Distressed at a Buddhist conversation

[Bartholomew]

I was deeply distressed the other day to hear a Buddhist friend of mine tell me that Buddhism required faith.

Faith is an artifact of religions that state things which one must accept blindly. Buddhism -- at least my branch of it -- has never made such a demand.

I made the leap from Catholicism to Buddhism at a very young age. I went from hearing, "God works in mysterious ways," to hearing, "All effects have a cause." Even as a child, who understood maybe a tenth of what went on around him, I was far, far more comfortable with the idea that my world could explored and that I didn't have to worry about faith - my ability to believe in something without condition.

So when my friend starts talking to me about the mystic law and the true Buddha -- concepts that are unprovable, and (frankly) useless, I got the idea that I was being told that, basically, God works in mysterious ways. I said as much to him, and he told me my faith was lacking.

...!

The Buddha repeatedly said that his followers should doubt and test concepts.

My friend wants me to help present a Buddhist topic at his meeting on Friday. I'm afraid anything I had to say would thoroughly upset him.

[AMCrenshaw]

From the Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

"Is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."




"All effects have a cause."

All effects have causes is perhaps more accurate.

But anyway, I digress. Believe in the Eightfold Path? Is "Nirvana" accurate, or have you abandoned ideas of "nirvana"? Supposedly they escape logic.

As I had said, a word the Buddhists use is devotion, meaning that one is not wholly attached or unhealthily invested in a particular goal but in developing right-mind and right-action, etc. for this moment now, and trusting or having confidence right then is a leap of faith. Trusting an action without being attached to its consequences requires faith.

At the same time, faith doesn't really equate in Buddhist philosophy so well as does from the outside looking in. For example, a Buddhist might say that one who sees reality clearly needs neither faith nor belief, because one is experiencing the reality. But, I might say, but you do "believe" it's the experience of reality, then, don't you? Well, no, because I don't believe it, no more than you believe that these letters are black and the background white.

AMC

[Mumut]

I'm sorry to hear that, too. I was also sorry to learn there are about forty branches of Buddhism. I don't like variation - I need surity.

[AMCrenshaw]

I myself happen to like the variation, though "surity" surely makes communication a lot easier. Faith is especially important in Tibetan and Mahayana Buddhism.

AMC

ETA:


Faith is an artifact of religions that state things which one must accept blindly.

Faith (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith)

But it's been argued that doubt and skepticism are sincere consequences of faith. That is, it's the duty of the faithful to question what is they actually have faith in.

[indiriverflow]

I think of faith as a serene confidence in the nature of the Universe. Faith as the Buddhist has releases tensions related to the ego...the illusory stress that one must do this, or terrible things will happen.

The Buddha taught that terrible things do indeed happen. It is our insistence on defining the value of the world as good or bad which makes it so.

By transcending this, the Buddhist finds peace through understanding.

It's not blind faith. It's open-eyed faith. The world will bring awfulness. It's not your fault. Be your nature and seek peace within.

I spoke a few hours ago with a fairly empirical thinker about the spiritual experience he had watching the Temple of Fire at Burning Man. We were able to understand that this feeling was the same feeling that is called Shiva in India.

God has been too tainted for him. But the existence of a universal spirit of destruction appealed to him, and is plausible.

He will never believe in something which could not be proven. But the fire proved something to him, and we found unity.

These words have been twisted so much people revolt against them. Faith is not the same as obedience.

Personally, discovering faith was the enlivening moment of my life. It was perfectly rational and remains so.

In what is my faith? Some anonymous deity or cryptic book? Well...

My faith is that in a life as miraculous as the one I have lived, there must be a greater pattern governing events. This gives me great comfort.

Is it God? I sometimes speak of Goddess, or certain polytheistic projections of ineffable concepts. Embracing these has been a human habit throughout all of history. A useful psychological bridge, as well as an instrument for control.

They are as real as we believe them to be.

Namaste.

[aruna]

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.
(OK, I know it doesn't really rise but we're not that anal, are we?)
It might help if you exapnd your definition of faith?

[Ruv Draba]

I was deeply distressed the other day to hear a Buddhist friend of mine tell me that Buddhism required faith.If you accept your wages in currency and not pigs, then you're exercising faith. If you let a stranger put a drill in your mouth without checking his dentistry qualifications then you're exercising faith. If you jump into an aeroplane without even checking out the pilot behind the closed door at the front then you're exercising faith.

Faith is endemic to a functional society. Children need it or they'd never learn from their parents. Adults need it or they'd never be able to cooperate.

Buddhists need it too.

Perhaps what you're saying instead is that a Buddhist doesn't need superstition. That may be true, yet a lot of Buddhists are very superstitious.

