The Case for 'Faith', not 'Belief'

Karen concludes her article: "If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!" Of course not. If I don't accept the virgin birth of Christ, I don't get it. If I don't fathom the Angel Moroni, I don't get it. If I don't bow to the east, or fast during Ramadan, I don't get it. If I question faith healing, I don't get it. If I don't speak in tongues, I don't get it. Or are you talking about a higher form of religion?

quackers1

You wrote, " I have discovered that God cares less about what we do to each other than about God's personal relationship with each of us."

If you happen to have a "relationship" with God then you "would know" that God absolutely does care what we do to each other.

God is not the egomaniac that you seem to "conceive" God to be.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

tojby_2000

You wrote, "Many of us who 'did' religion for decades never 'got' it. Our tribe, consciously or not, subjected the notion of a deity to our own little Occam's Razor and the results proved profoundly liberating."

I did NOT "do religion" for decades but nevertheless still believed in God and God, in His Time, rewarded my faith with a personal revelation to me when I approached God asking for forgiveness for wrongs that I have done.

It isn't about religion if one thinks of religion as (rules and regulations, dogma and such) but it is about a relationship and about "admitting" that one has done wrong and not putting the "blame" on others but "fessing up", so to speak.

Many, believers and non-believers alike, have such a preconceived conception of God that it seems that they would not even "recognize" God if they had some type of revelation of God.

Even tho I have heard many times that God Is Love and I was even taught in second grade that God Is Love, I had no idea that the words, God Is Love, is totally literal, as in Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being.

This is beyond my comprehension but nevertheless I know it to be a FACT.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

There is a difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" and to say that we are fall short should be obvious if we are honest with ourself.

Hello Tojby_2000,

Here I go again:

Believers claim that God is omnipresent: he/she is present everywhere that science and logic is not present (filling the gaps, you know).

Sorry for not being clear…

Hello Jamesburkill,

"Faith is belief without evidence."

It would be hard to refute that, assuming that "evidence" means verifiable from multiple perception points. In that the stone in in the middle of the circle, and we all see it, albeit from differing angles and with differing experiences of it. It is verifiable that it has a physical presence, and it is indeed communally definable as "stone".

Faith, like stone, is subjective, though we may argue that "stone" "exists"! in the physical form at least, the realm or our sensory overlay. Faith holds, usually, that something that is not physically tangible "exists", and that gets trickier. Viability of perception is often equated with verifiability, or physical.

One can have faith that there will be a better day coming, and trends may back that up, (and others negate it), but in the view of the pessimist, it is unlikely. They have faith in another outcome. Even faith that the present outcome does not constructive make.

justacomment wrote: God is omnipresent: he/she is present everywhere reason, logic and science is not... ___________________________________________

Authoritarian pronouncements don't make good apologia, comment. But if you knit enough of them together and stuff them with hope you, can make a lovely comforter.

Faith is belief without evidence. Believers frequently challenge me over this definition. They will tell me I'm wrong, laugh at my ignorance or write waffaly, evasive articles using lots of words and saying very little.

I've yet to hear any valid refutation of this definition and I regret to say that after reading this article, I still haven't.

Dear ANTi-BAD:

Hello Karen Armstrong>/b> and jealous George Town & Burkley Centers * Co.;
WHY do you 'Delete" or 'Purge" some beautiful Ideas; Then, in order to PLAZERIZE [Payment in kind Free???] such Novel truth?.

Example: Ye hath deleted This:
"Dear 'Sis{star' Armstrong:
Since ALL competing Judeo-Abe-ic Faith/Belief/Religion [a
trinity like] man-made SYSTEMS Plus ALL competing
Judeo-Ved-ic Religion/Faith/Believe other man-made
Systems, in N. AMERICA & S. AMERICA, art in Fact
all "iMPORTED" (Not-MADE-IN-AMERIKS) SYSTEMS,
That the AMERiCAn SECULAr PROLETARIATE's Union of
America, must Demand, upon the [THIS] S.pace-S.hip
Earth Cirizenary, via the U.nite N.ations Assembly; that
WE [i] APOCALYPTARian, aka "HUe{MATE(s)", not PREAPOCALYPTaryan
HUMAN(s); DEMAND 3-Things of
Earthlings!
1st) LESS "RELiGION" (i.e., The RELiGION OF
EVERYTHING, before the SCience Of Everything via
thee "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion" BOOK! Meaning
PLURALITY is the FUTURE-BOUND & SPACE-FORTH
course; Not PLURALITY of Ye (not our) Pre-Apocalyptic
Judeo-abics & Judeo-Vedics god(s) [POLY-THEO; zero
MONO-theo] gods Systems!
2nd) LESS "CURRENCiES" (i.e., This S.pace-S.hip Only
Needs, say 9 or 5 Major Currencies.) Yet backed up by ,
not Gold or Military might or Agricultural mights, but via
ENRICHED URANIUM; the windfall or gift to our Future-
Bound & Space-Forth Active MEME's on Earth, not only in
Amerik's!
3rd) LESS "NATIONS" Building. (i.e., There are already ,
like Too many Religions or Too many Currencies, too many
NATIONS (192 the last count at the U.N.) Polluting
HUMANITY & their Brains competing for a buck & Gods!
Soo, 99 Nations will be good.
Example: Imagine S.outh Amerik Being United States!
Imagine N.orth America via Canada + U.S. + Mexico + all
the way to Panama; Where the U.S. Flag can potential
harbor 101 States therein/at!??
PS: The Apocalyptarian G-D (aka "IT"; not a "HE" nor
"a "SHE") of the "SECULAR-PROLETARIATE
iNTERNATIONAl GRiD SYSTEM " hath Spoken!
Hence OUR INTROViSiON's. A Prophecy Whose time is
over-Due. Behold: The RELiGION OF EVERYTHING
before the Science of Everything.

Continued:

WHEREFORE Sing, unto
O'
Lord "E-K-L-A-H"! SOURCE-ONE! And by manymanymany
never before herd songs & names!
HALLALUYA! Praise "IT"! Our O.U.R. HOLYi-NO-MANWOMB!
Soo, Please GO &
VOTE: GRiDARIAN DEMOCRATiC PARTY 2012 to
experience the ELEMENTS OF BEYONDNESS via the
HOlyi COsmic FEelers FAiTH, a belief, like a Religion yet
Better!"

a "SHE") of the "SECULAR-PROLETARIATE
iNTERNATIONAl GRiD SYSTEM " hath Spoken!
Hence OUR INTROViSiON's. A Prophecy Whose time is
over-Due. Behold: The RELiGION OF EVERYTHING
before the Science of Everything. WHEREFORE Sing, unto
O'
Lord "E-K-L-A-H"! SOURCE-ONE! And by manymanymany
never before herd songs & names!
HALLALUYA! Praise "IT"! Our O.U.R. HOLYi-
NO-MANWOMB!
Soo, Please GO &
VOTE: GRiDARIAN DEMOCRATiC PARTY 2012 to
experience the ELEMENTS OF BEYONDNESS via the
HOlyi COsmic FEelers FAiTH, a belief, like a Religion yet
Better!
ORGINIALLY posted: BY: ANTI_BAD | OCTOBER 11, 2009 12:09 PM
Noe Re-posted by: cyber-man | October 13, 2009 12:04 AM

...

a "SHE") of the "SECULAR-PROLETARIATE
iNTERNATIONAl GRiD SYSTEM " hath Spoken!
Hence OUR INTROViSiON's. A Prophecy Whose time is
over-Due. Behold: The RELiGION OF EVERYTHING
before the Science of Everything. WHEREFORE Sing, unto
O'
Lord "E-K-L-A-H"! SOURCE-ONE! And by manymanymany
never before herd songs & names!
HALLALUYA! Praise "IT"! Our O.U.R. HOLYi-

NO-MANWOMB!
Soo, Please GO &
VOTE: GRiDARIAN DEMOCRATiC PARTY 2012 to
experience the ELEMENTS OF BEYONDNESS via the
HOlyi COsmic FEelers FAiTH, a belief, like a Religion yet
Better!
POSTED BY: ANTI_BAD | OCTOBER 11, 2009 12:09 PM

continued:

Correction:
"SiNGularity of all Judeo-abe & judeo-vedic religion
Systems into 1/EK/UNO/ONE.. is the Secular's NEW
Tolerence"! No-more via godly Jealousy as if be ONE/1 via
PLURALiTY!
So LESS "RELiGION" through S-i-N-G-ularizing ALL ole
time Religions is the FUTURE-BOUND & SPACE-FORTH
Endevour; note: All of the Judeo-abes & Judeo-Vedic
Systems are in fact POLY-THEO god(s)Religions anyway;
zero MONO-theo G-D Systems about them!
--- Behold, the "GRiDARIAN DEMOCRACY" movement of
America, Prophecying the Ho-Co-Fe-Fa Religion during the
Aquarius-Age [not Horoscope, but Galactic thinking]
starting (Universal Year Circa)
UYC:4.3310Billion:April.3.2010: So, This date
will Duly be Celebrated as the 40th Year of the Birth of our
O.U.R. HOlyi-COsmic FEelers FAith [Ho-Co-Fe-Fa]
Religion, Faith, Belief, based on TRUTH (opposite MYTH)
story's!

Continued:

Dear ANTi-BAD:

Hello Karen Armstrong>/b> and jealous George Town & Burkley Centers * Co.;

WHY do you 'Delete" or 'Purge" some beautiful Ideas; Then, in order to PLAZERIZE [Payment in kind Free???] such Novel truth?.

