word faith means or know its synonyms .I have often explained it but alas got nowhere with my explanations. Even when I tried telling people that everyone has faiths or beliefs I often got remarks from atheists inparticular saying that atheists are free from such notions of "faith" or "belief". As stupid and nonsensical as that may sound, it is nevertheless adhered to.

I thought to write a chapter from the most inspiring intellectual, scientific, spiritual and psychological book I have perhaps ever read called The Perennial philosophy by that most witty, articulate and brilliant author Aldous Huxley.

So Now I start the painstaking effort of writing this short but insightful chapter out and hopefully it will clear up for people the different meanings and definitions of faith. I can guarantee that if you take the time to read this well written chapter, you too will see hoe everybody posses faith at least to some degree whether they be a catholic christian or atheist.

Anyway here it goes:

FAITH

The word "faith" has a variety of meanings, which it is important to distinguish. In some contexts it is used as a synonym for "trust," as when we say that we have faith in Dr. X's diagnostic skill or in lawyer Y's integrity. Analogous to this is our "faith" in authority---the belief that what certain persons say about certain subjects is likely, because of their special qualifications, to be true. On other occasions "faith" stands for belief in propositions which we have not had occasion to verify for ourselves, but which we know that we could verify if we had the inclination, the opportunity and the necessary capacities. In this sense of the word we have "faith," even though we may never have been to Australia, that there is such a creature as a duck-billed platypus; we have "faith" in the atomic theory, even though we may never have performed the experiments on which that theory rests, and be incapable of understanding the mathematics by which it is supported.

And finally there is the "faith," which is a belief in propositions which we know we cannot verify, even if we should desire to do so---propositions such as those of the Athanasian Creed or those which constitute the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This kind of "faith" is defined by the Scholastics as an act of the intellect moved to assent by the will.

Faith in the first three senses of the word plays a very important part, not only in activities of everyday life, but even in those of pure and applied science. Credo ut intelligam----and also, we should add, ut agaim and ut vivam. Faith is a pre-condition of all systematic knowing, all purposive doing and all decent living. Societies are held together, not primarily by the fear of the many for the coercive power of the few, but by a widespread faith in the other fellow's decency.Such a faith tends to create its own object, while the widespread mutual mistrust, due, for example, to war or domestic dissension, creates the object of mistrust.

Passing now from the moral to the intellectual sphere, we find faith lying at the root of all organized thinking. Science and technology could not exist unless we had faith in the reliability of the universe---unless, in Clerk Maxwell's words, we implicitly believed that the book of Nature is really a book and not a magazine, a coherent work of art and not a hodge-podge of mutually irrelevant snippets. To this general faith in the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the world the searcher after truth must add two kinds of special faith---faith in the authority of qualified experts, sufficient to permit him to take their word for statements which he personally has not verified; and faith in his own working hypotheses, sufficient to induce him to test his provisional beliefs by means of appropriate action.

The action may confirm the belief which inspired it. Alternatively it may bring proof that the original working hypothesis was ill founded, in which case it will have to be modified until it becomes comfortable to the facts and so passes from the realm of faith to that of knowledge.

The fourth kind of faith is the thing which is commonly called "religious faith". The usage is justifiable, not because the other kinds of faith are not fundamental in religion just as they are in secular affairs, but because this willed assent to propositions which are known to be unverifiable occurs in religion, and only in religion, as a characteristic addition to faith as trust, faith in authority and faith in unverified but verifiable propositions.

This is the kind of faith which according to Christian theologians, justifies and saves. In its extreme and most uncompromising form, such a doctrine can be very dangerous. Here, for example, is a passage from one of Luther's letters. Esto peccator, et pecca fortiter; sed fortius crede et gaude in Christo, qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi. Peccandum est quam diu sic sumus; vita haec non est habitatio justitiae. ("Be a sinner and sin strongly; but yet more strongly believe and rejoice in Christ, whi is the conqueror of sin, death and the world. So long as we are as we are, there must be sinning; this life is not the dwelling place pf righteousness.")

To the danger that faith in a doctrine of justification by faith may serve as an excuse for and even an invitation to sin must be added another danger, namely, that the faith which is supposed to save may be faith in propositions not merely unverifiable, but repugnant to reason and the moral sense, and entirely at variance with the findings of those who have fulfilled the conditions of spiritual insight into the Nature of Things.

"This is the Acme of faith," says Luther in his De Servo Arbitrio, "to believe that God who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that He is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and to be more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith."

Revelation (which, when it is genuine, is simplythe record of the immediate experience of those who are pure enough in heart and poor enough in spirit to be able to see God) says nothing at all of these hideous doctrines, to which the will forces the quite naturally and rightly reluctant intellect to give assent. Such notions are the product, not of the insight of saints, but of the busy phantasy or jurists, who were so far from having transcended selfness and the prejudices of education that they had the folly and presumption to interpet the universe in terms of Jewish and Roman aw with which they happened to be familiar. "Woe unto you lawyers," said Christ. The denunciation was prophetic and for all time.

