When I think of faith, I don’t necessarily think of God or religion. — Fire Ologist

Neither do I, but clearly religion is the quintessential exemplar and that makes it an excellent subject to focus on.

The point being love. — Fire Ologist

What do you think that implies?

But praxis, “a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics” is, to me, completely off the topic of what is faith. — Fire Ologist

That's off topic but not moms and dads loving their kids?

The point being love.
— Fire Ologist

What do you think that implies? — praxis

Nothing relevant to this discussion. You might infer I have kids and I love them. But that is not why I said it. I don’t think I could be any clearer about why I said it. There is nothing you need to infer.

I’d rather not be talking about the relevance of Abraham attempting murder or fathers loving their kids as the main discussion on the legitimate question “what is faith”.

clearly religion is the quintessential exemplar and that makes it an excellent subject to focus on. — praxis

Quintessential explar of what? Of faith?

Examples are great but not enough to answer “what is X”.

And when all the quintessential examples of faith as religion are fathers attempting murder of their bound children, and heinous crimes and jihad, that seems to reflect poorly on faith, which seems to me is more fundamentally neither good nor bad. So the religious examples are getting in the way.

Since there is an apparent conflict between the religious and the non-religious here, maybe religion is actually a bad example for us to figure out “what is faith” together.

Maybe we get to that later. Let’s assume people who act on faith sometimes kill others and other times sacrifice themselves to save others. Can we see “what is faith” and “what is an act of faith” without only focusing on people hurting people?

How about faith in the ability of the truth to sometimes be made plain here on TPF. Is that an example of faith, and if not, why not? What is faith then?

What do you think that implies? — praxis

Here is the quote in context. It seems pretty transparent:

So what I am saying above is, when I think of religious faith, I think of moms and dads loving their kids. The point being love.

Many on this thread, when they think of religious faith seem to think only of Abraham attempting murder, terroists bombing schools, etc. — Fire Ologist

Here is a quote from the OP of the whole thread:

6) Finally, why do Christians argue whether faith must have hope and love in order to cause salvation? Are not those three things always intertwined together? — Gregory

That hope and love are intertwined in faith indicates that its function has to do with human bonding rather than salvation. Why should salvation require faith?

That hope and love are intertwined in faith indicates that its function has to do with human bonding rather than salvation. — praxis

This is a good example of an assertion with no attached argument. I'm not sure why you would think this. An argument would provide me with some insight.

Why should salvation require faith? — praxis

Are you at all familiar with Christian theology? Or the Reformation polemics? I'm not sure where your starting point is.

Are you at all familiar with Christian theology? Or the Reformation polemics? I'm not sure where your starting point is. — Leontiskos

I have no doubt that it's extremely complicated.

Fundamentalists treat articles of faith as if they were empirical, evidence based facts, and that is where the trouble begins. If, instead, intellectual honesty prevailed and the faithful acknowledged that their faith is for them alone, between them and their God, so to speak, then they would not be arrogant enough to commit heinous acts purportedly in the name of God.
— Janus

Don’t you see how none of what you just said addresses what I asked?

All of what you just said contradicts “faith is neither good nor bad” because that all sounds bad. — Fire Ologist

I've already made it clear that faith is not confined to religion. It is to be found in ideologues of all persuasions. Facts are supported by evidence, faith is not. By 'evidence' I man 'what the unbiased should accept'; that is what being reasonable means. I don't mean 'what the individual finds convincing' because what convinces one individual may not convince another, and that it what should be expected in matters where there is no clear evidence.

We all hold beliefs for which there can be no clear evidence. To do so is not irrational, but those beliefs are nonrational, not in the sense that no thoughts processes are involved, but in the sense that the thoughts are not grounded in evidence.

You say that what I said about faith all sounds bad, but that was not about faith as such, but about faith not being acknowledged as such.

