A "Leap of Faith"

Sleepy

Stemming on from some of the conversation in the Strength of Islam V. Christianity thread, I'd like to ask some of the theists amongst us a question:

What is your motivation to make the leap of faith to believe in your god(s)?

This to me seems to be the biggest difference between atheists/agnostics and the religious. While many of us non-believers can see the value in having a religion (moral, social, psychological support and even financial) we just can't take that leap of faith to decide to believe in spite of all logic and reason.

In the past I've usually attributed this leap of faith to ignorance, mental weakness or fear of one's own mortality. I realise how arrogant that sounds but I just can't see any other logical motivations for taking that leap of faith. Care to enlighten me?

Archeron

Interesting question.
For me personally, I was raised a Catholic and for a large part of my life, it was just a given. You didnt question the existence of God, God just was. None of my family were ever forceful about religion, and never tried to make us believe, we just naturally did. This was reinfored with the ceremonies like communion and confirmation.

My religion was never a major church based thing anyway, it was always more of a direct relation ship with God. The church only really became invovled for us as a ceremonial thing for the likes of weddings and funerals.
In recent years, I have started looking more and more into the faith I got by default, and I personally began to see cracks and question those things that should have been "givens". That is the reason why now I am investigating other paths and belief systems, as I am beginning to find the concept of God, in a Catholic sense, a little bit hard to swallow. I would rather focus my energies now on the here and now, and the reduction of suffering of others, as opposed to an angry God shaking his fists at me from Heaven beacuse I done something that used to be okay, and now isnt, or vice versa.

I suppose, for me, I could say that my belief in God was based on a laziness to try and find something that proved otherwise, and a "lalala I'm not listening" approach when others tried to tell me. I feel better now to have began investigating what I believe and I think it will help me make better more informed opinions in the future. A large part of my wanting to believe in God is due to the fact that I fear mortality, both my own and that of those I love. The concept of heaven and a forgiving God makes the thought of death easier to deal with.

the_new_mr

For me, being a Muslim, it's about having things to back you up to help you believe like the scientific miracles in the Quran that were revealed over 14 centuries ago whilst at the same time the technology to confirm them was only available recently. Other things are how things in life seem to go along so well that it's too good to just be a case of coincedence (like someone appearing out of nowhere in the location you can least expect it when you really need their help). Also, the beauty of the world and such makes me concious of a Higher Being but I guess that an athiest could just put that down to nature.

Personally speaking, I believe that people shouldn't just accept their faith without questions. Thank God, I have no problems in the core belief of my religion.

I think that a lot of people that would classify themselves athiests, agnostics or just non-religious think that people who believe themselves to be religious feel the presence of God in the same way a Jedi feels in the force in the star wars films So, they think that it's a case of either you feel it or you don't but it's just not like that. I guess you could say that it's a mix of faith and logical reasoning.

Nevyn

Hmm maybe this should be in spirituality.

I was brought up as a christian and I never doubted that there was a chirstian god but him and his messagea and ideals never sat right with me.
I began searching and researching other faiths to see what else there was.
I am a panthiest and my gods all guide me and communicate wth me in many ways, mostly which define logic and reason.

Some people have a leap of faith other's find that have have been pushed or shoved or even tripped up.

Sleepy

the_new_mr - I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with the Quran, what are these scientific miracles you describe? I think that drawing the conclusion that there must be a great scheme or order to things that has been created by God/Allah/Whoever because of coincidences or because of the beauty of nature is a little puzzling tbh. Why do either of these things suggest the intervention of a god? Probability and Chaos theory suggest that the most unlikely of events cans occur, they can be highly improbable but in a long enough time scale, most things will happen. I think we're essentially hard-wired to appreciate the beauty of nature since we're part of it ourselves, though nature can create incredibly ugly things too.

