Faith

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

'Mon the Richard Dawkins. I reject the religious worldview as a sad quest to see meaning where there is none, ie why are we here. We just are and the universe couldn't care less.

[Guest Phantomsmasher]

Probably best to remove the man made notion that this celestial being(God) can control our world' date=' I dont know why religions push that one on us, well I can guess why, but anyway...[/quote']

The reason I would never be able to remove that idea is simply because I personally believe that the concept of 'god,' is man made, and was created purely for the purpose of controll and the explination the mysteries of our enviroment at a point when we could not possibly fathom it out otherwise.

[Shaki]

Religion is certainly not all bad as some seem to suggest and whether you personally believe or not there are people who's religious beliefs have helped them immensely through troubles in their life. My gran for instance had many terrible things happen in her life - losing her mother in early childhood, being forced to "mother" her younger siblings to then lose 2 out of 3 of them and a fiance in the war, losing a baby in childbirth, having a heathen of a grandson.... - and has sought comfort throughout her life in the christian church. Whether it's a load of balony or not, she has found the strength through her beliefs and prayers to carry on.

She's rarely on Aberdeen-Music these days so I thought I'd put her tuppence worth in!

God Bless you all.

Shaki's Gran.

[Neil]

To this end' date=' I think atheism is in itself a form of faith, faith in having no faith, faith in the supposed supportive evidence provided by phenomenology. However, any user of psychedelic drugs or schizophrenic patient will know how fragile and easily shattered the thin veneer that is conscensus reality, which rationalist/atheists find comfort in, is.

The atheists perception of reality, the foundation of his faith-in-having-no-faith, is simply a matter of the balance of brain chemistry. A few stray molecules in the blood stream, a disruption of that balance, artificially induced or otherwise, and the atheist might just as easily accept any number of delusionary theories about higher beings and the nature of the universe.

So, this being the case, I think that atheists are no more rational than those with faith in some type of god.

Personally I consider myself to be an agnostic, not devoid of spirituality.[/quote']

It would appear your definition of an atheist and atheism is different from the one I understand. As I understand it, atheism, quite simply, is the belief that no deity or deities exist. It is nothing more than a non-theistic standpoint.

Can an atheist have faith in something? Absolutely. I see the question of faith quite a separate topic here but you appear to be trying to suggest that atheists only have this non-faith to fall back on because they believe in no gods or follow any religion.

That conclusion doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that you can't have faith in something unless you believe in a deity of some kind. Thats simply not the case.

[Shaki]

Long ago in a dusty village

full of hunger, pain and strife

a man came forth with a vision of truth

and the way to a better life

he was convinced he had the answer

and he compelled people to follow along

but the hunger never vansihed

and the man was banished

and the village dried up and died

at a time when wise men peered

through glass tubes toward the sky

the heavens changed in predictable ways

and one man was able to find

that he had thought he found the answer

and he was quick to write his revelation

but as they were scutinized

in his colleagues eyes

he soon became a mockery

don't tell me the answer

cos then another one will come along soon

I don't believe you have the answer

I've got ideas too

but if you've got enough naivete

and you've got conviction

then the answer is perfect for you

an urban sprawl sits choking on its discharge

overwhelmed by industry

searching for a modern day savior from another place

inclined toward charity

everyone's begging for an answer

without regard to validity

the searching never ends

it goes on and on for eternity

[Stripey]

It would appear your definition of an atheist and atheism is different from the one I understand. As I understand it' date=' atheism, quite simply, is the belief that no deity or deities exist. It is nothing more than a non-theistic standpoint.

Can an atheist have faith in something? Absolutely. I see the question of faith quite a separate topic here but you appear to be trying to suggest that atheists only have this non-faith to fall back on because they believe in no gods or follow any religion.

That conclusion doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that you can't have faith in something unless you believe in a deity of some kind. Thats simply not the case.[/quote']

I can't think of any religious faiths that don't involve deitys.

[salsadecacahuete]

They cynically tried to use it for recruitment' date=' giving it the old "We're here if you need someone to talk to" line. Err, what about friends and family?

[/quote']

maybe they were just trying to be nice? maybe not. peolpe are always suspicious of other people being nice these days. "i'm here if you need someone to talk to" is probably the only thing i would think of to say (besides 'i'm sorry') to someone who's just lost someone close...

To the original question, i'm an athiest (even after all this talk of there being 'no such thing as an athiest'), though it would be quite comforting to actually believe in this god stuff, if only for a cushty afterlife and (kind of) a point to life.

