Does it matter? I would say no—all that really matters is how we live our lives—how we live this life, the only life we know or can be confident we can really know, the only one we can be confident that we actually have or will have. And even knowing this life is not the easiest or most common achievement. — Janus

I agree with you about what really matters, but your downright no to the question about these experiences seems to me to be over the top. So far as I know, mystical experience does not lead to harm to the mystic or to others and, on the whole, does seem to encourage peace and loving-kindness. That's important. Also, if it is important to those who follow the disciplines and/or have the experiences, then it has a certain importance for the world. But, whether it is/leads to our final destination or not, it does not seem to make any difference to the majority who do not have these experiences. Their relevance to the only life we know is not at all clear. All this is my opinion, not my dogma.

In fear? Yep. In pain? Yep. In Genghis Khan? Yep. In Nazism? Yep. — Leontiskos

There is no argument or reasoning in "yep". Sounds like you stand by a naïve interpretation without saying why.

By definition.

God is something which may have created us and the world, may be with each of us and every animal and plant, every planet. May be performing a task via these things. May have a purpose in mind. All of these actions are beyond our capacity to understand (unaided). — Punshhh

But none of this is by definition. The essence of God is not determined such that definitional proofs can simply be brought forth. What comes to us is a long history of dogma and theological speculation, and whatever can be analytically derived from this would carry the same arbitrary thinking. One has to drop everything, just as empirical science has dropped nearly everything evolving through the centuries, dropped and added through endless paradigms (as Kuhn puts it) that hold sway and then yield. It is a dialectical process of discovery. But what if something came along that truly was as apodictic (certain) as a logical proof? Or even more so? We think of logic as apodictic, cannot be second guessed, a tautologically structured system, like mathematics, but consider that logic and math are brought to us through language, and language is not apodictic, but is historically wrought out, so when one faces a logical construction, the rigor of insistence is there, but we really cannot say what this IS as absolutely as we are compelled to yield to it. Logic gives us the strongest analytic basis for truth making, but it is entirely abstract, and it is a pure formal truth that "If P, then Q"; "P"; therefore Q. It has no content, just form.
But the world has content, IS content, and this content has always been deemed, as you say about God, infinitely remote (impossible) to determine, for knowledge about the world comes to us from induction, and induction is statistical and indeterminate. Gravity is confirmed in "repeatable results" as science says about its experiments, not apodicticity. Thingscould fall up or sideways, for there is no logical constraint to contain their behavior.
The point is, consider what Husserl says about his phenomenology:

I have thereby chosen to begin in absolute
poverty, with an absolute lack of knowledge. Beginning thus,
obviously one of the first things I ought to do is reflect on how
I might find a method for going on, a method that promises to
lead to genuine knowing.

Absolute poverty is the clarity of observation, like not having the church interfering with well reasoned thinking about celestial events, dropping all assumptions about what the world is, so as to have before one the world that is there and unassailably so--pure phenomenality, pure presence. Reading through his "Ideas" one discovers his "method": the phenomenological reduction. Now God can be conceived apart from the traditions, the bad metaphysics/theology, the presumptions of science, the clutter of busy thinking. God is a concept of invention, mostly, and this concept is suspended! God emerged out of the language of cultures first, that is, it is a construct made of language possibilities, disregarding along the way, well, the world. The idea is to begin from poverty of thought so as to allow the world to "speak" (gelassenheit, Heidegger's use of the term), to yield to what is there to yield to and allow it to come forward. Here philosophy discovers metaphysics, the Real metaphysics.

Not that all is disclosed, but that disclosure is now in the "right place" and the inexorable enigma (Heidegger again. One MUST read Being and Time. Pretty much my mission in life is to get people to read continental philosophy) of metaphysics is palpable, with a depth of meaning thought impossible. Phenomenology is freedom to realize "God" IN finitude, for finitude never was finitude, but is eternal. In Kantian terms, there can be no line between phenomenon and noumenon. The former IS the latter, and vice versa. Everydayness IS metaphysics.

