Ooh have to say something about faith and the way I use the word.
Something which is KNOWN to me, may be called FAITH.
I have PERSONAL evidence of rebirth, to me it is NOT faith because there is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE. However, this evidence can not be communicated to YOU, anything I say I could just be talking out my ***. Since I cannot prove it to you, to you, I describe it as faith (I take a non self-centric perspective).
Someone who believes in God may well have PERSONAL evidence of God, I acknowledge that to them it is not faith, even though to me it is faith since that proof cannot be communicated to me.
I think this is a distinctly different kind of faith.
And the reason it is important is because of perspective/perception. Perception is critical, I assure you that YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE THE WORLD AS IT "ACTUALLY" IS. You perceive some approximation of the world, have you ever had an insight when suddenly you perceive the world in a new way, more clearly?
(Also as exhibit A: Colorblind people)
There's a kind of core which everyone pretty much agrees on. Like gravity, and the world being round, and much of science, but not all of it - like the science of evolution is disputed. That's a kind of overlapping of perception which becomes "Truth" of some kind.
Perception is knowing - seeing is believing. That's as good as you get, if you deny this premise then you are doomed to nihilism where you don't believe in reality.
Since I know that people do not perceive identically, I give some leeway in people "knowing" different things about the world. This knowing-which-is-not-always-mutual gets labeled as "faith" even though in some cases it may actually be truth, and in any case is personal truth.
And I DON'T believe the overlap is the whole of reality and everything outside the overlap is delusion, that is very something-centric (I don't know what exactly) and also semi-absurd (like in a way where species have not-evolved and have been not-created).
Something which is KNOWN to me, may be called FAITH.
I have PERSONAL evidence of rebirth, to me it is NOT faith because there is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE. However, this evidence can not be communicated to YOU, anything I say I could just be talking out my ***. Since I cannot prove it to you, to you, I describe it as faith (I take a non self-centric perspective).
Someone who believes in God may well have PERSONAL evidence of God, I acknowledge that to them it is not faith, even though to me it is faith since that proof cannot be communicated to me.
I think this is a distinctly different kind of faith.
And the reason it is important is because of perspective/perception. Perception is critical, I assure you that YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE THE WORLD AS IT "ACTUALLY" IS. You perceive some approximation of the world, have you ever had an insight when suddenly you perceive the world in a new way, more clearly?
(Also as exhibit A: Colorblind people)
There's a kind of core which everyone pretty much agrees on. Like gravity, and the world being round, and much of science, but not all of it - like the science of evolution is disputed. That's a kind of overlapping of perception which becomes "Truth" of some kind.
Perception is knowing - seeing is believing. That's as good as you get, if you deny this premise then you are doomed to nihilism where you don't believe in reality.
Since I know that people do not perceive identically, I give some leeway in people "knowing" different things about the world. This knowing-which-is-not-always-mutual gets labeled as "faith" even though in some cases it may actually be truth, and in any case is personal truth.
And I DON'T believe the overlap is the whole of reality and everything outside the overlap is delusion, that is very something-centric (I don't know what exactly) and also semi-absurd (like in a way where species have not-evolved and have been not-created).
Comment