I mentioned it recently, with regards to his re-statement of traditional ontology and the levels of being.

Karma - means the same. In Buddhism, there's no Supreme Deity handing out rewards and punishment but there are hell realms all the same — Wayfarer

People can become stuck in a hellish frame of mind, but it's not punishment. It's a self imposed prison. It comes down to the things a person is telling themselves.

↪Fire Ologist... — Banno

So do you agree I understand you or not?

You said: “ “Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence"

And you said:

the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered. — Banno

So I clarified your statement about what faith involves as the following:

I said: Faith involves acting on belief, and that belief is formed despite insufficient evidence.

There are two large parts: belief despite insufficient evidence, and, acting on such belief, involved in faith.

Does my restatement show that I understand your premise? Or not?

A few questions for the atheists:

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years?

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer?

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

I think what the academic community does is build a collection of speculations that changes as new archeological data emerges. This article about the Sumerian kings list talks about how attitudes change over time.

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

First of all, I'd be mind-blown because I thought Moses was mythical. Coming to believe in a theistic divinity would require a shift in worldview for me. I doubt I would allow that. I'd explain events according to the view I have until I reached a dead-end and then stop and say I don't know what's going on.

People can become stuck in a hellish frame of mind, but it's not punishment. It's a self imposed prison. — frank

I doubt people choose to imprison themselves in a hellish frame of mind.

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

There’s a variety of methods for dating ancient documents and they’re reported to be quite accurate. Personally I would consider the content of the document a one piece of evidence.

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

It’s said that only Moses was allowed on the mountain so just being there with him would be unconvincing.

I doubt people choose to imprison themselves in a hellish frame of mind. — praxis

Happens all the time.

Why do they choose to suffer in that way? And if it's a choice, can't they simply choose not to suffer when they get bored with it?

incidentally, about this dogma that 'faith is belief without evidence'. The believer will say that the world itself evidences divine providence. There may not be evidence in the sense of double-blind experimental data across sample populations of X thousand persons. But the testimony of sages, the proper interpretation of religious texts, and the varieties of religious experience all constitute evidence, although of course all of that may equally be disregarded. The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe. — Wayfarer

I would say that the world itself evidences the Buddhist concept of emptiness, and that the so-called 'realization of emptiness' is a deeply personal experience—one that is profoundly difficult to convey to others. Not sure where divine providence may play a role though.

What that characterizes the religious life do you think is missing in the secular life? — Janus

That's a brilliant question. I offer three answers.

1. Both saints and sinners would have the same choice - heaven for comfort and hell for company. (But, of course, neither would, in practice, make the inappropriate choice.) A secularist would not be present after death, so would never miss the opportunity.

2. If you consider the duck-rabbit as a duck, what is missing from the interpretation of the figure as a rabbit. Everything? or Nothing? Both answers are correct.

3. More seriously, consider Berkeley's account:-

As in reading other books a wise man will choose to fix his thoughts on the sense and apply it to use, rather than lay them out in grammatical remarks on the language; so, in perusing the volume of nature, it seems beneath the dignity of the mind to affect an exactness in reducing each particular phenomenon to general rules, or showing how it follows from them. We should propose to ourselves nobler views, namely, to recreate and exalt the mind with a prospect of the beauty, order. extent, and variety of natural things: hence, by proper inferences, to enlarge our notions of the grandeur, wisdom, and beneficence of the Creator; and lastly, to make the several parts of the creation, so far as in us lies, subservient to the ends they were designed for, God's glory, and the sustentation and comfort of ourselves and fellow-creatures. — "Berkeley,

The possibility that the religious can choose is indeed missing in the secular view. But a secularist will never miss it. Note the Berkeley manages, in spite of the fact that both world views comprise the same facts, to offer reasons why his view is preferable. Sadly, his world view prevents him from recognizing that the secularist will never miss what he sees.

WIttgenstein has a discussion that is relevant to this:-

The attitude towards the more general and the more special in logic is connected with the usage of the word "kind" which is liable to cause confusion. We talk of kinds of numbers, kinds of propositions, kinds of proofs; and, also, of kinds of apples, kinds of paper, etc. In one sense what defines the kind are properties, like sweetness, hardness, etc. In the other the different kinds are different grammatical structures. A treatise on pomology may be called incomplete if there exist kinds of apples which it doesn't mention. Here we have a standard of completeness in nature. Supposing on the other hand there was a game resembling that of chess but simpler, no pawns being used in it. Should we call this game incomplete? Or should we call a game more complete than chess if it in some way contained chess but added new elements? The contempt for what seems the less general case in logic springs from the idea that it is incomplete. It is in fact confusing to talk of cardinal arithmetic as something special as opposed to something more general. Cardinal arithmetic bears no mark of incompleteness; nor does an arithmetic which is cardinal and finite. (There are no subtle distinctions between logical forms as there are between the tastes of different kinds of apples.) — Wittgenstein, Blue Book, p. 19

Sure - I take worldview to include the quotidian and to be the source of our day-to-day choices and actions. — Tom Storm

Quite so. But that's where the analysis in terms of world-views shows an opportunity. The quotidian is what the religious and the secular share. It is not a choice. They bump into each other. So each needs to find an account of the other (or set about eliminating them from their world.)

It seems to me that secularists and religionists are equally capable of seeing purpose, meaning, and beauty, as well as order and truth.

We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

How do you know that it "becomes less reliable" unless you have some other evidence with which to compare it, and that is more reliable?

