The difference between religion and faith

Quoting Raef Kandil

Faith is our interpretation of the life experience we are having and it is based on the mind and heart working together.

Though not equally hard, I imagine. Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Religion is based on text.

Not, it isn't. Religion is a formal system of tenets and practices with a supernatural entity or concept as its core. There may be texts supporting it, and these text may precede the formal organization or be produced within the organization. It is based on a shared or imposed philosophical view.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Faith uses text to interpret the experience.

No it doesn't. Experience-based faith needs no interpretation, but faith and subjective experiences may be chronicled and their interpretation may later becomes religious text.

And then?

Quoting Raef Kandil

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things.

I suppose "religion" is the institutionalization of fetish-making/regulating/prohibiting (i.e. enforced dogma) whereas 'faith" is personal fetish-using (i.e. make-believe) such that the latter does not require the former – what you call "liberation", Raef – but the former very much depends on the latter.

@180 Proof it is true that religion is based on fear. So, in a fear culture as you said that terrorizes its people and imposes heavy punishments, you are likely to find more religious people. Which is why faith comes as a very valuable commodity in these cultures. People cherish and wait for the "super hero" to liberate them.

But things are not always black and white. People just don't fear punishment and in a liberal society, people can still fear things like failure. This is how big companies fail. Big companies have their reputation, their face and much more likely to fall than startups. Because when they get afraid, they tend to do more conservative, dogmatic and arguably religious choices that can guarantee their failure. This is how Kodak fell. They didn't want to risk their reputation and they wanted to do things the way they knew will bring them success. So, they failed to compete with iphones as they thought that was not their perfect formula for success. I think they would have appreciated a person with faith that could lead their change.

And then?

@Vera Mont, I agree with everything you said although I think there are different ways of saying the same thing. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "And then"? I just wrote this because I thought it was interesting. If you didn't think it was interesting, why did you bother writing all of these comments?

By the way, my first post did not get deleted. I just thought it got deleted.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having.

This is certainly not true. I know a lot of religious people who are not afraid. For many, belief in God in the company of others who feel the same is a way to focus their attention outside of themselves, to give themselves to their community, to surrender their will, and to trust in the world.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Faith is our interpretation of the life experience we are having and it is based on the mind and heart working together.

I do agree with this.

Quoting Vera Mont

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

I don't think that's true. I've been spending a lot of time thinking about how we know things recently. I've gotten in several discussions here on the forum where we disagreed on the role of reason and intuition. My claim is that most of what we know and how we make decisions is not based on reason but on the totality of our experience and learning. I guess this is something like the correspondence theory of truth except we don't compare our beliefs with the world but with a model of the world we carry around with us. This is something I experience very directly.

My understanding of knowledge is based on my experience as an engineer for 30 years. In that role I had to pay attention to what I knew and how I knew it. I came to recognize my initial understanding of a problem came from a mostly unconscious processing of the information I have studied, my understanding of my professional body of knowledge, and my general knowledge of life. In short, it was ultimately founded on an empirical but not rational basis. For me, reason comes along afterward, when I have to verify, justify, communicate what I've learned and figure out what to do with and about it. In summary - reason can analyze, but it can't synthesize. Reason doesn't get good ideas, it evaluates ideas that come from somewhere else.

And yes, I think faith is just another name for intuition and religious faith is intuition for people who carry around a different model of the world than we do.

An important point that is largely lost in Western cultural discourse is the principle of self-realization in the philosophical or spiritual sense.

Suffice to say that Asian culture has maintained the connection between philosophical insight and praxis - you see that very clearly in Tibetan Buddhism but it's also true of other Asian Buddhist schools, such as Zen and Tendai. It comprises an insight into and realization of the unity of being and knowing - to put it in rather Aristotelian terms. But this insight can't be captured or described in terms of propositional knowledge as it is something that has to be realized in actual life (and actualised in the figure of the sage or spiritual master). The crucial error in Western culture was to attempt to reduce it to propositional knowledge on par with (but inferior to) empirical or natural science.

Karen Armstrong has traced those developments in her book The Case for God (which is not a text of religious apologetics although of course a lot of people won't be able to see it any other way). See her OP, Metaphysical Mistake.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "And then"?

I wondered what it is you want to discuss regarding faith and religion.

Quoting Wayfarer

An important point that is largely lost in Western cultural discourse is the principle of self-realization in the philosophical or spiritual sense.

Good post and thanks for the link. I don't think anything you described contradicts what I wrote about in my previous post.

Reply to T Clark me neither :up:

There are many deeply stereotyped ideas about religion which mainly originate in ecclesiastical dogma about what you are obliged to believe. I think this the issue the OP is trying to elaborate.

Quoting T Clark

And yes, I think faith is just another name for intuition and religious faith is intuition for people who carry around a different model of the world than we do.

Why would intuition need another name? Particular one that is usually taken to mean something quite different from what we usually mean by intuition, instinct, hunches or gut feelings?
Intuition is usually taken to mean a tentative or provisional conclusion drawn from incomplete or discontinuous evidence because precedents and patterns we recognize suggest what the picture should be. It's a conclusion arrived-at by jumping over the gaps. It's very useful as an indicator for fresh lines of inquiry, or pointing to aspects of a problem have not been sufficiently investigated.

Faith may well be based on a different model of the world, but it provides its owner with a certainty that precludes any further inquiry or room for doubt. An incontestable conclusion.

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles.

Reply to Vera Mont Because it involves a factor variously designated salvation, release, mok?a, or liberation. Whereas there’s nothing in the current concept of naturalism that corresponds to that.

Quoting Vera Mont

An incontestable conclusion.

That incidentally is fideism.

Quoting Raef Kandil

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things

They’re not totally different although I do see the distinction you are wanting to make. Here’s another outlink (I have many!) which distinguishes religion from dharma

http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion

Reply to Wayfarer Contra Karen Armstrong's revisionary insistance that Christianity is not a fundamentally creedal soteriology, consider
[quote=Galatians 2:16, KJV]Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)

Here's a further exigesis: https://caseyjaywork.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/184/

[quote=Romans 3:28, KJV]Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)

[quote=Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV]?For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

?Not of works, lest any man should boast.[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)

Besides these excerpts from Paul's letters (c48, 57, 62 CE), there is the Protestant theological doctrine of Sola fide that is grounded in both Pauline scriptures as well as Patristic and Scholastic apologia. Not "an accident of history", or modernity. As much as I respect Karen Armstrong's writings on religion, I find their revisionary departures from scholarship undermine her credibility as a scholar (who pretends not to be latter day apologist). A former Catholic nun, Ms. Armstrong apparently ignores or dismisses the doctrinal substance of Protestant and pre-Catholic Christianity as if the devil in the historical details do not still matter.

Reply to Raef Kandil it seems like you're redefining words and engaged more in creative writing than philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that... and it makes for some interesting sort of college dorm room musing. But the words you're using have accepted definitions and attempting to redefining them in your own way is not going to become the norm for society... so how does it really get us anywhere?

It's like people who redefine God as love. And then they say well then of course God exists. But obviously most people use the idea of God to mean more than just love... Anyway that's my two cents.

Quoting Vera Mont

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

I have faith that this chair will support my weight. Empirical evidence - my weight, the load bearing structure of the chair, its strength, its object permanance (stability as a chair) , the ability of me to sit down. All of which can be measured, quantized, calculated to make a prediction that if I do sit down it will likely support my weight.

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny.

This is certainly not true. I know a lot of religious people who are not afraid. For many, belief in God in the company of others who feel the same is a way to focus their attention outside of themselves, to give themselves to their community, to surrender their will, and to trust in the world

@T Clark, what you are saying is that they need the support system to trust the world. Which pre-assumes, they are essentially afraid of the world so they are "gathering up" and seeking warmth in religion and the support of God who favours their tribe. Without that, they would be too fearful to live. I do believe religion is fear-driven.

Why would intuition need another name? Particular one that is usually taken to mean something quite different from what we usually mean by intuition, instinct, hunches or gut feelings?
Intuition is usually taken to mean a tentative or provisional conclusion drawn from incomplete or discontinuous evidence because precedents and patterns we recognize suggest what the picture should be. It's a conclusion arrived-at by jumping over the gaps. It's very useful as an indicator for fresh lines of inquiry, or pointing to aspects of a problem have not been sufficiently investigated.

Faith may well be based on a different model of the world, but it provides its owner with a certainty that precludes any further inquiry or room for doubt. An incontestable conclusion.

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles.

@Vera Mont, well said

@Wayfarer, thank you for the excellent read and thoughts. The links you shared described what I wanted to say with far more clarity, terminology and precision.

That incidentally is fideism.

The phrase pulled out of its context, may mean fidelism: a word I am not entirely familiar with. But I think what @Vera Mont meant was: faith is not based on empiricism. It invokes actions that does not need to be validated by anyone which I think is right. Faith or what gets referred in the article you shared as Dharma, does not need validation. And it cannot be explained either. So, I tend to agree with @Vera Mont

it seems like you're redefining words and engaged more in creative writing than philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that... and it makes for some interesting sort of college dorm room musing. But the words you're using have accepted definitions and attempting to redefining them in your own way is not going to become the norm for society... so how does it really get us anywhere?

It's like people who redefine God as love. And then they say well then of course God exists. But obviously most people use the idea of God to mean more than just love... Anyway that's my two cents

@Metamorphosis, I am not really sure that I should be really concerned with words. Words' purpose is to define meanings. I can tell you I love you when I really hate you. Long-tem actions will prove me wrong. So, I think that I shouldn't limit myself with words.

Having said that, I do agree with you, there is an issue and I didn't describe my thoughts in the most accurate terms. Like after reading the article that @Wayfarer' shared with me, I tend to think that Dharma is the word I should have used rather than faith. I am not trying to flip word definitions. This is not my target.

My real target is to express real concerns I have and I don't think that my lack of the right vocabulary should stop me. Because, if with my limited vocabulary, you can still understand what I am trying to say. I think that this is all words are attempted to do.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do.

They do. Religion tells enormous lies about God, like wiping out the entire world (minus Noah & Co) with a flood, or that God impregnated a woman who was not his wife. Religion often uses God's existence for its own benefit rather than leading people to God, which is why religion is often wealthy and has much political power.

Quoting Benj96

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny.

For me faith is belief without good evidence. I would rarely use the word outside of religious context. I do not have faith that a chair will accommodate my weight or that a plane I fly in will not crash. I would call this having a reasonable expectation. As you have pointed out, these are things for which there is evidence, which is not how faith in the religious context works. As per Hebrews 11: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I don't have faith in any beliefs, I hold beliefs with degrees of confidence.

The real problem with faith is that that it is possible to justify anything using an appeal to faith, from the Christian apartheid of South Africa, to anti-gay activists who hold their bigotries on faith.

