether the names used to describe "God" are right or wrong, or the rituals proscribed to communicate with "him" are right or wrong doesn't matter. How close the stories made up to get people to have faith are to any actual history is irrelevant.

The fact that they work (sometimes) is great. Faith works.

I believe, have faith in, the notion that there is some over-arching reality that all of these modern religions and ancient beliefs tap in to. There is validity to the fact that the rituals, name any ritual; it doesn't matter, help people tap into something which tho intangible to our senses, is nevertheless a real and powerful source of guidance.

I have faith. I am agnostic. Make sense?

reply to post by wayno


So what is your definition of God, are you a Deist? Deists still have faith - They "believe" with faith that there is God, they just know that no man can know of God's wishes or description.

Pantheists believe that the universe is itself "GOD" That nature IS "GOD" - so therefore they do not personify God as religion does.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

An agnostic with faith is an oxymoron, you have faith in a God, but an Agnostic is the "belief" that we are not in a position to know what the ultimate cause of existence was or is, there is currently no irrefutable evidence to even make that assumption

Perhaps you are a "Pantheist", which i guess is similar to Agnostic in a way, you just change the meaning of "GOD" everytime we find something new out about the universe or nature.

Honestly, i'm not trying to be smug or anything here, i'm really just provoking thought.

Peace

A&A

Metaphysical claims of afterlife, heaven and hell, reincarnation are a form of wishful thinking rather than rational thinking. Again i concede that, due to unfalsifiable nature of the claims, i can't say for definate they are untrue. The choice is, who do you trust?



Thanks for particapting everyone.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I am inclined towards the descriptions you give of Pantheists; except that I have the "not knowing for sure" outlook of the agnostic. I personally believe that it is possible, perhaps even likely that there is some over-arching reality against which or within which this temporary existence of ours takes place, but I am not absolute about it. I would hope it is so, but, how do I know such things? I am only human after all.

I am OK with not knowing for sure. Perhaps this knowledge is what my life is all about. At least there would be some purpose. For now this satisfies me and I do not worry about eternal damnation, nor heaven.

reply to post by wayno


I like the way your cogs turn friend I guess if the definition of God really is "pantheism" then we are discovering more about "GOD" everyday

I may perhaps prefer to call it "The Force" - (honestly i'm not a Star Wars fan )

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I consider myself very knowledgeable in lots of areas. I am also a believer in Yahweh and Yeshua. I am well aware that there are no tangible or quantifiable aspects of either. My soul knows the truth, and therefore I trust in their reality.

Having said that, I have been on a journey of knowledge here lately. I have learned that evolution and Yahweh's words are perfectly reconciled for me. Yahweh is the author of science, and as such, has made the process of evolution very clear in Genesis. You have only to read "He said let the waters bring forth life" and "let the earth bring forth life" to see it. The only difference in Darwin's version is that he didn't find the answer in God's word, so he left Him out of the equation. Doesn't change the fact that it is there.

I have also learned that I don't need to convince anyone of my beliefs or try to convert them. That's not my job. Father is perfectly capable of handling His own business. I will passionately state what I believe, and if it strikes a chord within you, it was meant for you to see. I believe that is how He works. Those that want the truth will receive it. If you are searching, it will find you. Our concept of timing is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I am ever hopeful that the two sides of this equation will come to an understanding of peace. I hope that those who feel they must always defend their faith will realize that it's not necessary. If you are secure in your knowledge of the existence of God and Christ, it's enough. I would also hope that they never stop reading and questioning what they have been taught is true, because the most awesome truths I've ever found I found because I refused to take someone else's word for the truth.

I also hope that those non-believers come the realization that believers such as myself will agree on a wide variety of issues with you. Sciences, archeology, physics, cosmology. I am not blind, deaf and dumb. I see the facts and know they are true. But when I look for answers of "WHY", I turn to my God and He invariably answers me with scripture. It is really all in there, if mistranslated at times.

Anyway, this has been an interesting week for me on ATS. This thread is just another point in that journey!

Thanks!!

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Your argument implies that the word “faith” is strictly a god-based, or religious word. When in fact, it’s very definition is not “religious” at all. As humans, we are creatures of faith, and have always been so.
One does not need to believe in a deity to live by faith. One only needs to believe and trust in something we have no absolute proof of. Whether you place your faith in theism, atheism, or science. Faith is still required.

ETA: I must agree with you that all of the worlds "religions" have big problems. And they are not the creations of God. They are the creations of men.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


"The Force" is a different beliefs system than that of pantheism.

In pantheism, if God is the universe, then that means all things are included, and is not a separate entity from all that is. In other words, in pantheism, God is "The Force" and all things the force flows through. The alpha and omega, in the words of the bible.

I personally dont think the limited ways humans define things with their "science" is even representative of what is and has been going on around us. We have to manicure it down to make sense. The grey area starts to arrive in areas where humans can observe, but can not measure. And then, we have the issue of areas where humans can not observe or measure. These things may not exist within the realm of our senses (as they are greatly limited and on top of that, biased), but that is irrelevant to their existence as a whole. Just because we limited humans can not observe or measure means nothing beyond the fact we cant observe and measure it. One might be lead to believe "well, it might as well not exist" since it isnt realized in our common reality, but the truth is, it is simply beyond us.

Thinking we can measure and observe the totality of what is happening in the universe and basing our reality off of such things, is actually a belief involving just as much faith as those of religions. They are just in completely different regards.

reply to post by sinohptik

Thinking we can measure and observe the totality of what is happening in the universe and basing our reality off of such things, is actually a belief involving just as much faith as those of religions. They are just in completely different regards.

Well said. I appreciate the process of science for what it is. But it can in no way explain, measure, or replicate everthing. And indeed, will never be able to do so.

reply to post by Klassified


I'm referring to to the type of "faith" that requires belief before evidence.

Faith has several conotations:-

# religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
# loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

Like a child has faith in santa claus if instructed to do so, to instill faith to suggest he exists, and moves in mysterious ways.

reply to post by sinohptik


Pantheism is the belief that nature itself is "GOD" that everything is God.

This is almost farcical. Like i said it's agnosticism in essense.

Everytime science discovers a new aspect of nature, or even reality - Pantheism will claim it as "GOD" and thus it is just as meaningful as calling it "The Force" as they do in star wars, or similarly "The Energy" "The Everything" "All that is" - I'd personally just refrain from my this meaningless act of naming "everything" when I don't know what "everything" is and just stick to my agnosticism.

So are you agnostic? or do you know of some reality or supernatural being that i am unaware of? Because it has always been my stance that i don't know, do you?