Religion

[Pella]

So you won't be contributing to my new limo, err... I mean church then? ;)

 

 

I wasn't really trying to justify myself to you more trying test your arguements and the only way I could do that was to myself and my belief, since I ahve no real knowledge of anyone elses nor how deep their faith is.

 

It was also a test for myself to see if I truly believed what I was preaching(pun intended).

 

like you said in earlier post we should question or selves and our beliefs. That is how we grow. By vocalising my beliefs (alright writing them down) I was able to see how deeply those beliefs ran.

 

Some points I will answer for my own piece of mind?

 

You asked me to ask myself why I belive in a creator and not blind luck and random chance? I see too many things work too well together. Everything fits too neatly in place from evolution to 'the clockwork universe'. There is two much order for things to be random. Plus personal experience.

 

You said that i shouldn't believe in the bible - it's flawed. I agree completely. I only believe in the tenets behind the work of fiction, not the work of fiction it's self. Again those tenets of tolerance, respect and charity. More of a moral outlook than a religeous belief I suppose.

 

Finally, in point to yourself you said that the nature of life was a happenstance occurance not a miracle and (parphrasing that life was happening everywhere) Whilst I agree on the second point, I believe life is everywhere throughout the universe and we are microscopic part of it. I believe that if life has a no purpose then why are sentient? if life is purely a biological thing, then surely we should all be automatons, with only the smallest brainpower to achieve the most basic survival needs. I don't believe consciousness is some by-product of the evolutionary process.

 

For me there are too many co-incidences and things that don't make sense in your outlook and I guess you feel the same way about mine :p

 

Your thoughts aren't boring, anything but they have made me think deeply about the nature of things and that isn't a bad thing.

 

 

[str82u]

I have spirituality although I may not actually believe in god....if that makes any sense at all.

 

I try to believe in God, and Jesus, though the above may be more accurate. A lot of what people have said of the vagaries is also true for me, like, I believe that God (whatever you call God) gave us everything we needed at conception, it's the things we are exposed to and taught as we grow that dull that sense and takes us away from the spiritual center.

 

I look at how my daughter is how she has been as she grows (she is 7 1/2) that makes me believe the above is true, she knows right from wrong already, but she also seeks approval and the "religion" she gets from her mother's church change that slightly. Even though people force, or enforce, thier common ethical beliefs on her, she still questions these things, but even with me there is some amount of fear in her because somehow someone put the "fear" of God in her, more like the fear of people and the ideas they are so fanatic about.

 

I think the Golden Rule is what we should apply to all things and if that's religion, then that's mine.

[GorunNova]

... remember, most Western societies ooze Judeo-Christian ideology, and it's pretty much impossible to avoid. It doesn't seem that obvious... unless you are one of those holding a minority set of beliefs, whereupon it becomes VERY obvious and VERY opressive. When most people subconsciously follow a norm that you do not accept, it wears at you to some degree... at least, I find it does some days.

 

My perspective is fundamentally different from the traditional God and Satan, Good vs. Evil mentality that seems to lie behind everything our society has built... and sometimes it drives me nuts! I think religion should be banned until the age of majority, whereupon you can analyze and choose a belief system without it being burned into your brain from birth -_-'

[frodoxxx]

i wanted to be a druid but unfortunatly druidism involves sacraficing virgins on the summer solstice and i just couldn't find any virgins

[GorunNova]

You went to a small town high school too, huh? ;)

[S0V13T]

"I don't believe in God. But I'm afraid of him.

[maverick]

the debate seems to have evolved considerably since my post yesterday.

 

from what i have seen and read pella is exploring her spirituality and gorunova isbelieving none of anything.

 

the thing about faith is about managing your life. the holes that can be poked in religion have been discussed for centuries - i have poked holes and discussed em - but ultimately you have to decide how you live your life and what helps you do it.

 

being raised i a christian -western - society it is easy to aspire to and believe in those values, simply because my peer group believes in those values.