Quoting Vera Mont

This is why, when our intuition, guesstimate or hunch turns out to be wrong, we eat a little crow and keep trucking. When we lose our faith, our whole model of the world and confidence in ourself crumbles.

You've ignored the substance of my comment and focused on a language disagreement.

Quoting Raef Kandil

what you are saying is that they need the support system to trust the world.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Quoting Wayfarer

Because it involves a factor variously designated salvation, release, mok?a, or liberation. Whereas there’s nothing in the current concept of naturalism that corresponds to that.

I don't know what "why" this answers, and don't recall asking. I commented generally on the characteristics of religion, as organized systems of practice relating to the supernatural. Unconditional belief and faith are not essential to one's identification with a religion; even the pastors pick and choose from the holy text. Regardless of the specific nature of the stick and carrot it offers, every religion has its rituals and a central theme, adhered to by its congregants.

Quoting Wayfarer

That incidentally is fideism.

AKA faith.

Quoting Benj96

I have faith that this chair will support my weight.

That is not faith; that is a belief formed through previous experience. It may prove to be incorrect in a given case, but the pattern will continue to hold for most examples. If one chair collapses, you'll test the next one before you sit in it. If the next ten hold up, you'll probably stop testing. If the next three collapse, you'll stop believing.
The first time he promises to repay the $10 you lend it to him, because he is your friend and has been generally truthful in your acquaintance, so you trust him. If he doesn't repay you, you're a bit reluctant to lend him any more. If he keeps up a pattern of borrowing and not repaying, you'll stop trusting him entirely.

But the faithful religionist keeps praying even after fifty prayers go unanswered. Keeps buying candles, even though the saint never grants his wish. Keeps calling on God's mercy, even when he's sitting on the dung-heap, bereft of all his family and goods, covered in boils.
And sometimes people have unjustified faith in other people or institutions - usually through the same wishful thinking that supports religious faith: the wife who rejects evidence that her husband is cheating; the mother who can't accept that her son robbed a liquor store; the American who just knows the constitution will safeguard the democratic process, the Canadian who is sure the police wouldn't arrest an innocent man.

Faith does not equal trust does not equal belief. Each word has a specific meaning.

Quoting T Clark

You've ignored the substance of my comment and focused on a language disagreement.

That was the crux of the matter to which I was responding. I'll go back now and try to answer what I missed.

Quoting T Clark

My claim is that most of what we know and how we make decisions is not based on reason but on the totality of our experience and learning. I guess this is something like the correspondence theory of truth except we don't compare our beliefs with the world but with a model of the world we carry around with us.

What is that internal model built from, if not experience and learning of real facts, things and events in the real world? At some points during that construction, reason must have been involved in assessing which bits to keep and discard, which bits go where in the model. The sustained belief emerges from testing that internal model with the real world over time. If it doesn't correspond closely enough, your motors won't run and your chairs will collapse.

Quoting T Clark

I came to recognize my initial understanding of a problem came from a mostly unconscious processing of the information I have studied, my understanding of my professional body of knowledge, and my general knowledge of life. In short, it was ultimately founded on an empirical but not rational basis.

I don't see this is as a contradiction to
Quoting Vera Mont

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

Are you saying faith is not necessarily religious, or that it is necessarily not religious?

The way you structure your post makes it hard to know what is your definition of faith, and what is your description of faith; the latter being the traits which follow from your definition.

Now, if you define faith as belief that comes from a set of acceptable sources, and if you define religious belief as belief that is necessarily rooted on at least one unacceptable source, then you are by your own definitions correct. How well your definitions reflect the usage of those words in the English language is a different matter, and whether or not appealing to that is countering your view really depends on what claim you are making. When it comes to the redefining of words, there are two kinds of claims you can make:

1. Given these definitions, P is true.
2. These definitions best represent how people use these words.

If the latter, then we'd have to do a corpus analysis. If the former, then you need to be more clear. That is, precisely state what faith is, and precisely state what religious belief is. Then, from there, you can go on to argue for different consequences of those definitions.

Here's the kicker:

If you define faith as belief that comes from certain acceptable sources, how then do you determine whether a belief is faith or non-faith? Can you really know the full extent of the sources that feed into your beliefs? If so, do you then deny the existence of the sub-conscious?

Quoting Raef Kandil

I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do.

Yes, they can mix. "Religion" is a container of faith, ritual, doctrines, texts, god(s), real property, roles, and all the other components. The container is built after the prophet, the messiah, the god... have spoken and acted, and after the people have heard, believed, a followed. "Religion" is not the heart of the matter -- it's the container. As such, it's important. It holds things together.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Prophets are not religious, but they have faith.

"Religious" and "the prophets" seem compatible to me--not that prophet MUST be religious, but he could be. They certainly have faith -- else, why would they prophecy?

Quoting Raef Kandil

Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having.

I like your description of prophecy. Religion certainly can be fear-based (among other emotional drivers) but it doesn't have to be. And faith MAY be an act of liberation, but it depends on which store faith is placed.

In other words, it's hard to generalize about all faith, all prophecy, all scripture, all religion, etc.

The real problem with faith is that that it is possible to justify anything using an appeal to faith, from the Christian apartheid of South Africa, to anti-gay activists who hold their bigotries on faith

@Tom Storm, the degree of faith in such movements is very little. Such movements can be blamed more on religion more than faith. I don't think that someone will have faith that "gay people are bad". This seems to personal and involved. Faith tends to be more timeless. A person with faith is less likely to change his faith anywhere, anytime. A person with faith allows for recurring images in his head or un-repressed thoughts with the intention to find himself which he realises as his own safety haven.

Even though faith is not supported so much by empirical evidence. Beliefs based on faith seem very wierd as everything needs to be very carefully measured for truthfulness. However, this faith craziness is in our biological and psychological makeup and it is a very powerful survival tool. Life itself is very crazy and not realising that we are equally if not more crazy means that would not be able to achieve our balance. There is no rational way to deal with life.

@Ø implies everything I am not sure I follow with what you are saying. Please, go back and read what I have said carefully as you seem to be seeking an explanation to what has already been well-explained.

Quoting BC

In other words, it's hard to generalize about all faith, all prophecy, all scripture, all religion, etc.

I agree that these concepts do not have clear boundaries. There is no such a thing as a perfect person with faith. People with faith tend to be more religious when the situation becomes so fearful. And there is no such a thing as a perfectly religious person. A religious person tends to act with faith when the situation is very safe. There are various grades and degrees of courage and faith. An infinite number of them. However, we need these concepts to understand some behaviours. Some people have more faith tendencies and some other people have more religious tendencies. But, the boundaries are not that clear in real life.

Religions are not all formed in the same way. Social situations and people interaction tend to be more complex than that. And generalisation is not what I attempted to do People are very complex beings and multi-faceted.

You can say that some people tend to more jealous than others. But jealous people when treated very fairly, they tend to be less jealous. That doesn't stop us from studying jealousy as a concept.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Tom Storm, the degree of faith in such movements is very little. Such movements can be blamed more on religion more than faith. I don't think that someone will have faith that "gay people are bad".

Faith is always about something - it doesn't stop at god, it incorporates what god wants. Having spent time discussing belief with South African Christians, I can tell you that they were people of sincere faith. Their faith told them that gays were anathema, that women were second class citizens and that racism was god's will. The problem with faith is that it can justify anything and if your belief in god comes to you without evidence, then what that god wants you to do and think comes equally unfounded.

But I have also seen this in action in some elements of the Baptist church (the tradition I grew up in) and in the conservative arms of Catholic faith.

You can't isolate faith as stopping once you decide god is real - almost always included in the leap of faith is the particular god with its commands and requirements.

Quoting Vera Mont

That incidentally is fideism.
— Wayfarer
AKA faith.

No, fideism is not the same as faith. Fideism is the belief that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and that faith is superior to reason. You see that in many religious cultures, but it's not uniform across any of them. It's relevant to Protestantism due to its emphasis on salvation by faith. But even so, there are Prostestant philosophers of religion (such as Alvin Plantinga) who scrupulously deploy rational arguments in defense of their faith. (Not to mention Thomas Aquinas.)

Quoting Raef Kandil

Religions are not all formed in the same way. Social situations and people interaction tend to be more complex than that. And generalisation is not what I attempted to do People are very complex beings and multi-faceted.

:up: That's the sense in which many atheist critics of religion hold to their own type of fundamentalism.

Quoting Ø implies everything

If you define faith as belief that comes from certain acceptable sources, how then do you determine whether a belief is faith or non-faith? Can you really know the full extent of the sources that feed into your beliefs? If so, do you then deny the existence of the sub-conscious?

That's something I'd like to chip in on. It's pretty clear that secular culture generally accepts that science is the sole source of valid knowledge, the 'umpire of reality', so to speak. But there are many open questions and conundrums, both within science itself (like the various knowledge gaps in physics and cosmology, the hard problem of consciousness, and so on) and in respect of the limitations of scientific method itself (with its basic reliance on objectivity and quantification). So we might be willing to acknowledge that science can't answer every question, but at the same time declare that as religion is grounded in the supernatural (whatever that is!) then it, too, is off the table. Leading to something like a kind of agnostic relativism, which I'm sure is the default for a lot of people.

Quoting 180 Proof

As much as I respect Karen Armstrong's writings on religion, I find their revisionary departures from scholarship undermine her credibility as a scholar (who pretends not to be latter day apologist).

Her point, in that OP and elaborated in her book The Case for God, is that in modern culture, religious faith has too often become a matter of commitment to abstract propositions, rather than a way of enacting the truths of faith through service and way of life. And that there are forms of understanding and dimensions of being that can only be 'learned by doing', so to speak (opening up to which is the role of 'mythos', in her account). But then on internet fora, everything that transpires is simply a clash between abstract propositions. :roll:

Quoting Raef Kandil

the degree of faith in such movements is very little. Such movements can be blamed more on religion more than faith. I don't think that someone will have faith that "gay people are bad". This seems to personal and involved. Faith tends to be more timeless. A person with faith is less likely to change his faith anywhere, anytime. A person with faith allows for recurring images in his head or un-repressed thoughts with the intention to find himself which he realises as his own safety haven.

Is parsing out the difference between faith and religion in this way a kind of special pleading? You like faith, and dislike religion, so religion is responsible for bad things but not faith.

In my gay experience (76 years) I have found that people of faith--even family members of faith--are quite capable of being anti-gay. People of faith, good will, etc. have engaged in slave trading, slave ownership, genocide, imperialism, war--the gamut. How can they do this? Is it because "they really do not have faith"?

If we could reliably sort people of faith/no faith by their mere actions, life would be soooo much simpler, Unfortunately, it doesn't work. We have bad people of faith, good people of faith, bad people with no faith, and good people of no faith.

