I don't it "dismiss entirely", I just don't accept "reincarnation" is anything more than a bronze age fantasy without compelling reasons to do so. Btw, I completely agree with the rest of your post.

Fair enough.

To proceed we might benefit from consideration of the nature of faith. I first thought, form the title, that it must have been taking faith as a count noun – Christian faith, Islamic faith, and so on. That might explain how faith might be contrasted with religion.

But the use of "faith" being considered is not the count noun. And yet the OP does not seem to be about faith as an attitudinal state, propositional or otherwise.

Other folk seem to be able to write at length without such conceptual analysis.

Out of habit, I suppose, whenever "faith" is raised I assume "religious faith" is what is meant. I read the OP as arguing(?) for separating "religious faith" from religion (which I read as "collective religious faith"). Nothing novel in that. Many believers self-identify as "spiritual, not religious' (meaning, I guess, they'd rather not tithe or go to church early Sunday mornings or borher with a few more of Moses' "Commandments" during the rest of the week). So okay and then what? Seems more of sociological than a philosophical topic to me.

@Wayfarer, interesting read.

But it's very important to distinguish them, especially in this day and age, with its proliferation of media and entire artificial fantasy realms into which you can be consumed. There's billions of young adults spending all their time playing computer games. And being able to make sense of experience and differentiate the real from the unreal is a critical life skill. — Wayfarer

I fully agree. The scientific method seems to be our best tool to protect us against building a high credence level, from a faith based origin. Faith, defined as belief without any significant evidence is akin to fantasy imo. Carl Sagan, "I don't want to believe, I want to know." You would agree then, that if a persons personal relationship with the concept of 'faith,' has resulted in that person accepting the content of the bible, or the Quran etc, as literal truth and fact, despite the non-existence of supporting evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, then that shows the path from faith to religion is problematic.
I accept that there are less problematic/extreme stopping points on that path than the final stop of fundamentalism or religious powered terrorism, but none that I would personally consider desirable or secure.

On the contrary, the researcher Ian Stevenson conducted many investigations into alleged cases. He followed the same kind of methodology that would be used for missing persons cases, epidemiological evidence, and so on. It is of course true that almost all his work is dismissed or rejected by the scientific community, and it is also possible that he was mistaken or tendentious in his approach, but having read some of the literature, I think it is not feasible to declare that all of it was simply mistaken. There were many cases - hundreds, in fact - where the purported memories described by the subject children were then checked against documentary evidence including newspaper reports, birth and death notices, and many other sources. — Wayfarer

How does a question like 'well, why do so few (hundreds out of a population of 2.2 billion children today) children experience/report/document these past life experiences,' affect the credence level you currently assign to such proposals?
The fact that you accept that increasing the credibility level a person assigns, to a suggestion that does not meet a high standard of empirical evidence, can result in assigning high credence to something that may well prove to be pure fantasy. Why would you choose to assign any significant credence 'at this stage' to the work done by Stevenson?
I would assign more credence to Stevenson's findings than say, the claims coming from astrology circles but probably not more than I would assign to homeopathy, alien abductions, UFO sightings, near death experiences or the divinity of places like Lourdes and the divinity or existence of the true cross, the Turin shroud, the arc of the covenant or real fossilised, holy shit! (if Christ ever actually did one).

If reincarnation were true, why is there any doubt at all? Why would such a fundamental truth about our existence not be well known to all lifeforms, such as humans. Why can we not trace a disassembling human carcase and show that a certain concentration of detectable energy moves, from a dead body into another human embryo? foetus? 'greetin faced wean?'
If reincarnation is true, why was it easier to prove that the atom can be split?
I know that arguments from personal incredulity are not of much scientific value BUT this thread is about our personal musings, on the difference between faith and religion, so I would suggest that if Stevenson's anecdotal evidence is acceptable then so must my personal incredulity be.