The core and spiritual heart of all the higher religions is the Perennial Philosophy; and the Perennial Philosophy can be assented to and acted upon without resort to the kind of faith, about which Luther was writing in the foregoing passages. There must of course be faith as trust--for confidence in one's fellows is the beginning of charity towards men, and confidence not only in the material, but also the moral and spiritual reliability of the universe, is the beginning of charity or love-knowledge in relation to God. The must also be faith in Authority---the authority of those whose selflessness has qualified them to know the spiritual Ground of all being by direct acquaintance as well as by report. And finally there must be faith in such propositions about Reality as are enunciated by philosophers in the light of genuine revelation---propositions which the believer knows if he can, if he is prepared to fulfil the necessary conditions, verify for himself.

But, so long as the Perennial Philosophy is accepted in its essential simplicity, there is no need of the willed assent to propositions known in advance to be unverifiable. Here it is necessary to add that such unverifiable propositions may become verifiable to the extent that intense faith affects the psychic substratum and so creates an existence which derives its objectivity from the mental activity of those who intensely believe in it cannot possibly be the spiritual Ground of the world, that a mind busily engaged in the voluntary and intellectual activity, which is "religious faith" cannot possibly be in the condition of the unitive knowledge of the Ground.

That is why the Buddhists affirm that "loving faith leads to heaven; but obedience to the Dharma leads to Nirvana." Faith in the existence and power of any supernatural entity which is less than ultimate spiritual Reality, and in any form of worship that falls short of self-naughting, will certainly, if the object of faith is intrinsically good, result in improvement of character, and probably in posthumous survival of the improved personality under "heavenly" conditions.

But this personal survival within what is still the temporal order is not the eternal life of timeless union with the Spirit. This eternal life "stands in the knowledge" of the Godhead, not in faith in anything less than the Godhead.

The immortality attained through the acquisition of any objective condition (e.g., the condition-merited through good works, which have been inspired by love of, and faith in, something less than the supreme Godhead--of being united in act to what is worshipped) is liable to end; for it is distinctly stated in the Scriptures that karma is never the cause of emancipation.

---Shankara

Karma is the causal sequence in time, from which we are delivered solely by "dying to" the temporal self and becoming united with the eternal, which is beyond time and cause. For "as to the notion of a First Cause, or a Causa Sui" (to quote the word of an eminent theologian and philosopher, Dr. F. R. Tennant), "we have, on the one hand, to bear in mind that we refute ourselves in trying to establish it by extension of the application of the causal catergory, for causality when universalized contains a contradiction; and on the other, to remember that the ultimate Ground simply 'is.' " Only when the individual also "simply is," by reason of his union through love-knowledge with the Ground, can there be any question of complete and eternal liberation.

Chapter Finished


Any thoughts? Anyone out there who still thinks that they are free from "beliefs" and any form of "faith"?????

Two meanings of faith though... Religious and trust.

It's like trying to say that dear as in a loved one is dear to you is the same thing as addressing them in a letter. It makes no sense at all and the only common factor between the two is the spelling of the word despite different meanings attached to them.

edit: bloody typo demons

The point is everyone whether religious or not has faith in their fellow man or in the atomic theory. Not everyone has what can be coined "religious faith" that is faith in things which cannot be verified. Not all religion has faith in things it cannot verify. Take the perennial philosophy for an example, it doesnt ask you to have faith in anything you cannot verify for yourself if you dont put in the effort. And the perennial philosophy is a religion.

Like your example of the word "dear", religion isn't always something that cannot be proven. Contrarywise the mystical experience which is the root of all true religion can be had by anyone. It can be had without having to adhere to beliefs in a hell or personal God.

Also I think Aldous huxley does a marvellous job at discriminating the differences between the different shades of faith. Many scientists have faith in the laws of physics which has been verified by other scientists and spiritual devotes have faith in eternity which has been directly verified by mystics. Both eternity and physics can be verified.

A christian may believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again in three days. This cannot be verified directly by personal experience and hence is "unverifiable". And it cannot even be verified by qualified experts in which we can put our faith in, so either way it is unverifiable.

An atheist may believe that matter or the brain creates consciousness. This hasn't been proven or "verified" by modern science hence it is an act of "religious faith" (in the sense that it is unverifiable, even by the scientific point of view) that the atheist believes consciousness derives from the brain.

On the more religious side of things .Buddha is a brilliant example of discussing mainly verifiable information and little speculation. Buddha refused to speculate about the nature of Nirvana or to answer questions like whether there was personal karma or a God. He would only say that there is an experience of ultimate happiness to be had when nirvana was reached and how to achieve it (which he lays down in the eight-fold path).

Not everything that buddha said can be verified for buddhism is not flawless (just like not everything can be verified with science). However more so than christianity and islamic prophet and saviour faiths, Buddhism never asks one to submit to blind faith. In fact Buddha according to one Buddhist scripture was known to say: Don't believe anything anyone tells you, including me, unless it fits with your own knowledge and experience.

Also let me point out that an athiest has "faith" trust in his/her atheist ideals and a spiritual follower has "faith" trust in his/her religious ideals. Can you see the similarity. Atheism cannot be proven beyond a doubt, just as many organized or personal religions cannot be proven beyond a doubt. Hence why atheism is considered a religion in my view (For atheism is not absolutely verifiable in all aspects).

Atheism is a belief system because just like many spiritual beliefs it cannot be proven beyond a doubt to be "Truth" . Hence why it even requires faith to adhere to the principals of atheism which believes in a universe without any form of metaphysicality.

