If one looks up the word, faith, on the net one will find two definitions accompanied by examples.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

As far as I am concerned both kinds of faith are bad. The first definition is antithetical to democracy if applied to politicians. If it is applied to anything else it is an unwarranted degree of trust. The second definition defines the faith shown by those who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. According to the following faith is a theological virtue.

https://www.learnreligions.com/faith-a-theological-virtue-542120

"Faith is the first of the three theological virtues; the other two are hope and charity (or love). Unlike the cardinal virtues, which can be practiced by anyone, the theological virtues are gifts of God through grace."

To believe without proof is, to me, abandoning reason. It takes away my humanity as my reason is what makes me human. To me faith is not a virtue but a vice. Does anyone agree?

Dear David,

To me faith is not a belief without proof, but
to me it's trust without reservation.
I trust my husband without reservation.
I have complete faith in him.

As for religion? I have my personal beliefs.
Which has helped me to see light during my darkest
moments and continues to do so.

Hi David,

Having a serious operation eg heart surgery is it not justified to have "faith" in the surgeon. Do we not exercise faith in our everyday lives, eg the bus driver to drive the bus safely so we reach our destination. Faith is having a belief without evidence, or am I confusing faith with confidence. I often have faith in my Lotto ticket, unfortunately that faith is so often misplaced and shattered by the later reality.

I'm sure there are more than two definitions. These days, words are twisted to mean whatever a user wants them to mean, or thinks they mean. And, most people these days look up the internet, where anyone can put up pretty much anything. Few people bother with dictionaries compiled by qualified scholars. Faith is often confused with belief, too.

I don't see how the word can be either a virtue or a vice. Given David's often expressed disregard for religion, particularly the Christian version, I think that it is religious faith (belief in the unknown) that he really regards as a vice, as opposed to faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

That sort of faith is a personal thing that cannot be explained to people who don't have it. No amount of discussion will bring about a satisfactory conclusion. As an agnostic who believes in Christian principles, I would like to believe in God, but I don't have that sort of faith. The 'dead cert' historical Jesus Christ is as far as I can go. But, I would like to point out to people who flatly refuse to believe in God, that in the eyes of a neutral observer, they can be no more sure that He doesn't exist than those who claim He does exist. The difference being the latter has faith that the former does not, and the latter will leave this life happier than the former.

Thanks for the thread, David

Hi david f,

"To believe without proof is, to me, abandoning reason. It takes away my humanity as my reason is what makes me human. To me faith is not a virtue but a vice. Does anyone agree?"

Yeah I agree.
On some level I think religion puts peoples minds in a cage;
Upon taking up religion they risk losing all sense of themselves
- Often prone to irrational beliefs and behavior harmful to others.

Also I don't think religions pass the Ethics Test.

'Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't have a negative and detrimental impact on others'

I think believers substitute religion as their moral compass into the empty space that was reserved for ethics.

Without the ability to reason, I could not be me.
And if humans could not reason we wouldn't exist.

Having been raised a Catholic, (I believe the correct term is Roman Catholic, of course, what else) I had it shoved into me from every orifice, mainly because I was a live-in student (a boarder).
Up at some ungodly (pun intended) hour, straight to mass for an hour, then and only after mass we had breakfast.
This all began at a ripe old age of 3yr old, through to high school so I know a thing or two about faith (religious kind).
Now being an inquisitive person, always wanting to know WHY about everything, so religion came into focus for me.
After learning about the bible and it's contents, I began to question much of the teachings within.
Such things as a virgin giving birth, and many other things, not going to waste space elaborating.
The one about Christ dying and coming to life again (re-incarnation), I thought was possible, it has happened, that's why we have wakes, in case the corpse awakens, weird I know.
Anyway, I know some of you don't want to hear this but I found that people would ask me, if I don't believe in God, what do I believe in?
My answer has always been the same and one I can rely on and has done me and others well throughout my life, and the answer is; ME!

Dear David,

I thank you for this topic.

---
First Definition:

This can be good or bad, or some mixture of the two, depending on the person, on the circumstances, but especially on what it is that they have faith in.

If faith is, say, in politicians, then I tend to believe it not to be a good idea.
If faith is in God, then such faith is absolutely safe.

But wait before you jump... How does one know that their faith is indeed in God? rather than in some IDEA ABOUT God which someone told them? How about, for example, if one was told that Kim Jong Un is God, or the Beatles for that matter?

So before one can speak of faith in God, one should at least have an idea what God is and not merely assume that God is whatever the church/Koran tells that He is. This may require a long, but important discussion.
---

Second Definition:

This definition speaks of "spiritual conviction", but does the lexicographer even know what it means?

A true SPIRITUAL conviction is absolute and by far stronger and more decisive than any possible proof brought to us by our feeble senses, minds or any other instruments.

If we are to stick with this definition as it stands, then nothing can be better. However, those who do not believe in the possibility of access to the Absolute, ontological Reality, might claim that this definition is empty, lacking any applicable example (including the 9/11/2001 example).

What the lexicographer likely had in mind instead, are convictions brought about by some combination of intellectual, emotional and/or social influences which just happened to occur in a spiritual environment.

Are such convictions good, bad or neutral? This all depends on the particular case and circumstances.

---
Faith in God is indeed a virtue, so is Charity/Love, and here I agree that both are the gifts of God through grace.
(but please remember, as above, that the faith needs to indeed be in God)

Unlike Christianity, however, Hinduism considers "Hope" to be a weakness rather than a virtue.

Dear Ttbn,

«I would like to believe in God, but I don't have that sort of faith.»

Perhaps what is stopping you are preconceived ideas regarding what God is. If I were told for example, that God is an harsh, unreasonable and cruel tyrant, then I too would not be able to believe in such God.

«the latter has faith that the former does not, and the latter will leave this life happier than the former.»

And with some deeper understanding of what God is or isn't, you should be able to count yourself among the latter.

---

Dear Critic,

«Without the ability to reason, I could not be me.»

Many older people when faced with the loss of driving-license also say:

"Without the ability to drive, I could not be me."

Then comes the inevitable loss, and lo and behold, they are still themselves. Though licenseless, they do not turn to become someone else.

Similarly, should you lose your ability to reason, it would still be THE SAME YOU who had this loss, just without the ability to reason.

But please do not let it concern you because here are some great news for you:

One can have faith AND be able to reason. They are not mutually exclusive!