BTW do you assign high credence to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance?
I am just curious based on:

I think there's a possible naturalistic explanation for past-life memories and re-birth. It is that humans bequeath future generations with the results of their actions in this life, and not only by way of what they leave in their will. They set in motion causes which continue to ripple outwards into the future. Those yet to be born are inheritors of these causal factors, just as we have inherited the consequences of our forbears' actions. Genetics is part of it, but only a part - as epigenetics shows, gene expression is a causal factor, and that relies on environmental influences. The only factor that is absent from the mainstream naturalist accounts of such a causal matrix is a subtle medium through which memories propogate. But it doesn't seem to great a stretch. — Wayfarer

You know, just a guess from my own long experience with Wayfarer, you're going to scare him off with patient and probing lines of questioning like you did Gnomon. Anyway, well done again. I wonder how Wayfarer will respond. I'll be taking notes of your exquisite couch-side manner Dr. Freud. :smirk:

I hope we are clear I am not here to learn English and if you can decipher the meanings, there is no need to pick up on these non-native speakers' grammatical errors. Unless, this forum is for only members who can speak English as their first language in which case I should be told so. — Raef Kandil

Good response to @180 Proof's snotty comment.

I hope we are clear I am not here to learn English and if you can decipher the meanings, there is no need to pick up on these non-native speakers' grammatical errors. Unless, this forum is for only members who can speak English as their first language in which case I should be told so. — Raef Kandil

Welcome abroad. I am a non-native speaker too and I also receive proofreading from other users oftentimes. I understand that you are not here to learn English but I recommend you the following web oage if you want to improve your grammar skills: Grammar Checker - QuillBot

Thank you kind sir! If his response is honest, and reflects how he truly perceives the world, then I can but read and ponder.
Like you, and probably most people here, we seek truth. The debates will continue for a long time yet.

The scientific method seems to be our best tool to protect us against building a high credence level, from a faith based origin. — universeness

I think that's mistaken, because scientific method is a method, it is not a creedal statement. Following that leads only to 'scientism', as there are innummerable matters requiring judgement that are out of scope for science.

Why would you choose to assign any significant credence 'at this stage' to the work done by Stevenson? — universeness

Stevenson really did build a large portfolio of researched cases, each of them comprising sometimes hundreds of cross-checked factual accounts - names, ages, incidents, locations, dates of birth and death, and the like. (See his Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.) He had a number of cases of children born with birth defects or markings that seemed consistent with accounts of accidents and injuries in their previous lives. One of his sceptical critics remarked that, if the same standards were applied to Stevenson as to any other researcher then he would have proven his case, but that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', a very useful goal-post shifting technique for sceptics.

BTW do you assign high credence to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance? — universeness

Something like morphic fields would provide at least a medium. Incidentally, it's worth noting that Stevenson never claimed to have proven the fact of re-incarnation. He simply said his research suggested it.

I think that's mistaken, because scientific method is a method, it is not a creedal statement. Following that leads only to 'scientism', as there are innummerable matters requiring judgement that are out of scope for science. — Wayfarer

I accept that is the view you hold, but I don't concur, which I accept, is of little consequence to you.
From wiki:
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
You won't be surprised to read that I wear that badge with pride. I do hold the opinion that the scientific standard of empirical evidence, is the final arbiter of all human posits. For me, it is the only means of increasing the credence level that I will assign to any proposal. I can make decisions and take actions, based on having a much lower level of credence, but that's just because I am faced with a time constraint or a situation where no more evidence/data is currently available.
I do not find 'scientism,' to be an insult or too narrow a domain. I realise and accept that many don't share my viewpoint.

Stevenson really did build a large portfolio of researched cases, each of them comprising sometimes hundreds of cross-checked factual accounts - names, ages, incidents, locations, dates of birth and death, and the like. (See his Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.) He had a number of cases of children born with birth defects or markings that seemed consistent with accounts of accidents and injuries in their previous lives. One of his sceptical critics remarked that, if the same standards were applied to Stevenson as to any other researcher then he would have proven his case, but that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', a very useful goal-post shifting technique for sceptics. — Wayfarer

Would you say that he has more data than the astrologers/UFO enthusiasts/near death experience investigators/telepathy claimers/telekinetic claimers/paranormal investigators/christians/islamists/theosophists/etc
Have any of these claimers/claims, garnished enough data equal to, or greater than, Stevenson's?
To the extent that the evidence satisfies your own personal standard, for raising your credence level, to the level that warrants you to exclaim, 'I am now convinced this is true!'
For me, my resounding answer is NO!
You did not answer my question. 2.2 billion children in the world today, why do so few report knowledge of past lives?