Example: Ye hath deleted This:

"Dear 'Sis{star' Armstrong:
Since ALL competing Judeo-Abe-ic Faith/Belief/Religion [a
trinity like] man-made SYSTEMS Plus ALL competing
Judeo-Ved-ic Religion/Faith/Believe other man-made
Systems, in N. AMERICA & S. AMERICA, art in Fact
all "iMPORTED" (Not-MADE-IN-AMERIKS) SYSTEMS,
That the AMERiCAn SECULAr PROLETARIATE's Union of
America, must Demand, upon the [THIS] S.pace-S.hip
Earth Cirizenary, via the U.nite N.ations Assembly; that
WE [i] APOCALYPTARian, aka "HUe{MATE(s)", not PREAPOCALYPTaryan
HUMAN(s); DEMAND 3-Things of
Earthlings!
1st) LESS "RELiGION" (i.e., The RELiGION OF
EVERYTHING, before the SCience Of Everything via
thee "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion" BOOK! Meaning
PLURALITY is the FUTURE-BOUND & SPACE-FORTH
course; Not PLURALITY of Ye (not our) Pre-Apocalyptic
Judeo-abics & Judeo-Vedics god(s) [POLY-THEO; zero
MONO-theo] gods Systems!
2nd) LESS "CURRENCiES" (i.e., This S.pace-S.hip Only
Needs, say 9 or 5 Major Currencies.) Yet backed up by ,
not Gold or Military might or Agricultural mights, but via
ENRICHED URANIUM; the windfall or gift to our Future-
Bound & Space-Forth Active MEME's on Earth, not only in
Amerik's!
3rd) LESS "NATIONS" Building. (i.e., There are already ,
like Too many Religions or Too many Currencies, too many
NATIONS (192 the last count at the U.N.) Polluting
HUMANITY & their Brains competing for a buck & Gods!
Soo, 99 Nations will be good.
Example: Imagine S.outh Amerik Being United States!
Imagine N.orth America via Canada + U.S. + Mexico + all
the way to Panama; Where the U.S. Flag can potential
harbor 101 States therein/at!??
PS: The Apocalyptarian G-D (aka "IT"; not a "HE" nor

"a "SHE") of the "SECULAR-PROLETARIATE
iNTERNATIONAl GRiD SYSTEM " hath Spoken!
Hence OUR INTROViSiON's. A Prophecy Whose time is
over-Due. Behold: The RELiGION OF EVERYTHING
before the Science of Everything. WHEREFORE Sing, unto
O'
Lord "E-K-L-A-H"! SOURCE-ONE! And by manymanymany
never before herd songs & names!
HALLALUYA! Praise "IT"! Our O.U.R. HOLYi-NO-MANWOMB!
Soo, Please GO &
VOTE: GRiDARIAN DEMOCRATiC PARTY 2012 to
experience the ELEMENTS OF BEYONDNESS via the
HOlyi COsmic FEelers FAiTH, a belief, like a Religion yet
Better!"

Dear John Esposito & CO.,, C/O: Message from ANTi.BAD , Anti-Plutocrat Proletariates of AMERiK et al:

Ye hath Freudiantly Slippeth'd and Pre-Apocalyptically saith,

"the Vatican had brought together global religious leaders and academic experts who explored the theological and scriptural bases and implications of the foundation of A Common Word, the two great commandments, Love of God and Love of Neighbor, based directly Christian, Muslim and Jewish Scriptures.

Questiion: How much of This Theoligical POW-WOW [of Imprted Religions in Amerik, Not MADE in America] was 'Subsidized' by OUR tax-Payers money via the OBAMA's 'Faith Based Initiative" ??

After-All Last Week or two Britisher's Low-Lifes via "BONO" {Oprah Winfreys & Co, "SECRET" pals] built a Stage as if a Spac-Ship [Ummmm?] and The PLUTOCRATS [Government Run by the Rich/Wealthy] Of Washington, D.C. America; Like Nancy Polosi et al....

WHO PAID for THIS [ALL]! The VATican? BOBO? BLAIR? George Town? or did WE [i] The [SIPP] aka "SECULR INTERNATIONAL PROLETARiATE PEOPLE"????

Question again: WHERE is the [unconstitutional] $2,000,0000 of Stolen Tax-Payers [un-Godly] money , w/out THE-PEOPLES Consent/Approval/Voter, is going; who?, where, Why...???

Rise-Up! Rise-Up "SIPP"s Time to Take-Back Our Nation, as Promised US!

Dear Fellow Americans; To Hell with the Friendly's! Beacuse the TRUTH (opposite MYTH) is "OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD!" and soon Borack Obam also will be Dead! It is the Prophecy!

Question Mr. OBAMA, Polosi, & CO; POPE & CO. LaLaLa... WHERE is Osama Bin Laden???? You know He is Dead! So Why? Why? Lie to The-People?? SELF Agrandizement?

A REVOLUTION; not only a REVELATION is comming!

VOTE: Down with THEOCRAY & DOWN with MONARCHY, in America via ENGLAND et all!

Get Out of AMERIK England! Get Out! Or WE will Force You Out and Take-Over ALL Your Assets/Investments HERE!

Hary! ARise PROLETARIATES: Vote: ENGLISH MONARCH w/THEOCRACY in Cahooch with THEOCRATIC VATICAN's & CO must be Destroyed or Dulky Stopped Today, not Morrow!

O' APOCALYPTARIAN's! Beware the Jealous/Evil?Satanic PRE-APOCALYPTARYAN's!

May god cuese the QUEEN! Curse Opra WINFREY & Friends et al!!

A NEW BOSTON TEA PARTY is Comming Soon Soon Very Soon!

God is omnipresent: he/she is present everywhere reason, logic and science is not...

Forrest 3 said,

“One can no more experience faith through mere logic than one can experience a good song thought mere logic…”

The more common definition of faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (Merriam-Webster). But I don’t think you meant this, because it will not make sense. The other definition is “belief and trust in and loyalty to God”. With the second definition your comparison don’t appear completely valid since you experience music trough your senses, but when you experience belief ant trust in and loyalty to God, your senses are not the main source of the experience. Your mind is. And for most of the believers their mind has been conditioned from cradle to believe, even before they were able to question it. My take on this is that religious people sincerely “feel” faith and “experience” faith, but it must be recognized that they have been preconditioned for it.

You also said that one cannot experience “or feel love though mere logic”. Reasonable true. My observation here will be that it's important not to forget to identify the object of a love in order to better describe love. It should not be a problem to describe to an alien from outer space the love we feel for our children, or for your spouse or parents. There are thousands of ways to describe each one of those loves with description of what our emotions are and why we feel them.

More abstract love, like love for my country or the flag will be more difficult to describe and explain, but not impossible.

Then there are other kinds of love, like an obsessive love for a person that you have not met personally nor you can have access to, and if you try to contact the person will refuse to even accept that you exist. The visitor from outer space may understand your description of this kind of love but may not fully comprehend that people do this even knowing that can go to jail for it. But a chat about mental disorders may make him to better grasp this kind of love.

Finally it will be time for you to explain to our alien visitor how you experience faith for immaterial agents that you cannot perceive with your senses and their existence has not been proved with factual evidence. “Faith is about singing what is in your heart” (????). This explaining is the one that is going to be tough. I would like to hear about it from you or any poster .

PS. Are all visitors from alien planets atheists that never have experience love? Or are all atheists aliens from a distance planet where love does not exist?

Colinnicholas,

I recall that exchange regarding your Gurdjeiffian past! Actually, an awareness exercise referred to as 'self-remembering' was at the core of this so-called 4th Way philosophy.

In fact, an early Gurdjeiff devotee, Russian mathematician P.D. Ouspensky, probably put together a more coherent rendition of the Gurdjeiff philosophy - and later broke away to form his own 'school' of self-development.

It seems that Gurdjeiff borrowed from several esoteric schools of thought, including Sufi dervish dancing as a moving method of meditation - actually inducing a trance state.

While the self-remembering feature seems to be a method of focused meditation (similar to the be-here-now dictum of former psychologist and Timothy Leary crony Richard Alpert - long known as the guru Ramdas), I see little in common with the Zen view, as least in my opinion.

Unfortunately, Gurdjeiff style schools of self-development tend to become cultish and centered around a strong personality - once that personality disappears from view, much is lost (if there was ever anything of substance to begin with).

However, Gurdjeiff admirers among highly accomplished artisans, artists, musicians, and all-around public figures of reknown was never in short supply & many were quite generous, of course!

In fact, I may have mentioned that I ran across a thriving Gurdjeiff group in Portland, OR about 10 years back. As I understood it, an older woman was the matriarchal central figure in that particular 'society' of seekers.

As chips off the old block, this group was known for putting on public dancing extravaganzas in legitimate venues - i.e. the Unitarian Church, etc.

misterfids;

You write;

"EARTH is a classroom for the lives born unto it, we arrive with nothing and spend a lifetime gaining the experiences that will valuable to us & God in our next form of existence."

Me;

Nobody saw earth as a classroom more than Charles Darwin. The more he learned about the natural world the more he came to see that no god was necessary to complete the picture. In fact - dragging a god into the picture - without a scrap of physical justification - really complicated everything. And just being alive while his loved ones died around him - taught him that a 'loving and compassionate' god was an absurdity.

Is believing in global warming faith or belief? It's Columbus Day and people are freezing from Oregon to Maine. Austria is experiencing severe blizzards and the Atlantic hurricane season was almost nonexistent. The good Lord is giving us evidence that we are keeping our cool.

Congress is all hot and bothered. The EU Greens have taken over. They are begging us and even attempting to bribe us with a Nobel Prize to embrace their version of global warming. Bribes should be against the law. We are out of money. Sorry is what we should tell our "friends" in Europe.

EARTH is a classroom for the lives born unto it, we arrive with nothing and spend a lifetime gaining the experiences that will valuable to us & God in our next form of existence. We are GIVEN a life without asking for one and expected to strive to reach our best potential each and every day, to love one another, to help one another and to add to the original investment that God made in each of us. We, out of common sense seek the approval of our common Creator and the guidance that is freely available from the creator with one simple caveat, that we ASK for guidance and mercy.
God is present in everything we are able to perceive, man cannot destroy the matter or energy that God gave us to build our future and for those in denial I might ask where did you assume all matter & energy in the universe come from, a big bang of nothing or the void of space?
We as humans place a higher priority on comfort & security than we do in the preservation of our collective future, how can any living entity survive assuming that it is the most powerful being functioning? The recognition of GOD is nothing more than the realization that we as humans are prone to mistakes AND that no matter how powerful one being is there is ALWAY one more powerful, rich, intelligent or beautiful. NO MAN reins supreme in any arena in the universe for more than the blink of an eye!
Which is the greater folly, to believe that there was and always will be a being greater than any or to believe that everything in the universe spontaneously happened without cause?
I can tell you this with certainty, the sum total of our life experience is contained in stored electrical evidence in our Neurons and that when our bodies expire that stored energy is released, and like water, the energy returns to the point of its origination and that place is outside of our universe and ability to comprehend, until we arrive at that location.
Everyday Science proves that GOD exists and claims the knowledge for man and everyday Religion tries to prove that Science (and human reasoning) are invalid and each does so to protect their particular brand of dogma. Science will never be able to prove that GOD does not exist because Science and man can never prove or explain how the universe contained nothing prior to the Big Bang which miraculously provided EVERYTHING IN the Universe.
Anyone so simple to believe that everything came from nothing can surely be persuaded to believe that everything came from something!

Persiflage;

I think I mentioned to you that I took a course years ago on the philosophy of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, which was more to do with developing 'awareness', or wakefulness (if you like); the assumption being that we are all asleep in our day-to -day activities, and need to wake up.
Students were asked to sit upright and feel the weight of the body on the chair, then the weight of the head on the neck, the neck on the shoulders, and so on, including awareness of sounds and location, locally and ultimately - cosmically. Then stop all thought. Or at least try. And keep trying as often as possible.
Is that kind of thing at all similar to Zen?