The mystic does all this internally, rather than inter subjectively. Infact it may not be possible to cover the same ground inter subjectively. Because doing it internally is a much more integrated process of knowing the self, working with the self, developing personal dialogue, narrative and walking the walk. The fact that in the spiritual schools there is direct interaction and communication between teacher and student at a profound level, would indicate that there is a process of guiding and communion going on, which goes well beyond the intellectual and intellectual analysis. — Punshhh

I guess I am asking, what does it mean to guide? Phenomenology is not an invitation to think in the abstract, but to see the world "for the first time". What does this mean? is answered in the process of realization. When one is comfortably encountering the world, one is ensconced in the past as it gives familiarity to the present that makes the anticipation of the future secure. Time separates God from us, you could say.

Acceptance of truth on authority is something we do all the time, as in medicine, where we trust the authority of doctors, or in schools, where we trust the authority of teachers. In these cases the truth that we do not know ourselves but accept from others is a truth we could come to know ourselves if we went through the right training. In the case of divinely revealed truth, we can, ex hypothesi, never know it directly for ourselves (at least not in this life), but only on authority. The name we give to acceptance of truth on authority is “faith.” Faith is of truth; it is knowledge; it is knowledge derived from authority; it is rational. These features are present in the case of putting faith in what a doctor tells us about our health. What we know in this way is truth (it is truth about our health); it is knowledge (it is a coming to have what the doctor has, though not as the doctor has it); it is based on authority (it is based on the authority of the doctor); it is rational (it is rational to accept the authority of one’s doctor, ceteris paribus). Such knowledge is indirect. It goes to the truth through another. But it is knowledge. The difference is between knowing, say, that water is H2O because a chemist has told us and knowing that water is H2O because we have ourselves performed the experiments that prove it. The first is knowledge by faith, and the second is knowledge direct. — Peter L. P. Simpson, Political Illiberalism, 108-9

Good stuff.

We are rational in trusting our doctor, because we have evidence that… — Peter L. P. Simpson, Political Illiberalism, 108-9

Only after all evidence is gathered can we, by our choice and faith, consent to putting our lives in the hands of the doctor.

And so none of this discussion of ‘what is faith’ is necessarily about God or a religion. And further, relegating faith to belief without reason or incorrigible choice, only misunderstands faith (or far too narrowly construes it), and misunderstands the role of evidence and reasoning, and consent, and how people are called to act in everyday practical situations all of the time.

Thanks for posting that.

Right, I haven't been saying that I see a problem with people interpreting their mystical experiences, and entertaining whatever personal beliefs they do. The problem I see is when they conflate their interpretations with knowledge and make absolutist truth claims. In other words dogma, ideology and fundamentalism are the problems...thinking others should believe as they do.

The problem I see is when they conflate their interpretations with knowledge and make absolutist truth claims. In other words dogma, ideology and fundamentalism are the problems...thinking others should believe as they do. — Janus

I agree with you, but isn't it inherent to the experience that it feels like an encounter with truth and therefore natural, even inevitable, to conflate interpretation with knowledge that ought to be shared with the world? From their perspective, it's not dogma, it's clarity, even a form of compassion to share it.

I have no objection to compassionate sharing. The experience may feel like an encounter with truth, but intellectual honesty should disabuse one of the idea of "one truth for all" when it comes to religious and metaphysical matters.

intellectual honesty should disabuse one of the idea of "one truth for all" — Janus

From what I’ve seen, the experience is often all about ‘one truth for all' so how could we expect restraint? Intellectual honesty seems to me to be a separate project. Are we really expecting those touched by the divine to say, ‘I encountered a higher power and I know we are all one, but I’ll keep it in perspective because intellectually this is the right thing to do?'

But none of this is by definition. The essence of God is not determined such that definitional proofs can simply be brought forth.