 

so i can believe in a bit of the bible. tho i do not like religilon and will not subscribe to one.

 

i have more in mind of a personaL religion. something i put my faith in to. as indiana jones eloquently demonstrated, having faith is believing in the something you CANT see. so arguments basewd on a lack of proof are a waste of time. what he also demonstrated was that the first step is bloody scary.

 

faith has always been a rock to cling to in a storm. something bigger than the individual that doesnt change in the face of threat or adversity that can be relied upon to be nothing more than waht it is. religion is still MANMADE.

 

so you have to ask yourself what you want.

 

a life based on logic while an appealing concept does not meet the needs of a human being. it is in the nature of humans to meet their emotional needs and base their lives around them - perhaps, hence the need of faith - where logic meets none of those needs

 

i think with a subject like this it is easy to dissect the issue but miss the point

 

have a good day all

al

[GorunNova]

I meet my emotional needs fine without religion and faith, actually. I don't have any need for an artificial rock to cling to in the storm. Life can be harsh, but I see no reason to reach for anyone's protection from it. Things happen, and there's no point in being depressed or sad... best to look forward and try to figure out what to do next.

 

Also, I belive a lot of things... but I have faith (in the sense of "complete and total trust") in none of them... after all, if you trust something completely, you don't question it, and all things -must- be questioned. All things change, including belief, as new evidence arises, and total trust precludes the questioning and doubting that is essential for that.

 

... if the only step to make is off a cliff, then off the cliff I go, but until then I'll both look for and make alternate routes before it gets to that. It's true that you don't always have enough proof to nail things down totally, but it IS possible to make reasonable guesses that don't require external meddling by mystical entities or magic to cement things in place. As a personal choice, I figure explanations that require external entities that can't be seen or tested are far weaker by nature than ones that can be explained by natural processes to some, or any degree. Gratuitously throwing gods or spirits into the picture is a deus ex machina of the literary sense, a hack way of juryrigging an outcome that makes a person feel better using an outside influence that probably isn't there.

 

Personally, I think that the idea that we've come so far on our own strength is very fulfilling, and also the simplest explanation. We have a lot of potential as a race, but we keep putting the responsibility on others, whether it be leaders that really don't have peoples' best interests at heart or on gods and goddesses that we've made up to absolve ourselves from our own potential for positive and negative action. THAT is why I disagree with religion in all forms... it is a tool to shrug off responsibility, and realizing that responsibility and power is always ours is both terrifying and gratifying.

[elderbear]

i wanted to be a druid but unfortunatly druidism involves sacraficing virgins on the summer solstice and i just couldn't find any virgins

 

You just need to read more about Druidism ...

 

as indiana jones eloquently demonstrated, having faith is believing in the something you CANT see. so arguments basewd on a lack of proof are a waste of time. what he also demonstrated was that the first step is bloody scary.

 

But Indy had some evidence before he took a step - it wasn't blind faith (or blind unreason) - but rather taking a rational gamble based on his prior experiences.

 

I don't think anybody lives a faith w/o prior experiences that they interpret to support it - whether they're unspoken emotional reactions to early childhood programming or an overt intellectual decision (like C. S. Lewis).

 

My faith(s) is quite different now than 25 years ago - and also much more conscious. I understand a number of those prior experiences that lead to what I believe. I'm also a skeptic - even about my own beliefs at times. Out of open-minded skepticism and doubt comes purified belief and a refined understanding of the experiences that lead to faith.

 

a life based on logic while an appealing concept does not meet the needs of a human being. it is in the nature of humans to meet their emotional needs and base their lives around them - perhaps, hence the need of faith - where logic meets none of those needs

 

i think with a subject like this it is easy to dissect the issue but miss the point

 

Amen!

