Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:54 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:35 pm +0000
Posts: 13
If I thought to myself as follows, would you think that I've been seduced by the Lucifer rebellion, or that I'm just thinking naturally ?
What advice would you give me ?:

Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof.
When a man rejects reason as his standard of judgment, only one alternative standard remains to him: his feelings. A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition.
Faith is the equation of feeling with knowledge.
To practice the "virtue" of faith, one must be willing to suspend one's sight and one's judgment; one must be willing to live with the unintelligible, with that which cannot be conceptualized or integrated into the rest of one's knowledge, and to induce a trancelike illusion of understanding.
One must be willing to repress one's critical faculty and hold it as one's guilt; one must be willing to drown any questions that rise in protest - to strangle any trust of reason convulsively seeking to assert its proper function as the protector of one's life and cognitive integrity.
Remember that all of man's knowledge and all his concepts have a hierarchical structure.
The foundation and starting point of man's thinking are his sensory perceptions; on this base, man forms his first concepts, then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale.
If man's thinking is to be valid, this process must be guided by logic, "the art of noncontradictory identification" - and any new concept man forms must be integrated without contradiction into the hierarchical structure of his knowledge.
To introduce into one's consciousness any idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgment - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything.
This is the meaning of John Galt's statement in Atlas Shrugged that "the alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind."
There is no greater self-delusion than to imagine that one can render unto reason that which is reason's and unto faith that which is faith's.
Faith cannot be circumscribed or delimited; to surrender one's consciousness by an inch, is to surrender one's consciousness in total.
Either reason is an absolute to a mind or it is not - and if it is not, there is no place to draw the line, no principle by which to draw it, no barrier faith cannot cross, no part of one's life faith cannot invade: one remains rational until and unless one's feelings decree otherwise.
Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity; and the man who succumbs to it, will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs his reason most.
When one turns from reason to faith, when one rejects the absolutism of reality, one undercuts the absolutism of one's consciousness - and one's mind becomes an organ one can not trust any longer.
It becomes what the mystics claim it to be: a tool of distortion.

This is from:
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Rand,Ayn/RAND,%20Ayn%20-%20The%20Virtue%20of%20Selfishness.htm#_Toc6821583


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:59 pm +0000
Posts: 356
Location: North Dakota
(2078.7) 195:7.4 Paradise values of eternity and infinity, of truth, beauty, and goodness, are concealed within the facts of the phenomena of the universes of time and space. But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values.

(2078.8) 195:7.5 The realities and values of spiritual progress are not a “psychologic projection” — a mere glorified daydream of the material mind. Such things are the spiritual forecasts of the indwelling Adjuster, the spirit of God living in the mind of man.


It may seem logical and rational to dismiss faith to those who have not the courage to experience it. It is truly sad to witness. Faith is the key to the fulfillment of the appreciation of life, of purpose, of destiny. The only people on this planet who cannot experience real true faith are those who won't. As they say in the Marines, "Can't means won't!" If you won't, at least have the honesty to admit it without making some irrational "rationalistic" excuse for dismissing the reality of it.

Oh and leave Lucifer out of this, rationalists wouldn't believe him either, he was/is a Lanonandek Son of high spiritual birth.

So my advice, since you asked, is to (figuratively speaking) walk right up to God and ask him to show you the reality of faith. Be real about it, be willing to allow God to show you how to experience him and show the world you are reborn as a faith son of the living God. In other words, prove God on his terms rather than on rationalism's terms.

Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4674
I look forward eagerly to this discussion on faith and reason. The limitation of reason is the knowledge base applied to its function. Reason is a process, not a result. The result of reason is critically dependent upon the factual content, or lack thereof, available for its function. Experience and wisdom are important contributions to the result of reason as well. It has been well said that information is not knowledge and knowledge is not experience...and there is no substitute for experience in the application and result of reason.