---

Dear ALTRAV,

«if I don't believe in God, what do I believe in?
My answer has always been the same and one I can rely on and has done me and others well throughout my life, and the answer is; ME!»

GREAT! Who told you that YOU and God are different?
Ah, the priests and the nuns when you were 3?
Why not check it out for yourself instead?
Find out who YOU are, then find out who God is... you may be surprised to find that ultimately you are one and the same!

For myself, faith in a god could not happen. I think it comes down both to my personality, that relies on very few and myself, and the reality I need concrete proof to believe.

I went to Sunday school for years, but very quickly decided it was not true. My short experience with religion caused me much stress, so I overcame this fear by taunting God.

But, maturity changes one's mind about the impact of religion.

For the many people who are religious, having faith would not be irrational and would provide a strong justification for how and why they live, as well as greater comfort in hard times. Nothing wrong with that.

And religious people, and sometimes their institutions, can do great work for many people.

At best. i would be like Dr Spong, and merely support the message of Christianity rather than believe in its divine miracles

Paul1405,
Belief without evidence is what's known as blind faith. As a Christian, that is something I'm strongly opposed to.

Real faith is trust without proof.

As humans we sign contracts because we cannot always trust others to fulfil their side of the agreement. Contracts and laws covering contracts overrides verbal agreements because we have learned we cannot have faith in the other.

I have learned enough on persons who I can trust, and those who I cannot. Though on many occasions I feel safer with a legal contract of agreement.

Religious faith has established our moral and ethic values, and even the - to many irrational. It is Christianity that has given us our set of laws, instead of a murder for a murder we incarcerate in the hope they will repent [changed their behaviour].

Jesus could forgive his murderers, as did Stephen at their deaths, and Paul the writer of much of the Church doctrine was converted from a Murderer of Christians to finally being put to death in Rome for his faith. To other world views that is irrational, because anyone guilty of murdered they should die.

Leonard Cohen (1934 - 2016) wrote the following on
faith:

The birds they sang at the break of day
Start Again
I heard them say
Don't dwell on what has passed away
Or what is yet to be
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

Foxy,
Families on the poverty line & the starving children of the World will get great comfort from Leonard Cohen's lyrics !

Individual,

How perceptive of you. I think you're spot on.
They certainly will get more from the words
of Leonard Cohen - a real person , then some
fictious deity. You're right!

It would be a lot easier to be an atheist if they had not have invented the idiotic unscientific big bang and evolution fantasies. So funny that people mock those who have faith in Christ while believing such nonsense.

Dear runner,

Who is mocking belief in Christ?

Runner,

Sorry to say but she MIGHT have a point.
Jesus Christ is presumed to have existed as a "real" person, but GOD is presumed and promoted as a spiritual entity and is contrived by those who want to believe there is such an entity, and exists purely by the fact that people believe without physical or material evidence to confirm it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but maybe you meant, "those who have faith in "GOD""?

'Correct me if I'm wrong but maybe you meant, "those who have faith in "GOD""?'

ALTRAV

the term faith in Christ or faith in God is used interchangeably throughout the bible. You can't have one without the other. Either Jesus was a fraud, a fake or He was who He claimed to be. You can't have it both ways. Knowledge of the true God isn't possible without the knowledge of Christ.

ALTRAV,

I do have a name on this forum.

I prefer not to be referred to as "She".

Also the only one doing the mocking here to which
I responded was - Individual.

I did not mention a deity by name.

Runner made his own assumptions which happen as always
to be wrong.

BTW: There's more than just one God. Some people
believe in several. Others in none at all.

'Runner made his own assumptions which happen as always
to be wrong.'

Actually Foxy I made no assumption as to what you believe. I was responding to the topic not an individual. If I was responding to what you wrote I would of addressed you.

As for Christ being mocked you would have to live on mars not to have noticed our perverted national broadcasters, our deviant uni professors and sneering politicians over the last 5 decades or more. Mohammed the slave trader and owner of an 8 year old bride gets off lightly.

runner,

correct!

What if we take the view that Christ was merely a self appointed messenger of this GOD he chose to create and promote?
To me he was no different to all the so called religious leaders who came after him, except that he sought no gain or monetary profit from his preaching, and sought no favours, unlike those who I label as con-men and charlatans, following on and including those of the present day.
People once were threatened with all kinds of GOD's, to keep them under control, but as time passed and the people became more educated and asked more questions, the answers revealed a false reality.
Oh there are still plenty of sad and scared people, lacking courage, self confidence or direction, and it is they who still seek the shelter and security of this imaginary being and it's guidance.
As much as we don't want to see it, but these "religions" are the creations of mere men.
Some good, like Christ, and some bad, like the so called Muslim and Jewish faith's which both advocate and promote the killing of those not of their faith.
History and the Koran and Torah confirms this.
The Christian or Christ's teachings were those of love, peace and inclusivity, not so these two.
Anyway, I'm saying no more, as the elephant in the room including all of you, know the truth.

'What if we take the view that Christ was merely a self appointed messenger of this GOD he chose to create and promote?'

Problem with that approach ALTRAV is that Christ constantly spoke of being sent from the Father, sent from God, going back to the Father. Your version would make Him a liar like every other human being. It would then be idiotic putting one's faith in someone who lied.

You are right that their are plenty of scared people seeking a shelter, a crutch or however you like to label it. Personally I think a person who does not fear the Maker of heaven and earth is a fool especially if they believe Jesus never lied. He referred many times to hell and a few times to heaven. If there is no judgement then it means every lying democrat and republican, every paedophile, every nazi , every adulterer, every homosexual has gotten away with their crimes. Personally I think forgiveness and salvation for someone who knows they are guilty is an offer I can't refuse. I certainly can't refuse and the fear turns into appreciation when you know the cost of forgiveness paid for by Christ.

Foxy,
There is just one God. Other gods are merely powerless figments of human imagination.

What makes you think Leonard Cohen's Anthem is about faith?
_______________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Do you regard everything that doesn't fit your blind faith based worldview as "idiotic and unscientific fantasies"? If not, what criteria do you use to classify theories as such?

And what makes you think the Big Bang theory was invented by atheists?

Dear Aidan,

The following link explains it all about Cohen's
Anthem:

http://www.qz.com/835076/leonard-cohens-anthem-the-story-of-the-line-there-is-a-crack-in-everything-thats-how-the-light-gets-in/

It's worth a read.