Thaed, what do you mean by "I am a panthiest and my gods all guide me and communicate wth me in many ways, mostly which define logic and reason"? When choosing a new faith, how did you decide that pantheism was the 'correct' path and realise that you believed in it? What allowed you to take the leap of faith to say that "this is the truth"?

quickbeam

I was raised Catholic so it was a given for most of my childhood that there was a God.

Over the last fifteen years or so I've questioned what I was taught and little by little I've come to my own set of beliefs. Now, not only do I no longer describe myself as Catholic, I don't even describe myself as Christian, and I do not know of any organised religion that suits my particular set of beliefs.

But though I've disregarded a lot of what I was taught, the idea of God is still there. Maybe one day I will disregard that too, but for the moment I do believe in God. But my image of God is not of the traditional sense - a great man in white sitting on his throne in heaven answering prayers and creating miracles. The God I believe in is more the God of nature. When I walk on the beach, or in a park, I just can't NOT believe in God.

The Corinthian

What is a leap of faith? To examine that we probably have to look at how we reason to begin with - that is to say, logic. Logic is an immensely powerful process for arriving at conclusions, but that is not to say that it is foolproof. This is because logic, much like any other process, has one potentially fatal flaw in that it is axiomatic.

This essentially means that it is based upon an initial premise, an assumption. And if this assumption is wrong, then no matter (or perhaps precisely because of) how perfect your logic is thereafter then your conclusion will also be wrong - if one plus one is not equal to two, then all of mathematics would probably fall apart.

Religion is no different; it relies of a number of axioms (most notably the existence of one or more supernatural beings), after which it tends to be as logical as any other system. It is the acceptance of these axioms that are what we call ‘a leap of faith’.

Are they any better than those that modern science gives us? Perhaps - certainly the larger the leap, the larger the greater the possibility that the axiom is flawed. But is modern science any better? Probably not - after all, what we believed to be true through science has changed repeatedly over the centuries and there is no reason to believe that we will not change our minds further.

My2c.

Nevyn

Sleepy wrote:

Thaed, what do you mean by "I am a panthiest and my gods all guide me and communicate wth me in many ways, mostly which define logic and reason"?

Sorry that should have said defied 'logic and reason'

Sleepy wrote:

When choosing a new faith, how did you decide that pantheism was the 'correct' path and realise that you believed in it?

Simple did I belive in more then one god and can I acknowlegde that there are more then one god and can I 'work' with more then one god.
There is a realtionship with a patron deity and then others after that that I have a connection to.

Sleepy wrote:

What allowed you to take the leap of faith to say that "this is the truth"?

There is no leap of faith to " this is the true" you know what is true, you know it the same way that the sky is blue and that you like icecream it is just is but accepting it can be hard.

the_new_mr

Sleepy wrote:

the_new_mr - I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with the Quran, what are these scientific miracles you describe?

Some links for your convenience

Flash website listing a number of miracles:
http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/miraclesofthequran/index.html

Video that the website is based on:
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_miracles_quran.php

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote:

Religion is no different; it relies of a number of axioms (most notably the existence of one or more supernatural beings), after which it tends to be as logical as any other system. It is the acceptance of these axioms that are what we call ‘a leap of faith’.

Well put. This would be the reason I would reject what many faithful regard as proofs of God. the_new_mr's "miracles" would be a good example(do not get us started down that road, it goes back and forth....;) ) Other religions give different reasons to believe, but the start point is belief itself. Without that initial faith, it doesn't mean much to non believers and can be easily dismissed as coincidence, over interpretation or just plain incorrect.

Are they any better than those that modern science gives us? Perhaps - certainly the larger the leap, the larger the greater the possibility that the axiom is flawed. But is modern science any better? Probably not - after all, what we believed to be true through science has changed repeatedly over the centuries and there is no reason to believe that we will not change our minds further.

Too true. The advantage science has is that sooner or later, change does occur if the current theory doesn't fit. While any new theory will have it's detractors, sometimes very vocal ones, the chances of Einstein being burnt at the stake or stoned to death were slim when he contradicted Newton. Religion doesn't have as good a history in that respect.

My2c.

