(...continued, sorry Suse, I reached my message-limit)

In the first category, one just comes to a stage where the world no longer appeals or has no more to offer, or when one suffered enough.

In the second category, one wishes to use spiritual techniques for material success.

In the third category, one is not satisfied with the meaninglessness of the world, thus seeks to find the ontological Truth behind appearances.

In the fourth category, one already had a glimpse of God by knowing themselves, then they wish to expand and stabilise that knowledge.

<<I always thought it could be because people are afraid of what 'happens' after they die, and clutch onto whatever they are told by religious 'leaders' as a hope for the afterlife.>>

Yes, this may be the case for beginners. I would include those in the first category, of those weary of the world. They want to stop their suffering caused by that constant fear of death.

Dear Banjo,

What you describe has everything to do with history and nothing to do with religion. Yes, people over the ages used various strategies of survival, some more effective than others, but these do not pass for religion: a religious person seeks God, not survival!

Dear George and AJ Philips,

People (theists and atheists alike) who look at religion from outside, watching how religious people act out of faith, conclude that faith must be a kind of belief. That projection is only because they themselves would only act similarly out of belief. That is a mistake because religious and irreligious people do not share the same goals and values.

(yes, 'theists' was not a typo, I meant so: while theists are believers, they are not necessarily religious)

Here is a test of faith:

Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist - would that change your behaviour?
If it would, then you have no faith, only belief!

.

Dear Poirot,

.

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

Good point, well taken.

I have had to extrapolate in order to calculate the high school student population in Australia and arrive at an estimate of 1,499,190.

The weekly suicide rate then becomes 0.0002%

There were about 40.4 suicides per week in Australia over the past decade, which, for an average population of 21,528,064 gives a national weekly suicide rate of 0,00018.

This certainly puts the high school suicide rate in perspective, indicating that it is slightly higher than the national rate.

It represents 7,42% of total suicides in Australia.

The suicide rates for children younger than 15 years is estimated to have increased by 92% between the 1960s to 1990s.

Suicide rates are generally higher amongst males, rural and regional dwellers, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,
.

"Here is a test of faith:

Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist - would that change your behaviour? If it would, then you have no faith, only belief!"

.

I agree that having faith in nothing means I do not have faith.

But, belief in nothing also means I have no belief. Doesn't it ?

.

AJ Philips,

>>I feel that my preferred definition is just so much more practical<<
Sorry, but I could not discern a definition of faith and/or (religious) belief from your post (something like faith is : …), only negative comments on world-views that are based on different premises than yours. Like one does not include in the definition of the concept of e.g. “nation” a condemnation of nationalism or approval of patriotism, or some other judgement.

For exactly these reason - trying to clarify the concepts acceptable to people of various world-view approaches to religion - I thought it could be of interest to quote an authoritative and respectable source like Webster’s Dictionary.

Yuyutsu,

>>Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist - would that change your behaviour?<<

Beyond whose doubt, yours or mine? If mine then it would not be I any more, so I could not tell. Also, I am not sure what you mean by "object of your faith".

Besides, one can “prove beyond all doubt” only formal logical and mathematical propositions (although even here some qualifications apply), certainly not the basic premises of one’s world-view.

George,

Sorry, I thought it would be safe to assume you remembered my definition given that you provided one too.

<<Sorry, but I could not discern a definition of faith and/or (religious) belief from your post (something like faith is : …)...>>

I mentioned it in my first post on this thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077#260539).

<<...only negative comments on world-views that are based on different premises than yours.>>

Our worldview premises don't change the fact that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that a god exists (particularly when one considers the extraordinariness of the claim). We can't just pretend like these are simply philosophical leanings here. These are claims about the real world; claims that have real-world effects; claims that would be worldview-altering if they could be demonstrated.

Our worldview premises also don't change the fact that believing in the existence of something, without sufficient evidence, is to believe without good reason. Hence my preferred definition.

So if you're saying that I'm injecting too much of my own personal opinion into my definition for it to be helpful or as all-encompassing as I believe it to be, then I beg to differ.

<<Like one does not include in the definition of the concept of e.g. “nation” a condemnation of nationalism or approval of patriotism, or some other judgement.>>

Well we could just leave it at "belief without proof", if you'd prefer. "The suspension of critical thought", is another good one, I think.

<<For exactly these reason - trying to clarify the concepts acceptable to people of various world-view approaches to religion - I thought it could be of interest to quote an authoritative and respectable source like Webster’s Dictionary.>>

And it was. But that doesn't detract from any of the points I made. Unless you mean to imply that it is simply an unfortunate co-incidence that the label for religious belief also means "belief without proof"?

I don't think it is, and it would seem that a great many Christians would agree given their usage of the word too.

Dear George,

<<Beyond whose doubt, yours or mine? If mine then it would not be I any more, so I could not tell>>

This is a beautiful reply. It appeals to the heart as it expresses your faith.

Unfortunately, because you also have belief in the mix, it does not appeal to the mind. Did you also believe in God when you were a baby? before you even heard God's name? Assuming you didn't, then were you someone else then? were you not who you are now?

Now let me phrase it differently and lets take for example the atheist's favourite character: the tooth-fairy...

Suppose you believed in the tooth-fairy, suppose you offered her your milk-teeth in a jar, which you cleaned and anointed every morning and evening, then one day you saw a convincing (to you) proof that she doesn't exist. Your heart may be broken, but still you would throw that jar in the rubbish-bin...

...Not if you have faith, that's makes a world of difference: no amount of evidence could shake your faith and you will not be perturbed by such trifling issues as non-existence. Existence is a modern indulgence which is now in fashion whereas faith is currently out of fashion - but with faith, what exists or doesn't is simply irrelevant!

Would you still love your wife when she grows old and wrinkled? or suppose she got breast cancer and lost that body-part, would you stop loving her because that part no longer existed?

Similarly, the love of God should not depend upon His existence.

.

Dear Yuyitsu,

.

You wrote to George:

"Would you still love your wife when she grows old and wrinkled? or suppose she got breast cancer and lost that body-part, would you stop loving her because that part no longer existed?"
.

If my dear wife dies before I do, I shall continue to love her even though she will no longer exist.

As you suggest, the fact that someone ceases to exist does not prevent those who love that person from continuing to do so.

.

... and you added:

"Similarly, the love of God should not depend upon His existence."
.

I agree. But, as with my wife, he will have had to exist for me to have loved Him in the first place.

If my wife had never existed, I could never have loved her. The same goes for God.

To love a God who never existed, is to love an imaginary God, the fruit of one's own imagination, which has no existence beyond one's imagination.

Of course, I could have loved an imaginary wife, but it would not have been my wife. The same goes for God. I could love an imaginary God, but it would not be God. It would just be the fruit of my imagination.

.

You then introduce the notion of "faith":

"... with faith, what exists or doesn't is simply irrelevant!"
.

But this contradicts what you had just written to "Suze" on the same page 7of this thread:

"Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist ... then you have no faith ... "
.

Would you kindly review this and clarify.

I think you will agree it is important.

.