Then you'll understand hopefully why I chose it for this
discussion.

Thank you for asking. You're the only one who did.

A question I have asked previously and received no answers on as it is beyond the realms of those on this forum, apparently.
The question is:

What lies beyond THIS universe?
Is it infinite, and goes on forever and we are swallowed up into our own subconscious, and become a spiritual entity, if so where do we reside in this form?
If we say that the universe has a physical end, it stops.
OK then what is beyond that?
Now let's see if there are those with faith and in what context, if they can answer these questions at all.

the only one doing the mocking here
Foxy,
you're way too influenced by Paul1405. Calling the fact that some song writers words are meaningless AND even mocking to those who suffer mocking ?
Faith is called Faith because it is without evidence. When all goes well, all is good. When a massive disaster happens & three people escape it's called a miracle. What is the word for when things go against all that is good ? Ah, yes, we must have faith !

individual,

I realize its beyond your scope of understanding what
Cohen's song was all about and why I quoted it.
But if you go back and read the link I gave to
Aidan - it might help you get a bit of a grasp on
it. Until then - best be quiet.

ALTRAV,

This might help you:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/03/05/how-much-of-the-unobservable-universe-will-we-someday-be-able-to-see/#21c8ca66f827

To Armchair Critic- Elon Musk talks about "reasoning by first principles" verses "reasoning by analogy"- he says that everyone reasons by analogy most of the time because reasoning from first principles is perceptively intense and time consuming- Perhaps that is the difference between religion and ethics. To me if a person thinks at all it is good- at least it stems the tide of the ideologues- it's wonderful to see a mind experience something for the first time.

Foxy,

the article goes into great detail and even repeats itself at times, BUT it only speaks of time and how long it will take us to see what is billions of light years away.
As informative as it is, it does not answer my question/s about what is "outside" or beyond the universe.
I only ask as it is more a philosophical question than anything else, as I have always believed that the "MATRIX" had some elements closely related to humanity's existence and very being, or NON-BEING, as the case may actually be.
It takes a lot of faith and a lot more unconditional acceptance of the unknown to survive in this, our current (physical) form and situation.

runner: You said, "It would be a lot easier to be an atheist if they had not have invented the idiotic unscientific big bang and evolution fantasies. So funny that people mock those who have faith in Christ while believing such nonsense."

The big bang theory was largely "invented" by this bloke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

By-the-way, just so that you know and to save you from making more comments from sheer ignorance: he was a priest. So presumably he believed in God. Many theists accept the big-bang theory and even drawn inspiration from it because it is a consequence of the theory that the universe had a beginning. And that beginning they say is "The Creation", a the work of God.

Dear Foxy,

«BTW: There's more than just one God.»

Can you get the absurdity of this statement?

Should there be more than one God, then each of them would be limited by the presence of the other(s). They could not for example do whatever they like because it might interfere with the will of the other(s)... Would you be calling "God" to someone who cannot do whatever they like?

Dear ALTRAV,

«What lies beyond THIS universe?»

Awakening!

Suppose, in your dream you are chased by a tiger. As fast as you run, the tiger is closing in, he almost gets you when...
you wake up in cold sweat and find yourself in your bed, the sun just risen and the clock shows that it is about time to get up.
But you refuse to get up, insisting that you must first have your question answered:

"Was I able to save myself or did the tiger end up devouring me?"

- such is the nature of your question!

.

Dear David f.,

.

I am willing to put my head on the block for my dear wife. All she has to do is pronounce those magic words : “I am certain”.

That’s the end of all discussion so far as I am concerned.

Is it faith ? Is it love ? Is it conviction ? Is it a lifetime of practical experience ?

It’s all of that and more. I owe her my life. She has saved it twice.

.

To Banjo Paterson-

It's so good to see such precious reciprocated loyalty between you and your wife in an age of changing and engineered alliances and disloyalty. The church was a great sponsor of mutually supporting relationships and community cohesion. I'm sure those of competing interests might want to attack those structures.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I guess I should have clarified things for you.
What I meant to say was that although religion
is a universal social institution, it takes a
multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary
meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.

The great variety of religious behaviour and
belief makes it ver difficult to say exactly
what "religion" is. Many definitions have been
offered in the past, but most of the ones we are
familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric
Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.

These ideas are based on a number of central beliefs:
that there exists one supreme being or God; that God
created the universe and all life and takes a
continuing interest in the creation, and that there
is a life hereafter; and that our moral behaviour in
this life influences our fate in the next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular
combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do
not recognize a supreme being, and a number do not
believe in gods at all.

Several religions ignore questions about the origins of
the uiniverse and life, leaving these problems to be
dealt with instead by nonreligious myth.

Many religions assume that the gods take little interest
in human affairs. Some have almost nothing to say about
life after death and many - perhaps most - do not link
our earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.
Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of
Western religious tradition alone.

I hope that clarifies things for you. Perhaps next time
you could ask me for clarification before you jump in.
Thank You.

cont'd ...

Dear Yuyutsu,

I believe that Hinduism has more than one God.

Yuyutsu,

I found some very broad and curious definitions of "religion" on Google.
Didn't bother wasting time typing them all in as I know those people who SHOULD read it won't, and if they do, it will be with a pre-conceived biased view.
Anyway, I have found that it is much more appropriate to remove the word RELIGION and replace it with CULT.
People wish to call it religion because the word evokes a squeaky clean image, unlike the word cult which has been associated with so many acts of evil and quite the opposite of what religion is touted to be about.

ALTRAV

it might not be accurate but I have always considered a cult a group of people who are controlled. The global warming cult is a good example. Deviate from the doctrine and you are punished. Just ask Peter Ridd.

My understanding of the bible and especially Jesus Christ is that He invites people to believe and follow Him. There is no compulsion.

You should know that the left have hijacked language. If you are not racist, sexist, bigotted by their standards its likely you are all those things because marxism perverts language. They began by hijacking the word 'gay'.

runner,

couldn't agree more.
In clarifying, regarding Christianity, you are quite right, I was highlighting specific entities or cults that DO advocate killing anyone who is NOT a believer.
There are many entities who promote love and inclusivity, as there are many who promote threats and violence.
After reading as much as I could stand on both the Muslim faith and the Jewish faith and what they are being taught, or groomed, to believe in, there is no doubt about the messages or themes being promoted.
If anyone wishes to challenge me on this truth, I direct them to glance through these two "instruments of cultism", and the road map to public domination, and one case at least, WORLD DOMINATION!