Colinnicholas - you're most welcome!

I've been a Zen afficianado for a long time, and agree with the sentiment that it is not religion in the conventional sense, although linked historically with Buddhism.

In fact, it seems more directly linked with the earthiness of Chinese Taoism, if anything.

Both Rinzai and Soto practitioners in Japan espouse a simple, direct apprehension of truth in ordinary, everyday reality. What our observed world actually is, without all the conceptual overlay, in other words......

So the trick is in seeing the nature of that ordinary reality with an entirely different perspective - and this is what takes the many years of work to achieve.

regards, Persiflage

Persiflage;

I meant 'Thanks' for the link.

Persiflage;

That's for the frog haiku link. Very interesting.

Posted by: coachoconnorucla

"Faith begins with basic assumptions that are not provable. Every organized body of thought begins with such assumptions (religion, science, philosophy, etc.). Belief should come after one accepts the unprovable assumptions then analyzes the evidence (such as empirical, historical, etc.)"

Well stated. Faith does not need to be blind. Proof is required to reinforce faith. If it isn't working for you in a way that makes you happier, why would you continue?

In a sense the difference between faith and belief is like the difference between inertia and momentum. Faith describes a measure of the victim's fundamental resistance to changes in belief.

Faith begins with basic assumptions that are not provable. Every organized body of thought begins with such assumptions (religion, science, philosophy, etc.). Belief should come after one accepts the unprovable assumptions then analyzes the evidence (such as empirical, historical, etc.) The best exposition of these concepts I have found is in Book 4 (On Human Values) of the popular free ebook series "In Search of Utopia" (http://amdgulliverreturs.info)

God has nothing to do with religion;

http://democraticduckham.blogspot.com/

Karen knows more about religion than anyone, but in her heart she is still a good little nun who wants to believe.

Yes! Yes! You should "practice" your religion of faith without reading your bibles and "believing' what is therein written. But you should NEVER fail to read and believe the "On Faith" column presented by Quinn and Meacham and featuring the fabulous authors they sponsor because it NEVER fails to ridicule Christianity, especially "Western" Christianity.Nothing wrong with being nice to people, but with Quinn and Meacham it always has to be political and the way always has to be through them.

"Words are the fog we have to see through."

Catchy but kinda naive about our species's dire condition, no?

After all, far more unsettling for human faith and knowing in general, once you discard the reassuringly meaningless debate over God's existence, is the supposedly familiar 3-monotheism notion:

Words are the Light of Creation

Ooooo....scary in nothing but darkness.

Disbelief in God is no reason to dismiss religious texts.

Colinnicholas,

Here's Zen poet Basho's well-known frog haiku, along with numerous other translations of the same, and an explanation (of sorts) of the art of haiku - and what it attempts to capture.

Ordinary reality is not necessarily as ordinary as we tend to think......

The old pond;
A frog jumps in —
The sound of the water.

Translated by R.H. Blyth

http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/basho-frog.htm

"when we speak about God we are at the end of.what words or thoughts can do.

And this only sounds amorphous and vague if you are not a dedicated practitioner. If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!"

Bottom Line: Not Nobody, Not Nohow knows what, who or if about "God"!!!!!

I "don't do religion" and am convinced that it is the Bane of mankind.

So? I "don't get it" ?

Maybe I get it more than you?

Words are the fog we have to see through.

Anonymous

I don't get it.

W A S H - P O S T --39..

iNTERESTING!

..."As a Christian "I walk by faith..."And not by sight." "Blessed are those who have not seen, saith, the Lord/God, and Believeth he told Thomas, then those who have seen him.

..."Where 500 people who seen the/Christ liars I think not, is faith something you can buy/purchase, "No...my friends "Faith is when you take a "LEAP into "The Living God's hands, and he catches you, "Faith is believeing the air is real, and life is short." "Faith is believeing "The Lord!

In conclusion my friends, "I walk by "Faith, and not by sight, "I took a leap of "Faith years ago, and "Yes/God/Caught/Me/When/I/came/down."

..."If you judge people "You have no time to love them." ---Mother Teresa

"Call Unto Me..."And I will Answer Thee, "And Show Thee, "Great And Mighty Things." ---Jeremaih 33:3

..."Take that leap of Faith my friends and your thank me later, "The Living God is as real as these words."

...Seek him, knock and the door will be opened, hurry though time is short, and we are all running out of time."

Sincerely, Your friend in Christ,
Tommy Birchfield, Voter/Vet USAF,
Graduate Student, Master's Program,
EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY/CLASS/2010

"Regardless of whether or not one has faith, the world keeps appearing of it's own accord. Now that's mysterious.....

And it must mean something, but I can't imagine what, exactly."

Very amusingly on point, at least as I take it.

One must have already taken the gloriously unavoidable detour into Reason, into language, representation, ratiocination, to find the world's appearing of its own accord at all mysterious.

From thence it is for some - for most of humankind - just a short pull up on the old bootstraps of blind faith to that dizzying imaginary height at which the species acquires the hubris, the potential to fall for its own capacity for language, representation, and ratiocination into posing such an absurdly unnecessary question as "Is there a God?"

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters."

Armstrong's call for compassion in our turbulent world is appropriate, necessary, and timely. Both the idea and practice of compassion is perhaps the most important element common to the three great faiths of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Compassion is the ability to stop worrying about ourselves for a moment and put ourselves in the other person's shoes. To laugh with those who laugh, weep with those who weep, and simply be there for other people.

All of us at some time in our lives have been blessed by the compassionate care of another human being; Armstrong is simply asking us to ask ourselves this question:

Can we give to others without expecting anything in return?

I hope everyone is having a good Sunday. Peace.

I was raised to believe that my relationship with god was a private matter. I was schooled in a convent where the nuns were "married" to god. I was not given a sales pitch to join the convent, as today's evangelicals demand.

Faith, has no place in political discourse. The evangelical movement is one that is most decidedly un-american and un-christian. The back and forth banter of christians vs evangelicals has hurt this country. We had a prez campaign in which 5 candidates decried evolution for fear of losing this nitwit base.

It's time to make religion go back in the church and out of our government.

Yes, C_Frost.

The world's Faithful usually do believe Reason to be on God's side.

They reason to the contrary, against Reason, typically only when they run out reasons in defense of the faith.

There are many wonderful moments in John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion," which generally follows the rigorous, heavily formulaic, litigious rules of intellectual dispute of the day, where Calvin evidently grows tired and impatient of handling the tail end of a long string of arguments, counter-arguments, responses to the counter-arguments, and responses to those responses. At such moments, to paraphrase, Calvin reasons, "If you're still reading and not convinced by this point, you're almost undoubtedly predestined for damnation, so it's pointless to go on reasoning for your sake."

Correction: Not in response to the first comment, but the comment by C_Frost beginning "I did some research..."

In response to the first comment, when Ms. Armstrong writes that Aquinas knew we could not prove God's existence, she is referring to the modern "new atheism" contention that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, and therefore God cannot be said to exist. Aquinas knew that science couldn't prove God's existence even 800 years ago, but still had a philosophically reasonable faith in God's existence. Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God are not scientific "proofs" as we would understand them today, but demonstrations of the reasonableness of faith in the existence of God.

Faith is not the exclusive domain of Western, theistically based religions or Greek philosophy, for that matter.

For some lengthy reading on the functions of faith elsewhere in the world of Eastern religion, see below a document that Karen Armstrong is no doubt very familiar with.

Regardless of whether or not one has faith, the world keeps appearing of it's own accord. Now that's mysterious.....

And it must mean something, but I can't imagine what, exactly.

As far as discovering ultimate causes go, faith seems to generate optimism, but little else - since the passing of several faith-filled millenia haven't brought past or present generations of seekers anyone closer to the truth. A destination never quite reached......

And by that I mean, here we are, still discussing the virtues of faith :^)

http://sacred-texts.com/bud/taf/index.htm

I did some more research, and I found out that Aquinas and Avicenna both thought we could prove the existence of God through reason. Now, Maimonides believed that all of our knowledge stemmed from rational proof, the five senses, and "trustworthy authority." While a tad ambiguous, to me, that means that all three of Ms. Armstrong's mentioned thinkers who supposedly thought it impossible to prove the existence of God through rational means, thought just the opposite.

However, Ms. Armstrong was correct in that all three of these thinkers envisioned faith and virtue as acquired through practice and experience. This all goes back to Aristotle, who first put forward that idea (virtue, not so much faith, as there was no Church or Jewish Temple in ancient Greece).

For all of our agnostic / atheist / mystics / I don't really know what you're talking about guys - you all must admit, this is a pretty intuitive idea with application for everyone, right? Virtue and vice are acquired through practice. Devotion, be it towards one's God or even one's spouse, is an art that gets better with practice.

So let's all try to be good, okay? Enjoy this beautiful day, everyone!

Ooopps. Another Important Typo: i [WE] Meant;

CALANDATE (Universal Year Circa) UYC/4.321/Billion: April.3.2010:

Note: This is the Apocalyptari-On Peoples 'Check Digit' Until Real End Of Times +/- 1.321Billion years in the Future. So, ......"

Note: Our Twin Galaxy , ANDOMEDA will be seen & heart felt by our "MEME"s! In a way; it's like yE will be there Too, our O.U.R. Miracle in Holy Cosmic Motion;

Hence: We art Experiencing Immortalality via the "ETERNITY AVOiDING LONLINESS Phenomena/On that Evoloving, forever, in & Out Of US All; Via "IT"s own Animates & via "IT"s own inanimates per each entity's own STUFFS & THINGS!

WHEREFORE: Our "BiOFiNITE-CARBON-BASED-DEATH" is NO/NOT our "TRANF{iNITE-DEATHs"!

Hint: We was never Created not Canth AnyOne be destroyed! Think APOCALYPTIC, not more PRE-APOCALYPTIC!

Our Biofinite Heart Beats is in Sync with "IT"s own Holy Cosmic SYSTALTiCYCE PALINDROME! aka the Warmth of the Holyi-No-Man/Woms! Together Forever W/SOURCE-ONE!

Can Ye feeeeel "IT"? Yea Ye CAN! Yhea!

Eeeee Haaaaa! Oh. Ooops,

Thanks for being Toleranto/a's!

Something for a leisurely read. The ordinary unvarnished truth really seems to defy common sense, much less metaphysics.

http://genjokoan.com/

Most people who profess a belief in the limited power of words are in the business of using far more than their fair share of them.

"To quarrel about religion is counter-productive and an impediment to enlightenment."