In general, people are neither very very good nor very very bad. Most are a mixed bag; wishy washy; lukewarm--neither hot nor cold -- AND a lot of them are people of wishy washy, lukewarm religion and faith,

Reply to Wayfarer And my point is that Ms Armstrong's critique is misplaced for blaming "modern culture" (i.e. Enlightenment rationality) when the culprit, in fact, is the documented tenets of Pauline Christianity itself, beginning with Paul's letters (NT), then centuries of Patristic apologia which culminated in the Nicene Creed (381 CE). In this way, as she points out, Christianity is an aberration of dogmatic orthodoxy (re: pre-modern scholasticism, Eastern Orthodox theology, Thomism ... and then Reformed Protestantism, etc) among other Abrahamic as well as Dharmic religions (and most pagan / pantheonic cults).

Reply to 180 Proof Indeed. Had some of the gnostics prevailed, it might have been a very different story. But let's not throw the baby of gnosis out with the bathwater of dogmatic belief systems.

Quoting BC

Is parsing out the difference between faith and religion in this way a kind of special pleading? You like faith, and dislike religion, so religion is responsible for bad things but not faith.

Do I want a special status because I am a person with faith and a true believer in God? No. Am I holding myself on a pedestal and asking everyone to do thr same? No

But, being a person with faith in God is not something I should be ashamed of and I do think that faith is good. I do think that everyone of us, as hierarchical organisms have this tendency to test each other's powers and I do think that God or power at the top of the hierarchy is important to maintain peace of the mind and heart.

I do think that God is not essentially bad but it could be if we allow it to be so. And I do think that religion and dogmas are the problem and not faith.

Remember, I am a person with faith but I am also human and if you attach supernatural powers to me just because I say God exists, I wouldn't really mind it. But, my faith in itself is harmless. It is my faith compounded with people's fears and their seeking refugee of their troubles that can be very destructive.

Quoting BC

Is parsing out the difference between faith and religion in this way a kind of special pleading? You like faith, and dislike religion, so religion is responsible for bad things but not faith.

:up: :up:

Reply to Wayfarer Agreed. :eyes:

Quoting Raef Kandil

if you attach supernatural powers to me just because I say God exists, I wouldn't really mind it.

Well, that's not going to happen so don't get your hopes up .

Quoting BC

Well, that's not going to happen so don't get your hopes up

I thought I was clear I was NOT waiting for this. Can you tell me what you are responding to exactly? I am saying and my point is clear: corruption is not linked to faith in God only. And I do admit that with God the temptation is high. Military rulings experience higher corruption levels than God I believe. But God is the black sheep for some reason as if all the problems happen because of Him. Well, guess what? As much as you hate it, I am not going to cut a part of me just to be accepted. And God is in my physical and psychological making and I would claim, we are all very similar but we have different self-awareness levels. So, when you tell me: "don't get your hopes so high up", my response would be, "only blame yourself if you do and go find your true faith whether it is God or something else because otherwise you are not living life to the fullest."

When you go to discover yourself, you don't tell yourself what to discover. You don't put boundaries. You could find anything. You could even find God and then be so shamed for life!

Quoting Wayfarer

No, fideism is not the same as faith. Fideism is the belief that faith is independent of reason,

Okay. Most faith, then is dependent on reason? How?

But even so, there are Prostestant philosophers of religion (such as Alvin Plantinga) who scrupulously deploy rational arguments in defense of their faith

But not the other way around. The faith came first; rationalization a distant second. (And rarely convincing.)

Quoting Vera Mont

What is that internal model built from, if not experience and learning of real facts, things and events in the real world? At some points during that construction, reason must have been involved in assessing which bits to keep and discard, which bits go where in the model.

I think "reason" has almost nothing to do with it. Most of it is non-verbal, unconscious. It happens while we're not trying to do anything. Children don't learn language using any kind of reason, certainly not before they start going to school, by which time they are already fluent. Maybe parents tell children to say "please" and not to fight with their siblings, but that's not where they really learn about the rules and skills of social interaction. The same is true of the physical world. We learn about gravity by falling. We learn it with out bodies. People pay attention to what's going on and take it into themselves to build their picture of the world. To me, that's the foundation of knowledge, intuition, and faith, which are all the same thing.

Quoting Vera Mont

I came to recognize my initial understanding of a problem came from a mostly unconscious processing of the information I have studied, my understanding of my professional body of knowledge, and my general knowledge of life. In short, it was ultimately founded on an empirical but not rational basis.
— T Clark
I don't see this is as a contradiction to
Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.
— Vera Mont

I think it is a contradiction. As I've tried to describe it, knowledge, intuition, faith is ultimately founded on direct experience of the world supplemented as we get older by intentional learning and contemplation.

Quoting T Clark

I think "reason" has almost nothing to do with it.

Fine. I never discussed reason, except as a proposed component of sorting information. I think I do use reason as part of the process whereby I arrive at conclusions and decisions, and I suspect you do too, but if you don't believe that, you don't. It's not a critical difference between faith, based in little or no evidence, and trust or belief based on empirical experience.

Quoting Wayfarer

No, fideism is not the same as faith.

Only, I think, in this regard: in practice, "faith" is a-rational (i.e. unsound) whereas "fideism" is ir-rational (i.e. invalid).

Quoting Vera Mont

Most faith, then is dependent on reason?

In many religious discourses, they are seen as complementary rather than antagonistic. Aquinas is an example. His articles are nearly always given in terms of reasoned arguments for and against the subject of the discussion.

Reply to 180 Proof I know as much as I will ever need to know about your pathological aversion to all things religious, 180. You can really spare me the ongoing explanation. I'm trying to steer this particular OP towards a mode of discourse which is understandable in the context of philosophy of religion.

Quoting Wayfarer

I know as much as I will ever need to know about your pathological aversion to all things religious, 180.

Yes, Wayf, my mind is highly allergic to pathogens such as the "religious" (aka the superstitious, the mystifying (stupifying), the anti-naturalist, the merely anecdotal, the inexplicable (unintelligible), the eschatological, the totalitarian ...) and, as a matter of intellectual integrity and metacognitive hygiene, it's my (our) duty, whenever possible, to proffer public reminders of alternative discursive practices which encourage existential fitness and lucidity. :mask:

Quoting Wayfarer

In many religious discourses, they are seen as complementary rather than antagonistic.

That's not quite the same thing as dependence. Faith being dependent on reason would mean that the reason came first and led by deduction to faith. Which is contrary to the testament of mystics and prophets, who come by their faith through revelation or an epiphany of some kind.
Reason being used to explain faith is a quite different matter.

Quoting Wayfarer

Aquinas is an example.

I know.

In the wider context of his philosophy, Aquinas held that human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul; for those who cannot or do not engage in such strenuous intellectual activity, however, these matters are also revealed and can be known by faith. Faith, though, extends beyond the findings of reason in accepting further truths such as the triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ. From reason, we can know that there is a God and that there is only one God; these truths about God are accessible to anyone by experience and logic alone, apart from any special revelation from God.

(A skeptic might wonder how come there was not one single reasoning person in all of Asia or Africa or the Americas to come to these self-evident realizations.)
His definition of reason is different from mine.
But even he doesn't claim that faith is based on empirical evidence.

From the side of the subject, it is the mind's assent to what is not seen: “Faith is the evidence of things that appear not”

i.e. Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.
And then reason can be twisted and pummelled into its service.

Reply to Vera Mont I would expect so!

Quoting Raef Kandil

Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation.

Are you defining religious belief as an act of fear, or describing it as such? Are you defining faith as an act of liberation, or describing it as so?

In mathematics, we have notation to separate definition from description. It is not always used, but it is nice when it is.

[math] i =: \sqrt -1, \quad i =_{\text{def}} \sqrt -1 \tag1 [/math].

The above is not a derived identity, it is a defined identity. We define i to mean the square root of minus one, because i is a more practical symbol to use than [math] \sqrt -1[/math]. Now, compare that to the normal equality sign:

[math] i = (\sqrt -1)^{4n+1}, \ n \in \Bbb N_0 \tag2[/math]

If we define i to be the square root of one, the above identity follows from the description, with the help of external definitions and rules (see exponentiation). Thus, (1) is a definition, and (2) is a description.

Now, in mathematics, [math]= [/math] is sometimes used as [math]=: [/math]. For this part however, assume that the normal equality sign is always a description of a previously defined quantity/object:

[math] a =: 5^2 [/math]

Okay, now, what can I do?

[math] a = 26[/math]

Nope, that would contradict my definition. How about:

[math] a =: 26[/math]

Sure; that would make a and a homographs of each other, in that a refers to 25, and a refers to 26. This happens all the time; plane refers to both aeroplane and an infinite, two-dimensional, flat manifold.

Now, faith and religious belief are symbols, just like a. And like a in my example, these two words have pre-established definitions. Many, in fact. If you were to decide on some measure of representativity, one definition would be the most descriptively correct. Now, when you start speaking of faith and religious belief, like in the paragraph I quoted at the top, are you redefining them here (1)? Or, are you describing these words, following some extra-textual definition, one perhaps previously established or assumed to exist in most people's heads (2)?

To be extra clear, when you say faith is an act of liberation, are you saying:

Faith [math] =: [/math] Act of liberation, and ... (1)

Or, are you saying:

Faith [math] = [/math] Act of liberation, and ... (2)

The former is your definition, which you can follow up with descriptions thereof. The latter is a claim about someone else's definitions(s) and the consequences thereof.

Quoting Vera Mont

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

You edited your answer after my previous response.

You seem to be arguing that just because something is lacking in empirical evidence, then there are no grounds to believe it. But empirical evidence is limited in scope by our own sensory apparatus and by the way we categorise experience - the structures we hold in terms of which things are interpreted. But there are many things to which empiricism doesn't apply. Consider mathematical axioms: certain mathematical truths, such as the axioms of arithmetic or geometry, must be accepted as true without empirical evidence. They are considered to be self-evident and can be derived from logic alone. Many hold that at least some moral principles, such as the belief that it is wrong to kill or harm others, even in the absence of empirical evidence, based on intuition, reason, or philosophical arguments. We can often deduce the truth of certain propositions from other propositions that we already accept as true without empirical evidence, or arrive at knowledge through a priori reasoning, which is reasoning that does not rely on empirical evidence.

I think it's more the case that modern culture has abandoned the structures and forms through which religious intuitions were previously expressed. There are whole classes of ideas which are then automatically flagged as being associated with religion - typically, as opposed to science - which are then designated as being the subject of faith and challenged on those grounds. It happens continuously in any threads here about philosophy of religion simply as an expression of the zeitgeist.

Reply to Wayfarer The way I see it, the problem with faith is located in its instantiation. Faith in what? In Yahweh and the associated scriptures? In Allah and sharia? Is this kind of faith an intuition? It seems a lot more than this. The intuition always seems to run away with itself.

I wonder if relgious faith is comparable to moral intuitions. We have no choice but to live in community with others, having moral intuitions are practical and unavoidable (unless you are a sociopath). The intuition that there's an invisible 'magic' creator thing, versus an intuition located in community behaviour seem quite different. Can you say more about the similarity to make the connection for me?