Dear Foxy,

While I was relating to what you wrote earlier:
«BTW: There's more than just one God. Some people believe in several. Others in none at all.»,
my comment only related to your first sentence.

Yes, people may believe or disbelieve all kinds of things,
but whatever they believe cannot change the Reality,
including the Reality that there is no more than one God, no matter what some people think.

In my previous post, I explained why it is absurd to think otherwise,
but people are still capable of entertaining absurdist thought processes.

«I believe that Hinduism has more than one God.»

Hinduism offers many useful REPRESENTATIONS of God, or POINTERS to God, in order to suit different temperaments and inspire devotional feelings in different kinds of people.

Only ignorant Hindus, today probably limited to some remote villagers who have not gone to school or actually read the Hindu scriptures, believe that these representations are actual Gods in themselves.

The bible also offers several representations of God, though it lacks and forbids their visual images, which Hinduism uses.

Take "Father" for example.

Many people are inspired to admire and love God when they see him as Father.
This of course is only a representation, only a pointer - obviously God is not a male, as would be needed to become an actual father.

For many this representation is useful, but for others who perhaps had an abusive or alcoholic father, this representation is not helpful at all!

Others may perhaps prefer the representation of "Shaddai", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai
which according to some interpretations could mean a feminine nurturer.

While different people will use the representation which personally fits them most, only ignorant people might claim that "Father" and "Shaddai" are two different, independent Gods.

Religion has been defined as a system of communally
shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented towards
some sacred, supernatural realm.

The difference between a cult and a religion is said
to be about 100 years. That's a joke but
the explanation offered is that once a cult is able
to establish itself for several generations - we
call it a "religion". Before that, we dismiss it as
a dangerous threat to "real" religion.

Scientology, Rev. Sun Myung Moon's
Unification Church are considered as cults.
Judaism and Christianity as religions.

Early Christianity was considered as a cult by both Jews
and Romans. Islam was long considered as a cult by
medieval Christians and of course Protestant groups from
Baptists to Quakers were considered cults by other
Christians. Even Buddhism was once considered a cult.

Mr Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel
"Tom Jones" declares, "When I mention religion, I mean the
Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but
the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant
religion, but the Church of England".

Most people are like Mr Thwackum: when they mention religion,
they have their own in mind.

Whatever our religious beliefs may be, we usually learn them
from other people through socialization into a particular
faith. The religious convictions that anyone holds are
influenced by the historical and social context in which
that person happens to live.

Someone born in ancient Rome would probably have believed
that Jupiter was the father of the gods, at any rate, he or
she would certainly not have been a Southern Baptist or a
Hindu. Similarly if your parents are Roman Catholic you
are/were probably Roman Catholic. If they are Mormon, you
are/were Mormon. And so on.

There are a large number of religions, many of whose
members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and
that all others are misguided, superstitions, even wicked.

However, regardless of whether or not a supernatural power
exists, religion, like any other institution, has social
characteristics and pros and cons that reflect the
cultural concerns of the societies in which they arise.

Dear Altrav,

«Anyway, I have found that it is much more appropriate to remove the word RELIGION and replace it with CULT.»

Well the English language can be ambiguous:
Are you referring to the actual phenomena of religion, or to the multitude of groups and organisations that claim (rightly or wrongly) to promote it?

A group which wrongly claims to promote [the phenomena of] religion, probably deserves the name "cult", though I am yet to find such a group whose members agree to be called so.

Yuyutsu,

I'm sorry, but I do not think I am versed enough or as much as I would like to be on the subject of religion.
My comments are based on MY personal experiences, observations, education and eventual inquisitiveness on the subject.
However I do not reckognise an institution, or in my description, a CULT, that preaches harm and exclusivity and only offers inclusivity under the threat of death, and actively engages in the promotion and activity of killing those who reject them or attempt to leave.
A classic example of a sick mind who believed in the saying; "If your not with me, you must be against me".
Leaving no room for those who really didn't give a toss, one way or another.
We must keep in mind the origins of, let's say, the Muslim faith.
It was started by a war mongering mental retard by threatening his troops to fight, or else.
The Muslim faith was formed based on violence and evil intentions, driven by evil malcontents, so if one is to regard this as a religion, I disagree where-as I in turn, will call it for what it is; A CULT!

Faith is usually making yourself believe what you deeply suspect is not true.

For example, if you can accept that over a thousand years BC, under instruction from God a tribe of Jews crossed the ocean in a wooden submarine to become the ancestors of the American Indians and also that people live on every other planet (plus the moon and the sun) then congratulations - you're a member of a church with $100billion in cash reserves and is far richer than the Catholic Church.
Scientology is trying hard to match them on the craziness scale but will never be as wealthy.

Some people certainly profit from the faith of others but faith alone can be as effective as writing a letter to Santa.

Dear Altrav,

Let us not get bogged down by the dual meaning of the word "religion":

There is the actual, factual phenomena of religion, roughly meaning that some actions/methods/thoughts bring their practitioners closer to God; then there are various groups and organisations that promote and support such actions/methods/thoughts among their members. Confusingly, such organisations are also called "religions" in English.

Just because a group claims to promote and support religion, and just because people and/or authorities tend to believe them, does not mean that they actually do. Your claims against Islam, so are Rache's claims against Scientology, amount to saying that Islam and Scientology are not religions, for how could such despicable actions possibly lead one closer to God?!

Islam has several sects, so in my personal view, while its mainstream sects are likely not to be religions (or perhaps to no longer be religions, if once they were), sects like the Sufis and Ahmaddiyyans probably are religions. Scientology is not.

Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your views, but, I cannot accept a group who actively promote the killing of anyone, without justification.
And especially because you are not of their beliefs, nor do you want to be, is not what, "I" regard as a religion.
So for me, CULT is the true description of such evil and anti-social people or groups.

Dear Altrav,

Fair enough, such groups that promote murder are not religions and may be called cults. While they may be speaking of God, they do not help their followers to come closer to God - on the contrary, they take them away from God!

