Originally Posted by
mateus.baldin
I’ve been trying not to get involved in this discussion, as I professionally studied Philosophy and many of this questions are the same that philosophers of religion (not to be confused with theologians), political philosophers and epistemologists have been debating for more than two and a half thousand years. But I decided to give a little contribution here.
I think this is basically the consensus in the philosophical study of knowledge today. With the little observation that knowledge/understanding is not really opposed to belief. It is indeed a kind of belief, a belief that is founded and justified rationally (like Mathematics) or empirically (like Biology) or both (like Physics). Depending on how one defines belief, it really is impossible not to have them, unless one completely stops thinking in terms of true and false. It’s what the Greek skeptics did: to live only by appearances and giving up all pursue of knowledge and truth.
I understand your point here and I know it’s a predominant view in the West, for both “believers” and atheists, but I think this is a very western-centric definition of religion that many western philosophers themselves nowadays reject. It basically defines religion using Christianity as the paradigm of a religion and judging every other system of beliefs and practices in terms of proximity to Christianity.
Even hardcore western philosophers like Rousseau viewed patriotism as a religion, a civic religion in this case (not a supernatural one). Even some catholic theologians speak of natural religion as basic systems of belief and practice that are not dependent on supernatural revelation. And I know philosophers of law, like John Gardner, who view faith as a basic requirement for the very existence of a legal system.
I think it’s very reductionist to think of religion only in terms of supernatural. I prefer Nishijima Roshi’s definition of religion. At least for me, Soto Zen Buddhism is my religion, even if I don’t believe in supernatural beings: it is a system of beliefs (based on experience, reason and also faith) that serve as a basis for a practice (that in itself suports the belief system).
Indeed, even when I was a Christian, I understood God, Christ and Heaven as metaphors, not literal supernatural beings. Eternal life, for exemple, I used to saw (and continue to do so even now) as a metaphor for living in the present. My inspiration for this was this quote by Wittgenstein:
I think Byrne is right:
The difference between knowledge and faith, both different kinds of beliefs, is that faith requires doubt while knowledge is incompatible with doubt. Faith is like a bet, if we know something is true, than there is no space for faith. It doesn’t require anything supernatural.
I hope the Sangha doesn’t take these remarks as pedantic arrogance. Believe me, it is not. I just am very timid in person and the online nature of our discussions here give me a space to express my views. Of course, they are only views and in no way I expect to be true in everything I believe and say.
Thank you all for this opportunity of debating really interesting and personally important matters.
Gassho,
Mateus
Sat today/LAH