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

maybe they were just trying to be nice? maybe not. peolpe are always suspicious of other people being nice these days. "i'm here if you need someone to talk to" is probably the only thing i would think of to say (besides 'i'm sorry') to someone who's just lost someone close...

I take your point, but I guess you had to be there. Irrespective of their motives, they got a few new recruits out of it. Not me, I hasten to add.

"I'm sorry" is a pet hate of mine. I lost count of the amount of people who said it. I wanted to say "Why? You didn't kill him." But if people say "I'm sorry that this has happened" then that's A-OK. I still have the occasional dream about the guy, which buggers the head a bit.

[Neil]

I can't think of any religious faiths that don't involve deitys.

Neither can I. But who said you can't have faith without religion?

[Stripey]

Neither can I. But who said you can't have faith without religion?

That's what I was originally getting at. Atheists don't have faith in an deity worshiping religion, they have faith in the rational / experiential / measurable (usually?).

[Project S.A.M.]

I can't think of any religious faiths that don't involve deitys.

The appropriate response to this depends on how you interpret 'deities'. If a deity is some kind of agent or personal being, then there are probably plenty of religious faiths that reject the idea. I'm pretty sure that at least some verisons of Buddhism and probably Hinduism would deny that any deity exists in any realist sense, and the most analogous thing to 'god' would be some kind of impersonal absolute (or something like that).

Given that religion is essentially any form of practice that is intended to lead the practitioner towards some form of salvation in response to some deficiency in their being, and must presuppose that reality is such that such practice can be successful, (eg to get into heaven despite being a sinner, or to attain Nirvana despite being trapped in a cycle of suffering) then as far as I can see the idea of religion is quite compatible with positive belief in the absence of deities.

Also, it is quite possible to be a theist (or deist, polytheist, pantheist, whatever) and not be religious. Theism and atheism are just metaphysical views, the sorts of which might render religious practice rational or irrational. Just because someone believes that theism is true, it doesn't make them religious.

As far as science goes, the only way science can come into conflict with 'religion', is where there is a scientific truth-claim that contradicts a truth-claim that is essential to the practice of a religion. But most essential truth-claims involved in rendering religious practice rational are of a metaphysical sort. And science is not metaphysics.

Of course, I made a fairly sweeping and apparently false statement there- most religions probably involve quite a few claims about what would be naturally observable events- the resurrection of Jesus, for example (supposing that is essential to Christianity). Then what the matter comes down to is whether non-natural (supernatural) events are possible (and whether such things have, in fact, happened). But that is not a scientific question, since the domain of science is the natural causes and effects. It should be neutral to the question of whether there non-natural events or beings.

Fuck this. That's enough. Couldn't help myself.

[Alkaline]

Dictionary definition of 'faith' for those of you having trouble with it:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=FAITH&x=0&y=0

[Hog]

Im a firm believer in the fact that Jehovah Witnesses are happy to disallow a blood transfusion is sick as fuck and should be illegal.

Does my above sentiment mean that I am discriminating?

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

Does my above sentiment mean that I am discriminating?

You're not discriminating at all, you'll listen to any old shite.

[Stripey]

The appropriate response to this depends on how you interpret 'deities'. If a deity is some kind of agent or personal being' date=' then there are probably plenty of religious faiths that reject the idea. I'm pretty sure that at least some verisons of Buddhism and probably Hinduism would deny that any deity exists in any realist sense, and the most analogous thing to 'god' would be some kind of impersonal absolute (or something like that).

[/quote']

Well, hinduism involves worshipping at shrines, and the making of offerings, clearly evidence belief in deities. Hindus believe these deities -existed- even if they do not believe they exist now in any literal sense, worshipping the memory of a deity in a retrospective sense is no different than worshipping one which is believed to still literally exist.

Surely the concept of Buddah in buddhism constitutes a deity, I mean the temples have huge statues of the image of buddah so he must be considered to literally exist or have existed. The founding principles and concepts of buddhism must be perceived to have literally been handed down by buddah. Wether buddah is perceived as a higher-being or simply a man who started a religion, and wether an actual human could come to be considered as a deity because of their supposed infinite wisdom as the originator of a religion - I don't know enough about buddhism to answer that question.

Anyway, no person of religious faith views their religion as simply a pure metaphysical solution to troubling ontological questions - these cults and sects are all accompanied by dogma and ritual, which makes me suspect the purpose of their invention.

[Project S.A.M.]