[James81]

Buddhism is probably one of the surest "religions" in the world. It's a moral code that doesn't require a god (but CAN be used in conjunction with a god), and it's challenge is to live in the moment, do the right thing in thought and deed, and be mindful of all life.

I love the philosophy of Buddhism.

Pick up a copy of "Awaken the Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das

Such a great book that explains the basics of buddhism, but also how to apply it to your life.

[aruna]

It's a moral code that doesn't require a god (but CAN be used in conjunction with a god), and it's challenge is to live in the moment, do the right thing in thought and deed, and be mindful of all life.

I love the philosophy of Buddhism.

.

Those are exacty the things I love about Advaita. Just that few know about it.

[jennifer75]

Pick up a copy of "Awaken the Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das

Such a great book that explains the basics of buddhism, but also how to apply it to your life.

This is on its way to me now, hope it's a good starter.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0760706360/ref=nosim/bookmooch-20

[indiriverflow]

Buddhism is probably one of the surest "religions" in the world. It's a moral code that doesn't require a god (but CAN be used in conjunction with a god), and it's challenge is to live in the moment, do the right thing in thought and deed, and be mindful of all life.

I love the philosophy of Buddhism.

Pick up a copy of "Awaken the Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das

Such a great book that explains the basics of buddhism, but also how to apply it to your life.

If we're morphing into a Buddhist book club, I must emphatically recommend Being Peace (http://www.parallax.org/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&key=BOOKBP) by Thich Nhat Hanh.

[jennifer75]

If we're morphing into a Buddhist book club, I must emphatically recommend Being Peace (http://www.parallax.org/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&key=BOOKBP) by Thich Nhat Hanh.

See that James? Hmmmm. I'm for it.

[James81]

If we're morphing into a Buddhist book club, I must emphatically recommend Being Peace (http://www.parallax.org/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&key=BOOKBP) by Thich Nhat Hanh.

I'll have to read that.

Anybody ever read the Buddha Dharma (the buddhist's "bible")?

I've been wanting to read that but keep forgetting to actually buy a copy.

[kuwisdelu]

I'd say Buddhism does require a few jumps of belief, but there's generally reasoning behind them, so I wouldn't really call it "faith." At least not blind faith.

[GeorgeK]

I'd say Buddhism does require a few jumps of belief, but there's generally reasoning behind them, so I wouldn't really call it "faith." At least not blind faith.

Is not a belief in reincarnation just as much blind faith as a belief that there is no reincarnation?





They are as real as we believe them to be.



Or maybe we are as real as they believe us to be?

[Bartholomew]

Is not a belief in reincarnation just as much blind faith as a belief that there is no reincarnation?


Fortunately, reincarnation is not a Buddhist idea. :)

I often see people say transmigration instead, to represent the idea that ego and identity are not preserved, but that energy is.

[AMCrenshaw]

Rebirth! Rebirth!!!


AMC

[Bartholomew]

Rebirth! Rebirth!!!


AMC

I don't believe in rebirth. Am I just the world's crappiest Buddhist, or what?

ETA; I'd *like* to believe in rebirth, but I think it has a pretty grim prognosis.

[AMCrenshaw]

I often see people say transmigration instead, to represent the idea that ego and identity are not preserved, but that energy is.

Are you the same person who went to sleep last night? Are you the same person who woke up? The same who ate cereal, drank coffee and orange juice? Is that the same person who is now reading AW forums?

The answers to these questions are a certain "rebirth" in a nut-shell-- that in a sense we're always dying and always reborn, constantly, as a consequence of constant change.

AMC

[GeorgeK]

Fortunately, reincarnation is not a Buddhist idea. :)

I often see people say transmigration instead, to represent the idea that ego and identity are not preserved, but that energy is.

It's that derned sleep deprivation confusing me again

[indiriverflow]

Is not a belief in reincarnation just as much blind faith as a belief that there is no reincarnation?

An excellent point. I will try to answer with regard to my own belief.

My impression of the world is that archetypes recur. Individuals and cultures come into existence from what came before them, passing into that which follows.

So I don't know if I "believe" in reincarnation, as for example, an alternative to the Dante cosmogony. Both seem to me to be literary constructs...valuable ways to abstract about a level of existence which transcends physical incarnation.

Every living body has something animating it. This energy is the cumulative activity of physical and nonphysical manifestations. For example, I owe my life to the food I've eaten recently. I also owe it to the thoughts which kept me from running afoul of danger.

I had no part I can remember in creating this me; it was generated by the way of the world. My faith inclines me to believe that these forces will again generate the same energy. I do not know what it would mean for me to be alive, but not in my body or graced with my memories. If that fundamental pattern which underlies my true identity was formed before, it will again. In fact, it is even happening right now.

I think I will leave this convoluted explanation now. I hope I have expressed something intelligible.