All I said is that within the broad church that is called "Islam", there are some sects, such as the Sufis and Ahmaddiyyans, which do not call for murder and seem to be genuine religions.

rache, What you are referring to is irrational."Faith is usually making yourself believe what you deeply suspect is not true." That can hardly be a belief, if you do not believe it.

For me the Universe is a unified organism with a single originator. Superimposed into this chemistry is a spiritual dimension currently only found in humanity, with the ability to evaluate abstract ideas and create thing humans can conceive and believe can exist. Like the computer you are writing on at the moment, artificial intelligence, flight, space exploration etc. Daniel made the observation 2,600 ago that in the latter days knowledge will increase exponentially. The human mind not only has the innate desire to know where we came from but where are we heading. The human mind reflects the nature of the divine, however there are those that want to control, destroy and kill, whose minds are of the evil. This is the reason we have set up law and social order.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ravi+zacharias+youtube&cvid=be888071e4404d44ac16447b65fa0c28&pglt=803&PC=U531&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dravi%2bzacharias%2byoutube%26cvid%3dbe888071e4404d44ac16447b65fa0c28%26pglt%3d803%26FORM%3dANNTA1%26PC%3dU531&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=27E0DC72D352D3DB229E27E0DC72D352D3DB229E&FORM=WRVORC

Emile Durkheim was one of the earliest sociologists
to study religion in a systematic way. What seemed
to impress him was that religion was universal in
human society. He wanted to know why this was so.
His answer was that religion had a vital function in
maintaining the social system as a whole.

Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural. He pointed out that,
whatever their source, the rituals enacted in any
religion enhance the solidarity of the community
as well as its faith.

Religious rituals such as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings,
Sabbath services, Christian mass, and funerals. Rituals
like these serve to bring people together; to remind
them of their common group membership; to re-affirm
their traditional values; to maintain prohibitions and
taboos, to offer comfort in times of crisis, and, in
general, to help transmit the cultural heritage from
one generation to the next.

In fact, Durkheim argued, shared religious beliefs and
the rituals that go with them are so important that
every society needs a religion, or at least some belief
system that serves the same functions.

The cause of much of the social disorder in modern
societies he contended, is that "the old gods are growing
old and are already dead, and others are not yet born".

In other words people no longer believe deeply in
traditional religion, but they have found no satisfying
substitute. Lacking commitment to a shared belief system,
people tend to pursue their private interests without
regard for their fellows.

I've known a few people who all of their lives did not follow
a set religion yet on their death beds they asked for a
priest. Which still goes to show - that you're not going to
hedge your bets on your death bed - so to speak.

Foxy,

In relation to what Durkheim was studying, perhaps it helps to remember that, as someone said, explanation is where the mind finds rest. That might give an indication as to why some people get very upset when their explanations, what they take for granted, are questioned. Well, pretty much all of us actually :)

Love,

Joe

Hi Joe,

I think it's important to talk things out. Talking is
important because some of our ideas may need modification -
based on what we learn, while other ideas may get re-inforced.
And we may even realize some of our presuppositions were flat
out wrong. We need better answers, more convincing facts.
More passion.

Conversation is key - hopefully that's how we learn and
grow.

Dear Contributors,

I posted the first entry in this thread but went to the hospital before there were any responses. I had hoped the discussion would be on faith. Unfortunately some of the posters expressed the view that their brand of mumbo jumbo is somehow superior to other people's brand of mumbo jumbo. Apparently the mumbo jumbo most people follow is that of their parents. It is probably wise to accept one's parent's mumbo jumbo. I would have had far fewer arguments with my parents had I just accepted their religion. Of course, arguments with my parents probably contributed greatly to my development. If you can argue with those you love, you can argue with anybody.

I don't think Christianity is the worst religion. It has done the most harm because it is the biggest. If Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism or Judaism had been the biggest one of them would probably have done the most damage.

I questioned and am still questioning. Some answers are to be found in philosophy. One philosophical observation is that most things are beyond our control. What we can control is our feelings and beliefs about the things that happen.

Dear David F.,

I hope that you are well.

Welcome back.

We go from moment to moment worried about one thing
or another. Sometimes these worries manifest
themselves into highly stressful situations -
not only mental issues but physical problems as well.
I find that having faith is the pathway to solutions.

My faith has gotten me through some difficult times.
Faith is the core of a persistent heart, of never
giving up just because you've found some set backs.
My parents taught me that. So I think that having
faith is important. Our strength comes from faith -
whether its faith in God or in something else.

It's easy to allow stress, anxiety, and fear to ruin our
lives. Having faith - gives us the strength to keep
going.

david f,

you suggest that Christianity has done the MOST damage.
I vehemently disagree.
I in fact found that the Muslim and Jewish "religion", to be evil and overbearing and anything but, what "I" would call or even consider a religion.
My understanding about the purpose or function of a religion, (faith), is that it is a welcoming and inclusive, loving entity, but with certain rules of conduct.
For the Muslims and the Jews, (to name but two), they promote a doctrine of almost military subservience, and total dominance of the people.
The kind of words and attitude of someone who lacks compassion, love, respect, and inclusivity of the very people they seek to attract or appeal to.
Although it's not unusual, for women to stay with partners who beat them up and are forever putting them down, so I suppose being part of a CULT with similar ideologies must come naturally.
If that is the case, then I say let them be and make sure that we don't get infected with their vile, degenerate, anti-social, secular and narrow minded preaching/grooming.
Before anyone even thinks about accusing me of being anything but truthful, look up the appropriate disgraceful so called "holy books" of these cults, and all will be revealed.
I didn't make this stuff up, they did, I'm just relating it.
Anyone who considers these evil self centered animals beliefs as religions is seriously twisted and must have issues themselves.

Foxy,

your flowery, version of faith is obviously your version of faith.
Faith does nothing for someone, it is intangible, it is a personal and spiritual creation within the minds of those who actually believe that having faith will actually translate into some form of epiphany from some spiritual entity, thereby guiding them through whatever problem they feel they are having to deal with.
And as for your belief that we need to have more conversations, well I'm not going to say what should be said about that, as a side I will remind you that, that's all everyone is doing, is talking.
No one has ever come up with workable solutions, and they never will, because of personal agenda and greed and averace, to name but three human failings that are part and parcel of ALL govt and institutional decision making.
So the moral of the story is; enough of the damn conversations, everyone just shut up, we all know what needs to be done in every situation, so shut up and just do it.
No more bloody talking, conversations and discussions, END OF!

