Martian

I've restrained myself from posting in several threads here, because I can't seem to make the argument I seem to want to make without veering off-topic. Finally, I've decided that it deserves a topic of it's own.

There are many flavours of Christians. I've known many in my day. My own mother claims to be Protestant, although she's never once to my knowledge attended church. She, like many others, seems to hold faith as a casual thing. She claims a belief but doesn't follow any of the tenets set out by the established religion she professes to be a part of. She's a good woman by all accounts; she lives right and has dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate.

This, to me, is in stark contrast to those who seem to hold a very strong faith. I have dated two Catholic girls in my time, both of whom attended church regularly and held their faith very close. In dating these girls, I saw the world through their eyes. As a non-believer, it was insightful to discover how they leaned on their faith in times of need, how when all was well they thanked a higher power for their good fortune.

In days past, one like me might be considered an outcast. Even today, I'm a bit of an exception due to my lack of any established faith. I profess to be neither a believer nor an unbeliever. I am firmly on the fence when it comes to matters of religion and belief and I will calmly state to any who wish to know that I make no claims to knowledge about any sort of divine creator or lack thereof. I don't have an answer; the correct one will present itself to me, in due course. This is, in a fashion, my own faith. I have a strong belief that I am incapable of presenting a definitive answer. Atheists believe the answer to be that of cosmic accident; we're here by random chance, essentially.

I have a working knowledge of quantum physics, which comes out most often in this forum. Philosophy and physics are more closely related than many seem to realize; philosophy seeks to find answers as to why things are the way they are by looking inwards, whereas physics looks outwards instead. A philosopher attempts to find insight within himself, where a physicist turns to the world around him. At times they overlap. The beginning of the universe is one of those instances; the currently accepted model defines a beginning of the universe as we know it and states that what's beyond that is unknowable. This is where faith takes over and therefore how the two can co-exist; one can believe in the Big Bang and believe that God caused it, if one should so choose. Is it necessarily so?

One of the two Catholic girls I dated was somewhat amenable to discussions regarding faith and we engaged in them quite often. Religious faith is central to a person's very character and therefore important in such relationships, particularly when they're between two people of differing faith. She told me during one of our discussions that she was able to see evidence of God's existance all around her. I informed her that I could not.

In truth, I would like to be a believer. Faith is a comfort to the weary or ailing. It allows one to accept as a truth that everything serves a greater purpose. Many people believe this, even those who are not Christian. Thus, suffering is allieviated, because although it's unpleasant it has meaning.

And it's at this point that I wonder. Does one accept faith in order to ascribe a higher meaning to all that occurs, or does one ascribe a higher meaning to all that occurs due to faith?

Discuss.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

tecoyah

Some I think....find the meaning in existance, without the need of the Higher Power. A base understanding of the realities (such as they are), we deal with daily might allow for a satisfaction to be felt simply because we ARE. The working knowledge of Quantum theory is a recurring theme I have found, in many who find a God to be unlikely, as it tends to indicate an analytical mind, one that questions the reality before it.
Having no possible way to "Prove" something exists, places a thinking mind in a difficult situation, as it must question belief based on those things is can touch and see. One is left to feel weakened by faith, as if we are unable to handle this life without some outside entity giving support in times of crisis. This does not mean the faithful are weak, rather it points to a difference in understanding, and perhaps a strength those who do not follow God lack.
Personally, I lost my faith in the biblical God long ago, and do not weep for the change. This was something I had no real choice in, as more science became clear to me, and study of world religions were not entirely up to the challenges set forth by observed reality. That said, I found great Solace in faith when I was younger, and wouldnt be who I am without it. Thus faith in God is a wonderful thing......It's just not for everyone.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

I don't know why people come to faith. It's undoubtedly any number of reasons, and probably in most cases a combination of reasons. Some people believe because they think it's the truth, some out of fear of hell, and some for other reasons. Do people believe in order to ascribe a higher meaning? I'm not sure what that means, and I suspect it means any number of things. Some people might believe because they find life so dull, they need something, some grand narrative, to make it seem less dull. On the other hand, one of the reasons I believe is because I find the ramifications of our actions in this life insufficient for there to be justice. This can also be described as believing in order to ascribe a higher meaning, but it's much different from the former motive.

