Does Theism necessarily involve faith?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Does Theism necessarily involve faith? » Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

Does Theism necessarily involve faith?

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:45 AM:	#21
To Mega Therion wrote: Oh, so we're back to faith as fluffy pink bunnies, i.e. redefining terms so you can pretend you have an argument. To provide a few examples of how your claim is at odds with how we usually use the work: the Sadduccees (I do hope I got all the bloody double letters right) had faith that a God exists, they just didn't care all that much about him. Mahayana Buddhists believe in all sorts of deities, but I highly doubt they care for any of them. Many ancient religions involved faith in higher deities but preferred to worship the lower, and so on, and so on. Just for the record, to which poster are you refering to here?
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:49 AM:	#22
To your claims about what faith is.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 11/03/09 - 07:19 AM:	#23
To Mega Therion wrote: Oh, so we're back to faith as fluffy pink bunnies, i.e. redefining terms so you can pretend you have an argument. To provide a few examples of how your claim is at odds with how we usually use the work: the Sadduccees (I do hope I got all the bloody double letters right) had faith that a God exists, they just didn't care all that much about him. Mahayana Buddhists believe in all sorts of deities, but I highly doubt they care for any of them. Many ancient religions involved faith in higher deities but preferred to worship the lower, and so on, and so on. Fluffy pink bunnies,... wow..., I wonder if you'd say that to Paul Tillich as well? You need more depth in you critic and perhaps you should provide a definition as well... naja, this is an Internet Forum...what am I expecting here? The Sadduccees (you got it right) where less concerned about god and more concerned about power of position. Did they have faith in god? Yes, but the god was their own position. That was a bit of Jesus's beef about them. As for Mahayana Buddhists, well, you need to change the rules here. All matter is illusion or manifestation of the Ultimate Reality. Generally, Mahayana Buddhist beliefs don't find modern scientific discoveries contradictory to Buddhist thought. Well why? Perhaps because all modern scientific discoveries are within the realm of illusion and manifestation of the Ultimate Reality as well. Deity belief is present in the Mahayana doctrine of The Three Bodies (forms) of Buddha: (1) Body of Essence--the indescribable, impersonal Absolute Reality, or Ultimate Truth that is Nirvana (Infinite Bliss); (2) Body of Bliss or Enjoyment--Buddha as divine, deity, formless, celestial spirit with saving power of grace, omnipotence, omniscience; and (3) Body of Transformation or Emanation--an illusion or emanation in human form provided by the divine Buddha to guide humans to Enlightenment. Any person can potentially achieve Buddhahood, transcending personality and becoming one with the impersonal Ultimate Reality, which is Infinite Bliss (Nirvana). There are countless Buddhas presiding over countless universes. Bodhisattvas--humans and celestial spirits who sacrifice their imminent liberation (Buddhahood) to help all others to become liberated--are revered or worshipped as gods or saints by some. What is the ultimate concern here? BUDDHAHOOD! What is the process to this ends based upon? FAITH! You breakthrough the illusion and become one with the Ultimate Reality. The individual deities are just part of the means to an end, but are not directly the end itself, but is a created extension of this end To save time, I'd simply suggest "Dynamics of Faith" by Paul Tillich. I do not agree with his conclusion, but his definitions as to what is faith and what faith is not is damned good. An easy read, only 125 pages. Trust me, no fluffy pink bunnies here kid! Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 11/03/09 - 10:08 AM:	#24
mayor of simpleton wrote: Perhaps I'm missing the entire point here... Indeed. I defined "Faith" for the purposes of this thread in post five. Please defer to that definition for the purposes of this thread, that definition is extrapolated from Sam Harris, and I think is generally agreed upon by the atheist contributors.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5122

Posted 11/03/09 - 11:46 AM:	#25