Yet the meanings of religious and trust when they are each looked at are different. You may have found a word that can be used either way but a word proves nothing when there are other meanings to it.



Nope, it's not. Just because you can't explain it, doesn't make it at all religious. Or even remotely so as you're trying to link.

Not remotely? So what would you call it then? The fact that consciousness cannot be proven to derive from the brain is not verifiable by science yet many people believe that it does. How is this not remotely connected to "religious faith" in the sense that the will is assenting the intellect to agree with something that cannot be verified?

You said not "even remotely". Please explain how?

For me faith is more fundamental than belief. Faith is an acceptance, a knowing without requiring any 'why?' Belief is a wishing for something to be true, similarly no evidence or 'why?' is required and this is why I think they get confused.

Just my $0.02

Well said. What a shame you didnt have two dollars.

For two dollars I'd prattle on all day.

Off now, got things to do and people to annoy.

I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe in our fellow man than it does to believe in a God. That to me is the Acme of faith.


I also believe that you are confusing "accept" and believe by using them interchangeably. For example I might "accept" that the consciousness stems from the brain. But I don't "believe" it.

I accept this "theory" because for now its all I have to go on. According to your equivocation of belief, then religious people are simply accepting the God theory because its all they have to go on for now and that at any given moment, were it to be proven otherwise, they would reconsider their position.

As we can see that is most certainly not the case.

Many things that are accepted by people are just accepted out of convenience. I don't "submit" or "surrender" myself to the idea that my consciousness derives from my brain. I basically just don't care that much to constantly question it.

I also would like to say that "telling" atheists what they really believe is silly, especially when you don't really understand what we believe.

Because it can't be proven, doesn't mean though that it falls right into religion. There was a time that emotions were thought to come from the heart or chest in some cultures but we now know it's from the brain. There was a time that people though dancing around a fire, beating drums while screaming made it rain... We now know it's actually weather that can be measured and predicted by season and by patterns. Over the years we have learned more and more of what used to fall into the hands of religion. Religion has no place to lay claim to anything unproven because of the fact that across the board it's been disproven time and time again in basically uncountable situations. You can only be wrong so many times.

But it falls into the same meaning of faith of unverifiable fact. It is unverifiable so it takes an act of "Faith" to believe so hence it is the same "Faith" as believing that angels live in heaven. I am not saying that it wont always be like this. Tomorrow they might very well prove that consciousness is indeed created by the brain. But until then it is "Faith" and the same kind of "Faith" that is within religious belief systems that is required to believe in the statement that consciousness comes from matter.

Faith as in a degree of trust, yes. But never a religious faith in that context. You meld the words together again to try and make them mean the same when in fact they never will despite your attempts. You can use the word faith but it'll still mean the trust context rather then the religious one you're also trying to mak it out.

Trust and religion are different things. Take those two words and look up their meaning. You'll find they are different instead of the same.

i get what you're trying to say. i, for instance, have faith that there is no god. i have faith that when i die, that is the end of the road. i have faith in my own beliefs. faith doesn't necessarily have to be associated with a religious idol.

faith –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
(from dictionary.com)

so, as you can see, the dictionary defines faith not only as a belief in a religion, but anything relating to a strong belief of a person.

EDIT: although, to make myself clear, i don't think that atheism is a religion. i think that it is simply a lack thereof.

It doesn't take "Faith" to accept that consciousness comes from the brain. Its what the answers we have so far lead up to. Were it to be actually proven that consciousness comes from "language" which is another theory out there, then we'd reconsider our position.

Define consciousness? What exactly do you mean by this? You are playing around with words here by taking an obscure idea and deciding that we have sorted it out.

Many people "believe" that the bible was written through God's will. Even though many discrepancies and historical evidence has been put forth people choose to ignore this because they want to have faith in the bible this way.

What evidence has been put forth that shows consciousness doesn't come from the brain? What are the other arguments. If you take an atheist and show him the facts he will probably reconsider what he accepts. Whereas the definition of faith is belief in spite of evidence that shows otherwise.

For example

If I believe that Britney Spears is a good mother. And then you show me pictures of her dropping her kid and riding with him in the car with no car seat, you show me evidence of her drunk and vomiting in the streets night after night etc.

Well if I were a judge deciding I'd probably say "The evidence shows contrary" and would not consider her this way.

Were someone to say "I don't care what you say, I think she's a good mother" then that would be an example of me having faith in her as a mother.

That's not the same thing as believing that she is a good mother based on the evidence so far.

So take Teri Hatcher who recently stated she puts being a mother first beyond all other things. I don't really like her that much and might not want to accept that she is a good mother, but if the evidence shows this, then I would have to accept it for the time being.

Take Anna Nicole Smith, Someone says that she is a good mother....well we see one of her kids died from drug use, we see her daughter in the middle of this big mess, we see that ANS dies from a probably drug problem, and we would find it very hard to accept that she is a good mother.

Religious people have faith in spite of evidence that shows otherwise.

Now if your evidence showed Britney or Anna being a loving mother and devoted to her child in some other way, we might reconsider our belief but would that negate all the bad examples? No. We would still believe that they were bad mothers.