Dear Foxy,

«Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural.»

Being a sociologist, Durkheim looked at the projection of religion on the social plane.

Then he found whatever he found regarding the social effects of religion and, not surprisingly, observed nothing supernatural about them.

But Durkheim never looked at religion itself - only at its reflection on the social realm; and of course, there was nothing supernatural about that reflection.

«His answer was that religion had a vital function in
maintaining the social system as a whole.»

Durkheim confused between the actual function of religion and one of its side-effects.
Another side-effect of religion is that society as a whole does not evolve in the long term, because those individual souls who evolve through religion, no longer find an interest in the world, so they do not return to it, leaving it behind and allowing it to fall.

ALTRAV,

I can only speak on my own behalf. Same as you.
Neither of us can speak on behalf of anyone else.
We are both entitled to our opinions. It does not
make you right however, or me wrong. Each of us
is different and we view things differently.

Relationships are more important than scoring wins
in arguments. Arguments come and go, but relationships
need to last, especially close relationships we care about.
Therefore I believe that talking is important - we need
to talk so we don't grow far apart from the people we
care about. So that we begin to
understand things from another's perspective.

You can't be that selfish and egotistical that you feel
only you have all the answers and that only your "truth"
counts. If that's your attitude - you'll end up
dying in your own arms - all alone.

That would be sad.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Durkheim has had his critics. However I found his
theories interesting and thought they would help broaden
this discussion.

cont'd ...

Being a sociologist of course he looked at religion
in a systematic way - not an emotional way.
And its effects on society and he tried to explain why
it was a universal concept.

His explanations make sense.

Dear Foxy,

«Being a sociologist of course he looked at religion
in a systematic way - not an emotional way.»

But Durkheim did not look at religion at all, systematically or otherwise, emotionally or otherwise.
What he looked at are THE EFFECTS OF RELIGION ON SOCIETY.

For example, the moon affects the ocean-tides on earth,
but studying the tides is not the study of the moon itself.
An oceanographer is not a researcher of the moon.
And the moon is not up there for the purpose of controlling earth's ocean-tides.

«and he tried to explain why
it was a universal concept.»

Religion is not a concept, but an actual and essential phenomena.
Religion existed long before the concept of "religion" was recognised and talked about.
In fact, religion existed long before human speech and human society began.
A systematic study of religion could reveal this.
A study that limits itself only to the period since the formation of human society, is not systematic.

.

To all and sundry,

.

It appears that the notions of faith, religion and superstition are closely intertwined.
.

David posted the OED definitions of “faith” when he created this thread, the second sense of which is :

• « strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof »

Whereas, the OED indicates the second sense of “religion” as :

• « A particular system of faith and worship »

And the definition of “superstition” as :

• « Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings »
.

In “Of the Nature of the Gods”, Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), considered to be a model of Classic Latin, had this to say :

« … for our ancestors, as well as the philosophers, have separated superstition from religion. They have prayed whole days and sacrificed, that their children might survive them (ut superstites essent,) were called superstitious, which word became afterwards more general; but they who diligently perused, and, as we may say, read or practised over again, all the duties relating to the worship of the Gods, were called religiosi, religious, from relegendo “reading over again, or practising;” as elegantes, elegant, ex eligendo, “from choosing, making a good choice;” diligentes, diligent, ex diligendo, “from attending on what we love;” intelligentes, intelligent, from understanding, for the signification is derived in the same manner. Thus are the words superstitious and religious understood; the one being a term of reproach, the other of commendation. » [The treatises of M.T. Cicero On the nature of the gods, …/literally translated … by C.D. Yonge. (Bohn’s classical library) 1853, book 2, section 28, page 71].
.

Based on my personal observations of human behaviour, I note that religion has an effect on the people who practise it regularly similar to that of a drug :

• a little tranquillises; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises and destroys

Like alcohol and other substances, faith, religion, and superstition should be exercised with moderation. Happily, this seems to be the case, generally speaking, in Australia.

.

What makes a person who has been wronged by an enemy forgive their enemy, or one who has murdered a family member, forgive? They do not call for equal justice. Repentance and forgiveness are religious concepts found in Christianity which cannot be by natural reason, logical. Most would want justice which means equal revenge.

If you have worked with prisoners who who have had face to face interviews with those they have wronged, the intent is to bring about repentance and forgiveness. Chaplains working in this area can tell some amazing stories of reconciliation. If you have faith in this system it will bring rewards.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religion is a universal social institution. It takes
a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems. They may practice solitary
meditation, fenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.

Some form of religion has existed in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and practices are
so ancient that they can be traced into prehistory.
Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time,
had some concept of a supernatural realm that lay
beyond everyday reality.

Emile Durkheim, one fo the first sociologists to study
religion, pointed out that a single feature is common to
all religions - and that is - a sharp distinction between
the sacred and the profane.

The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the
supernatural rather than the ordinary world, as such it
inspires awe, reverence, and deep respect.

Anything can be considered sacred - a god, a rock, the
moon, a king, a symbol such as a cross. On the other hand,
the profane is anything that is regarded as part of the
ordinary rather than the supernatural world.

As such it may be considered familiar, mundane, even
corrupting. Of course the the profane too may be embodied
by a rock, the moon, a king, or a symbol.

Something becomes either sacred or profane when it is
socially defined as such by a community of believers.

Durkheim also observed that a religious community always
approaches the sacred through a ritual - a formal
stylized procedure such as prayer, incantation, or
ceremonial cleansing.

Ritual is a necessary part of religion because the sacred
has extraordinary and even dangerous qualities and must be
approached in a carefully prescribed reverential manner.

We can then say that religion is a system of communally
shared beliefs and rituals that are orientated towards
some sacred, supernatural realm. The phenomenon is of
of such universal social importance that it has long been
and remains a major focus of sociological interest.

I thought I was doing a good thing in starting this thread. Now, I'm not sure I was. Some of the comments make me sick at heart. Some of the comments make me hopeful. Possibly the most interesting was that of Yuyutsu in remarking that Hindus see hope as a weakness. There's a lesson in that. What we think are vices and virtues are merely what we have been conditioned by the tradition that we are part to regard as a vice or a virtue. I was taught to regard faith as a virtue. I now think of it as a vice. Maybe it is neither but something useful in certain circumstances and not useful in other circumstances. That comment helped me think.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I stated earlier - to me personally I
consider faith as being important. Whether its
faith in God or in something else.

