NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by a surprisingly thought-provoking piece of literature I found in my Grandmother's bathroom. I'll try to recount the parable and then make a discussion out of it.

So a child was in the car going home with her father. She looked out the window and saw the stars, way up in the sky. She asked her father "Do you think I could reach those stars if I tried?" "I don't think so, honey", he replied. "Well", she said, "I'm sure you could get close, so if I stand on your shoulders, I know I could reach them." They then made the comparison with faith in god, that an unquestioning, utter confidence in the ability of god to help us was the most total, holy faith. It said that truly childlike, innocent faith in god was the most powerful and beneficial faith for us and the most glorifying for god.

Now I'm not religious myself, but I used to be and my family is. In my experience, those who have that kind of innocent faith are those with blind faith, those who accept whatever has been put in front of them and just go with it. But most of the people I know are the opposite. They explore, critique, question, and examine their faith and look for meaning and evidence.

For the religious: would you consider your faith "childlike"? Are you supremely confident and accepting of everything your god does, with total innocence? Or are you an examiner, a critiquer and a questioner?

For the non-religious? Assuming you were, which do you think you would be? Also, which of those do you find yourself generally easier to get along with and/or better people?

For everyone: is this divide real? Or imagined? Are there shades of grey between these two types?

I know it's wishful thinking, but try not to turn this into a flame-fest. Please? :p

Inspired by a surprisingly thought-provoking piece of literature I found in my Grandmother's bathroom. I'll try to recount the parable and then make a discussion out of it.

So a child was in the car going home with her father. She looked out the window and saw the stars, way up in the sky. She asked her father "Do you think I could reach those stars if I tried?" "I don't think so, honey", he replied. "Well", she said, "I'm sure you could get close, so if I stand on your shoulders, I know I could reach them." They then made the comparison with faith in god, that an unquestioning, utter confidence in the ability of god to help us was the most total, holy faith. It said that truly childlike, innocent faith in god was the most powerful and beneficial faith for us and the most glorifying for god.

Now I'm not religious myself, but I used to be and my family is. In my experience, those who have that kind of innocent faith are those with blind faith, those who accept whatever has been put in front of them and just go with it. But most of the people I know are the opposite. They explore, critique, question, and examine their faith and look for meaning and evidence.

For the religious: would you consider your faith "childlike"? Are you supremely confident and accepting of everything your god does, with total innocence? Or are you an examiner, a critiquer and a questioner?

For the non-religious? Assuming you were, which do you think you would be? Also, which of those do you find yourself generally easier to get along with and/or better people?

For everyone: is this divide real? Or imagined? Are there shades of grey between these two types?

I know it's wishful thinking, but try not to turn this into a flame-fest. Please? :p

I am a religous man, and in my particular faith we are told that we must never assume and always question. Child like faith is for children.

I am a religous man, and in my particular faith we are told that we must never assume and always question. Child like faith is for children.

If I may ask, which demonination? Also, do you find a lot of children cease to attend when they start questioning? Because that's what happened at my old church, about the half the people stopped attending at 16 because they were encouraged to think about their belief rather than blindly accept. The other half are fairly solidly believing. Do you find similar outcomes in your faith?

I am a religous man, and in my particular faith we are told that we must never assume and always question. Child like faith is for children.

I'm so sorry, I forgot you were a man, once again.

If I may ask, which demonination? Also, do you find a lot of children cease to attend when they start questioning? Because that's what happened at my old church, about the half the people stopped attending at 16 because they were encouraged to think about their belief rather than blindly accept. The other half are fairly solidly believing. Do you find similar outcomes in your faith?

I'm a Sikh(converted) No, within Punjabi culture much like a jewish family, Sikhi is both a religion and soooo much a part of culture that it is hard to seperate the two. So inveribaly children stay in the faith, although of course many do not.

All faith is childlike.

I'm so sorry, I forgot you were a man, once again.