What do you mean by this. Please elaborate. Are you saying you know for absolute certain that it does come from the brain?



They would......The ironic thing is they dont believe that they are wrong and believe that they cannot be proven wrong hence why so many of them believe what they believe in the face of large amounts of evidence against them. Let me give you a great quote to describe this:

Never underestimate the power of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe, no matter the conflicting evidence. --Caedmon Erb, Politics and Reality.

QUOTE

Many things that are accepted by people are just accepted out of convenience. I don't "submit" or "surrender" myself to the idea that my consciousness derives from my brain. I basically just don't care that much to constantly question it.

Well in that case your not an athiest who believes that consciousness comes from the brain and simply doesnt know and is still waiting for further evidence before you accept anything. I was reffering when I wrote this example [b]to the atheists that do believe that consciousness is strictly a fucntion of biology. This cannot be verified even by science and so it is the equivalent to that of religious faith.



Do you speak for an organization of atheists? You say we...... Richard Dawkins a famous athiest does believe that consciousness is a fucntion of biology and comes from matter even though this cannot be proven. So he has faith. But one thing most athiests that I know of do believe and that there is nothing spiritual or metaphysic about the universe.

I think Richard Dawkins is a pompous jerk.

You are confusing the "scientist" with the "atheist." I have often debated scientists on this very idea in discussions about evolution.

You are squeezing things into little categories in order to make your point. I 'accept' that consciousness comes from the brain. But were someone to make an argument to the contrary I would probably listen with the willingness to have my mind changed. If the argument made sense I might accept that instead. But if not I might prefer to continue to accept the other idea.

Religious people do not do this for the most part. I have never met a religious person who was willing to have his mind changed.

He believes what he wants to believe and will ignore evidence to the contrary because it is based on WANTING to believe what he believes.

Anyway you didn't answer my question. What other theories have been put forth to suggest that consciousness doesn't come from the brain???

Oh God this is going to be difficult. The answers we have been lead up to so far say that we cannot determine that consciousness/awareness or if you like the perception or perceptions originates from the brain. Hence to believe that it comes from the brain (instead of saying I dont know) is an act of faith.




Ok the basic definition is awareness. Awareness of a sense of self. There are many definitions however.


I am not much of a physicist. But to me the big mystery about science is that it still cannot explain how the brain creates consciousness. Sure they might know how the brain regulates it and how it may process the perceptions which are in themselves wonderful discoveries. But it still isn't certain how it creates the consciousness in the first place to regulate. This great perception of the perceptions is what lies at the heart of all spirituality. And because it is still such a mystery to science is remains in some scientific circles a taboo.

We cannot see consciousness but we know without it we wouldnt be able to see (well we could if you wanna be technical however we wouldnt be aware that we were seeing and so since there would be no sense of "I" to be aware to see how could we say we are seeing?). We cant hear consciousness but we know without it we wouldnt be able to hear. We cannot smell consciousness but we know without it we wouldnt be able to smell. We cant touch consciousness but we know without it we wouldnt be able to touch. We cannot taste consciousness yet we know without it we wouldnt be able to taste. Consciousness is in itself indefinable but we only know it is indefinable because we are conscious. Very paradoxical (and unfortunately not popular with scientists).

Consciousness/awareness is essential for any form of knowledge whatsoever. Why do some aspects of the universe (human beings)which is according to mainstream science all energy need to be aware that it exists. Never mind why we exist but aware that it exists. From one point of view we dont need to "survive" like dawkins may say consciousness is required for because if we are all energy and energy cannot be destroyed and only change form then the energy never needs to be worried about changing its form. Yet many humans fear death when they are in fact scientifically informed that they are energy.

Many people are self aware energy that denies that there is purpose to being aware. This is hard for me to accept (not that all of you uphold this position). Science cannot be without awareness/consciousness. In fact consciousness is the beginning and end of science, religion or philosophy.

How is it that unconscious atoms which form our brain can through the nerve system or whatever parts of the brain/body create living aware consciousness that is able to debate its own existence? I dont know and I am open to more scientific possibility. It is just surprising to me that science is able to launch us to outer space yet is clueless when it comes down to answering "how does the brain create a sense of self?"

Anyway here are some comments by doctor Fred Alan Wolf who is a quantum physicist who has some alternative view points on consciousness. These are clips from a debate involving four other scientists/philosophers on the debate about consciousness. It is a very good debate http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbr...transcript.html and I agree with Fred all the way!

FRED: I choose "C," none of the above. We may be missing the boat here by adopting a view that one of these categories must be correct, whether empirical objectivity and physical materialism on the one hand or the rather archaic and simplistic dualistic models on the other. Possibly, there's a third choice--a choice that says that there's something beyond all materialism, beyond the physical world, out of which all reality, the whole of existence, projects. This would overwhelm traditional dualism--and I take this view not as a mystic but as a quantum physicist. I think that our most modern understanding of the physical world suggests that there may be an ineffable realm, a mystical realm, an "imaginal" realm, out of which the physical world pops into existence. Kind of like what [the German physicist and pioneer of quantum mechanics] Werner Heisenberg suggested when he brought the notion of consciousness into physics--when he said that it's the observer that creates the observed simply by the act of observation. So I answer the question of consciousness not by speculating about what it is, but by specifying what it does.

