There is no such thing as Blind Faith.There is nothing like Rational Faith and Blind Faith.
Faith is what you experience and not what you think.
You feel the presence of Love,God, not think of them.
Faith is of the heart not of the Head.
Couple of points.
1.Before trying to dissect the concept of GOD and trying to rationalise either to prove or disprove,first define ‘Mind’-then define thoughts.So far no body has defined mind but still use the term frequently as if it is the highest authority.
Mind is not seen ,heard,smelt,felt,or tasted( the five senses);yet you say it exists.One might say it is because of the results,namely coordination of sense organs.This again is an assumption and not proven.
You may also map the brain ,scan it, but still you can not say what the mind is.Can you declare that mind is not operative when brain is in coma?You do no know,that is the answer.
2.How does one explain consciousness?Psychologists have a funny term’Unconscious’.If you are not conscious how come you know it?Again the result of consciousness is seen in day to day life.That is, you infer.
Are all inferences correct?
In logic, you take a particular instance,refer it to general statement,then arrive at a final statement.To explain;
All men are mortal.
X is a Man.
Therefore X is mortal.
Seems correct-Is it ?
Before saying all men are mortal you should have verified all men living,dead and those who are yet to be born, know that those who are born die and then say all are mortal.
Is this the case?
We have not verified each case and also it is impossible to check each case.
We do what we call an inductive leap and say and all are mortal.
When your basic assumption itself is open to question/is wrong ,what about your conclusions?
Nor are the senses reliable.
You dip your hand in warm water and then keep it in cold water.Is the water cold
immediately?
If I am going to believe only what I am going to perceive by myself I will be a doodering idiot.I have not been to moon.I have heard of it.I believe it.What if people have have lied?
Testimony is also open to question.
If I were to follow what others tell me , then who has informed the first person on earth a thing is what it is?For example,I call rose a rose because it has been named thus.Who has informed the first human being thus?
Again what is a thing we see or hear?
I call rose a rose,because of certain qualities.say clolor,smell.If any thing smeels like rose shal I call it a rose.No.It may be a perfume.If it is because of color, there are many roses of the same color, but still we call a rose a rose.You strip a thing of its qualities;what does remain?
Take a Man.Can you tell me what is common between yourself at 3 yrs and you at present and in between?
I am totally different from what I was at various stages of my life when compared my present state.My physical details have changed,out look has changed.Yet I call myself the same.
What is it by which I call ‘I’?
These things call for introspection by the individual and no amount of writing shall solve the issue.
Introspect and you shall know what you are.
Both Theism and Atheism are set of principles that appeal to different groups.Let each believe what they want.
What you want is not in Books;it is within you.
Find it, for when you are about to die all this dissertations will be of no use, for that matter when you lie naked on the surgeon’s table for a procedure, these things will not help.
Find the Truth in you.
(By writing some controversial books ,people make money, Period.
Story:
A new book points out that the ancient Christians — and even early Americans — did not share the blind faith of today’s fundamentalists.
If you open Karen Armstrong’s new book, The Case for God, expecting to find a list of mysterious cures, scientific curiosities, or certified miracles all pointing toward the physical presence of a divine influence in the world, you will be sorely disappointed. Armstrong has no interest in, and is in fact completely antithetical to, trying to prove God’s existence. Despite this, her book is positioned — both in marketing and from its opening pages — as a direct challenge to books like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. How can you make a defense of God if you’ve no interest in the existence of God? Quite well, actually, and if you do it as sharply as Armstrong, you can make hundreds of pages of what is basically theological analysis both entertaining and informative.
Armstrong argues for an idea very similar to the “non-overlapping magisteria” that were put forward by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (and in fact, Gould gets several nice mentions in The Case for God). She refers frequently to the idea that, in the past, people tended to break arguments into two groups for which she uses the Greek terms logos and mythos. Logos reflects practical, immediate reasoning — how do we build that aqueduct, what can we make from this wood, which crop would grow best in that field? Mythos is more aimed at the why — what does it mean that my friend has died, how can I recapture the joy I felt in a moment of pure experience, how can I find meaning and peace among the world’s noise and violence? This sort of approach could easily fall into a gooey cheer for “being spiritual,” but Armstrong is not talking about having a nice little breathing session now and then. She focuses on the 3000 year history of monotheism and the great effort that was put into building flexible, thoughtful religions, on how those religions continue to have a meaningful role in the life of millions, and how the recent history of those religions has led to unfortunate developments that are unique over those three millennia.
Leave a Reply