Or maybe we are as real as they believe us to be?
Indeed. Perhaps our gods are people like us, dreaming us. Who knows?

[Bartholomew]

Are you the same person who went to sleep last night? Are you the same person who woke up? The same who ate cereal, drank coffee and orange juice? Is that the same person who is now reading AW forums?

The answers to these questions are a certain "rebirth" in a nut-shell-- that in a sense we're always dying and always reborn, constantly, as a consequence of constant change.

AMC

I'm not the same person between two deep breaths. If that's what you meant by rebirth, then yeah, I believe that. But if you're talking about what happens after the moment of death... x.x

On a more whimsical note, I want my tombstone to read, "They mixed our bodies up. My neighbor is unhappy."

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm not the same person between two deep breaths. If that's what you meant by rebirth, then yeah, I believe that. But if you're talking about what happens after the moment of death

Yeah...no. But if you mean, what happens to "me" after the moment of death, then we're not asking the right questions anyway. A Buddhist might say that the change between last night and this morning or last breath is of the same change one experiences in death. As a matter of consciousness, however, if we can't readily identify the "self" we can't really say that we are conscious all the time. You can follow this train of thought to its next stop.

AMC

[jennifer75]

I'm on my way somewhere... I just picked up Thich Nhat Hanh's Peace Is Every Step - The path of mindfulness in everyday life.

[Monkey]

I'm sorry to hear that, too. I was also sorry to learn there are about forty branches of Buddhism. I don't like variation - I need surity.

Pretty much every religion is a branch or has branches. Not only that, but I've never found two people whose faith matched exactly.

For instance, two friends of mine, a mother and her thirty-something son, who live together and study the Bible together, who work out every difference or disagreement in translation they have as soon as they notice them, nonetheless have slightly different takes on their faith. Ask religious questions, and you'll get different answers. Often, the two answers won't be exclusionary, but sometimes they are. I don't believe that to be any sort of indicator of weakness in Christianity--having the Bible actually gives them a very firm foundation--but I do see it as proof that religion is a highly personal thing.

Is not a belief in reincarnation just as much blind faith as a belief that there is no reincarnation?

In my opinion, the answer to that question would be directly related to the individual's personal experiences. If you have past-life memories, for example, which one is "blind faith" then?

[aruna]

Fortunately, reincarnation is not a Buddhist idea. :)
.

Rebirth! Rebirth!!!


AMC

This misunderstanding of the definitions of rebirth and reincarnation always seems to crop up in these discussions.

What the Buddhists refer to as rebirth, is what is called by Hindus reincarnation.
Reincarnation as understood by Buddhists (the same soul reappearing again and again as itself) does not exist in Hinduism.

I believe that when most non-Buddhist Westerners use the term "reincarnation" they are using it in the Hindu, not the Buddhist sense -- which is why Buddhists always cry out Rebirth! Rebirth! It's just a terminological problem.

I'm sorry to hear that, too. I was also sorry to learn there are about forty branches of Buddhism. I don't like variation - I need surity.

You'll never find surety among human institutions such as religions.
The following quote by Herman Hesse (don't worry, I'm going to translate it, but it just sounds so great in the original!) says it all, really:

„Es gibt die Wirklichkeit, ihr Knaben, und an der ist nicht zu rütteln. Wahrheiten aber, nämlich in Worten ausgedrückte Meinungen über das Wirkliche, gibt es unzählige, und jede ist ebenso richtig wie sie falsch ist.“

"Reality* exists, you monks, and it is unshakeable.
Truths, though, that is, opinions about the Real expressed in words, are innumerable, and each one is just as correct as it is false."

(Hermann Hesse und China. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch 673, S. 328 f.)

* Reality here meaning spiritual reality, not material reality.

[Shweta]

The Buddha was overtly anti-faith, though his teachings require at least suspension of disbelief to make any sense of 'em at all and could be interpreted as needing a sort of faith, though it's more the "try this thought" faith than the "Believe This" faith of many forms of Hinduism and... nevermind, it's complicated

But Buddhism is a catch-all term for all philosophies and religions descended from his teachings, and it'd be really weird if they were all the same, humans being what we are.

What your friend means by Buddhism is not what you mean. Nothing to be distressed about, any more than you'd need to be distressed at UK English and American English having different word meanings :)

[Ruv Draba]

Are you the same person who went to sleep last night?The 'me' is a myth. A narrative construct to make sense of it all. Not in my cells nor my DNA, my memories, my behaviours, my relationships nor my knowledge does the me of (say) seven years ago exist. Only in my personal narrative.

Is this rebirth, AMC, or just the illusion of self? Perhaps the chief reason people care about rebirth/reincarnation/transmigration is that the illusion of self is nice and small while the facts of non-self and changing-self are scarily big.

