.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote:

"Belief has to do with the world ... ". Faith has to do with the world too.

" Faith is a subjective state of being ..." Belief is too.

Nothing is more treacherous than belief and faith, Yuyutsu. This is what the "Online Etymology Dictionary indicates:

belief

late 12c., replaced O.E. geleafa "belief, faith," from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (early 13c.).

faith

mid-13c., "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from late
14c.; religions called faiths since c.1300. Old Faithful geyser named 1870 by explorer Gen. H.D. Washburn, Surveyor-General of the Montana Territory, in reference to the regularity of its outbursts.
.

I understand that the Hindu concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual as well as the tradition and philosophy followed.

Thank you for indicating that, within Hinduism, you take the religious path of Advaita Vedanta (non-duality).

This means that you believe that your spirit or soul - your true "self", called your "atman" - is eternal and that, according to the monistic/pantheistic theology of Advaita Vedanta, your "atman" is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit (therefore, said to be non-dualist).

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It also means that your goal in life is to become one with God, or, perhaps even, to become God ?

However, despite all your references to God, it is not at all clear to what extent you actually believe in God. Indeed, it seems that Advaita Vedanta is considered by some as a form of atheistic pantheism.
.

I had great difficulty understanding when you wrote:

"God is not a deity ... The existence of a deity (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. in other words unlimited) is a logical contradiction ... God is neither supernatural nor a concept.

God is not supposed to make sense ... God is not supposed to be imaginable ... God is only found when you drop the veil of senses and mind".

Also, when you declared that you " love a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine".
.

My Oxford English Dictionary indicates that "god" means "superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes, deity". And according to the "Online Etymology Dictionary", "god" means "supreme being, deity".

To tell the truth, I find Hindu philosophy quite interesting and I think I am beginning to unravel the picture as to how Hindu religions managed to develop their present dogma.

It all becomes fairly logical when one considers that, at the beginning, they were faced with a lack of concrete evidence of a deity. The method then seems to have consisted in adopting an avoidance strategy in order to proceed. This strategy would have permitted the circumvention of any objections, criticisms and pitfalls as and when they arose.

So if it is at all possible to judge by present-day Hindu religious dogma, this could well be a possible explanation of how it developed since its early beginnings during the ancient Vedic civilisation (1500BC - 500BC).

It does, at least, throw some light on why you evacuate many of what I consider to be legitimate questions as being irrelevant.

But, then again, perhaps, and it would be no surprise to me, I have completely misunderstood.

.

AJ Philips,

>>a point where I ask you what you believe<<

which I answered a long time ago in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883.

>>and why<<

What do you want me to answer? (I speak about six languages, if you wish I could list them, but would not know how to answer in a few words the “why” question). Even if I tried, I could not start the long exposition better than what you can find in the Epilogue - freely available online from amazon.com - of the Newberg book I gave a link to in my above post to Banjo.

>>you only focussed on what I had said in brackets<<

Originally I wrote “I have been often tempted to remark … “ but then realized you might react the way you did, so I changed it to “I WAS often tempted to remark…” to make it explicit that I was referring to situations when I was trying to argue a case, rather than offering an authoritative source of abstract definitions.

As to the very concept of definitions, strictly speaking they have to rely on words, concepts etc that either need to be further defined or are accepted as self-explanatory. This is the case in mathematics or in trivial, everyday situations, where all can agree on the understanding of basic self-explanatory words that the definition is build on. It is not the case with abstract terms like “faith”, “belief”, “existence”, “reality”, “truth”, “God”, “knowledge”, “religion”, “time”, “mathematics” etc.

This is why extensive, “semi-encyclopaedic” dictionaries - like the Webster’s one I have been quoting from - contain alternative “definitions” of a term, even when they don’t contradict each other. That is why I said that Webster’s definitions are helpful, insightful etc, rather than right or wrong. And this is why I wrote that different understandings (NOT DEFINITIONS) of what is “truth” lie at the very basis of disagreements between the two alternative worldview orientations.
ctd

ctd

So I probably cannot give you definitions of truth, God, existence, knowledge or answer your five questions to your satisfaction, certainly not in a few words (except to invite you to look them up in an authoritative dictionary of your liking).