If God doesn’t fall within these and the more established definitions of God, then it is not God, it is something else.
If it’s something else, well that’s fine, provided it fulfills the tasks that we ascribe to God. If it’s something else and it doesn’t fulfill its tasks, then it’s not God, or anything to do with God and why would someone refer to it as God?

One has to drop everything, just as empirical science has dropped nearly everything evolving through the centuries, dropped and added through endless paradigms (as Kuhn puts it) that hold sway and then yield

Yes, I have dropped any mention of God, in my own life and in conversation,(except where God is being addressed directly). You brought it up, I was only talking about divinity and aspects of the world that we don’t know about.

I have thereby chosen to begin in absolute
poverty, with an absolute lack of knowledge. Beginning thus,
obviously one of the first things I ought to do is reflect on how
I might find a method for going on, a method that promises to
lead to genuine knowing

Yes, although I apply this to ego, rather than lifestyle, living in the modern world with all the stuff we have around us, makes that difficult. To be humble, to always approach situations and people with humility kindness and to be unassuming. It is remarkable how these simple things act as a powerhouse in the mystical life. The ego has to be tamed like the ox in Zen is tethered to the post.

I guess I am asking, what does it mean to guide? Phenomenology is not an invitation to think in the abstract, but to see the world "for the first time". What does this mean? is answered in the process of realization. When one is comfortably encountering the world, one is ensconced in the past as it gives familiarity to the present that makes the anticipation of the future secure. Time separates God from us, you could say.

Yes, well apart from the bit about God. This is the bread and butter of mysticism.

We’re getting somewhere;
Developing and embracing humility.
Developing and embracing an unassuming posture.
Clearing the self of all conditioning.
Realising our limited position in the world and the limits of knowledge.
An ability to put to one side all cultural and social narratives.
Communion with nature, or prayer.

All things which ought to be practiced at length before one takes one step.

And so none of this discussion of ‘what is faith’ is necessarily about God or a religion. And further, relegating faith to belief without reason or incorrigible choice, only misunderstands faith (or far too narrowly construes it), and misunderstands the role of evidence and reasoning, and consent, and how people are called to act in everyday practical situations all of the time. — Fire Ologist

Yep. :100:

intellectual honesty should disabuse one of the idea of "one truth for all" — Janus

If we are intellectually honest then we do not talk about "truth" if we are subjectivists. "The same truth for all," is vacuously true, and follows from the notion of truth itself. If 2+2=4 is true then it is true for all, not just for some. That's what truth means. *sigh*

The intellectually honest naysayer needs to start admitting that they don't think religious claims are truth-apt. They can't have it both ways:

I think religious claims are truth apt. That may be the elephant in the room here. — Leontiskos

Right, I haven't been saying that I see a problem with people interpreting their mystical experiences, and entertaining whatever personal beliefs they do. The problem I see is when they conflate their interpretations with knowledge and make absolutist truth claims. In other words dogma, ideology and fundamentalism are the problems...thinking others should believe as they do. — Janus

Broadly, I agree. But I think we have to modify what we have been saying a bit. Putting it crudely, it is not dogma, ideology and fundamentalism in themselves that are the problem. It is the bad behaviour that those things lead to - no, sorry, correction - often lead to. I don't mind people being dogmatic or even fundamentalist, so long as they behave themselves in a civilized fashion - that is, adapt to the world as it is, as opposed to eliminating or attempting to eliminate those features of the world that they disapprove of. (Since everybody has an ideology, we should only condemn ideologies that seek to suppress, by inappropriate means, other ideologies.)
In short, the important distinction between a mere hallucination and a vision of God is the question of harm to self and others in everyday life.

Are we really expecting those touched by the divine to say, ‘I encountered a higher power and I know we are all one, but I’ll keep it in perspective because intellectually this is the right thing to do?' — Tom Storm

That is indeed asking a bit much. But the practicalities of existence do demand that one not use inappropriate methods to compel (insofar as that's even possible) belief amongst other people.

The ego has to be tamed like the ox in Zen is tethered to the post. — Punshhh

Yes, but how do I decide who is the ego and who the ox-tamer?