Well' date=' hinduism involves worshipping at shrines, and the making of offerings, clearly evidence belief in deities. Hindus believe these deities -existed- even if they do not believe they exist now in any literal sense, worshipping the memory of a deity in a retrospective sense is no different than worshipping one which is believed to still literally exist.

Surely the concept of Buddah in buddhism constitutes a deity, I mean the temples have huge statues of the image of buddah so he must be considered to literally exist or have existed. The founding principles and concepts of buddhism must be perceived to have literally been handed down by buddah. Wether buddah is perceived as a higher-being or simply a man who started a religion, and wether an actual human could come to be considered as a deity because of their supposed infinite wisdom as the originator of a religion - I don't know enough about buddhism to answer that question.

Anyway, no person of religious faith views their religion as simply a pure metaphysical solution to troubling ontological questions - these cults and sects are all accompanied by dogma and ritual, which makes me suspect the purpose of their invention.[/quote']

True enough, but that's why I made the "at least some varieties" qualification. As a matter of fact, most popular versions of Hinduism and Buddhism involve what looks like interaction with some kind of personal entity. But that leaves open the question of whether in all cases this involves an actual deity (currently existing or not) or a personified representation of something else.

We're probably interpreting 'deity' in slightly different ways, but I wouldn't say that the 'concept' of the Buddha has to constitute a deity at all, and I'd be suspicious of any definition of deity that allowed that a mere historical figure could count as one. I don't know too much about Buddhism, but I know enough to say that views on the Buddha vary wildly. Some will see him as an incarnation of some kind of deity, but I think other versions repudiate this explicitly, and see him as nothing more than a person who attained enlightenment, and showed others the way. As far as a the essentials of Buddhism go, (ie that understanding of the four noble truths and the eightfold path is a successful path to enlightenment and liberation / Nirvana) the actual existence of the Buddha as a person could be incidental. And anyway, venerating a person doesn't turn them into a deity.

Even if, in fact, every religious person believed in some deity, I don't think that shows that religion essentially requires it. Sorry if that's too abstract.

I wouldn't say that religion is ever viewed as a "pure metaphysical solution to troubling ontological questions" either. Just that religion is essentially a form of practice- e.g. you can believe every word of the Bible if you like (even the bits that contradict each other ) but that won't turn you into a Christian until you start doing the things that Christians are supposed to do. But in practicing Christianity, in order to be rational, you're going to have to believe certain metaphysical, ontological and historical claims (leaving aside the question of whether such beliefs themselves could be rational).

In the case of dogma and ritual, yes, one way of rendering such practice rational might to believe dogma regarding the historical claim that such rituals were commanded, the ontological claim that a thing exists which commanded them, that the metaphysical claim that such a thing as the power to transform, liberate or save an individual (or individuals) who performs (or perform) such rituals. Dogmas can of course be true as well as false, and the historical dogmas are probably the least significant as far as the actual efficaciousness of religious practice goes.

Your sentiment at the end is fair enough- probably much dogma associated with religion is wildly ignorant, and many of the rituals might not only be pointless but damaging in many ways. But religion is by no means the only place you'll find such dogma and ritual.

[Larsen B]

I take your point' date=' but I guess you had to be there. Irrespective of their motives, they got a few new recruits out of it. Not me, I hasten to add.[/quote']

New recruits!!?? You make it sound like a christian army is be amassed in british parishes to march over the world and take power. Priests and ministers and their like are generally kind caring people, it's part of their whole vocation in life to comfort the afflicted as they know how.

I would describe myself as a lapsed catholic, i was brought up one but i no longer attend church very often purely because i'm a lazy bastard who can't get out of bed in the morning. When i do go, however, it doesn't mean i am being "feeble minded" (Pete in the hills) and eating up everything the priest says and i disagrees with quite a number of doctrines and attitudes of the church (especially concerning contraception and treatment of homosexuals), but it certainly gives food for thought, and i think this attitude applies to the majority of church goers. I think any person whether they hold a religious belief or not could get something out of attending church. We share a building with the Church of Scotland and with the Episcopealan church, and i know well members of all three denominations and we are tolerant of each others beliefs and of other peoples.

It's true there's corruption in all religions, but this doesn't necessarily discredit what the religion itself is trying to teach and also the many good things which they do. I think the catholic church in particular is unfairly vilified. As a case in point Hog was all too quick to point out earlier how the catholic church's attitude to contraception might exacerabate the aids problem in Africa, but he doesn't acknowledge the number of lives that the Catholic church saves in africa through it's chairties which supply food to stop people starving, and helps provide clean drinking water through various projects and medication.