The Anchor of Faith

[Shantanu]

My sense of you as of late is that you are self-reflective about your faith and that you might intuit the problem of the anchor as I am trying to explain in this thread. As such I think what you describe above is a sincere effort to allow your spiritual experience to be a present thing and not a future promise of a radical change of state. As such you seem like you are striving to be rid of the anchor which I would say is the higher spiritual goal.

IMO the kingdom of heaven and nirvana are to be sought as present spiritual realities and not future literal, ultimate promises. But I think that we need these "anchors" of the invisible spiritual realm to be dropped into the practical, even physical, realm in order, ironically, for our faith to build momentum.

I agree with what you say: however, I am not sure however that we need to 'force' our faith to build any momentum. As an advaitin I just state the situation that I experience each moment without knowing where this might lead to eventually before my life ends as I have no proof of an afterlife in heaven so nirvana must be attainable within this life time if at all desirable. My realisation is that satchitananda is for the present and is the only nirvana and enlightenment there is whether on Earth or in a place called Heaven. I could be wrong in this. But that is the present realisation within which my Faith is set.

 

[ManSinha]

Future promise is, at best, a inference and, at worse, a sincere, motivating fiction

And the entire content of my post is going to be debatable from some perspective -

BUT - with that said - what if that payoff motivates one to constantly improve themselves and help their fellow being - live a fulfilling life and have inner peace - now that is so many different things to so many people and yet I would aver - that the reality of the payoff becomes less relevant if the promise helps propel attitudes and behaviors that promote peace and social justice

It is like @It Aint Necessarily So said - very fine line between faith and being a secular humanist

I have also argued that as society evolves - the "need" for religion to drive certain behaviors becomes less and less

 

[sealchan]

I agree with what you say: however, I am not sure however that we need to 'force' our faith to build any momentum. As an advaitin I just state the situation that I experience each moment without knowing where this might lead to eventually before my life ends as I have no proof of an afterlife in heaven so nirvana must be attainable within this life time if at all desirable. My realisation is that satchitananda is for the present and is the only nirvana and enlightenment there is whether on Earth or in a place called Heaven. I could be wrong in this. But that is the present realisation within which my Faith is set.

I agree it may not need to be a required "developmental" stage. But maybe it is true that we look to practical outcomes in our lives first and only later with maturity do we understand that no promises of ultimate finality need to be made...

I've been worn down by the ups and downs of expecting practical outcomes and this has driven my faith to a huge extent. I find it more and more unpalatable to believe in an ever-future practical outcome in my faith.

 

[Shantanu]

I agree it may not need to be a required "developmental" stage. But maybe it is true that we look to practical outcomes in our lives first and only later with maturity do we understand that no promises of ultimate finality need to be made...

I've been worn down by the ups and downs of expecting practical outcomes and this has driven my faith to a huge extent. I find it more and more unpalatable to believe in an ever-future practical outcome in my faith.

As an advaitin I do not even look for practical outcomes: I just observe and reflect. The outcome of substance is the present reality.

 

[sealchan]

And the entire content of my post is going to be debatable from some perspective -

BUT - with that said - what if that payoff motivates one to constantly improve themselves and help their fellow being - live a fulfilling life and have inner peace - now that is so many different things to so many people and yet I would aver - that the reality of the payoff becomes less relevant if the promise helps propel attitudes and behaviors that promote peace and social justice

It is like @It Aint Necessarily So said - very fine line between faith and being a secular humanist

I have also argued that as society evolves - the "need" for religion to drive certain behaviors becomes less and less

I think I can agree with this.

 

[sealchan]

As an advaitin I do not even look for practical outcomes: I just observe and reflect. The outcome of substance is the present reality.

Yes and I understand this even if my words didn't convey that. Jesus taught that the reward of suffering in his name was to be found at some unspecified later point (Matthew 5's Beatitudes). But that later point might dissolve into what I would call the experience of the Holy Spirit where one feels "rewarded" in the midst of one's suffering.

The transcendance of reward/punishment and suffering/pleasure seems to me to be the true promise of faith taken to its finest level.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Faith is a belief in something beyond proof. As such that faith could be seen as a bit too dissociated from practical reality. As such do we find that faith often reaches out beyond it's own natural domain to make one or more tenuous claims about the nature of reality for the sake of our psychological need to see something concrete and practical in our unproven beliefs?

Can we not live with a faith that reminds us of what I might call "the unbearable lightness of subjective meaning"?