But I suspect that the second prong of your dilemma contains some truth as well. Even excluding religious literature, in church we're often told of the wonders of God we're surrounded with, and I can't help but think that this is going to affect how one views the world. So I guess what I mean to say is that, at least in some cases, people come to belief in God because they seek a higher meaning in things, but also, religious faith also tends to lead people to see the higher meaning more often.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

abaya

A jumble of thoughts came to mind while reading this thread...

I feel much as Tecoyah does about what I believed in the past, and how it formed me as a person... and how I do not regret that time in my life, but I no longer subscribe to such things.

I cannot lead a life without spirituality, however. I am not sure if anyone can; if they claim to, I feel that their definition of spirituality is too strict and they do not see how spiritually infused their own worlds really are. Even the capacity to love is a spiritual act, to me... some atheists are better at loving than many Christians are, in my experience. In that sense, I believe all beings are spiritually connected, though most are not aware of their connection; "we see through a glass darkly." And often, I am not sure if it is even necessary to be so "aware" of such things... because at the moment one becomes aware, then the ego enters the picture and skews it a bit (Hannah Arendt wrote of this, and it is implied in countless koans).

This is why I am so drawn to Buddhism... the philosophy that one cannot put the highest meanings into words; that all is impermanent, even our own feelings and selves... to be Buddhist is to simply live, to experience, to find meaning in each present moment. It is not a religion, it is a state of mind. I am not "converting" to anything; I am finding more of myself, even without a proper "faith." Maybe because it is not a proper faith.

Another thought, in response to the OP: I used to think all suffering was part of God's will, etc. I no longer see the connection between the two, nor do I see the need for faith (at least not a religious one) to be involved in an understanding of suffering. But let me take for example my current long-distance relationship, which is certainly a source of much suffering for me, on a weekly basis.

I have always thought about it in such negative terms; when I was a Christian, I would have "surrendered" this pain to God, asking him to carry it for me, asking that I be taught what I was supposed to learn from this situation, etc. These days, however, I find that even while I feel the same pain, I do not perceive the same outlet for that pain. I can find meaning in our long-distance situation, despite the suffering, without praying to a being to "make it okay." Our distance simply provides a time of growth for us as individuals, and that is the comfort I take in its present state. I don't believe this is a meaning determined by God or anyone other than ourselves; but the meaning is still there, without a religious context. There can be meaning without faith, though one might say that my faith in our relationship, my hope for our love, is the source of my "meaning."

I suppose I have become a secular humanist Buddhist with strong Christian and agnostic roots. Go figure... I'd like to reach a state of Being, rather than constantly Becoming, but perhaps that is reserved for a time in the future.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Johnny Rotten

It is a salve on the wound of human nature.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

soccerchamp76

My views on religion are mainly rooted in rational reason. It is ironic that growing up in a Catholic family, going to Sunday School, and spending grades 7-12 in a Catholic High School that I would turn out to be an atheist.

In my numerous discussions with deeply and midly religious folks, the root of their faith is from as noted above, fear, and as a crutch. Many people cannot grasp the idea that their lives have no meaning and are just "dust in the wind". The fear of death also permeates in religious folk because they use religion to blind themselves to what actually happens when they die.

It is a much less worrisome idea that when you die your soul will ascend into a blissful heaven and meet your maker, or you will have 72 virgins at your footsteps rather than your body decomposes and your life as you know it will cease to exist will the circle of life continues on without you.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

Nimetic

It's weird being on the fence.

My view is that the existence (or not) of a god is essentially irrelevant to my life - my morals/ethics having been determined by other means. If there's a god and it shares similar views, I'd be very happy to life in 'heaven'.