The UB teaches that faith trumps all knowledge and that love is the expression of absolute truth that even the most ignorant, unwise, and inexperienced mind may apply to participate in universal reality....the secret sauce. Faith is merely to act as though there is a creation, a creator, a plan and purpose, and that we are all a part of that greater reality beyond what our 5 senses acknowledge and beyond what our knowledge and reason can verify. This does NOT make the universe "unreasonable" but it does make reason a limited asset for assessment of reality. Faith simply acknowledges that reality is greater than we can "know" by facts...at this mortal time of limited knowledge and experience within that universe in which we live.

The UB has much to say on this and I will be back to offer some text for our discussion to come. To begin though, perhaps you could explain love, duty, and loyalty by the application of "reason". To reason is the function of identifying THE reason or cause of effect. I doubt our mortal ability to reason can make much of what we experience "reasonable". But only due to a lack of ability and not because of any lack of cause for the effects we experience every single day. God is the first CAUSE as well as the source and center of all universe reality. Can one reason out eternity or infinity? No. Do they exist? Only by faith and not by reason....at this point in our ascending and transcendent experience.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4674
This happens to be my very favorite subject - the unifying philosophy of living and perspective!!

(1104.3) 101:0.3 Religion, the conviction-faith of the personality, can always triumph over the superficially contradictory logic of despair born in the unbelieving material mind. There really is a true and genuine inner voice, that “true light which lights every man who comes into the world.” And this spirit leading is distinct from the ethical prompting of human conscience. The feeling of religious assurance is more than an emotional feeling. The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even the logic of philosophy. Religion is faith, trust, and assurance.

(1104.4) 101:1.1 True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

(1105.2) 101:1.5 While religion is not the product of the rationalistic speculations of a material cosmology, it is, nonetheless, the creation of a wholly rational insight which originates in man’s mind-experience. Religion is born neither of mystic meditations nor of isolated contemplations, albeit it is ever more or less mysterious and always indefinable and inexplicable in terms of purely intellectual reason and philosophic logic. The germs of true religion originate in the domain of man’s moral consciousness, and they are revealed in the growth of man’s spiritual insight, that faculty of human personality which accrues as a consequence of the presence of the God-revealing Thought Adjuster in the God-hungry mortal mind.

(1107.5) 101:2.15 The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic. It is spiritual insight, and that is just the reason why some of the world’s greatest religious teachers, even the prophets, have sometimes possessed so little of the wisdom of the world. Religious faith is available alike to the learned and the unlearned.

(1114.6) 101:8.2 Belief is always limiting and binding; faith is expanding and releasing. Belief fixates, faith liberates. But living religious faith is more than the association of noble beliefs; it is more than an exalted system of philosophy; it is a living experience concerned with spiritual meanings, divine ideals, and supreme values; it is God-knowing and man-serving. Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only in the heart of the individual religionist.

(1114.7) 101:8.3 Faith has falsified its trust when it presumes to deny realities and to confer upon its devotees assumed knowledge. Faith is a traitor when it fosters betrayal of intellectual integrity and belittles loyalty to supreme values and divine ideals. Faith never shuns the problem-solving duty of mortal living. Living faith does not foster bigotry, persecution, or intolerance.

My favorite section of the Urantia Book. Peace.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 1001
i think it's important to see that reason (science) and faith (religion) are just two different ways that all humans have of looking at the universe and that both viewpoints are valid and useful in the business of living and that they can be unified in a sound philosophy (logic). The reason of science views the world from the outside in and the faith of religion views the world from the inside out.

And its also important to see that the scientist has faith in the orderliness of the universe and the religionist has reason that a creation requires a creator....there are many more examples of this dual-vision in our minds. i think if you really study the human condition you'll find that no sane person always consistently views the world through just one eye or the other...we use both eyes which gives the proper depth perception which one eye alone can not yield.