There's a lot in this. An ideology is another example of a belief that is not to be subjected to scrutiny. — Banno

That's right. That is the other key hallmark of faith-based beliefs. If a belief is not based on evidence then it is not open to question (for the believer, obviously), because there is no evidence to be critically examined.

faith is not confined to religion. It is to be found in ideologues of all persuasions. — Janus

Sounds like religion is bad. Like other ideological persuasions are bad.

Still sounds like a contradiction with “faith is neither good nor bad.”

not about faith as such, but about faith not being acknowledged as such. — Janus

Still sounds like acknowledging faith as such would be acknowledging a bad thing.

How about faith in your own ability to lead a team of soldiers? Any faith needed to do something new and seemingly impossible with people depending on you?

Any faith needed to depend on someone else?

“Men, we might die, I forget why we are here, it might not matter to anyone what we do, but follow me!!”

Any faith in that guy?

Or: “Men, we might die, you are here to stop the enemy from entering your home town with your wives and children, everything you do matters, and I will be with you until the job is done, now follow me!!

How about that guy?

Any time you take someone’s word you are exercising faith. Faith in that person.

Have you ever depended on someone? Put yourself at great risk without any ability predict the outcome except for one thing, you believe in that one specific guy who gave you his word.

What is faith?

faith is not confined to religion. It is to be found in ideologues of all persuasions.
— Janus

Sounds like religion is bad. Like other ideological persuasions are bad.

Still sounds like a contradiction with “faith is neither good nor bad.” — Fire Ologist

How many times do I have to say that I am saying that thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad? That kind of thinking is what people use as a justification for inflicting their beliefs on others. In case you haven't noticed ideologues, and not just religious ideologues, may be prepared to kill for what they believe in. If they acknowledged to themselves that what they believed was not the Absolute Truth but merely an expression of their own predilections, then they might understand that others need not share their beliefs.

Trust in one's abilities may be blind faith or it may be based on past success, so it is not a good analogy in the latter case at least. We do put our trust in other sometimes, and in life or death situations, someone must lead lest there be chaos. In that situation people do not trust their leader then there will also be the danger that order will break down into chaos, or 'every man for himself"―and that would obviously not be a good strategy for survival.

thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad — Janus

So thinking faith equals knowledge is bad.

We are still talking about badness. But I agree.

What I hear there is, ‘bad religion and bad science are bad.’ You follow me? Faith that is not faith but a replacement for science is bad religion; science that uses faith as evidence is bad science.

thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad — Janus

I can also see that what you are saying leaves room for thinking faith that is just faith is what is good, or at least, not bad.

But I think we still haven’t gotten away from a discussion about faith that involves badness.

I do appreciate this:

people do not trust their leader then there will also be the danger that order will break down into chaos, or 'every man for himself"―and that would obviously not be a good strategy for survival — Janus

Are you saying there is some kind of neutral/more positive sense of faith qua faith?

Are you saying, faith in leaders, in certain people, happens? And that such faith, could be a good strategy?

Because I agree with that too.

I still think with all that’s been said, most of which has involved stories of irrational people’s actions, none of us have adequately said “what is faith.”

If they acknowledged to themselves that what they believed was not the Absolute Truth but merely an expression of their own predilections, then they might understand that others need not share their beliefs. — Janus

I agree whole-heartedly that the notion that one has grasped an Absolute Truth is extremely dangerous. It makes it impossible to acknowledge and tolerate any disagreement. I cannot think of a situation in which this might be a a Good Thing, but I can think of many in which it is clearly a Bad Thing. I do not confine this to religious contexts.

Based on what I've seen in philosophical fora over the last two years, I'm left seriously wondering whether it is possible - how it is possible - to philosophize about religion with people who do not agree with me in my core beliefs, There appears to be no neutral territory.

Surely, philosophy does require that the questions whether God exists or Religion is a Force of Good need to be suspended. I don't mean that actual scepticism is required. I understand that the Buddha said that the question of the existence of the gods is "undetermined". That seems to me the only possible basis for anything that might count as a philosophical discussion.