 

B)

[elderbear]

Evolution: Proven. It's hard to avoid concluding that evolution is a perfectly normal process when diseases evolve in decades to resist drugs... among thousands of other examples. Also, when microscopic organisms can evolve in decades to become very different than the original predecessors, it's not hard to imagine all the current diversity evolving over millions of years... evolution can happen surprisingly quickly with no deific intervention necessary.

 

I really despise the "Intelligent Design" movement for confounding science and philosophy. To say "Things are so complex that our current science cannot explain it to me - therefore an Intelligent Designer must exist" may actually be a legitimate understanding of the world - but it has no business posing as science. Its major premise specifically abandons science as an excuse to invoke divinity.

 

But a couple weeks ago I had a modestly serious sinus infection. I began to wonder how sinuses could still exist in an evolutionary process. The only useful purposes they seem to serve is to provide resonance for the voice and lighten the skull.

 

Yet they are a potential source of devastating infection that give the organism easy access to eyes and brain. A number of mechanisms have evolved to keep the sinuses sterile while connected to the germ filled nasal passages. How do you evolve sinuses and defense mechanisms simultaneously? Evolving the sinuses first would lead to death and blindness at a greatly increased rate. Evolving the protective mechanisms first would make no sense.

 

To leap from this to "Therefore, there must have been an Intelligent Designer" seems emotionally appealing - but I'd rather not make that leap - I'm curious what you (or anybody else) knows about the evolution of sinuses.

 

Death: Given the current evidence, death is the end for us.

 

Death is the end for us as we are now. Period. I don't think anybody debates that. The best scientific investigations haven't been able to show that there is anything else - although science may not have the tools or the mindset to tackle this problem.

 

Nevertheless, I've had enough personal experiences that I believe there is something more, although I don't know exactly what.

 

If that isn't true, and there IS an afterlife, there is no way to find out about it without being actually dead.

 

Well, somebody has to be dead - but assuming that they can and want to communicate - and have somebody who can and wants to listen - and that there is a way to verify the entire process ...

 

I think that if fewer people believed in an afterlife they would have more respect for life than they currently do; if there is no afterlife, this life is that much more important!

 

You, me, Kabir, and Nietzche!

 

Religious Texts: ... good reads, but bogus from a standard of deific information. Each one has only one basis for it's worth... itself.

 

Ah, but you overgeneralize!!! How does the Tao Te Ching begin? By claiming that the Tao that is written down is not the Tao. It reminds the reader at the very beginning that the text is not the sacred experience - (my extrapolation) merely a shadow of that which cannot be comprehended nor described.

 

Perfection: ... is a useless concept. Any argument involving perfection is flawed, and can be shown to be flawed very easily. This seems to be a universe of optimums for specific cases, not perfections...

 

8) Thus you see the imperfection of this line of thought! 8)

 

Omnipotence: ... also a flawed concept... think of the good old "Can God make a mountain bigger than he can move" argument.

 

That's actually a rather simplistic and foolish argument, more about semantics than anything else. There are hundreds of years of rebuttals to it. My favorite one is "She would become the mountain," which is more of a Zen than an empirical answer - but it's still my favorite.

 

Basically, the argument is essentially the same as "Can God determine the truth value of the following sentence:"

 

"This sentence is a lie."

 

By definition, omnipotence is not the ability to do anything which can be phrased by language, but rather to do anything which can be done. When the semantics of a sentance create a logical paradox, the rules of logic have already failed - to then use that failure to claim the failure of omnipotence is much like dividing an equation by zero on both sides to prove that 1 = 2.

 

The only Bible I acknowledge is that of reality, with it's words etched into every single particle in this (and all other) universes... compared to that, books and beliefs written by people are rather brief and limited.

 

Oh, you big Pantheist, you! ;) You have far more faith than I do, because I (literally) question Reality. I find it convenient to act as if consensus reality "exists," but there are times I've gotten away with things that don't fit into that package, although I don't get away with violating physical laws very often (and I suspect those aren't really laws, but really ignorance about information transfer and consciousness).