Nevertheless, let me try at leat by stating that I see truth, (what exists on its own, reality) as something unattainable by us, only approximated by a process of our mind, be it in the confines of scientific investigation, philosophical reflections, intellectual assent or (for some) meditation and contemplation.

So its is not the case that “I am right with my worldview and you are wrong with yours” but rather that “I personally believe (in a manner hard to communicate over different worldviews) that my worldview is closer to that (principally unattainable) truth (about reality) than yours”.

Dear Banjo,

Let me repeat, the strict difference between “faith” and “belief” exists - to my knowledge - only in English, and even that only in specialist literature.

For instance, the book “Ueber den Glauben” by Josef Pieper was translated as “Belief and Faith” (Random House 1975), and provided with the following remark by the translator:

“The German word 'Glaube' can mean ‘belief’ or ‘faith’. In this translation we mostly used ‘belief’ but the reader should keep in mind the other term should some sentence sound strange. When quoting Thomas Aquinas ‘fides’ is translated as ‘belief’ instead of the more common ‘faith’ to keep consistency with the German text.”

Thanks for your thoughts, Yuyutsu. Unfortunately, though, I think we disagree on too many fundamentals to have any meaningful discussion.

George,

<<What do you want me to answer?>>

Well, I had asked several times before how you got from the “Something” to Christianity. Or do you view the Bible stories as just nice fables to read and think about? If so, then what do you get out of attending Catholic mass when you disagree with most of the people sitting there in the church with you, and particularly the guy up the front that you presumably go to listen to?

<<I speak about six languages, if you wish I could list them, but would not know how to answer in a few words the “why” question).>>

That’s what I suspected.

Our beliefs inform our actions; so if we can’t summarise why we hold a particular belief, then that’s a problem because we run the risk of believing other things, more detrimental to our well being, for unclear reasons. The ability to summarise is an important skill in research and critical analysis; a skill I doubt you lack.

<<Even if I tried, I could not start the long exposition better than what you can find in the Epilogue - freely available online from amazon.com - of the Newberg book I gave a link to in my above post to Banjo.>>

I couldn’t find Newberg’s epilogue there, sorry.

As for definitions, yes, “understanding’ is more what I was getting at.

<<Nevertheless, let me try at leat by stating that I see truth, (what exists on its own, reality) as something unattainable by us, only approximated by a process of our mind, be it in the confines of scientific investigation, philosophical reflections, intellectual assent or (for some) meditation and contemplation. >>

I agree, and this sits fine with what I was saying about having as many true beliefs as possible and weeding out the false ones. Those approximations can still attain high degrees of certainty.

Continued...

...Continued

Science and criminal justice systems rely on this. A defence lawyer doesn’t defend his/her client by asking, “Well, what is truth anyway..?”

So I guess the big question, here, is: Why are you making an exception for religious belief? Why is it not held to the same standards?

<<So its is not the case that “I am right with my worldview and you are wrong with yours” but rather that “I personally believe (in a manner hard to communicate over different worldviews) that my worldview is closer to that (principally unattainable) truth (about reality) than yours”.>>

Okay, but there is still an objective truth whether or not we are here to, or able to approximate or attain it. And as you suggested, one of us can be closer to the truth than the other.

So I don’t see how this contradicts what I had said regarding the truth of our beliefs either. I didn’t mean to suggest that absolute certainty needed to be attained. Absolute certainty is a largely useless concept anyway.

The only way the above could contradict what I was saying about the truth of our beliefs, is if you’re suggesting that there is no objective reality and what we want to believe is true, actually becomes true, simply because we want to believe it. And that we all live in our own compartmentalised realities where we can invent our own truths.

The problem with this, however, is that we rely on objective truths, and realities that we can all agree upon, in order to live in an as harmonious a society as possible.

Or does religious belief get a free pass here too? If so, then why?