Hahahah perhaps I should get around to adding that lil pic/avatar type thing, but I really can't be bothered.:D

All faith is childlike.

Well that is wrong. Tell me do you have faith that the sun will arrive tomorow morning?

Hahahah perhaps I should get around to adding that lil pic/avatar type thing, but I really can't be bothered.:D

lol, you should, or else write in your sig: I'm a guy.

I'm a Sikh(converted) No, within Punjabi culture much like a jewish family, Sikhi is both a religion and soooo much a part of culture that it is hard to seperate the two. So inveribaly children stay in the faith, although of course many do not.

Oh ok, yeah that makes sense. *refrains from making "fully sikh" pun*


*fails*.

Well that is wrong. Tell me do you have faith that the sun will arrive tomorow morning?

The sun does not "arrive". It just sort of sits there.

I would say that blind, childlike faith is probably the most superficial and fragile. It surrenders it's thought process to an authority figure acting as a proxy for whatever power they believe in. As a result they have not really *thought* about what they believe in, they are just going with what said authority figure has said is right or wrong. As a result they are also less able to cope and reconcile their faith when things happen which may contradict it.

My view is true faith is one you consider, question and utlimatly construct for yourself - but then I'm a pagan and have always strongly been of the view that we each create our own paths. This said, I always have great respect for those theologians and philosophers, irrespective of their faith background, who truly debate, consider, argue and analyse the tenants of their faith.

Well that is wrong. Tell me do you have faith that the sun will arrive tomorow morning?

Put it this way : a child would be less surprised by the sun not showing up again, so that example doesn't really cover it.

How would you say faith is not childlike?

All faith is childlike.

Really? Would you say that one who reasonably weighs up all the possibilities, takes into account his or her feelings on the subject, and comes to the conclusion that there is a higher power, completely of his or her own volition, would you say that that person is acting in a childlike manner?

Or is it that the mere act of faith is a purely childlike action, and that grown adults have no need for it?

Really? Would you say that one who reasonably weighs up all the possibilities, takes into account his or her feelings on the subject, and comes to the conclusion that there is a higher power, completely of his or her own volition, would you say that that person is acting in a childlike manner?

Or is it that the mere act of faith is a purely childlike action, and that grown adults have no need for it?

I think you answered your own question there... what you describe is a thought process. I wouldn't call that "faith".

I think you answered your own question there... what you describe is a thought process. I wouldn't call that "faith".

Oh, I know what I think on the subject, and indeed I do think it is that thought process. I was merely enquiring what RoI thought. I'm in a curious mood this evening.

What about you?

I think you answered your own question there... what you describe is a thought process. I wouldn't call that "faith".

It is - because failing absolute evidence you are still making an assumption on faith that such a higher power does exist.

Oh, I know what I think on the subject, and indeed I do think it is that thought process. I was merely enquiring what RoI thought. I'm in a curious mood this evening.

What about you?

I'd put it this way : Going through an examination as you describe is a thought process, partially rational, partially emotional. If you come to the conclusion that there must be a higher being, that that is the result of the process. Faith would be taking this conclusion and deciding to firmly believe that once we die, we get judged and end up either in heaven or hell.

It is - because failing absolute evidence you are still making an assumption on faith that such a higher power does exist.

See above ;)

I'd put it this way : Going through an examination as you describe is a thought process, partially rational, partially emotional. If you come to the conclusion that there must be a higher being, that that is the result of the process. Faith would be taking this conclusion and deciding to firmly believe that once we die, we get judged and end up either in heaven or hell.

Yes but that conclusion is still made lacking actual evidence either way - I'd say that makes it faith. But then I have quite a wide definition of faith, I truly don't believe it's a concept unique to religion, faith is just the belief in an idea failing actual evidence to it's truth, or lack thereof. So you can have faith in ideals, political views, concepts, people and religion - whatever it is, you are placing your confidence in something ultimately on trust.