If there's a god and "it" disagrees. ie I've sinned because, for example, I ate pork, didn't go to church, didn't prey and didn't fear "it". Well fuck him/she/it. And if I am to suffer in hell forever for such trivial seeming sins, so be it.

Mmm. I guess I'm closer to being an atheist than a believer. It makes more sense to me that humans invented the concept of deities than it does to accept the existence of something that I have no clear evidence for.

loganmule

"Faith" is believing in something where there is no probative evidence either supporting or refuting the proposition. As a child, I didn't have faith, in this sense, because I simply accepted, as literally true, what I was taught by my parents and in church. Now that I have some higher education and decades of life experience under my belt, I find myself "having" to believe. I think we all do that. The "having" or faith part comes first, and the higher meaning ascribed to actions and events is a corollary. Buddhism probably is the closest thing to an exception to that rule, but there's the reincarnation thing (accepting, on faith, that the death/rebirth cycle is a bad thing and needs to be snuffed out by one's enlightenment).

You started this thing, Martian...what's your view on the issue?

Martian

My thoughts?

I've already laid out my own beliefs, such as they are. Naturally any answer I could give here would be coloured by that.

I've always looked at faith as something apart from myself. It's interesting in that it's always been so remote. A non-religious upbringing combined with a natural habit of questioning everything leaves me bereft of the ability to just accept something without doubt or reason.

As an observer I find that, as I wrote earlier, those who hold faith of any nature seem to be able to draw comfort from it in their time of need. A man of faith, be it Christian, Judaic, Muslim or Buddhist, uses the answers his established religion of choice provides him to impose order on seemingly random events. That's where my confusion comes from. Nietzche famously characterized religion as a drug designed to sedate the people who fall under it. I suppose what I'm questioning is whether this is a valid assertion. Does a man follow faith for the comfort it brings, or does a man derive comfort from following a faith? I suppose it's a subtle distinction at best, but important all the same.

If I had the answers, I wouldn't ask questions. And I reckon that would be a boring way to go through life.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

pig

martian

first, i'd like to draw a distinction with something you included in your op: i don't think its accurate to state that all atheists necessarily believe that we are here simply due to random chance. as i understand it, atheism implies the lack of belief in a deity; i think this definition leaves a bit more room for inclusion of different spiritual/philosophical beliefs than what i could call strict reductionists who believe its all the result of some sterile process of physics.

in my own thoughts, i find that even the strict reductionist view requires its own brand of faith, which is inherent in the philosophical position. namely, it requires faith that the world of physics is sufficient to describe all that is occurring, and that cutting off one's search for knowledge at that point does not exclude information necessary for the pursuit of philosophical inquiry.

i personally view philosophy as the ultimate study of everything, such that all other studies fall under it in some fashion. thus, i view physicists as philosophers, whether they are aware of it or not; philosophers who study a particular branch of knowledge. i personally don't believe that this study of knowledge can be used to explain everything, but i also believe its a crucial piece of the puzzle. thus, i wouldn't put physicists at odds with philosophy, and i don't know that i would draw the distinction so clearly as one looking inwards, with the other looking outwards. i would argue that the knowledge gained by internal reflection is not valid if it doesn't match with outward perception; thus the "philosopher" must also look outwards. the physicist's interpretation of his/her perceptions are inherently altered by his own tools for perception and analysis, thus his rules and laws are inherently affected by his internal workings.

more specifically, for your question at the tail end of the op: i would tend to think that a person who accepts faith as a way to ascribe this sense of higher meaning you're talking about is putting the cart before the horse. i would tend to think that one should attempt to find the particular lense they view reality through first, whether that be a standard theistic belief, or another philosophical approach, first - then the views on questions of higher meaning would tend to follow from this.

