Faith

[Trevor Salyzyn]

According to brokenhead, Christianity causes a change because one takes a leap of faith into believing in God. Is this similar to the leap of faith that a person takes when they first start to appreciate truth? (Specifically, it cannot be proven that there is truth without appealing to a belief in truth, since the nature of a proof is to distinguish between true and false.)

In the case of believing in truth, the leap of faith is a perfectly reasonable action; is a belief in God similar?

[brokenhead]

They are identical. A=A.

[average]

According to brokenhead, Christianity causes a change because one takes a leap of faith into believing in God. Is this similar to the leap of faith that a person takes when they first start to appreciate truth? (Specifically, it cannot be proven that there is truth without appealing to a belief in truth, since the nature of a proof is to distinguish between true and false.)

In the case of believing in truth, the leap of faith is a perfectly reasonable action; is a belief in God similar?

Appreciating truth doesn't take a leap of faith.
It's a disposition you have towards something, like appreciating a poem, it's not the judgment of the truth-value of a case, so it doesn't require proof at all.



The provability(truth) of truth is a meaningless idea.

Like asking whether this sentence is true or false.

[samadhi]

The provability(truth) of truth is a meaningless idea.

Like asking whether this sentence is true or false.

The truth is usually discussed in relation to content, not context. You can prove or deny content but context is a given.

[Dave Toast]

Any negation of truth will always be in contradiction.

Unless it just involves shaking your head.

[brokenhead]

Appreciating truth doesn't take a leap of faith.
It's a disposition you have towards something, like appreciating a poem, it's not the judgment of the truth-value of a case, so it doesn't require proof at all.

But we are not talking about proof here, average. Verifying can be done by anyone, and should be. That doesn't make it less menial. We as humans in this age can verify rapidly if a thought is without merit. But I'm not limiting myself to truths that require verification from someone else. You simply cannot say that there are no truths that one must take - or not - on faith and faith alone. This is even implicit in Goedel: in every complete formal system (look, I'm doing this from memory, I do not feel like wkki-ing at the moment) there exist true statements or theorems that cannot be proven by any symbol-manipulation from within that system.

You just can't deny that there are things you hold to be truths and yet they rest on your beliefs, your faith.

[brokenhead]

Appreciating truth doesn't take a leap of faith.

And I don't think we were discussing "appreciation" of truth, either.

[Tomas]

.

Fawking getting knee-deep, here.



-Trevor implies-
According to brokenhead, Christianity causes a change because one takes a leap of faith into believing in God.

-tomas-
"Christianity" is a simpleton name for "Paganism".




-Trevor-
Is this similar to the leap of faith that a person takes when they first start to appreciate truth?

-tomas-
To a certain extent, yes. Heaven and earth (you and me) shall pass away, but Quinn, Rowden & Solway shall shine on!




-Trevor-
(Specifically, it cannot be proven that there is truth without appealing to a belief in truth, since the nature of a proof is to distinguish between true and false.)

-tomas-
You gotta hand it to QueeRS (QRS), seems those three lepra-cons got there act together solving lifes' mid-life crisis.




-Trevor-
In the case of believing in truth, the leap of faith is a perfectly reasonable action; is a belief in God similar?

tomas-
The Big Wheel keeps on a turning, God will hop a ride on her ferris wheel and stop in to see how we are a doing sometime in the next ka-jillion eon. If we (collectively speaking) do ourselves in via famine, war, aborticide, pestilence - we (collectively speaking) will have no one to blame but the bed-bugs, fire ants, or the food additives.

When all is said and done, find yourself (singularly speaking) a nice girl, settle down and stop philosophizing, and then, make some soft, sweet whoopee :-)




.

[Cory Duchesne]

According to brokenhead, Christianity causes a change because one takes a leap of faith into believing in God. Is this similar to the leap of faith that a person takes when they first start to appreciate truth?

In the case of believing in truth, the leap of faith is a perfectly reasonable action; is a belief in God similar?

To appreciate truth is to acknowledge that the unceasing continuation of the experiencer is not only uncertain, but unlikely.

