It would seem an oxymoron to much of the Western world but perhaps the closest example of a faithless religion we have is the much maligned and demonized Church Of Scientology. If we were to take Zen Buddhism and place it in a 1950’s nuclear fallout shelter in Oklahoma for a few hundred years, you’d come up with a religion that looks very much like Scientology. A bit paranoid, militant, obsessively secretive with an ‘us vs. them’ world view, but both religions share a commitment to pulling people out of needless pain and misery.

Zen Buddhism and Scientology do not demand a belief in a higher being. They simply say, “Do XY, and you will have Z result.” The existence of God is implicit. As the student progresses, becoming more capable and self-aware, they experience life more fully and can detach from that which is impermanent and temporary, thereby coming closer to the permanence of God.

From this point forward, the similarities of Zen and Scientology appear to radically diverge. Where Zen would use meditation techniques, prayer and fasting, Scientology would employ the equivalent of a psychologist with a lie detector. Never the less, no matter the techniques employed, the goals were identical.

I applaud any honest approach to help people realize their desire to improve oneself, be it physically, mentally or spiritually. However, since I find no improvement mechanisms whatsoever within popular main-stream religions, I find them disingenuous if not outright dishonest. In days past, condemned Christians would ask which lion was the hungriest. Today, I could likely change a Protestant into a Catholic just by threatening him with a paper cut.

With this in mind, I gladly join your Church of the Faithless. However, in the most Ayn Randian way possible, I’d like to know “Whats in for me and do I have to take you’re word on ‘faith’?”

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

synonyms see belief

— on faith : without question

I do understand the statement “all positions are faith based.” I think what’s being referred to is that in order to make a judgement you always have to make a little leap. But, this is such a commonplace thing that we don’t usually refer to all judgments as faith. If you’re being very precise, then one would have to get into the old Philosophy 101 arguments: “How do I know this chair is real?” “How do I know that YOU exist?” Those types of things. At the end of the day, I do make a little leap in reasoning that, yes, the chair I’m sitting in is real. I’m not in a coma, being given hallucinations by mad scientists. There isn’t a malicious demon controlling my thoughts and convincing me that the chair is real, when in actuality I’m in hell, spearing myself on something terrible. Those things are possible. But, I make the judgement that they aren’t true.

It’s all about probability. But, in ordinary language using the terms of probability would be really, really, really tedious. And, I like girls and I’ve always liked having them like me, so I chose not to say things like “I’m going to sit in this object that I perceive to be a chair and is mostly likely a chair.” I just sit in the chair.

I think we confuse our terms a little when we say that all judgments are faith-based. But, I think that’s a natural consequence of ordinary language. We’re not being precise.

Something I’ve been thinking about a bit recently is – what is faith? I read a statement this morning by someone who’s opinion I generally respect, but who has kind of a whifty, new-agey, spiritual bent – in a generally non-invasive way that is only hinted at. Anyway. He talked about faith as something that you get, that you don’t have control over. It’s a reaction to something and you just feel it and it IS. It’s a connection to something higher than yourself. A blessing you receive.

Now, I’ve certainly had those feelings. But, having that sense of “connectedness” does not imply to me that I’m in touch with something intelligent that created me and everything around me. That seems like the least likely scenario. It’s wish fulfillment. I think we have an amazing capacity for interpreting events and feelings in such a way that they confirm our presuppositions. Reason and analysis is the tool we have for stepping outside of that experience and getting a little closer to the truth.

Anyway. That’s a little rambly. But, I’d like to hear some opinions on what faith is.

“All positons are faith based.” I don’t know about this one. My first reaction is to say that all tautologies are either false or meaningless. I can’t see how this tautology is an exception to that rule.

Not sure I have much to add except to say that this strikes me as absolutely correct. Good post.

I think I may have some other thoughts on this but they are not fully formed at the moment.