.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« … how can one talk about "something which does not exist", let alone have faith in "it"? »

Well, I don’t see any problem there. Lots of people talk about things that don't exist, including God or gods. That's no exception. There's nothing unusual about that.

You add :

« If "it" doesn't exist, then "it" is not something! »

That’s correct, but it does not prevent people from talking about it. That’s because most of them think it does exist. They do not realise that they are actually talking about nothing. I know it sounds silly but that’s the way it is !

And you conclude :

«… it follows that no-one can have faith in God. »

That is also correct, but they think they have faith in God because they believe that there is a God. Happily, that is not important. It is their faith alone that is important, “sola fide” – no need for a God or gods in reality.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but there are numerous instances of people attributing their miraculous survival from all sorts of disasters and natural catastrophes etc. to their faith in God. It is their faith that saves them – despite the fact that there is no God.

Keep your faith, Yuyutsu. It is extremely precious. It might even save your life someday.

Unfortunately, it won't save mine because I know there is no God. If I tried to pretend I had faith, I would just be kidding myself.

.

Dear George,

Thank you very much for the quotes from Tillich. Not coming from a Christian background, I am not familiar with Tillich, but I agree with every word.

Skimming through his wikipedia entry, I note that so far I agree with all I saw of his views and took a note that it will be worthwhile to read further.

As for my own non-existence, Tillich writes: ”God is being-itself, not a being”.
Where I come from is the Advaita Vedanta philosophy which adds: "Yes - an you are that", "Tat Tvam Asi".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/tattvamasi.htm

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … my concern was only with the (religious) meaning of these words [belief & faith] as used by theologians and philosophers of (Western) religion … if the difference was that simple [as indicated in my previous post], scholars would not have had to invent foreign (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) words for it »
.

I’m not so sure the English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), would agree with you on that one, George.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Speaking of being saved by faith in my previous post, I indicated :

« Unfortunately, it won't save mine because I know there is no God. If I tried to pretend I had faith, I would just be kidding myself »
.

I hasten to add that that is not the end of the story.

God or a god (any god) is not the only entity in which one may have faith. Many victims of natural catastrophes who are convinced they were saved by their faith owe their survival in fact to their loved ones, family, friends, neighbours, rescue workers and even in a few rare instances to their domestic pets.

Personally, I place my faith in my dear wife.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks. I just thought that it was confusing to use a word (exists) with a standard meaning (we all agree that you exist) while meaning something else, usually more abstract, without pointing that out. Like for someone who is looking for a free parking space, it is useless even confusing to refer him/her to outer space (cosmology) or topological spaces (mathematics).

Obviously, I am not that familiar with Hindu philosophy/religion as you are with Christianity, but my understanding of Brahman was as corresponding to God who reveals Himself in “I am who I am” (seen or not as a person), whereas Atman to what Christians call God’s grace dwelling in an individual. Or could not Ortega y Gasset's "The Christian God is apparently transcendent to the world, but imanent in the depths of the soul" (What is Philosophy, p. 175) be seen as a reference to the Brahman/Atman distinction?

Dear Banjo,

If you are referring to Ockham’s razor (in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary), this depends very much on the subject seeking an explanation: for centuries all scientific explanations about how our world came to be could be seen as unnecessary since all explanation can be found in the Book of Genesis. Similarly if you believe in the reducibility of all reality to the material only, you might indeed be satisfied with an explanation that is based only on that a priori assumption or belief.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« If you are referring to Ockham’s razor (in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary), this depends very much on the subject seeking an explanation. »
.

The subject you raised, as I recall it, was the distinction between “religious beliefs” and “faith”. That was the subject of the article you wrote entitled “Religious beliefs versus faith” on which I was commenting.

It seems to me that the OED definitions of “belief” and “faith” which I cited in my earlier post are short, to the point and allow an unbiased reader to clearly distinguish the difference of meaning between not just “religious beliefs” and “faith”, but “belief” and “faith” in general.

The difference is exactly the same:

“Belief” is qualifying perception or information as “fact” rather than “fiction”. Whereas “faith” is having “complete confidence in somebody or something”.

By application of the principle known as “Ockham’s razor”, more complex explanations are superfluous and unnecessary. They can only complicate matters and render them less comprehensible – which is not the objective.

John Hick, whom you cite in your article, appears to ignore the clear OED distinction between “belief” and “faith” and purports to introduce a “supplementary” sense, “fiducia” into the word “faith” in order to create a difference.

According to the Gaffiot (1934 edition), considered the most authoritative Latin dictionary in France, “Fiducia” means “confidence” and “Fides” also means “confidence”. The difference resides in the origin of the words and is so subtle that, for all intents and purposes, it is non-existent.

Hick’s explanation (which you cite in your article) - that “faith” as “fides” has a “cognitive use” whereas “faith” as “fiducia” means that, despite indications to the contrary, “the divine purpose towards us is wholly good and loving” - is pure fantasy.

In any event, he has not differentiated “religious beliefs” from “faith” but, instead, purports to differentiate two (simultaneous) meanings of the word “faith” – which is not what your article was about.

I’m afraid, he’s is pulling the wool over your eyes,George.

.