FRED: You can't even explain physics without going beyond the physical! That's the answer, and it's very clear. If we talk about quantum mechanics, we have to talk about a quantum wave function, something that is clearly not material, not substantive, yet necessarily it has to exist in order to explain the simplest physical phenomena.



FRED: I'm not sure if the degree of consciousness ever diminishes. I'm not even sure that we humans are so super-conscious ourselves. I look at an anthill and I'm amazed at how human-like these simple creatures behave. The real question is trying to define what we mean by consciousness. This is the really crucial point that scientists need to think about. How do we define consciousness? What are the models we can use to approach the question? Materialism is not going to work. Pure subjectivity [i.e., idealism, the philosophical theory that only the mental is real and the physical is an illusion] is also not going to work. But something that somehow encompasses the two might work. This synthesis is what has to be brought about. Quantum mechanics might be the place to start to look. But even quantum mechanics is not going to be the final answer.


This is the one that realy seems radical.

FRED: Well, I don't entirely disagree, bit I'll reverse it. What we're going to understand in a hundred years is possibly how consciousness creates brains! And how brains arise from the messiness of reality.

Here is a quote from John who is a leading philosopher of mind at the University of California, Berkeley.:

We don't know how to explain it. Compare consciousness to physics. We're doing pretty well in physics, even though we have some puzzling areas, like quantum mechanics. But we don't have an adequate theory of how the brain causes conscious states, and we don't have an adequate theory of how consciousness fits into the universe.

You would be surprised how many GREAT scientists who contributed majorly to science had religious faith. As einstien said: The most imcomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehendsible. And another respected scientist in his field (although he isnt a physicist) is Carl Jung who once said: Every science is a function of the psyche, and all knowledge is rotted in it. The psyche is the greatest of all cosmic wonders.

What I am getting at it is this, that science to this day cannot explain how the brain/matter creates awareness/consciousness. And everyone knows that this is fundamental to existence and science (by the way I am not bring science down here at all, it has made marvellous discoveries and i am quite conscious that without it i wouldn't be able to post this post).

Try and remember that a spiritual/philosophical outlook on the universe does not have to be the same as an institutionalized religion. Buddhism is spiritual/ philosophical without using the concept of God, Hinduism says God pervades the whole universe and that pure consciousness is enlightenment . Many of the famous scientists who laid down the basic foundation of science even had a spiritual/religious side. Take Isaac Newton for an example:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being and powerful being. . . .This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all. . . . He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. . . . He governs all things and knows all that are or can be. . . . .
Why there is one body in our system qualified to give light and heat to all the rest, I know no reason but because the Athur of the system thought it convenient.

Issac Newton also said this about atheism: "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

Also many quantum physicists also were attracted to the mysticism part of religion/spirituality. Niels Bohr used the ying/yang symbol in his ocat or arms, Davud Bohm had long discussions apparently with Krishnamurti and Eriwn Schrodinger gave lectures on the Hindu Upanishads.

Even Albert Einstien once said:The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is in the sensation of the mystical. It is a shower of all true science. . . That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power which is revealed in the comprehensible universe forms my idea of God.

And from Charles Darwin we hear this: The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.

But yeah. The fact that science cannot prove how consciousness is created in itself to me seems to be the main indicator that there is definately something out there that must be looked at from an intuitive point of view and not one of a five-sense scientific point of view. Though the scientific method should be used where it can.
Science is a great means of dicovering truths about our universe but shouldn't in my opnion be considered as the only valid point of view.

But maybe consciousness does come from matter, though I highly doubt it. I think personally that the answer lies in looking inwards into our consciousness, but I myself have never had a mystical experience so I am going by faith here.
But some good spiritual advice is not to get too caught up (preferably not at all) with organized religion. The only thing one should do when it comes to organized religion is observe the universal principals and assimilate them into ones belief system for application and it is up to the individual to determine what can be considered a universal spiritual/religious principal or not.

Aldous Huxley wrote in his brilliant book (and also my personal bible, literally it is):


It is only by making physical experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of matter and its potentialities. And it is only by making psychological and moral experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of mind and its potentialities. In the ordinary circumstances of average sensual life these potentialities of the mind remain latent and unmanifested. If we would realize them, we must fulfil certain conditions and obey certain rules, which experience has shown empirically to be valid. --Aldous Huxley


I believe that consciousness in it's purest state is God itself and that the fundamental function of all religion is to achieve this end. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc etc all aim for this. Consciousness is eternal and has niether beginning or end. It is infinite and like pascal said is a cirlce in which it's centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere.

..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)


A soul pure in God is God. ---The Philokalia

God is all in all; God is mind; God's spirit being all, nothing is matter. ---Mary Baker Eddy, Christian scientist

God which is eternal happiness is our true nature. All suffering is the result of identifying with the body or mind and msiatking ourselves for something separate from the universe. We are not the ego or body but there eternal consciousness which gave it's existence and pervades all of creation and non-existence.

An athiest can have faith in his/her lack of religous faith.

Evidence suggests that consciousness cannot be proven to be created by matter/brain. Yet I know scientists and athiests alike who have strong faith or belief that it does. Where would that put them?