You are using a sledge hammer in your attempt to sever religion and faith.

The concept of 'faith', empty of content, is empty.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. — universeness

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall. The strength of the scientific method lies in its ability to get criticized and grow. Stevenson's evidence is not decisive, but it can crack open new doors. Did you ever wonder if our senses are strong enough or we are smart enough to discover God's existence? If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself?

The concept of 'faith', empty of content, is empty. — Fooloso4

No, it is not but I am not giving it away that easily because I don't want to impose my hard-earned concept of God over everyone's else. Faith is not that easy, it requires deep self exploration and effort. I can only point you to it but you are the one who has to travel. Else, I will be promoting a new religion and I am anti-religion. I, and I would claim God, want people to worship God with their own free will. Having a bunch of slaves worshipping the only one true image of God is only ugly and have led to many problems in the past.

Can there be faith without it being faith in something?

I don't want to impose my hard-earned concept of God over everyone's else. — Raef Kandil

So, you are talking about faith in some concept you call God, who presumably is not just a concept.

I, and I would claim God, want people to worship God with their own free will. — Raef Kandil

What does what you want and what you claim God wants have to do with anyone else's faith? What if someone's faith is to surrender their will to the will of God? That free will is what separates us from God and leads us astray? That to be faithful is to be obedient? And further, that we can know what God wants of us through religion?

Or, what if one has faith that God is a deceiver? That whatever God wants is evil? That one freely gives his will to the opposite of whatever God wills?

It appears that faith is an empty concept after all. One that can be filled however one wishes.

One that can be filled however one wishes. — Fooloso4

Good point. As I wrote before it seems that there is nothing that can't be justified by an appeal to faith.

So, you are talking about faith in some concept you call God, who presumably is not just a concept. — Fooloso4

The concept of God is a very broad concept. Everyone captures a very small portion of it. Not through our five senses through our hearts.

Or, what if one has faith that God is a deceiver? — Fooloso4

That is a start. I used to think the same thing and I talked it through with him. He has a very solid logic and a character that would bring you along his way wherever you go.

It appears that faith is an empty concept after all. One that can be filled however one wishes. — Fooloso4

Not really. If you can't understand a human fully. Can you understand God fully? You can't understand God with your senses, they would lead you astray. You can only talk to Him through your heart. You might even mistake Him for your own voice. That is okay. Don't rush it. It will come to you. Sooner or later, you would start to distinguish your voice from His voice. And you would wonder why you haven't been able to tell them apart all along. The only thing that can bring you closer to Him is honesty and sincerity. The fakeness of religion would take you away from Him. He loves you. He accepts you as you are.

I used to think the same thing and I talked it through with him. — Raef Kandil

Well if you have talked through it with him that settles the matter. What then are you doing here? Proselytizing? Surely no one here can tell you anything more than you get directly. What you go on to say it sure seems like it.

Well if you have talked through it with him that settles the matter. What then are you doing here? Proselytizing? Surely no one here can tell you anything more than you get directly. What you go on to say it sure seems like it. — Fooloso4

People have this concept that a person with faith has no doubts. On the contrary, a person with faith is the one who is most full of doubts. But, he is honest about them. He has travelled through his big piles of doubts to achieve tiny portions of faith. People see it like sunshine because they haven't done their homework. When prophet Mohamed first became a prophet he had doubts that he lost his mind. He even wanted to commit suicide! But this was everybody's best version of the truth. It is in no way the full truth.

Omnism is the process accepting all religions as true religions. I believe this is the case. But, they are just different tiny glimpses of God. I don't recommend omnism if it is just another religion going through big piles of text and applying the scientific method. It is too dry. Omnism will only work if it is driven by the heart and faith.