Faith is almost never left merely at, 'I intuit there is some kind of deity and I will leave it there'. It is mostly faith in a particular god with a particular set of instructions. And that's where the problem begins when that faith is foundational to mysogyny, homophobia, racism, anti-abortion and anti-birth control, etc.

Quoting Tom Storm

And that's where the problem begins when that faith is foundational to mysogyny, homophobia, racism, anti-abortion and anti-birth control, etc.

Agree that religion is often incompatible with liberalism, and also that religious fundamentalism and fanaticism, and the politicisation of faith that we see in e.g. the American Christian Right, are deeply problematical. And also that we have to live in a pluralistic society which has to acomodate many different perspectives.

Quoting Tom Storm

The intuition that there's an invisible 'magic' creator thing...

It's often the case that everyone understands something different by the name of God. There sure are a lot of religious believers I wouldn't have any truck with. In fact there's probably quite a few to whom I would come across as atheist, and I wouldn't even try to persuade them otherwise.

But I also believe there is a fact of existence that is over our limited cognitive horizons, which religions, at least sometimes, represent. I mean, not all religion is evil, although if your sole experience of it was through internet fora, you might be inclined to think so.

Reply to Wayfarer :up:

Reply to Tom Storm I suppose to try and articulate my own stance a little better, I think the higher religious traditions - by that I'm referring to Christian Platonism, and what I know of Vedanta and Buddhism - are grounded in an insight into a genuine higher truth. Not just as a matter of belief or faith, although they may be instrumental in coming to understand it. But that in some sense, humanity is part of the unfolding of the cosmos - the way I put it is, that through sentient beings, the Universe comes to understand itself. That is an intuition that is even shared by at least some scientists. So I allow that any one of them might be valid pathway to coming to know those higher truths, which is why I too am pluralist. But these things are very deep, hard to fathom, so they're expressed in the language of signs and symbols - you can't simply spell them out or describe them, as they require a complete re-organisation of the personality in order to understand - hence my earlier reference to 'realisation' or 'self-realisation'. Those ideas are much better explained in Hindu and Buddhist schools than in mainstream Christianity, although they're also there if you know where to look. Faith is part of that, but ultimately it is something to be known directly, although that kind of understanding is not part of the lingua franca of today's culture.

Reply to Wayfarer I do undertand your position and believe I have, if you'll forgive me, a reasonable, intuitive grasp of your perspective.

But I have no personal intuitions of any of what you describe, despite years of exposure to everything from Alan Watts, Suzuki, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Jung and Gnosticism and many other old favourites.

Quoting Wayfarer

But these things are very deep, hard to fathom, so they're expressed in the language of signs and symbols - you can't simply spell them out or describe them, as they require a complete re-organisation of the personality in order to understand - hence my earlier reference to 'realisation' or 'self-realisation'

There's no question that such esoterica is vague and lends itself to multiple interpretive expressions. I'm not crazy about following such signs and symbols around the world, like some mystical equivalent to a storm chaser.

I guess I take the view that this material appeals to some and not to others. And it doesn't much matter, except in academia or amongst the cognoscenti and in some corners of places like this. If there is a transcendent ultimate concern, it will take care of itself and doesn't need us.

But I've said before I think your position has aesthetic foundations. You appear to have a view that there has been a kind of fall (paradise lost?) - that the numinous and integrated has been displaced by an ugly, modernist, secular, scientistic worldview, which has led us to nihilism and disenchantment. The evidence being our current, divided world and the coarseness of public discourse. I would argue the world was coarse and divided and broken even when spiritual traditions meant life and the numinous was not scoffed at, and before modernism was a glint in TS Elliot's eye. My take is that traditions of higher awareness may lead us to the crass and the ugly, every bit as swiftly as any other type of belief system.

We stand on either sides of the river making similar arguments, but for opposite reasons.

Reply to Wayfarer That said - I love your contributions and the focus and scholarship you bring to the discussions. :up:

Reply to Tom Storm Quoting Tom Storm

You appear to have a view that there has been a kind of fall (paradise lost?) - that the numinous and integrated has been displaced by an ugly, modernist, secular, scientistic worldview, which has led us to nihilism and disenchantment. The evidence being our current, divided world and the coarseness of public discourse.

Thanks, kind of you to say so. I guess that is a fair description, although not all there is to it.

Quoting Tom Storm

If there is a transcendent ultimate concern, it will take care of itself and doesn't need us.

Wouldn't be too sure of that.

Following Wayfarer's lead, I'll put my Zener cards on the Ouija board ...
Quoting 180 Proof

I'm a (modern) Gnostic in the following sense:

"I don't want to believe. I want to know."
— Carl Sagan

"I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone."
— Albert Camus

Deus, sive natura naturans
— Benedict Spinoza

... from an old thread post.

Quoting Wayfarer

I suppose to try and articulate my own stance a little better [ ... ] Not just as a matter of belief or faith, although they may be instrumental in coming to understand it. But that in some sense, humanity is part of the unfolding of the cosmos - the way I put it is, that through sentient beings, the Universe comes to understand itself.

And so the eye says to the brain, "I see things and you understand yourself in part by me seeing them, but I cannot see you or myself so you cannot understand yourself completely and, like me, brain, you have to make up X-of-the-gaps fantasies about me and yourself. Of course, we cannot honestly believe those fantasies are true no matter what we tell ourselves ..."

Quoting Tom Storm

But I have no personal intuitions of any of what you describe, despite years of exposure to everything from Alan Watts, Suzuki, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Jung and Gnosticism and many other old favourites.

Same here. :100: :up:

Besides, to paraphrase Camus: what can 'Perennialism' mean to – what existential role can (the) 'ultimate unity' play in – the ephemeral lives of discrete metacognitives like us, Wayfarer? Just give up metacognition as much as possible (aka "one hand clapping" & "mantras")? Become, in effect, satisfied swine rather than sad Socratics (or, more likely, stupified sophists/apologists)?

@Wayfarer, thanks to your golden brain, knowledge and tongue expressing ideas at so much more fluidity and precision than me.

Quoting 180 Proof

And so the eye says to the brain, "I see things and you understand yourself in part by me seeing them, but I cannot see you or myself so you cannot understand yourself completely and, like me, brain, you have to make up X-of-the-gaps fantasies about me and yourself. Of course, we cannot honestly believe those fantasies are true no matter what we tell ourselves ..."

How do you honestly distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy. Honestly speaking, they all fall under one category: life experience. But you just actively make a conscious effort to distinguish between what is fantasy or not to maintain your sanity. But, you might as well lose it instead of doing something that you know you are doing to maintain your self-image and hence losing trust in yourself. Well, these "fantasies" define you. These "fantasies" are you trying to find your own self. These "fantasies' are the true you that you decided to lose so as not to get lost.

Quoting Wayfarer

You edited your answer after my previous response.

To add, not to change. That last bit you quoted was from my very first post. It didn't mention grounds or reason or logic or subject matter.

Quoting Wayfarer

You seem to be arguing that just because something is lacking in empirical evidence, then there are no grounds to believe it.

Not arguing; defending my original definition of faith.
You can have faith in mathematical axioms, UFO's, Progress, maternal love, capitalism or anything you want. Some of those beliefs might even be justified.

Quoting Vera Mont

Fine. I never discussed reason, except as a proposed component of sorting information. I think I do use reason as part of the process whereby I arrive at conclusions and decisions, and I suspect you do too, but if you don't believe that, you don't. It's not a critical difference between faith, based in little or no evidence, and trust or belief based on empirical experience.

I already discussed how I think reason is involved in knowledge and decision making. I never claimed it had no role. We've gotten a little off target anyway, the main issue between us is whether or not faith is a valid path to knowledge. I say it can be. You say no. I don't think we're going to get any better than that.

Well there is faith in the scientific method and faith in religious propositions, but I am not sure we are really talking about the same methodology in both spheres?

Quoting 180 Proof

what can 'Perennialism' mean to – what existential role can (the) 'ultimate unity' play in – the ephemeral lives of discrete metacognitives like us, Wayfarer?

From whence we come, wither we go. You gotta choose who to listen to.

Quoting Raef Kandil

How do you honestly distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy. Honestly speaking, they all fall under one category: life experience.

But it's very important to distinguish them, especially in this day and age, with its proliferation of media and entire artificial fantasy realms into which you can be consumed. There's billions of young adults spending all their time playing computer games. And being able to make sense of experience and differentiate the real from the unreal is a critical life skill.

I think what you're trying to say is that even fictional characters have a kind of reality - which is true. It's also true that there are many elements of our inner world that are real, even if they don't have any outer existence. Many elements of the spiritual life are especially like this. But what's needed is to find an overall structure within which all these elements have a place.

Here's an example that comes to mind from my experience. I once did a course on Buddhist studies. This included the books of Steven Collins who is a scholar of Buddhist studies and who has written extensively on Pali literature and language (Pali being the traditional language of Theravada Buddhism.) He uses the term "the Pali imaginaire" to refer to the collective mental images, symbols, and themes that are commonly associated with Pali literature and the culture it represents. It is a set of texts, ideas and images that have been constructed over time through the interpretation and re-interpretation of the Pali texts, as well as through the transmission of Buddhist ideas across different cultures and historical contexts. It encompasses a wide range of concepts, including karma, rebirth, meditation, and the nature of the self, and is characterized by a distinctive blend of rationality, empiricism, and mystical insight.

The Pali imaginaire, he said, is not a static or fixed set of ideas, but rather a dynamic and evolving cultural phenomenon that reflects the ongoing dialogue between Pali literature and the societies in which it is read and studied.

This is very much what Karen Armstrong has in mind as a 'mythos'. It's not just myth in the pejorative sense of 'a story that isn't true', but a narrative structure which accomodates all of those elements of existence by giving them a kind of over-arching metaphorical or symbolic structure. The Greek Myths and the Christian mythos are others. Even in modern Western culture many of these themes surface through super-hero movies and the like (per Joseph Campell, 'Hero with a Thousand Faces', one of the main sources for Star Wars.)

That's where I would situate your undertaking.

Quoting Wayfarer

This is very much what Karen Armstrong has in mind as a 'mythos'. It's not just myth in the pejorative sense of 'a story that isn't true', but a narrative structure which accomodates all of those elements of existence by giving them a kind of over-arching metaphorical or symbolic structure. The Greek Myths and the Christian mythos are others. Even in modern Western culture many of these themes surface through super-hero movies and the like (per Joseph Campell, 'Hero with a Thousand Faces', one of the main sources for Star Wars.)

That's where I would situate your undertaking.