I'd put it this way : Going through an examination as you describe is a thought process, partially rational, partially emotional. If you come to the conclusion that there must be a higher being, that that is the result of the process. Faith would be taking this conclusion and deciding to firmly believe that once we die, we get judged and end up either in heaven or hell.

So would you describe faith as the act of interpereting one's conviction in a higher power into a set of prescribed events or activities which take place beyond the role of comprehension (ie. in the afterlife)? So faith is ascribing to a religion, rather than just a belief in something more?

Oh, I know what I think on the subject, and indeed I do think it is that thought process. I was merely enquiring what RoI thought. I'm in a curious mood this evening.

What about you?

It's evening?

Yes it is childlike to be blind in your obedience to the lies that you are told.

Yes but that conclusion is still made lacking actual evidence either way - I'd say that makes it faith. But then I have quite a wide definition of faith, I truly don't believe it's a concept unique to religion, faith is just the belief in an idea failing actual evidence to it's truth, or lack thereof. So you can have faith in ideals, political views, concepts, people and religion - whatever it is, you are placing your confidence in something ultimately on trust.

Ah, the old problem with defining the concepts that are being debatted...
Personally, I would call such conclusions spirituality, rather than faith. The mere conclusion that there is a higher being doesn't really instill much faith, after all. That comes only once you start furnishing said being with whatever attributes you want to choose. That's when you start having faith that he/she really is and acts the way you imagine.
And in that respect you can also use the word faith when referring to politics and ideals. You have faith, and you basically hope.
It's taking it a good bit further than just concluding that something's out there.

It's evening?

Yes it is childlike to be blind in your obedience to the lies that you are told.

It's just past 11pm in my arse end of the world. It's evening.

Would you then think it was childish to believe what we are told about, say, the earth orbiting the sun if, later, we are shown a viable alternative that the earth actually revolves around a moon with a giant gorilla on top of it? Just to use a completely reasonable analogy.

So would you describe faith as the act of interpereting one's conviction in a higher power into a set of prescribed events or activities which take place beyond the role of comprehension (ie. in the afterlife)? So faith is ascribing to a religion, rather than just a belief in something more?

I think to have faith in the higher being, you need a bit more than just recognising its existence.
You need to belief it to behave and act in a certain way and take influence on life. It's this behaviour you can have faith in, not the existence alone.
And yes, a lot of the descriptions of such behaviour can be found in established religions.

I think to have faith in the higher being, you need a bit more than just recognising its existence.
You need to belief it to behave and act in a certain way and take influence on life. It's this behaviour you can have faith in, not the existence alone.
And yes, a lot of the descriptions of such behaviour can be found in established religions.

That makes a fair amount of sense I suppose, the act of fleshing out details about one's confidence in the existence of a higher power is what makes it faith. But then to bring this on topic, is all faith in that childlike? Or is it possible to add attributes to one's spirituality whilst still remaining open-minded and critical?

It's evening?

Yes it is childlike to be blind in your obedience to the lies that you are told.

You still haven't answered the question of if someone examines and goes through a thought process of their faith is it still childlike? Because you can't say that is just going in blind and listening to what you have been told.

It's just past 11pm in my arse end of the world. It's evening.

Would you then think it was childish to believe what we are told about, say, the earth orbiting the sun if, later, we are shown a viable alternative that the earth actually revolves around a moon with a giant gorilla on top of it? Just to use a completely reasonable analogy.

11 ain't evening.


I've already said that I believe that a flat earth is more likely than a god.

You still haven't answered the question of if someone examines and goes through a thought process of their faith is it still childlike? Because you can't say that is just going in blind and listening to what you have been told.

Yes it's like the boogey man or whatever. There is know proof, why devote your life to some bullshit?