as far as i can understand it, we are all part of a larger holarchial structure; accepting the terms we have created for our understanding of the world around us, we typically view subatomic particles to be constituents of atoms, atoms constituents of molecules, molecules constituent of biological structures, biological structures constituent of social structures, and so forth. we can view each as distinct strata in our knowledge of what we are a part of, and yet each can be broken into smaller pieces, and each makes up larger pieces. as such, i find some meaning in knowing that i am part of reality, and that as such many things occuring are essentially outside the scope of my ability to perceive them or have strong affects on them. i don't think this means i can't affect them at all, or that i have surrendered free will in the process, but that my potential affects are somewhat commisserate with where i fall in the scheme of things. i do not know that i find the type of meaning that you are talking about, as though it were part of a video game with a final level with a Big Boss to defeat or something of that nature. i think that one can find meaning in simply existing, and trying to bend your existance into alignment with your morals / ethics to the extent of your abilities, subject to moral constraints.

i also find it interesting that people who state that they have no faith, would seem to have faith in the simple fact that they do, in fact, exist at all and that reality is, well...real.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Martian

Some interesting thoughts, pigglet.

First off, I'm a bit confused as to your distinction between atheism and reductionism. Perhaps I'm simply using a seperate definition than you are, but I tend to view atheists as those who define their faith as a lack of spirituality. Atheists are, as I understand it, those who do not ascribe a higher power or spiritual meaning to life. This distinguishes them from, say, the hare krishna who (again, as I understand it; I'm not above admitting I could be wrong about any of this) believe that everything and everyone are all a part of 'God,' as they view it. As Heinlein eloquently put it, "thou art God."

Both of these views are distinct from my own agnosticism in that I simply profess a lack of knowledge. I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the universe and, as a strong agnostic, do not believe they are ultimately knowable. It's worth noting that this does not invalidate the search for truth; it's entirely valid to strive to be ever closer to perfection while knowing one will never actually achieve it.

In terms of my theistic views, I like what you've said about putting the cart before the horse; I can see how that makes sense. Do you think, then, that a Catholic man is Catholic before he questions? Assuming, of course, that we accept any questioning as a part of faith. One cannot ascribe to a belief I don't think without first considering the alternatives. It almost seems to me as though it's a chicken and egg issue. Does the faith spring from the theism, or does the theism spring from the faith?

Your personal beliefs intrigue me. You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions on why we're here. However, does that mean that you discount the idea of the butterfly effect? I really take it as fact that small actions can have large consequences. Is that an idea that you're discounting in it's entirety or am I simply reading too much into what you wrote?

Your final observation raises an issue that I should've adressed. Indeed, I thought I had, but on reviewing my posts I see that isn't the case.

A man without faith finds himself in an interesting position. I began questioning the nature of my existence at about 11 years old. Of course, I eventually came to the Descartian conclusion. My senses are fallible and can be fooled. Memory is malleable and changes constantly. My thoguhts are always flowing forward. None of these things provide a constant base from which to ground any sort of useful theory. The only thing, then, that I can know for certain is that I exist, for if I didn't I wouldn't be able to ask the question in the first place.

So where does one go from there? I can't be certain of anything in my life, but I still suffer from the same mortal pangs as the next man. I have to eat, I have to have shelter. I have the same basic needs as anyone else does. This is where the concept of a useful assumption comes in. In a theoretical sense I may question the nature of being and whether or not the existence I know is truly what is or is simply the shadows on the cave wall. However, practicality demands that I accept certain aspects of my being as they are in order to survive. And so I will make useful assumptions in order to get by in the world. There's no proof that I will die if I don't eat, nor is there proof that I have to have a job or a roof over my head. I have no way of knowing anything at all, really. I do, however, know that if I go hungry I find myself in a state of discomfort and that I do not wish to live without a bed to sleep in. So I go about my day as if these things are fact, whether or not I know that to be the case. I suspect that many true agnostics function on a similar level. I may not know that I have to do these things or that there's any real purpose to it at all, but I have no desire at the moment to put that into practical test.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

