sure - how about the multi-universe objection to the argument by design - in no way at all could one consider the multi universe a fact, although there are reasonable arguments both for an against, no one can say by reason alone that the multi-universe "is". It is just a truth some believe based on faith in science's ability to answer these types of questions.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Do you accept as valid any and every claim you cannot invalidate? — tim wood

No. I can only accept as valid what I validate.

And I might as well ask what you mean by "valid." — tim wood

By valid I mean reasonable.

If God isn't a matter of faith, what is it? Next there's the notion of knowledge. In respect of faith, "knowledge" needs a careful definition or qualification. Give it a try? — tim wood

Well, the obvious answer - although I suppose not that obvious - is ‘gnosis’. The handy Wikipedia entry says ‘Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (γνῶσις, gnōsis, f.).[1] The term is used in various Hellenistic religions and philosophies.[2][3] It is best known from Gnosticism, where it signifies a knowledge or insight into humanity’s real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence.' (It has cognates in Indian languages, notably jñāna - the 'jñ- is the same root as the 'gn-' in gnosis.)

My early search for understanding centred around the experience of spiritual enlightenment or illumination, having read about it in the books of my youth. Underlying that was a belief in the importance of first-hand spiritual experience, as distinct from 'mere belief'. So there is the germ of the distinction between knowledge and faith. Through that, Eastern spirituality came to be seen as a way to attain or reach such modes of experience through which you could arrive at or at least get a glimpse of the higher truths of spirituality, in other words, attain some form of gnosis. I was initiated into meditation, read many spiritual books, and majored in comparative religion. I discovered the idea of the philosophia perennis - the idea of there being a perennial philosophical tradition, of which the various faith traditions are manifestations. There are certainly grounds to criticize this idea, but one thing it did do, was to allow me to re-appraise Christianity from a different interpretive framework.

I formed the view that the Christian tradition had indeed included an important element of illumination or enlightenment, but that this element had been suppressed in favour of an approach which emphasised the supremacy of belief - pistis - over insight - gnosis. I learned about the Nag Hammadi scriptures, which was the discovery of a cache of lost gnostic documents in a clay pot in Egypt. Anyway, the picture that emerges from these discoveries, was that the early Christian period was an absolute ferment of competing doctrines and ideas. (People used to brawl in the street about The Nature of the Son!) Out of that emerged what was to become the orthodox view articulated in the Nicene Creed, which hammered out a basis of what every Christian was supposed to believe; that's why it's recited.

But I think amongst the gnostics, there was a vital element of insight that had become lost. (This is not to say by any stretch that all of the gnostics were virtuous, some gnostic sects were bizarre in the extreme, and besides, 'gnosticism' is not a doctrine, per se, but a different kind of spiritual orientation.)

But as the saying has it, 'history is written by the victors', and the mainstream -Tertullian, Iraneus, and others - won the day. And within that milieu, faith or pistis reigns supreme. Gnosticism is said to be deficient, because it's elitist, hates the world, and so on. All of these ideas were debated for millenia, but the core idea of spiritual illumination became lost. Well - not lost. But obtainable only on condition that you 'agree to the terms'- sign the contract and recite the dogma. See this review.

Anyway, by the time I discovered all of this, I had basically converted to Buddhism, although that said, many Christian cultural archetypes continue to resonate within me, and there are many Christian philosophers that I respect.

I'd modify "religion is the discipline" to religion is a discipline. And concede that in western culture, it's the main and often only choice. Apparently the ancient world was much concerned with which beliefs should be learned, and how, and wrote and studied much (much more than I was ever aware of) on the topic. — tim wood

I don't think It's a matter of which beliefs ought to be learned, but a matter of learning to have faith. That's what religion teaches us, to have faith. Notice how the Bible for example is not really involved in teaching you specific beliefs, it tells stories with morals, and describes how good wins out over evil. so we learn to have faith in good.

Now I think you and I agree that faith is an attitude towards action. But I think that it is fundamentally indifferent towards good or bad actions. That is to say that faith drives ambition, but ambition may be directed equally toward bad or good. So despite the fact that faith is a virtue, it is like many other virtues, like courage, which are means rather than ends themselves. And if a person with a character of many virtues is directed toward the wrong ends, those virtues become useful for carrying out bad acts. Therefore if faith is cultured, it must be cultured under the right conditions, or it could turn out to be bad instead of good. For example, when we have faith in beliefs which turn out to be wrong, the faith could have been a hindrance to us making proper actions.