Ah, the old problem with defining the concepts that are being debatted...
Personally, I would call such conclusions spirituality, rather than faith. The mere conclusion that there is a higher being doesn't really instill much faith, after all. That comes only once you start furnishing said being with whatever attributes you want to choose. That's when you start having faith that he/she really is and acts the way you imagine.
And in that respect you can also use the word faith when referring to politics and ideals. You have faith, and you basically hope.
It's taking it a good bit further than just concluding that something's out there.

I would personally say the two though are very closely linked. It is within our nature once we have conceptualised something to then assign them attributes, hell we assign animorphic traits to inanimate objects, or course we are going to assign it to a conceptualisation of a high power. Even just saying that said higher power is clearly inhumane, non-interventionist and nebulously beyond our comprehension is to assign it traits. Again, do so will clearly be faith because there is no clear evidence, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily childlike or unreasoned. If anything the traits we assigned are liable to be based on our own hopes/fears/view of the world.

It would only be childlike if, after concluding there was a higher power, you asked an authority figure (or book) exactly how that higher power might be and accepted all they said without question. If however you then went and looked at the world around us, history and yes thoughts and philosophies from religion and then concluded that the high power probably had certain traits, I wouldn't call that blind or childlike.

That makes a fair amount of sense I suppose, the act of fleshing out details about one's confidence in the existence of a higher power is what makes it faith. But then to bring this on topic, is all faith in that childlike? Or is it possible to add attributes to one's spirituality whilst still remaining open-minded and critical?

Tricky question... I'm not sure, but to my mind faith and doubt are excluding each other. To have faith means not to have doubts, and if you don't have doubts, how can you question?

Yes it's like the boogey man or whatever. There is know proof, why devote your life to some bullshit?

Well fuck me, there is known proof that there is no God.

Cool, so you will give me some links then.

11 ain't evening.


I've already said that I believe that a flat earth is more likely than a god.

It so is. What would you classify it as?

And I forgot you said that. Short memory, me. But getting away from the god thing for a minute, what about other things one can have a faith in? Take the Marxists at my uni. They all have faith in Marxism as the solution to the world's ills. Some do it through blind acceptance of the Communist Manifesto and total confidence that he was right. Others do it through careful study and examination, and reach the conclusion that carefully applied marxism is the soluction to the world's ills. Would you call the first childlike faith, and the second not? Which is stronger and more desirable?

Well fuck me, there is known proof that there is no God.

Cool, so you will give me some links then.

http://www.godlovespeople.com/starving_child-sudan2.jpg

Tricky question... I'm not sure, but to my mind faith and doubt are excluding each other. To have faith means not to have doubts, and if you don't have doubts, how can you question?

To my mind faith is about confidence in your conclusions/beliefs but one that does not exclude re-evaluation or doubt, if anything it should be strengthened by such considerations. Which is why people will often distinguish faith from blind faith - blind faith is where there is no room for doubt.

http://www.godlovespeople.com/starving_child-sudan2.jpg

I was expecting something a bit more substantial not something that necessarily shows that a few people's idea of God is wrong.

It so is. What would you classify it as?

And I forgot you said that. Short memory, me. But getting away from the god thing for a minute, what about other things one can have a faith in? Take the Marxists at my uni. They all have faith in Marxism as the solution to the world's ills. Some do it through blind acceptance of the Communist Manifesto and total confidence that he was right. Others do it through careful study and examination, and reach the conclusion that carefully applied marxism is the soluction to the world's ills. Would you call the first childlike faith, and the second not? Which is stronger and more desirable?

5-7 is evening, 7-12 is night, 12-12 morning, 12-5 is afternoon.

Neither are childish, Marxism is the solution to all the world's ills. Marxism is not like religion- there is proof that it works- look at China's economy. There is no proof of god. Not a single shred of evidence.

To my mind faith is about confidence in your conclusions/beliefs but one that does not exclude re-evaluation or doubt, if anything it should be strengthened by such considerations. Which is why people will often distinguish faith from blind faith - blind faith is where there is no room for doubt.