You make some pretty big assumptions in your argument. You say that


I would disagree with your argument based on my research of Helen Keller. Helen Keller states:

In her book My Religion she states “For nearly six years, I had no concept whatever of nature or mind or death or God. I literally thought with my body. Without a single exception my memories of that time are tactual…there is not one spark of emotion or rational thought in these distinct, yet corporal memories. I was like an unconscious clod of earth.” (Keller 29 1927)


In studies of feral children we also see a sense of lack of what you are describing as "consciousness." We also see a sense of "consciousness" described as you have, in whales and dolphins which are creatures that have a form of "language." So basically you are trying to push a philosophical idea into the category of science. I doubt very much that scientists wouldn't be open to debate and I know that this is a discussion that has been around forever.

Try reading Susan Blackmore's Consciousness an Introduction, to see the way in which the concept of consciousness is discussed in an open ended way and not at all in the way you seem to think it is "believed."

Perhaps you should have chosen something else because you seem way out of your league here.

Good explanation of faith here, everything you state I agree with.

The point is she was aware that she was an unconscious clod of earth. If she wsnt she wouldnt be able to tell her story right? AWARENESS, AWARENESS, AWARENESS, AWARENESS............HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS COME TO BE CREATED BY UNCONSCIOUS, UNLIVING ATOMS???????

I took a long to reply to you in that post and you didnt even read it all. MY ADVICE TO YOU IS THIS, GOOGLE UP "CONSCIOUSNESS" AND SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY SITES THAT SHOW ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT IT COMES FROM MATTER. NO BODY KNOWS!@! I HAVE FAITH IN WHAT I WROTE AND DO NOT KNOW FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN, SCIENTISTS DO NOT KNOW EITHER SO TO HAVE ANY STRONG CONVICTION IN THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS............................................................................................A *&^%ING ACT OF FAITH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH GOD HELP ME, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF.....................


Awareness is just awareness......doesnt need emotion or rational thought or instinct. It is just awareness. We are only of emotions, rational thought and instinct because we are aware of it.

There aren't any sites that I would take seriously. You are talking without thinking. Helen Keller wasn't "aware" that she was an unconscious clod of earth until she aquired language.

Wow pause a second and think about what you just wrote. You just made a really silly statement.

As I said you are out of your league and probably should use a different argument. Do you suggest that consciousness comes from the foot?

Consciousness as a debate has been around forever. There is no definitive answer on consciousness.

Suggesting that people have "faith" that consciousness comes from the brain is a ridiculous comparison.

That so called "faith" as I stated in the beginning is simply acceptance of a proposed theory with the understanding that it is a theory.

Faith in God is insistance that the theory is "true" despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And the first sign to me that someone has lost their argument is when they start yellign at people.

Just go to the most mainstream and respected academic site you can find. It is a mega science mystery.



I am not talking about thinking........How did you get that? I wasn;t even implying that....

Again you are wrong. It wasnt until she aquired language that she could articulate and explain what she felt like. Words expand our means of expressing ourselves and so are considered by many as consciousness expanders and so she was able to express better what she felt after she aquired language and learnt more. She was always conscious and aware just not aware or conscious of much. Hence her somewhat morbid description of what her life used to be like. There was consciousness there nevertheless.



What was silly about it?



Out of my league? Why please explain? I suggest that consciousness is there reguardless whether there is a body or not.



Shame you know so little on the subject.

Not everyone who believes in science actually understands it. In that respect, an acceptance that consciousness comes from the brain would be an act of faith, as it would be based on no understanding of the science behind that theory. A belief, whether based in science or religion, if based on an absense of information, would be an act of faith. Whether it is faith in the parent who brought them up to believe it, the scientist who published the paper who promoted the theory, or simply a desire to believe... it is an act of faith.

Thank you for that. Thank you. So simply and easy to understand. You explained in a few sentences what took me pages? It is so obvious that to believe that consciousness comes from the brain when it cant be verified is an act of faith.

And she says Im way out of my league? I know I am out of my league here but do I seem to be completely turned off here? Do I make sense to you?

WRONG! That's not how she described it. Where are you getting your information..... Oh lord you aren't seriously going to sit here and just talk off the top of your head about things which you obviously know sweet nothing about!




Wrong. She didn't describe her life as "morbid." She described herself as "unconscious." Words and language are two entirely different things. Laura Bridgman is an example of someone who learned "words"

You might want to read up on Noam Chomsky's research in language.




Its obvious that you don't know anything about the subject. Your contrivances are not the equivalent of being educated on the subject. Some of us don't use "google" sound bites as a form of research.


Btw "baiting" doesn't work with me so carry on your conversation. I am not interested.

It is you who is talking about thinking. Chuckles lightly........one does not need concepts to be aware. Concepts are creations of thought. Thoughts are creations of awareness. Thought needs awareness but awareness doesnt need thought.

Like animals, they are aware that food smells good. But they dont think of it in terms of "That looks like a grand piece of sausage which I rekon would go down rather well this evening". It is awareness but very basic awareness. A kangaroo may not have any concept of nature or mind or death or God but a kangaroo knows that when I approach it I am a potential threat and so it hops away.

Cant really say whether animals have concepts or not because I have never been in ones mind. But they are definately aware. They just arnt aware that they are aware. An elephant is aware that her calf is in trouble and will go protect it. If it had no awareness it wouldnt even know what and what not to eat.