Would you say that he has more data than the astrologers... — universeness

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible.

Sounds like a new religion to me! Because this is what all religions would say before their downfall — Raef Kandil

Do scientists suggest that science has omni powers? Does science posit miracles? Does science propose that only a single book holds the truth or to better mimic your nonsense comparison with religion, do biologists claim that one of their books, is the only book of the word and the truth and the light of the science god, and the physicists claim that NO, that's not true, it's one of their books that contains the truth, the word and the light, as it was dictated to Carl Sagan (blessings and peace be upon him) directly, by the science god? Do scientists threaten non-scientists with eternal hell for not worshipping science? Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can?
Does science posit a law of physics that can demonstrate the existence of heaven or demons or angels?
Did a scientist die for your sins and then come back to life 3 days later?
Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo:

If God wanted to be discovered, wouldn't it just have been easier to just show himself? — Raef Kandil

Yeah, divine hiddenness does suggest god does not exist. That idea has been around for quite a while.

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible. — Wayfarer

From the list I offered you, I predicted to myself that you would choose to mention astrology only, in your response and that's exactly what you did. Was that because it is the most ridiculed proposal of reality from the list?
Do you think religion has more evidence of it's claims than Mr Stevenson does?
Do you think all of the religious evidence in existence PROVES that religious claims are intelligible?
If you do (which is perfectly fine of course,) then I am more interested, in how this affects the credence level, that you personally assign to religious claims, and/or the claims of Stevenson.
It seems you have studied the evidence Stevenson produced more than I.
So, I am only questioning your personal standard of evidence.
I would suggest that the final arbiter of all human posits is empirical evidence, scientific scrutiny and scepticism. I think evidence like Stevenson's remains completely anecdotal and we already know that witness testimony is at best unreliable. So I think such evidence, just does not measure up to assigning a high credence level to something as pivotal (if it were true) as reincarnation.
Even if you can justify applying the very minor label of 'intelligible,' to the proposal that reincarnation is real, that label hardly progresses the proposal towards becoming a law of physics.

Let me rephrase the question: Since you talk directly to God what do you hope to gain from talking to us? Do you hope that we may allay your doubts?

To the contrary. You say about your god:

He has a very solid logic and a character that would bring you along his way wherever you go. — Raef Kandil

and:

The only thing that can bring you closer to Him is honesty and sincerity. — Raef Kandil

So, once again, it seems you are proselytizing. It is not about the distinction between faith and religion, it is about faith in your god, the god who "has a very solid logic", a god who will "bring you along his way" "His way." The way of God. To be brought "closer to him" in order to be brought along the way is, by its very definition, religion. Rather than sever faith and religion you join them. Are you trying to fool us or have you fooled yourself?

Yeah, science the religion! Hallelujah brother, your logic is obviously a gift from your god :halo: — universeness

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams.

So, once again, it seems you are proselytizing. It is not about the distinction between faith and religion, it is about faith in your god, the god who "has a very solid logic", a god who will "bring you along his way" "His way." The way of God. To be brought "closer to him" in order to be brought along the way is, by its very definition, religion. Rather than sever faith and religion you join them. Are you trying to fool us or have you fooled yourself? — Fooloso4

I thought you were serious and open about your quest ro find your truth and this is why I opened up to you about my feelings. Here is the a multiple choice question for you.

Does God exist?
1) Ofcourse not (because this is the only answer I can manage).
2).Highly unlikely (stay away from this answer as there is a chance to be very painful and it is deadly scary).
3) Not at all (you are sane and totally playing it safe).

I think you are setting yourself the wrong goal and this is why you end up attacking me. I don't know what you have inside you. But, I know it is something you are trying to hide. I am saying you want to reach the truth by claiming you already have it (which is only wierd). Why ask for it if you already have it.