The fundamental mistake is to treat these questions - the existence of God, whether religion is a Force for Good - as straightforward empirical beliefs with straightforward empirical answers. I don't think that the question of the existence of God is an empirical belief in any ordinary sense. There's some room for philosophy there. Whether religion is a Force for Good does look like an empirical question. But it is a complex question requiring a good deal of analysis before any empirical data can be brought to bear on it. There's already a huge amount of research on this question. If there's space for philosophy there, It needs to take that work into account.

faith is evidence based knowledge — Janus

I can't see that, in the context of philosophical discussion, there is any clear meaning attached to this slogan. I really don't know where to begin with it. It seems pretty clear, though, that faith is not simply evidence-based knowledge. If it were, there would be no particular philosophical interest in discussing it.

BTW I do wish that we could get beyond the idea that religion and science are incompatible in some way. Many people are both religious believers and scientists.

I agree whole-heartedly that the notion that one has grasped an Absolute Truth is extremely dangerous. It makes it impossible to acknowledge and tolerate any disagreement. I cannot think of a situation in which this might be a a Good Thing, but I can think of many in which it is clearly a Bad Thing.

What about propositions such as: "other groups of humans should not be enslaved?" or "all humans deserve dignity and some groups are not 'subhuman?" Or "one ought not molest children?"

Are these extremely dangerous absolutes we should be open to reconsidering?

At any rate, what you're saying clearly can't be "Absolutely True," itself, right? :wink:

Are these extremely dangerous absolutes we should be open to reconsidering? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It depends how you interpret and apply them. More specifically, it depends you treat people who violate your principles. Ask yourself why the allies went to so much trouble to put Nazi leaders through an elaborate and difficult trial process, as opposed to shooting them out of hand or, possibly, sending them to their own gas chambers? Is it because there was any serious doubt about what they did?

At any rate, what you're saying clearly can't be "Absolutely True," itself, right? :wink: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Very funny. What will you do if I give you the wrong answer?

Yes, what I said deserves more careful expression and more detailed consideration.

PS You did notice that I didn't deny that there are truths? I'm just asserting that a certain caution and humility about our judgements that we have got hold of one is appropriate. Hume describes it as "judicious" and recommends it - as opposed to the "Pyrrhonian" scepticism so beloved of orthdox philosophers.

The fundamental mistake is to treat these questions - the existence of God, whether religion is a Force for Good - as straightforward empirical beliefs with straightforward empirical answers. I don't think that the question of the existence of God is an empirical belief in any ordinary sense. There's some room for philosophy there. Whether religion is a Force for Good does look like an empirical question. But it is a complex question requiring a good deal of analysis before any empirical data can be brought to bear on it. There's already a huge amount of research on this question. If there's space for philosophy there, It needs to take that work into account. — Ludwig V

It is an interesting thing to say. I wonder how you think one should deal with this "complex question". Research?

Facts are supported by evidence, faith is not. By 'evidence' I man 'what the unbiased should accept'; that is what being reasonable means. — Janus

This is what I spoke to in the .

We all hold beliefs for which there can be no clear evidence. To do so is not irrational, but those beliefs are nonrational, not in the sense that no thoughts processes are involved, but in the sense that the thoughts are not grounded in evidence. — Janus

And this is what I spoke to in the last section of that post.

For most people, myself included, to believe X is true without possessing evidence for X being true is irrational. You don't think it is. Now I do not want to adopt your premise arguendo, and the reason I don't want to do that is because the premise is not generally accepted by others in the thread. I think it would be misleading for me to adopt that premise arguendo, because both myself and the many anti-theists would see it as accepting, arguendo, the premise that faith is irrational.

not in the sense that no thoughts processes are involved, but in the sense that the thoughts are not grounded in evidence. — Janus

There are epistemological problems here, and they center around the question of what the difference is between evidence and (subjectively) justificatory "thoughts." I think this problem runs deep in the thought of strong coherentists such as yourself. has targeted this problem in some detail.

