Death and Heaven

[Lemur]

I am not into blindly believing things until they are backed up by independent evidence.

That's why it isn't called "belief," but rather "faith." And that's why the step from empiricism to spirituality is called the "leap of faith."

Nobody can argue you into it, nobody can force it on you, and I doubt anyone can explain it. Philosophers who attempt to use formal logic to explain the divine always come off a bit silly.

Materialism is barren ground, and empiricism is its nearest neighbor. Leave yourself open to the unknown, and perhaps the unknowable.

[kiwitt]

I put my "faith" into things and people I can see and trust. As to the unknown, I am still a researcher, and hope to be for the rest of my life.

[King of Atlantis]

On the point of religion you can look into the unkown forever, but you will never find the answer, thus you eventualy need to just have faith.

[Big_John]

On the point of religion you can look into the unkown forever, but you will never find the answer, thus you eventualy need to just have faith.

this could easily be an argument for a person to never buy into "faith" as a belief system. if it is indeed true that one "will never find the answer", that could be an indication that the question being asked is absurd.

[King of Atlantis]

this could easily be an argument for a person to never buy into "faith" as a belief system. if it is indeed true that one "will never find the answer", that could be an indication that the question being asked is absurd.

or that the answer is simply impossible to "know". Which seems to make sense. What good would possibly come from God being worshipped by everyone because there was undeniable proof that he existed. Then there would be no faith and thus God's relationsjip to man would seem pointless.

[Big_John]

or that the answer is simply impossible to "know". Which seems to make sense.

why does that make sense to you?

What good would possibly come from God being worshipped by everyone because there was undeniable proof that he existed. Then there would be no faith and thus God's relationsjip to man would seem pointless.

you know your parents exist. do you love them? is your relationship with them pointless?

[King of Atlantis]

why does that make sense to you?

the second part of my post explained that.

you know your parents exist. do you love them? is your relationship with them pointless?

Yes, but believing in God is one of the most important elements in religion. Knowing would take much away from it.

[Big_John]

Yes, but believing in God is one of the most important elements in religion. Knowing would take much away from it.

if i'm understanding you correctly, this is circular.

[King of Atlantis]

explain,

i think that a belief in God is much more powerful than knowing about god.

[Big_John]

explain

sorry, i should have explained a bit. you are arguing that unfounded belief (i.e. "faith") in god is an important part of religion. you support this claim with the claim that "knowing [about the existence of god] would take much away from [religion]". in other words, you are saying unfounded belief in a thing is important because unfounded belief in a thing is important. that's how i am reading your words, anyway.

i think that a belief in God is much more powerful than knowing about god.

why do you think this?

[Roark]

i think that a belief in God is much more powerful than knowing about god.

Concur.

[Papewaio]

So Moses is less holy because he knew God not the Biblical sense, err yes the Bibilical sense of burning bushes not the Bibilical sense of knowing your wife, err I mean knowing your own wife not by knowing yours err bugger.

Yes sometimes it is better to be quiet and believe other times it is better to know and have fun.

[King of Atlantis]

john, im saying that Faith in God is an important element in a reltionship with God. Taking away that Faith is taking away that important part of the relationship.

Papewaio, even moses needed faith. A lot of people would see a burning bush and think they were crazy.

why do you think this?

Cause it requires me to give somthing for God. For example, by giving God our faith he returns us with salvation.

I know what i mean in my head, but explaining religious beliefs is hard. One of Faith can understand, but explaining faith in God to someone who doesnt believe in God is very hard...

[Pindar]

King Of Atlantis,

I think for the sake of your discussion you may want to consider whether you see faith and belief as the same or different.

If faith is the same as belief, why do the two words exist?

Is faith involved in making any truth claims? If so, and faith is of the same stripe as belief, how is that possible given belief is subjective?

If faith is different than mere belief, what is the essential nature of that difference?

[Papewaio]

Would this be a valid example.