loganmule

I don't know that I can add anything to pigglet's articlulate comments, Martian, but his last point hits home for me. I once considered myself agnostic, and I still believe that the only thing we can know for certain is that we can't absolutely be sure of anything. In that sense, I share your expressed view that you "simply profess a lack of knowledge". Nontheless, there is a jumping off point where we each assume something to be true. In your case, you accept, on faith and not proven fact, that you "exist" (whatever that means) and that it's preferable to take action to perpetuate that existence rather than to simply do nothing and waste away. I'm on this page with you too. For many, the justification for that choice is a component of the evolution of faith in a higher power or some form of spirituality. It doesn't have to turn out that way, though, and for you it hasn't.

pigglet's point of first finding a lens appropriate to one's world view before going on to ascribe to a spiritual view consistent with it is logical, and surely some people out there take that approach. In my experience, however, there also are lots of people who start with religious beliefs they've grown up with and then cling to them throughout their lives...for them, reality is viewed through the prism of their unchanging religion.

To elaborate on my initial response, I started out as a Christian (American Baptist) because that's how my parents raised me. I accepted as true and without question what was taught to me. From where I sit now, those beliefs didn't qualify as "faith". Currently, and with the study of philsophy, mythology, and oriental religions under my belt, as well as lots of life experience, I have come to faith, and it has evolved into a sort of personal mythology, a description of which would be lengthy and tough to describe. My mythology gets tweaked occasionally, with further knowledge and experience, but whatever its form, the result is that I am able to be at peace with and accept that I'm a part of the unknowable human and cosmic mystery. I "have" to have faith in my personal mythology, knowing that it may well be just a bunch of nonsense, or it doesn't work. The "having to believe" part of it leads me to conclude that in my case, at least, faith comes first.

Like the commercial says, "individual results may vary".

pig

martian, yes i would say its a semantic difference. i used to use the same definition that you are using for atheism. i think its fine if you do, but i found that i kept running into people who considered themselves atheists, and yet still had a spiritual side to them. If you look at the definition, it seems that a theistic belief system specifically implies belief in gods or God, as the focal point of the beliefs. Thus, if you reject the existence of an actual deity, then you technically are an atheist.

So, for instance while you call yourself an agnositic, I'd call you an agnostic atheist, based on what you've posted thus far.

As far as the reductionist stuff - its a term I picked up somewhere for a subset of atheism, who I think are the group you are identifying. They throw away all possibility of any other spiritual understanding and reduce all knowledge to the stuff we can make theories about and test in a physics lab.

yep, we're definately using some different terminology. I think your use of gnosticism / agnosticism is fine, but I've usually seen it used it in terms of the belief of whether it is possible or not to know, specifically, of the existence of gods/God. It seems to me you're using it in the more general sense of whether or not absolute knowledge of the universe is attainable. From what I can see, in most discussions of religious subjects, its usually limited to the question of the existence of gods / God; but I found your usuage in the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

As far as it goes, I consider myself a gnostic atheist; but I share your convictions that the absolute most truest true nature of the universe is beyond the scope of subjective / objective descriptions of reality. While we're on the subject of personal beliefs, I can probably say that my spiritual beliefs tend to be a fine line between what I think some would consider "sprituality" and what some would argue might be "undiscovered science." It sounds sort of similar, in my mind, to what loganmule wrote earlier...I have my place in the universe, once I accept that is real, and I'm "connected" to it and through it by mechanism beyond my comprehension. In fact, I believe the separation between myself and the universe, while useful, is ultimately artificial. Its a separation that is required in order for me to function, but in another sense I'm just another part of a whole. That last part, the notion of absolute connectivity to everything else, along with the element of the nature of that connection and my existence ultimately being beyond knowing, lends it a spiritual place in my own mind. Others may use different definitions, but I usually tend to find them to be somewhat pedantic; unless you say that spirituality directly implies, by definition, the belief in a theism.