I agree but then basically what this boils down to is education. Someone who believes something because that is what they are told, is simply ignorant. Not "faithful" because when the person is then presented other information they would change their mind.

An example of this would be people believing that "garlic" is good for cholesterol because for years that's what they have been told. When they are told otherwise then they believe otherwise. That's not faith. That's just someone who believes what they are told.

Faith is the persistant belief in spite of evidence to the countrary. And you would see this as a superstition and whatnot. Think of old wives tales for example. Superstitions.

Don't walk under a ladder, its bad luck. Well its not bad luck but someone who believes that it is will still not do it for their own reasons.

That's different than "not staying out on the golf course in the middle of a lightening storm" you see? Chances are that a person will not be hurt in either situation. But there is a difference in their reasons why.

Religious faith, is like not walking under the ladder. Its based on superstitions.

Atheists don't "believe" in superstition.

I agree with a lot of what atheists say in this board, when it comes to common sense and pragmatic thought. I myself could be considered atheist in a sense, because I don't believe there is a god that has been truly represented yet in any religion... I don't believe there is a god that consciously interacts and controls. Obviously I can't prove this, am going on faith in my perceptive abilities. Part of this conclusion is come to by the notion that I don't think a god that is all powerful would do the things represented in many religious teachings. I have faith that I'm right, but I also understand that I could be wrong ultimately. How do I truly know there is no god that would act this way? I don't. I'm simply trusting my perceptive abilities and comparing how differently I would act if I were god... and drawing a simple conclusion(part of the self-trust puzzle) that there must not be a god because of this.

Everyone uses faith to a degree, there is nothing wrong with that... its completely natural and necessary.

Actually I was using the word morbid to describe her past position: “For nearly six years, I had no concept whatever of nature or mind or death or God. I literally thought with my body. Without a single exception my memories of that time are tactual…there is not one spark of emotion or rational thought in these distinct, yet corporal memories. I was like an unconscious clod of earth.â€�

You think that doesnt sound morbid? I never said she said the word morbid. I used the word from a third person perspective to describe her experiences. I make it very clear in the grammar.

Also if one has no consciousness how in hell can they learn words?????????????????????????????????????????? If you wernt aware of anything how could you become aware of words????? You have no sound reason in your arguments.

Either way her consciousness cannot be proven to have come from her brain.





You are making this tooooo easy. I dont know anyting on the subject? I asked you in my last post to explain and you didnt. How is it that I dont know anything. If anything you are proving to me that you dont know anything on it. Because someone describes themselves as being like an unconscious clod of earth, you are saying she had no awareness?????

Even noam chomsky would whole heartedly agree that without some form of consciousness in the first place one would never be able to learn words to expand their consciousness and be a higher level thinker.

There is a theory that a personal God created it which is present in the christian doctrines. There is the theory that it is eternal and has never not existed which is present in the hindu scriptures. There is science theory that it is a fucntion of biology.

Then that accounts for most of the world's population. We can't explore everything we're told independently to prove its validity... there wouldn't be the time. So most of the people who believe, for example, that man evolved and was not created, don't even understand the evolutionary process... they have simple faith in it.



But then they would be simply accepting an alternative theory on faith. The scientific theory might change, but the faith in science remains.



Faith exists even when evidence to the contrary does not exist... it is not dependent on it.

Does that include scientists and atheists who believe that consciousness comes from the brain when there is no proof? I have meet a few atheists as well as scientist atheists who say that consciousness is created by brain matter and that just because there is no proof of it, it will only be a matter of time until it is. They could be right....................But until then what? Its like giving someone a ten thousand dollar postdated cheque but not actually having the money. What is the value of that cheque?

I agree, faith is always present... but it can evolve.

" I don't believe there is a god that consciously interacts and controls. Obviously I can't prove this, am going on faith in my perceptive abilities."

That is a great post, the above quote from you is particulary enlightening for me, sometimes it's hard for me to put my feelings into words but basically I feel like that. I was raised a Christian but choose not to follow it as I question the Bible's teachings. I have faith (that is a strong belief without proof, based on my knowledge) in my perceptive abilities to guide me in making the right decisions in life.

You'll notice that in your argument you use qualifying words to differentiate between faith which is why this argument is simply a play on words and not really worthy of a debate.

You can't make a "statement" and then back away from the deconstruction of the statement into obscure reasoning. That;'s just trying to be right at all costs and is a very typical type of argument used by religious people.

I wish I could say that I understand what you just wrote... but I don't. I am not backing away. What have I said that implies I'm just trying to be right? And I may believe in a creator, but I don't consider myself to be terribly religious. My personal belief system and my argument are not linked.

Acceptance of any theory/doctrine, in the absense of understanding, is an act of faith. If you have no knowledge of science but believe that man evolved from apes, what is that belief based in? Faith in a teacher/parent/scientist/science. It is not based in knowledge, it is based in faith.

Well you just stated "in the absence of understanding"

Here's the difference.

A Christian "wants" to have faith. So when you begin to delve into it and overturn theories or set forth proof they don't want to hear it. They want to have faith.


A person who believes until proven otherwise isn't having "faith" they are simply believing until proven otherwise.

