.

Dear Peter,

.

I think it is important to mention that we should not lose sight of the fact that there is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.

Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only general consensu is that he probably did existe and that his baptism and crucifixion were probably historical facts.

All the rest is pure conjecture, or should I say a question of (religious) "faith" ?

As you like it - or not !

.

The human brain indicates the height of reason and intelligence present in the universe and humanity did not create that capacity it originated in a higher intelligence, to which we are intrinsically attached.

Dear Josephus,

You made assertions without proof. You assume there must be a higher intelligence. Apparently there is no evidence for the existence of such an entity. Evolution explains the existence of humans and human intelligence. Evolution does not require the existence of a higher intelligence. The existence of celestial bodies does not require such an entity. You can believe what you like. Other religions have other believers who will make similar assertions. You happen to have been born to parents who had a particular religion. If you had born to parents of another religion you would probably be proclaiming the truth of that religion. The Aboriginal creation myth embodies the Rainbow Serpent. The biblical creation embodies a talking snake who persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. I see no reason to accept either snake.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« Faith is neither blind nor incredulous but trust in that which has the ring of truth. It is crucial that this difference be acknowledged because it is the difference between being bound and being free. »
.

As you claim that “it is crucial”, Peter, we need to study your definition of “faith” carefully before making any commitment.

The OED offers eight definitions of “faith”, none of which corresponds to yours. The first two are the principal definitions :

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

2. belief that is not based on proof

There is no mention of “trust in that which has the ring of truth” as you indicate. In other words, it is not necessary to have “trust in that which has the ring of truth” in order to have faith in somebody or something. “The ring of truth” is not a precondition of faith.

Quite the contrary, according to Evan Morris's Word Detective website, the idiom “ring of truth” harks back to the early 19th century, when counterfeit coins were common. Merchants detected fakes by dropping coins on the counter and listening to the sound.

Another popular method of verification was to bite the coin to see if it left a mark.

Merchants who practiced those methods of authentification did not rely on faith. They had no faith. They wanted good, solid proof.

Consequently, I’m afraid your definition of faith does not ring true. The type of faith you are referring to in your article, religious faith, corresponds to definition N° 2 of the OED indicated above : “belief that is not based on proof”, in other words, blind faith.

But not to worry, Peter, happily, the choice is not “between being bound and being free” as you fear.

If you get your definitions right, you’ll be OK.

Religion has nothing to do with “being bound”. It’s just a question of repeating your lessons over and over again, and faith has nothing to do with “the ring of truth”. It’s just “belief without proof”.

.

A dog has faith that the food its master brings is good and not poisoned.

If a stranger brings food, the dog may suspect and refuse to eat it, but when the food is brought by its master, it rings true for the dog that the food is good.

The dog has no proofs, not even a concept of "proof", but without any faith, the dog would starve to death.

Nietzsche implied that truth is only descriptive and valueless- there are narratives beyond truth that lead to a higher truth.
Jung believed that phenomena were holistic