Excuse me, but I'd like to rephrase that along the lines of my beliefs: Religion IS an impediment to enlightenment.
One needn't look beyond the counter-productive actions of Muslim "extremists" (who are actually practicing what THEIR bible is demanding) or Evangelicals who practice the hatred as preached by Leviticus (yes, they are still very much clinging to that old, outdated version of THEIR bible)to come to the conclusion that these major religions are an impediment to civilization.
But, then again, I am a reasonable, logical person so the religious must excuse me for preaching such blasphemy.
Atheist are, as a group, ignorant of religion? In every aspect of my life, I examine everything from head to toe and then come to a conclusion that fits what I have discovered. Which, in the case of religion, means that I have read the religious texts and several books on comparative religion and have come up with this conclusion: If thousands of gods and nearly as many religions have been invented in the minds of men since the dawn of written history, there is only one of two conclusions that a reasonable person can come up with: (1) There are thousands of gods in existence, each one jousting for supremacy (sort of like a World Wrestling match, I'd imagine)and each one having their time in history (Jesus and Allah seem to hold that gold belt as co-champs at the moment)or (2) There are no gods.
After much agonizing, reading and contemplating about this issue, little, ol' me has chosen to believe the latter.

Why the huff and puff about Ms Armstrong's conceited statement about the imperative of 'doing' religion before 'getting' it?
In fact she denied the non-affiliated of us any right to 'faith' or belief. That is what is wrong with her statement, above all.
Religion is an organized, regimented ideology not a prerequisite for faith or belief.

I say to Ms Armstrong that people with questionable- if not outright bad- faith, are prone to have unquestionable, firm beliefs. Only one little step beyond lies the abuse yet to be committed to justify any beliefs which took firm root without questioning.
The fact that Christian and Muslim religions alike have been guilty of this misstep is a fact I will not dwell upon.
Instead, let me point out how terribly wrong it is to believe that no matter how much we may sin against the commands of God, as long as we accepted His Son as our Saviour, as long as we 'are connected' with Him, we will be redeemed.
Please, let me doubt at least that.

Ms. Armstrong writes: "When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech."

If memory serves, Ms. Armstrong's position assumes information that is not proven. Consequently, the rest of her tome is baseless.

God may exist (highly improbable) or god may not exist. However, to commence one's beliefs with, "When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech." simply assumes that god does exist.

Again, facts not in evidence, negating the rest of Ms. Armstrong's thoughts.

This post is heading in the correct direction. Unfortunately it looks like the discussion has been hijacked by fruit loops and militant atheists (whose militancy I certainly understand, given the nuts and the events of this decade).

Look, we have a primate brain that is used to interpret reality in any logical approach. This brain is well adapted for survival on the African savanna a couple million years ago. However, it doesn't seem particularly well equipped to reason about ultimate questions of reality. That goes for both materialist atheists and religionists.

Truth cannot be divided from everyday reality. There's no sky-daddy or invisible friend elsewhere. What I do think based on several years of observation is that there is a filter placed over reality by our brain, our emotions. Steady work, whether psychotherapy or meditation or prayer, can work to expose and therefore reduce those barriers. The endpoint, which extremely few have ever reached historically, is a connected state with the world. It's one that asserts no beliefs, but also one without many of the boundaries that I think are implicit in many of the atheist comments here.

There lies the "ecstasy" of the mystics. Unfortunately over time local cultural practices tend to accumulate around structures set up to perpetuate this knowledge, eventually resulting in the ossified and sometimes even counterproductive structures that are present in modern religion.

"One can no more experience faith through mere logic than one can experience a good song thought mere logic or feel love though mere logic."

Logic is a straw man. Let us speak, instead, of Reason.

I. Music

Reason is a mode of experiencing a good song; helpful in better apprehending, learning, understanding and, indeed, creating a good song.

To pretend otherwise is merely to prove you are not very thoughtful or not a musician.

Reason also tells me that songs are relatively innocuous, such that I'd be a fool not to enjoy a good song unless or until I rationally understood why I felt the song good.

II. Love

Reason is a mode of experiencing love; helpful in better recognizing, exploring, understanding and, most especially, growing and protecting a good loving relationship.

To pretend otherwise is merely to prove you are not very thoughtful, never been married, certainly never been divorced, or are a still dreamy teenager with no real experience of love, life or reason.

Reason tells me that love is a potentially dangerous emotion, threatening to oneself and to others. Reason counsels prudence; that however good love feels, enjoying love, sustaining love, as well as avoiding disaster, it is best to look before one leaps.

III. Faith

Reason is a mode of experiencing faith, helpful in better apprehending, learning, understanding all faiths and, thereby, better practicing one's own.

To pretend otherwise is merely to prove you are not very thoughtful or that you find swallowing dogma unexamined to be effective as a kind of non-pharmaceutical anti-depressant.

Contrary to the claims of defensive zealots of all faiths, most of the world's religions for most of their histories have not presented faith and reason as antithetical. For a contemporary example, the Dalai Lama insists on reasoned analysis as an imperative mode of "meditation," without which faith and enlightenment cannot be expected.

Reason tells me that Faith in God(s) has killed more human beings and been invoked to justify more that is unjustifiable on this planet than just about any other human notion ever articulated.

Reason tells me, in short, that faith and the faithful are at worst lethal on a massive scale and at best dangerously unpredictable; that, if it can be humanly avoided, Faith in God is one leap neither I nor anyone who cares about their fellow human beings ought ever take, no matter how good, right or real the "experience" might "feel" at the time.

This is a good way to show that we have difficulty seeing with an incomplete set of facts and sometimes add our own construct to complete the picture. The difference between faith and belief is significant and I appreciate the reminder.

I believe in God. I hope others have their God to believe in but I would never preach at them. It's too personal.

Forrest3's statement, "from a strictly biological, evolutionary point of view love is a tool to spread and protect a particular gene pool", suggests a teleology for love and thus is Aristotelian in its outlook.

Not many of us are content with teleological explanations of that sort. Is that sort of explanation hyper-rational or irrational? Is there really a rational explanation? I suspect that anyone trying to construct such an explanation would quickly find themselves using unproven speculative assertions to make their case.

One can no more experience faith through mere logic than one can experience a good song through mere logic or feel love through mere logic. In this regard, to understand love, you must feel it. So it is with faith.

Imagine someone describing love to an alien from outer space who never felt love. From a strictly biological, evolutionary point of view love is a tool to spread and protect a particular gene pool. While true, this definition misses all of the really important part of the story for someone trying to live a full life as a human being.

This hyper-rational definition of love fails to capture what people in love feel: how love makes life magical and worthwhile. Is the feeling of love subjective? Absolutely. Is the feeling of love real? Absolutely.

So it is with faith. I sometimes feel it and sometimes do not. But it is clearly something to be FELT not merely to be understood rationally. As John Lennon said, “When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind.” Faith is about singing what is in your heart.

By the way, Karen Armstrong’s books are outstanding and reflect the insights of someone who is far from the traditional sort of believer that so many of the angry atheists on this blog fear so greatly.

One can no more experience faith through mere logic than one can experience a good song thought mere logic or feel love though mere logic.

Imagine someone describing love to an alien from outer space who never felt love. From a strictly biological, evolutionary point of view love is a tool to spread and protect a particular gene pool. While true, this definition misses all of the really important part of the story for someone trying to live a full life as a human being.

This hyper-rational definition of love fails to capture what people in love feel: how love makes life magical and worthwhile. This definition fails to capture love sickness, music, romantic comedies, first kisses, the rapture and intimacy of good sex, thoughts of lost loves and friends and family who have passed away, a parents feelings for her child, a child’s life-long relationship with his parent. Is the feeling of love subjective? Absolutely. Is the feeling of love real? Absolutely.

So it is with faith. I sometimes feel it and sometimes do not. But it is clearly something to be FELT not merely to be understood rationally. As John Lennon said, “When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind.” Faith is about singing what is in your heart.

By the way, Karen Armstrong’s books are outstanding and reflect the insights of someone who is far from the traditional sort of believer that so many of the angry atheists on this blog fear so greatly.

I am inclined to be gracious, this Sunday morning, and agree with Armstrong that religion is a "program of action" that "makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings."

Unfortunately, by that standard, most we humans have ever called, by any name, a Faith in God makes no sense.

The "program of action" to which the most activist religions of just about any period of global history, including today, commit commit their adherents is hardly ever anything as benign as the Mahayana Buddhist credo of "practicing compassion to all living beings," most prominently voiced these days by the Dalai Lama.

It takes faith indeed to accept Armstrong's wishful grafting of Mahayana Buddhism's non-theist compassion onto all world religions, especially onto the far uglier, primitive tribe-serving/other-hating, evil-twisted stump of the world's three "great" monotheisms.

Whenever next I hear a heavenly choir of American Christians organized for "practical action" to drown out the hellish din raised by our Evangelicals of Fear & Hate on such issues as war, poverty, and universal health care, I will reconsider my bleak, realist's view of "faith" in general.

Until then, I will persist in "believing" that, today, for our moment in world history, what is most urgently needed is not academic word games with God and his anointed, but a strenuous, sustained advocacy of secular reason to combat the resurgent violent, hateful "fundamentalism" that has pretty much swept the planet during the last half-century, threatening not only reason and compassion but human rights, liberty, and democratic institutions everywhere.

In doing so, I will mindfully follow the Dalai Lama's urging and "practice compassion for all living beings" as a confirmed atheist.

Daniel 12,

Well said. I would only correct one aspect of it. you said, "make all men equal". It is only so with Christianity. An ideal not practical religiously, socially, morally or even politically. Looking back we see that Christianity has failed miserably in trying to live it for last two thousand years let alone bring it fruition.

Communisim tried it with forced labor and other gimmickery and still failed at the end. It is may be a matter of sementics but even then the sense one gets out of saying 'make all men equal' is like presaging ill fortune. Early Church tried to implement itthrough coercive methods like communisim and failed too. On the other hand Islamic view holds that 'man are equal'in the sense of faculties given. And some will advance and get ahead due to proper use of his faculties but he should show compassion to ones left behind,for the sake of his own soul. Whethre one gets ahead or not, he, whose words and actions match, deligates just compassion in his living thus have the highest rank in the sight of the Creator, Who created us according to the measurement of wisdom, through evolution. As the Quran so clearly points that out. Thus giving little room for so much controversy on a subject need not be so. For Muslim, he worries never about being saved, because his intellect would find it detestable, he only worries about if he is Muslim at heart pleasing his Creator, who brought him through stages ater stages, the Quran.

If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!

Bravo, Karen Armstrong, I commend you on your moral superiority and arrogance, so unlike the learned and scholarly men - Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris - you insult and deride. How you advance the goal of human understanding by foolishly writing off the millions of people (including Buddhists) who have no concept of God and consider themselves nonreligious. Would it be acceptable to you therefore for me to say that, following your own logic, if you do religion, you cannot "get" atheism and thus have no basis to comment on it?