The intellectually honest naysayer needs to start admitting that they don't think religious claims are truth-apt. They can't have it both ways: — Leontiskos

I'm a bit cautious about a general claim about all religious claims. I don't exclude the possibility that some, even many, may be truth-apt. But I do think that an important part of religious claims are interpretations of the world that are the basis of various ways of life and practices and that those interpretations are not truth-apt. The same applies to secularism and atheism.

I'm a bit cautious about a general claim about all religious claims. I don't exclude the possibility that some, even many, may be truth-apt. But I do think that an important part of religious claims are interpretations of the world that are the basis of various ways of life and practices and that those interpretations are not truth-apt. The same applies to secularism and atheism. — Ludwig V

I would lay out a general principle that addresses all sorts of things on TPF.

Suppose that S → P, and P is truth-apt. It follows that S is truth-apt. It doesn't really matter what kind of thing S is. S could be a way of life or practice.

For example, if S is the "way of life" of theism or atheism, and P is a proposition like, "God exists," then we have a case where a way of life is truth-apt. If P is true, and yet is made false by a way of life, then that way of life is to that extent false.

It would be hard to overemphasize how relevant this is to all sorts of things that are said on TPF. For example, fdrake gets at something very similar when he resists the notion that a stance is simply "upstream" of facts:

Nevertheless Alice's beliefs have not been formally refuted in accordance with only the logical principles of their connection, she would need to change a stance defining principle - trust AI more. Which would be a belief about which methodologies are admissible. But that would render discoveries, facts, results - methodology - as potential changes for the admissibility of methodologies, and thus undermine a stance's construal as "upstream" from facts and matters of ontology. — fdrake

When Pierre Hadot emphasizes the way that ways of life and discourse are mutually influencing, he is crucially aware that latter also influences the former.

From what I’ve seen, the experience is often all about ‘one truth for all' so how could we expect restraint? Intellectual honesty seems to me to be a separate project. Are we really expecting those touched by the divine to say, ‘I encountered a higher power and I know we are all one, but I’ll keep it in perspective because intellectually this is the right thing to do?' — Tom Storm

It's not that the experience is all about "one truth for all", but that the interpretation of it may be, indeed usually are. The interpretations are generally culturally mediated, and so vary greatly cross-culturally, even though there are also, admittedly, commonalities. So, they are not absolute truths, but are culturally relative.

Those who are reputedly "touched by the divine" are usually the saints and the sages and they would seem to be the least likely to be ideologues, dogmatists or fundamentalists.

Putting it crudely, it is not dogma, ideology and fundamentalism in themselves that are the problem. It is the bad behaviour that those things lead to - no, sorry, correction - often lead to. — Ludwig V

I think those are problems in themselves. And they are behind most of the culture wars, genocides, and brainwashing of children and the gullible. Also given that they are intellectually dishonest, in that they claim to know more than can justifiably be claimed to be known, I believe they should be disavowed and even disparaged. Of course I'm not suggesting that people should be punished merely for being ideologues. dogmatists or fundamentalists, though.

Logical. mathematical and empirical truths are "one for all", not so much metaphysical "truths". The point is if there are metaphysical truths, we don't and can't know what they are, or even if you want to say they could be known by "enlightened" individuals, it still remains that they cannot be demonstrated.

I think those [dogma, ideology and fundamentalism] are problems in themselves. — Janus

I'm inclined to agree. Maybe not dogma, if we take it literally as "canon of beliefs." But it's no coincidence that "dogmatic" has come to mean rigid and intolerant. So many dogmas encourage dogmatism.

The other two -- ideology and fundamentalism -- are picking out ethical problems. I don't think they can be used neutrally. To subscribe to an ideology is to indulge in false consciousness, whether deliberately or unconsciously. This is likely bad for you, and if you're remotely inclined to act on it, then probably bad for others as well.