Satanists (of the old school) believe in God but have faith in Satan?

[Big_John]

john, im saying that Faith in God is an important element in a reltionship with God. Taking away that Faith is taking away that important part of the relationship.

ok. but you should understand that this can, with good reason, be seen as a weakness of the "faithful" position. by removing the condition of knowledge from belief in a thing, you are allowing for the belief in anything. moreover, you are precluding the possibility of a meaningful discussion about the existence of god (or other divine things like heaven).

the original proposition i responded to was this:

On the point of religion you can look into the unkown forever, but you will never find the answer, thus you eventualy need to just have faith.

this was your response to kiwitt's statement that he would believe in those things which were knowable (if i understand him correctly). thus, your position is that blind faith is it's own virtue (at least in relation to god). that's fine, but it's a hard sell. to use quietus' example, blind faith being it's own virtue would imbue any fanciful entity (like leprechauns) with justified belief.

Cause it requires me to give somthing for God. For example, by giving God our faith he returns us with salvation.

why? so far you've stated that you believe in the existence of an unknowable because the belief itself is somehow imbued with intrinsic justification and you are also saying that this blind belief is the very currency of the unknowable entity. paradoxically, this is itself a knowledge claim.

I know what i mean in my head, but explaining religious beliefs is hard. One of Faith can understand, but explaining faith in God to someone who doesnt believe in God is very hard...

indeed.

[Franconicus]

The subject of afterlife and death is a tricky one. On one hand it's frightening that your existence might completely end when you die.

I do not think so. If your existence ends completely you would not know it.

Is there an everlasting cycle of life? This is hard to believe. Where were all those souls (or whatever) before there was life? What would happen if we nuke the world? Number of souls is not a physical constant.

So heaven or hell? Or back to the big soul pool? Hard to say. I believe that their is something out there in a metaphysical way, but does it care about our deads?

[King of Atlantis]

pindar,

yes your right i'll try explaning myself better..

Belief is something from your mind

Faith comes from the heart/soul.

I dont see my faith in God as blind, cause i do feel his presence/love in my heart. Lets just say faith is blind to the mind cause you can't prove disprove faith with mental/logical arguments.

In a reltionship i would imagine God would prefer a spiritual relationship more than a Logical one. As a spiritual frienship is very strong.

Look at the adam and eve story. Adam and Eve knew God and lived in the type of situation that many that dont have faith in god think God would put us in. A place were he "showed" himself and gave them all they needed. In the end adam and Eve loved God as one would love a parent, but the were niave. They took him for granted and probably had the faith of a five year old. They always new God was there thus they never had to think about his existance, thus they never questioned their faith(as all faithful do), thus they never really understood their Faith. In a world were god just provides for us and makes his presence "known", then all that is important in a reltationship with God is taken for granted..

[A.Saturnus]

If physicalism is right, then we`re nothing than the function of our brain. If the brain ceases to work, we disappear. If physicalism is wrong, I should reconsider my career choice.

[Big_John]

Faith comes from the heart/soul.

I dont see my faith in God as blind, cause i do feel his presence/love in my heart. Lets just say faith is blind to the mind cause you can't prove disprove faith with mental/logical arguments.

ok, so one can know about god in some fashion. that is, if one assumes the existence of souls (and assumes that souls can deliver information to the mind).

In a reltionship i would imagine God would prefer a spiritual relationship more than a Logical one. As a spiritual frienship is very strong.

Look at the adam and eve story. Adam and Eve knew God and lived in the type of situation that many that dont have faith in god think God would put us in. A place were he "showed" himself and gave them all they needed. In the end adam and Eve loved God as one would love a parent, but the were niave. They took him for granted and probably had the faith of a five year old. They always new God was there thus they never had to think about his existance, thus they never questioned their faith(as all faithful do), thus they never really understood their Faith. In a world were god just provides for us and makes his presence "known", then all that is important in a reltationship with God is taken for granted..

that's a nice story and all, but of course it is entirely meaningless to anyone that doesn't already have this elusive "faith".