You undervalue yourself. I'd be charging at least a euro for your insights.:D

Son Goku

The Corinthian wrote:

Religion is no different; it relies of a number of axioms (most notably the existence of one or more supernatural beings), after which it tends to be as logical as any other system. It is the acceptance of these axioms that are what we call ‘a leap of faith’.

Are they any better than those that modern science gives us? Perhaps - certainly the larger the leap, the larger the greater the possibility that the axiom is flawed. But is modern science any better? Probably not - after all, what we believed to be true through science has changed repeatedly over the centuries and there is no reason to believe that we will not change our minds further.

I don't think it's fair to lump all axiomatic systems together.
We make a similar axiomatic leap in real life every day. I assume that the chair I'm sitting on is real, I assume........e.t.c.
Essentially I assume that my senses aren't lying to me in a gross sense and although this is an axiom of how I interact with the world it is no way, I think, similar to the kind of axioms that religion takes.
No area of human thought can perform total metaphysical spring cleaning, but that doesn't immediately allow every area to be put on an equal level in terms of reasonableness.

Again in my opinion, this argument can be reduced to "We are not God, therefore everything is faith" and although strictly correct, I don't think it highlights the actual difference between religion and other areas.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote:

Without that initial faith, it doesn't mean much to non believers and can be easily dismissed as coincidence, over interpretation or just plain incorrect.

However the same can be said of Science. Bare in mind that a large proportion of modern science is entirely built on theories - evolution, the Big Bang, etc. There’s better circumstantial evidence and a smaller ‘leap’ of faith, but the same principle applies in the axiomatic basis of Science as it does with religion.

While any new theory will have it's detractors, sometimes very vocal ones, the chances of Einstein being burnt at the stake or stoned to death were slim when he contradicted Newton. Religion doesn't have as good a history in that respect

I don’t know how fair that is. Science has only become the dominant philosophy in the last two centuries and European (Western) culture had essentially already moved on from witch burnings by that stage.

The Corinthian

Son Goku wrote:

Again in my opinion, this argument can be reduced to "We are not God, therefore everything is faith" and although strictly correct, I don't think it highlights the actual difference between religion and other areas.

I wasn’t attempting to highlights the actual difference between religion and science - quite the opposite. As you put it, strictly speaking I am correct, however that does not mean that a scientific axiom and a religious one are of equal merit. But unless we can see that they share the same basic principle, it is impossible to compare them to ascertain this.

Son Goku

The Corinthian wrote:

I wasn’t attempting to highlights the actual difference between religion and science - quite the opposite. As you put it, strictly speaking I am correct, however that does not mean that a scientific axiom and a religious one are of equal merit. But unless we can see that they share the same basic principle, it is impossible to compare them to ascertain this.

Ah cool, I misunderstood or rather I didn't see the angle you were coming from.

Sleepy

Some interesting points but not exactly what I was trying to get to. I'm trying to understand why people are prepared to make the leap of faith required to believe in a god because for me, it seems an unreasonably large leap to make based on reasoned decision making.

It's the motivation or rational behind the decision to make that leap of faith that intrigues me.

InFront

I had written a really long post about what I felt it took to make a leap of faith and my computer froze:mad: :mad: :mad:

To sum it up I believe there are two periods of faith in everyones life. The pre-adolescent phase and the adult phase.

In the preadolescent phase, everything: God, Jesus (peace be upon him) the salat, or saints, mass, whatever you were taught, is accepted as fact. You go along with it.
For the adult phase to begin one needs to make a leap of faith. The adolesacent phase itself is where the leap of faith is usually made and is the transitional grey area.
I believe that what made me an adult believer was seeing how the faith that I learned in my pre-adolescent stage, when applied to my life in the adolescent stage worked, and made my life make sense and made me happy. Not applying Gods laws to my life also warned me of such dangers and made this leap of faith occur, so to speak.

I think our home environment perhaps individual characteristics are what make such a life-changing stance easy or difficult.