That's pretty much my conceptualisation of faith as well, but is doubt then to be accepted and embraced as part of a healthy faith? I mean, I would argue that it is, but would you? What about more organised religions? Is it enough for the leaders to have well thought out faiths, and then pass that on blindly to the masses? And is it a stronger faith to have absolute faith, never doubting or questioning the supremacy of God/Jesus/Buddha/Shiva/Cthulhu/etc?

I was expecting something a bit more substantial not something that necessarily shows that a few people's idea of God is wrong.

You clearly know me yet. When have I ever offered substantial evidence?

That's pretty much my conceptualisation of faith as well, but is doubt then to be accepted and embraced as part of a healthy faith? I mean, I would argue that it is, but would you? What about more organised religions? Is it enough for the leaders to have well thought out faiths, and then pass that on blindly to the masses? And is it a stronger faith to have absolute faith, never doubting or questioning the supremacy of God/Jesus/Buddha/Shiva/Cthulhu/etc?

I would say that yes, healthy faith includes doubt and is often strengthened by it. I dislike organised religions because they are often based around the idea of leaders/authority figure (including the relevant holy books) being the ultimate word and encourage all others to just follow blindly. That's not enough, it's what leads to the worst abuses in the name of religion, and ultimately is as unhealthy to society as people at large blindly following a political figures/views just because of who they are.

5-7 is evening, 7-12 is night, 12-12 morning, 12-5 is afternoon.

Neither are childish, Marxism is the solution to all the world's ills. Marxism is not like religion- there is proof that it works- look at China's economy. There is no proof of god. Not a single shred of evidence.

Actually I believe that China came about because of Maoism (a verison of Marxism) and if it was so working so well why have they allowed their economy to become muh more mixed?

You clearly know me yet. When have I ever offered substantial evidence?

Is that you confirming that your claim is pure shit?

5-7 is evening, 7-12 is night, 12-12 morning, 12-5 is afternoon.

Believe it or not but RoI pretty much is right about evening, it is the period between the start of sunset and the start of dusk.

Is that you confirming that your claim is pure shit?

No, just saying I'm lazy.

No, just saying I'm lazy.

Well until you or anyone else can prove your claim I am going to take it as wrong and it is simply your belief and your faith.

Which by the way is childlike :wink:

Believe it or not but RoI pretty much is right about evening, it is the period between the start of sunset and the start of dusk.

No.

Believe it or not but RoI pretty much is right about evening, it is the period between the start of sunset and the start of dusk.

I have faith in my definitions of evening ;)

I have faith in my definitions of evening ;)

Ah, but do you also have room for doubt in that faith? :p

I have faith in my definitions of evening ;)

Well, I know I'm right. ;)

Ah, but do you also have room for doubt in that faith? :p

I am willing to question and re-assess, but on the evidence supplied and my own intuition, I would say my faith in the time of day classified as "evening" should be modified to mean the period between me eating tea and me going to bed.

No.

I say you are right and then you say no?

So does that mean you were wrong?

I say you are right and then you say no?

So does that mean you were wrong?

Did you? Oh, my bad.

Did you? Oh, my bad.

lol, go over and re-read it.

Funny how people get into a midset against someone else and is just ready to say whatever they say as wrong.

lol, go over and re-read it.

Funny how people get into a midset against someone else and is just ready to say whatever they say as wrong.

And so much fun to fuck with people when they do :D

Awfully sorry, I misread it.

I've argued/debated/heatedly discussed...
:p
...individual faith with many different people who I've known - a few have had seemingly childlike faith, seemingly blinding/ignorant faith in their chosen religion/deity but they have managed to hold their own pretty well each time I've debated with them about the existence of their God and why it applies to me etc. etc...