[Kagemusha]

I love these Faith vs. Reason debates.The thing with fate is in my mind,that i dont have to reason my faith to anyone.Anyone can believe in anything that they want because faith has nothing to do with reason.

[King of Atlantis]

ok, so one can know about god in some fashion. that is, if one assumes the existence of souls (and assumes that souls can deliver information to the mind).

I assume their is a soul and you assume their isnt. There really is no proof either way. Having faith and not having are two very big assumtions. I choose to have Faith in God. I don't plan on converting you at an internet message board, but both sides have to assume things. People that don't believe in God always think their side is more logical, but when it comes down to it it is just an assumtion.

that's a nice story and all, but of course it is entirely meaningless to anyone that doesn't already have this elusive "faith".

yes, but you wanted to know why faith in God is more important than knowledge. I posted that to explain it.

[Big_John]

I assume their is a soul and you assume their isnt. There really is no proof either way. Having faith and not having are two very big assumtions.

this is incorrect. there is only one assumption being made, that god exists. i am not assuming god does not exist, i am holding a neutral position, a position of ignorance. the onus is on you to justify your belief. also, are you really saying that your belief in god is simply an assumption? you have no experiential reason to believe in god? earlier, you claimed that you did (i.e. you 'felt his love').

I choose to have Faith in God. I don't plan on converting you at an internet message board, but both sides have to assume things. People that don't believe in God always think their side is more logical, but when it comes down to it it is just an assumtion.

conversion is irrelevant; i'm asking because i want to understand your point of view. it is fair to say that a reasonable (logical?) approach in all things is to assume ignorance. thus, the positive claim (gods/heaven/unicorns/etc. exist) is the one that demands justification, not the neutral position.

yes, but you wanted to know why faith in God is more important than knowledge. I posted that to explain it.

so there is not an independent reason why faith in god is more important than knowledge of god?

[King of Atlantis]

this is incorrect. there is only one assumption being made, that god exists. i am not assuming god does not exist, i am holding a neutral position, a position of ignorance. the onus is on you to justify your belief.

maybe you didnt make an assumption, but saying there is no God is an assumption. I would rather make an "assumption" than just be ingnorant.

also, are you really saying that your belief in god is simply an assumption? you have no experiential reason to believe in god? earlier, you claimed that you did (i.e. you 'felt his love').

assumption may not be the right word, but i dont have "proof" that God exist.

conversion is irrelevant; i'm asking because i want to understand your point of view. it is fair to say that a reasonable (logical?) approach in all things is to assume ignorance.

why is ignorance a logical thing. If i was ingorant of the law would i be logical.

thus, the positive claim (gods/heaven/unicorns/etc. exist) is the one that demands justification, not the neutral position.

Okay my justification. There either is a God or not, there isnt really a neutral. When investingating witch is true one will find no proof either way. Thus youy have to make an "assumption". I looked into both ways and the way of Faith seemed the better choice. Faith in God just feels so right, like im actually doing something right in this world. One of the greatest feelings I have ever felt was asking for forgiveness. God's love can be felt though one could just say im imagining things, which is why it certainly couldn't be considered "proof".

so there is not an independent reason why faith in god is more important than knowledge of god?

one big reason, probably not, but my little explained why faith is more important.

[Big_John]

maybe you didnt make an assumption, but saying there is no God is an assumption. I would rather make an "assumption" than just be ingnorant.

[...]

why is ignorance a logical thing. If i was ingorant of the law would i be logical.

ignorance is a stance of inquisitiveness. ideally, it allows the mind to be open to all possibilities. total ignorance is the stance descartes used to justify a whole system of knowledge (which included the knowledge of god, btw) in his meditations. to continue in ignorance in the face of information is foolish, and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. i'm not saying that one should claim ignorance even if they have reason to believe something. however, can maintaining a skeptical outlook (i.e. the ability to discard those things which you currently believe) be seen as illogical?

