The academic definition of the word faith allows a large degree of ridicule to be applied to scientific debate on religion. As I understand it, the understanding that is being required of a person when they are asked to have faith is….

a) that all discernible questions have an adequate answer

b) that these answers are fundamental to the question

c) the nature of b requires that it is not possible for you to have or provide all the answers all of the time

d) that if you patiently observe these principals when there is need, the answer is far more likely to be found than if you entertain knicker twisting antics.

Seeing as organised religion was developed around conveying as much meaning as possible to masses with minimal education, it hardly seems unlikely that various words would be developed to serve such purposes.

Having said this, how is it applicable to provide a scientific appraisal of religion by applying academically layman definitions to review of the discipline?

Not a faith-bashing thread, riff, or are you parrying against an ontological crisis in your own way.

I’ll let you stir that into the cauldron.

transition said:

Not a faith-bashing thread, riff, or are you parrying against an ontological crisis in your own way.

I’ll let you stir that into the cauldron.

I just felt like posing a question out of perversity. People need to actually want to resolve a discussion, not confirm their own preferences.

>I just felt like posing a question out of perversity. People need to actually want to resolve a discussion, not confirm their own preferences.

Perversity you say. Hmmmm.

Way back, maybe ‘God’ was more our invisible friend/s you know, the ‘ghost in the machine’, maybe not about culture and language disproportionately determining reality.

Originally he/it (entitize freely) was something of a projection of consciousness, the working of, unknown workings of, the magic you know like you enjoy in your ponderances, the wonder and all, but minds being busy things as they are, social creatures you know, it became an instrument of ideology, of behaviour controls and ideological controls.

I can’t say for sure, I do get an idea however that the truth is sometimes, perhaps eeven often, in contradictory or paradoxical combinations, that more maybe truth-tending, but I don’t see truth as being conclusion, or necessarilly conclusion. In fact some truth could be a matter of unconclusion.