But let me lay out a very common Christian approach to the issue you raise. The idea is that there are reasons and arguments that are undeniable (i.e. demonstrations proper), and then there are other kinds of reasons, which incline one towards a conclusion but do not demonstrate the conclusion undeniably (or "beyond any shadow of a doubt"). We could call these latter reasons defeasible reasons. An act of faith relies upon inferences and reasons that are defeasible and not undeniable (or indefeasible). But note that a defeasible reason does count as evidence, at least if we are to use "evidence" in the way that it has been used throughout human history. Faith involves rational underdetermination; the motives of credibility do not force the mind to believe. (Note that what I say here is technical, and must be read with precision.)

(This is why Christians believe that faith cannot be coerced; because motives of credibility are not demonstrations. Or more straightforwardly, because salvation involves the will and not only the intellect.)

It is an interesting thing to say. I wonder how you think one should deal with this "complex question". Research? — Astrophel

Well, of course. What else? It seems to me that any serious attempt to answer it, will have to include emprical data, as well.

Well, of course. What else? It seems to me that any serious attempt to answer it, will have to include emprical data, as well. — Ludwig V

When one researches something, one has to have an issue in mind. What is the issue regarding researching God?

When one researches something, one has to have an issue in mind. What is the issue regarding researching God? — Astrophel

Interesting question. I was thinking about the question whether religion is a force for good. My answer is that there are lots of other similar questions. But also lots of expertise and good and bad practice to learn from. One problem is that something may count as a good thing for believers but not for non-believers. Attracting larger congregations would be an example. Some other things might count as a good thing for one side and actually a bad thing for the other side. The multiplicity of critieria creastes another problem because any overall judgement must be complex and balanced. (It's hard enough with a good car or a good house, but this is a whole different level).
The really tricky problem is the idea of researching God. Of course, it is not hard to see what researching Zeus (or Rhea) would be. There are the stories, the accounts of the relevant practices and so forth. But it's a different thing when you come to God, (or Allah, etc.). A non-believer will follow the same methods as for the research off Zeus. But, for a non-believer, who is looking to develop a relationship with God that is at least akin to a relationship with another person, so it involves a whole different dimension - not merely knowing what the non-believer knows, but learning to take part in the practices - especially the liturgical practices - and taking part in them, not to mention various disciplines designed to train (or re-train) oneself for the new life.
Does that help?

An act of faith relies upon inferences and reasons that are defeasible and not undeniable (or indefeasible). — Leontiskos

Coming to a conclusion on the basis of non-conclusive evidence is a big part of our lives. Cases where we have conclusive evidence, I would say, are relatively rare. So there is nothing special here. Arguably, what makes Christianity special is prounouncements from believers like Tertullian, with his famous "I believe because it is incredible."
It seems to me that what makes religious commitment special is, first, that it is a decision to follow a way of life, not a mere fact. The belief that God sent his Son to redeem the world demands a radical response, which is not merely a belief, but a commitment. So giving up that belief is not like changing one's mind about what the weather will be tomorrow. It is more like ending a friendship or partnership. That is what differentiates faith from belief. But it is more than that. A religion structures one's entire life - it is, to coin a phrase, a way of life. Giving that up is giving up everything.