mayor of simpleton wrote: Faith is more than the ignoring of facts, truths or justified beliefs (scientifically supported evidence). Faith is the result of a belief in an "ULTIMATE". That is, there is something out there that is of such "great concern" than one will dedicate one's life to this thing and its cause. This "ultimate" "something out there", however, is necessarily an unjustified belief, or claim, akin to 'the last number' (i.e. actual infinite). Tillich's existential dodge merely shifts from an psychological to ontological interpretation of "faith" which only begs the epistemological (i.e. justificatory, consistency, etc) question. Faith connects the dots. I'd say reasoning connects the dots. If faith does anything, mos, it fills in (some of) the blanks (e.g. god et al of the gaps). An atheist does not have this concern for something being ultimate. True. We're simply concerned with what's real (i.e. ineluctable: that which encompasses but cannot by encompassed by reason, or discursive practices (e.g. actual conditions, states-of-affairs, etc)) and thereby cultivate techniques for discerning that which is unreal (i.e. fictional, unconditional, incoherent, etc). "Ultimacy", insofar as it concerns that which transcends reality (i.e. ineluctability), is unreal; and that "ultimate concern" is not involuntary like breathing or sanity or aging suggests that it, as an interpretation of "faith", corresponds to that which is less, rather than more, than real. For the theist, faith is impossible to live without. You make "faith" sound delusional in light of all the ex-theists who manage to live on after leaving "faith" behind. Edited by 180 Proof on 11/03/09 - 07:33 PM. Reason: Fidelity sans faith ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:24 PM:	#26
mayor of simpleton wrote: Fluffy pink bunnies,... wow..., I wonder if you'd say that to Paul Tillich as well? You need more depth in you critic and perhaps you should provide a definition as well... naja, this is an Internet Forum...what am I expecting here? I would say to mssr. Tillich that he has spent his life on things that are much, much more absurd than fluffy pink bunnies. He manages to bring together two most absurd currents in human though, Protestant theology and existentialism. As for how I and everyone else I know that isn't an existentialist theologian trying to cover up their fideism uses the word, 'faith' means a belief held without coroborrating evidence. mayor of simpleton wrote: The Sadduccees (you got it right) where less concerned about god and more concerned about power of position. Did they have faith in god? Yes, but the god was their own position. That was a bit of Jesus's beef about them. Ah, so the sacrifices in the temple were offered to their own positions? Now that is a religion I like. Come now, you're taking a rather partisan view of Sadduccees, based primarily on the testimony of their chief opponenets. If the Sadduccees were simply concerned with their positions, they would have preached whatever caused the least controversy; if they were concerned with justifying a lavish lifestyle they would have been Epicureans. I see no reason to suppose they denied angels, the afterlife and divine involvement for other than religious reasons. mayor of simpleton wrote: As for Mahayana Buddhists, well, you need to change the rules here. All matter is illusion or manifestation of the Ultimate Reality. Generally, Mahayana Buddhist beliefs don't find modern scientific discoveries contradictory to Buddhist thought. Well why? Perhaps because all modern scientific discoveries are within the realm of illusion and manifestation of the Ultimate Reality as well. Deity belief is present in the Mahayana doctrine of The Three Bodies (forms) of Buddha: (1) Body of Essence--the indescribable, impersonal Absolute Reality, or Ultimate Truth that is Nirvana (Infinite Bliss); (2) Body of Bliss or Enjoyment--Buddha as divine, deity, formless, celestial spirit with saving power of grace, omnipotence, omniscience; and (3) Body of Transformation or Emanation--an illusion or emanation in human form provided by the divine Buddha to guide humans to Enlightenment. Any person can potentially achieve Buddhahood, transcending personality and becoming one with the impersonal Ultimate Reality, which is Infinite Bliss (Nirvana). There are countless Buddhas presiding over countless universes. Bodhisattvas--humans and celestial spirits who sacrifice their imminent liberation (Buddhahood) to help all others to become liberated--are revered or worshipped as gods or saints by some. What is the ultimate concern here? BUDDHAHOOD! What is the process to this ends based upon? FAITH! You breakthrough the illusion and become one with the Ultimate Reality. The individual deities are just part of the means to an end, but are not directly the end itself, but is a created extension of this end Well, that's an impressive amount of verbiage, but it still doesn't addres my point. Would you deny that a more traditional Mahayana buddhist would believe in, say, Guan Yin? But is Guan Yin the 'ultimate concern' of Buddhism, as you put it? And you haven't addressed my point about polytheistic religions at all.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 11/04/09 - 09:26 AM:	#27