To believe in God is to trust that the experiencer will continue unceasingly.

So, in that sense, they are very at odds with each other.

[brokenhead]

To appreciate truth is to acknowledge that the unceasing continuation of the experiencer is not only uncertain, but unlikely.

To believe in God is to trust that the experiencer will continue unceasingly.

So, in that sense, they are very at odds with each other.

This may be an accurate statement if it encapsulates the way most people view their faith.

If so, I believe they are misusing faith, they are using it to hide from the truth. I, myself, do not accept the second part of your quote, the description of faith. At least, not how you have put it. The truth is that our physical bodies will die and cease forever to exist. Faith now comes into play, where ackowledged truth falls silent. What happens to us then? Do we as sentient beings also simply cease forever to exist? If so, then we have nothing to answer for in the here and now. So rather than, as average would have it, thinking that someone is taking the rap for our sins, no one is because no one has to. We can all be like OJ - if we can get away with it, everything is cool. Faith tells you that after death, not necessarily unceasingly, the soul continues on in some fashion. So faith mandates that not only you take responsibility for your actions "like a man," as average put it. A man is only answerable to other men. Faith mandates you take responsibility as a child of God. If you believe faith grants you an easy way out, you do not understand it, and therefore you must not truly have it. What it does do is tell you that even if the entire world be against you, you are not alone in facing up to your responsibilities and in fighting injustices leveled against you when you can and in surviving them when your best efforts fail, rather than trying to find a way to avoid the difficult choices.

So the first statement in your quote above is rendered incomplete by faith. First of all, it is not sufficient to appreciate the truth, but to know it. If you merely appreciate something, you can live without it when it is not there. Secondly, there is nothing uncertain about death except when it will occur. And if by the "continuation of the experiencer" you mean death of the soul, I'm not sure where "uncertainty" comes in. If you are granting the soul may not survive, then you are saying that it may. If so, appreciation of the truth is rather tepid. You want to know it, as it has a dramatic bearing on how you view your world.

But the conclusion of your quote does hold, in a sense. The difference between not having faith and having it does make them very at odds. But not because having faith equates to somehow avoiding the truth, as you have put it. Rather, it is the difference between saying we cannot know and leaving it at that and realizing we cannot know and desperately yearning for more.

[Cory Duchesne]

Brokenhead,

I've written a reply to all of your points, but I deem it best if we just focus on these bits.

I might post the rest of it later.

And if by the "continuation of the experiencer" you mean death of the soul, I'm not sure where "uncertainty" comes in. If you are granting the soul may not survive, then you are saying that it may.

Yes, that's right - I'm saying that I can't be certain one way or the other. Although, if you watch the gradual deterioration of an Alzheimer's patient, the evidence there suggests that yes, our personal experience ends when our brain completely shuts down. I'll concede, there is the possibility that our memories could function on a different server, much like information on a computer can be transfered to a different computer. But there is no evidence for this - so we simply can't know.

[your] appreciation of the truth is rather tepid.

Ok, so do you subscribe to the premise that 'the truth must be non-tepid'?

If not, then I don't really see your point in calling the truth tepid. What are you implying when you suggest that?

But the conclusion of your quote does hold, in a sense. The difference between not having faith and having it does make them very at odds. But not because having faith equates to somehow avoiding the truth, as you have put it. Rather, it is the difference between saying we cannot know and leaving it at that and realizing we cannot know and desperately yearning for more.

Ok, I see what you mean. That makes sense, because, to me, knowing the truth is knowing that you are undivided from the totality of all there is, and so, in that sense, nothing is lacking. You are literally at one with the whole.

A man who has faith in a deity doesn't appreciate this truth, which is why he desperately yearns for more.

But there's more to it than just desperately yearning for more, isn't there? Isn't belief required?

[Leyla Shen]

The difference between a priori knowledge and belief IS truth which, whilst it does not contradict empiricism, does not find its roots in it. A believer is one who clearly recognises there is no empirical evidence for his beliefs but, at the same time, contrarily holds that there should be, so---he waits for his proof; promotes this divine waiting---even unto his last silent breath.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18).

