Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Need help explaining faith to an atheist
I've been trying to explain what faith is to an atheist the Buddhist and Catholic perspectives. Faith from a Buddhist perspective in understanding that Dharma cannot be truly be understood with the ordinary rational mind or logic, and that reality transcends all worldly concepts.
If anyone could provide their input, the link to this person's blog is below. Any support would be appreciated.
http://seetheevidence.blogspot.com/2009/02/faith-is-it-given-or-earned.html
Thank you.
If anyone could provide their input, the link to this person's blog is below. Any support would be appreciated.
http://seetheevidence.blogspot.com/2009/02/faith-is-it-given-or-earned.html
Thank you.
0
Comments
What does one have available but the ordinary rational mind and logic? There's not much point in following an idea that doesn't make sense. Faith is... pay attention... Faith is trust without reservation. I don't think trust is built on blind belief. To the contrary, what makes Buddhist 'faith' different from the classic religious definition is that it can be validated at any time with rational thinking and logic being the tools of choice. No divinity required, no epiphanies needed to discern the truth of it. It works or it doesn't, and your mind is perfectly capable of deciding that.
Palzang
I agree. I would dispute only that understanding Dharma requires an irrational or illogical leap beyond what we are able to discern. I suspect I preach to the choir here, but let me say that practice isn't without its hurdles which can include occasional frustration or a lack of confidence in what one is doing. It is during those times I think being faithful to one's practice in spite of those bumps, putting one foot in front of the other until the way becomes clear, is at least as important as one's trust in the practice itself, if that makes sense.
It is striking that the Blogger slips from "faith" to "trust" as if they were identical, which they are not. Nevertheless, the question of whether trust should be 'earned' is a good one.
As a father and grandfather I would say that trust has to be given so that the other (our children and our friends) can be trustworthy. Trust is not a reward for services received but the outward expression of the benevolent mind.
Absolutely, QM! Indeed, I would suggest that the idea that we can 'earn' anything, even our daily wage, is based on a clever social con trick.
Had to look that up. Heh, heh... True enough.
Palzang
Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself.
Haven't been here a day, and already someone has my number.
When a person becomes so enmeshed and knotted up in their own semantics, it's difficult to shift them from a blinkered course and illustrate the many roads that lead to one destination.
I would respectfully suggest that if someone's writings seem littered with covert indignation, it's best to leave them be.......
The open, friendly and broad-minded approach will always be accommodating.
But when someone resorts to condescention - you're whistling in the wind.
We are apt to become frustrated and irritated by their seeming inability to relax and broaden their outlook.
They in turn become irritated that somebody could actually challenge them....
They want a fruitful discussion, but they also intend to win it.
Walk away.
Your heart will thank you for it.
Less stressful!
Again, thank you for your time.
Everything human beings do are based on faith. For example, I sit on the chair I am sitting on because it has four stable legs. If the chair had three legs, on would not have faith in it.
Similarly, human beings live a worldly life because they believe the things of the world with bring them happiness. In worldly things, they place their faith.
However, once disillusionment arises with worldly things, faith goes looking for another object.
Buddha said faith is the first spiritual faculty and the first spiritual power. Without faith, no progess can occur.
Similary, if one tries to practise Buddhism but still has 'faith' in worldly things, there will be hindrances or obstacles.
Faith is something very ordinary and basic. A baby has faith in its mother. This faith is instinctual.
In brief, Buddha said the requisite condition for faith is suffering.
"Up to a point, Lord Copper."
Few people would pretend that their lives did not contain disappointments, dissatisfactions and stress.
What appears to be missing here is a serious understanding of what Masao Abe has called "post-Nietzschean nihilism". This is deeper than Dawkinslike rantings about God, religion or faith in general. It is a prevailing Western world-view at all levels of society.
It seems to me that, as a result of a variety of historical causes, "post-Nietzschean nihilism" manifests in a generalised scepticism in many areas, political, economic, health-care, as well as philosophical and metaphysical. The modern formula for ending stress may look a little like this:
Impermanence is the key element, along with a sense of personal isolation, is the key element of contemporary doubt and finds its justification in an empirical, science-based approach to life, the universe and everything. All answers are deemed to be incomplete and temporary, to be replaced by new answers all-too-soon.
Alongside this, we find groups of people who assert that they have found a complete and permanent answer to some of their questions. In a society which believes in double-blind testing as evidence of reliability and falsifiability as an indication of truth, how do we present the Dharma or the Gospel or whatever answer that does not easily submit to such testing?
I believe that we need to admit, at the outset and day-by-day, that we have found a personal answer and one which we believe can meet the aspirations of a hurting generation. We can say: “This I have seen; this I have touched; this you can see proved in my own life.”
At one level, this may mean letting go, in our dialogue with the stress-ridden, of “This I have heard”, of cherished or consecrated language, history, personalities, myths and legends. We cannot expect a literate and sceptical audience to adopt a new way of looking, seeing, doing and being simply because we believe it works.