[aruna]

The 'me' is a myth. A narrative construct to make sense of it all. Not in my cells nor my DNA, my memories, my behaviours, my relationships nor my knowledge does the me of (say) seven years ago exist. Only in my personal narrative.

Is this rebirth, AMC, or just the illusion of self? Perhaps the chief reason people care about rebirth/reincarnation/transmigration is that the illusion of self is nice and small while the facts of non-self and changing-self are scarily big.

I consider the question of rebirth/reincarnation irrelevant, but I do question what you say above.

The "me" is indeed a narrative contruct, and at the same time, behind it all, is there not an awareness of your "me-ness" behind the personal narrative? A substratum to your "me-ness", a being that holds it all together?


Every thought that we have had, every experience we have gone through, good or bad, every emotion, is embedded in that consciousness and left a mark; not indelibly, but there nevertheless, as latent impressions, called "vasanas" in Sanskrit. That bundle of "vasanas" embedded in consciousness is the entity that is thought to reincarnate in Hinduism, carrying with it all the strengths and weaknesses it has gathered in this life, the rudiments of every skill and the latent memories of its aversions and preferences. Born into a new body, it gets a new name and invents a new "me" to go with that name, and continues on its course, a new journey...

It certainly explains the differences in people.

For me, the task is to separate the illusory self from the real. The question of who migrates is interesting, but not really relevant to that task.

[AMCrenshaw]

The 'me' is a myth. A narrative construct to make sense of it all.

I couldn't agree more.

Is this rebirth, AMC, or just the illusion of self? Perhaps the chief reason people care about rebirth/reincarnation/transmigration is that the illusion of self is nice and small while the facts of non-self and changing-self are scarily big.

Change is rebirth. It was meant to answer those who people who wanted to know about death. Buddha says, "All is change. Are you different?"

AMC


ETA: The question was originally raised by a disciple of the Buddhist teacher Dogen (we know of him primarily because of D.T. Suzuki); I think the question is directed at the nature of the self, which is in constant change, so that it's inappropriate to call it rebirth only. It is, of course, death, too.

[indiriverflow]

My favorite quote on the subject is "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Appropriately enough, that contrasts with my earlier statement, yet I feel no contradiction. Faith is an emotional state which one deliberately engages for psychological comfort.

This dual consciousness of reality is particularly helpful right now, as one part of me needs to believe that my WIP is the one that will finally justify all this work.

I'm aware at one level how unrealistic that is. When I think about it, I get anxious. I freeze. I don't write. I panic.

Then I find my faith, that my MC has something to universal to say, and the world will finally give him the mike.

Then I write again, until I remember reality.

The problem comes when people confuse their faith with belief.

I hope some of you can relate.

[Bartholomew]

The Buddha was overtly anti-faith, though his teachings require at least suspension of disbelief to make any sense of 'em at all and could be interpreted as needing a sort of faith, though it's more the "try this thought" faith than the "Believe This" faith of many forms of Hinduism and... nevermind, it's complicated

But Buddhism is a catch-all term for all philosophies and religions descended from his teachings, and it'd be really weird if they were all the same, humans being what we are.

What your friend means by Buddhism is not what you mean. Nothing to be distressed about, any more than you'd need to be distressed at UK English and American English having different word meanings :)

More distressing is that he actively seeks me out to correct me than that he actually holds beliefs I disagree with. If I cared very much what other people believed, I'd have gone wonky and climbed the top of a bell tower long, long ago. :)

[Monkey]

Is this rebirth, AMC, or just the illusion of self? Perhaps the chief reason people care about rebirth/reincarnation/transmigration is that the illusion of self is nice and small while the facts of non-self and changing-self are scarily big.

I can see how that could be the case, but I also know that I believe in reincarnation, and it's not because I find it reassuring.

It was more that I came to believe in it through experiences, and found reassurance in it after the fact. I posted a looong post about it all and then erased it, because first, it's entirely anecdotal, and second, this thread isn't about that.

More distressing is that he actively seeks me out to correct me than that he actually holds beliefs I disagree with. If I cared very much what other people believed, I'd have gone wonky and climbed the top of a bell tower long, long ago. :)

It sounds as though your friend already knows that the two of you don't agree perfectly. Since both of you seem OK with this, I wouldn't worry about it. :)

I would talk to him about faith, though. Perhaps you could tell him that you do have faith...but that your faith has led you to slightly different conclusions...perhaps the conclusions you need to take from this lifetime.

(Of course, you'd be using "faith" in a common colloqial ussage, meaning something like "a set of religious beliefs". :D )

[aruna]

I can see how that could be the case, but I also know that I believe in reincarnation, and it's not because I find it reassuring.



Same here. And just to be clear: for me reincarnation is not in the Buddhist sense, of the same "me" reappearring again and again. It's always a moving on; learning and growing, and each time a new "me", but with the residual tendencies from the past.