Quote:
If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle.
- Rita Mae Brown
:wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4674
Excellent Makalu!! The duality of human nature is neither religious in origin or founded upon faith. Philosophy 101 gives credit to the Greeks to present human duality as a founding principal of REASON and LOGIC. It can be witnessed and experienced and examined by mind, yes, even mortal mind. It is the higher Adjutants that provide the fulcrum for such discovery in self and in others. To dismiss this dual nature is to dismiss those who also founded modern science and the very process of logic and reason. Very basic stuff for a truth seeker who wants to know why as well as how.

(2078.6) 195:7.3 The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.

(2079.1) 195:7.6 If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

(2079.2) 195:7.7 The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

(2079.3) 195:7.8 The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

(2079.4) 195:7.9 A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

(2079.5) 195:7.10 The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it.

(2079.6) 195:7.11 If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

(2079.7) 195:7.12 If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

(2079.8) 195:7.13 If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

(2079.9) 195:7.14 The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

Loving this!! 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Hello tlhall,

It's much too easy to state polar opposites and choose one end over the other since one will naturally make some sense and the other will make less sense. Blind faith is just that, blind. Mechanistic logic denies life. Which do I choose... blindness or death? Happily, neither is the only option. The teachings of The Urantia Book promote the exercise of both rational faith and rational logic.

Ayn Rand is the epitome of a fallible rational, logical thinking being; hers was a great mind that proposed a philosophy she termed "objectivism" as mankind's salvation, and to a large degree I agree. What would life be here if everyone was rational? I believe overall the world would be a much better place for all if Rand's athiestic proposals were adopted. But that would require that a mortally devised god replace the God of creation; such a belief system wouldn't contain mankind's spirit for long.

I disagree with a number of the statements made in the above post, statements such as:

one must be willing ...to induce a trancelike illusion of understanding (that's blind faith and mysticism, not faith in the Father).
...to repress one's critical faculty and hold it as one's guilt (nowhere does TUB express such narrow minded sentiments. It would be good to recognize the teachings of TUB before criticizing them).
...to drown any questions that rise in protest (TUB expects rational beings to question).
...to strangle any trust of reason convulsively seeking to assert its proper function as the protector of one's life and cognitive integrity (neither fanatical faith nor distrust of reason are teachings of TUB).

A tenet of Objectivism is that "good" are those beliefs and actions that promote life, beliefs and actions are "evil" that do not promote life. Ayn Rand was a heavy smoker; any logical, rational thinker knows, without having to have the surgeon general's say, that continually filling one's lungs with smoke is not a life promoting activity. She knowingly defied her philosophy and behaved irrationally.

In this statement, "The foundation and starting point of man's thinking are his sensory perceptions; on this base, man forms his first concepts, then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale" the supposition is that intellect is king and that by relying upon it solely one is naturally led further and further from unprovable faith. That's constructing an inverted pyramid, for in fact, as we learn from TUB, belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. Faith is the higher influence.

John Galt's statement in Atlas Shrugged that "the alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind" is true if the kind of faith it is applied to is fanatical and unreasoned. That's not faith as promoted by TUB, nor does TUB promote faith as an alleged shortcut to knowledge.

Saying that "There is no greater self-delusion than to imagine that one can render unto reason that which is reason's and unto faith that which is faith's" implies that faith is governed by the same influences that science is. Science, religon and faith are separate mental activities. They can rely upon one another but they don't fall under the same disciplines. TUB relates the interdependence between faith and logic in a faith-son on a cosmic journey.

Proclaiming that "Either reason is an absolute to a mind or it is not" is proof that reason is no absolute. A life lived by reason alone is not a human life.

"When one turns from reason to faith, when one rejects the absolutism of reality, one undercuts the absolutism of one's consciousness - and one's mind becomes an organ one can not trust any longer. It becomes what the mystics claim it to be: a tool of distortion." This may hold true for zealous and fanatical faith. TUB does not promote mysticism. It's pointless to attempt to compare mediocre belief systems (faiths) with logic and reason. To identify faith with mediocre mind is to build a strawman that is easily knocked down. Again, one needs to understand the teachings of TUB before criticizing them.