I think childlike faith is less to do with faith and more to do with willful ignorance - as the person isn't being true to themselves or anyone else in their society. Overall, I feel that blind faith is a very strong faith but not good, wholesome or truthful and because a person hasn't considered their faith much at all they're much more likely to act ignorantly/stupidly toward things they aren't used to/comfortable with.

On a side note - organised religion = bleugh...

Put it this way : a child would be less surprised by the sun not showing up again, so that example doesn't really cover it.

How would you say faith is not childlike?

Meh! I think it covers it ampley. Why would you say that faith is childlike?

Tricky question... I'm not sure, but to my mind faith and doubt are excluding each other. To have faith means not to have doubts, and if you don't have doubts, how can you question?

I don't think it's that simple. For example, I believe, i.e. have faith in, the idea that the universe is mostly rational and can be comprehended if I ask a lot of questions.

Because of this faith, I doubt people who tell me that X or Y is a Mystery and I should just accept it.

For the religious: would you consider your faith "childlike"? Are you supremely confident and accepting of everything your god does, with total innocence? Or are you an examiner, a critiquer and a questioner?


I don't think it needs to be a dichotomy.

When I was a kid my father would teach me about electronics. (He was an electronics repair guy.) When he'd explain things to me like resistors and circuits, I didn't always understand fully, and so I'd ask questions. I'd experiment. He'd give me bits of wire, lights, batteries and a circuit board and let me play around with it and build circuits so I could explore and learn on my own, and he was always there to answer questions.

At the same time, even when I knew I didn't fully grasp what he was telling me, or when things were too hard to explain at my level of understanding, I had complete and full trust that he knew what he was doing and that listening to his advice and direction would be the safest way to go.

It's the same way with us and our Father in Heaven. While He does encourage and expect us to question, to wonder, to explore and to learn, He is always there to provide guidance, and His teachings are always reliable.

But in a way, that kind of complete faith *IS* childlike, and that's perfectly fine.

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 19:14

"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;"
-Ephesians 5:1


For everyone: is this divide real? Or imagined? Are there shades of grey between these two types?


I think they can co-exist just fine, provided people don't try to replace science with religion or vice versa.

I would say that blind, childlike faith is probably the most superficial and fragile. It surrenders it's thought process to an authority figure acting as a proxy for whatever power they believe in. As a result they have not really *thought* about what they believe in, they are just going with what said authority figure has said is right or wrong. As a result they are also less able to cope and reconcile their faith when things happen which may contradict it.

My view is true faith is one you consider, question and utlimatly construct for yourself - but then I'm a pagan and have always strongly been of the view that we each create our own paths. This said, I always have great respect for those theologians and philosophers, irrespective of their faith background, who truly debate, consider, argue and analyse the tenants of their faith.

This -- exactly this.

This is why faiths either remain in that state, and we get Freddie Phelps and the like (childISH, as opposed to childLIKE), or faiths break completely and we get recovering Catholics and the like. I find that the most agreeable faiths are those which indeed go through the shattering of the childlike fragility but then restore that faith, like a mended bone, to a stronger, more reasonable view of the world and of spiritual matters.

This -- exactly this.

This is why faiths either remain in that state, and we get Freddie Phelps and the like (childISH, as opposed to childLIKE), or faiths break completely and we get recovering Catholics and the like. I find that the most agreeable faiths are those which indeed go through the shattering of the childlike fragility but then restore that faith, like a mended bone, to a stronger, more reasonable view of the world and of spiritual matters.

I'm not sure that is quiet accurate?

I would not say that my own faith has been shatterd and then re-mended. Rather it has grown and changed as I have.

I'm not sure that is quiet accurate?

I would not say that my own faith has been shatterd and then re-mended. Rather it has grown and changed as I have.

What muscle grows without first being partially broken down? Something happens to a person that shatters or makes you seriously re-evaluate the faith they had as a child. That person then re-forms or re-shapes their faith to account for the contradictions that caused the loss of childlike faith to seem inadequate in the first place.