Nothing else, really could explain some of the extraordinary directions my life has taken. WHY, for instance, did just the very name of a certain mountain force me to drop everything, leave all my worldy posessions and my whole life behind,and travel half way across the world on my own with hardly a penny to my name, to find a place to which fromthe very first day I felt as if I'd been there forever?

However, it's not at all important to me, or reassuring in any way. I don't spend a thought on "past lives" or on "future lives" -- in fact, I really hope there won't be any future lives!
I am not concerned with the afterlife at all; it's all about the here and now.

[Jerry Cornelius]

Faith doesn't have much to do with belief.

Faith can be backed by empiricism. I have faith in my mum to be there for me, because she always has. I have faith that my favourite football team won't get relegated, because I respect their abilities etc. I think "blind faith" borders on oxymoronic, but I could be wrong.

Belief is convincing yourself of something without evidence.

[AMCrenshaw]

Belief is convincing yourself of something without evidence.

That isn't true, is it? We can have beliefs supported by evidence.


AMC

[Cyia]

That isn't true, is it? We can have beliefs supported by evidence.


AMC

You can absolutely have beliefs supported by evidence, and most people have so many of them that they don't even notice it.



You can believe germs cause disease either because a teacher or doctor said so, or because you've seen magnified photographs of them. You can prove a person has symptoms, but unless you yourself physically see, smell, hear, or otherwise experience the existence of those germs/microbes with your own physical senses then you still just "believe" in their existence. You may have good and valid reasons to do so, but it's still a belief to which you hold.


Faith is what allows you to believe something for which there is no empirical evidence - whether that's belief in a scientific principle, belief that there is life sustained on other planets no instrument has been able to back-up, belief in God or a general higher power, belief in reincarnation, or anything else that you can't hand over hard evidence of.


People believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, now they know better, but it's conceivable that someone could still believe that earth was the center of the universe (point of origin for the big bang, location of eden, however you want to look at it) and unless you can go out and measure the current dimensions of the universe, there's no way to prove them wrong in their belief.

[AMCrenshaw]

all well. in my spirituality, i try to remove most forms of faith (convictions in metaphysics, by which i mean the unprovable) and also questions most forms of belief (including my own), since neither faith nor belief are knowledge.


amc

[Jerry Cornelius]

That isn't true, is it? We can have beliefs supported by evidence.


AMC

Generally not in a religious context.

[AMCrenshaw]

Generally not in a religious context.

Oh I don't agree with that at all. What about meditative or yogic practices? I believe they help the spirit through the body. Shall I share my evidence or will you take it for granted (if we allow that the spirit is an emergent phenomenon of physical material, to equal individuated consciousness)?

amc

[Cyia]

Generally not in a religious context.

Depends on the instance. There are many believers who have personal stories of first hand experiences. Just for an example, look at faith healings - you can find people who attest to a belief in such things with no reason other than faith. Then there are others who have the before and after medical records to back their claims. At point A they were sick, crippled, dying, whatever, and at point B they weren't.

There are people who have medical documentation of inoperable tumors for which there is no medical cure. Some focus on the tumor, will it to shrink, picture it shrinking, talk to it and tell it to shrink, go to "laughter" seminars or go to a church or spiritual adviser who tells them specific things to do. All are unconventional methods, and there are people who feel stupid for attempting them, but try them anyway and go in for a check-up to find the tumor has shrunk.

You can call it faith, or the release of specific hormones from the person's mood improving, but there's medical evidence that something they tried worked. The belief that makes them continue talking to the tumor or laughing their heads off for no apparent reason is based in those results. For some people, they consider it a religious experience, others say it's totally explainable by physical means - either way, they believe it.

[Rufus Coppertop]

I believe that when most non-Buddhist Westerners use the term "reincarnation" they are using it in the Hindu, not the Buddhist sense -- which is why Buddhists always cry out Rebirth! Rebirth! It's just a terminological problem.


You're right about the different uses of the term. I'm a bit suss on the idea that we always cry out Rebirth! Rebirth!

[semilargeintestine]

I was deeply distressed the other day to hear a Buddhist friend of mine tell me that Buddhism required faith.

Faith is an artifact of religions that state things which one must accept blindly. Buddhism -- at least my branch of it -- has never made such a demand.

I'm not sure if you're still reading this, but I thought I would point out that Judaism requires no blind faith. Judaism is--as far as I know--the only religion where G-d revealed Himself to the entire nation at once. And so belief in Him is not based on what a single person or a small group of people said, but rather the eye-witness accounts of 3,000,000 people.

[semilargeintestine]

This misunderstanding of the definitions of rebirth and reincarnation always seems to crop up in these discussions.