Anyway I hope I have explained my experience reasonably clearly, still made over the computer freezing tbh:) I had explained it better that time!

Nevyn

Sleepy wrote:

It's the motivation or rational behind the decision to make that leap of faith that intrigues me.

Because when you sum up what you know and the experiences you have had
and ruled out everything else then you are left with what is for you the most rational explaintion.

The leap of faith as I would see it is not figuring that out it is not ignoring or contunuingly discounting but accepting.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote:

However the same can be said of Science. Bare in mind that a large proportion of modern science is entirely built on theories - evolution, the Big Bang, etc. There’s better circumstantial evidence and a smaller ‘leap’ of faith, but the same principle applies in the axiomatic basis of Science as it does with religion.

I see where you're coming from and I agree up to a point. The evidence is greater though. Personally speaking, maybe for me there's a cut off point, a critical mass of evidence which makes me take on board one theory or another. A critical mass I find lacking in religion, especially organised monolithic examples.

Maybe that's where the leap of faith lies in some and not others. Some need more or less critical mass to believe any theory, religious or scientific. Mine would be quite a high threshold with both science and religion. There are many theories of science I find dubious due to wishful fitting of evidence to a holy theory or indeed a lack of evidence at all(dark matter, string theory etc).

I would say that of the two philosophies, science tends towards more flexibility in that "faith" though. No theory of science will stand up for long, if a newer better theory comes along, or proof arrives to disprove the earlier stance. For religions that can be much harder. Christianity it could be argued only became more flexible in the face of the scientific enlightement.

I don’t know how fair that is. Science has only become the dominant philosophy in the last two centuries and European (Western) culture had essentially already moved on from witch burnings by that stage.

True, but if you graphed the rise of science with the fall of religion as the dominant philosophy, you could argue that witch burnings and the like dropped as the age of reason went up. The former was anathema to the latter. From the renaissance(and black death) on there was a definite shift, small at first that leads us to today(thunbnail sketch of course).

CathyMoran

For me it was a gut feeling, like when you know that someone else is in the room, or even love itself...it is not tangeable but you know it to be true. Yes, the scientist and engineer in me would argue otherwise sometimes, but you see some things in nature - for me, especially in astronomy and it makes you realise. It is like taking the leap when you first swim. Look at the stars on a clear night and get the goosebumps down your spine when you see how small we are in the scale of things. I hope that this helps in some way.

the_new_mr

Sleepy wrote:

I'm trying to understand why people are prepared to make the leap of faith required to believe in a god because for me, it seems an unreasonably large leap to make based on reasoned decision making.

It's the motivation or rational behind the decision to make that leap of faith that intrigues me.

I see what you mean.

Well, I'm not really sure what to tell you For me, I see it as the truth and I feel like I would only want to be on the truth. Sorry if that doesn't help much.

DinoBot

Sleepy wrote:

It's the motivation or rational behind the decision to make that leap of faith that intrigues me.

That also intrigues me.
I was brought up in a pagan household, there was no God. So when I got older I was exposed to this concept of God and I found it very hard to understand. I felt I should also have "God". But as I got older still I got comfotable with the no god model

But I feel the rational behind the decision is motivated by geography i.e. your birth place.

Why, well ask yourself this question. If the pope had been born in
Mecca to a devote muslim family, would he have decided to go against his family
and become the leader of the cathloic faith. I think not.

I think he would have found God in the quran. I know there will be exceptions
but on the whole people follow the religion of their birth. If you grow up
believing in God you will drift toward a God faith, be that Islam, christian or
Jewish based. It will just seem right. See quote below:

Thaedydal wrote:

Because when you sum up what you know and the experiences you have had
and ruled out everything else then you are left with what is for you the most rational explaintion.

The leap of faith as I would see it is not figuring that out it is not ignoring or contunuingly discounting but accepting.

I am also guilty of this. I grew up with no God and drifted toward a no god
belief

Schuhart

DinoBot wrote:

If the pope had been born in Mecca to a devote muslim family, would he have decided to go against his family and become the leader of the cathloic faith. I think not.