My opinion doesn't need to be accurate. It's my opinion.

What muscle grows without first being partially broken down?

My opinion doesn't need to be accurate. It's my opinion.

Umm the Glutimus maximus? So opinions do not need to be acurate? Then what is the point in holding such a thing?:D

Umm the Glutimus maximus? So opinions do not need to be acurate? Then what is the point in holding such a thing?:D

I was hoping you'd get this without me explaining it, but in labeling my opinion as my opinion and declaring that it doesn't need to be accurate, I color your assessment of my opinion with the same brush. I wasn't commenting on your notion of faith, specifically. I was commenting on Eofaerwic's post, which struck me as interpretable with the opinion I posted.

Also, no muscle can be made larger through exercise without first being broken down. That's why you're sore after a workout.

I was hoping you'd get this without me explaining it, but in labeling my opinion as my opinion and declaring that it doesn't need to be accurate, I color your assessment of my opinion with the same brush. I wasn't commenting on your notion of faith, specifically. I was commenting on Eofaerwic's post, which struck me as interpretable with the opinion I posted.

Also, no muscle can be made larger through exercise without first being broken down. That's why you're sore after a workout.

Ahh to the first I'll say an emphatic meh!

As to the second, well now you're adding conditions. Obviosly as the body of a child grows into that of an adult, all the muscles, bones and everything else grows quiet naturaly with out the breaking down that body building does. So Pffffhht to ya!:D

Ahh to the first I'll say an emphatic meh!

As to the second, well now you're adding conditions. Obviosly as the body of a child grows into that of an adult, all the muscles, bones and everything else grows quiet naturaly with out the breaking down that body building does. So Pffffhht to ya!:D

Yes, but if the child never exercises (and I don't mean strenuous, purpose-tagged muscle-building, I mean just getting the hell off the couch), muscles will never grow past the need to stay rooted to their positions. This leads to pasty white-boy syndrome.

All faith is childlike.

Hasty generalization is hasty.

Also, no muscle can be made larger through exercise without first being broken down. That's why you're sore after a workout.

The only reason buttock size increases without exercise is that fat is being built up, not muscle.

Hasty generalization is hasty.

Hasty Americanisation is hasty.

Hasty Americanisation is hasty.

Seeing that I'm from the state of Nebraska, located in the middle of the United States, I'm used to spelling "generalisation" with a "z".

Besides, how is that relevant?

If I may ask, which demonination? Also, do you find a lot of children cease to attend when they start questioning? Because that's what happened at my old church, about the half the people stopped attending at 16 because they were encouraged to think about their belief rather than blindly accept. The other half are fairly solidly believing. Do you find similar outcomes in your faith?
half fall away (probably more) no matter what the denomination or the approach to belief.

Relevance?

None.

Problem?

None.

Problem?

No, just wondering.

This said, I always have great respect for those theologians and philosophers, irrespective of their faith background, who truly debate, consider, argue and analyse the tenants of their faith.

this seems like a nearly empty set. theologians aren't so good at actually bringing critical thought to bear on their chosen religion, and philosophers almost uniformly just argue about whether our epistemic position requires agnosticism or justifies atheism.

Inspired by a surprisingly thought-provoking piece of literature I found in my Grandmother's bathroom. I'll try to recount the parable and then make a discussion out of it.

So a child was in the car going home with her father. She looked out the window and saw the stars, way up in the sky. She asked her father "Do you think I could reach those stars if I tried?" "I don't think so, honey", he replied. "Well", she said, "I'm sure you could get close, so if I stand on your shoulders, I know I could reach them." They then made the comparison with faith in god, that an unquestioning, utter confidence in the ability of god to help us was the most total, holy faith. It said that truly childlike, innocent faith in god was the most powerful and beneficial faith for us and the most glorifying for god.

