A 'new' perspective on Faith?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Faith, to me, embodies trust or confidence in someone or something, transcending the conventional association with strong religious doctrines rooted in spiritual conviction. It manifests as a fundamental reliance that underpins various facets of our daily existence. Whether it’s the simple act of walking alongside a bustling street, or the decision to take a taxi, bus, or plane to reach a destination, faith is the invisible thread that connects us to others and the systems we depend upon. This reliance extends beyond personal interactions to encompass broader structures such as supply chains, governmental institutions, and other societal frameworks. Without this pervasive sense of faith, navigating life would be exceedingly challenging, potentially leading to a state of pervasive distrust or paranoia.

The indispensability of faith in our lives explains why humans are inherently driven to find beliefs that provide a foundation for existence. This quest for belief is intricately tied to the human need for meaning and purpose, which appears to be an intrinsic aspect of our nature, either through innate understanding or cultural indoctrination. From a young age, children are nurtured with comforting narratives that foster their trust in society and its institutions. These stories, whether they are fairy tales, moral lessons, or societal norms, are designed to build a sense of security and belonging. As individuals mature, they begin to critically assess these beliefs, often discovering discrepancies between the idealized narratives they were taught and the complex realities they encounter. This realization stems from the inherent limitations in human knowledge—despite our incessant questioning and curiosity, many of life’s profound questions remain unanswered.

The origins and diversity of life forms, including those documented in the fossil record, have long been subjects of speculation and debate. The complexity and variety observed in nature often suggest an underlying intention and intelligence guiding their development. This perspective has historically fuelled arguments for intelligent design. However, the scientific community continues to uncover contradictions and unexplained phenomena that challenge simplistic explanations. These unresolved issues have led various cultures and societies to integrate these mysteries into their religious and mythological frameworks, resulting in the development of polytheistic belief systems. Polytheism, with its pantheons of gods, offers a way to personify and explain the myriad aspects of the natural world and human experience that remain beyond our current understanding.

Moreover, faith serves as a crucial psychological anchor, providing stability and resilience in the face of uncertainty and adversity. In times of crisis, whether personal or collective, faith can offer comfort, hope, and a sense of control. It fosters community and solidarity, as shared beliefs create bonds among individuals, reinforcing social cohesion and mutual support. Additionally, faith can inspire individuals to strive for personal growth, ethical behaviour, and altruistic actions, contributing positively to society as a whole.

In the modern world, where information is abundant and the pace of change is rapid, the role of faith becomes even more significant. The complexity of technological advancements, globalization, and the interconnectedness of economies and cultures necessitate a foundational trust in systems and institutions that may not always be transparent or fully understood. Faith in the efficacy of medical science, the integrity of legal systems, or the fairness of economic policies allows societies to function smoothly despite inherent uncertainties and imperfections.

Ultimately, faith is a multifaceted and indispensable element of the human experience. It transcends religious boundaries, embedding itself in the very fabric of how we interact with the world and each other. By providing a sense of security, meaning, and purpose, faith enables individuals and societies to navigate the complexities of life with confidence and resilience. As our understanding of the world continues to evolve, so too will the expressions and foundations of faith, reflecting the dynamic interplay between knowledge, belief, and the enduring quest for meaning.

2

Personally I don’t think much in terms of faith, and if as a person I am required to have any I fail. I am conscious. It is as Descartes showed, the fundamental fact of existence for which no faith is required. Only, he got it backwards. I am therefore I think. Consciousness precedes thought and self-exists without it as can be experienced in meditation. What’s faith got to do with it?

3

You had a beginning in time, and so far… everything with a beginning ends.

So if you think you are self-existent, you delude yourself. That’s blind faith. Not mere blindness… as in lack of absolute proof… it’s ignoring basic logic.

Actual faith (trust, despite Bob’s false start) does not defy basic logic. It is also in addition to (and doesn’t require, like most of our beliefs, or mere intellectual assents) absolute proof. It’s something more like loyalty, honesty.

There is the evidence in itself, then there is the interpretation… and then there is your attitude toward it (which may taint your interpretation, or whether you even see/acknowledge it), and then there is your behavioral response to it (which can include putting your attitudes/interpretations in the right order).

4

The person that you think you are appears in conscious subject to time and change. Consciousness encompasses all your sensations including those of your own body. It encompasses all your cognitions including your beliefs about God. So, when I stated I am self-existent I was identifying with consciousness not with the body, mind or person the appears in consciousness. That is a fact of experience, not a matter of faith or delusion. There is no experience outside of consciousness.