I think there is too much crossover for this to hold completely. Undoubtedly the main reason many people believe in what they do is because it was the faith they were raised in. But people do change faiths and desert faiths for atheism or agnosticism.

If the faith is familiar, then it is not unreasonable that people will leave out the elements that they feel are incredible and keep the rest. So someone raised a Catholic might discount the idea that the Pope is infallible but feel that this is not actually all that essential to their practice of their faith.

I think the question of a 'leap' more arises when someone moves from one faith to another. If someone switches then at some level they saying they regard the idea that a religious text was dictated by an angel into a prophet’s ear as incredible, but the idea that a deity begat a son to impart his divine message is utterly fine or vice versa, or that truth is actually to be found by lurking in sacred woods or whatever. That I find a bit of a puzzle.

When people adopt faiths that seem manifestly unfounded, like scientology, I think the wonder is how much of this is down to faith and how much to hope.

DinoBot

Schuhart wrote:

When people adopt faiths that seem manifestly unfounded, like scientology, I think the wonder is how much of this is down to faith and how much to hope.

Its not the whole picture.But I think a large part of people "buying-into" any faith is not really based on fact but a lifestyle choose. I dont think many people have had the talking bush or lightening strike.
I think people pick a religion which fits their worldview best.

And the reality of that is that they will accept some strange stuff on the way.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

It's the motivation or rational behind the decision to make that leap of faith that intrigues me.

I think a number of people have suggested reasons, principally environmental, for this. In the case of converts, they may also experience the sense of community that comes from a faith as a catalyst. The reasons no doubt vary - indeed; your own beliefs are, from observation, largely as a result of your own, aggressively, anti-clerical views. So it’s not only the religious who are shaped by their environment.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I'm not really sure what to tell you For me, I see it as the truth and I feel like I would only want to be on the truth. Sorry if that doesn't help much.

The question is why you choose to see it as a truth - why the leap of faith?

Simply saying that you see it as a truth because it’s truth is a circular argument and serves to sidestep and not respond to the question. If you don’t want to respond, that’s all right - most, if not all, religions discourage the questioning of their principle axioms, so I would imagine it’s not a comfortable examination.

Schuhart

DinoBot wrote:

I think a large part of people "buying-into" any faith is not really based on fact but a lifestyle choose.

I don't disagree with you, and have suspected that, indeed, in picking a religious belief system people choose to suppress their critical faculties, with this suppression taking less effort if its the faith you were born into.

The only problem is this means our picture of theism can be summed up by that line of Fr Dougal Maguire's that 'Its only a bit of a laugh, Ted, like all that stuff they taught us in the seminary'. I think most theists - including converts - would assert that they subscribe to a particular religion because they thinks its the truth.

Dades

Schuhart wrote:

I think most theists - including converts - would assert that they subscribe to a particular religion because they thinks its the truth.

I would never lump converts in with your common-or-garden theist. Converts have been on a search for a deeper meaning that involves the personality of the faith much more so than the "truth" of it. It is more a matter of finding a skin to be comfortable in.

Your average theist perhaps believes it is the truth simply in the absence of any other explanation.

Or another reality:
Faith is the belief in something you know ain't true. - Mark Twain

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote:

I think a number of people have suggested reasons, principally environmental, for this. In the case of converts, they may also experience the sense of community that comes from a faith as a catalyst. The reasons no doubt vary - indeed; your own beliefs are, from observation, largely as a result of your own, aggressively, anti-clerical views. So it’s not only the religious who are shaped by their environment.

If environment was such a shaping factor, I would more than likely be Catholic. I was christened, edicated and confirmed as a Catholic. The Catholic Church never did me any direct harm so it's not simply my being anti-clerical (which undoubtedly I have become through observation of the Churches own failing to practice many of their own preachings though I was agnostic before I noticed this). My own beliefs stem from thinking about the principles involved and failing to find any sort of evidence or reason to support the theistic beliefs I have been taught and those I have learnt about through my own readings.