 

But I don't really know that there's a Reality out there beyond my "reality." Perhaps the uni/multi-verse is composed of the intersection of multiple reality fields generated by multiple consciousnesses, stimulated by physical objects, created by reality fields, generated by ...

 

B)

[GorunNova]

But a couple weeks ago I had a modestly serious sinus infection. I began to wonder how sinuses could still exist in an evolutionary process. The only useful purposes they seem to serve is to provide resonance for the voice and lighten the skull.

 

Yet they are a potential source of devastating infection that give the organism easy access to eyes and brain. A number of mechanisms have evolved to keep the sinuses sterile while connected to the germ filled nasal passages. How do you evolve sinuses and defense mechanisms simultaneously? Evolving the sinuses first would lead to death and blindness at a greatly increased rate. Evolving the protective mechanisms first would make no sense.

 

To leap from this to "Therefore, there must have been an Intelligent Designer" seems emotionally appealing - but I'd rather not make that leap - I'm curious what you (or anybody else) knows about the evolution of sinuses.

How many people with sinus problems die of them before having children? Very damned few... and that's why we still have sinuses. A more extreme example of these is the appendix.

 

It may be that these defensive measures developed after sinus formation... maybe a lot of creatures died of sinus infections before having kids, and through sheer numbers the critters that had at least one of those defense measures outbred the others? It could also be that those defensive measures developed for some other reason and just happened to suit protecting sinuses. There are a lot of ways various features could develop, and there has been a lot of time for them to spring up.

 

Death is the end for us as we are now. Period. I don't think anybody debates that. The best scientific investigations haven't been able to show that there is anything else - although science may not have the tools or the mindset to tackle this problem.

 

Nevertheless, I've had enough personal experiences that I believe there is something more, although I don't know exactly what.

Frankly, unless you or I die and return with a post card, it's all conjecture ^^'... which is why I tend to leave the after-death thing to take care of itself.

 

Well' date=' somebody has to be dead - but assuming that they can and want to communicate - and have somebody who can and wants to listen - and that there is a way to verify the entire process ...[/quote']

... that IS making the rather huge assumptions that 1) there is somewhere for those dead people to go in the first place, and 2) that communication is possible from there to here at all. I haven't seen much real evidence for either, personally.

 

If it is possible, it should be both discoverable and exploitable as a communications line... a natural mechanism just like every other natural mechanism. It seems strange that such a connection hasn't been found by now, given the sheer amount of interest in the subject over the history of humanity. (Edit: ... which doesn't exclude the possibility that both of those assumptions may actually be true... but by the time they are found to be true (if they are true at all) I suspect death won't really be an issue for humanity anymore)

 

Ah' date=' but you overgeneralize!!! How does the Tao Te Ching begin? By claiming that the Tao that is written down is not the Tao. It reminds the reader at the very beginning that the text is not the sacred experience - (my extrapolation) merely a shadow of that which cannot be comprehended nor described.[/quote']

That's true... there ARE some religious texts that -aren't- self authorizing... but most are. That is probably why I have far more respect for Taoism and many flavors of Buddhism than virtually any other religions I've seen.

 

Perfection: ... is a useless concept. Any argument involving perfection is flawed' date=' and can be shown to be flawed very easily. This seems to be a universe of optimums for specific cases, not perfections...[/quote']

 

8) Thus you see the imperfection of this line of thought! 8)

Ah... but just because you can't achieve perfection, doesn't mean you can't come up with a model that shadows it almost identically. I was just pointing out how anyone who claims pefection in anything probably doesn't really understand all the pitfalls associated with the concept.

 

That's actually a rather simplistic and foolish argument' date=' more about semantics than anything else. There are hundreds of years of rebuttals to it. My favorite one is "She would [b']become[/b] the mountain," which is more of a Zen than an empirical answer - but it's still my favorite.