Fundamentalism strikes me as similar to "fascism" -- it can be a historical or sociological description of a specific movement, but it's also naming a mindset, an attitude, and a practice which is more general. So we can neutrally talk about fundamentalist Christianity or Islam, as a set of beliefs, but "fundamentalism" is what those beliefs have in common with any rule-bound, indubitable, authority- or holy-text-based belief that insists that others acknowledge this "truth." Such an attitude is ethically obnoxious, for reasons I doubt need explaining.

So by all means let's disparage these attitudes. And if we need yet another reason -- they've done incalculable harm in blinding people to the gentle, compassionate core of what I think of as genuine spiritual and religious practice.

Logical, mathematical and empirical truths are "one for all", not so much metaphysical "truths". — Janus

That's nonsense, and evidence for this is the fact that you put 'truths' in scare quotes. You yourself know that you are not talking about truths when you talk about things that are not true for all.

The idea that there are metaphysical "truths" that are not truths makes no sense at all. Why do people on TPF keep peddling this nonsense? Why don't they just admit that they don't believe metaphysical claims are truth-apt? That's what the moral antirealists do, and at least their claims aren't facially incoherent.

The notion that a metaphysical proposition is true but not true for all is just as incoherent as the notion that 2+2=4 is true but not true for all.

I noticed my grandson watching an animated Christian feature as a ‘children’s introduction to God’. I didn’t spend any time watching it, beyond noting that it was trying to bring the concept down to kid level, make it understandable for pre-schoolers through words and images. (His mother is quite religious and he is expressing some religious sentiments.) I attend the occasional Christian service mainly due to familial obligations, and I notice how much modern Christian services concede to individual predilection. Like a sermon I heard on how much 'God likes you for the person you are' (never mind the dour Biblical verse 'God is no respecter of persons' Acts 10:34).

Which was, I thought, all well and good. But then, back in olden times, the parishioners were not expected to ‘understand God’. When you went into the Church, your role was entirely passive. Your informed assent or agreement with the proceedings had nothing to do with it. If you were to be the recipient of God’s grace and forgiveness, that was entirely up to God. Children were expected to listen and obey, and perhaps receive instruction in Sunday school. The only thing you had to do was accept and believe and to behave accordingly; to have an opinion about it was precisely the meaning of ‘heresy’.

(That was a point made by Peter Berger in a book called The Heretical Imperative (1979). The rationale behind the book title, is that this model of the complete passive receptivity of belief is hardly viable in a pluralistic, individualist culture such as our own - we are required to make a choice, hence, 'the heretical imperative'. Furthermore that we are faced with a choice our ancestors did not practically have to make - that between 'Jerusalem and Benares', as Berger calls it - the choice between a Biblical faith, and a faith grounded in Asiatic religions.)

But I've also come to understand the rationale behind the traditional attitude. Just as you wouldn't be your own surgeon or defense lawyer, you don't have the necessary skills and attributes to 'enter the life eternal' through your own understanding and efforts, given the ubiquity of ignorance and//or corruption ('original sin') that we have been born into. Hence the demand for the surrender of the ego. Zen Buddhists have an expression, 'washing off blood with blood' which is about the futility of trying to suppress or control thoughts and emotions through conscious effort.

I don't have any answers on this matter but that is a question I'm mulling over.

If you were to be the recipient of God’s grace and forgiveness, that was entirely up to God. — Wayfarer

Coincidentally, in the homily this weekend the priest talked about this. He noted that he encourages the bride and the groom to memorize the vows, yet that some do try to memorize them but then mistakenly say, "Take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity," whereas the words in the Catholic ceremony are, "Receive this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity." He was riffing on reception as active, which was also a big theme of the Second Vatican Council. The difference between reception and passivity (and also between taking and receiving).