WOW! Where to start with this one? First of all thanks for the feedback. (which in the case of "To Mega Therion" really boarders on intolerable arrogance and would lead me to wonder how many people could put up with such assinine comments. Your points are good, but your tolerance for the ideas of other that differ from your own leaves much too be desired. Criticism is one thing, but trust me, a better choice of words would make you point much better. If the ears are not deaf now, they will be deaf after such manners. What good is it being "right" when no one is there to listen? You will become like the christian missionaries who a simply out there to save the saved and hang out with believers only. Intellectual incest is not very attractive. Whatever...) Wosret, I find your definition is a bit sketchy at best. Perhaps I am missing the point, but you have not really presented it all too clearly either. I will make the effort to read more from Sam Harris to gain more insite into what you mean. The assumption that everyone is on the same page here is a major fault in getting this point acrossed. Just because the majority of atheist are in agreement about this definition does not imply that all find this to be so nor am I one to simply jump on the bandwagon. This is not a popularity contest nor is it a war. If this is truth, it should not be exclusive to "atheists only". Understanding is a process, not a 0 to 100. There are 99 points inbetween. Patience is needed here. You might be right, but you are really the minority here. Witchhunts can occur again, don't poke the witch with a pointed stick. They may be powerless, but they are sitting in most all of the positions of power. Life is not just virtual. It is real and ugly. 180Proof, "connect the dots, "fill in the gaps", 6 of 1 and a half dozen of another. We are more or less on the same page. I still find that there are a number of points that Tillich makes that cannot be thrown out, just yet. The answers are not a concrete for me as they are too you perhaps. Harris, Dawkins, Sagen, Dennent, none of them have really hit all the points for me in this issue. It all seems to be more an attack rather than a pursuit of objective thinking. Then again, this is my personal feeling on the issue. I need a bit more time to read up on this one and as you know with a reading diability thinks move rather slowly. To Mega Therion, insults aside, it is amazing what people will do, especially in religious circles, to maintain power. The question would be, do the sacrifices, angels, and all the yadda yadda serve tzhe purpose of god or the position they assume in the power politics related to god. God for that matter is a means to justify their positions, the REAL concern. Guan Yin is a tool. The "Buddhahood" is the real concern and the REAL god. The god in this case deans a road in this direction. The god is not the ultimate concern, but rather the central concern Nirvana. Who said that an Ultimate Concern need be a "person"? Who said that a god is a person? Money, sex, power, fashion, all things have the potential to be the "god figure" and Ultimate Concern. As for this polytheistic example, the Ultimate Concern is "gettin' in the 'hood", the Buddhahood. One does ot construct a god or gods for no particular reason. In the end, all gods, that is things that dean as gods are simply an extension of one's self. God is the ultimate ego trip. Sorry the verbiage, but then again... Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 11/04/09 - 01:23 PM:	#28
mayor of simpleton wrote: Wosret, I find your definition is a bit sketchy at best. I've never even heard yours before. Perhaps I am missing the point, but you have not really presented it all too clearly either. I will make the effort to read more from Sam Harris to gain more insite into what you mean. You could just ask me to clarify the things you don't get. I said it was extrapolated from him. I merely liked his formulation of it. The assumption that everyone is on the same page here is a major fault in getting this point acrossed. I have made no such assumption. If you have somehow gotten this implication (despite having said "generally"), then it was not intended. This is not a popularity contest nor is it a war. If this is truth, it should not be exclusive to "atheists only". Understanding is a process, not a 0 to 100. There are 99 points inbetween. Patience is needed here. You might be right, but you are really the minority here. Witchhunts can occur again, don't poke the witch with a pointed stick. They may be powerless, but they are sitting in most all of the positions of power. Life is not just virtual. It is real and ugly. What are you talking about?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/04/09 - 01:35 PM:	#29
mayor of simpleton wrote: To Mega Therion, insults aside, it is amazing what people will do, especially in religious circles, to maintain power. The question would be, do the sacrifices, angels, and all the yadda yadda serve tzhe purpose of god or the position they assume in the power politics related to god. God for that matter is a means to justify their positions, the REAL concern. Guan Yin is a tool. The "Buddhahood" is the real concern and the REAL god. The god in this case deans a road in this direction. The god is not the ultimate concern, but rather the central concern Nirvana. Who said that an Ultimate Concern need be a "person"? Who said that a god is a person? Money, sex, power, fashion, all things have the potential to be the "god figure" and Ultimate Concern. As for this polytheistic