Is faith an illusion of the mind?

[Anderson]

Only mind has faith.

When mind is bypassed there is no more faith.

[doc benway]

When I see the word "faith" I see it coming from some religious or spiritual root.

 

I see it as an alternative to taking action.

 

An example:  buying a lottery ticket with what little money one has left, having faith that they will win instead of using what little money they have left conservatively and finding a realistic way to get out of their money problems, like get a job.

 

To have faith without taking action to correct an unacceptable situation is like pissing in the wind.  There is no magic.  There is no tooth fairy.  If we want to better ourself we have to do the work.  One will wait an eternity before a Fairy Godmother comes along and gives you everything you want.

 

As is often the case on this forum, we are not really talking about the same thing.

 

Buying a lottery ticket is not based on faith but hope, I see a difference.

Expecting magic and fairies to solve one's problems is not faith either, but perhaps a mixture of hope and belief,... and denial.

Yes, if we want to change, I agree that we need to take responsibility and be the engine of that change.

 

I would classify faith more along the lines of the confidence you feel in the authenticity and value of the Laozi and Zhuangzi.

I know that's presumptuous of me, but I expect that would be something fairly close to faith.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Only mind has faith.

When mind is bypassed there is no more faith.

 

there it is again!

 

Very concise!

[Marblehead]

I would classify faith more along the lines of the confidence you feel in the authenticity and value of the Laozi and Zhuangzi.

I don't classify that as faith but can see why some would.

 

Yeah, we tried to talk about faith a while back but never did arrive at a commonly accepted definition.

 

I have lost any faith I ever had.  Now it's show and tell time.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

The issue with these kinds of terms is most people will automatically interpret them in an Abrahamic light, while other traditions may have a very different use for the same word.

[Marblehead]

The issue with these kinds of terms is most people will automatically interpret them in an Abrahamic light, while other traditions may have a very different use for the same word.

Hehehe.  Yeah, being an Atheist, I don't draw on the Abrahamic belief system very often.  "Faith" is not a word one sees/hears often in Atheistic discussions.

 

"We'll see." seems so much more accurate.

[Jetsun]

At certain points faith can be be incredibly helpful, faith in the process of life, faith that you are going to be ok, faith in change.

 

Once mind is trancended faith may not be required but during the process of moving our identity out of mind, moving out of separation consciousness, faith can sure make it a lot smoother and reduce the anxiety.

[Marblehead]

That is a great counter to what I have been presenting and a very valid one indeed.

[doc benway]

Hehehe.  Yeah, being an Atheist, I don't draw on the Abrahamic belief system very often.

No?

You may want to look a bit more closely - certainly your idea of faith is directly related to it.

 

"Faith" is not a word one sees/hears often in Atheistic discussions.

 

"We'll see." seems so much more accurate.

I suspect that most Atheists have as much faith in science as Religionists have in God (maybe more).

[Marblehead]

No?

You may want to look a bit more closely - certainly your idea of faith is directly related to it.

Hehehe.  That is why I am opposed to the concept.

 

I suspect that most Atheists have as much faith in science as Religionists have in God (maybe more).

Yes, this can be argued.  A few here would strongly argue against this thought.  I argue against it but only from a relative view.  Yes, I have faith in those who are supposed to know things I am unable or unwilling to spend the time to know on my own through observation and verification.

 

But those things I do know need no faith.  They support their own existence and reality.  As I often use, the tree is a tree regardless of what I call it and regardless of any faith or lack thereof.

[silent thunder]

My greatest expression of faith is in my interpretation of my perceptions.

 

Human perception is based on gambles.

 

Yet, humans have a very strong tendency to express or hold onto, a kind of faith that we perceive things accurately.  Then we believe our subsequent interpretations, (which are based on cultural and familial programming), most of the time not even realizing any interpretations are being processed.

[soaring crane]

The issue with these kinds of terms is most people will automatically interpret them in an Abrahamic light, while other traditions may have a very different use for the same word.

 

I'm pretty sure I fall into the latter category. Has nothing to do with tradition on my part, though.