Myths are not literally true, but they have meaning non the less in imparting values and understanding.
The story of the good Samaritan does not have to be true or even to have happened to impart the message and value that it is meant to convey. Religion as "mythos" is not meant to be an insult quite the contrary, it is meant to convey meaning. I am just agreeing with you.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think what you're trying to say is that even fictional characters have a kind of reality - which is true. It's also true that there are many elements of our inner world that are real, even if they don't have any outer existence. Many elements of the spiritual life are especially like this. But what's needed is to find an overall structure within which all these elements have a place.

I totally agree with you. I was reacting to @180 Proof idea that they are just fantasies and they have much deeper meanings than that. They could be anywhere between some very powerful insights into our inner beings to higher beings communicating with us in their own unique way and they shouldn't be trashed as "just fantasies". But, I am advising no one to throw himself out of the window because of a superman's fantasy in his head.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I am advising no one to throw himself out of the window because of a superman's fantasy in his head.

:up: 'Trust in Allah, but tether your camel first' ~ Arab proverb.

Quoting Raef Kandil

How do you honestly distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy.

As opposed to 'dishonestly distinguish'... ? :roll:

@180 Proof what I meant to say was: Honestly, how do you distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy?

I hope we are clear I am not here to learn English and if you can decipher the meanings, there is no need to pick up on these non-native speakers' grammatical errors. Unless, this forum is for only members who can speak English as their first language in which case I should be told so.

Reply to Raef Kandil 180 Proof wasn't correcting your English usage. Presumably one would only distinguish between the two honestly. It's more sarcasm than grammar gestapo.

180: You're welcome. Explaining other people is dirty work but somebody has to do it.

Quoting Wayfarer

From whence we come, wither we go.

All the compelling public evidence suggests: from nonbeing back to nonbeing (re: anatta, anicca, moksha ... the atomist's void).

Quoting 180 Proof

All the compelling public evidence

We've often discussed the evidence of children with past-life recall, they have been documented in thousands of cases, but of course if you refuse to believe it, then none of that will be considered evidence, because, well, it just couldn't be true.

But I do understand that belief in nothingness is very soothing. Nothing to worry about, eh?

Quoting Raef Kandil

180 Proof what I meant to say was: [s]Honestly[/s], how do you distinguish between a fantasy and a non-fantasy?

"Fantasy" is subjective and "non-fantasy" is non-subjective: usually the latter can be corroborated with public evidence and the former cannot.

Quoting BC

180: You're welcome. Explaining other people is dirty work but somebody has to do it.

Thanks, BC. :up:

Reply to Wayfarer My epistemic position is consistent with both what classical atomists and (pre-sectarian) Buddhists have taught about our whence & wither, Wayf. As for your "documented ... thousands of cases" of "past life memories", those anecdotes are not, in any rigorous sense, compelling public evidence. :roll:

Quoting 180 Proof

f. As for your "documented ... thousands of cases" of "past life memories", those anecdotes are not, in any rigorous sense, compelling public evidence.

On the contrary, the researcher Ian Stevenson conducted many investigations into alleged cases. He followed the same kind of methodology that would be used for missing persons cases, epidemiological evidence, and so on. It is of course true that almost all his work is dismissed or rejected by the scientific community, and it is also possible that he was mistaken or tendentious in his approach, but having read some of the literature, I think it is not feasible to declare that all of it was simply mistaken. There were many cases - hundreds, in fact - where the purported memories described by the subject children were then checked against documentary evidence including newspaper reports, birth and death notices, and many other sources.

And the significance of that in this context is precisely because it is feasible to collect empirical evidence. If someone says 'I used to be called Sam and lived in a white house on a cross-roads with a flame tree beside it', and you find such a house, where a Sam used to live, prior to his death, then you at least have some actual empirical evidence. Do that several hundred times and a large amount of compelling public evidence is amassed.

I think there's a possible naturalistic explanation for past-life memories and re-birth. It is that humans bequeath future generations with the results of their actions in this life, and not only by way of what they leave in their will. They set in motion causes which continue to ripple outwards into the future. Those yet to be born are inheritors of these causal factors, just as we have inherited the consequences of our forbears' actions. Genetics is part of it, but only a part - as epigenetics shows, gene expression is a causal factor, and that relies on environmental influences. The only factor that is absent from the mainstream naturalist accounts of such a causal matrix is a subtle medium through which memories propogate. But it doesn't seem to great a stretch.

Reply to Wayfarer :roll: HELP @Banno @Tom Storm @universeness ...

Reply to 180 Proof I get it- cultural taboo. I won't press the point, other than to say that Stevenson's publications constitute public evidence, although for obvious reasons, most people will be repelled, rather than compelled, by it. (For the curious.)

Reply to 180 Proof Reply to Wayfarer I put anecdotes and compilations of anecdotes under 'That's Interesting But...'

I'd be curious to see some independent investigation on this one. I spent my 20's with people who channeled past lives and saw ghosts, and some of the accounts were impressive but never amounted to a paradigm shift from me. I can't make any claims either way about such anecdotes, but if I get time I'll see what reputable skeptics have made of it all, if anything. I suspect that this subject and the kinds of claims made are very hard to investigate. And even if many accounts are accurate, there could be a range of mundane explanations for many of them. But who knows? They are interesting, but...

Reply to Tom Storm I find the cases Stevenson details quite compelling, but I'm don't obsess over it. The reason it provokes such strong reactions, I think, is because the idea of re-birth is twice taboo in Western culture - once from the original Christian anthematizing of the idea in around the 4th century, and now because it appears to undermine materialism. The only reason I brought it up was contra 180's point of there being 'no compelling public evidence' concerning such things as past lives, when Stevenson published a lot of cases over 40 years of research. But let's not pursue it, it's a dead letter on this forum.

Reply to 180 Proof Well, @Wayfarer, ChatGPT says:

ChatGPT:Ian Stevenson was a psychiatrist who conducted research on the phenomenon of reincarnation. Stevenson's work was based on the idea that some children have memories of past lives, and he traveled the world investigating cases of such memories. While his work has been praised by some as groundbreaking, it is not scientifically rigorous, and his anecdotes do not provide compelling public evidence of reincarnation.

Firstly, Stevenson's research lacks a scientific approach. Scientific research involves creating a hypothesis, testing it through experimentation, and collecting data to support or refute it. Stevenson's work did not follow this process, as he did not have a hypothesis to test. Instead, he merely collected anecdotal evidence of children who claimed to remember past lives. While anecdotal evidence can be valuable, it is not sufficient for scientific research. Anecdotes are not a reliable way of collecting data, as they are subjective and open to interpretation. There is also no way to verify the accuracy of the anecdotes, as the events they describe cannot be independently verified.

Secondly, Stevenson's research is not rigorous. In scientific research, it is essential to control for variables that may influence the results. Stevenson did not control for any variables in his research, which means that the results are open to alternative explanations. For example, the children who claimed to remember past lives may have been exposed to stories or media that influenced their memories. Additionally, Stevenson did not use a blind or double-blind methodology to prevent bias in his research. This means that he was aware of the hypotheses he was investigating and may have been biased in his interpretation of the data.

Lastly, the anecdotes collected by Stevenson are not compelling public evidence of reincarnation. Anecdotes are not a reliable form of evidence, as they are subject to interpretation and cannot be independently verified. Even if the anecdotes were accurate, they would not be sufficient to provide proof of reincarnation. Reincarnation is a complex phenomenon that would require rigorous scientific testing to be proven. Anecdotes, by their nature, are not rigorous enough to provide such proof.

In conclusion, Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation is not scientific, and his anecdotes are not compelling public evidence. While Stevenson's work has been praised by some, it does not meet the standards of scientific research. Stevenson's work lacked a scientific approach, was not rigorous, and relied on anecdotal evidence, which is not reliable. While the idea of reincarnation is intriguing, it is essential to approach it with a critical eye and rely on scientific evidence to draw conclusions.

Reply to Wayfarer Sure. These stories do interest me. Speculating wildly now, but can we be certain, even if we accept a different account of metaphysics, that past lives is the only explanation? Could it not also be argued that random images from universal mind can be thrown out in small snatches or loops to which some people have access? For all we know there were 100 children who shared the same snatches of alternate life experiences. I mean, once we enlarge our metaphysical speculations, we can go in so many potential directions, why constrain it to preconceived past-life accounts?

Reply to 180 Proof Confirmation bias is most at home in cases in which anecdotal evidence is available in abundance, but rigorous disproof, falsification, is impossible. places such as flying saucers, eternal Elvis, and reincarnation. The emphasis is placed not on showing what is problematic with the data, but on why it "is compelling". Showing that this or that piece of data is false just leads to "but what about this... and this....".

None of which makes reincarnation wrong, of course. Until here is a rigorous testable hypothesis, there's little point in giving it much consideration.

As it stands, reincarnation is neither falsifiable nor verifiable.

Reply to Banno Any suggestions on how to test?

Reply to Wayfarer Quoting Banno

As it stands, reincarnation is neither falsifiable nor verifiable.

It cannot be tested. Hence, it is no more than a curiosity.

Reply to Banno As you already said, GPT is often a bullshit generator, although at least in this case, I have an idea why: that account almost exactly matches the one in Wikipedia, which I strongly suspect was the product of the Guerilla Sceptics cabal, who make it their job to selectively edit articles of those kinds on Wikipedia. (Learned about them reading Mitch Horowitz, who's a parapsychology writer.)

Quoting Tom Storm

These stories do interest me.

Stevenson remarked that Western people would say 'why are you wasting your time researching this? Eveyone knows it's just a myth.' Whereas people in Asian cultures would say 'why are you wasting your time researching this? Everyone knows it happens all the time.'

People tend to be either fascinated or repelled, I've found. I'm neither, but I accept that it is something that happens.

Reply to Wayfarer Or, as you have suggested previously, ChatGPT and the Cabal could just be right.

We might look for things closer at hand, such as whether Reply to Raef Kandil is a reincarnation of @Bartricks. There are similarities of style, but so far the defining characteristics have not shown themselves.

Damn, I wasn't going to comment on this thread, because the terms involved need so much work before one could get started.

Alternately,

ChatGPT:Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation has been widely regarded as scientific, as he employed a rigorous methodology to investigate cases of children who claimed to have memories of past lives. Stevenson's work has been praised for its objectivity, attention to detail, and scientific rigor. Additionally, his anecdotes provide compelling public evidence of the possibility of reincarnation.

Firstly, Stevenson's research followed a scientific approach. He developed a hypothesis that certain children may have memories of past lives, and then conducted investigations to test this hypothesis. He collected data through a variety of methods, including interviews with the children and their families, and analyzed this data in a systematic and objective manner. His approach was grounded in the scientific method, which involves creating a hypothesis, testing it through experimentation, and collecting data to support or refute it.

Secondly, Stevenson's research was rigorous. He took care to control for variables that may have influenced the results, such as cultural or religious beliefs. He also used a double-blind methodology to prevent bias in his research, meaning that neither the interviewer nor the child knew the details of the case being investigated. Additionally, Stevenson took steps to ensure the accuracy of his data, such as verifying the details of the child's claimed past life through independent sources.