Any man, therefore, who holds that there is such a thing as a God in which one can believe, blasphemes.

[brokenhead]

Ok, so do you subscribe to the premise that 'the truth must be non-tepid'?

If not, then I don't really see your point in calling the truth tepid. What are you implying when you suggest that?

I am not calling the truth tepid. I am saying settling for appreciating the truth is tepid. Appreciation has its due time and place, of course. I do not mean to imply otherwise. I can appreciate an artist's masterpiece; I can equally live without it. Appreciation is no sense enough.

Ok, I see what you mean. That makes sense, because, to me, knowing the truth is knowing that you are undivided from the totality of all there is, and so, in that sense, nothing is lacking. You are literally at one with the whole.

A man who has faith in a deity doesn't appreciate this truth, which is why he desperately yearns for more.

But there's more to it than just desperately yearning for more, isn't there? Isn't belief required?

That you are undivided from the totality of all there is, is indeed a truth. A truth. Okay, in that sense, nothing is lacking. In that sense.

To say that a man who has faith in a deity doesn't appreciate this truth is false on the face of it. For this claim to be true, you would have to know what every person who has faith in a deity appreciates, and know that each of such persons specifically does not appreciate this truth.

Because this "truth" is simply that we are literally at one with the whole. Only in a sense can this imply nothing is lacking. For who can say with certainty and impunity, I lack nothing? At the very least, everyone lacks some knowledge or another.

[Alex Jacob]

Believers receive indications all the time that validate their faith. In so many traditions of Christianity, from the mysticism of St John of the Cross, the uncanny career of Jeanne d'Arc, to those who undergo conversion experiences in our present: there are always signs and omens that present themselves. It is not just a 'leap of faith' and a waiting, it is a kind of knowledge that one relies on, but knowledge of another order. Religiosity can be a form of 'magical practice' that is a sort of proto-science, an existential, mystical science.

[brokenhead]

The difference between a priori knowledge and belief IS truth which, whilst it does not contradict empiricism, does not find its roots in it. A believer is one who clearly recognises there is no empirical evidence for his beliefs but, at the same time, contrarily holds that there should be, so---he waits for his proof; promotes this divine waiting---even unto his last silent breath.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18).

Any man, therefore, who holds that there is such a thing as a God in which one can believe, blasphemes.

Leyla, your post just sounds all wrong to me. A believer is not someone who clearly recognizes there is no empirical evidence for his beliefs. On the contrary, he recognizes tons of empirical evidence. What he is forced to realize, however, is that all he has is empirical evidence, not proof. And certainly not evidence everyone will accept. "Empirical evidence" is two words. "Empirical" is by definition something everyone can agree on. "Evidence" enjoys no such unanimity. I can point to nature - the very existence of life - as evidence that there is a deity. Everyone will accept what I am pointing to, but not everyone will accept it as evidence of any such thing, or indeed, evidence of anything at all.

And your conclusion based on the quote you cited doesn't follow in any way that I can see. How is its meaning "belief implies blasphemy"? Please be more detailed so I can see what you mean.

[brokenhead]

Believers receive indications all the time that validate their faith. In so many traditions of Christianity, from the mysticism of St John of the Cross, the uncanny career of Jeanne d'Arc, to those who undergo conversion experiences in our present: there are always signs and omens that present themselves. It is not just a 'leap of faith' and a waiting, it is a kind of knowledge that one relies on, but knowledge of another order. Religiosity can be a form of 'magical practice' that is a sort of proto-science, an existential, mystical science.

Alex, I completely agree with you as to the signs and omens that present themselves. In fact, I agree with everything in this post, but personally I try to shy away from using words such as "mystical" or "magical" when discussing religious experiences. I even cringe at the word "religion," because it evokes such negative reactions in many sensible people. I don't think there is anything mystical about the works of God. Unexplainable, maybe. But not magical. The desire to understand the unexplainable is the longing for truth of which I am speaking.

[Leyla Shen]

Believers receive indications all the time that validate their faith.

So do psychopaths and junkies.