Faith is believing without evidence.

I don't use faith, I use objective evidence. That is evidence that exist outside of the mind.

If there is no evidence for a god, why do you believe in one?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I think faith is a hold on reality that is hidden from everyone because of evil forces that are in between us and the truth. The truth is hidden from everyone and Satan along with the other powerful princes are in the way and he holds sway over people through lies because of our sins against the truth. Sin against the truth is every false way. Has God hidden Himself from us? Or did we hide God in a myriad of lies? So faith alone overcomes the darkness and reaches to God.

God formed all things from the chaos and the Word of God gives it order. If we turn against the Word of God then we are scattered.

So you believe in a god that you can not prove is real? What evidence do you have any god exist?

 

[sealchan]

Faith is believing without evidence.

I don't use faith, I use objective evidence. That is evidence that exist outside of the mind.

If there is no evidence for a god, why do you believe in one?

I would dispute the notion that you only use objective evidence.

• First I would say that you (everyone) frequently use subjective preference (left or right hand)
• Second I would say that you often use practical assumptions (ignore the possibility of incidental calamities)
• Finally I also claim that you rely on unquestioned but commonly held mythic ideas (free will, individual human rights, the attainability of objectivity, the absolute supremacy of rational truth)

I think this is a valid discussion here although not fully focused on the OP. I could break this big claim of mine into a separate thread.

To answer your question...I believe in a God as an expression of an objective psychological reality. My belief is wrapped in a story of how I was able to overcome a depression and understand the value of my life through a dialog/interaction with God. So the subjective evidence in my life is enough for my belief. However, I do not claim that this should be enough for anyone else's belief. I could make a case based on objective information that a belief in God can be efficacious but even then I would not say that it is an entirely necessary, exclusive or superior form of belief for others. Nature is much more dynamic than any "one way" consciously rational approach can fully encompass.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I would dispute the notion that you only use objective evidence.

• First I would say that you (everyone) frequently use subjective preference (left or right hand)
• Second I would say that you often use practical assumptions (ignore the possibility of incidental calamities)
• Finally I also claim that you rely on unquestioned but commonly held mythic ideas (free will, individual human rights, the attainability of objectivity, the absolute supremacy of rational truth)

I think this is a valid discussion here although not fully focused on the OP. I could break this big claim of mine into a separate thread.

To answer your question...I believe in a God as an expression of an objective psychological reality. My belief is wrapped in a story of how I was able to overcome a depression and understand the value of my life through a dialog/interaction with God. So the subjective evidence in my life is enough for my belief. However, I do not claim that this should be enough for anyone else's belief.

What is an incidental calamity?

 

[Shantanu]

Yes and I understand this even if my words didn't convey that. Jesus taught that the reward of suffering in his name was to be found at some unspecified later point (Matthew 5's Beatitudes). But that later point might dissolve into what I would call the experience of the Holy Spirit where one feels "rewarded" in the midst of one's suffering.

The transcendance of reward/punishment and suffering/pleasure seems to me to be the true promise of faith taken to its finest level.

One is faced with the possibility, indeed the probability, that it might be quite delusional to think that God had a plan for me, a mission as it were (that I lived on the basis of for almost 20 years). Or does Christian thinking teach that God has a plan for everyone who has surrendered to live out a special kind of existence. I found such consideration makes one paranoid and schizophrenic to be unable to live in the material reality. So I gave up that kind of Faith and resorted to identifying the mechanism of dharma that instead of God per se has protected me over these 20 years (I assume). That is why I turned over a new leaf and became an advaitin with this special faith to be tested now. I must arise from my quagmire and restore my reputation in society if there is to be any kind of faith on anything for I have always acted in good faith and it got me nothing but suffering.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Yes and I understand this even if my words didn't convey that. Jesus taught that the reward of suffering in his name was to be found at some unspecified later point (Matthew 5's Beatitudes). But that later point might dissolve into what I would call the experience of the Holy Spirit where one feels "rewarded" in the midst of one's suffering.

The transcendance of reward/punishment and suffering/pleasure seems to me to be the true promise of faith taken to its finest level.

So you would suffer, just to please Jesus and be rewarded later?

 

[sealchan]

What is an incidental calamity?

Just a possible but unlikely bad thing that might happen. Transportation breakdown, delay...near accident...any sort of thing we take for granted won't happen as there is usually nothing practical to be done about preventing it.

