To Mega Therion wrote:


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.)

180 Proof wrote:

Well, if the object of this "belief", or "trust", is a fiction, how is "faith" not contrary to reason?

mayor of simpleton wrote:
We are speaking of faith aren't we? Faith is by nature an appeal to authority. Logic is not applicable here. The rules are different.

From my perspective the Sadduccees god was Power. The figure of God is a means to this power. The "Ultimate Concern" was the god of Power. Everything they did was supporting this pursuit. My view. Yours is different. So what? Sue me!

As for changing the definition being used here... get over it! I could not see that a definition was in any way clear in this thread. This is an issue that is still to be resolved. There is no clear definition as to what the hell faith is. Faith itself tends to redefine things as needed or by others as not needed. (Ends - Means Same thing again? - Appeal to authority? - Illogic?) Faith is illogical. How the hell can one then define it with logic? Rationality of Faith and resulting from Faith is relative. If this offend you, which I highly doubt, please write a definition for faith. It would help clear up things a lot.

If the definition here is etched in granite, then this thread is over. This is a bit too Philistine for my taste.

Guan Yin, from my perspective a means to an end and not an end in herself. The "Ultimate Concern" is Nirvana. She exists, but WHY? I would say to bring some, not all, but some toward Nirvana. Guan Yin is a "god", but the "GOD" is Nirvana. My point of view on this. Again, sue me!

My argument is not missing the point. I am not agreeing with the point. This is call a dialogue and a difference of opinion. I may be right I may be wrong. So what! Againe sue me! I have seen nothing here that is not in line with the position that Faith is that which supports and lead one toward an "Ultimate Concern". Would it be possible that the theists themselves are not aware who the REAL GOD of thier own religion is? I would say yes. Many cannot see the trees for the forest. Faith is not 20/20 vision. It is blurred.

180 Proof noted that "You (me) make "faith" sound delusional in light of all the ex-theists who manage to live on after leaving "faith" behind." Faith is delusional and illogical. It is the house of cards supporting this illusion necessity to fill in gaps. Gaps are gaps and do not need such a filling. Self-deception is faith, but hey, a lot of people are drug addicts as well.

Nice Monty Python sketch. Applies to many a theist and atheist alike.

Faith No More!

Meow!

GREG

oldandrew wrote:


I'm finding it incredibly frustrating to read people defining "faith" as something along the lines of "believing in something without, or in defiance of, reason".

This is sometimes used as a definition of the word, but in religion "faith" usually just means "belief" and in Christianity it means "trust in God".

There are extreme versions of Protestantism (both extreme conservative and extreme liberal) which contrast faith and reason, and reject reason in favour of faith. It is just irritating to see this position (the heresy known as "fideism") repeatedly referred to as if it was the mainstream Christian belief, and even representative of non-Christian religions as well.

Is it too much to hope that on a philosophy forum that we might be a bit more careful with concepts?

To Mega Therion wrote:

At least as I understand the concept, faith need not be opposed to reason (fideism is the heresy which denies this), but something that is held on faith is held without evidence. After all, 'faith is above and beyond reason' as the Cathechism of the Catholic Church states.