I struggle with those types of questions. I used to struggle with it alot more, before I said fuck it. Its tough to define other people's spiritual beliefs. It very similar to something you wrote earlier; I used to get very...frustrated....with people who said they believed in brand X of religion Y...but then they seemed to go off an willy nilly make their own set of subrules and exceptions to the rule and so forth. I would personally think "you're not a practitioner of X brand of Y...you have a religious belief based on X brand of Y." It would really bug me, and was one of the first reason I dropped the Methodist Church when I was wee lad. And Methodism is like Christ lite for heaven's sake. A part of me tends to think a Catholic man is a Catholic man before he questions, as long as he follows Catholocism to the letter...if he questions and it leads him to do very unCatholic things then I would argue he would be straying from his faith until / if he returns to his faith. But a lot of people will really argue against that thing, and tell you you have no right to label them etc; I can't say that I necessarily agree with them, but its not worth arguing over.

nope, i don't discount it at all. if something that small has that large of an affect, then it does. what is....is. but - what i'm saying is that just because i can't make every woman on Earth turn into my personal sex slave by sending out super happy feelings to all of them (ie. I can't have absolute control of my surroundings), I can flirt with them and bring them over to my dark little piggy side (i can have some affect on them, sometimes...) The reason I mention it at all is that normally when you get into discussion of atheistic spirituality / mysticism and you start talking about the separation between yourself and the world, and the being in communion with the "oneness" of the world, then the questions arise as to why you don't have some serious jedi mindpowers? Or can you? Can people levitate or read minds....or turn water to wine? or you get into issues that, if you're part of a larger design, then can't you just sit back and coast? my feeling is that, as a part of the larger structure / reality...you are reality at work. while you do your little thing in your scale of length/time...reality is simultaneously doing things on its scale. like molecules zipping around into each other responding to pressure and temperature are causing water to boil. both molecular and macroscopic descriptions are accurate, and simultaneous. neither description accurately captures reality, but they're good enough and convenient.

my question is...do you know this? or do you accept it because it's convenient, and the alternative is useless?

i agree with you, and i personally feel pretty confident that our understanding of our perceptions of reality are nothing but the allegorical shadows. but they're pretty useful. i think its still an act of faith...its just very pragmatic. I think all knowledge is exactly that...but repeating the caveat "within the best of my understanding of my interpretations of my perceptions..." gets kind of old...so we drop it. then we forget it, if we ever realized it in the first place. then we take the shadows as reality, not because we simply have to in order to keep going, but because we genuinely think they're real.

The thing is, I personally take it on faith that our perceptions are pretty close to the actual universe. Basically, it doesn't really bother me that much. Part of that feeling is my personal realization that there is no use in dwelling on the opposite overly much. I've found it to be pretty much useless; not even constructive to attaining new knowledge.

logan,

your last paragraph sounds familiar. can you say that faith really comes before the belief system? I've always tended to think its almost simultaneous...sort of gaining trust in yourself and your beliefs. if new knowledge came to you tomorrow that changed your beliefs, would you stick to the old rigidly, or would you change with new knowledge? is adapting to new knowledge part of your faith? i guess, utlimately - what do you have faith in?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Martian

pigglet, those are some very interesting thoughts. A few points.

In the strictest definition of the terms, you're right in that atheism is of course the opposite of theism; that is, an absence of a belief in God and/or Gods. However, I generally find that description to be a bit too narrow. There are certain folks who, while not believing in any deity in the traditional sense, still hold faith that there is some higher power at work. What it ultimately comes down to is where you draw the line for theism or gnosticism. If you accept God in only the Judeo-Christian or Hindi sense, ie beings of higher power than humanity, there certainly can be spiritual atheists. However, if one expands the definition to include other forms of higher powers or forces at work, I think one can actually include most spiritual individuals under the umbrella of theism, though there are definitely those who would balk at the description.