What I mean that you didn't understand is directed at the thread in general. You can't casually post an argument and then try to defend it against criticism by pretending that your personal definition or understanding represents the "reality" or the "truth" or "the way everyone understands it." And simply dismiss arguments to the contrary.

Most people do not have "faith" that the brain is the seat of consciousness. It is a philosophical argument. There is no science to it. You can scientifically test for example that the brain controls the body, or that the brain is where intelligence is developed. But consciousness is the wrong argument to make because consciousness have never even been clearly defined. So to use this as an argument is in itself making a leap of faith that most people who would debate this topic would not take seriously.

You can't make the statement "We believe that consciousness is in the brain" and suggest that its the same kind of statement as "We believe language acquisition skills are developed in the brain." Its apples and oranges.

There is no definitive statement on consciousness that is accepted.

this is a very good differentiation, I can see faith be understood/used at the level of uncertainty for a moment but its blind faith, to reach a level of such 'faith" is
not common, to say you need no prooof or disount observational data isn't faith to me,. faith would not require it ...what is being overlooked also is the part of us that just knows, maybe it began in faith but eventually one grows/eveolves to trust and then just know (intuition) it would be a knowing ...dictionarys are constructs defining constructs..because the word web says trust and faith are the same means little ....

I don't see how them wanting to have faith makes a difference. Wanting to have faith is not enough to enable it to exist, and by the same token not wanting to have it does not preclude it from existing. And faith doesn't have to be attached to religion.

If you are taught that man evolved from apes but have no understanding of science, and you come to the conclusion that he did, you may not have actively set out to have faith in science, but you may well come to the point where you have it.

People put their faith in science to explain the way everything works. They actively look to science for answers. A lack of interest in a scientific theory but the passive acceptance that that scientific theory could be right isn't the same as a belief that the theory is right, or that the system used to arrive at it is right. To say "I believe that man evolved from apes" isn't the same as saying "I don't care either way, so whatever, maybe we were, maybe we weren't". Once you arrive at the conclusion that a scientific theory is sound, if you do so without the knowledge to support your assertion then you are acting on faith. What else would you be acting on?

why would you be putting your faith in anything, all things are constructs made up to understand the material, some ideas are a bit better at understanding things than others, If It makes things clear for us great ..We have to be real careful to not cookie cutter words and claim one size fits all.... .. why would I need to have faith in insert word?, what diffenerce does it make i can certainly use the idea without having faith in them... faith has been so manipulated and distorted used to connvince folks to beleive anything....beliefs are tools ...i'm not seeking a set of beleifs , i'm seeking an awareness of what I already know, I understand that i'm living in a illusion,.

Because if you had no faith you'd be the most paranoid person there is. You for an example have "faith" that you will wake up again tomorrow after you sleep. You have faith that your technology is still going to function as it has always functioned provided it isn't abused. You have faith that your children will do the right thing by you.

Everyone has faith to some degree. You have faith in your ideal that you are living in an illusion. Can you verify that you are in an illusion? If you can and can show others then this is faith in what can be verified. If however you can't then it is faith which is unverifiable and is the equivalent to believing that consciousness comes from matter/brain.

Hence why to have a strong conviction of its origins is an act of faith................

Sheri puts a lot of faith in her loved ones....and herself...that's all she needs faith for

hebrews 11: 1 "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

brave i use the word trust, i trust i will most likely wake up tommorrow for alot of reasons my own based on my experince of being me, all things point to me waking up tommorow, good health, vegan, etc.... ... actaully i don't have faith my technology will function in my area LOL I just work with what happens to be and am okay with it....
it works for me to see the illusion thats all thats important, i am not trying to prove anything who cares , if it works for me kool if an idea doesn't i do something else, its an awareness a knowing intuition, which grows because of consistant outcome ... I do see a use for faith at rare times but its not so common as you allude too or used as much as you claim...or such a staple to the human experince it just can't be avoided...


Faith is based on no proof, zip nada, even entertaining an idea calling a freind and asking them what do you think is not faith its trust....trust is based on experince not conjecture...Do you see this could be a POV also Brave..

Interesting opening article. For me though, Faith for me is not what Huxley says it is. My Faith in God is akin to the first definition given. Faith is synonymous with Trust - I put my faith/trust in God. The religious faith of which is spoken in the original post is more like belief. I believe God to exist. I believe the Bible to be true. But believing and trusting are very different. I do not have faith that God exists, I know he exists (yes, people may dispute that and say it's only my belief, which it is, but as far as I'm concerned, I know there is a God). My faith is not in the existence of God. My faith is in God. Subtle difference, but a significant difference none-the-less.

In relation to the question asked in the original post, I think (believe) everyone has faith (trust) in something - yes, even atheists. They put trust into certain things (relationships, theories, themselves, as examples). What that thing is can be different for everybody, but faith (trust) always lies somewhere. I think it would take a very insecure individual to have no faith (trust) in anything.

that's as how I see it, at least.

Regards, PA

Well said, PA

That's what I mean! Thanks PA for summing it up so nicely.

You KNOW that there is a God. Whereas most people won't say that they "KNOW" that consciousness is in the brain. They will say they believe it.

This whole thread is nothing but playing with words.