Interesting question. I was thinking about the question whether religion is a force for good. My answer is that there are lots of other similar questions. But also lots of expertise and good and bad practice to learn from. One problem is that something may count as a good thing for believers but not for non-believers. Attracting larger congregations would be an example. Some other things might count as a good thing for one side and actually a bad thing for the other side. The multiplicity of critieria creastes another problem because any overall judgement must be complex and balanced. (It's hard enough with a good car or a good house, but this is a whole different level).
The really tricky problem is the idea of researching God. Of course, it is not hard to see what researching Zeus (or Rhea) would be. There are the stories, the accounts of the relevant practices and so forth. But it's a different thing when you come to God, (or Allah, etc.). A non-believer will follow the same methods as for the research off Zeus. But, for a non-believer, who is looking to develop a relationship with God that is at least akin to a relationship with another person, so it involves a whole different dimension - not merely knowing what the non-believer knows, but learning to take part in the practices - especially the liturgical practices - and taking part in them, not to mention various disciplines designed to train (or re-train) oneself for the new life.
Does that help? — Ludwig V

But most of what is thought about God is a lot of medieval drivel, so that much can be dismissed summarily. The question really is about, after the reduction, the move to reduce God to its defensible core ---minus the endless omni this and that, and Christendom, and the Halls of Valhalla, and so on--- what is it that cannot not be removed because it constitutes something real in the world that religions were responding to? The imagination has been busy through the millennia, and I don't think we want to take such things seriously, regardless of how seriously they are taken by so many. It is not a consensus that that we are looking for. It is an evidential ground for acceptance, and since God is not an empirical concept but a metaphysical one, one is going to have to look elsewhere than microscopes and telescopes.

Meister Eckhart prayed to God to be rid of God. I think it begins here, with a purifying of the question (that piety of thought) so one can be rid of the presuppositions of the familiar, the way when one "thinks" of God, one is already in possession assumptions that determine inquiry. It is, as with the Buddhists and the Hindus and Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopogite and other spiritualists and mystics, an apophatic method: delivering thought, well, from itself. then realizing you had all the questions wrong. Not the answers, but the questions.

And what is a question, but an openness to truth, and what is truth, but a revealing, a disclosure (not some logical function in the truth table of anglo american philosophy). The Greeks had it right with their term alethea. One has to withdraw from the clutter of implicit assumptions (Heidegger's gelassenheit. See his Conversation on a Country Path about Thinking) to ALLOW the world to be what it is so one can witness this. Otherwise, it is simply the same old tired pointless thinking, repeating itself.

That's another way to come at the subject. There's room for both, I think.

Surely, philosophy does require that the questions whether God exists or Religion is a Force of Good need to be suspended. I don't mean that actual scepticism is required. I understand that the Buddha said that the question of the existence of the gods is "undetermined". That seems to me the only possible basis for anything that might count as a philosophical discussion. — Ludwig V

Right, the unseeable is totally indeterminable. So, believing in the unseeable is believing in the indeterminable, which means the belief itself is without determinable content, which is really the same as saying that it is without conceptual content, but may have affective content, which is to say it is nothing other than feeling. So believing in the indeterminable is merely the feeling of believing.

faith is evidence based knowledge
— Janus
I can't see that, in the context of philosophical discussion, there is any clear meaning attached to this slogan. I really don't know where to begin with it. It seems pretty clear, though, that faith is not simply evidence-based knowledge. If it were, there would be no particular philosophical interest in discussing it. — Ludwig V

If you look again at the context "faith is evidence based knowledge" you will see that I was not agreeing with that, but disagreeing with it. I see beliefs determined by evidence and beliefs determined by faith (or feeling in other words) as being on a continuum, with beliefs about the unseeable as being entirely lacking substantive evidence unless they are determined by inference from what is seeable, in which case they might be classed as somewhat evidence based, but in that case the evidence/ belief relation is not clearly determinable, and the games of habit and plausibility come into play.

But most of what is thought about God is a lot of medieval drivel, so that much can be dismissed summarily. The question really is about, after the reduction, the move to reduce God to its defensible core ---minus the endless omni this and that, and Christendom, and the Halls of Valhalla, and so on--- what is it that cannot not be removed because it constitutes something real in the world that religions were responding to? The imagination has been busy through the millennia, and I don't think we want to take such things seriously, regardless of how seriously they are taken by so many. It is not a consensus that that we are looking for. It is an evidential ground for acceptance, and since God is not an empirical concept but a metaphysical one, one is going to have to look elsewhere than microscopes and telescopes.