Perhaps these quotes will benefit the discussion:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"You were meant to use your mind but not to depend upon it solely. Just as you were given a body, but were not meant to rely on its power alone. What kind of life will the mind design if the spirit does not guide it?"

Rand's philosophy is one we can all benefit from understanding better. However her vision is through one eye, the eye of materialism. She had yet to recognize that as grand as materialism is, it floats upon and is subject to the leadings of the spirit.

Best wishes,
Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm +0000
Posts: 232
tlhall wrote:
If I thought to myself as follows, would you think that I've been seduced by the Lucifer rebellion, or that I'm just thinking naturally ?
What advice would you give me ?:

"tlhall - (Skeptical)" - I'm wondering as to your previous statement, above where what you presented thereafter, is almost verbatim taken from "The Virtue of Selfishness" which you presented, in that do you actually think that you've "been seduced by the Lucifer rebellion, or that" you're "just thinking naturally ?" as having anything to do with the remainder of your posting?

I personally do not see the correlation between the opening statement and what you have submitted thereafter, can you elaborate further? Because, it would seem that this post might have been something like bait, which has produced interesting reply responses, to be sure.

In actuality you have not really presented any personal view for your post other than your "avatar" picture, and in the questions presented above, have made no statement one way or the other as to your "thinking"?

I must admit that the response replies which this opening post produced is synonymous to a defensive attitude and even somewhat might be considered as a defensive attack by some, not all, where I have stated previously, my wonder as to your intention or personal status as to the Urantia Book in general other than possibly be "Skeptical" -- about what?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:18 pm +0000
Posts: 49
Greetings,

Many years ago, I wondered about faith/belief and truth/lies and how they relate. I did not consider them as polar opposites, rather as x and y axis' on a coordinate system. Quadrant I was a strait gate (so to speak) where one had managed to move in faith and truth. Quadrant II was belief in lies/error. Quadrant III was a dark place filled with unbelief and error. And quadrant IV was no faith in the truth!

Years later, I considered faith was the actual acceptance of the 0,0/origin coordinate. It accepts only, "God IS" by faith at that point. From there faith grows up like a mustard seed increasing by experience to become what it can be through periods of day/light/truth and night/darkness/error. If I recall, the premise of Lucifer's rebellion stems from His unbelief; he could not believe/accept the truth of God outside the confines of his personal observation.

I realize these are simple ideas on a cosmic plane, but TUB mentions all dispensations came so human will creatures would have the opportunity to believe: God IS! He sends messages to reveal Himself because we are His lost children, and, He seeks to find us so we may come to Him by faith and, therein, does He continue to reveal Himself by the Spirit of Truth.

teresa


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:35 pm +0000
Posts: 13
Wow. Thanks for all your replies !

Jim -
It's interesting that you bring up "Can't means won't". This has long been one of my basic concerns about faith - I don't see it as something I can just choose.
What I believe is based on what I know from my own experience and thinking.
The only sense in which I could choose to believe something would be a kind of self-deception, where I would ignore what I know, or refuse to see the implications of what I know.
This kind of choice, not matter how pleasant it may seem, would be self-destructive, not courageous.
I mentioned Lucifer because the first point of his manifesto was that "the Universal Father did not really exist", which is also the conclusion a consistent commitment to reason leads to. But nothing else in the manifesto really seems to address reason versus faith; it seems to be more of a political putsch than a philosophical revolt.
Thank you for getting me to think about this some more.

FanofVan -
While knowledge arrived at through reason is dependent on its factual content, it's also made possible by its factual content. So I don't see this as a limitation, but as amazing and empowering.
Thanks for all your great quotes.
Quote (1114.6) 101:8.2 may touch on what may be the Crux of the Issue - is there more to Faith than Belief ?