This, I believe, is why a wise old bird like HHDL is submitting Buddhist practices to scientific investigation and why he has stated that, if science disproved rebirth he would stop believing in it. This is an age which is witness to the tragedies wrought by opposing metaphysics and declares: “A pox on all your houses!” Faith, without good works and evidence, is no longer enough, however praiseworthy previous generations may have found it.
Rebirth belief is 'blind faith' rather than 'bright or wise faith'.
If we are to explain this kind of faith to an atheist, we would tell that atheist this is the very kind of faith they detest.
HHDL's statement is not Buddhist because if science could disprove rebirth, there would still be the Buddhist teaching.
Science has already proved the Buddhist teachings, that concentration can cause deep tranquility in the body and mind & conscious control over what is normal known as the unconscious automatic nervous system; that human motivation is caused by craving rather than by pleasure; that craving leads to a cycle of samsara or addiction; that human beings by nature have attachment and will suffer accordingly; that ego is a conditioned phenomena, developed in a human mind over time. Ego is not innate. A small child has very limited ego function.
If we study psychology, all of these topics are found in basic text books. Attachment theory, ego development, the opponent process theory of motivation, effects of meditation, etc.
Buddha taught the highest kind of faith is faith in viraga or dispassion. This is the faith in when attachment & craving end, suffering will end. However, HHDL is saying if science can disprove his blind faith, he will drop his blind faith. HHDL is acknowledging: "I have not proved rebirth to myself therefore it is open to repudiation".
However, I say, if science claimed to prove craving & attachment cause happiness rather than suffering, I would completely disagree.
Buddha said of his supramundane disciples, that their faith is "achala", namely, "unshakeable".
Having replied as noted, HHDL paused, stroked his head in that characteristic gesture of his, smiled and asked: "And how are you going to disprove it?"
Despite my sense of personal connection to HHDL, I cannot assert that I support all his positions but, in this, I do hear wisdom. It is the statement of a science-minded Buddhist in dialogue with a declared atheist. It acknowledges the importance of ongoing scientific discovery, whilst pointing out its limits.
Many a wise writer has stressed that, where there is contradiction between long-held interpretations of the world and the discoveries of science, we need to revisit, review and rewrite the tradition. Tradition or opinion do not trump science: they point beyond the known.
I also do not read this as addressing the First Noble Truth or a challenge to unshakeable faith. It concerns rebirth which, despite the assertions of so many, may not be keystone in the arch of the Dharma. Neither the Noble Truths nor the Dharma Seals depend on rebirth and would not be disproved were rebirth to be shown to be unreal.
I would stress that I have no evidence for or against rebirth, other than the anecdotal or traditional. I remain in a "cloud of unknowing" and this is not an attempt to disparage that belief.
In general I agree, but I am personally more apt to really push the person's buttons and get them furious with me. If you can't make a positive connection, a negative one can be just as effective at hooking them into the dharma path in the future. While I understand the emphasis I am seeing on the board on dealing with people at a rational level, more often than not it isn't at this level that matters of real significance are decided. Sometimes just a touch, a hug, a smack upside the head or a strong aspiration is what is needed. Words are a shell game.
Hate can be just as effective as love. In the Ramayana, Ravana meditated ceaselessly on Rama out of his feeling of paranoia and by so doing achieved liberation. There are lots of different arrows in the quiver.
Then again, I might just be a troublemaker...
Namgyal
Science is not a monolithic edifice. We might as well say "The discoveries of religion". The fact is that there is a plethora of sciences with many different principles and epistemological suppositions. We are not even beginning to address our buddhist epistemological premises here. In my practice I am willing to accept that what the Buddha said is true as an epistemological foundation assuming that he is an authority qualified to speak on what he has seen. I really couldn't give a rat's ass what a scientist has to say about it.
I am not about to go around editing the Dharma from my present confused standpoint to accord with the intellectual fashion of the time. I also could not care less whether I convince a single atheist by my words. As you rightly noted in previous posts it is truly through actions that one is known and that one convinces. That, and I would add: pranidhana, prayer and samadhi.
When karmic connections to the teachings ripen, people seek out teachers.
Nothing that you can do will keep them from them. Similarly, if there is no positive connection in someone's prarabdha karma then no amount of cajoling or pleading will make a bit of impact in the immediate.
Emphatically,
Namgyal
Namgyal you've got a great sense of humour !
In the north of England where I'm from, it can also be described as being ''a workie ticket'' (an expression I love when its said with the correct accent) which means someone 'pushing their luck'
Anyway, sorry, back to topic!:D
Dazzle
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be
For though they may be parted there
is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be
(Altogether now) Let it be let it be...
"Sing Lofty"....!
If, however, your definition of faith is belief in certain propositions about reality without reason, I can't tell you how you'd explain it to make it acceptable to an atheist, because I've never heard it explained in a way to make it acceptable to ME. I can't help but think that if you can believe something without reason, you can believe anything; and this sort of faith does worry me.
Peace:)