You are absolutely right about common usage; this is why I make the distinction that I am a strong agnostic. The definition isn't a perfect description, but it is the one that most closely matches my beliefs. I am not an agnostic atheist, because I do not deny or even consider it unlikely that some form of a God exists. It is a definite possibility in my mind, though by no means assured. I don't know what's right and therefore I tend to treat any system of beliefs as equally valid.

This is, of course, the Descartian resolution and I find that whenever I discuss it people have trouble accepting the idea. The simple fact is that I must exist; the proof of my existence is my ability to postulate the question. Were I not in some form of consciousness, I would not be able to ask if I were here at all. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that my existence takes the form I assume it does. I may be part of a larger consciousness, or even some form of dream or hallucination, but even still that I can ask questions in the first place implies that I have some form of unique identity. It's a bit like the anthropic principle, if you can dig that; I know that I must exist, because if I didn't exist I wouldn't be able to ask in the first place.

You're right in that the question is largely an academic one. Whether the reality I view and function in is true or not, it is for the time being at least all I have and therefore what I'll work with. It seems to me that where we differ here is that you consider the question to be unanswerable and therefore dismiss it, whereas I, while acknowledging same, still think of it as a valid point to ponder. Make no mistake, I don't spend my days fretting over whether or not there is a spoon; however, I still consider the question to be worth asking and will not assume it to be invalid until I have proof of such.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

loganmule

pigglet

Your point is well taken about faith and one's belief system developing pretty much simultaneously. The two occur in tandem, and a bit of hair splitting, if not complete speculation, is inherent in attempting to definitively state their order of occurrence. That said, my experience has been to incorporate events and actions, on faith, into my evolving personal mythology, so I have concluded that faith edges out belief in order of sequence.

I'm not sure what Martian meant by "higher" when he posed the question raised in the OP, but faith is a bridge for me to get to meaning. On the other hand, the need for meaning evokes the faith to get there. It's kind of like lightning...as the strike approaches the ground, there is a charge rising up from the ground to meet it. Maybe the right answer to Martian's either/or question is "yes".

As for changing my beliefs to incorporate new knowledge, the flexiblilty built into my personal mythology would accommodate that...it's kind of like upgrading software. The metaphor gets stronger, as I grow older, in that the "upgrades" are incremental now, where they may have been revolutionary in my younger days.

What I have faith in is that the beliefs embodied in my personal mythology have meaning. Listing all of those beliefs goes beyond this topic, but would include, among other things, that there is value in love, compassion, empathy, sacrifice, self-actualization, and acquiescence.

pig

Martian, I can certainly understand your position; what I find somewhat humorous, especially in light of the previous exchange concerning the inability to understand how people can consider themselves to be adherants of a particular faith, while not fully accepting the espoused positions of said faith, is the fact that we're using different definitions of atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism in this discussion. I tend to view atheism, particularly using your definition of the philosophical position, to be another religion, much like zero is a number. Regardless, I don't know that its worth spending too much time on.

I've always thought that there was a considerable amount of debate as to whether or not this actually consistutes proof of existance. Didn't Descartes have about four or five different approaches in trying to prove his own existence? As far as I can see, its very easy to get into a place where one is simply arguing the meaning of the word "proof." I pretty much agree with your position in terms of this position, but I don't really find it useful to argue over whether or not it's actually a "proof" or not.

actually, i agree completely with this; depending on circumstances. for instance, in terms of gaining greater knowledge, i think its a great question - easily one of the most important questions to come to grips with. at the same time, if i'm about to be run over by a bus, that's not really the time that i would choose to dwell on questions of whether i exist or not, and thus whether or not being hit by a bus can be absolutely proven to have a negative affect on my health, or what the actual nature of the terms "negative" and "my health" mean. i'm just going to accept the blase definitions of the terms, and get out of the street

seriously, similarly to something i think you posted earlier - i think ultimately the absolute truth is unapproachable to our comprehension, but i don't think this means that gaining better approximations, within the caveat that we are limited by the "facts" we've already accepted as truth, is a waste of time. in fact, its probably one of the most worthwhile things we can do, in my opinion.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Nimetic

Does anybody know of a religion that doesn't promote some type of happy ending?