example, the Ultimate Concern is "gettin' in the 'hood", the Buddhahood. One does ot construct a god or gods for no particular reason. In the end, all gods, that is things that dean as gods are simply an extension of one's self. God is the ultimate ego trip. Sorry the verbiage, but then again... Meow! GREG Well, you're the one who made an appeal to authority. And what an authority, too. That I don't have anything nice to say about Tillich* doesn't mean that I was insulting you. I still maintain, though, that it is dishonest to change the commonly agreed upon use of the word so that you may put together an 'argument'. Once again, while there certainly were Sadduccees who maintained their theological positions to score political points, the same was true of some Pharisees, and is probably true of many religiousfigures today. But does that mean that, for example, a Catholic doesn't really have faith in transubstantiation or a Calvinist in predestination? So why should we not believe that at least some Sadduccees believed in the inexistence of the angels, and afterlife and the nonintervention of Godfor genuine religious reasons? Besides, this set of beliefs seems to have been standard in the Hebrew religion before the Babylonian exile. Where all the earlier religious leaders dishonest as well? And as for Guan Yin, you are making my point quite nicely: she isn't the ultimate concern of Mahayana. Yet the more traditional Mahayana Buddhists would maintain that she exists, without any evidence that she does. And most would agree, then, that such people have faith that Guan Yin exists. Your definition can't account for the way the word is commonly used, nor the way in which it is used in this debate. Your 'argument' is completely missing the point. * Mash the dirty fideist scum! Kick them in the teeth, where it hurts! Kill! Kill, kill! Filthy bastard theologians! I hate them, I hate them! Aaarg! (I think my wife is calling, something about tea.) (Yes, that was a Monty Python reference.) Edited by To Mega Therion on 11/04/09 - 02:57 PM

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 11/06/09 - 11:19 AM:	#30
Wosret wrote: I've never even heard yours before. You could just ask me to clarify the things you don't get. I said it was extrapolated from him. I merely liked his formulation of it. I have made no such assumption. If you have somehow gotten this implication (despite having said "generally"), then it was not intended. What are you talking about? That you have never heard of it before is perhaps no suprise. Tillich is a thelogian and the views concerning faith are questions of party politics. That is, the theist tend to read and reference the writings of fellow theists and the atheist tends to prefer the confort of the supporting atheist. No big deal. I tend to read the writings of those I disagree with more than those who I might find agreement with. Just my method of understanding. True is that you definition was coming from Sam was not all that clear, but then again, that is my problem. Now I get the drift. As for the feel of assumption on your part, well, not everything is self evident. There is the tendency for assumption in this and nearly every forum I have encountered. Truth is, I still do not have a clear picture as to what you would define faith as. Feel free to write more than usual. I will not be offended or bored. I do realize that the trend now of days is to write in short bits and pieces. Unfortunately this does not aid clarity much. Patience is a lost virtue. Not that this is your problem, but there is the tendency for people to not having the patience to go into depth about much of anything, that is unless they are confronted by others who share exactly the same perspectives. I ramble here, but hey, this rambling is what make a dialogue a dialogue and differs from mere platitudes. What was I talking about? Sorry the provocation. What bugs me is that it is rather evident that theism is, well, absurd! The problem I find by many atheists is that they do not know how to get the point acrossed to a theist without finding a way to insult them or make comments in the effort to over intellectualize things, thus creating even more divide. Atheists need a bit more diplomacy to find a way of making all of this enlightment that god is unnecessary acceptable to the theist. Their arguments are lame and in truth idiotic, but I feel it is not a human right to be an idiot. Would it not be benificial for all of mankind to be able to have a dialogue with them that could possible sway them step for step into a new perspective. (For the most part, the theists are in control. Scary thought I would say.) Even if this perspective would simply be the consideration that faith is simply a coping tool or perhaps just an illusion. I ramble again, but I prefere applied philosophy over theoretical thinking. I'm not as insain as it appears, but then again rationality is a question of perspective. If viewed from the perspective of a theist and taken from a theologian I feel the case can be made much better. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.