This atheist (who was a star religious pupil, unlike the lackadaisical, incurious "faithful" who comprised my religious classes) made an effort to learn about various religious practices from actual practitioners around the world. Quite frankly, you are wrong that Muslims and Jews do not believe their religion; Muslims in particular take the Quar'an very literally. Religion is as the religious do; likewise, language is what we make of it. Speaking as a degree holder in English literature and history, it is a fallacy and counterproductive to appeal to previous, "pure" meanings of words. Language is a tool that we use, and its modern meanings are no more invalid than is an automobile versus a Roman chariot.

If you intended to speak to invalid or outmoded concepts, then hold the people accountable who are responsible for them - the religious practitioners who formulate and use them - and quit killing the messengers and quit projecting.

All this reaction against "the new atheists" speaks of a deep-seated insecurity about one's belief (yes, belief) that apparently is not bolstered by what you call "faith." Until you deal with this insecurity, you offer nothing constructive to say, whether about atheism or nonatheism. I must say, it strikes me as astonishingly nonspiritual to prefer a alien deity over your fellow human beings, and to make amazingly cruel and condemning assumptions that atheists "don't know" or "don't understand" anything about religion. (And is that assumption a "belief" or a "faith?" I'm not sure. Enlighten me, please.)

Atheists take the side of humanity over that of gods. But perhaps, since you don't "do" accepting the universe as it is, without embellishment, you don't get it.

now, is the first time that I write here, and I not american, but spanish, so that I offer mi apologize if I have some falts,ok?
well,
second: te problems with all the opinions, is that you don´t kow about what you talk.
Jehovah, Yaveh, or watever you want is just ONE GOD, no 2 or 3, or even 50.
and if you read the ancient books, like the Tora, the 12 apostol´s Didaché, and of course, the Holy Bible, you can to learn the TRUE.
In the world, just one book, just one religión(or sistem) explain with enterily clearity, not onlu the born of the heavens and earth, buet also the holy creation. And Jesus of Nazareth, was born for our salvation.
And He created not the new Church, but the new PACT AND REDEMPTIONFOR THE HUMAN RACE.
ah¡, but the man is so stupd, that only just 300 years after, already blasfemated, and in 1054 te CHURCH was crashed in 2 parts, wy and by whoo?
By the MAN.
only exist one CHURCH, one ecclessia, AND FIRST THE ENTERELY UNIVERSE WILL BE DESTROYED BEFORE THE LAW FAILED

BJEROME writes:

While I empathize with Ms. Armstrong's view her arguement is on the face of it...ridiculous. To suggest you can't understand religion because "you don't do it" is foolish.

It is true that faith, belief, or whatever clever word games are used to describe religion there have been some positve movements in our humankind history that have indeed been helped by those of faith. ...
However, this does not in fact suggest that their faith or beliefs are indeed based on evidence or facts. People can be made to do good things based on a lie, or myth.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Her point wasn't that people can do good things for many reasons - it's that a Christian can read all the religious tracts they want, study the bible regularly, and pray up a storm - but if they aren't doing what they were requested to do (spread the Gospel by deeds, not necessarily words), then their faith cannot grow in full measure. It is only in emulating Jesus that His messages truly sink home.

Scripture is there for "teaching and correction", yes - but our faith needs to be exercised through regular practice to develop properly. This is how a Christina "gets" religion - by practicing what we preach.

As I do the things that God has asked me do, the more I want to do them, and the less that I do those things that show that I don't "love my neighbor as myself". The bible resonates more fully with my life. It's a kind of positive feedback loop; as I do more activities that I was designed to do, I feel happier, more fulfilled.

This should surprise no one who follows any of the Abrahamic faiths. It's been made quite evident that we were created as self-willed servants, and are best blessed when we are a blessing to others.

"Armstrong's central point that radical atheists do not really know what they are talking about when they indict all religious practice because they do not have 'religious experience' seems to me a valid one."

No. This is mostly false.
I know a lot of Atheists and most of them attest to have had religious experience in the past but have rejected it. Who are you to claim that they don't know what they are talking about? It makes one wonder just who it is that doesn't "get" it.

Until there is a concensus on clearly defined purposes and needs that religious beliefs have served humans for thousands of years, there will continue to be activist non-believers continuing to charge the windmill, clad in armor and atop a white steed in fqailed attempts at exposing falsehoods. In order for religious beliefs to play progressively smaller roles in the lives of progressively fewer people, there must be a viable alternative having hopefully and potentially, less abuses and mis-uses of tenets that today is the cause of much discord and dissention among people of different religious beliefs.

"...on both sides people were equating 'faith' with 'belief'. This is a recent aberration and one that is peculiar to modern Western Christianity."

What is the point of attempting to invalidate current cultural meaning by challenging it with an archaic one? If you speak English, by definition, faith is a form of belief. If the modern definition of word "belief" does not express your sentiment, you should choose better words or make up a new one that actually has meaning in today's world.

"If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!"

I was raised Catholic and believed the dogma. so I've definitely "gotten it". I am now atheist and I do know what religious people "have" and it's too bad there isn't a vaccine for it. Only those who have never practiced faith, or conversely, never seriously doubted their beliefs don't get it. A better conclusion to this piece from your perspective may have been "If you have never 'done' religion - you don't 'get' it!"

1) Civility is a value- and atheists and fervent religious believers should not be immune to it.
2) My sense is that militant atheism took off in response to fundamentalist Christianity and Islam - especially when the latter decided to go into Violence in a big way.
3) Armstrong's central point that radical atheists do not really know what they are talking about when they indict all religious practice because they do not have 'religious experience' seems to me a valid one. They are often tilting at abstractions even if those abstractions are not always of their own making.
4) Deep in the religious tradition of the major monotheistic faiths is of course the sense of the impossibility of confining God to our definition- of human beings fully comprehending the Divine.
5) A small word on my own religious faith and practice. The Jewish tradition has questioning God written at its heart. Read the 'Psalms' and know that what we are required to do is not cling to a dogma but rather address God , and make as close relation as possible. This then is a religion which does not stand on pat answers, but on an ongoing experiential quest.
Every Jew's aim is then to make a story of their life and connection with God.
I imagine the same idea is found in other traditions also.

Faith (belief in God) is the result of endoctrination, pure and simple, of very young minds to believe in primitivism and the supernatural.

If one is to be in awe of anything it is the human mind and nature.

This seems to over intellectualize what should be a simple notion.

"God," to my mind was a creation of ancient people seeking an explanation for events for which they had nothing like what we today call a scientific or rational explanation - why does it rain, why do crops grow, even, where did this world come from, why do we have day and night?

While their answer was to propitiate that power by prayer and sacrifice rather than to implement some sort of scientific practice, it made them comfortable enough that they continued these practices.

As we expanded our knowledge base we began an attack on "God." Today we seem to have made "God" - "No God" a zero sum and digital game. "God" seems to mean pure faith over any types of ration or science, that there is a person, thing or power larger than anything we can explain, that is the source of creation and of everything since. And "No God" is also a pure belief in reason, that we either know, or are on the to discovering, all the answers for all things, events and experiences in our daily lives, and that there is a mechanistic explanation for everything that started with creation.

We seem to have lost the middle ground - that perhaps this mighty power does stand behind some or all of what we experience, that we can believe in science and accept that there is a God.

Perhaps there is and/or was a super power creator and orderer of the universe. Perhaps not. Is there any reason we cannot allow those who disagree with us to hold on to their ideas? What others believe should not be a matter of contention between people, only that we must be careful about imposing our views on those who do not share them in a way that restricts others' actions - if I believe that life begins at conception, I should be free to express and practice that belief. But I should not be free to impose that belief on those who do not share it, and particularly not on those who are not a part of my community (writ small, not, here, "the community of mankind"). I should work to persuade those outside my community that my belief is moral, reasonable and correct, but I have no "duty" to impose it on others.

It may well be that some of the greatest problems we have faced throughout history is from those who believe there is only one true answer, and who seek to either impose that belief on non-believers.

Dr. Armstrong is factually wrong that Aquinas "knew that we could not prove 'his' existence". In the Summa Theologiae he gives 5 proofs of the existence of God. The question about whether the existence of God can be proven remains philosophically relavant to our day up as demonstrated by the recent variation of the ontological proof developed by Godel. As for Aquinas, he believed that he could prove God's existence.

One of the better posts the Post has had on spirituality.

I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who said something to the effect that for those who have faith, no explanation is necessary, whereas for those who do not have faith, no explanation is possible.

Religion is a community practice. It is not practiced alone, it is practical only with others. Faith, on the other hand, is a private practice. Having a religion does not preclude having faith, but having faith makes practicing religion much more difficult because of the arbitrary rules set down by the hierarchy of the church.

"He who considers that what he believes is fact has never met common sense or critical thinking." - Author unknown

While I empathize with Ms. Armstrong's view her arguement is on the face of it...ridiculous. To suggest you can't understand religion because "you don't do it" is foolish.

It is true that faith, belief, or whatever clever word games are used to describe religion there have been some positve movements in our humankind history that have indeed been helped by those of faith. A few come readily to mind like the abolitionists, the civil rights movement, and a host of other movements that had some type of faith at their core outlook. However, this does not in fact suggest that their faith or beliefs are indeed based on evidence or facts. People can be made to do good things based on a lie, or myth. I submit to you Santa Claus. Kids all over the world modify their behavior based on the lie of a fat white guy who will give them presents if they behave. Yeah, the kids act good, but it is all based on a lie.

The same is true for religion. To conflate good deeds with the "truthfulness" of faith is highly problematic and silly.

The bottomline is and what Dawkins, Harris,Hitchens, and Dennet are opposed to is the idea that reasonable people must play this silly game with everyone about God and faith when on the face of it the notion of a supreme being guiding our every move is absurd. By the way, even if you beleive in God you would not recognize it if you saw it. And certainly the idea that most faiths believe in a sacred text and take each word in that text in it's literal form is again silly.

So, Ms. Armstrong while I respect your need to make sense of this world your need to resort to linguistic gymnastics to build your case is indicative of the core nonsense of your propisition. The idea that "faith" is something that the world need more of. I beg to differ, what the world needs more of is an educated world that treats each other with respect and compassion because we are humans not because something or someone out there scares us into subordination.

To paraphrase, William Shakespeare (Macbeth):
Such gibberish, like the "... player
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more: it is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."

I must be the King of Kafiristan because your mindless dribble has drained my energy this morning. No proof for God? Try Mathematics. Language and Power.
I think most of you need to readjust exactly what it is that you think we are down here for and break away from the idea we have only been doing this for 7000 years. God is Everywhere. And that should frighten most of you. GW3

But the key realization for understanding life is beyond the ken of Armstrong, Dawkins, Harris and most others who write about the nature of reality: whatever you believe in seems to be true. As I explain in MY book, The Essence of Reality, and in my many talks around the world, the mind wraps itself around its accepted paradigm, accepting input consistent with accepted tenets, rejecting or ignoring indications in conflict with them.