(never mind the dour Biblical verse 'God is no respecter of persons' Acts 10:34) — Wayfarer

Lol - Acts 10:34 means that God does not play favorites:

And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” — Acts 10:34-35, RSV

The point here is that God is not like the judge who gives you an unfavorable verdict just because he dislikes you, regardless of what you did or did not do. The context is that Cornelius is acceptable to God even though he is a Gentile. There are problems with reading the KJV in a contemporary idiom. :razz:

I think those are problems in themselves. And they are behind most of the culture wars, genocides, and brainwashing of children and the gullible. Also given that they are intellectually dishonest, in that they claim to know more than can justifiably be claimed to be known, I believe they should be disavowed and even disparaged. Of course I'm not suggesting that people should be punished merely for being ideologues. dogmatists or fundamentalists, though. — Janus

That's right. I was feeling for the point at which dogma etc. becomes a problem that needs to be addressed by social action. Which is a delicate but important matter.

Those who are reputedly "touched by the divine" are usually the saints and the sages and they would seem to be the least likely to be ideologues, dogmatists or fundamentalists. — Janus

I believe that to be true as well.

Logical. mathematical and empirical truths are "one for all", not so much metaphysical "truths". The point is if there are metaphysical truths, we don't and can't know what they are, or even if you want to say they could be known by "enlightened" individuals, it still remains that they cannot be demonstrated. — Janus

This seems right to me. I suppose some people might argue that there are intersubjective agreements about metaphysical truths, such as the existence of God or the idea that human beings have a soul.

Acceptance of truth on authority is something we do all the time, as in medicine, where we trust the authority of doctors, or in schools, where we trust the authority of teachers. In these cases the truth that we do not know ourselves but accept from others is a truth we could come to know ourselves if we went through the right training. In the case of divinely revealed truth, we can, ex hypothesi, never know it directly for ourselves (at least not in this life), but only on authority. The name we give to acceptance of truth on authority is “faith.” Faith is of truth; it is knowledge; it is knowledge derived from authority; it is rational. These features are present in the case of putting faith in what a doctor tells us about our health. What we know in this way is truth (it is truth about our health); it is knowledge (it is a coming to have what the doctor has, though not as the doctor has it); it is based on authority (it is based on the authority of the doctor); it is rational (it is rational to accept the authority of one’s doctor, ceteris paribus). Such knowledge is indirect. It goes to the truth through another. But it is knowledge. The difference is between knowing, say, that water is H2O because a chemist has told us and knowing that water is H2O because we have ourselves performed the experiments that prove it. The first is knowledge by faith, and the second is knowledge direct.
— Peter L. P. Simpson, Political Illiberalism, 108-9

Good stuff. — Fire Ologist

Do you think a follower’s faith in a guru is of the same nature as a patient’s trust in a doctor? And what if the roles were reversed; if the person were receiving medical advice from the guru and spiritual guidance from the doctor?

For example, if S is the "way of life" of theism or atheism, and P is a proposition like, "God exists," then we have a case where a way of life is truth-apt. If P is true, and yet is made false by a way of life, then that way of life is to that extent false. — Leontiskos

Forgive me. I get your drift. However ways of life, unlike propositions about them, are not true or false. But they can be validated by or founded on facts which are articulated by propositions; those propositions need to be true if they are to do their job.

When Pierre Hadot emphasizes the way that ways of life and discourse are mutually influencing, he is crucially aware that latter also influences the former. — Leontiskos

I don't want to waste time bickering about whether your argument is valid or not. I'll skip to agreeing with you and Pierre Hadot. OK?

In one way, you are quite right. However, I am puzzled why there appears to be no end to the argument about the existence of God and inclined to think that the possibility of such an argument is an illusion. I find Wittgenstein's ideas about interpretations ("seeing as") interesting because puzzle pictures seem to be a case where two incompatible statements are both true - in a modified sense of true. In addition, Wittgenstein articulates the concept of "hinge" propositions, which are protected from refutation by their role in the practice(s) they support.

Wittgenstein, drawing much from Hume, formed the idea of ‘hinge propositions’, in which there are particular propositions that one may believe but in addition, one may exempt from doubt. It is the belief in these particular propositions that enables one to begin one’s scientific investigations. They are not supported by reasons.