 

[sealchan]

So you would suffer, just to please Jesus and be rewarded later?

I would prefer to understand that whatever effort I make in the present is its own reward and not wait on some literal future ultimate compensation. Its the best way to be motivated toward moral action in the context of the Prisoner's dilemma IMO.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

One is faced with the possibility, indeed the probability, that it might be quite delusional to think that God had a plan for me, a mission as it were (that I lived on the basis of for almost 20 years). Or does Christian thinking teach that God has a plan for everyone who has surrendered to live out a special kind of existence. I found such consideration makes one paranoid and schizophrenic to be unable to live in the material reality. So I gave up that kind of Faith and resorted to identifying the mechanism of dharma that instead of God per se has protected me over these 20 years (I assume). That is why I turned over a new leaf and became an advaitin with this special faith to be tested now. I must arise from my quagmire and restore my reputation in society if there is to be any kind of faith on anything for I have always acted in good faith and it got me nothing but suffering.

Why would you use faith, if all it has brought you is suffering?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I would prefer to understand that whatever effort I make in the present is its own reward and not wait on some literal future ultimate compensation. Its the best way to be motivated toward moral action in the context of the Prisoner's dilemma IMO.

You have strange moral belief, you want to be treated as a prisoner.
My morals come from treating others how I want to be treated, and following the laws of my society.

 

[Shantanu]

Why would you use faith, if all it has brought you is suffering?

Good question: one needs to develop theories that can be tested to ascertain the truth on Faith, or one will continue to live in delusional suffering. Abandoning faith does not solve the problem that one has to act (karma) in ways that benefits one in the material sphere if not also in the spiritual sphere. Once one knows for certain that God exists one has no choice but to give the benefit of the doubt that He is the Saviour who generates salvation. I am 62 years of age so there is not much time for Him left to prove to me that my suffering will end with a resounding victory on the evil perpetrators who decimated my life in the United Kingdom.

 

[sealchan]

One is faced with the possibility, indeed the probability, that it might be quite delusional to think that God had a plan for me, a mission as it were (that I lived on the basis of for almost 20 years). Or does Christian thinking teach that God has a plan for everyone who has surrendered to live out a special kind of existence. I found such consideration makes one paranoid and schizophrenic to be unable to live in the material reality. So I gave up that kind of Faith and resorted to identifying the mechanism of dharma that instead of God per se has protected me over these 20 years (I assume). That is why I turned over a new leaf and became an advaitin with this special faith to be tested now. I must arise from my quagmire and restore my reputation in society if there is to be any kind of faith on anything for I have always acted in good faith and it got me nothing but suffering.

I'm sure my knowledge of dharma is inadequate but I will ask anyway...what is the big difference between understanding one's path as dharma and understanding one's path as a plan laid out by God?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Good question: one needs to develop theories that can be tested to ascertain the truth on Faith, or one will continue to live in delusional suffering. Abandoning faith does not solve the problem that one has to act (karma) in ways that benefits one in the material sphere if not also in the spiritual sphere. Once one knows for certain that God exists one has no choice but to give the benefit of the doubt that He is the Saviour who generates salvation. I am 62 years of age so there is not much time for Him left to prove to me that my suffering will end with a resounding victory on the evil perpetrators who decimated my life in the United Kingdom.

How do you test faith?
How do you know that a god exist?

 

[sealchan]

You have strange moral belief, you want to be treated as a prisoner.
My morals come from treating others how I want to be treated, and following the laws of my society.

I recommend to you to read Chapter 29 and 30 of Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas. He makes the connection between rationality and moral optimization being at cross purposes. He uses the Prisoner's dilemma as a context for realizing this and even comes up with a lottery, funded by the Scientific American, to try and explore this conundrum.

Our moral decisions are often made in the context of how others will choose to make their moral decisions. I am coming into a realization here that this may also be a model for how we approach faith when there is a personal payoff to be had in some remote future. We are presented with a dichotomy between rational action and moral choice and to some extent we have God or some Way as our other prisoner to reckon with.

Eliminating the primacy of the future payoff would then be a last step in the development of one's faith. This leaves one in a context of having to negotiate one's fragile, subjective truths in a world where there is little guarantee that those truths will be considered. The strength it takes to stand up and go forward through the day requires a lot of faith without a lot of reward other than an appreciation of the fruitful bounty of the moment it seems.

Wikipedia treatments...

Chapter 29
Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

Chapter 30
Superrationality - Wikipedia