What the Buddhists refer to as rebirth, is what is called by Hindus reincarnation.
Reincarnation as understood by Buddhists (the same soul reappearing again and again as itself) does not exist in Hinduism.

I believe that when most non-Buddhist Westerners use the term "reincarnation" they are using it in the Hindu, not the Buddhist sense -- which is why Buddhists always cry out Rebirth! Rebirth! It's just a terminological problem.


What's the difference? We (Jews) believe in reincarnation, but I'm not sure if it's the same.

[Ruv Draba]

The word 'faith' comes from the Latin fidere, to trust. Faith is also used to mean 'a religion', so here I'll just talk about trust because the word is clearer in its meaning.

Everyone trusts. We all put things that we care about into the hands of others; we all take some claims on trust. How much we trust depends on what we believe and what's at stake. We don't normally demand to see a bus-driver's license before we let him drive -- but we might if he were driving erratically. If a workmate asks to borrow $200 we might ask a lot of questions, but if she asks to borrow 50c we might just give it to her. Everyone trusts, so everyone has some faith.

But religious faith is different to secular trust. With secular trust we're free to set our own bar, make our own assessments. We can reset the bar and change our minds as much as we like. But when religions ask us to trust they'll often ask us to trust without question, and to dismiss any subsequent doubts. To my mind that's more than simply trust, and it's more than simply faith. It's actually something else, which I think is called submission.

I'm a rationalist and I reject submission. I like to question things and I think that I'm better off for doing so. That's a matter of faith, but it's well-qualified faith with plenty of evidence to back it up. People tell us that the earth is flat, but then we look and find that it's not. They tell us that the sun moves around the earth, but then we look and find that's not so either. They tell us that disease is created by immoral behaviour and then we look and discover that disease doesn't care what we did or why -- only how we did it.

I don't believe that every effect necessarily has a cause (there's no evidence that they should, or that we could find the cause or understand it), but I like looking for causes because even when we don't find them, we do challenge our ignorance and strip away our illusions. I don't believe that questioning removes trust. Rather I think that trust is independent -- we can question while trusting, if we choose.

And that leads us to the matter of doubt. The word 'doubt' comes from the Latin dubitare, which means 'to hesitate'. Religion often treats doubts as taboo -- and I think it's because hesitation opposes submission.

But it's possible to question while not hesitating. If someone dressed as a fire officer bursts into a cinema and says 'There's a fire. Everyone please leave the building' we can exit promptly while still questioning the fire.

I personally believe that questioning is a fundamental human freedom. Whether that causes us to hesitate or not is another matter. And whether hesitation is in our interests is another matter again. I strongly reject evangelists telling us to 'Have Faith' when they're not really saying 'Trust' but SUBMIT.

Separate again from faith is the matter of supersitition. Sometimes religions tell us that if we don't believe their supernatural myths then we're faithless. That's untrue. We can have trust in many things without believing superstition. And likewise, believing in superstition doesn't necessarily make us more trusting. A friend of mine is a paranoid schizophrenic. She distrusts everyone, yet she's the most superstitious person I know.

So... I have a few Buddhist friends. Some are superstitious and some are skeptical about superstition. All have faith or they'd never have any dental work or accept payment in currency and not corn. Some are questioning; some are submissive -- doing exactly as they're told. Actually, in these respects my Buddhist friends show exactly the same variety as my Christian friends, though the proportions may sometimes differ.

[Mac H.]

I'm not sure if you're still reading this, but I thought I would point out that Judaism requires no blind faith. Judaism is--as far as I know--the only religion where G-d revealed Himself to the entire nation at once. And so belief in Him is not based on what a single person or a small group of people said, but rather the eye-witness accounts of 3,000,000 people.Surely that requires faith?

Even if I was one of the 3,000,000 people who saw a G-d like figure claim to be the only G-d ... that would require faith for me to believe that this G-d like figure was telling the truth. As demonstrated in that theological discussion "Star Trek V".

Just because someone appears to be G-dlike and powerful doesn't make them truthful. And if they were telling me to take a sharp rock and do some surgery on a delicate part of my anatomy ... well, let's just say that I would have caution.

Even worse, however, neither of us are one of the 3,000,000 people who witnessed it. We don't even have 3,000,000 eyewitness accounts to review and compare. Just a handful of accounts that claim extraordinary things.

Remember - accounts of extraordinary things in history are extremely common .. but they can't all be true.

1. People claim to have been visited by aliens.
2. Other people claim to have been visited by angels.
3. One person claims that they were visited by an angel who showed them a gold shield with magical writing on it.
4. Some people claim that on a certain day in Jerusalem around 30 AD, lots of dead people suddenly got up and wandered around preaching, and were seen by thousands. That's thousands of eye-witnesses !!

