Cop-out

Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on it's own merits. Dan Barker

Originally posted by 667joe
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on it's own merits. Dan Barker

some assertions can only be taken on faith.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
some assertions can only be taken on faith.

Possibly so but in that event, what weight can we place on them?

Originally posted by 667joe
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on it's own merits. Dan Barker

What do you mean Faith? Biblical faith is pistis or trust, believe.
You use it when you dive in the pool.
But generally, I agree..

Originally posted by finnegan
Possibly so but in that event, what weight can we place on them?

The weight of our own inner convictions. These convictions would have some basis in reason via direct experience. Hence the type of faith that I advocate is not blind faith.

For once I agree.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Hence the type of faith that I advocate is not blind faith.

What other type is there?

Originally posted by divegeester
What other type is there?

Faith based on reason and direct understanding of our place in the universe.

Please tell me if you think this is an answer you can relate to or not, because if not, I will make one more attempt to to clarify my postion on faith. Thnx🙂

Faith is never based on reason, but rather the lack thereof.

Originally posted by 667joe
Faith is never based on reason, but rather the lack thereof.

Thats not right at all. 'Faith' can often be used when you are fairly certain about something based on experience, reason or evidence. It does tend to imply a lack of direct proof, but that does not necessarily make it unreasonable.

Originally posted by 667joe
Faith is never based on reason, but rather the lack thereof.

to 667joe

faith can be based on reason, for example,

whenyou get on a plane, you have faith that it wont crash with you on it.

so when its time to buy the ticket, you reason with your self, that at any one time,there are probably 5000 planes in the air at any one time , so you reason that you have a good chance NOT to be the next statistic, so you buy your ticket and get on the plane,

its called rational faith, and we use it all the time.

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by 667joe
Faith is never based on reason, but rather the lack thereof.

I know faith implies lack of reason, however I believe you need a balanced approach between all important concepts/archetypes to move forward with your understanding.
Science and relligon. Faith and reason. Man and woman. Etc.

The faith I talk about is the type of faith you get from deductive reasoning about your experiences coupled with the world around you, the type of faith one needs to move beyond duality.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I know faith implies lack of reason, however I believe you need a balanced approach between all important concepts/archetypes to move forward with your understanding.
Science and relligon. Faith and reason. Man and woman. Etc.

The faith I talk about is the type of faith you get from deductive reasoning about your experiences coupled with the world around you, the type of faith one needs to move beyond duality.

Somehow I feel people twist and turn to make words mean whatever they want them to mean. In a social context I think words mean what they are reasonably accepted by most people to mean.

The issue of Faith versus Reason has a history. One key historical event was when Augustine of Hippo concluded that it was not possible to support Christian teaching by means of reasoning, in the sense that he was unable to overcome the objections of the Greek philosophers. He pronounced that it was necessary to rely on Faith and that was the route followed by Christianity for some 800 years until Thomas Aquinas noted that it is not realistic to seek to convert Muslims or heathens by relying on scripture, because that audience would not accept scripture as a reliable basis for conversion. So he argued that it is unavoidably necessary to support Faith with Reason and he sought to achieve that by turning away from Platonic philosophy to Aristotle. It took only a few hundred years for this attempt to reconcile Faith with philosophy to fall into the mire.

Originally posted by finnegan
Somehow I feel people twist and turn to make words mean whatever they want them to mean. In a social context I think words mean what they are reasonably accepted by most people to mean.

The issue of Faith versus Reason has a history. One key historical event was when Augustine of Hippo concluded that it was not possible to support Christian teaching by ...[text shortened]... y a few hundred years for this attempt to reconcile Faith with philosophy to fall into the mire.

Yeah. Things are/have been crazy on the outside.
I'm talking inner convictions. The inner light of this world , which has been kept alive by the enlightened masters, who wisely avoided such conflict.

Originally posted by finnegan
Somehow I feel people twist and turn to make words mean whatever they want them to mean. In a social context I think words mean what they are reasonably accepted by most people to mean.

The issue of Faith versus Reason has a history. One key historical event was when Augustine of Hippo concluded that it was not possible to support Christian teaching by ...[text shortened]... y a few hundred years for this attempt to reconcile Faith with philosophy to fall into the mire.

to finneqan

religious people certainly do twist words around, but spiritual poeple dont

cheers vishvahetu