As far as I can see, environment can shape someone's childhood beliefs and if that person never thinks about what they've been taught they'll continue to accept it. Once they've questioned it though, once they've reached this point of having to take a 'leap of faith' I can't see why someone would choose to keep believing other than through a desire to do so. Which isn't a very sensible reason to believe something imho.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

If environment was such a shaping factor, I would more than likely be Catholic. I was christened, edicated and confirmed as a Catholic. The Catholic Church never did me any direct harm so it's not simply my being anti-clerical (which undoubtedly I have become through observation of the Churches own failing to practice many of their own preachings though I was agnostic before I noticed this). My own beliefs stem from thinking about the principles involved and failing to find any sort of evidence or reason to support the theistic beliefs I have been taught and those I have learnt about through my own readings.

I’m not going to attempt to psychoanalyse you, but I very much doubt that your aggressive anti-clerical feeling is completely unrelated to your wider Worldview - you simply bring up the subject, and get very passionate about it, a bit too often here for me to believe you.

As far as I can see, environment can shape someone's childhood beliefs and if that person never thinks about what they've been taught they'll continue to accept it. Once they've questioned it though, once they've reached this point of having to take a 'leap of faith' I can't see why someone would choose to keep believing other than through a desire to do so. Which isn't a very sensible reason to believe something imho.

You’re essentially saying here that you can’t understand why a rational, intelligent theist would not agree with you. Maybe you’re both wrong.

the_new_mr

The Corinthian wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I'm not really sure what to tell you For me, I see it as the truth and I feel like I would only want to be on the truth. Sorry if that doesn't help much.

The question is why you choose to see it as a truth - why the leap of faith?

Simply saying that you see it as a truth because it’s truth is a circular argument and serves to sidestep and not respond to the question. If you don’t want to respond, that’s all right - most, if not all, religions discourage the questioning of their principle axioms, so I would imagine it’s not a comfortable examination.

I can see how that can be perceived as a circular argument. Sorry about that. Perhaps I should have ellaborated more. Questioning the principle axioms of your faith is something that everyone should do. If you get a question in your head and then say to yourself "No, no, just forget about it" then you're only fooling yourself into believing.

I guess what I should have said is that I see my faith as air tight. I know that some others disagree with that but there you go. I'm not choosing to see it as air tight. It's just the way I see it. I'm sure some people would say that I am choosing on some sub-conscious level but when I have a book that non-believers believe was authored by an illiterate man that has scientific facts in it that scientists have only been able to verify recently and has a number of laws when abided by brings out an easier life for both the individual and the society then I see that it can't be from the illiterate man and must instead come from a Higher Being.

By the way, I'd just like to point out at this stage that there are no proper Islamic states in the world today.

And, as I've mentioned before, sometimes some life experiences can really give you a feeling of the presence of God. Some people think you're crazy when you relate things like this so perhaps I'll just leave it at that

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

I can see how that can be perceived as a circular argument. Sorry about that. Perhaps I should have ellaborated more. Questioning the principle axioms of your faith is something that everyone should do. If you get a question in your head and then say to yourself "No, no, just forget about it" then you're only fooling yourself into believing.

Yes but you believe in the first place. The circular argument remains. Those principle axioms are predicated on your faith. A faith which is obviously dear to you and indeed it should be, if that's what you believe. Fair enough, but the initial leap of faith question remains, if you see what I mean?

I guess what I should have said is that I see my faith as air tight. I know that some others disagree with that but there you go.

As I'm sure all devout people of all faiths would say. All would have that leap of faith. Why did they jump in the first place and why to the faith they would now promote? Those are the questions really. It returns to the accident of birth in time and space that makes it the more likely which organised faith one follows. Sprituality in all it's forms is universal, organised religion is not.

I'm not choosing to see it as air tight. It's just the way I see it.