Iwatkins -
Thank you for directly addressing the ideas that trouble me.
You might consider that "consistently filling one's lungs with smoke" is exactly how most men lived (wood, dung, and coal fires) until the industrial revolution and the development of electricity and the modern use of fossil fuels freed us from this, but that's kind of a side point.
Also, Rand was quite opposed to materialism.

Caligastia ? -

I'm skeptical about the wisdom of faith.

Teresa -

I'm not sure I get it, but thank you.

Since I've found and read TUB, if I wake up some day on a morontia world, I may be able to maintain some perspective, and not dissolve into total psychosis (if that's even possible for a morontia creature).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:59 pm +0000
Posts: 356
Location: North Dakota
Quote:
It's interesting that you bring up "Can't means won't". This has long been one of my basic concerns about faith - I don't see it as something I can just choose. What I believe is based on what I know from my own experience and thinking.


Very well then, lets go a little deeper into this. What criteria and by what process do you make a determination that a belief, any belief, whether it be in philosophic rationalism, material determination, or sensational emotionalism is real . . . or not? At what point does your ability to qualify a postulate determine the substantial reality of that postulate and how do you know (your word) that you have made an accurate evaluation of such? It appears that you may be assuming a standard of evaluation for your thinking and if that is true, it is that standard that I am asking you to identify. Somewhere inside you seem to have recognized this process and are using it to achieve your conclusions. I have no quibble with your process of discovery or evaluation but I question your foundation. How did you come to experience your foundation and what method of qualification do you ensure your procedural correctness? Is your current perspective of reality final? Are you sure you have and do consider all the options? Do you know for sure that the soundness of your logic would be undermined if you were to exercise faith? How if you have not attempted such are you able to make such a statement? Are the conclusions you stated the only conclusions possible for you?

If you answer the last two questions with "based upon what I know" then I suggest the following. Being a liberal thinker requires great stamina and determination. Unfortunately, we all, yes "all" want to rest on our conclusions. We grow tired of contemplating on issues. Once we get to a place that we "feel" that we have exhausted the standard for investigation, we relax our search and draw conclusions. Once we do we have effectively eliminated our forward progress at that point. As long as we are the ones who make the determinations of when we stop looking into an issue we must in all honesty assume the responsibility for the truth or error of that determination. The Urantia Book and many other volumes of literature are filled with information that our personal determinations are flawed if we do not allow ourselves to search for REALITY (notice the caps). Who are we to make such a determination? How can it be that we only are ever able to DISCOVER reality? If all we can do is discover something, by direct implication it must have been in existence prior to our discovery. If that is true how is it possible that we are able to find comfort in making a personal decision regarding these things? How is it that our quite limited experience is sufficient to allow ourselves to make a determination that such a decision is just? Why are we so anxious to draw conclusions when we gain so very little by doing so? Use the rationalism you have learned. Drawing your own conclusions is not the same as proof. Experience must be evaluated by subsequent experience and on and on. So you have hit a road block relative to faith. Don't give up. Discover the path God has designed for you to work this out, and in so doing discover the REALITY that put it all together in the first place. The fact that you are honestly looking is suggestion enough that there really is something to look for.

Quote:
The only sense in which I could choose to believe something would be a kind of self-deception, where I would ignore what I know, or refuse to see the implications of what I know. This kind of choice, not matter how pleasant it may seem, would be self-destructive, not courageous.


Remember Jody Foster in the movie, Contact? As she was "traveling" through "space" she was overwhelmed by what she was experiencing. Her comment, "I...had...no...idea!" is pertinent. Faith does not thwart what you know to be true, it expands your perception of reality and offers you the opportunity to "see" from perspectives previously unknown.

All I am asking is for you to do this kind of internally honest thinking. Leave no stone of logic unturned. Dig as deeply into these as you can. There is no limit, no boundary, no plane of reality that is not open to investigation. These things are real or they are not. All we can do is realize we have only one purpose in all this. That is to discover reality within ourselves, all of it, and that through personal experience.