Do you believe all of those claims? All of the claims can be found in historical records. All of the claims could be said to be 'eyewitness accounts'.

So which of those 'eyewitness accounts' do you believe? All of them? None of them?

Is faith an element at all in your choice as to which 'eyewitness' account to believe ?

Mac

[Bartholomew]

I'm not sure if you're still reading this, but I thought I would point out that Judaism requires no blind faith. Judaism is--as far as I know--the only religion where G-d revealed Himself to the entire nation at once. And so belief in Him is not based on what a single person or a small group of people said, but rather the eye-witness accounts of 3,000,000 people.

That's a very interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing.

[Ruv Draba]

belief in Him is not based on what a single person or a small group of people said, but rather the eye-witness accounts of 3,000,000 people.Please can you supply a link to 3,000,000 independent eyewitness accounts -- or must we take it on faith that this occurred?

[semilargeintestine]

Surely that requires faith?

Even if I was one of the 3,000,000 people who saw a G-d like figure claim to be the only G-d ... that would require faith for me to believe that this G-d like figure was telling the truth. As demonstrated in that theological discussion "Star Trek V".

Just because someone appears to be G-dlike and powerful doesn't make them truthful. And if they were telling me to take a sharp rock and do some surgery on a delicate part of my anatomy ... well, let's just say that I would have caution.

Even worse, however, neither of us are one of the 3,000,000 people who witnessed it. We don't even have 3,000,000 eyewitness accounts to review and compare. Just a handful of accounts that claim extraordinary things.

Remember - accounts of extraordinary things in history are extremely common .. but they can't all be true.

1. People claim to have been visited by aliens.
2. Other people claim to have been visited by angels.
3. One person claims that they were visited by an angel who showed them a gold shield with magical writing on it.
4. Some people claim that on a certain day in Jerusalem around 30 AD, lots of dead people suddenly got up and wandered around preaching, and were seen by thousands. That's thousands of eye-witnesses !!

Do you believe all of those claims? All of the claims can be found in historical records. All of the claims could be said to be 'eyewitness accounts'.

So which of those 'eyewitness accounts' do you believe? All of them? None of them?

Is faith an element at all in your choice as to which 'eyewitness' account to believe ?

Mac

Of course it requires faith. But when 3 million people see the same thing at the same time, it gets hard to attribute it to neurological disease or a conspiracy.

The difference between 3 million people all seeing the same alien abduction and 3 million different people seeing different abductions is that the former is a single event with multiple witnesses whereas the latter is multiple events each with one witness. They're completely different, and I would believe the first one long before I would believe the second.

Please can you supply a link to 3,000,000 independent eyewitness accounts -- or must we take it on faith that this occurred?

Point taken, but you don't find any other faith basing their belief on such a bold claim. I'd also point out that the burden is not on me to prove that it happened, but on you to prove that it didn't. Show me it never happened, and I'll become an atheist.

[Ruv Draba]

Point taken, but you don't find any other faith basing their belief on such a bold claim. I'd also point out that the burden is not on me to prove that it happened, but on you to prove that it didn't. Show me it never happened, and I'll become an atheist.I don't need you to become an atheist, nor do I even need you to stop believing that it occurred. But you have made a claim to try and trump other religious claims, and you also claimed that it required no faith to accept. Except now we have to trust that it occurred because you can't supply even 1% of the testimonies that you claim once existed.

I have three issues with your post, and they're not with your belief but your representation of it: weak reasoning, bad scholarship and poor ethics.

[semilargeintestine]

I don't need you to become an atheist, nor do I even need you to stop believing that it occurred. But you have made a claim to try and trump other religious claims, and you also claimed that it required no faith to accept. Except now we have to trust that it occurred because you can't supply even 1% of the testimonies that you claim once existed.

Why do you take everything I post and turn it into some sort of pissing contest? I stated a fact about Judaism and how it relates to other religions in an attempt to give some interesting information to someone who thought all religions required blind faith, and you--once again--somehow manage to turn it into me claiming Jews are better than everyone else. I'm really getting sick of it. You claim we're paranoid, but jeez-a-loo. Not everything I say is an attack at other people.


I have three issues with your post, and they're not with your belief but your representation of it: weak reasoning, bad scholarship and poor ethics.

You've now moved from debating beliefs to insulting me, and I'm not putting up with that bull. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I'm more than happy to do so. If you want to start a mud-slinging match, you're out of luck because I'm not going to do it.

[Ruv Draba]

I stated a fact about Judaism and how it relates to other religions in an attempt to give some interesting information to someone who thought all religions required blind faith, and you--once again--somehow manage to turn it into me claiming Jews are better than everyone else.Except that it was opinion misrepresented as fact, and what made me bite was the outright inaccuracy and unsupported grandiosity.

