Dear George,

<<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?>>

Yes, this is a good analogy.

When it comes to God, or Brahman, whether when He appears as the world and when He appears as our own soul/self, no words are adequate, so we can only use analogies. The only way to know God is directly, not through any via, such as the mind, the senses, words, etc. In that state of direct experience ('anubhava') all difference dissolve, including the apparency of being an individual soul separate from all others and all things.

.

Dear George,

.

The Webster’s Third New International Dictionary definitions of “belief” and “faith” which you quoted earlier are not very different from the OED definitions.

With this in mind, despite my disagreement with Hick on what he considers to be an epistemological conundrum relating to a religious world view orientation (and I qualify as simply a question of semantics), I suspect that our conclusions may have been fairly similar had you not deviated from your original theme of “religious beliefs versus faith” and become embroiled in splitting hairs with Hick on what he considers to be different aspects of “faith”.

As it stands, your conclusion reads :

« … you can argue for or against only the (rational) fides aspect of faith, and the jury is out until you take into account – those who can – the (subjective, cultural, emotional etc.) fiducia aspect »

Perhaps we both may have concluded :

« You can argue for or against the rational aspects of “religious beliefs” and “faith” but rational arguments are of no avail as regards their subjective, cultural, emotional and psychological aspects »
.

Sometimes, faith itself is of no avail :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szYrXzEi0cg

.

Dear Banjo,

I don not think I can make myself more clear, nevertheless, let me repeat: I agree that explanations that are "more complex" than what the person in question can identify with - like a non-specialist with specialist explanations e.g. in theoretical physics - are unnecessary (even useless). However, a simple (popular) explanation that is satisfactory for the uninitiated might not be so for the specialist who seeks “more complex” explanations for various reasons.

As I said, for a person who has never heard of a telescope, any explanations about our world being part of a solar system and galaxy are unnecessarily complex. The same for a person whose world view is based on Sagan’s “the physical universe is all there is ” (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883) hence does not regard religious faith as addressing anything outside the mental, subtleties about fides/assensus vs fiducia can be too complicated and unnecessary.

I am sure your authoritative Latin dictionary, does not provide under spatium/espace an argument supporting a claim that what mathematicians say about topological spaces is unnecessary or too complicated.

There is a difference between saying this or that is too complex and/or unnecessary FOR ME to understand - there are many subjects with books and books written about them that I, personally, would thus regard - and pronouncing that scholarly works written on the subject and discussed by specialists in the field ARE (objectively) unnecessarily complicated and/or simply unnecessary. There are deaf people who do not consider theories explaining the difference between Classical and Baroque music as unnecessary although they cannot hear that difference.

ctd

ctd

>>« You can argue for or against the rational aspects of “religious beliefs” and “faith” but rational arguments are of no avail as regards their subjective, cultural, emotional and psychological aspects »<<

I agree in principle, although I am not sure why you had to tilt my, still oversimplified, version by excising the rational aspect from the fiducia factors leading to being a believer. If you hear a suspicious sound and there is no way, no time, to decide whether it is harmless or life threatening, you’ll probably run, i.e. make a decision assuming the latter, although you cannot be sure. I think that would be a quite rational decision, dictated by our life-preservation instinct. I deaf person - who cannot hear the threatening sound but observes you taking off so suddenly - might think you acted irrationally.

Where fides/assensus refers to making a world view one's own, fiducia is more about deciding to make a corresponding life commitment. On both levels you can be rational or irrational. That is in my, non-specialist's, words.

You see, you made me compare unbelievers to deaf people, to counter your insistence that believers must have irrational (going against reason) reasons for their faith. We should agree that although both analogies reflect something, they are in essence caricatures expressing the inability to put oneself into the other’s shoes, be they “belief in God” or “belief in Sagan’s maxim”.

George,

Your language analogy doesn’t wash, I’m afraid. You are not speaking a different language and it ignores the fact that many (if not most) non-believers grew up in religious households. Furthermore, you’re not in a position to claim that others will not or could not understand the reasoning behind your religious belief if you are only willing to explain so much of it before you shut the conversation down with claims that those with whom you are speaking wouldn’t understand (I’m just going by experience there).

Moreover, plenty of believers have explained to me the reasoning behind their belief and I understood those, so I'm not sure how your belief would be so unique. What is it that you've discovered that not even other theists have discovered despite a lifetime of belief? I've wondered about this for years yet you won't share it with the rest of the world despite the instructions per 1 Peter 3:15.

With regards to your chosen definition of faith, it appears the Webster’s definition was indeed a poor choice. I’ve looked around and it is the only definition of faith that, in the context of religion, does not mention the essential element of belief without evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. So fundamental to religious faith is this element, that even theists themselves acknowledge it when attacking atheism (e.g. “I didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”).

The Webster’s definition has clearly been tailored to be as favourable to religious belief as possible, like this one: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t. The OED, which is widely considered to be the most authoritative English dictionary, has a more accurate definition. I would suggest that you use that definition in the future.

AJ Philips,

>>I would suggest that you use that definition in the future.<<

Well, perhaps this sums up where we differ: I am not suggesting what definition of what you should use in your posts, articles or in your life.

We have been through this many times:

I am not trying to convert you so please do not try to convert me through your reasoning (using those definitions or meanings of words that you choose). You did comment on my post to Peter Sellick (whose world view is very close to mine so I could hope he understood), and I tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain to you (see the paragraph starting with “On the other hand”) what was originally addressed to Sellick.

I really do not understand what you want me to say or write, although I think I understand that you are seeking confirmations of your own world view choices. Many Christians do the same by trying to convert atheists merely through their reasoning, while in fact they need, for some reasons, an outside confirmation of their own world view preference, i.e. faith.

I shall keep on reading your posts and try to understand you but I do not know how else to respond.