Yes, I am in a minority of the faithful...trust me... I know. But my point is the former sentence there, not the latter. I think that faith is essentially a matter of belief in something beyond our immediate senses. After that, the perception is personal and in many cases defies description.Ty Webb wrote:bigc wrote:Ty Webb wrote:I suppose it doesn't HAVE to. But it's the rare faith that doesn't, so I don't think I'd call the lens all that narrow.
In what do you have faith then? What else requires faith of the spiritual sort?
I have faith that there is an energy in the world that is beyond what I can perceive with my five senses. I do not believe that this energy is conscious.
In human experience, THAT is faith viewed through a very narrow lens. You are in a tiny, tiny minority of the faithful.In the most limited view, everything requires faith...faith in your senses, etc.
That borders on a reductio ad absurdum argument. If we are to take our very existence on faith by your lights, then this whole conversation is pointless (and possibly imaginary?).
I liked Wood Goblin's illustration as well (especially since I'm a big Dylan Thomas fan), though I think it reflects our momentary contact with the ineffable, not the spiritual. Maybe that's semantics, but to me, it's more a brief glimpse of the place where our brains can perceive but not depict. Is that "the spirit"? Maybe. Or maybe it's just the ragged, blurred edge of cognition. Maybe there's no difference.
Sure, it's a full on reductio ad absurdum, no doubt. And in a sense, this conversation is pointless top the extent that we're doing anything but bandying about opinion in an effort to know each other better.
As for your last paragraph, your thoughts on the matter mirror mine.