 

Basically, the argument is essentially the same as "Can God determine the truth value of the following sentence:"

 

"This sentence is a lie."

 

By definition, omnipotence is not the ability to do anything which can be phrased by language, but rather to do anything which can be done. When the semantics of a sentance create a logical paradox, the rules of logic have already failed - to then use that failure to claim the failure of omnipotence is much like dividing an equation by zero on both sides to prove that 1 = 2.

I disagree with the 'dividing both sides of an equation by 0 to disprove omnipotence' argument you give. I think it's a totally different thing... the 'make a mountain bigger than can be moved' argument isn't a paradox, but simply an example of mutually exclusive perfections and the flawed nature of the concept of perfection. God can be the perfect creator of immovable mountains, or the perfect mover of mountains, but cannot be both. Paradoxes usually point out situations where the assumptions are false, or at least incomplete... if an answer seems self-contradictory, maybe there's something wrong or missing from the question...

 

Oh' date=' you big Pantheist, you! ;) You have far more faith than I do, because I (literally) question Reality. I find it convenient to act as if consensus reality "exists," but there are times I've gotten away with things that don't fit into that package, although I don't get away with violating physical laws very often (and I suspect those aren't really laws, but really ignorance about information transfer and consciousness).[/quote']

Oh, just because I believe in reality doesn't mean I have faith in it. I question the nature of reality continuously, and my view of it changes according to what I discover, either through my own questioning or the questioning others have done. Heck, even the last few posts leads to questioning and reevaluation... which is always good.

 

... I'm not really a Pantheist, because I don't believe even the concept of a god is meaningful in any way. Things are, and all a so-called 'God' really is is a normal joe further up the chain of understanding of reality in general, as we as a race will in the far future (assuming we survive that long). 'Godhood' is a walk up a ladder with no top, and nobody on any rung of that ladder deserves worship... maybe respect and fear, but not worship, and everyone on ALL levels of that ladder are flawed people... because perfection is not possible. If there is a God, He's got his own problems, and they 1) probably look a lot like ours, and 2) I really, really hope he doesn't slough them off on us ;)

 

But I don't really know that there's a Reality out there beyond my "reality." Perhaps the uni/multi-verse is composed of the intersection of multiple reality fields generated by multiple consciousnesses, stimulated by physical objects, created by reality fields, generated by ...

 

B)

... or maybe it's not. I freely admit that some of my perspectives are built out of less than solid material, and that ALL of the materials are flawed in some way, but that just means I can swap 'em out for more solid parts when I stumble across 'em. There are a lot of possibilities that can't be ruled out, and those that could lead to wildly strange things that really don't change anything (i.e. the 'brain in a bottle' argument... if we are all brains in bottles experiencing the universe as VR, does it really change anything?... but that is WAY more than can fit in a single post... maybe a long evening at a pub, but NOT a post ^_^) The important thing is to keep booting ideas around, defend what you believe in, boot ideas around some more, fix or discard what's broken, and keep on trucking! Eventually we'll get so close to the way things really are, our heads will spin! ^_^

 

I'm probably repeating myself when I say this, but in NO way am I saying I'm right and you're wrong... I'm saying that clustering up perspectives and bashing them together like we're doing here is one of the best things anyone can do for each other. You toss your perspective, I toss mine, they collide, and out comes a scatter diagram ready for interpretation and it's never a waste, imho. ^^'

 

Edit: Tried to reduce the space taken by the post... and just wanted to say that this is FUN! I hope more people throw their views into the fray ^_^

 

Edit 2: I wonder if anyone but Elderbear, Pella, and I will even read all of this? I really shouldn't make such long posts...

[Soulreaper]

I'm reading them ;)

[maverick]

me too. tho it may be time for bed now, and its only 9.15am

[maverick]

I meet my emotional needs fine without religion and faith' date=' actually. I don't have any need for an artificial rock to cling to in the storm. [/quote']

 

 

i didnt suggest that you did, i was simply commenting on the topic and attempting to illustrate how people may or may not use their faith in everyday life.