Or to put it in a more neutral manner - are there any religions that do not bring much comfort, even to those who follow the precepts?

Ch'i

I think that because we are surrounded by so much uncertainty that faith can be a breath of fresh air. When I was young, I was very suprised when I found that most of our modern science is based on ideas that could work, but that there are still other possibilities that would be equally functional. Example: I get from my house, to a Jack in the Box in 10 minutes, and I live 3 miles away. I could have ridden a bike, taken a car, ran, ect.. Alot of our current theories on phenomina would say that I rode my bike. While it works, there are still other possibilities that are just as valid. Faith can sometimes just be reassuring.

Mark23

Ch'i,

I'm afraid I don't understand where you are coming from. If you are saying that you took 10 minutes to travel 3 miles, then you could quite possibly be using a bicycle, a scooter, jogging (albeit very fast), or even a tractor. I don't see what this has to do with modern science. Statistically there may be more chance of you having cycled, but this is not scientific. The only thing science can (and would) say is that you are travelling on average at a speed of 18 miles per hour.

It surprises me that you find many other equally fuctional possibilities as answers to ideas in modern science. I can find none, the reason being that as other possibilities are uncovered, they are tested and the best fitting solution is selected as the most probable answer. Of course, it's possible that better fitting solutions are available, but you seem to imply that they are readily available and easy to think of, and they are not.

Your example works because you don't supply us with any evidence about your means of transport, so many suitable hypothesis' exist. Bicycle tyre tracks left behind en route to your destination would help us to form a single hypothesis, specifically naming the bicycle as your mode of transport.

With regard to the question about faith, I would suspect that most people wish to ascribe a higher meaning to things that occur. I don't find the analogy of the lightening bolt reaching from the ground to the sky and visa-versa at all impressive, as it seems to imply some kind of godly reciprocation of the faith his followers have. There is certainly no evidence for the existence of god, nor is there any against his existence, but it is important to realise that the two are not on some kind of equal footing. There are a infinite number of different things we cannot disprove, yet most of us don't believe in the vast majority of any of them, so why is god any different from say, the existence of leprechauns?

I suspect the answer has something to do with comfort, and fear of death. Humans are, and always have been, arrogant, self-centred and have placed far too much importance on the role they play in the cosmos. Hence the reason why the majority of religions have notions of a paradise afterlife and attribute a great sense of purpose to human beings. It is important to remember that just because something appears nice and comforting bears no reflection on whether it is true or false; this is something that a lot of people don't seem to realise.

Ch'i

Exactly. Scientists do not know how phenomina occur; the means of transport in my example represents this.
This whole idea was spawned from reading an article on gamma bursts. The amount of energy generated by these gamma bursts was too great; it said that E=mc^2 wrong. Because they said this couldn't be, the scientific community began its guesswork. The eventually accepted theory was that gamma bursts look like this... ... with the cone shapes facing us, giving the it a stacking effect, which would make the energy output recorded from the redshift feasable. Though it is a widely accepted theory, it is one of many possibilities.

The whole bicycle thing was a personification to the methods currently used by scientists. Somewhat of a metaphor.

Mark23

OK, I see what you mean and agree with you. That kind of thing often happens but only with a new theory that isn't fully understood. Of course, as knowledge of gamma bursts increase we will be able to narrow down the possibilities and eventually there will be no controversy over their shape.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were assuming that all scientific theories have many possibilities, not just the newer ones. I enjoyed the interesting picture of the gamma burst.

Ch'i

No problem, I can see how what I said originally wasn't as specific as I meant it to be. And yeah, gamma bursts are interesting. I'm kind of hoping that they are supermassive explosions that prove E=MC^2 wrong.