Now I'm not religious myself, but I used to be and my family is. In my experience, those who have that kind of innocent faith are those with blind faith, those who accept whatever has been put in front of them and just go with it. But most of the people I know are the opposite. They explore, critique, question, and examine their faith and look for meaning and evidence.

For the religious: would you consider your faith "childlike"? Are you supremely confident and accepting of everything your god does, with total innocence? Or are you an examiner, a critiquer and a questioner?

For the non-religious? Assuming you were, which do you think you would be? Also, which of those do you find yourself generally easier to get along with and/or better people?

For everyone: is this divide real? Or imagined? Are there shades of grey between these two types?

I know it's wishful thinking, but try not to turn this into a flame-fest. Please? :p

This is what I love about my faith, we are encouraged to question, to seek knowledge. We aren't encouraged to have blind faith, but to test to observe, to seek etc. :)

This is what I love about my faith, we are encouraged to question, to seek knowledge. We aren't encouraged to have blind faith, but to test to observe, to seek etc. :)

Really? The devil said that?

The only reason buttock size increases without exercise is that fat is being built up, not muscle.

Uh...what now? How is that a coherent reply to my post:

Also, no muscle can be made larger through exercise without first being broken down. That's why you're sore after a workout.

Emphasis mine.

I didn't say anything about "without exercise". So...huh?

No, being deliberately ignorant is not an accomplishment. Failing to use critical thinking is not an achievement. Being too lazy or cowardly to examine one's own beliefs is pitiful, not praiseworthy.

"Childlike faith" is just a sugary way to say "childish ignorance."

It's also just one great big con. Even good, smart people can get conned sometimes, of course, it's just that good, smart people know that you shouldn't walk around BRAGGING about how you got conned.

Well that is wrong. Tell me do you have faith that the sun will arrive tomorow morning?

I have no faith it will happen.

I just know it will occur. One day it will not, but not tomorrow.

I have faith, but a large part of my faith is in doubt. I doubt most of what I have faith in, but the option of atheism does not appeal to me.

Not even Moses completely accepted whatever God did and said.

In fact, he could talk back rather rudely.

Certainly Gotama Buddha, enlightened and wise, was a thorough going skeptic who looked at all deities with amusement and disdain.

I would rather have a humane wise skeptic who acted with forethought and considered the impact of his or her actions, and this certainly would include any Satanists out there, than some mindless follower of whatever others have been pushing as doctrine.

Leave childlike faith for children. Jesus didn't mean for us to act like idiots.
Otherwise he would not have compared discipleship to a man building a tower, or a king planning a war campaign.

Uh...what now? How is that a coherent reply to my post:



Emphasis mine.

I didn't say anything about "without exercise". So...huh?

I was adding to it more than anything.

Lol, buttocks.

Not even Moses completely accepted whatever God did and said.

In fact, he could talk back rather rudely.
You seriously believe that?

Certainly Gotama Buddha, enlightened and wise, was a thorough going skeptic who looked at all deities with amusement and disdain.

I would rather have a humane wise skeptic who acted with forethought and considered the impact of his or her actions, and this certainly would include any Satanists out there, than some mindless follower of whatever others have been pushing as doctrine.

Leave childlike faith for children. Jesus didn't mean for us to act like idiots.Otherwise he would not have compared discipleship to a man building a tower, or a king planning a war campaign.
Cos he wasn't real?

Yes, but if the child never exercises (and I don't mean strenuous, purpose-tagged muscle-building, I mean just getting the hell off the couch), muscles will never grow past the need to stay rooted to their positions. This leads to pasty white-boy syndrome.

No I simply don't belive this is true, can you source that one?:D

I have no faith it will happen.

I just know it will occur. One day it will not, but not tomorrow.

And that certian knowledge is of course based on your own experiments to show this? Or are you beliveing in what others have taught you? Or do you figure that since it has not failed to 'rise' yet then it will carry on 'riseing'?


No matter all three of these conditions meet the requirements to be faith based belief.