Lastly, the anecdotes collected by Stevenson are compelling public evidence of the possibility of reincarnation. While anecdotes may not meet the strict criteria of scientific proof, they can provide valuable evidence of a phenomenon that is difficult to study in a laboratory setting. Stevenson's anecdotes are highly detailed and specific, and often include information that the child could not have known through normal means. For example, in one case, a child accurately described the location of a hidden key that belonged to the person he claimed to have been in a past life. This level of detail and accuracy is difficult to explain through normal means and provides strong evidence for the possibility of reincarnation.

Additionally, Stevenson's research has been replicated by other researchers, further supporting the credibility of his findings. For example, researcher Jim Tucker has continued Stevenson's work, and has found similar cases of children who claim to remember past lives with striking accuracy. The fact that other researchers have found similar cases lends credibility to Stevenson's work and suggests that the phenomenon of reincarnation is worthy of further study.

In conclusion, Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation is scientific, and his anecdotes provide compelling public evidence of the possibility of reincarnation. Stevenson's rigorous methodology, attention to detail, and objective approach to investigating cases of children who claim to remember past lives set a high standard for scientific research in this field. While his anecdotes may not meet the strict criteria of scientific proof, they provide valuable evidence of a phenomenon that is difficult to study through traditional means. Stevenson's work has inspired further research in this field, and has opened up new avenues of inquiry into the mysteries of human consciousness and the nature of life and death.

How'r we gettin' on?

Reply to Banno :up: Right, there just aren't compelling grounds to even believe that "reincarnation" is anything more than a popular, consoling fantasy.

Reply to 180 Proof Neither are there compelling grounds to dismiss it entirely.

My own response, given elsewhere, is that the implicit dualism is sufficiently problematic to render reincarnation not worthy of much serious consideration.

That is, other evidence seem to indicate that mind is a function of brain. Different brain, different mind. The problem goes deeper that just that, though, since it is far from clear what it is that gets reincarnated.

Reply to Banno I don't it "dismiss entirely", I just don't accept "reincarnation" is anything more than a bronze age fantasy without compelling reasons to do so. Btw, I completely agree with the rest of your post.

Reply to 180 Proof Fair enough.

To proceed we might benefit from consideration of the nature of faith. I first thought, form the title, that it must have been taking faith as a count noun – Christian faith, Islamic faith, and so on. That might explain how faith might be contrasted with religion.

But the use of "faith" being considered is not the count noun. And yet the OP does not seem to be about faith as an attitudinal state, propositional or otherwise.

Other folk seem to be able to write at length without such conceptual analysis.

Reply to Banno Out of habit, I suppose, whenever "faith" is raised I assume "religious faith" is what is meant. I read the OP as arguing(?) for separating "religious faith" from religion (which I read as "collective religious faith"). Nothing novel in that. Many believers self-identify as "spiritual, not religious' (meaning, I guess, they'd rather not tithe or go to church early Sunday mornings or bother with a few more of Moses' "Commandments" during the rest of the week). So okay; then what? Seems more of sociological than a philosophical topic to me.

@Wayfarer, interesting read.

Quoting Wayfarer

But it's very important to distinguish them, especially in this day and age, with its proliferation of media and entire artificial fantasy realms into which you can be consumed. There's billions of young adults spending all their time playing computer games. And being able to make sense of experience and differentiate the real from the unreal is a critical life skill.

I fully agree. The scientific method seems to be our best tool to protect us against building a high credence level, from a faith based origin. Faith, defined as belief without any significant evidence is akin to fantasy imo. Carl Sagan, "I don't want to believe, I want to know." You would agree then, that if a persons personal relationship with the concept of 'faith,' has resulted in that person accepting the content of the bible, or the Quran etc, as literal truth and fact, despite the non-existence of supporting evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, then that shows the path from faith to religion is problematic.
I accept that there are less problematic/extreme stopping points on that path than the final stop of fundamentalism or religious powered terrorism, but none that I would personally consider desirable or secure.

Quoting Wayfarer

On the contrary, the researcher Ian Stevenson conducted many investigations into alleged cases. He followed the same kind of methodology that would be used for missing persons cases, epidemiological evidence, and so on. It is of course true that almost all his work is dismissed or rejected by the scientific community, and it is also possible that he was mistaken or tendentious in his approach, but having read some of the literature, I think it is not feasible to declare that all of it was simply mistaken. There were many cases - hundreds, in fact - where the purported memories described by the subject children were then checked against documentary evidence including newspaper reports, birth and death notices, and many other sources.

How does a question like 'well, why do so few (hundreds out of a population of 2.2 billion children today) children experience/report/document these past life experiences,' affect the credence level you currently assign to such proposals?
The fact that you accept that increasing the credibility level a person assigns, to a suggestion that does not meet a high standard of empirical evidence, can result in assigning high credence to something that may well prove to be pure fantasy. Why would you choose to assign any significant credence 'at this stage' to the work done by Stevenson?
I would assign more credence to Stevenson's findings than say, the claims coming from astrology circles but probably not more than I would assign to homeopathy, alien abductions, UFO sightings, near death experiences or the divinity of places like Lourdes and the divinity or existence of the true cross, the Turin shroud, the arc of the covenant or real fossilised, holy shit! (if Christ ever actually did one).

If reincarnation were true, why is there any doubt at all? Why would such a fundamental truth about our existence not be well known to all lifeforms, such as humans. Why can we not trace a disassembling human carcase and show that a certain concentration of detectable energy moves, from a dead body into another human embryo? foetus? 'greetin faced wean?'
If reincarnation is true, why was it easier to prove that the atom can be split?
I know that arguments from personal incredulity are not of much scientific value BUT this thread is about our personal musings, on the difference between faith and religion, so I would suggest that if Stevenson's anecdotal evidence is acceptable then so must my personal incredulity be.

BTW do you assign high credence to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance?
I am just curious based on:
Quoting Wayfarer

I think there's a possible naturalistic explanation for past-life memories and re-birth. It is that humans bequeath future generations with the results of their actions in this life, and not only by way of what they leave in their will. They set in motion causes which continue to ripple outwards into the future. Those yet to be born are inheritors of these causal factors, just as we have inherited the consequences of our forbears' actions. Genetics is part of it, but only a part - as epigenetics shows, gene expression is a causal factor, and that relies on environmental influences. The only factor that is absent from the mainstream naturalist accounts of such a causal matrix is a subtle medium through which memories propogate. But it doesn't seem to great a stretch.

Reply to 180 Proof

Reply to universeness You know, just a guess from my own long experience with Wayfarer, you're going to scare him off with patient and probing lines of questioning like you did Gnomon. Anyway, well done again. I wonder how Wayfarer will respond. I'll be taking notes of your exquisite couch-side manner Dr. Freud. :smirk:

Quoting Raef Kandil

I hope we are clear I am not here to learn English and if you can decipher the meanings, there is no need to pick up on these non-native speakers' grammatical errors. Unless, this forum is for only members who can speak English as their first language in which case I should be told so.

Good response to @180 Proof's snotty comment.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I hope we are clear I am not here to learn English and if you can decipher the meanings, there is no need to pick up on these non-native speakers' grammatical errors. Unless, this forum is for only members who can speak English as their first language in which case I should be told so.

Welcome abroad. I am a non-native speaker too and I also receive proofreading from other users oftentimes. I understand that you are not here to learn English but I recommend you the following web oage if you want to improve your grammar skills: Grammar Checker - QuillBot

Reply to 180 Proof
Thank you kind sir! If his response is honest, and reflects how he truly perceives the world, then I can but read and ponder.
Like you, and probably most people here, we seek truth. The debates will continue for a long time yet.

Quoting universeness

The scientific method seems to be our best tool to protect us against building a high credence level, from a faith based origin.

I think that's mistaken, because scientific method is a method, it is not a creedal statement. Following that leads only to 'scientism', as there are innummerable matters requiring judgement that are out of scope for science.

Quoting universeness

Why would you choose to assign any significant credence 'at this stage' to the work done by Stevenson?

Stevenson really did build a large portfolio of researched cases, each of them comprising sometimes hundreds of cross-checked factual accounts - names, ages, incidents, locations, dates of birth and death, and the like. (See his Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.) He had a number of cases of children born with birth defects or markings that seemed consistent with accounts of accidents and injuries in their previous lives. One of his sceptical critics remarked that, if the same standards were applied to Stevenson as to any other researcher then he would have proven his case, but that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', a very useful goal-post shifting technique for sceptics.

Quoting universeness

BTW do you assign high credence to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance?

Something like morphic fields would provide at least a medium. Incidentally, it's worth noting that Stevenson never claimed to have proven the fact of re-incarnation. He simply said his research suggested it.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think that's mistaken, because scientific method is a method, it is not a creedal statement. Following that leads only to 'scientism', as there are innummerable matters requiring judgement that are out of scope for science.

I accept that is the view you hold, but I don't concur, which I accept, is of little consequence to you.
From wiki:
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
You won't be surprised to read that I wear that badge with pride. I do hold the opinion that the scientific standard of empirical evidence, is the final arbiter of all human posits. For me, it is the only means of increasing the credence level that I will assign to any proposal. I can make decisions and take actions, based on having a much lower level of credence, but that's just because I am faced with a time constraint or a situation where no more evidence/data is currently available.
I do not find 'scientism,' to be an insult or too narrow a domain. I realise and accept that many don't share my viewpoint.

Quoting Wayfarer

Stevenson really did build a large portfolio of researched cases, each of them comprising sometimes hundreds of cross-checked factual accounts - names, ages, incidents, locations, dates of birth and death, and the like. (See his Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.) He had a number of cases of children born with birth defects or markings that seemed consistent with accounts of accidents and injuries in their previous lives. One of his sceptical critics remarked that, if the same standards were applied to Stevenson as to any other researcher then he would have proven his case, but that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', a very useful goal-post shifting technique for sceptics.

Would you say that he has more data than the astrologers/UFO enthusiasts/near death experience investigators/telepathy claimers/telekinetic claimers/paranormal investigators/christians/islamists/theosophists/etc
Have any of these claimers/claims, garnished enough data equal to, or greater than, Stevenson's?
To the extent that the evidence satisfies your own personal standard, for raising your credence level, to the level that warrants you to exclaim, 'I am now convinced this is true!'
For me, my resounding answer is NO!
You did not answer my question. 2.2 billion children in the world today, why do so few report knowledge of past lives?

Reply to Raef Kandil

You are using a sledge hammer in your attempt to sever religion and faith.

The concept of 'faith', empty of content, is empty.

Quoting universeness

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall. The strength of the scientific method lies in its ability to get criticized and grow. Stevenson's evidence is not decisive, but it can crack open new doors. Did you ever wonder if our senses are strong enough or we are smart enough to discover God's existence? If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself?