I hope this helps, it is a brief, very brief statement of what I went through in my searching. If I am pushing too hard just tell me to quit and I will.

Jim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4674
Hooray!! It is a discussion we have indeed and you are a reader/student indeed!! So much meat here on so many bones. Wonderful. I suggest, based on Jim's illuminations, a key word search on the obstacle to discovery and transcendence of "prejudice"... a devotion to what is known or believed to be known which can limit the ability to transcend what is "known" to achieve understanding and discovery of that which is not yet known.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4674
You are most welcome....I am known to post too much text rather than speak with my own voice so I am glad you found it relevant. For now, I would only say this about facts and reason and belief and faith.....the functional value of reason depends upon the quality of facts known and the number of facts known, all of which must be true to aid reason in its logical conclusions. For example; it was a well known "fact" for a million years of planetary mortal evolution that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and the sun and the stars orbited the earth making it the center of all the universe. Great logical constructs of many forms, resulting in prejudice, were built on these "facts" which led to the life threatening claim of heresy to any who might believe that this "fact" was not true. Beliefs fail us as do facts when their very premise is false to begin with. Today, it is the big bang "fact" that is the source of godless constructs of what is "known"....a fact with even less evidence or logic that the sun rising in the east. The religion of facts is an unreliable foundation for our attempt to reason out even the material perspective of time and space itself. Be wary of what you "know" and how dependent upon that you become upon it to answer why.....or even how.

To believe there is that which is not known and to question that which is known simply recognizes that we have a lack of facts and should be wary of our actual knowledge and conclusions and this requires intellectual courage. And mortals certainly have a lack of facts about origin, destination, purpose, cosmology of the ages and places in time and space which does not seem to diminish our conclusions which cement into prejudice. What makes a belief in a creator of all any less factual, practical, and functional than a belief in any other reasoned and logical construct or explanation of those facts not yet known? Or is there clear evidence that there is God one might find in the miracles of life itself and love of others? If there is life and there is love, there must be a source, yes? A mechanical, purposeless, and disorganized source? The laws of nature and physics are accidents? And a reasoning and creative mind is its result? But not its source? Surely reason itself says otherwise. Or so it does to me. My faith is a result of reason and logic which concludes there is a creative source with purpose, power, and process that is the cause of all.

Now we have this book of facts to enlarge context and perspective...the truthbook. Which explains much but certainly not all and offers the willing and open mind to consider how grand the purpose, power, and process of creation truly is and how we fit within this place of time and space that is hardly an accident of a mindless mechanism.

Glad you are here - welcome to this merry band of truth seekers. 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Faith versus Reason
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Hi Thrall (and apologies to others if you've already made similar statements)

I have to start by taking issue with the first 2 statements:
Quote:
Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof.
When a man rejects reason as his standard of judgment, only one alternative standard remains to him: his feelings. A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition.


As a person who uses faith every day in very many situations, to at least some amount of success in both character building and in flushing out how to deal with the thorny issues in life we're all likely to encounter, I think it might be appropriate to modify those statements to accurately portray how faith operates with a person who lives according to faith:

Faith is the commitment of one's entire resources (conscious, subconscious and superconscious) to PRINCIPLES for which one may have meager, uncertain or incomplete CONSCIOUS evidence or proof.

When a person seeks to look for a higher standard of evidence (than his current capability to reason and see), an alternative exists for him: further development or growth. A mystic is a person who looks deeper into the nature of things, develops and uses further powers of perception than someone who does not. A mystic knows that feelings have nothing to do with reality, other than the reality of the existence of emotions.


I stand by the claim that faith is very, very real and has very, very real effects. Those that can't accept that are like an 8 cylinder engine running on only a single cylinder :smile:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: AdsBot [Google], Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group