Meister Eckhart prayed to God to be rid of God. I think it begins here, with a purifying of the question (that piety of thought) so one can be rid of the presuppositions of the familiar, the way when one "thinks" of God, one is already in possession assumptions that determine inquiry. It is, as with the Buddhists and the Hindus and Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopogite and other spiritualists and mystics, an apophatic method: delivering thought, well, from itself. then realizing you had all the questions wrong. Not the answers, but the questions.

And what is a question, but an openness to truth, and what is truth, but a revealing, a disclosure (not some logical function in the truth table of anglo american philosophy). The Greeks had it right with their term alethea. One has to withdraw from the clutter of implicit assumptions (Heidegger's gelassenheit. See his Conversation on a Country Path about Thinking) to ALLOW the world to be what it is so one can witness this. Otherwise, it is simply the same old tired pointless thinking, repeating itself. — Astrophel

This is extremely well written and interesting and I think I agree.

It is, as with the Buddhists and the Hindus and Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopogite and other spiritualists and mystics, an apophatic method: delivering thought, well, from itself. then realizing you had all the questions wrong. Not the answers, but the questions.

Quite, but not just the questions, also posture, practice, direction, communion.

Faith is a broad brush phrase in this kind of discussion and needs to be teased out.

Religious faith is an inevitable consequence of one’s approach to, or questioning of our origin, creation, purpose. If one is to make any progress beyond, “I/we don’t know”. Science and philosophy can’t help us. Other than in describing the world and how it works and helping us to order and refine our thoughts.

There is faith in God, faith in redemption, faith in society and human interaction. Faith in oneself, faith in truth. Faith as a tool used in mysticism, or by the ascetic.

So, believing in the unseeable is believing in the indeterminable, which means the belief itself is without determinable content, which is really the same as saying that it is without conceptual content, but may have affective content, which is to say it is nothing other than feeling. So believing in the indeterminable is merely the feeling of believing. — Janus

I'm afraid I was not very clear here. My immediate point was that dialogue between believers and non-believers cannot take place, or cannot take place productively, if each side digs in to its own position and exchanges arguments in the way that has become traditional in modern times. It is (or at least it seems to me to be) a completely unproductive exercise. A more productive approach to park the question whether God exists or not, leaving a space in which, perhaps some clarity about what God is supposed to be (in Christianity or Judaism or Spinoza's thought). That opens up some prospect of mutual enlightenment. Conversion or not, it seems to me, will happen elsewhere.

But I also think that your argument chain here has too many steps that are unclear or dubious to be convincing. Perhaps the weakest link (although it may seem entirely normal to many philosophers) your move from "without determinable content" through "without conceptual content" to "may have affective content". This rests on a strong contrast between cognitive (true/false) content and feelings, which are regarded as non-cognitive, because neither true nor false. But this is simplistic. Fear of COVD, for example, is a reaction to various facts/truths about COVID; it is a combination of cognitive and non-cognitive content (which rests on values or needs). More than that, fear is more than a matter of feelings, but is about certain kinds of behaviour - it is about how one reacts to the facts. So I do not see why affective content does not count as determinable content or even as conceptual content? The existence of some god is not just a neutral fact, but requires a reaction. For those reasons, I'm afraid I can't attribute any content to the "feeling of believing".

If you look again at the context "faith is evidence based knowledge" you will see that I was not agreeing with that, but disagreeing with it. — Janus

I looked again and saw that you are right. I was careless and I'm sorry.

