Banjo,

Why did you quote "high schools" and then go on to calculate your apparently "inconsequential" suicide toll from the total school population?

I'm sure, upon calculation of the toll only upon the high schools population will produce a figure equally underwhelming.

Nevertheless, all those teenagers every year topping themselves in a fortunate country/society like ours - makes you wonder.

(Well, it makes me wonder)

Dear Suse,

Excellent questions!

<<Yuyitsu, I looked up 'believe' in Wikipedia, and as you agree we are discussing religion, I looked it up in the context of 'Religious Belief'. It said "...a belief regarding the supernatural, sacred, or divine." It then defined 'faith' as "...a belief in something for which there is no proof.">>

The authors of the Wikipedia must have been non-religious. Their definitions only reflect how religion looks from the outside by non-practioners.

Before religion was corrupted by institutions as well as by Time, religious beliefs used to be techniques where one consciously suspended their perception of the world in favour of a specified conviction they held and acted upon. However, those people who practised it were not fools and they never actually believed, in the modern sense, that this conviction had anything to do with the physical world -knowledge and beliefs about which were simply suspended at the time for the sake of their religious practices.

Now when corrupt institutions call themselves 'religious', they may propagate all kinds of distortions, including claiming beliefs about the world. This however, is the corruption of religion, not religion.

Faith is an attitude to life. Other dictionaries have several options besides 'belief', of which the closest, I think, is "complete trust [in God]".

<<So, can you explain to me what you think religion is all about>>

Religion is about coming closer to God - whatever methods it takes to actually come closer to God, not just to have nice ideas in the head.

<<Faith is always discussed by religious people as something they must have?>>

Strictly it is not a requisite, but if one doesn't trust in God, then one is not likely to be willing to sacrifice their worldly comfort in order to come closer to Him.

<<I really don't understand the hold that religion has on some people.>>

According to the Bhagavad-Gita, people who are interested in religion can be divided into 4 categories:

1) Those weary of the world.
2) Those who seek happiness.
3) Those who seek knowledge and wisdom.
4) Those who already know themselves.

(continued...)

Perhaps these definitions (extracted from Webster’ Third New International Dictionary and Collegiate Thesaurus) could clarify the difference between religious belief and faith (a distinction many non-English languages don’t have):

Belief: Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real. The act of assenting intellectually to something proposed.

Faith: The act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care and of being loyal to his will as revealed or believed in. Complete assurance and certitude regarding the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. Belief and trust in God.

Of course, the definitions depend on other concepts - like, truth, reality - that again different people define differently.

As for religion, there are allegedly 300 insightful (and many more non-insightful) definitions. My favourite is Clifford Geertz’s anthropological (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645).

Also, Rodney Stark's "Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief" (HarperOne, 2008) is a fair study of the phenomenon of religion in the sense, as stated by the author, that “this book can be read either as a study of the evolution of human images of God or as the evolution of the human capacity to comprehend God. The same theoretical model suits either interpretation" (meaning both atheist and theist).

.

Dear Suseonline & Yuyutsu,

.

Recent research reveals that unlike that of many other biological species, our DNA is highly homogenous. It has been suggested that a possible explanation may be that we very nearly became extinct about 70,000 years ago.

Life in those early days was quite terrifying. Nature, for no apparent reason, often became aggressive. We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, snow storms, bush fires, as well as the occasional devastating meteorite. We had no warning and no explanation for any of it.

But thanks to the development of our intellectual capacity to conceptualise, we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations. Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature. The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.

Having imagined the existence of invisible, supernatural forces, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.

This strategy for survival is what we call religion today. The person or animal we offered to the gods in exchange for the salvation of the rest of the community was called a scapegoat. The Christian religions later integrated the concept into their dogma, with Jesus.

For much of humanity, the polytheism of the original animist religions eventually became untenable as an explanation of natural phenomena and was transformed into monotheism.

For others, the transformation from polytheism to monotheism was pointless. Its role as a strategy for survival was considered obsolete.

For various sociological and psychological reasons, religious belief continues to remain necessary for some but not for others.

.

George,

Thanks for that definition of faith. The definition that I use (and the one that Suseonline mentioned) is implicit in that anyway. I prefer a broader definition that describes not only the belief, but the nature of it too. The definition I use also includes the understanding of faith that most theists seem to have, given that so many of them throw it back at those who disagree with them when they feel that their opponent's belief isn't justified either.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is the fact that the word “faith” is only ever used in instances where the evidence is insufficient to justify, or contrary to the belief that is being stated. For example, if a belief of mine is justified (and I can demonstrate that it is, with evidence and reasoned argument), then I call it a belief and/or knowledge - not faith. Likewise, if I have a confidence in someone that has been earned, then I trust them, I don’t just have faith in them.

Faith is never used when a belief is justified and can be defended, and is often used as a defence in the absence of a justification.

And how many times is it that we hear a Christian say that they take it on faith that God exists. Or that they “just have faith”, when all their arguments for the existence of God have been exhausted. Even if, by "faith", they're referring to the definition you provided, then their reasoning is circular and thus the definition I use still applies.

For these reasons, I feel that my preferred definition is just so much more practical, all-encompassing and, most importantly, reduces confusion.

Anyone who is at all familiar with all of the usual Christian apologetics, even the seemingly more sophisticated ones, will very quickly notice that they never ever refer to or use the word Consciousness with a capital C.
Which is quite odd especially when you read these two references.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-life

And speaking of Faith as a exercise of in depth discriminative intelligence, the various essays etc on this site provide a comprehensive Understanding of what it is and what it takes to be awakened.
http://www.beezone.com/whiteandorangeproject/index.html