(copied from [url=https://ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk › index.php › aporia › article › download › 2027 › 1496]Fluharty - Hinge propositions[/url])
.. and then there's Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia. This one is not my cup of tea, but I gather it has followers. This is a variety of fideism, which has its place in philosophical discourse because it was Hume's position. (People forget that Hume had one exception to his general critique of miracles - the Resurrection. He does not claim to believe in it on rational or empirical grounds.)

All I'm saying here is that there are alternatives to hammering round the ancient necessary proofs and empirical arguments.

Do you think a follower’s faith in a guru is of the same nature as a patient’s trust in a doctor? And what if the roles were reversed; if the person were receiving medical advice from the guru and spiritual guidance from the doctor? — Tom Storm

That may depend on the person, the ailment, the doctor, the advice being sought, the guru and the reason for your question.

Do you think faith only has to do with a lack of reason and knowledge?

But faith is basically always the same qua faith, it just may be self-deluded, or misplaced if the person or thing one has faith in is not reasonable or worthy.

It is hard to tell who is worthy. Just like it is hard to be a good doctor and a good guru.

From what I’ve seen, the experience is often all about ‘one truth for all' so how could we expect restraint? Intellectual honesty seems to me to be a separate project. Are we really expecting those touched by the divine to say, ‘I encountered a higher power and I know we are all one, but I’ll keep it in perspective because intellectually this is the right thing to do?'

This is one of the crosses to bear, for the believer, or mystic. They have beholden truths which for a number of reasons they cannot impart to their friends, family and associates and yet they must continue life as normal.

The ego has to be tamed like the ox in Zen is tethered to the post.
— Punshhh
Yes, but how do I decide who is the ego and who the ox-tamer?

This is the most crucial crisis in the life of someone who seeks to serve (in these terms), to follow a spiritual life, or to seek the divine. To be able to make right choices. It is necessary because otherwise one will end up navel gazing.

There is a process where one questions oneself, asks for guidance, tries to live by the example of saint’s, or prophets. Fails, has crises of conscience etc etc. For each person it is different. For me it was a combination of a faith in guidance and the realisation of good. The power of good, can when you want to do good, or have goodwill, is like an accumulator. As each act of good, or kindness and its rewards are experienced it colours your way of life etc. Rather like acts of service, or compassion. Eventually a purification takes place. For faith in guidance, one offers freely to be guided, to follow the guidance. Where the guidance isn’t so much in the external world, but internally. In a sense, one is offering up one’s liberty, freedom to follow selfish thoughts and desires. To put other’s needs before oneself, to put the guidance before oneself. A tipping point is reached beyond which there is a strength of feeling and knowledge that one is living a gooder life and yet not feeling the lesser for it, but the more for it. Again a tipping point is reached beyond which one can grab hold of and tether the ego.

But faith is basically always the same qua faith, it just may be self-deluded, or misplaced if the person or thing one has faith in is not reasonable or worthy. — Fire Ologist

That makes sense and I guess would match my understanding of it. If this is the case, how does one determine when a faith is appropriate?

Do you think faith only has to do with a lack of reason and knowledge? — Fire Ologist

From what I've read here, I think we probably need specific examples of faith in action in order to assess whether or not it is reasonable. If someone says they have faith that Trump will make America great again, as I’ve heard from several Christians, then I would doubt that faith is a reliable or useful path. If they say they have faith that Black people are inferior, which I have heard from white South African Protestants, then I would also consider that kind of faith to be mistaken.

As I’ve said before, if “faith” just means “trust,” then I’d prefer to use the word “trust” instead. And presumably if we have trust in something there are likely good reasons for this - eg medicine. For me, “faith” often implies belief without evidence, possibly without good reason, and perhaps even in the face of contrary evidence. But let's not return to this, since we'll probably just go around covering the same ground in a kind of endless regression. :wink:

Again a tipping point is reached beyond which one can grab hold of and tether the ego. — Punshhh

Yes, I understand that the ego is the ox. But who is it that tames the ox/ego? The story would lose its point if we could imagine the ox willingly submitting to the tamer. You speak of "one" or "me", which seems to be neither ox nor ego. I sometimes think that the journey is something that happens to us adn which we cope with as best we can, rather than being something that we decide to do.

