On the Decline Of Religion, A Mystic's Plea

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

In a recent Religious Education class, (UU Sunday School), where I was an assistant teacher filling in for someone, the teacher give the class of teenagers various cards labeled with various religious and scientific facts. The students were asked to place the cards into one of two categories; faith and fact. Once the exercise was complete we discussed the results which were pretty standard all in all. Towards the end of the exercise I asked a question. “How many of the things in the list of facts are you taking on faith?” In other words, scientists may have proven that an atom is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons but is that something you have proven yourself? Don’t we take it on faith that our scientists have done their due diligence and followed scientific method to come to their conclusions?

Human beings take things on faith every minute of every day. We cannot possibly prove every little thing in our world so we just accept certain things without question. This is why faith will never disappear from human existence, it can’t. It’s an integral part of us that can’t simple be turned off. Get rid of one faith and another will simply replace it.

So, are you saying that both accepting the existence of atoms as described by scientists and believing in the existence of deity as described by theologians --- that both those things are identically faith, defined as "a provisional expectation based on previous experience?"

Put differently, can you come up with a single definition of faith that fits equally both acceptance of atoms as described by scientists and belief in deity as described by theologians?

Just curious. I'm not going to debate you. I just want to see whether you can.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Or mistake the file room for something more than a box of organized 'as if's'.

Some of us have more complex filing systems than others.

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

So, are you saying that both accepting the existence of atoms as described by scientists and believing in the existence of deity as described by theologians --- that both those things are identically faith, defined as "a provisional expectation based on previous experience?"

Put differently, can you come up with a single definition of faith that fits equally both acceptance of atoms as described by scientists and belief in deity as described by theologians?

Just curious. I'm not going to debate you. I just want to see whether you can.

No can do, nor do I see a need to. Sure, a person can seek out the scientific proof of what an Atom is made of and some do. But the vast majority of us don't. Why? We have faith that those who know are telling us the truth. We all have certain things that we personally require more positive proof of but for each of those things there are hundreds if not thousands of others we simply don't care enough about to seek out the proof. For a lot of people who consider themselves religious, their faith is no more than this. Other's who seek more proof and find it in the mystical, well that's the proof that they need. Those who demand more physical proof can stick their noses up if they wish but they're just being snobbish in my opinion. They have a preconceived answer and anyone who offers an opinion that doesn't match theirs is hounded as a mystic. Anyway, to me faith is simply accepting something as fact with no proof rather than what some atheists would prefer it to be defined as: accepting something not true as fact. I suppose we all have our own personal definitions.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

That in no way effects or changes what I said.
'As if' filing rooms can be as complex as one likes.

A complexity best reserved for a filing room which requires it more.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Bottom line isn't all faith
a decision to assume that,
or live as if,
things one cannot know for sure
are so?

Or that "to know" isn't relevant when things are so.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Panda

IMHO I disagree. By your own posts you seem to suggest that our worldview filters the way we see the world...

Wouldn't that be the purpose of a worldview, to refine the view of the world?

Originally Posted by Panda

...so any distinctions you put on what makes peoples worldviews would be filtered by your own worldview, as would mine.

We all must necessarily have some bit in common, as we are all the social construct of our ideas built on the ideas passed on to us from other constructs (other people). The worldview that is foundational, that refines all, would be the one that shapes construction of 'us'.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Storm

Forcing religion into the alien logos was a tragic error. I don't know who made it first and I don't care - it was WRONG. Further, it has resulted in 'faith' replacing Faith, leaving the vast majority of believers with a dysfunctional spirituality. Ideology has replaced mysticism, and the Faithless result is the mouth of the fundamentalist river!

Can you clarify this?

[Iti oj]

/And what about atheist who do not have this faith? Do they not have a world view? Do they not function in society?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Iti oj

/And what about atheist who do not have this faith? Do they not have a world view? Do they not function in society?

If you have a world, beliefs, philosophies, perspectives and a point of view, you have a worldview.

[Iti oj]

Originally Posted by Willamena

If you have a world, beliefs, philosophies, perspectives and a point of view, you have a worldview.

That's kinda my point.