In so many traditions of Christianity, from the mysticism of St John of the Cross, the uncanny career of Jeanne d'Arc, to those who undergo conversion experiences in our present: there is always signs and omens that are present. It is not just a 'leap of faith' and a waiting, it is a kind of knowledge that one relies on, but knowledge of another order.

No, not knowledge---experience. Why do you skirt around the distinction, blurring the lines?

Religiosity can be a form of 'magical practice' that is a sort of proto-science, an existential, mystical science.

Yes, yes--it can be anything, including “knowledge of another order” as opposed to knowledge, and; “a sort of proto-science” or “an existential, mystical science” as opposed to science. So, humour me for a second, you are saying what of value….?

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla, your post just sounds all wrong to me.

Yes, well, the point is exceedingly subtle, I think.

What he is forced to realize, however, is that all he has is empirical evidence, not proof.

Right, so you have certain empirical evidence which does not prove your beliefs (one wonders, then, what this is evidence of, no?). Why, then, do you still hold on to your beliefs, which I assume must have some connection to the experiences that do not prove them?

[brokenhead]

Leyla, your post just sounds all wrong to me.

Yes, well, the point is exceedingly subtle, I think.

What he is forced to realize, however, is that all he has is empirical evidence, not proof.

Right, so you have certain empirical evidence which does not prove your beliefs (one wonders, then, what this is evidence of, no?). Why, then, do you still hold on to your beliefs, which I assume must have some connection to the experiences that do not prove them?

You are missing my point, but I don't think you are intentionally doing so. This "certain empirical evidence" does not prove my beliefs because it cannot. But in my view, it very much substantiates my beliefs. I hold on to my beliefs for the same reason you do, the same reason everyone else does. For instance, you act today on the belief that you have a future beyond today in this world. Nothing empirical can prove that. Yet you believe it. Why?

[Leyla Shen]

That’s correct. I act right now because there’s a good chance I will still be around in the next 10 minutes, unless there’s some natural disaster, etc. This is based on experience. That is, I pretty much did the same thing 2 hours, one week and even 10 years ago, etc.

I don’t, however, call this belief. I call it a divine act of simple logic.

Are you saying your belief in God is likewise empirically provisional?

[Cory Duchesne]

Ok, so do you subscribe to the premise that 'the truth must be non-tepid'?

If not, then I don't really see your point in calling the truth tepid. What are you implying when you suggest that?

I am not calling the truth tepid. I am saying settling for appreciating the truth is tepid. Appreciation has its due time and place, of course. I do not mean to imply otherwise. I can appreciate an artist's masterpiece; I can equally live without it. Appreciation is no sense enough.

Sorry, remind me - what's the difference between knowing the truth and appreciating it?

Ok, I see what you mean. That makes sense, because, to me, knowing the truth is knowing that you are undivided from the totality of all there is, and so, in that sense, nothing is lacking. You are literally at one with the whole.

A man who has faith in a deity doesn't appreciate this truth, which is why he desperately yearns for more.

But there's more to it than just desperately yearning for more, isn't there? Isn't belief required?

That you are undivided from the totality of all there is, is indeed a truth. A truth. Okay, in that sense, nothing is lacking. In that sense.

To say that a man who has faith in a deity doesn't appreciate this truth is false on the face of it. For this claim to be true, you would have to know what every person who has faith in a deity appreciates

I'm talking about the 'desperate longing for something more' that you spoke of. This can't possible exist if you realize that your self is an illusion (which is the same as realizing you are at one with the whole)

Because this "truth" is simply that we are literally at one with the whole. Only in a sense can this imply nothing is lacking. For who can say with certainty and impunity, I lack nothing?

Who is the 'I' that you are referring to? Are you sure it's even there?

At the very least, everyone lacks some knowledge or another.

Sure, I may have no idea what the latest physicists have discovered yesterday, or the sort of trouble Britney Spears has gotten herself into lately, but because I realize my self is an illusion, there is no emotional longing for more, and that's precisely because there is no sense of center (which is necessary for an emotion to occur).