Cool. It was a favourite of my father's, and I also love it, but it takes that step too far that I so often accuse you of also taking.

There are similar things in Midgley.

And here we have "the leap of faith".

I won't know if you have understood until you tell me what it is you have concluded. So out with it.

Agree. Although I would cautiously add, that it may only be known first-person, but it's not a matter of personal prediliction.

it takes that step too far that I so often accuse you of also taking. — Banno

I'm in good company, then. Murdoch's 'Sovereignty of the Good' has also been mentioned a few times.

But anyway - the reason I brought up the idea of levels of being, is because it is relevant to the question of faith, and to the criticism of faith being 'belief without evidence'.

How so? Because there are truths that only the wise can grasp - grasping them is the hallmark of wisdom. I'm emphatically not claiming to be in such company, I'm simply looking through the glass, darkly. (I guess this comes from my years of hanging out at the Adyar Bookshop.) It is abundantly demonstrated in the literature of Zen Buddhism (and again, making no claims as to any acomplishment in that demanding discipline.) But the culmination of those paths - awakening or satori - provides a perspective that us ordinary folk do not have. So, in the absence of insight, all we have is faith.

This is exemplified by one of the early Buddhist texts (the Pali texts revered by Theravada Buddhists). It's a dialogue between the Buddha and Sariputta, a disciple who is customarily associated with wisdom. Summarily, it is like this (source text provided):

The Buddha asked, “Sariputta, do you simply trust that developing the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom leads to the Deathless?”

Sariputta replied, “It’s not just on trust, Lord. Those who haven’t seen this for themselves must rely on others’ word. But those who have directly known and realized it have no doubt. And I have seen and realized it for myself; I have no doubt that these faculties, when fully developed, lead to the Deathless.” — Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse

There are at least analogies for this in the Christian faith, as well, not least the 'through a glass, darkly' metaphor alluded to above. None of which means that blind faith, or fanaticism, or misplaced idealism are not real dangers on that or any religious or spiritual path. Faith is not the terminus of such paths, but it is a requirement, in that one has to have confidence enough to pursue what is often a very arduous path, often with no obvious end or reward in sight.

So I reject this 'belief without evidence' dogma, as that is what it is. For those prepared to pursue these paths, there is plenty of evidence, albeit not of the kind that positivism will acknowledge.

Wouldn't you agree that there are stronger and weaker forms of evidence? The existence of some biblical figures is established, while for others, the evidence outside the Bible is limited.

More Socratic gameplay.

Ok, so if there are stronger and weaker forms of evidence.... what?

We can be more certain of the existence of some historical figures than others.

Because there are truths that only the wise can grasp - grasping them is the hallmark of wisdom. — Wayfarer

:wink:

The obvious retort is to ask how you could know this. If you cannot know these truths unless you are wise, how can you know that someone else knows these truths? How can you know someone knows "p is true" unless you also know that p?

And the answer must be in what the wise do. But before enlightenment, gather wood, cary water. After enlightenment, gather wood, carry water.

In my observation the main change in behaviour after enlightenment seems to be having sex with noviciates.

The problem with Plato's line is that it renders differences in kind as if they were differences in degree. Another thread, maybe.

Ok. So what.

The obvious retort is to ask how you could know this. If you cannot know these truths unless you are wise, how can you know that someone else knows these truths? How can you know someone knows "p is true" unless you also know that p? — Banno

And the obvious response is, one of degrees. One might experience some degree of awakening, short of reaching any kind of plateau of wisdom. A Pali Buddhist expression is ehi passiko - come and see. Learn by doing. Practical wisdom, if you like.

That koan you refer to, incidentally, is extracted from the voluminous corpus of Sōtō Zen literature, and taken out of context, can easily be misinterpreted. Sōtō puts a lot of emphasis on 'ordinary mind', meaning not seeking some special state or trying to attain something. But this doesn't mean that there isn't the requirement for very disciplined training, and Japanese Zen training is very disciplined indeed.

That koan you refer to, incidentally, is extracted from the voluminous corpus of Sōtō Zen literature, and taken out of context, can easily be misinterpreted. — Wayfarer

The way I used it, it does just what I wanted it to do.

Curiously, I just wrote:

Does "are-ness" or "being" admit of degrees?
— @Moliere
If an answer is given, be on the look out for a crossing of the floor here, from ontology to morality. "are-ness" and "being" (?) are ontological terms. Degree usually involves some form of evaluation. Now we probably can't say outright that such a move is a mistake, but it will be worth keeping an eye on how the evaluation is done. — Banno

Same applies here. Both god, and the devil, will be in the detail.

Let me rephrase:

We can confirm the list dating back, e.g., 500 years, but the evidence becomes scarce after that. How ought we view claims of kingship in the book after the evidence stops? Would it be fair to view them as baseless assertions?

If it's you claiming the kings list is correct, yes, it's a baseless assertion.

Presumably, on other evidence. Or we withhold judgement.

Do you have a point? Otherwise, I'm out.

If it's you claiming the kings list is correct, yes, it's a baseless assertion. — frank

I'm not claiming this. Let's say we have 12 kings confirmed in chronological order. The question is whether King 13 exists. Do we have reason to believe so? Does the claim in the book count for anything?

Carlos is playing at Socratic Argument.

It's tedious. And we all know the game plan.

Just spit it out.

Do we have reason to believe so? Does the claim in the book count for anything? — BitconnectCarlos

All we have is the information that a 13th king is listed. It's unconfirmed.