For me, “faith” often implies belief without evidence, possibly without good reason, and perhaps even in the face of contrary evidence. — Tom Storm

I suppose the only way to see any value in faith is to think about the times when it implies something different.
It is odd, though, that one of the commonest story-lines in our burgeoning entertainment industry is the lone hero who is gripped by an unorthodox, even crazy, idea and pursues it relentlessly in the face of all opposition. The ending is, of course, triumphant vindication. Which is all very well, but perhaps not the most sensible idea to feed into the minds of people.
I think that faith, if it is ever to count as a good thing, must be the willingness to start on a project, accepting the risk of failure, but willing to see it through to the end anyway. Whether it is actually a good thing in particular cases, will depend on our evaluation of the project.

think that faith, if it is ever to count as a good thing, must be the willingness to start on a project, accepting the risk of failure, but willing to see it through to the end anyway — Ludwig V

Except that we know that some people achieve success despite all the odds and setbacks, just look at any list of entrepreneurs or Hollywood stars. This evidence of success, despite barriers and failures is why some people think it's worth taking chances. I'd argue that faith in something which cannot be demonstrated follows a very different trajectory.

Except that we know that some people achieve success despite all the odds and setbacks, just look at any list of entrepreneurs or Hollywood stars. This evidence of success, despite barriers and failures is why some people think it's worth taking chances. I'd argue that faith in something which cannot be demonstrated follows a very different trajectory. — Tom Storm

We do indeed see a great deal of stuff about people who have succeeded against the odds, and, as you point out, not only in fiction. We don't see nearly as much about the people who try to follow in their footsteps and fail - and they are the vast majority. Anyone who looks at the numbers for successful and unsuccessful business start-ups and thinks rationally will walk away. Ditto careers in music, acting &c. Even philosophy!

I'm surprised at your last sentence. That's exactly what I'm trying to talk about. But N.B. I do not want to go down the rationalist road of saying that people who do that are crazy and irrational and even unphilosophical. I'm trying to identify what makes such projects worth while, and not just foolishness.

For me, “faith” often implies belief without evidence, possibly without good reason, and perhaps even in the face of contrary evidence. — Tom Storm

I was also trying to tease out why you said that faith often implies those things, which suggests that sometimes faith does not imply those things.
Come to think of it, perhaps my thought is only that commitment is often a good thing, though always implying an acceptance of risk, or at least ignorance about what the future holds. Whether that is a good thing or a bad one will depend on the nature of the project, not on whether it succeeds. Commitment that takes a doctor to Gaza is a good thing, I think. Commitment that takes a soldier into an aggressive war is, on the whole, a bad thing. Whether a commitment to getting to the top of Mt. Everest is a good thing or not is not clear to me. Ditto religious commitment.

Yes, I understand that the ego is the ox. But who is it that tames the ox/ego? The story would lose its point if we could imagine the ox willingly submitting to the tamer. You speak of "one" or "me", which seems to be neither ox nor ego.

This can become complicated when we use phrases like ego. Ego can mean different things, not only different aspects of the self, but it could be the whole self, or just something that the self uses, in it’s tool box so to speak. I make the distinction between ego, personality and being(sentient). Although, there could be more than three parts to the person. We are after all talking about a narrative used by people, involved in religious, or spiritual schools with their own terminology and I’m trying not to get into that, if possible.
So I would say, it is the being, working with the personality who wrestles with the ego.

I sometimes think that the journey is something that happens to us adn which we cope with as best we can, rather than being something that we decide to do.

Yes, of course and both happening at the same time, as well. I adhere to the view that it is mainly something that happens to us and that a propensity, or calling, towards such a lifestyle may be a result of that.