5

You are your own person. You got your personhood from Being. You are not Being, but take part in Being.

I am my own person. My personhood did not come from you, your personhood did not come from me. Our personhoods came from Being. We are not Being, but take part in Being.

6

Just to clarify in case you misunderstood, I’m not claiming that I’m directly conscious of your thoughts or person. I make inferences based on what you say and assume your experience of consciousness is more or less like mine, given the fact(supposition?) that we are both have different bodies and minds, experiences etc.

The persons we imagine ourselves to be are different from how others imagine us. Who can say which if any imagining is correct?

I agree that beings participate in being. Therefore, being itself is not a being.

I postulate that being itself and consciousness are one and that consciousness is the material cause or substratum of the universe.

7

[quote=“Bob, post:1, topic:80785, full:true, username:Bob”] faith can offer comfort, hope, and a sense of control.
[/quote]

That is all it can offer, like the wonders of a smart TV or smart phone that give you the benefits of convenience at costs you refuse to comprehend. Faith is the refusal of reality, a hopeless battle against the despair that defines life as we know it. Pretending that death is not the end, not final, not going to happen “completely” is the very essence of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. As long as you have hope, you can bear faith. However, as the naked emperor parading his new clothes, you look ridiculous to those who reject your delusions. But have your faith, as I’m sure you believe yourself better off than those like myself. Consider, however, that you might benefit from keeping your delusions to yourself. Sharing is not caring anymore than diversity is our strength, you simply love the lies you were taught. Don’t look past them because it might hurt, and your professions reveal that truth is painful to you. Enjoy your lie until you die and then the rest is fiction.

8

Unless, of course, you’re wrong.

9

Entirely likely

10

This seems to refer to a conscious perception of ‘having’ faith, even of ‘being required’ to have faith, although I went to great lengths to describe the way it is a part of our lives. Faith is, to me, not even part of a thinking process, but to a large degree an unconscious trust in things as they are perceived to be. This may be the problem in an age when we seem to be overthinking some things while wasting no thoughts at all on important issues.

11

Once more, this is someone overthinking. I was referring to faith per se, not to faith in something specific as you seem to be alluding to. In fact, despite your rude attack on what I have said, my perspective on religious faith, as you might have seen if you looked at the way theists have attacked my position, comes from a far wider perspective.

I’m noticing how several Christians in my generation have been having deeper conversations with me, albeit with intervals in between. Sometimes it feels like they are fathoming my spiritual position, but also that their age makes them ask how prepared they are for what is coming at us all. Several have subscribed to my Thorns and Love page where I want to make the point that in many traditions, I suspect that we are taking them differently from how they were conceived. The general experience seems to be that we all witness some mysterious influence, especially in creative or caring work, whether we call it genius, daimon, muse, spirit, god, or even flow or providence. However, our metaphorical language must remain the original poetic association I think religious thought had.

12

Right. Faith may be there but it disappears when it’s looked for. And that makes sense because if you have it why look for it? To look for it is to doubt.

13

I listened to an interview with Federico Faggin, known for creating the first microprocessor, has developed an innovative theory of consciousness that posits consciousness as fundamental and primary, and has stated that consciousness is primal and there are indeed multiple states of being.

Faggin proposes a dual model of reality, which he calls “Internal Reality” and “External Reality.” Internal Reality is the domain of subjective experience, intuition, and creativity (consciousness). The External Reality is the material world described by classical and quantum physics, governed by objective laws but devoid of subjectivity. In this model, Internal Reality (consciousness) shapes and informs External Reality (the material world).

What do you think?

14

I don’t know. That makes him sound like a dualist. That isn’t the way I understand Faggin. I think he’s a monist. He says “the holistic Whole contains not only the seeds of the inanimate universe but also those of free will, consciousness, and life. I call this Whole, One, to distinguish it from the unified field of physics, because from One emerge the conscious fields with free will, the elementary seities that I call consciousness units (CUs)…the CUs communicate with each other, and from their interactions emerge both the laws of physics and new fields (higher-order seities) that are quantum combinations of CUs like atoms are combinations of elementary particles.”

He describes an “awakening experience”. “ I experienced it as a broad beam of shimmering white light, alive and beatific, gushing from my heart with incredible strength. Then suddenly that light exploded. It filled the room and expanded to embrace the entire universe with the same white brilliance. I knew then, without a shadow of a doubt, that this was the substance out of which everything that exists is made.”Based on this perspective he is one of several physicist developing a kind of quantum information theory of physics. The quotes are from his book “Irreducible”.