The truth of the matter is; I don't really care whether you believe in God or not. But, the truth is: you want me to care. i don't. Not at all. And God doesn't care either because He is not in doubt of His own existence. Now you would start telling me, "how do you know this.Does this mean you are talking to God. You must be crazy." I don't know this. But, I believe it and my heart tells me it. And you are allowed to believe something different and it totally fine. It is not a duty to worship and believe God. Which is the big difference between faith and religion: choice. Which is why faith is far less shakable than religion.

I have never commanded myself to worship God or to believe in Him or anything else. But, I allowed myself to drift and be open to what I find inside. It might be another thing for you and I am totally fine. If you belief there is a thief watching out your house. No matter what I do, you would still believe it. And this is something that people don't really get to understand. The choice is not what you really to believe. You will never really believe something that you don't believe in no matter how hard you try. The choice is: whether you want to bear the pains to know and trust something as a solid truth or not.

Redicule is the hallmark of a weak position. That is all I can say. And by the way, I was pointing out to not converting science into a new religion to maintain its power. But, it seems you really need to believe that something is always right and never fails to maintain your peace of mind and think that life is still okay. So, yeah, go back to sleep. Sweet dreams. — Raef Kandil

If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't post ridiculous statements.

My answer is #2. But your parenthetical warning is nonsense. Rhetorical proselytizing. "Warning: the truth lies this way".

Which is the big difference between faith and religion: choice. — Raef Kandil

Religion is a matter of choice, although there are those on both sides, for and against, who attempt to deny people that choice.

The choice is: whether you want to bear the pains to know and trust something as a solid truth or not. — Raef Kandil

There is a difference between organized religion and your own religious quest. Perhaps you do not understand that difference, but I suspect you do. It is evident that you know that many people here are adverse to religious talk, and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth".

and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth". — Fooloso4

:clap:

Sure he does. The point I keep making - seems to have slipped by - is that checking what a child says about a remembered previous life is an empirical matter, unlike astrology. I don't expect anyone to believe it, but I do expect that this distinction is intelligible. — Wayfarer

You've said this before - They say there's no valid evidence, you show them some, and they say the evidence can't be valid because it demonstrates something they know is not true. It shows hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on their part. I am strongly skeptical of reincarnation, but I don't exclude any possibility because of my intellectual prejudices.

I assume that you would accept, that YOU have your own standard, for what you consider valid evidence.
It seems to me that you espouse your own intellectual prejudice, regarding who is intellectually prejudiced.

Do some scientists make holy war on non-scientists, and do some scientists strap explosives to themselves and blow up as many non-scientists as they can? — universeness

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons? Yes. But science is blind to these facts. Because it is a the ultimate source of truth. A truth that is equally capable of benefiting and destroying people. I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for. Whereas dogma is the one to be blamed. The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls.

There is a difference between organized religion and your own religious quest. Perhaps you do not understand that difference, but I suspect you do. It is evident that you know that many people here are adverse to religious talk, and so you attack religion in order to create a backdoor for your god talk and call it "solid truth". — Fooloso4

No I don't. I say what I attempt to say. I have no backdoors

Do scientists help nuclear bombs? Yes. Do scientists help create advanced weapons? — Raef Kandil

Sure, and I bet you're glad of M.A.D. It may be the only reason we are not already in WW 3.

. But science is blind to these facts. — Raef Kandil

Yeah sure, No scientist has even spoken out against the dark side of the production, storage, threat, testing, and use of Nuclear weapons. I don't think TPF has enough server storage space to hold all the examples.

I am against destroying and killing. But, can I at least free God from some of the horrible things you say he is solely responsible for. — Raef Kandil

Good for you! Do you know if your god agrees with you? The one in the bible and the one in the quran doesn't. Is your god so weak that it needs your protection?

The same dogma that puts you on a pedestal when you talk about science and fail to see its downfalls. — Raef Kandil

Are you afraid of science/scientists? If you know the truth of your god then why does it not tell you how to easily deal, with these pesky scientific discoveries that punch so many holes in theism, that it makes that which is holy, literally so!!
What is the best piece of evidence, you have personally experienced, that convinces you, your god exists?