The only way to understand the function of reality is to see beliefs and definitions for what they are: artificial mental constructs, typically absorbed early in life, that only ever distort perception, never clarify life's function. Seeing them as synthetic, one can eliminate them, not debate them unendlingly, and come to see life without their distortion.

When you do that, you realize that you create patterns in life, repeating health issues, relationship problems and failure to accomplish what you want. Indeed, you are intimately connected to the real events and relationships you encounter such that, if you find the inner, root elements to outer problems and change them within your psyche, you'll find the problems dissolve in real life. That's because the ideas we all learned for causality -- a god, luck, fate, fortune, chance, external forces and sources galore -- are all illusions formed from archaic ideas and scientific notions woven into the western mindset.

Faith? In what? A god you've conceptualized? Scientific laws that disregard the inner source of outer issues?

Come to see how you are the source of your problems, how you are innately tied to the real events and relationships you encounter, and you don't need faith in anything -- particularly not in the fabricated, convoluted Christian God with a capital "G". Your life will work much better and you will be at peace only by eliminating such ancient fantasy and equally limiting tenets of science.

Actually,
"The Word is God!"
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
NIV

Either you believe or don't believe Scripture...
This undermines the entire premise of the Karen Armstrong's little essay...

But the key realization for understanding life is beyond the ken of Armstrong, Dawkins, Harris and most others who write about the nature of reality: whatever you believe in seems to be true. As I explain in MY book, The Essence of Reality, and in my many talks around the world, the mind wraps itself around its accepted paradigm, accepting input consistent with accepted tenets, rejecting or ignoring indications in conflict with them.

The only way to understand the function of reality is to see beliefs and definitions for what they are: artificial mental constructs, typically absorbed early in life, that only ever distort perception, never clarify life's function. Seeing them as synthetic, one can eliminate them, not debate them unendlingly, and come to see life without their distortion.

When you do that, you realize that you create patterns in life, repeating health issues, relationship problems and failure to accomplish what you want. Indeed, you are intimately connected to the real events and relationships you encounter such that, if you find the inner, root elements to outer problems and change them within your psyche, you'll find the problems dissolve in real life. That's because the ideas we all learned for causality -- a god, luck, fate, fortune, chance, external forces and sources galore -- are all illusions formed from archaic ideas and scientific notions woven into the western mindset.

Faith? In what? A god you've conceptualized? Scientific laws that disregard the inner source of outer issues?

Come to see how you are the source of your problems, how you are innately tied to the real events and relationships you encounter, and you don't need faith in anything -- particularly not in the fabricated, convoluted Christian God with a capital "G". Your life will work much better and you will be at peace only by eliminating such ancient fantasy and equally limiting tenets of science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM

quackers1 writes:

"I really don't care if anyone other than myself believes in God."

AND

"In simple truth if you fail to acknowledge God, God will fail to recognize you or anything you think you accomplish without God. If you deny God, God denies you. What goes around comes around."

If your first statement were honest and you do not care if I/We do not believe in God and have a personal relationship with God, then you would not have added at the end the admonishment we will be denied no matter how good we are in life.

People admonish out of worry others will do the wrong thing and they do not want to see that happen much as a parent admonishes their child for running into traffic without looking. In other words, you are proselytizing because you do care. Care to get your opinion across to prove your point that you want all people to have faith like ourself lest you feel apart from the whole.

Why do we all have to have faith like yourself? Just live your life and we will live ours. We can co-exist and not bash each others brains out and still produce a beautiful community, nation and world. You have your God, I don’t. So what? Please do not concern yourself with my well being in this life, or, any other life you have faith in.

DANIEL 12, Takes an extremely long and torturous route to get to his conclusion of breeding humans. He right about one thing, that vitually everyone would agree that it is evil. It is also very wrong. How many children of gifted, talented or successful people ever reach their parents accomplishments? Having gifted parents is no guarantee of success. Even having the best environment to nurture intellect and talent does not always produce success. Often the best ideas and the best minds come out adversity. Stephen Hawking was an average student when he was struck down with his condition. A young man who unable to finish his education because of proverty, sat in a library studying pictures of a wind mill,and went home and built one out spare parts. What makes us better as a species, is the striving, not superior genes. This is not to advocate for disease and proverty,but the human spirit which can not be bred. But it certainly can be nourished.

Hi,
I like Ms. Armstrong's dedication to a less heated discussion. That said, I am afraid I do not follow her argument. If religion/faith/belief/whatever is "a practical activity. Like driving, swimming, dancing or gymnastics" then it must have a practical or useful result. In my experience, this isn't the case. I understand faith comforts some during hard times and can bring people together in fellowship, but many other groups or activities do too. What Ms. Armstrong fails to address is the necessity of faith. In her writing (and, granted, I haven't read her book yet), faith/religion/et. al. seems hardly necessary or important. To use her analogy, I don't do gymnastics and I do not feel I am missing out on something important. I respect gymnasts, their dedication and the beauty of their sport, but it isn't for me.
The notion that you must practice faith/religion in order to "get it" sound highly odd. If something is "pratical" it should be easy to define (even if not easy to do). Further, a practical thing must be shown as useful. I know I am belaboring the point, but I do not get the importance of faith from her blurb. She neither raises to a "pratical" skill (e.g. driving, dance, gymnastics) or a "art" (e.g. painting, dance--again--, or storytelling).

". . . what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8. This is core ideology for this Christian liberal.

DebChatterjee hit the nail on the head. So much verbosity for something claimed to be beyond speech itself. A classic argument from logic.

Nuf said...yet I want to say so much more...

"It makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings."

Sounds wonderful but one can be lead to believe or infer that one must practice religion to transcend. That is simply hogwash. I do not need God, I do not want God. I am a compassionate and open-minded, reasonably well educated individual. I work in health care as a Registered Nurse. I dedicated my life to the service of people as a profession and religion, faith and God had nothing to do with it. I was raised a reform Jew, thankfully and not by religious zealots who would have brainwashed me into having faith, a concept I despise.

Our creator more than anything is our parents. At first we can do nothing but have faith in their doing the right thing by us, their children. By the time a child gets a sense of their relationship to the people around them, faith is the most real thing they have. I am hungry, I cannot feed myself. Will this person who feeds me return? THAT is faith. Faith in the tangible, in the objective. The child does not know the mother may or may not return to feed them when they begin to cry. And just as faith in God prevails so we can hold to the thought that it will all be better some day, so does the child owe its hope that it will be fed to faith.

How sad and how too often parents miserably fail their children. And who is to be considered culpable in that? Their parents. Sure, there are other mechanisms for a persons failure in life, but primarily and overwhelmingly, it is the parents. Faith plays a role in allowing one to cling to something, even if it isn’t tangible, which provides comfort in an often cruel and meaningless world. It provides order and direction.

I and many more like me get order from knowledge and apply that knowledge to help us make sense of the world, our nation, our community and our family. As knowledge changes, so does perception and once held beliefs can be replaced with new insight. Faith and religion in general does not allow that flexibility. If humans are anything, they are flexible. Standing rigid in some few circumstances may be useful and even necessary but over all, it is hindering and leads to closed minds. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, for sure, but a closed mind is just a terrible thing.

Said it once before
but it bears repeating now:
Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children.
Period.

Ms. Karen Armstrong's views about God, and making a case for this monochromatic deity (whom some call God, Yahweh, Allah, Bhagavan) is majestically ridiculous.

If Karen Aromstrong admits that God is beyond speech, why make the effort to patronize for something "unspeakable" ? The more she tries to make the case by accusing thinkers such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, she shows how hollow her position is. For one thing, she comes across as one of self-appointed whiner on God's behalf.

If God is indeed beyond speech, then what's the need to speak on his/her behalf and then blaming others for the lack of civility when confronted with hard questions ?

Believers continue to get tangled up in their own semantics - and, expect the rest of us to accept their mutterings as profound or insightful. No matter how erudite the language, religion is still a word game - and nothing more!

I really don't care if anyone other than myself believes in God. I have discovered that God cares less about what we do to each other than about God's personal relationship with each of us. Someone can spend their entire life in the service of others and be a failure in God's eyes because of a failure to have a personal loving relationship with God. In simple truth if you fail to acknowledge God, God will fail to recognize you or anything you think you accomplish without God. If you deny God, God denies you. What goes around comes around.

i want to go to dem4evr's church. I haven't been going to church for several years because I was sick of watching silk-robed Catholic or bouffant-haired Protestant white men stand on a stage and tell me what to do. It felt too much like listening to my boss, or my father again.

I want the Bible used selectively as a collection of philosophy and advice written by men, some who were enlightened and some who were sick, controlling misogynists and homophobes. But more, I want to learn the ideas of modern men and women, not people who interpret and cite what has already been written in dusty books, but starting from what (good) has already been written and going forward, using those MEMEs dem4evr speaks of.

And then, after "church," there should be a Sunday school session where the application and execution of these good ideas are planned.

That would seem to me to be an effective use of the MEME that God throws into our mash every now and then.

At this time in human history, do we really need God? I do not know. I believe people can go on without God for ever and still have satisfaction in life. Is that wrong?

A case for god? I think there is an equal measure for or against the case for a god. Whether or not you "do" or "deny" is to pretty much an equal measure because the case for or against a god is beyond measure on the scale of proof which we as humans measure anything.

So one can list all they "think" points to or all they "think" points away from and it is still just a list without proof. All we ever have is the discussion, or argument in which to banter about with and that argument or discussion ultimately becomes the god or the denial of the god.

it matters not, we are, ultimately, nothing without the duality of our minds, and, this is, simply, more than a mind can handle or accept, so, it has to cling to one or the other in order to continue to hold power and influence over us, which, leaves us either in the do or don't arena, or the god or no god arena and we are still left hanging is we are at all truthful.

People for a god choose to inspire for their argument while people who are against choose to argue, sometimes, militantly against and it so happens that to inspire is more pleasant an experience and militant arguing is not so pleasant if one is more laid back, still it is in he arena of our duality.

Arguing or instpiring for or against a god will always be simply a habit and a pastime of our dual nature once one has left the arena there is simply no more questioning. One has no more need to "know" or "argue" for or against, but one can only get to this point by getting to this point all by your lonesome.

Ms. Armstrong's final line: If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!_________________________________________

Many of us who 'did' religion for decades never 'got' it. Our tribe, consciously or not, subjected the notion of a deity to our own little Occam's Razor and the results proved profoundly liberating.

