.

Dear David,

.

« … as far as I am concerned leaps of faith which spring from acceptance of what we cannot prove are markedly inferior to doubts which causes us to ask questions. IMHO doubt is a virtue, and faith is a vice.

From doubt arises knowledge. From faith may arise atrocity ...

Of course it is unlikely that anybody is a complete doubter, or anybody has complete faith. However, I still don't think faith is a virtue. »

.

I get your point, David, but need to clear the air on the semantics. You oppose faith and doubt whereas the antonym of faith is mistrust and that of doubt is certainty.

It is possible to doubt and have faith simultaneously on a single issue. One does not necessarily exclude the other.

Both are virtuous in my view.

But, as you suggest, nothing is absolute. It’s the story of sand in the oyster: a little produces a pearl; too much kills the animal. It’s also a question of swings and balances. Each issue has to be weighed-up on its proper merits ... a little more faith; a little less doubt ... a little more doubt; a little less faith ... backed-up by constant surveillance and strong corrective measures where necessary.

All human relations are based on faith. Lack of it causes breakdown and failure of communication, comprehension and exchange. Nothing can be contracted. Everything grinds to a stand-still resulting in paralysation, chaos and abandonment.

Faith needs to be restored for human relations to operate smoothly and efficiently. It creates a virtuous circle. Mistrust, lack of confidence, puts a spanner in the works, creates a vicious circle and leads to systems failure.

Also, please allow me to suggest that rather than “from doubt arises knowledge” wouldn’t “from challenge and questioning arises knowledge” be more exact? The term “doubt” indicates rejection. That’s it. You need to do something a little more positive than that in order to acquire knowledge.

In a similar vein, rather than “from faith may arise atrocity” might I suggest “from pure bigotry may arise atrocity”?

.

.

Dear George,

.

« I think by “faith without god” you mean what is more commonly known as secular (or atheist) spirituality, ... »

.

What I mean is, supposing for the sake of the argument, that there is no god (which I trust any intellectually honest theist would be prepared to admit as a possibility, albeit a highly unlikely one), in which case his faith would, in fact, be grounded in nothing. He would simply be mistaken.

In this scenario he would have faith but no god.

It is a very common and extremely ancient scenario which has being playing out ever since the beginning of mankind, five to seven million years ago, which continues to play out even today in respect of all those tribal communities whose members fervently place their faith in animist gods.

In this scenario, I am not sure how the spirituality of the theist can be any different from that of the non-theist. Though the theist may ignore it (or simply not admit it as a fact), wouldn’t his spirituality be the same as that of the non-theist if there is no god to differentiate them ?

.

Dear Banjo,

>> supposing … that there is no god … in which case (the theist’s) faith would, in fact, be grounded in nothing. … mistaken.<<

Formally either God exists or does not exist, however which one is the case depends on how you define “God” and “exists”. Otherwise, having a Faith and concluding that God, as you understand and trusted Him does not exist makes you loose your faith. As I mentioned we have also secular/atheist spirituality, either self-made or grounded in Buddhism.

However Godless faith sounds to me - forgive my language - as a kind of spiritual masturbation. For a Christian there is “vertical love” between God and the believer, and "horizontal love", including erotic, between two humans. As there is partnerless sex so is there Godless faith, but in both cases it somehow is not the real thing.

Faith is not just belief (like in the existence of extraterrestrials); it is a complete state of mind, which you acquire either through religiously effective education since childhood - very few of that recently - or you are an adult convert as the consequence of what psychologists call a limit situation that you A POSTERIORI see as “God’s entering your life”.

>>In this scenario he would have faith but no god.<<

Such faith, would indeed be considered a delusion by those who claim God doesn't exist. If the believer himself agreed, he/she would have lost his faith.

>>I am not sure how the spirituality of the theist can be any different from that of the non-theist. …wouldn’t his spirituality be the same?<<

I reckon that the spirituality of a believer is experienced in about the same way as that of the unbeliever. The difference is that the latter concentrates on his (mystical) experience, wheres the believer in addition “sees” God in whom he believes (God’s actual existence or non-existence is irrelevant here, only the strength of the believer’s belief in e.g. the Christian God counts)

I have been oversimplifying things, spirituality is not my piece of cake. Maybe I should write a more careful article about it.

Dear Banjo,

Your semantics are exquisite, but I am not antisemantic. If words had simple meanings then we could say what the antonym is. The antonym of colour is colourless, but faith has many antonyms which may disagree with one another. Faith also has several definitions. One of the definitions of faith according to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary is ‘firm and unquestioning belief in that for which there is no proof.’ That is also a characteristic of bigotry. Bigotry ascribes certain unfavourable qualities to a group with no justification or proof. If there is proof then it is no longer bigotry.

I don’t know what pure bigotry is as opposed to impure bigotry. However, bigotry is only one type of faith. A synonym for faith is trust. That synonym does not include bigotry. Trust in their Lord was exhibited by Abraham when he was willing to murder his son, Jephthah when he murdered his daughter and those who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center. As far as I know none of them were bigots, but they were all men of faith. From their faiths arose atrocity.

I think mistrust would have been more appropriate than trust in the instances cited above.

Doubt alone will not bring knowledge, but doubt is necessary to start the process leading to knowledge unless one confines knowledge to merely absorbing received doctrines.

.

Dear George,

.

« Godless faith sounds to me - forgive my language - as a kind of spiritual masturbation ... As there is partnerless sex so is there Godless faith, but in both cases it somehow is not the real thing. »

.

That is an interesting image, George. It takes my mind back to the Sumerian goddess Inanna, also known by the Akkadians as Ishtar. She was the goddess who incarnated the natural forces of fertility and fecundity in Mesopotamia during the Neolithic period (dating back to about 10.000 BC).

I doubt that there is anyone, in this day and age, who seriously considers that there ever was such a goddess. Nevertheless, she was venerated, for over 8.000 years, by the kings of both Assyria and Babylon, as combining the symbolism of fertility and the power of the warrior-woman until the fall of Babylon in 1.595 BC

From what you say, George, I guess they were simply indulging in the perconal spiritual occupations you mentioned.

Thank God we’re not like them !

.

“Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
and the profit and loss.

A current under sea picked his bones in whispers.
As he rose and fell he passed the stages of his age and youth
entering the whirlpool.

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.”

(Death by water, from T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land)

.

.

Dear David,

.

“Your semantics are exquisite, but I am not anti-semantic.”

.

Don’t worry, David, I saw from the flash of your gun at high noon you were shooting from the hip.

You were the only one standing when the smoke cleared.

Shoot first and explain later.

That’s fine with me.

.