My parents taught me that having faith is so
important in life. Of never giving up - just
because you've found some set backs. Have faith
and persist - and you will succeed. That's been
my motto for survival in this world. It may not
work for everybody - it works for me.

David f,

Maybe Hindus consider hope a sign of weakness because hope has failed so many of them for so long. In any event, hoping is really a totally lost cause, the last resort of the hopeless and the helpless, as only action can produce results, not wishing and hoping - no matter who to, or how fervently.

Alternatively, casual observation would suggest that many Chinese are obsessional believers in hope, if their gambling habits are any indication. Belief in Lady Luck, and appealing to such mystical apparitions who may have influence with Her may also be indicative of 'last resort' inclinations of the bereft, the hopeless.

Generally, some of the posts on this thread make me wonder if some may not in fact have seen '2001 A Space Odyssey' and believed in the final magical portrayal of an infant as being the 'real deal'. The magic of imagery. What, one may wonder, may be the impact on receptive minds of the current computer graphics avalanche dominating so much alternative Sci-fi dominating the cine-sphere. Whatever happened to genuine movie magic, real life, real drama, real human trial and tribulation?

Science, invention and innovation have thus far contributed little to the unraveling of the depths and complexity of the human psyche, and as long as the mystery of 'thought' remains, so will doubt and uncertainty remain - as fertile ground for suggestion and superstition. Of course, the mechanics of brain function may now be portrayed, but even the essence of 'life' in one single human or animal cell remains, and may always remain, inexplicable - as also mitosis, meiosis, and the overall wonder of reproduction.

Of contemplation of Earth, Solar System, Galaxy and Universe, the existence of 'Life' is surely the greatest mystery, the greatest wonder, and the greatest source of potential and of uncertainty.

In faith, one need only be thankful for the opportunity to relate to others, to strive to succeed, and to do no harm.

Dear Saltpetre,

You've raised some interesting thoughts.

For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less
and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and
the nature of morality - science is utterly silent
and, by its very nature, always will be.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond
the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

I used to think that I was not religious, and perhaps
I was not. I was raised as a Roman Catholic. My grandmother
was a Russian Orthodox Eastern Rites Christian.

I didn't like what organised religion had done to the world.
I still do not. But I have come to see, however, that true
religion is internal, not external. What some have done in
the name of religion - does not make religion as a mystical
phenomenon invalid.

Organized religions have in many cases become as calcified
as other institutions that form the structure of our modern
world. Our religious institutions have far too often
become handmaidens of the status quo, while the genuine
religious is anything but that.

Organized religious institutions will have to step up - or
they will wither away. For the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Dear Foxy,

I completely agree with your last post (Thursday, 30 July 2020 6:16:49 PM).

Going back:

«Religion is a universal social institution.»

Nope. Religion influences society just as it influences everything else, but this is not its purpose, just as it is not the moon's purpose to influence ocean-tides.

«Even the primitive Neanderthal people of that time,
had some concept of a supernatural realm that lay
beyond everyday reality.»

Quite likely, but even if they did not, this does not mean that they had no religion.

«a single feature is common to
all religions - and that is - a sharp distinction between
the sacred and the profane.»

There are rare exceptions: distinction between the sacred and the profane can be a useful religious technique/method, but it is not mandatory, not ALL religions must use it.

«The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the
supernatural rather than the ordinary world, as such it
inspires awe, reverence, and deep respect.»

How about the Christian communion-chalice?
I think you would agree that it is not supernatural.
But it is considered sacred and inspires reverence and deep respect for what it represents.

«a religious community always
approaches the sacred through a ritual - a formal
stylized procedure such as prayer, incantation, or
ceremonial cleansing.»

I would just change that "always" to an "often".

«Ritual is a necessary part of religion»

Again, I would qualify this: ritual can be a useful religious technique/method, but it is not mandatory for ALL religions to use it.

«We can then say that religion is a system of communally
shared beliefs»

As above, belief too can be a useful religious technique/method, but is not mandatory.

«The phenomenon is of
of such universal social importance»

It is, also, but its ultimate importance goes way further than its social effects.

Foxy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "people have become genuinely religious in spite of them".
My understanding and observations of religion today, is that fewer and fewer are practicing it.
I wonder if it is because of education or simply laziness or some other social factors at play.
My understanding is that education is the leading reason for mass departure from religion because too many people are finding out things that are preached in such holy books as the bible to be untrue and socially un-acceptable to this promiscuous and entitled generation.
I don't feel that people have faith in very much any more.
We seem to be living amongst very short term thinkers, such as believing that they do not expect to stay in the same job for too long either by personal choice or the job situation.
Faith in marriage is no longer what it was, and respect for the vows and the institution of marriage have been, in the past, and as such are headed for complete irrelevance, as we see today's society choosing to "live in sin", than commit to a long term full 'end of life' commitment with each other.
I can't think of anything people of today have faith in, our govt's, our job's and future, our security, both locally and internationally?
The list is endless.
If someone can give me one or more examples of what we are showing faith in apart from religion, which I believe is loosing followers faster than ever anyway.

Dear Saltpetre,

«Maybe Hindus consider hope a sign of weakness because hope has failed so many of them for so long.»

While India experienced some setbacks and foreign invasions in the last millennium, the scriptures that explain why hope is not a good thing, date longer before that.

«In any event, hoping is really a totally lost cause, the last resort of the hopeless and the helpless, as only action can produce results, not wishing and hoping - no matter who to, or how fervently.»

Correct, one only has control over their actions, not over their results.

Also, hope is closely related to desire.
One hopes because they are invested in having their desires fulfilled, thus their happiness and contentment are conditional and temporary.

Dear Altrav,

ORGANISED religion is currently on the decline as people no longer consider churches and the like as true representatives of religion. I can't find evidence that religion itself is declining.

«If someone can give me one or more examples of what we are showing faith in apart from religion, which I believe is loosing followers faster than ever anyway.»

Science? Doctors?

Dear Foxy,

I have to agree with everything in your last post.
It all makes so much sense.
For myself, I continue to be both amazed and uncertain.