 

 

Also' date=' I belive a lot of things... but I have faith (in the sense of "complete and total trust") in none of them... after all, if you trust something completely, you don't question it, and all things -must- be questioned. [/quote']

 

....or tested??

trust is the hardest thing in the world to do (imho, based on my life experience) and for me involves masses of fear. masses and masses. but i sit here now and ask myself a few questions.

 

If faith is based on trust, exactly what am i trusting in?

What part of me needs to trust in it?

What will I achieve by doing this?

Is it harmful to me?

Will it turn me into a bible basher?

Will it cause me to stop my most enjoyable habits? the ones you wouldnt 'catch' any self respecting Christian doing.

Is it safe?

 

All things change' date=' including belief, as new evidence arises, and total trust precludes the questioning and doubting that is essential for that. [/quote']

 

 

I agree! Questioning something is essential to answer some of the questions i just asked. Plus no-one wants to feel like a bloody idiot if they are wrong.

But, this is the thing. A lot of your arguements are based on shooting down religion. Fair enough, but faith is to do with the belief that God exists. Religion is the expression of that faith. Religion is how you represent how you feel about your deity.

Faith answers its own question. There is no proof that God exists or not. Perhaps we havent a clue what to look for.

 

 

... if the only step to make is off a cliff' date=' then off the cliff I go, but until then I'll both look for and [i']make[/i] alternate routes before it gets to that. It's true that you don't always have enough proof to nail things down totally, but it IS possible to make reasonable guesses that don't require external meddling by mystical entities or magic to cement things in place.

 

does stepping off a cliff involve faith? and if so, faith in what?

 

Does faith require something mystical? If you have faith in something it does not require a mystical figure to worship. If you have it then it is something real and tangible to you, though may appear or be rationalised by others as magical or mystical.

 

As a personal choice' date=' I figure explanations that require external entities that can't be seen or tested are [i']far[/i] weaker by nature than ones that can be explained by natural processes to some, or any degree. Gratuitously throwing gods or spirits into the picture is a deus ex machina of the literary sense, a hack way of juryrigging an outcome that makes a person feel better using an outside influence that probably isn't there.

 

perhaps for you this is true. but throughout history faith has proved a great motivator - or its use by man as a lever has been a great motivator.

 

also can you highlight a natural process which has been more powerful than faith as a motivator?

 

Personally' date=' I think that the idea that we've come so far on our own strength is [i']very[/i] fulfilling, and also the simplest explanation.

 

Again, I agree! But where do people get their strength from? People need to believe in something. Why shouldnt they? And if they can draw strength from their belief then why shouldnt they use that. And again I highlight the difference between faith and religion. An individuals religion may say they will receive eternal whatsits from the almighty but its theyre faith (which can also be expressed as fear-because they believe in what they fear) which motivates and gives them strength to continue.

 

We have a lot of potential as a race' date=' but we keep putting the responsibility on others, whether it be leaders that really don't have peoples' best interests at heart or on gods and goddesses that we've made up to absolve ourselves from our own potential for positive and negative action. THAT is why I disagree with religion in all forms... it is a tool to shrug off responsibility, and realizing that responsibility and power is always ours is both terrifying and gratifying. [/quote']

 

I dont agree with the effects religion has had historically on a personal level but I respect peoples faith.

 

I also believe i personal religion. That an individual can have his own faith in a God or whatever (the force, cheese on toast, a turtle with 4 elephants on its back....) they choose and express it in their own way. I think religion puts people off faith. Religion does not fit people. People fit religion and each religion would have you think that if you dont live theyre way that youre wrong. Well theyre entitled to. Good luck to em. I hope they achieve what they want.

 

A religion to me is not about worshipping a God. It is about acknowledging a God and functioning daily as a human being.

 

(WOW HOT BLONDE JUST SAT DOWN NEXT TO ME!!!!!)