I actually don't want to bite you, but my logic ties directly to my immune system. A single inaccuracy or wild claim won't set me off but this is happening every day, SLI. I'm getting allergies. Judaism is a faith worthy of respect and recognition and I for one am interested to learn more about it, but I don't believe that you're supplying information so much as proselytic opinion. I'd believe it was information if you had more links, were less inaccurate and stopped overselling. I think your current way of posting on this topic is making you a lousy ambassador and guide.

I'd draw your attention to the Golden Rule here:

Respect for each other, and for beliefs sometimes alien to ourselves, is the order of the day here.In the course of the last few days you've described non-Judaic religions as immoral, non-Judaic law as either non-existent or irrelevant, and most recently, all religions bar Judaism as faith-based.

Pushing it, much?

Some hopefully constructive suggestions: please keep it relevant; please check your historical facts before you post; please post links where information might be questionable; please clearly mark opinion or belief and don't represent it as fact; please stop dissing other faiths as being less important, moral, original than your own.

Hugs, Ruv.

[semilargeintestine]

Except that it was opinion misrepresented as fact, and what made me bite was the outright inaccuracy and unsupported grandiosity.

The fact that you don't believe it happened doesn't mean it didn't. Lots of people deny the Holocaust too.


I don't believe that you're supplying information so much as proselytic opinion. I'd believe it was information if you had more links, were less inaccurate and stopped overselling.

How am I being inaccurate? Are you, an atheist, trying to tell me you know more about what a frum Jew believes than a frum Jew? I'd be more willing to discuss things with you if you didn't constantly misrepresent my posts and try to sell me as a supremacist missionary. Maybe you should take some of your own advice.


I'd draw your attention to the Golden Rule here:
In the course of the last few days you've described non-Judaic religions as immoral, non-Judaic law as either non-existent or irrelevant, and most recently, all religions bar Judaism as faith-based.

Pushing it, much?

Now you're just lying, and it is starting to piss me off. I never said any other religion is immoral except maybe extremist Islam and the beliefs of the Ancient world. I only said morality started with Judaism. Christianity and many of the religions around today DID NOT EXIST when Judaism started.


Or putting it in a more constructive way maybe: Judaism is a faith worthy of respect and recognition and I for one am interested to learn more about it, but I think your aggressive over-selling is making you a lousy ambassador and guide.

And I think your constant misrepresentation of my posts and continuous throwing of insults makes you a terrible representative for atheists so I guess we're even.


More constructive suggestions: please keep it relevant; please check your historical facts before you post; please post links where information might be questionable; please clearly mark opinion or belief and don't represent it as fact; please stop dissing other faiths as being less important, moral, original than your own.

Some suggestions for you: stop reading a post the way you want to read it and start reading what's actually there. When someone says that they want everyone to get along, don't throw in your own anti-Semitic opinions that all Jews want people to be subservient to them under some world-wide Jewish kingdom. Another one would be to stop taking someone's beliefs and making them invalid compared to your own. You tell me that I basically put my beliefs as being right and everyone else's as being wrong--isn't that what ALL religions do? Isn't that what you do as an atheist? You just told me that my beliefs are my "opinion" and not fact. That very statement alone says that you think your beliefs ARE fact. Practice what you preach brother man.


I actually don't want to bite you, but my logic ties directly to my limbic system.

You can bite all you want. I'm not here to convert anyone. I really could care less whether you start to believe in G-d or not. It really makes no difference to me one way or another. I simply wanted some interesting debate, but you turned that into an argument. Mazel tov.

Also, your logic is filled with holes. Saying that someone's beliefs cannot be fact because they are unable to name all 3 million people present at the Revelation is NOT logic. Sorry.


Hugs, Ruv.

Have the best day ever! :Hug2:

[Ruv Draba]

SLI I can see that my arguments are antagonising you and I regret that. I also believe that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'll try and keep it simple:

Your beliefs may also be fact, but you can't claim them as fact here just because you believe them. If you claim them as beliefs then I won't argue, but if you claim them as fact then anyone here can ask for objective evidence. If you don't have that evidence then you've overstepped in making the claim.
In saying that something isn't a fact, I'm not saying that it's false -- I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated it.
A wild generalisation that proves historically untrue is an inaccuracy. As a single example:I only said morality started with JudaismI think you mean 'Judaeo-Christian morality started with Judaism', which I'd accept as at least partially true. But to claim anything beyond that is an aforementioned wild generalisation, with the unfortunate and highly offensive implication that any culture untouched by Judaeo-Christian notions of morality is either immoral or amoral.

I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

[ColoradoGuy]

I think it's best I close this thread, at least for a while. This room is an interesting experiment -- if it is possible to explain and listen, without judging. I think we've wandered a bit from that goal here.