[Marblehead]

 

Yet, humans have a very strong tendency to express or hold onto, a kind of faith that we perceive things accurately.  Then we believe our subsequent interpretations, (which are based on cultural and familial programming), most of the time not even realizing any interpretations are being processed.

But yet, why would I not rely on my senses and my brain's interpretation of the information they provide?

 

We can imagine all sorts of wierd things.  Doesn't mean they are even close to the reality our physical body lives in.

 

So I have faith that when I reach the age of 75 years (one year away) my aging process will reverse and I will begin to get younger, more physically fit and attractive and women will once again be ccrawling all over me.

 

Ah!, the beauty of imagined reality.

[doc benway]

As I often use, the tree is a tree regardless of what I call it and regardless of any faith or lack thereof.

I propose that the belief that "a tree is a tree regardless of what I call it" is a type of faith.

You have faith in your powers of perception and interpretation.

You have faith that you understand what 'tree' is simply because you've seen several and put a label on it. 

 

 

My greatest expression of faith is in my interpretation of my perceptions.

 

Human perception is based on gambles.

 

Yet, humans have a very strong tendency to express or hold onto, a kind of faith that we perceive things accurately.  Then we believe our subsequent interpretations, (which are based on cultural and familial programming), most of the time not even realizing any interpretations are being processed.

[the1gza]

Hell, is the rock you look at before you and illusion of the mind? We're all perceiving things from a range of perception that only experiences reality in a finite bandwidth. To a point, everything is somewhat illusory, in a sense that it is an experience that flourishes under a certain perceptual bandwidth. So perhaps the question is whether or not faith can produce tangible experiences that can affect you perceptual experience of reality, or whether it produces things of low substance. For some people the faith produces the tangible, while for others it is insubstantial. It's gonna be up to the person how real that faith is, after all, we all go to school and live a great deal of our lives having faith in teachings that we have never verified for ourselves. So it's all kinda strange, because everyone has had faith in something that they felt or were told was real, even without verifying it ourselves firsthand. I never seen an atom a day in my life on a microscopic scale, yet I went to school and talked about them like what I was told was "the truth". So hey...

[Marblehead]

I propose that the belief that "a tree is a tree regardless of what I call it" is a type of faith.

You have faith in your powers of perception and interpretation.

You have faith that you understand what 'tree' is simply because you've seen several and put a label on it. 

You have great faith.  I hope it serves you well.

 

No faith needed regarding the tree.  It is a fact, just like evolution.

[Marblehead]

Hell, is the rock you look at before you and illusion of the mind?

Okay.  This post speaks to perhaps a more important concept than I have been speaking to, that is, the value of faith for others than myself.

 

I do know that faith is an important aspect of many people's belief system.

 

But then, I have been speaking only from my own perspective.  And it is true for me that it is only the physical, logical universe that really matters.  Even talking about philosophy, which I love to do, is meaningless in my materialistic world.

 

And you are right, when we are young we are taught all sorts of stuff that when we were young we took for granted that what we were told was the truth.  In later years, as we search for better answers we find that we were taught some truths, some lies, and some varnished opinions.  And that is why we are told to unlearn all the crap that has been taught us.  Apparently governments were doing the same thing 2500 years ago that they are doing today.

 

But back to faith, please understand that I am expressing only my opinions and understandings.  I truely hope that no one feels I am trying to tell them what they should believe.

 

Keep the faith Baby!

[doc benway]

I suspect that most Atheists have as much faith in science as Religionists have in God (maybe more).

 

It is a fact, just like evolution.

 

As a matter of fact, evolution is a theory.

[blue eyed snake]

steve, on 03 Mar 2015 - 13:45, said:

I suspect that most Atheists have as much faith in science as Religionists have in God (maybe more).

 

Marblehead, on 04 Mar 2015 - 00:07, said:

It is a fact, just like evolution.

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, evolution is a theory.

 

yeah, but even though I don't count myself as an atheist, the theory of evolution is much better corroborated than the theory of religion,

 

your's faithfully BES

[doc benway]

yeah, but even though I don't count myself as an atheist, the theory of evolution is much better corroborated than the theory of religion,

 

your's faithfully BES

 

I agree that the scientific method is powerful indeed!