 

 

 

 

[Soulreaper]

Sweet :D - I of course also point to the reply, not only the chick*

[GorunNova]

Now THIS is the sort of reply I'm looking for ^_^... although the hot blonde's good, too ;)

 

Just a few things, not necessarily in the form of questions (or even proper sentances)...

 

... but why, pray tell, is religion necessary for "functioning daily as a human being"? You state that's the case, but don't say why you think it IS the case...

 

I think that regardless of the excuses and the rationales, all strength does come from within the person themselves... it's just that much easier to wield when you tell yourself that strength isn't really yours, when it has been there all the time waiting to be used by you. Faith can be a catalyst, but I think that strength was there all the time.

[Pella]

Now THIS is the sort of reply I'm looking for ^_^... although the hot blonde's good, too ;)

 

Just a few things, not necessarily in the form of questions (or even proper sentances)...

 

... but why, pray tell, is religion necessary for "functioning daily as a human being"? You state that's the case, but don't say why you think it IS the case...

 

I think that regardless of the excuses and the rationales, all strength does come from within the person themselves... it's just that much easier to wield when you tell yourself that strength isn't really yours, when it has been there all the time waiting to be used by you. Faith can be a catalyst, but I think that strength was there all the time.

 

I hope my posts did not disappoint. :(

 

Faith is exactly what you say in the last sentence. I agree all strength, be it physicla or emotional comes from withing, Your faith/ or beliefs allow you channel that strength focus it , if you will.

 

But if faith is a catalyst or focus, surely that's a good thing.

I stand with Maverick, that faith doesn't always mean believing that some mystical spirit gives you strength.

 

It means that you absolute belief something intangible and unknown. Blind faith means that you don't even question or doubt you simply accept.

 

For me I have blind faith that there is more to life than can be perceived by the 5 senses, felt with emotions and rationalized by logic. I have faith in what I have said previous posts (I belive in it all, but from time to time I question and I doubt)

 

Unfortunately today we live live a materialistic world and we are losing the ability to go beyond that.

 

To misquote a TV program from a few years ago.

 

Man: "Pella, why do you have faith despite all the evidence around you?"

Pella "Because all the evidence around me isn't entirely conclusive."

[GorunNova]

All I'm saying is... why bother with the catalyst when that strength is there regardless? ... and why believe the intangible and unknown when 1) there's plenty of tangible and known to believe in, and 2) there's also a lot of tangible and unknown waiting to become known. The intangible, being intangible, can wait and can't BE known yet, imho, and anyone can make up any amount of arbitrary intangible without ever being accountable for it...

[Pella]

You seem to be looking for som kind of practical application for religion and faith. It doesn't quite work like that. Some some religion is comfort knowing seath is not the end, for others, it's an explanation. for others again it's a morale high ground. For someone else it could be the need to belong.

 

The reasons people have faith are numerous as the various beliefs.

 

Why do some people need a catalyst? for the same reason as I need an alarm clock - to push me to do something I don't really want to do (e.g get up), but there again some people need the the catalyst to achieve things they didn't believe they could achieve.

 

For me, my faith is more about explanations, science shows me how things are done, faith shows me why.

 

As for belief in the untangible. Here's a question:

 

Do you believe in gravity?

 

If you do, answer the following:

 

what is made of? What does it look like? What sound does it make? What does it feel like when you touch it? What does gravity smell and taste like? What is its purpose?

 

I hope we both agree that gravity exists, but all we can see it's effects. So we must have faith that it is gravity doing these things.

 

Scientists say gravity is the most powerful force in the universe, but can only see the effects of it

 

People who believe in their various religions say the same thing, but about their faith.

[GorunNova]

Gravity isn't really intangible... it can be measured, after all, and we know many of it's properties even if it can't be seen. It's there, it's measurable, so faith isn't required... it's more in the tangible (in the measurable sense) and partly known category.