"If there is a god, (and show me the evidence) he/she/it is one mean, violent, erratic, neglectful mo-f,o. Belief, faith or whatever you want to call it has caused more bloodletting, wars, murders, and evil than any other aspect of human behavior.

If people would realize that this is it -- this earth is the only paradise we will ever know -- then perhaps we can all get together to try to save it and save ourselves."

Casey- it is the power grabs under the guise of faith that have caused much of the bloodletting. But be fair- pure power grabs, and good old fashioned greed (not of God, sir)- have been the source of quite a bit of spilled blood as well. We can argue over which is the source of the greater evil, but both spring from human sources.

When it comes to earth as the only paradise, I would only ask that you go beyond the confines you have set for yourself- science and the small subset of what we know- and consider the possibility of a God that always has been and thus has been able to begin those things that otherwise would have no ultimate source. Science and our knowledge are not the end, nor the answer- just the beginning.

Thanks. I've found your to be books some of the few on religion that approach the topic [and the essence of the topic] with any real enlightened thought. The comments here engage you on the trivial level of "faith" versus "belief" [evidence, science, and such] which I doubt to be your real point.

I'm afraid, though, that at some point, you're going to have to engage something a bit more mundane. I live in a country [US] where religion has become a hostile, negative force engaged in the persecution of many. The biggest buildings in our metropolis was bombed in the name of religion. You address the individual place of religion without looking at religion as a group organizer that has been a monstrous force in history in spite of its teachings to the contrary.

The subtext of your critics surely has to do with this omission. You speak of the misuses of religion as if they are degradations of the true message. That may be true. But the truth is that these degradations are so regular as to be a part of religion itself. Your critics, myself included, would say that once a religious group is formed, it then begins to feel it is "right." And from there, the inevitable transformation occurs.

Rather than focusing your efforts and considerable talents on clarifying the obvious, perhaps you could turn your attention towards how to address this conflict between a personal religion [in my opinion, universal] and the group implementations of religion [universal but deadly].

There are codes of conduct for individuals in most religions. But where are the stone tablets for the religious group? Lord only knows, we need them [irony intended]...

If there is a god, (and show me the evidence) he/she/it is one mean, violent, erratic, neglectful mo-f,o. Belief, faith or whatever you want to call it has caused more bloodletting, wars, murders, and evil than any other aspect of human behavior.

If people would realize that this is it -- this earth is the only paradise we will ever know -- then perhaps we can all get together to try to save it and save ourselves.

Thank you, Ms. Armstrong, for a well-written and thought provoking essay on faith, love, and belief.

I have read a bit of Aquinas, though not Maimonides or Avicenna. That was why I was surprised by something you said: "People like Aquinas, Maimonides or Avicenna would find much of our modern certainty about God frankly idolatrous. They knew that we could not prove 'his' existence..."

If I can channel Aquinas correctly, wouldn't he say that we can use reason to prove the necessity of God, as a necessary Prime Mover, or Creator of our universe? Aquinas was a hard-core rationalist; I think he would find our society idolatrous for its rational (and moral) flexibility.

Also, you state that "Like driving, swimming, dancing or gymnastics, you learn the truths of faith only by constant, dedicated practice - not by reading texts or adopting a metaphysical 'belief'."

Now, some readers will find this very Buddhist, as it corresponds to orthopraxy (right practice) instead of orthodoxy (right doctrine). But faith as a skill which can be acquired and developed is no stranger to Christian thought. Virtually all medieval thought was rooted in the classics, and Aristotelian thought saw virtue as acquired through practice. Here, Aquinas would certainly agree with your emphasis on faith and practice. But I still think he would disagree with you on whether God's existence can be proved.

Some medieval thinkers found that reading of ancient texts, prayer, and devotions were just the right kind of practice to develop one's faith.

Any grad students or scholars care to weigh in on this one? Thanks again for your very informed essay, Ms. Armstrong.

daniel12's long lament on the state of humanity is reasoned and thoughtful. but man's ascent from the primordial soup is undeniable, but not linear. our evolution now is not physical but mental, thru advancements we create for our environment. our necks do not grow to reach a higher branch, but our minds grow to reach the next solution to a problem. his point is the pursuit of intelligence is the path forward, this is self-evident in looking at the world, but humanity is much more complex than that simple search. he sees religion as a hinderence, perhaps so, but while Torquemada may have had his time, leonardo,shakespeare,columbus,newton all survive his influence. why, because man came to see their influence as greater.
man's ascent for better reasons is due to these and others combined influences, and not a process any longer of our genes. to see this point one must see that in humanity the abilities of a single person is shared by all, that gates freed the computer, yet the creators of google made it much more useful. but the children of these creators are not necessarily endowed by their parents with the same capacity, that another person born of different parents will build upon those successes due to some drive we do not fully understand. it is the collective MEME {mental gene)we all share along with our genes that influences now. but to your point about God. it takes but a look up on a clear night to see the vastness of things and to believe in a divinity truly beyond our comprehension. that science has shown that from the moment of the singularity all this has been created. it is also true that faith can restore a broken spirit, can guide to a light of understanding. we cannot know now all answers, we can only have faith in man's use of the meme to better ourselves (fits and starts aside).

Ms. Armstrong,

I have read several of your books (Jerusalem, Islam, and Through the Narrow Gate). Thanks for your ability to see and discuss all sides.

God is love even when talking discussing Him with those who have a difference in belief. I have heard people who think they are outstanding Christians say all that is needed is belief. It is forgotten that faith without good works is dead. Quarreling is defended? Where is contemplation, meditation and humility? Prayer seems to be about asking for what is needed in this world. Good health, victory in war, long life, money, etc. No longer is prayer a coming to God in humility and praise.

Men made up the concept of the small and shallow god of Abraham to subjugate women and the week, to manipulate and control others with judgment, fear and guilt; and to justify destroying anything and everything different than them.

There is one common energy and intelligence we all share but it's not an intolerant, exclusive, homophobic racist "god" who fries his babies in hell if they don't do what other men tell them he says to do.

"All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon; and those whose gaze is fixed upon the pointer will never see beyond. Even let him catch sight of the moon, and still he cannot see its beauty."

Furthermore there are many that believe God is some one who pontificates and grabs glory each chance HE might desire. Somewhat like a TV personality or someone who won't talk to anything less than 1,000's of people at a time. On the contrary, I believe He probably is just as comfortable talking to one than speaking to 1,000's. You guys have made him out to be some grandstanding, egomaniacal and centric God that seeks acclaim and adoration. If that were the case, don;t you think there would be more readily apparent signs around in a limelight hugging and glory seeking way? I liken him to a grandfather figure you likes to visit with all his children, one at a time.

You have written elegantly on idealistic philosophy, and included the central point of Pythagoras which was that only those that live the doctrine can know the truth.

As you've learned I'm sure, what you are trying to point out simply will not be understood by most.

When people become open to authentic examination of their beliefs and the little tyrannical center of awareness inside themselves we can call ego (the unillumined mind and its false values and opinions) then all you speak of becomes possible of attainment.

Until a ray of realization dawns, character of course undergoes no real change and the inevitability of cyclical repetitions of destructive patterns of behavior and life continues. Examples unfortunately are endless.

So be it, as Plato would likely have said. Individually and collectively we have to outgrow our problems, we never truly solve them any other way. I'll end by saying I appreciate your intent, someone has to plant seeds that may in time unfold. You just don't know who might be receptive.

Making a case for God is your job and not mine. I believe in a God who is benevolent, loving, kind, compassionate but also one who desires the best for all his children. That means at times punishment may have to be doled out because equity needs to be maintained. If people want to believe God is the Jolly Green Giant, so be it. I happen to believe God is like any Father who needs to maintain a semblance of order throughout His family. The way you live and the way God might live is up to you to figure out. And if there is a disparity in either, who is right and who is wrong.

I don't believe God expects us to 'be perfect' because we are man, sin has already infiltrated this earth and man is subject to sin. However I do believe when we stop striving to become better people and reaching out to others in helping hand than we are regressing from His desires for each of us.

Every religion has their own concept what it is to be Christ like or God like, and that is an individual choice that each has to make.

Aquinas knew that we could not prove God's existence? Really? Then what are all those proofs of God's existence, just like jokes? that is not to say that any of them are actually convincing, but Aquinas was certainly happy to engage in the project. Not to mention that the Catholic church, throughout the period in which it supposedly wasn't interested in the content of beliefs was busy torturing and killing people for getting the details wrong. Unitarian heresy anyone? Wars for improperly stating the details of the metaphysical unity of the three aspects of God. Sorry, but this article is simply nonsense. As for the idea that faith is really a pattern of activity, ok, that's a notion. So what is gained by engaging in this activity in churches with people who claim to be special leaders. Why not treat each other decently, show love and solidarity, and skip the ritual? It would certainly eliminate one excuse for wars, namely that someone else has the wrong ritual.

"To quarrel about religion is counter-productive and an impediment to enlightenment"

Quiet the contrary. It is enlightenment. To quarrel about virgin births and walking on water is to acknowledge reality. Religion is the impediment to enlightenment.

This article was the most pathetic argument for a god I have ever read. There was nothing in there.

As an agnostic,I was disppointed in you argument that concludes with "If you don't do religon,You don"t get it". Mother Teresa would be an example of someone who does religon. Even she had doubts. I was expecting a greater effort to convince me. Your argument was weak and smug. If it sounds amorphous and vague, it is amorphous and vague. You remark how the debate on the other side has been agressive and antagonstic. Don't confuse those words with intelligent and reasoned. You practice faith by practicng compassion. There is a lot of religious people who have no compassion for anything, but people who think like them. And these religious peole have great faith that it is not necessary to do anything about the huge amount of problems in the world. Because they believe and have great faith that The Second Coming will take of it. True compassion has nothing to do with faith or belief, but love. Love that encompasses the beautiful world we inhabit and a desire to keep it and all its inhabitants well.

God? Your God or mine?

If I were God, there would be no hunger, suffering of children from terrible disease and on and on.

Now if I could do this as God, why can't your God do it?

Doesn't have the power, or the will to end all of mankinds suffering?

Take your choice, but man created God as an illusion to take control, and it remains so today.

My take anyway

Papa

Karen Armstrong

You wrote, " People like Aquinas, Maimonides or Avicenna would find much of our modern certainty about God frankly idolatrous."

Would you think that these three would consider it "idolatrous" for someone to state with "certainty" that they KNOW that God Is and that God Is a Trinity and that God Is a Being of Pure Love?

You also wrote, "They knew that we could not prove 'his' existence, that even revelation did not provide us with privileged information about the divine"

I know that I can not prove God's existence but I have a question: Do you consider the fact that God has proved that God Is to someone "privileged information"?

To me, it is "vital information" so that I can even attempt to do what God has chosen for me to do.