And scientific theories and views are still only as stable as the axioms and data they are founded upon. Major revolutions in scientific thought occur regularly.

 

On the other hand, there are elements in religious traditions and practices that are quite internally consistent, empirical, and have significant predictive value. And when one adopts a practice and sees consistent and predictable changes in one's life as a result, there is nothing more empirically convincing.

 

I think that we can take advantage of the best of both worlds without compromising either, provided that we are open.

 

I listened to part of a talk this morning on the development of Mahayana Buddhism from a Theravada perspective which basically framed it in a negative light, making it seem gratuitous and without solid foundation. But if you look at the spread and success of the Mahayana schools, I would argue that we are seeing an evolution, a process of selection.  And if you accept the axiom that Buddhism attempts to apply an empirical method to the problem of human suffering and behavior since its very inception, one could even consider this 'evolution' to be more of a 'revolution' based on an empirical method. Not as far removed from science as we might normally imagine perhaps, but that's just me and my random musings.

 

I appreciate the good spirit of this discussion.

[Marblehead]

As a matter of fact, evolution is a theory.

Only for those who still live in the dark.

 

It has been proven to be a fact and the tests were repeated with the exact same results.

 

Yes, when Darwin stole the concept and presented it, it was still a theory.  The theory has been proven to be fact.  And please don't be telling me you know more about this stuff than Carl Sagan did.

[Marblehead]

 

steve, on 03 Mar 2015 - 13:45, said:

 

Marblehead, on 04 Mar 2015 - 00:07, said:

 

yeah, but even though I don't count myself as an atheist, the theory of evolution is much better corroborated than the theory of religion,

 

your's faithfully BES

Atheists need no religion to tell us what to believe.  Truth is enough.  No need for faith.  No need for illusions to make us warm and fuzzy.

 

The tree is a tree and that's just the way trees always have been, are now, and always will be (as long as humans don't kill them all).

[Marblehead]

I think that we can take advantage of the best of both worlds without compromising either, provided that we are open.

I was going to challenge the paragraph above this one but after reading this I will compromise and say, yes, religions serve a good purpose in the life of many people.  But they still have to eat and poop.  That's a fact.

[blue eyed snake]

Title of this thread is: is faith an illusion of the mind, well, it might be. I've always thought so.

I've always regarded faith as an obsolete, christian concept.

Brought up an atheist the way I've always perceived it comes close to what MH writes. A warm and fuzzy feeling, for me implicating something like: feeling snug in the arms of your religion. I just didn't get it.

 

But now I find myself changed. Sometimes I experience things, see things, know things, that are not ordinarily seen or known. I can't control that, it just happens, just like I sometimes just happen to do something, without intending to.

 

I find I have a slowly growing faith that these things are alright, as eh...kind of development of the 'who I am'.

The other side of the coin is doubt, when I doubt, nothing is going to happen, therefore that would block my development

 

maybe that's something like what Steve wrote, but I find it very hard to find words for these concepts.

 

But in this new meaning ( for me) Faith might well be an illusion of the mind too, but needed to overcome doubts. As crutches to learn to walk on a path towards further development.

 

I think there is a third category.

Reason, emotion, and ?

 

If we let go of engaging reason, the narrator inside is left to be as it is, and we let go of engaging emotion, mediated by judgement - attachment and aversion; there is another level of experience where we can recognize, and rest in, non-engagement. There can be a realization then which is a source of enormous faith that I don't think is related to rational thought or emotion. Not sure what to label it, as anything will be inaccurate...  

 

I like the Tibetan word for it - Kuntuzangpo (all good)

 

 

[doc benway]

Only for those who still live in the dark.

 

It has been proven to be a fact and the tests were repeated with the exact same results.

 

Yes, when Darwin stole the concept and presented it, it was still a theory.  The theory has been proven to be fact.  And please don't be telling me you know more about this stuff than Carl Sagan did.

 

It's not that clearcut in the scientific community.

There are those that classify evolution as fact, as theory, and as both.

But that's mostly a matter of definition of terms - not worth that much time and energy to debate, IMO.