When I consider the odds against the possibility of our Earth and its capacity to support life, and our Moon being so instrumental in life being able to make the transit from the sea to the land, the very odds against the establishment of the components fundamental to the formation of amino acids and then proteins in the 'primordial soup', and the very formation of that 'soup' in the first instance, and then 'life', single-celled accumulations of amino acids and protein, and, most important of all, a spark, an evolution, an essence beyond the mere organic, of 'life', powering living, reproducing life-forms, in massive numbers and diversity.

Supposedly, from what we are told, if two of these single-celled critters collided with one-another, one would normally consume the other.
However, we are told that two particular ones of these, different from one-another, joined to form the first multi-celled life-form, and from which all subsequent 'life' has arisen. The Alpha, the prototype, to be found at the foundation of 'all' currently existing life on Earth.

Why only one successful 'union', and why so successful that life persisted, survived, and was able to evolve into all we have and all we are?

So many coincidences, so many questions.
Can all this have been by pure chance?
Or, has some careful 'tweaking' been essential along the way?
What an amazing and near-incredible scenario.

I do not need to look beyond Earth, and the night sky, to suspect this astonishing life experiment could not be purely accidental.
Why are we? A purpose?
I am satisfied to be, and to be constantly amazed, and incredibly thankful for the privilege.
But, I do fear 'Man's' insatiability and potential to destroy it all.
The 'mind' is not the pinnacle, but merely 'the key'.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You once again for your thoughts.

I believe that a life without heart is a life without
life force. The psyche, as well as the body needs both
heart and brain in order to survive. Like Chinese women
who bound their feet and then could no longer walk freely
some of us have bound our hearts and therefore have
stunted our growth as moral beings.

I have found that life without a conscious awareness of
God was difficult. I'm probably not very religious.

I won't say any more because I don't want to be ridiculed.
But again - Thank You.

Dear Yuyutsu and ALTRAV,

I really have nothing more to add to this discussion.
I think people's beliefs that do not do harm to others
should be respected. Its's personal.

I agree with ALTRAV that unless organized religions
do step up to the plate - they will whither away.
Because people are seeking answers. People need hope.
It encourages them to act as though there is more to life
than meets the eye. We can but live and hope that
someone listens to them.

.

Dear david f.,

.

You wrote :

« … most interesting was … Yuyutsu … remarking that Hindus see hope as a weakness »
.

Yuyutsu probably has good reason for saying that, though I understand that there are many different schools of Hindu philosophy just as there are in Western philosophy and not much consensus among any of them.

Nevertheless, a common concept of many Hindu philosophers seems to be “the liberation of the soul through detachment … by giving up desires, longing, and possessiveness one attains the holy state of peace”.

Krishna is quoted as having said “the ancient way of action is for liberation. The enlightened can see action in inaction and inaction in action. Independent action is without hope, possession, and envy”.

The terms “hope” and “desire” are considered by many to be synonymous. Hindu philosophers almost invariably refer to “desire” rather than “hope”.

Perhaps they see “desire” as morally negative as compared to “hope” which has a distinctively optimistic connotation.

The problem with that philosophy, of course, is how you define what is desirable compared to what is necessary – which, in turn, depends on what you consider to be your duty, objective in life, perhaps your raison d’être. Individuals usually play a particular role in society with which they interact. They are not necessarily alone in defining their desires and needs – which may be determined in part or in total by society, their environment or particular circumstances.

Needs and desires may be different, coincide, or possibly overlap with each other. They may be more or less compatible or more or less antagonistic.
.

Western philosophers are less inclined to consider “desire” and “hope” as strictly synonymous. Nor do they see “hope” as necessarily optimistic.

I understand their reasoning. However, I tend to agree with Theocritus, the Ancient Greek (3rd century BC) poet who notably declared that “while there’s life there’s hope”.

There is an excellent article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Western philosophy of “hope” that you might like to read. Here is the link :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hope/#Oth

.

Posted by david f, Thursday, 30 July 2020 11:26:50 AM

What we think are vices and virtues are merely what we have been conditioned by the tradition that we are part to regard as a vice or a virtue. I was taught to regard faith as a virtue. I now think of it as a vice. Maybe it is neither but something useful in certain circumstances and not useful in other circumstances. That comment helped me think.

Answer-

For me that's one reason why culture is important- because it creates our reality. Who ever "our" is. Cultural Relativism. Philosopher of Science and Existentialist- Paul Feyerabend is interesting here even though his views are of a different subject area. You can use logic to a point- at some point faith (in a broad sense) seems to be all that matters. Life has no meaning but what you give it- this is culture. It's fragile and precious but it's what binds us together- the culture within a family or a small community is different from the large scale social structures of nations or the world

Dear Banjo,

«Krishna is quoted as having said “the ancient way of action is for liberation. The enlightened can see action in inaction and inaction in action. Independent action is without hope, possession, and envy”.»

Not a straight quote, but a combination from Chapter 4 of the Bhagavad-Gita, verses 18,21,22:

4.18. The wise who sees inaction in action and action in inaction, he is whole and has fulfilled everything there is to be accomplished.
4.21. The one who mastered his mind and body, without hoping and having renounced possessiveness, performing just what is needed to preserve their body, does not incur sin.
4.22. Whatever comes he is content, having grown past dualities and envy, equanimous in success and failure, though engaged in action, that action does not bind him.

(apologies for any translation errors I might have committed, I do not consider myself a sufficiently qualified authority)

«The terms “hope” and “desire” are considered by many to be synonymous»

Very similar, only with subtle differences, "hope" is more passive than "desire".

«Perhaps they see “desire” as morally negative as compared to “hope” which has a distinctively optimistic connotation.»

Neither is immoral on its own, but being more active, desire is more likely to lead to immoral actions than "hope", which is rather passive.

«The problem with that philosophy, of course, is how you define what is desirable compared to what is necessary – which, in turn, depends on what you consider to be your duty, objective in life, perhaps your raison d’être.»

Over years of practice, one can develop the sensitivity to detect where (within their mind) their urges originate from on a case-by-case basis. Until then, you should just do your best, and where possible, consult scripture and teachers.

«Needs and desires may be different, coincide, or possibly overlap with each other.»

Very true. Do your best to fulfill your duties, keeping in mind that you could sometimes be in error. If you do so with humility, devotion, a sense of service and without expecting personal gain, no sin will be incurred.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for those precisions. Apparently, I was not too far off, but it is better to have the correct text.

Your explanations are much appreciated.

.