15

Good point!

16

Faggin goes on:

“We are repeatedly told that we are biological robots, while the intense personal investigation that occurred after my awakening revealed otherwise, through many other extraordinary and spontaneous experiences of consciousness.

I felt that, rather than a body, we are spiritual beings temporarily imprisoned in a physical structure similar to highly sophisticated drone. But if we allow ourselves to be convinced by those who insist we are only our mortal body, we will end up thinking that everything that exists originates only in the physical world. In that case we will not even ask ourselves questions about the nature and purpose of our creative impulses and emotions. In so doing we will also avoid investigating the meaning of our life which, as I now understand, is the most important part of our human existence and experience.

In summary, if we believe that the inanimate matter can explain all of reality, we will support an assumption already falsified by the fact that we are conscious.”

I can fully relate to Faggin’s experience. Every experience of the phenomenal field including those of our world and our own bodies appears in and is encompassed by unbounded consciousness.

1 Like
17

It is also an argument for the perspective that all ancient faiths are pointers only, and any exclusivity is hopelessly inappropriate and provincial and oppressive in it’s thinking. It may also be due to an underlying depression and panic, that life could be meaningless.

The fascination with a religious tradition is understandable, but using it as a reason for militancy is a regressive tendency that is egotistical and directed against humanity. I find the emerging theories of existence and their correlation with Advaita fascinating, but I wouldn’t ram it down anyone’s throat.

18

No, it isn’t. P.s. I can’t help but noticing you marking something off as inappropriate in a very exclusive manner. You’re a real Bonhoeffer.

IMG_0621
IMG_0621960×640 63.4 KB

19

That is a typical right-wing excuse to be exclusive. Rejecting injustice, evil, and lies that are perpetrated in the name of exclusivity, as well the oppression and violation of the weak and the poor is inclusive by nature. You are so narrow-minded that you can’t see that caring and healing can’t be the same as excluding people from that care because they have a different mindset.

Your Christian Nationalism has perfected the opposite to Christ’s teaching of spontaneous compassion and thereby given America the chance to become an anti-Christ of sorts. In fact, I see many of the opinions flouted here as being similar to what Jesus is said to have criticised in the Gospels.

In the Gospels, Jesus frequently criticizes the hypocrisy of the religious elite, particularly the Pharisees and scribes, who were seen as the interpreters and enforcers of Jewish law. His criticisms focus on their legalism, self-righteousness, and outward displays of piety that concealed inner corruption:

For example, Jesus accuses the religious leaders of imposing strict legal requirements on people while failing to show compassion. In Matthew 23:4, Jesus says, “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

Jesus condemns the Pharisees for performing religious acts to gain social recognition. In Matthew 6:1-6, he warns against praying, fasting, and giving to the poor just to be seen by others.

The Pharisees are accused of focusing on minor laws while neglecting the more important moral principles of justice and mercy. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus rebukes them for tithing even small herbs while ignoring justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

The religious elite are accused of creating barriers to God’s kingdom instead of guiding people toward it. In Matthew 23:13, Jesus says, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.”

Alongside his critiques of hypocrisy, Jesus demonstrated spontaneous and indifferent compassion—meaning his acts of kindness were uncalculated, free of favouritism, and extended even to those deemed unworthy by society. This directly contrasted with the religious elite, who often based their actions on rigid legalism, social status, or self-interest.

For example, Jesus repeatedly healed people on the Sabbath, breaking religious norms to prioritize human need over legalistic rules. Jesus touched and healed lepers, who were considered ritually unclean and outcasts. Jesus intervenes when a woman caught in adultery is about to be stoned, exposing the hypocrisy of her accusers. Jesus frequently ate with those considered morally corrupt, showing that grace is not limited to the righteous. Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion—an officer of the occupying force—without hesitation, impressed by his faith.

Jesus restores life to a widow’s only son without being asked, purely out of compassion. In response to a legal expert trying to justify himself, Jesus tells the story of a Samaritan—an ‘enemy’ of the Jews—who shows true neighbourly love by helping a beaten man. In Luke 10:25-37, the Samaritan’s compassion is spontaneous and indifferent to ethnic or religious identity.

These examples made him a direct challenge to the religious leaders, whose piety was often performative. Jesus’ compassion transcended all barriers in the way he saw how God’s love surpassed human compassion. He also challenges modern piety in the same way.

20

rather reminds me of the Covid-19 triaging