You then wrote, "And this only sounds amorphous and vague if you are not a dedicated practitioner. If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!"

Sometimes if one does not get "past religion", one will not come to the realization that it is about a relationship and that relationship is not only between God and man but between man and man, man meaning all members of humanity.

As I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Getting "past religion" can bring one to True Religion or for one to find that they are already seeking it and True Religion is "Taking care of widows and orphans".

Seems to me this "widows and orphans" refers to those that are worse off than oneself and since everyone is worse off than everyone else in one way or another than it is ALL of us taking care of All of us.

God cares, so should we.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Part one.

The case for the existence of God?
The case for the existence of God cannot be made, cannot be considered reliable and not merely a default position until the case can be made that man can act on the scientific evidence he has at hand not so much to discredit the belief in God but demonstrate that he can live without a belief in God. And the evidence so far concerning the ability of man to live without God is very little, meaning really that man has not demonstrated he can live without God, therefore all suggestions as to whether God exists or not are irrelevant because the naysayers are really not at all distinguishable from the believers. This can easily be demonstrated by really marshalling the scientific evidence before one and asking if one can live with this evidence as opposed to a belief in God.

Part two.

And no doubt probably the best evidence for determining whether one can live without a belief in God is the evidence concerning whether species of flora and fauna are static, do not evolve,--do not change--or whether they do undergo transformations, evolve. The former position of course is often allied with a belief in God, the creationist belief. And the latter is the belief which became most famous with first Lamarck and then Darwin. And needless to say, the evidence that species evolve has been demolishing the "static" belief, and of course creationism. Now, to set ourselves up for discussion it would be best to briefly state the theories of Lamarck and Darwin.

Lamarck truly put the evolutionary view as opposed to the static on the map with his belief in acquired characteristics by species being passed on to young. To be clearer, Lamarck theorized that species change by say,--and to give one of the most famous examples--the giraffe as it grows up and in adulthood stretching its neck out a bit longer than the previous generation and then passing this longer neck to young which in turn stretch their necks out a bit longer and pass this characteristic to young. This of course is simplified as the theory of acquired characteristics. Now Darwin of course is famous for the alternative and widely considered correct theory of natural selection--which briefly stated is the belief that a species is always producing variants of itself--characteristically different from each other young--and depending on various circumstances (change in climate, competition with other and/or one's own species, etc.) certain of the young will enjoy an advantage which lets them reproduce more than the other young and pass on the advantageous characteristics. And of course slowly but surely the species changes in the direction of the advantageous characteristics.

Part three.

Now with these preliminaries in mind it really only demands to be asked whether we are living up to the evolutionary view over the static, non-changing species view (the creationist view if one prefers to reduce it to religion). And my view is clearly no. And the proof for this nay answer is startlingly obvious. All one has to do is examine the fossil record concerning man and point out the evident which virtually every educated person knows: The fossil record concerning man opens up a deeper timewise history than the typical history of civilizations rising and falling and reveals that although typical history does not demonstrate an irrefutable path forward, the fossil record clearly does--and the path forward demonstrated by the fossil record is the path toward intelligence by the constant alteration of what is a species which was more primate than modern man. The fossil record clearly shows that whatever our culture, politics, religion, if such is not falling in line with the project of continuing this alteration of man toward increased intelligence--and there is no reason to suppose we cannot change toward greater intelligence to the degree we have already changed from a millions of years old ancestor--we are living an obsolete view. Politics clearly over the next thousand years will revolve around whether we are taking our further evolution in hand or not.

Now a few comments on how man differs from the animals when we apply the evolutionary views of Lamarck and Darwin. Darwin of course has been considered correct and Lamarck has been discredited, but actually while Darwin is more correct with virtually every other animal than man, Lamarck has a challenge concerning man. For all natural selection which applies to all flora and fauna and of course man, man is distinguished from the animals by a rudimentary Lamarckian tendency in being able to pass culture--the acquired characteristic of culture--to young. All we know as our culture, religion, politics, etc. is a rudimentary Lamarckism, and this difference from the animals in the first place is what has allowed us to become scientific beings contemplating the fossil record, our origins, and describing how we have become what we are. And we can see at once that there is some truth in religion saying man is a special creature--one to be distinguished from the animals--because of course of the rudimentary Lamarckian tendency. This is not to say in our being special we inevitably must lord it over the animals and consider ourselves as having had a divine origin and that we can be saved by God who loves us over everything, but that no matter the discounting of religion man cannot help but wonder how special he is, what differences he possesses over all other life.

Part four.

But now to get to the root of the matter, and the disturbing understanding of how especially our politics is far removed from acting on scientific understanding. And for convenience sake I will address myself to only the politics of the United States, for that should be enough for a replacement of these views by other political views supposing one wants to compare other political views with the gist of the argument being laid out. The big question then, is how do our two major political parties stack up with respect to Darwin and Lamarck, the fossil record concerning man, the biological view in general?--And supposing we are honest we will find, first, and concerning the Republican party, that it is all too likely to be removed from the biological view by keeping elevated the religious view of man. Furthermore, for all its attempt to keep the religious view alive it shows clear evidence of being in thrall to Darwin's natural selection, to be for all culture and difference from animals, stuck in the quandary of the "struggle for existence", to give another aspect of what natural selection means. And all this is perfectly understandable, because in being conservative, elevating religion--which is a quite old view of the world--the Republican party cannot help but find itself reduced toward the biological link between man and animal, the link of both under the influence of natural selection.

Part five.

This is not to say the Republican party does not have the Lamarckian tendency concerning man of being able to pass on culture which animals cannot do, but that the Republican party chooses rudimentary culture which cannot help but bring man closer to the animals, and of course, closer to acting in line with pure natural selection. This explains why for all religion, all morality and willingness to put questionable impulses at bay, the Republican party is perfectly compatible with a Laissez Faire view of the world--the struggle of economics, in other words. Or what the Democratic party would observe as "Social Darwinism". So we can see the Republican party is utterly remote from understanding the very words written here--utterly remote from the simple observation that the fossil record concerning man demonstrates that all future politics will either be in line with the attempt of man to continue his evolution toward intelligence or really be obsolescent. But the Democratic party is no better.

The Democratic party in America is the party supposedly beyond religion, the champion of the secular view, the scientific view, and atheists typically prefer to be considered left wing. But appallingly for all this "advancement", "progress" , the Democratic party demonstrates that it is farther from the views of Darwin and Lamarck--the biological view in general--than the Republican party! The Democratic party says yes to the evidence of the evolutionary view--meaning Darwin--but separates the biological view completely from the social sphere. The Democratic party far from respecting the Lamarckian tendency of man to pass on culture--and to recognize the evidence of the fossil record which asks that we continue to evolve man toward intelligence--cannot even stand the concept of natural selection it pits so often against religion! The Democratic party has of course the socialistic leaning, which means it must disrupt natural selection concerning man completely and elevate all people equally--not discriminate at all concerning anything, and of course not discriminate concerning intelligence no matter that the fossil record shows man inexorably moving in one direction: Toward intelligence. For all the belief of the Democratic party concerning biology, it has society moving in a circular direction, the intelligent serving the less so and the less so empowered to be on equal footing with the intelligent.

Part six.

So we can see at once that virtually nobody has the courage to act on the scientific evidence at hand. Man has not the courage to recognize the biological record shows him developing in the direction of intelligence and that he must take up from natural selection and select himself toward intelligence--breed himself toward intelligence. And ideally, fulfill Lamarck's view by altering himself by science so that he can pass on acquired characteristics to young. To spell it out, virtually everyone will say concerning the argument I have made here that it is immoral, in fact evil, that it leads to totalitarianism, tyranny, bias, and to simplify, a world in which the more intelligent people are clearly chosen over everybody else...And here we get to the heart of the matter: Precisely because the human race cannot step forward in such fashion--no matter the fossil record showing that for millions of years man has evolved in the direction of intelligence--man cannot be considered beyond the belief in God, religion, no matter how atheistic he tries to tell himself he is. We are at default religion. There is no need to make a case for religion, for man cannot even act on the basic evidence of biology at hand. Man can breed dogs, horses, flowers, etc. but has no gumption concerning breeding himself toward intelligence.

When faced with the biological record concerning man--the fossil record--man no matter his assertions to the contrary views this record as having been a gigantic and natural piece of totalitarianism and far removed from morality. Man inexorably having evolved to today, in the direction of intelligence? Totalitarian to the core! A natural totalitarianism imposed by nature on man, a more thorough and intelligent totalitarianism than any man has imposed on man. Quite simply for all our politics so far over history, we are not equal to taking up from nature and evolving ourselves toward intelligence. We balk at such a project. Apparently intelligence can be created to where we can have such an understanding of ourselves that we can see we have evolved toward intelligence, but this intelligence cannot--and our wills cannot--take up the project from nature and evolve toward even greater intelligence. We can look back and observe we have evolved from largely ape to man, but we cannot state we will bring politics in line with this evidence and continue our evolution.

Part seven.

Instead, at best, we prefer religion if we are right wing and socialistic practices if we are left wing--and are not religious practices at best--concerning politics I mean--and socialistic practices virtually identical? Both try to save man, make all men equal--whether before God or equal in a society which has as its specific project to leave none behind.

So we can see it is useless to make a case for religion because we cannot make the case against religion even if we have overwhelming evidence at hand. All of us balk before the biological view of the world--the basic science which virtually every educated person knows. And this should be a comfort to all Americans fed up with the battles between political parties. The political parties can agree. Both agree in rejecting the inevitable--by fossil record--future of man. Both prefer the short view, to not have a wide, biological view of history. Both prefer to remain in typical history, which is the history of civilizations rising and falling. Apparently keeping civilization from falling in the typical historical view is challenge enough. Or perhaps our political parties are incapable of being effective in even this limited view. What a shame! Man cannot even learn from history let alone the fossil record! So I suppose we had better believe in God. How else to be saved?

Norrie, this "Abrahamic" business of the former pope has always shed more darkness than light. The Christian/Catholic notion of "belief" has never existed in Judaism, is alien to it, outside its compass.

Karen Armstrong writes:

"Like a myth, a religious doctrine is essentially a program of action. It makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings."

This language is Buddhist language. It is not the language of the Abrahamic religions. In fact it is antithetical to those religions, which exalt humanity above all other living beings, and pay little attention to compassion.

As for the nature of "faith", I agree with Ambrose Bierce's definition in his DICTIONARY (1911):

"FAITH: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

“The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'” - Robert Green Ingersoll

Well, Ms. Armstrong, this is the first time I've ever found myself in even partial agreement with you. You write:

"Second, on both sides people were equating 'faith' with 'belief'. This is a recent aberration and one that is peculiar to modern Western Christianity"

Indeed it is, and it has brought great misery to the rest of the world.