Quoting Fooloso4

The concept of 'faith', empty of content, is empty.

No, it is not but I am not giving it away that easily because I don't want to impose my hard-earned concept of God over everyone's else. Faith is not that easy, it requires deep self exploration and effort. I can only point you to it but you are the one who has to travel. Else, I will be promoting a new religion and I am anti-religion. I, and I would claim God, want people to worship God with their own free will. Having a bunch of slaves worshipping the only one true image of God is only ugly and have led to many problems in the past.

Reply to Raef Kandil

Can there be faith without it being faith in something?

Quoting Raef Kandil

I don't want to impose my hard-earned concept of God over everyone's else.

So, you are talking about faith in some concept you call God, who presumably is not just a concept.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I, and I would claim God, want people to worship God with their own free will.

What does what you want and what you claim God wants have to do with anyone else's faith? What if someone's faith is to surrender their will to the will of God? That free will is what separates us from God and leads us astray? That to be faithful is to be obedient? And further, that we can know what God wants of us through religion?

Or, what if one has faith that God is a deceiver? That whatever God wants is evil? That one freely gives his will to the opposite of whatever God wills?

It appears that faith is an empty concept after all. One that can be filled however one wishes.

Quoting Fooloso4

One that can be filled however one wishes.

Good point. As I wrote before it seems that there is nothing that can't be justified by an appeal to faith.

Quoting Fooloso4

So, you are talking about faith in some concept you call God, who presumably is not just a concept.

The concept of God is a very broad concept. Everyone captures a very small portion of it. Not through our five senses through our hearts.

Quoting Fooloso4

Or, what if one has faith that God is a deceiver?

That is a start. I used to think the same thing and I talked it through with him. He has a very solid logic and a character that would bring you along his way wherever you go.

Quoting Fooloso4

It appears that faith is an empty concept after all. One that can be filled however one wishes.

Not really. If you can't understand a human fully. Can you understand God fully? You can't understand God with your senses, they would lead you astray. You can only talk to Him through your heart. You might even mistake Him for your own voice. That is okay. Don't rush it. It will come to you. Sooner or later, you would start to distinguish your voice from His voice. And you would wonder why you haven't been able to tell them apart all along. The only thing that can bring you closer to Him is honesty and sincerity. The fakeness of religion would take you away from Him. He loves you. He accepts you as you are.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I used to think the same thing and I talked it through with him.

Well if you have talked through it with him that settles the matter. What then are you doing here? Proselytizing? Surely no one here can tell you anything more than you get directly. What you go on to say it sure seems like it.

Quoting Fooloso4

Well if you have talked through it with him that settles the matter. What then are you doing here? Proselytizing? Surely no one here can tell you anything more than you get directly. What you go on to say it sure seems like it.

People have this concept that a person with faith has no doubts. On the contrary, a person with faith is the one who is most full of doubts. But, he is honest about them. He has travelled through his big piles of doubts to achieve tiny portions of faith. People see it like sunshine because they haven't done their homework. When prophet Mohamed first became a prophet he had doubts that he lost his mind. He even wanted to commit suicide! But this was everybody's best version of the truth. It is in no way the full truth.

Omnism is the process accepting all religions as true religions. I believe this is the case. But, they are just different tiny glimpses of God. I don't recommend omnism if it is just another religion going through big piles of text and applying the scientific method. It is too dry. Omnism will only work if it is driven by the heart and faith.

Quoting universeness

Would you say that he has more data than the astrologers...

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall

Do scientists suggest that science has omni powers? Does science posit miracles? Does science propose that only a single book holds the truth or to better mimic your nonsense comparison with religion, do biologists claim that one of their books, is the only book of the word and the truth and the light of the science god, and the physicists claim that NO, that's not true, it's one of their books that contains the truth, the word and the light, as it was dictated to Carl Sagan (blessings and peace be upon him) directly, by the science god? Do scientists threaten non-scientists with eternal hell for not worshipping science? Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can?
Does science posit a law of physics that can demonstrate the existence of heaven or demons or angels?
Did a scientist die for your sins and then come back to life 3 days later?
Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo:

Quoting Raef Kandil

If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself?

Yeah, divine hiddenness does suggest god does not exist. That idea has been around for quite a while.

Quoting Wayfarer

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible.

From the list I offered you, I predicted to myself that you would choose to mention astrology only, in your response and that's exactly what you did. Was that because it is the most ridiculed proposal of reality from the list?
Do you think religion has more evidence of it's claims than Mr Stevenson does?
Do you think all of the religious evidence in existence PROVES that religious claims are intelligible?
If you do (which is perfectly fine of course,) then I am more interested, in how this affects the credence level, that you personally assign to religious claims, and/or the claims of Stevenson.
It seems you have studied the evidence Stevenson produced more than I.
So, I am only questioning your personal standard of evidence.
I would suggest that the final arbiter of all human posits is empirical evidence, scientific scrutiny and scepticism. I think evidence like Stevenson's remains completely anecdotal and we already know that witness testimony is at best unreliable. So I think such evidence, just does not measure up to assigning a high credence level to something as pivotal (if it were true) as reincarnation.
Even if you can justify applying the very minor label of 'intelligible,' to the proposal that reincarnation is real, that label hardly progresses the proposal towards becoming a law of physics.

Reply to Raef Kandil

Let me rephrase the question: Since you talk directly to God what do you hope to gain from talking to us? Do you hope that we may allay your doubts?

To the contrary. You say about your god:

Quoting Raef Kandil

He has a very solid logic and a character that would bring you along his way wherever you go.

and:

Quoting Raef Kandil

The only thing that can bring you closer to Him is honesty and sincerity.

So, once again, it seems you are proselytizing. It is not about the distinction between faith and religion, it is about faith in your god, the god who "has a very solid logic", a god who will "bring you along his way" "His way." The way of God. To be brought "closer to him" in order to be brought along the way is, by its very definition, religion. Rather than sever faith and religion you join them. Are you trying to fool us or have you fooled yourself?

Quoting universeness

Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo:

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams.


Quoting Fooloso4

So, once again, it seems you are proselytizing. It is not about the distinction between faith and religion, it is about faith in your god, the god who "has a very solid logic", a god who will "bring you along his way" "His way." The way of God. To be brought "closer to him" in order to be brought along the way is, by its very definition, religion. Rather than sever faith and religion you join them. Are you trying to fool us or have you fooled yourself?

I thought you were serious and open about your quest ro find your truth and this is why I opened up to you about my feelings. Here is the a multiple choice question for you.

Does God exist?
1) Ofcourse not (because this is the only answer I can manage).
2).Highly unlikely (stay away from this answer as there is a chance to be very painful and it is deadly scary).
3) Not at all (you are sane and totally playing it safe).

I think you are setting yourself the wrong goal and this is why you end up attacking me. I don't know what you have inside you. But, I know it is something you are trying to hide. I am saying you want to reach the truth by claiming you already have it (which is only wierd). Why ask for it if you already have it.

The truth of the matter is; I don't really care whether you believe in God or not. But, the truth is: you want me to care. i don't. Not at all. And God doesn't care either because He is not in doubt of His own existence. Now you would start telling me, "how do you know this.Does this mean you are talking to God. You must be crazy." I don't know this. But, I believe it and my heart tells me it. And you are allowed to believe something different and it totally fine. It is not a duty to worship and believe God. Which is the big difference between faith and religion: choice. Which is why faith is far less shakable than religion.

I have never commanded myself to worship God or to believe in Him or anything else. But, I allowed myself to drift and be open to what I find inside. It might be another thing for you and I am totally fine. If you belief there is a thief watching out your house. No matter what I do, you would still believe it. And this is something that people don't really get to understand. The choice is not what you really to believe. You will never really believe something that you don't believe in no matter how hard you try. The choice is: whether you want to bear the pains to know and trust something as a solid truth or not.

Quoting Raef Kandil

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams.

If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't post ridiculous statements.

Reply to Raef Kandil

My answer is #2. But your parenthetical warning is nonsense. Rhetorical proselytizing. "Warning: the truth lies this way".

Quoting Raef Kandil

Which is the big difference between faith and religion: choice.

Religion is a matter of choice, although there are those on both sides, for and against, who attempt to deny people that choice.

Quoting Raef Kandil

The choice is: whether you want to bear the pains to know and trust something as a solid truth or not.

There is a difference between organized religion and your own religious quest. Perhaps you do not understand that difference, but I suspect you do. It is evident that you know that many people here are adverse to religious talk, and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth".

Quoting Fooloso4

and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth".

:clap:

Quoting Wayfarer

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible.

You've said this before - They say there's no valid evidence, you show them some, and they say the evidence can't be valid because it demonstrates something they know is not true. It shows hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on their part. I am strongly skeptical of reincarnation, but I don't exclude any possibility because of my intellectual prejudices.

Reply to T Clark
I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence.
It seems to me that you espouse your own intellectual prejudice, regarding who is intellectually prejudiced.

Quoting universeness

Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can?

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons? Yes. But science is blind to these facts. Because it is a the ultimate source of truth. A truth that is equally capable of benefiting and destroying people. I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for. Whereas dogma is the one to be blamed. The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls.

Quoting Fooloso4

There is a difference between organized religion and your own religious quest. Perhaps you do not understand that difference, but I suspect you do. It is evident that you know that many people here are adverse to religious talk, and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth".

No I don't. I say what I attempt to say. I have no backdoors

Quoting Raef Kandil

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons?

Sure, and I bet you're glad of M.A.D. It may be the only reason we are not already in WW 3.

Quoting Raef Kandil

. But science is blind to these facts.

Yeah sure, No scientist has even spoken out against the dark side of the production, storage, threat, testing, and use of Nuclear weapons. I don't think TPF has enough server storage space to hold all the examples.

Quoting Raef Kandil

I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for.

Good for you! Do you know if your god agrees with you? The one in the bible and the one in the quran doesn't. Is your god so weak that it needs your protection?

Quoting Raef Kandil

The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls.

Are you afraid of science/scientists? If you know the truth of your god then why does it not tell you how to easily deal, with these pesky scientific discoveries that punch so many holes in theism, that it makes that which is holy, literally so!!
What is the best piece of evidence, you have personally experienced, that convinces you, your god exists?

Quoting universeness

I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence.

Yes, I do. I haven't read the information @Wayfarer references. As I said, I'm skeptical, but I can't reject the evidence without looking at it. I must admit reincarnation is not something I have a lot of interest in. You, unless I misunderstood your post, also haven't looked at the evidence. Previously, you wrote:

Quoting universeness

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. You won't be surprised to read that I wear that badge with pride.

If that were true, you wouldn't reject the evidence Wayfarer describes out of hand without looking at it.