[Alex Jacob]

brokenhead wrote:

"Alex, I completely agree with you as to the signs and omens that present themselves. In fact, I agree with everything in this post, but personally I try to shy away from using words such as "mystical" or "magical" when discussing religious experiences. I even cringe at the word "religion," because it evokes such negative reactions in many sensible people. I don't think there is anything mystical about the works of God. Unexplainable, maybe. But not magical. The desire to understand the unexplainable is the longing for truth of which I am speaking."

I kind of had the sense that you would, and I was more or less speaking to you.

I think everyone stays with their 'training', and my introduction to spirituality was 'mystical' and 'magical'. To me the whole notion of being guided---that there is something that guides (through the roads of our incarnation) is a very mysterious idea. I studied shamanism traditions and even went to live in Venezuela as part of my 'studies'. I see spirituality through a very different lens (than most here).

The so-called Christ Mysteries are connected to very, very old solar myths that are played out over and over again. When you see 'primitives' pick up this tradition and put it to work in a radically immediate way, it changes your perception of what it is all about. Their approach can be refreshing and vitalizing for those of us who have lost an immediate, visceral contact with our 'God'.

Mazateca curanderos in Oaxaca, who use the mushroom and other psychedelics, have Christ and Mother Mary at the center of their religious ritualism, and that relationship is extremely potent and extremely mystical. And the solar myth-structure is resilient, ever-adaptable. But the whole (solar) notion of dying and rebirth also runs through the psychology of our culture, and the pattern keeps popping up, no matter what.
__________________________________________________

Leyla, I place 'experience' and 'knowledge' in the same practical, existential raft. Your knowledge---the knowledge you use to make your way through your world---is both your experience and the catalog of your experience: your knowledge. When you use it, you just use it, you don't think about it.

May I go now? ;-)

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, inconstancy! thy name is Alex; thy breath such fickle, sweet and soulless display. Lo! Sweet charms of empty temptation. Nothing but a whisper of a wind attempting a howl…

Earlier, you explicitly stated that there are different orders of knowledge. Yet, here, you equate knowledge and experience. What gives?

May I go now? ;-)

Well, I’m sure if you learn a little consistency, you’ll be well on your way to making a firm decision, on your own, about something--eventually.

[brokenhead]

That’s correct. I act right now because there’s a good chance I will still be around in the next 10 minutes, unless there’s some natural disaster, etc. This is based on experience. That is, I pretty much did the same thing 2 hours, one week and even 10 years ago, etc.

I don’t, however, call this belief. I call it a divine act of simple logic.

Are you saying your belief in God is likewise empirically provisional?

I'm not sure what you mean by "empirically provisional." If you mean do I look around me and see an abundance of what I take to be empirical evidence that God exists? The answer is yes. I have said so many times here at GF. But I also have admitted that the same things do not necessarily appear as evidence of God to everyone or anyone else, or even as evidence of anything at all. To me this is inexplicable.

[Iolaus]

Trevor

In the case of believing in truth, the leap of faith is a perfectly reasonable action; is a belief in God similar?

Maybe, but not in my case. There is no leap of faith. God is obvious.

Hi Samadhi!

The truth is usually discussed in relation to content, not context. You can prove or deny content but context is a given.

Context is where the truth lies.

Cory

To appreciate truth is to acknowledge that the unceasing continuation of the experiencer is not only uncertain, but unlikely.

To believe in God is to trust that the experiencer will continue unceasingly.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

...to me, knowing the truth is knowing that you are undivided from the totality of all there is, and so, in that sense, nothing is lacking. You are literally at one with the whole.

A man who has faith in a deity doesn't appreciate this truth, which is why he desperately yearns for more.

Depends on what kind of deity. As for me, I do appreciate this truth, but it does not preclude having an individuality, a soul, just as we have one now. You are at one with the whole at the same time you have a personal consciousness. In the same way, nirvana is samsara.

Brokenhead,

I don't think there is anything mystical about the works of God.

Yes, but the mystical life is one in which one's spiritual faculty is ignited, and one is on a journey with God/Reality in which one feels one's way using that spiritual faculty of perception; gradually it becomes stronger and faith comes. It's life in the bridal chamber, a honeymoon with God.

There's no such thing as magic, of course!