Okay my justification. There either is a God or not, there isnt really a neutral. When investingating witch is true one will find no proof either way. Thus youy have to make an "assumption".

why do you have to make an assumption? what compelled you to do that?

I looked into both ways and the way of Faith seemed the better choice. Faith in God just feels so right, like im actually doing something right in this world. One of the greatest feelings I have ever felt was asking for forgiveness. God's love can be felt though one could just say im imagining things, which is why it certainly couldn't be considered "proof".

so you believe in god because it makes you feel good?

one big reason, probably not, but my little explained why faith is more important.

i don't understand. are you saying that there is an independent reason to believe in god? if so, what is it?

[Pindar]

so there is not an independent reason why faith in god is more important than knowledge of god?

Hello,

If I may, I think this is a sectarian question. Different faiths will have different responses. I think the general Christian reply would be: faith is more important than simple knowledge because knowledge in and of itself is not transformative. The Adversary and his fallen hosts "know" the Lord, but they remain damned. Faith is not simply epistemic (a question of knowing) but moral. It is therefore seen as the operative ingredient that makes the new man, as it were.

[Big_John]

Hello,

If I may, I think this is a sectarian question. Different faiths will have different responses. I think the general Christian reply would be: faith is more important than simple knowledge because knowledge in and of itself is not transformative. The Adversary and his fallen hosts "know" the Lord, but they remain damned. Faith is not simply epistemic (a question of knowing) but moral. It is therefore seen as the operative ingredient that makes the new man, as it were.

stay out of this pindar!

seriously though, that's a fine response. so for a non-believer, the efficacy of faith can be demonstrated in it's ability to "transform" a man? of course earthly things, like tragedy or hypnosis, can transform men also. but does faith operate in a different fashion than these mundane processes? in your description, faith would not seem to depend on the existence of a target; one could be faithful weather god exists or not, yes? but does faith assumes the existence of a metaphysical entity to act upon (i.e. the soul)?

hello, btw.


edit: also, you say faith is not simply epistemic. can it have an epistemic content?

[Pindar]

stay out of this pindar!

Sorry, I was just passing by.

seriously though, that's a fine response. so for a non-believer, the efficacy of faith can be demonstrated in it's ability to "transform" a man? of course earthly things, like tragedy or hypnosis, can transform men also. but does faith operate in a different fashion than these mundane processes? in your description, faith would not seem to depend on the existence of a target; one could be faithful weather god exists or not, yes? but does faith assumes the existence of a metaphysical entity to act upon (i.e. the soul)?

I'm limiting my response to the basic Christian Teaching as I understand it.

Faith's transformative power also provides meaning. A positioning through which one can understand evil. Tragedy, as the label implies, can give no answer.

Faith as a moral category is relational. There is a necessary Other that acts as the impelling force and locus for the "ought" that illustrates the moral and motivates action. The ultimate Other and thereby arbiter of the moral is the Creator to which the creature is beholden. A morality void of Deity collapses into a base egoism.

.

edit: also, you say faith is not simply epistemic. can it have an epistemic content?

Based on the King of Atlantis's response as well as the typical devotee, one would have to answer yes. The King's reply referred to love. The standard form seems to be intuitive. When the Divine is revealed, one knows and recognizes it as such.

I will now vanish back into the shadows

[Big_John]

A morality void of Deity collapses into a base egoism.

egoism? is that like believing in god because it feels correct? or acting 'moral' because you feel "His" love?

I will now vanish back into the shadows

!!

this is the backroom, everywhere is shadow.

[Pindar]

egoism? is that like believing in god because it feels correct? or acting 'moral' because you feel "His" love?

No, egoism means a priority of the ego over and above others. In this case, egoism is the attempt by the subject to determine the good based on self-interest.

this is the backroom, everywhere is shadow.

(I don't want to highjack your discussion)