Reply to T Clark
I have looked at some the evidence, in that I have read some of the case stories but not the number of cases that Wayfarer seems to have looked at.
I have also watched a couple of documentaries about past life experiences. One based on an Indian child and one based in a child from America. I found them no more convincing that those who claim to have personally experienced alien abduction, encounters with the divine, encounters with the paranormal, homeopathic claims, faith healing claims etc, etc.
I remember the Indian boy had been born with some deformed fingers, and the person who he had claimed to be in a past life, had been assaulted and some fingers were chopped off. :lol:
I know Stevenson's data has such cases of scars/deformities in this life, due to trauma faced in a previous life. :roll:
As I said out of 2.2 billion children, why so few reports and why do neuroscientists seem uninterested in pursuing this issue, if Stevenson et al, has such compelling evidence?
After all, the neuroscientist that proves reincarnation is real, will become as famous as Einstein!
Some folks have taken up where Stevenson left off, but not many scientific, peer reviewed papers on the topic have been published recently, as far as I know.

Quoting universeness

It seems you have studied the evidence Stevenson produced more than I.

Which I presume is 'not at all'.

Again: the reason I brought up Stevenson's research was in respect of the claim that there is 'no public evidence' concerning past-life beliefs. All I have read about him (apart from online) is a documentary account of Stevenson's life and research by a journalist who travelled with him, Old Souls, by Tom Schroder, and one of Stevenson's books, which I borrowed from the library. He presents a lot of documentary evidence in that book - each case was thoroughly investigated, with questionnaires, document searches, witness with interviews, and so on. Believe it, don't believe, it doesn't bother me, but you can't say 'there's no published evidence'. That is the only point I'm making.

Reply to universeness :clap: :100: Keep up the good work, my friend, calling out bullsh*t passing itself off as public (non-anecdotal) evidence and/or conceptually self-consistent reasons.

Reply to 180 Proof Indeed, no better antidote to bullshit than ignorance, eh?

Reply to Wayfarer Accepting that you do not / cannot know, Wayf, is "the antidote" to not knowing that you do not / cannot know (re: "bullsh*t")

You're welcome. :smirk:

Quoting Wayfarer

Believe it, don't believe, it doesn't bother me, but you can't say 'there's no published evidence'. That is the only point I'm making.

People like @180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it.

Reply to T Clark Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting.

Quoting Wayfarer

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting.

I respect your position and your desire to keep the discussion fruitful.

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists.

Quoting T Clark

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists.

Thanks!

Quoting Raef Kandil

Thanks!

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum.

Reply to T Clark Where have I ever explicitly or implicitly expressed being "upset" about any topic on TPF?

More specifically, T Clark, where have I either objected to the concept of "reincarnation" or documented anecdotes of "past lives" (some of which I'd read years ago) on the basis of conflating the topic with "whether or not God exists"?

Cite examples of both or either .

Of course, we both know you can't truthfully answer, T Ckark. Your ad hominems expose your own "lack intellectual integrity".

Quoting Wayfarer

Stevenson is a hot-button issue.

His "work" wouldn't be if it was, for example, sufficiently peer-reviewed and replicated much more widely as @universeness et al points out. Controversial, even extraordinary, theoretical claims have been rejected both by the public and the scientific community – e.g. General Relativity, Evolution – until sufficient, public testing (i.e. experimental evidence) had been accumulated (and a generation or so of initial skeptics had passed from the scene). After hundreds, maybe a thousand, generations of philosophers and then scientists, considering claims of "past lives" etc, Stevenson's compilation is the latest to have had no impact on either brain sciences (re: neurological mechanisms of memory-formation, storage & recall) & physics (re: conservation laws) or philosophies of mind (re: refutation of physicalism, phenomenology, intentionality ...) Why is this? Given the potential scientific and philosophical significance of demonstrable "past lives", how is this near-ubiquitous neglect still possible, Wayfarer?

IMO, it's fatuous (à la 'flat earther') denialism to blame this on something like a deliberate worldwide conspiracy by a scientistic cabal of "antireligious-biased, positivistic, materialists" ... which you & T Clark seem to tell yourselves has duped universeness, @Banno, me & countless others into not buying what Stevenson, you, et al are peddling. All fools are entitled to believe whatever they need to believe but fools are not entitled to other fools not daring to question, even ridicule, "beliefs" which warrant questions or ridicule. After all, some fools seek to know – and live as much as possible by knowing alone – and not 'to merely believe' (i.e. not to mystify, stupify or delude themselves).

Once again, sir, you're welcome. :victory: :cool:

Quoting 180 Proof

Stevenson's compilation is the latest to have had no impact...why is this?

Mainly because of the strong cultural bias against the subject he's exploring. It's not a conspiracy by any cabal, but belief in reincarnation is, as I've pointed out many times already, a cultural taboo. That's why when this particular exchange winds down to its inevitable end, I won't re-open this particular can of worms.

Quoting 180 Proof

universeness et al points out.

He acknowledges he's read nothing about it. He's simply categorising it with ufo's, astrology, and whatever else as a matter of course.

Reply to Wayfarer :ok: :smirk:

Quoting Wayfarer

Which I presume is 'not at all'.

You presume incorrectly, but that is quite common between posters on TPF.
If you read my last response to TClark, (if you haven't already,) then you will get a measure of what I have read and watched, related to Stevenson's work. Perhaps then, you will make fewer presumptions and simply ask more questions of the person you are exchanging with, if you want to try to gain a measure of how much they know about a particular fringe topic, such as reincarnation.

Quoting Wayfarer

All I have read about him (apart from online) is a documentary account of Stevenson's life and research by a journalist who travelled with him, Old Souls, by Tom Schroder, and one of Stevenson's books, which I borrowed from the library.

So your own knowledge of the subject is not much more than mine!

Quoting Wayfarer

He presents a lot of documentary evidence in that book - each case was thoroughly investigated, with questionnaires, document searches, witness with interviews, and so on.

Quoting Wayfarer

Indeed, no better antidote to bullshit than ignorance, eh?

No need to start to scratch, what/whose ignorance are you referring to?

Quoting T Clark

People like 180 Proof and @universeness are just here to disrupt other people's discussions. They have nothing substantive to add and refuse to play fair by, as in this case, rejecting evidence without looking at it.

:lol: Again TC, you accuse others of what YOU are soooooooo guilty of yourself. Your problem continues to be, your inability to see your own shortfalls. Which is why you make such a desperate effort to overblow your own significance, by constantly blowing your own trumpet. I have looked at some of the evidence, you suggest I have not looked at. I have not read the complete works of Stevenson and neither have you or wayfarer, but I have read 3 of his 'most convincing' case studies, and I have watched two documentaries, as I already posted to you.
A full analysis of those cases, would I assume, be unwelcome here, as there would be much to say.
If you or @Wayfarer want a separate thread on Stevenson's work then start one, instead of bleating on about what you presume others don't know.

Quoting Wayfarer

Stevenson is a hot-button issue. Shouldn't have brought it up, and won't do so again on this forum, as so many people find it upsetting.

Oh come on! Are we now suggesting some topics are 'too hot (or we are too scared) to handle,' :roll:
Reincarnation is certainly not deserving of such a status! It's about as hot as bull shit that's been lying in the snow for hours.

Quoting Wayfarer

He acknowledges he's read nothing about it. He's simply categorising it with ufo's, astrology, and whatever else as a matter of course.

Again you misrepresent me, which is becoming rather tiresome. I have acknowledged no such thing, and since you have indicated you own limited knowledge of Stevenson's work. We are not so far apart in our general knowledge of his work. Have you also 'watched a documentary,' and 'read a book,' on UFO evidence, Evidence of near death experiences, Alien abductions, evidence of the paranormal, evidence that christianity is fact, etc, etc?
Do you find that the evidence presented in some such books, is as good as Stevenson's? Or is his evidence so compelling that the world of REAL science, needs to make MAJOR efforts to confirm or debunk it completely?

Quoting T Clark

On the other hand, I don't really care if they're upset. Their lack of intellectual integrity really pisses me off. Even that wouldn't bother me if they would just stay off threads where they can't even buy into the basic parameters of the discussion. Not every discussion about religious issues has to be about whether or not God exists or whether or not there is evidence God exists.

Do you think 'we' care if we upset you? Your curmudgeon approach to others really pisses me off, as does your continuing delusion, regarding your self-bloated status on this site.

Here is yet another tedious example of your attempts to excuse and over compensate for your personal conceit/shortfalls:
Quoting T Clark

No need to thank me. It's just part of my job, my duty, my privilege, my calling as the Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum.

Reply to 180 Proof
Thank goodness there are more than one or two voices of reason here, who are not as easily duped by authentic looking shinies, that are in reality, just painted and burnished plastic, made to look all shiny and golden.

A thread about religion and faith has veered off into a thread about evidence and lack of evidence.

Quoting Raef Kandil

. I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do.

I don't believe so also because I'm the exact same. Religions often require/subscribe to a belief in God, but a belief in a God doesn't mean you follow any specific religion. It can be a personal relationship/understandings of the concept

="Raef Kandil;d14151"]Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having.

Again I agree. It's very refreshing to encounter a philosopher that concords with what I believe.

Quoting Raef Kandil

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things. And faith could be related to something different than God all together: like the existence of aliens or animal and environment issues.

I agree again. Faith applies to belief. And beliefs are not necessarily religious. Well done on your articulation of such. Bravo.

Quoting 180 Proof

Your ad hominems expose your own "lack intellectual integrity".

I don't think what I wrote was an ad hominem argument. I always get confused and people misuse the term all the time. I wasn't making an argument at all. I was pointing out your and @universeness's habitual disruptive misbehavior.

Quoting universeness

Your curmudgeon approach to others

It's an odd thing for you to call me a "curmudgeon." First, I don't think being one is necessarily bad. Every forum should have a few. And then, of course is the whole pot/kettle/black thing. One of the things I like about you is your feisty, argumentative attitude. You're as much a curmudgeon as I am.

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments.

Quoting T Clark

You're as much a curmudgeon as I am.

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you, as your comment below demonstrates:

Quoting T Clark

I just wish you'd stop disrupting threads with irrelevant comments.

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority, with academic prowess and status behind it. Something that would compel people to listen to your spurious judgements, when the truth is, you have no such status, so it's YOU who are stirring things in this thread not I or @180 Proof
Our viewpoints are every bit as valid as yours. You just like to hoist your own petard at times and 'puff' yourself in an unwarranted manner.

Quoting universeness

Some truth in that, but I am nowhere near as gnarly or arrogant as you

You are just as arrogant as I am and significantly more gnarly.

Quoting universeness

You offer your mere opinion, as if there was some kind of authority

As I noted, I am the official Voice of the Spirit of Philosophy here on the forum. Only one other member has been graced with such a lofty office. That's @Noble Dust, who is the Mayor of the Shoutbox.

Reply to T Clark
:roll: :kiss:

wrong thread whoops