I see beliefs determined by evidence and beliefs determined by faith (or feeling in other words) as being on a continuum, — Janus

The phrase "beliefs determined by faith" sounds as if faith is somethiing separate from belief, but surely what you mean is (roughly) "beliefs not determined by evidence"? I would agree that there is a spectrum there, from conclusive evidence through partial evidence. I think that beliefs based on authority are diffeerent in kind. In a sense, of course, authority can be regarded as a kind of evidence, but it is a rather different kind of evidence - being, as it were, evidence that the source is trustworthy. So beliefs based on authority require faith, in a rather weak sense. There are also beliefs that are not based on empirical evidence, but on, let us say, the meanings of the words in them, or the (logical) grammar of language. It doesn't seem to me quite right to say that these are based on faith. But religion doesn't quite fit in to any of these categories.

There is faith in God, faith in redemption, faith in society and human interaction. Faith in oneself, faith in truth. Faith as a tool used in mysticism, or by the ascetic. — Punshhh

Once one raises one's head from the rows about religion, faith turns up all over the place.

If religion is about the fundamentals of how one inteprets the world and how one lives in it, I think we should be thinking of faith as not merely a peculiarity of some people, but as about the foundations of whatever form life a human being pursues - however inchoate and unreflective.

it, I think we should be thinking of faith as not merely a peculiarity of some people, but as about the foundations of whatever form life a human being pursues - however inchoate and unreflective.

Yes, for the religious, the aspirant, faith is the touchstone of their lives. For these people faith is with them all the time and becomes a connection through communion with their divinity, to their unique spiritual ideology. This is very much about lifestyle and practice(service), whereas beliefs are confined to the ideology, the narrative of the person and are more abstract. Also such faith does not need a defined object, a God, or reality in which they have that faith. Like humility it is about the person as a being, his/her posture, rather than part of a philosophical, or theological narrative.

This is very much about lifestyle and practice(service) — Punshhh

I agree with a lot of what you say. I guess that, for a non-believer, a religion or ideology, can be regarded as about life-style and practice. However, there's a difference, I suppose, between a life-style and a way of life. It seems to me that a life-style is usually regarded as an option, not fundamental. But it seems clear to me that, for a believer, their religion or ideology, is fundamental, not just an option. It's the difference between choosing to wear certain kinds of clothes because of how they look, and perhaps, of the cultural messages they send and choosing to wear those same clothes because they are necessary for how one lives. (I'm not pretending this is a rigid distinction, but the difference is important.)

The difficulty is that, in a multi-faith society, religion or ideology needs to recognize the legitimacy of other religions or ideologies and that blurs the distinction that I'm trying to draw and that is quite difficult for believers.

Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets. — Fire Ologist

Immediately? Yep. That's an utterly ridiculous response though. And you know it.

This is extremely well written and interesting and I think I agree. — Tom Storm

I agree there is something there, yes. What is" the move to reduce God to its defensible core" all about, do you think? What defensible core?

I see the distinction, I wasn’t thinking of lifestyle as a choice so much as a direction of travel that one had arrived at. That lifestyle, or practice that is adopted initially would develop into a way of life through an evolution.
The ways in which a person reaches these stages would be unique to each person, there would be epiphany, revelation, calling, questioning, exploration and choices. The evolution would progress through stages, of realisation, crisis and initiation. A path to be trodden.

There are due to their origins a number of schools(philosophies/religions) through which a believer/aspirant may come to their faith. Some more orthodox, some more devotional, some more meditation based. Some in which a deity is front and centre, others where any deity is barely defined.

Also their are people who explore a number of schools and then follow their own path and people who follow a path, unaware that they are, thinking perhaps that they have no faith, or interest in religious, or spiritual matters at all.

I agree there is something there, yes. What is" the move to reduce God to its defensible core" all about, do you think? What defensible core? — Astrophel

I'd say it is about setting aside big claims and just looking at what shows up in human experience, for instance feelings of awe, moral responsibility, love, the numinous, meaning. The “defensible core” is the part of that experience that still cuts through and remains with us even if we don’t assume God is a 'real' being. Meaning that God isn’t seen as a thing out there, but more like a deep sense of meaning that arrives through experience and gives shape to how we understand life.