Unless you are a convert, then the "choice" of the faith itself would be down to a socio/geographical standpoint as others have suggested. The choice to devote yourself to it, is certainly a more personal matter, though not entirely bereft of those previous influences.

but when I have a book that non-believers believe was authored by an illiterate man

Which non believers? For every non believer who would back that statement up, you would likely find ten, or more of their number that would disagree and similarly those of other faiths that would say different. In fact, any non believer that would say that, without good evidence is agreeing with you that it's a supernatural book. Hardly non believers at that point. EG critical analysis would suggest that the same illiterate man was a successful merchant for many years, which would suggest literacy and numeracy and the book itself wasn't fully codified in his lifetime. The oldest copy still extant is several hundred years later. Your statement is an unprovable principle axiom right there.

that has scientific facts in it that scientists have only been able to verify recently

Well this road is a well trodden one, but suffice to say that miracles of all flavours in all faiths are based more on the need for "proof" of the original position, rather than the other way round.

and has a number of laws when abided by brings out an easier life for both the individual and the society

That's an argument that has more weight certainly. Any faith with peace to fellow man etc has value to any society. The inflexiblity of some of those codes can cause problems however. That goes for all religions.

then I see that it can't be from the illiterate man and must instead come from a Higher Being.

You could also argue about the nature of the higher being. For all anyone knows it could be aliens etc(I'm not being flippant BTW, it's as good a question as any).

By the way, I'd just like to point out at this stage that there are no proper Islamic states in the world today.

A bit off topic and I don't honestly know why you mention it, but were there ever? As an example, the "original" Islamic state was bracketed by war through most of it's birth. The Islamic empire at it's height was fraught with internecine fighting, expansion and conquest, just like those pesky Christian types. The golden age of any society, bears little analysis without revealing cracks.

And, as I've mentioned before, sometimes some life experiences can really give you a feeling of the presence of God. Some people think you're crazy when you relate things like this so perhaps I'll just leave it at that

Even as a sceptic, that I would have more faith in TBH. I prefer the spiritual when personal and not always bound by dogma.

The Corinthian

the_new_mr wrote:

I guess what I should have said is that I see my faith as air tight. I know that some others disagree with that but there you go.

But that still brings us back to the aforementioned circular argument - “it’s true, because it is”. People, religious, secular or otherwise, do not arrive at such positions in such a hermetically sealed fashion. We make leaps of faith because there is enough circumstantial evidence or perhaps simply because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

I'm not choosing to see it as air tight.

We all choose to believe. We all choose that our senses are not lying to us and that the sky is indeed blue and the grass green. We choose to accept (or deny) evidence presented before us. We choose to believe the word of another or not.

After all, if we did not choose, where would that leave the sin of apostasy?

I'm sure some people would say that I am choosing on some sub-conscious level but when I have a book that non-believers believe was authored by an illiterate man that has scientific facts in it that scientists have only been able to verify recently and has a number of laws when abided by brings out an easier life for both the individual and the society then I see that it can't be from the illiterate man and must instead come from a Higher Being.

Then perhaps you are pointing to circumstantial evidence that for you pointed to there being a ‘guiding hand’ to said book, because it would be the only reasonable explanations in your view. From this you made your leap, which embraced the remainder of the faith’s axioms.

That’s not unlike many adherents to science who will see the evidence that proves that there’s something to this Science thing and then go on to accept Schrodinger's cat too without any further proof.

By the way, I'd just like to point out at this stage that there are no proper Islamic states in the world today.

This is irrelevant to the discussion - also because we’re not really discussing Islam but religious faith in general.

And, as I've mentioned before, sometimes some life experiences can really give you a feeling of the presence of God. Some people think you're crazy when you relate things like this so perhaps I'll just leave it at that

Not at all, seeing a vision of a saint, prophet, angel or daemon is a perfectly understandable means by which one may then choose to accept a faith or other. Of course, whether they did see a saint, prophet, angel or daemon is another matter, but I wouldn’t rule it out either.