I am a pastor, in a Christian denomination, and am working to shed all semblances of religiosity and blindly accepted traditions. Even as I do that, my understandings of God are enlarging, almost exponentially!

It is religion that dulls our senses to the ongoing and continuing Creation. It is our ancient religious metaphors that have chained our imaginations to anchors from the Bronze Age.

Religion is about answers- answers etched in granite, impervious to change. Spirituality is about questions- questions that lead us into the throneroom of God where there are no walls, no names, and no inhuman doctrines written in the languages of human ego.

I can, at this point, learn more about the God-who-is from Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett than I can from those who preach a blind, unquestioning, and ultimately selfish and unsatisfying faith.

The human ability of abstract reasoning has its basis in a part of the brain that does not complete physical development until about the age of 4. Parents faced with the mind-numbing ability of chidren to ask “why” are dealing with the early use of the ability. That use is skill-based, and capable of lesser or greater development dependent on the effort of each individual.

I don’t mean to open a can of worms with that; I do mean to suggest that a child’s intellectual journey from Santa Claus and fairies making planes fly to embracing cultural practices and the science of flight is normal.

In my experience, religious faith is based on some combination of lack of evidence to explain an emotion-based phenomenon, relative stubbornness (my choice of term instead of “dogmatic”), and the personal decision to hold faith above reason.

I happen to have a religious faith that is odds with nearly any religion one can name. It fits my internal resolution of those three factors. I neither care abuot nor have any desire to change the disagreement of others, whether based in their faith’s contradiction of mine or an atheistic rejection of all matters of faith.

What I prefer is sitting down with a good brew and discussing it all civilly and with a clear view of human fallibility. The first round’s on me.

“I have no reason to doubt your account of Buddhism being truth unless I have an alternate experience or belief that it contradicts with.”

This is one way our basic approaches differ. You are prepared to believe in religious claims unless you have a good reason not to. A typical Atheist is not going to believe a religious claim until there is overwhelming evidence. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.) For most christians doubt is a bad thing. For us, it’s a starting point.

“But understand, I make no mention to the Degree of blindness, only that they are necessarily the Same degree.”

Again, I see no basis for this assumption.

Probably no more than me convincing you that there is no legitimate reason to deny the account we have been given in the Bible. You believe there is sufficient proof for refuting it; I dont.

No legitimate reason? Would you like me to list the first thousand?

“How can you assume this?”

A very fair question. But understand, I make no mention to the Degree of blindness, only that they are necessarily the Same degree. I leave the decision of the Degree of blindness to QuestionMonkey who wrote the article and made the initial assertion:

“I do not see this kind of faith as a virtue. In fact, in my opinion, it’s not blind faith, it’s a blinding faith.”

Again, my point is that those committments are every bit as blinding for you as you suppose them to be for me.

How can you assume this?

“I am merely matching the wording of the article…”

If I was matching the wording of the article, it would seem the ambiguity rests on someone other than me, although I am certainly culpable for perpetuating the offense. For that I apologize.

“Wouldn’t you say it is up to me to convince you, not for you to convince me how silly my story is? The default position for all of us is the lack of knowledge – or the potential for knowledge.”

The default position is ignorance, on this we agree. But the result of my ignorance is not disbelief when you present me something i am unfamiliar with. I have no reason to doubt your account of Buddhism being truth unless I have an alternate experience or belief that it contradicts with. I have Christianity. You have whatever committments you hold to. Again, my point is that those committments are every bit as blinding for you as you suppose them to be for me.

I agree, the terms are ambiguous. Since my main point doesnt rest on their definition, I think I will avoid it for the time being.

Your first comment:

Where does all the things the atheist puts his or her faith fit into?
I have met many atheists who are exceptionally dogmatic in their assertions…
There is no proof on the level that Atheists expect of Christianity to substantiate the Atheistic belief…
And yet the dogmatic belief of the Atheist…
I am merely matching the wording of the article…

The terms are only ambiguous if you purposely make them ambiguous to prove a point. And don’t say that wasn’t the point when that was the entire point that you gave at the end of your response. But now that you don’t care to discuss your first post, lets focus on the crux of your argument

You believe there is sufficient proof for refuting it; I dont.

No no no and… no. If I come to you and say “The Lord Buddha, Sakyamuni Gautama, was born in India of a virgin and had all of the divine marks of royalty.” I could then take many texts and ancient scriptures that confirm this. I could take all of the experiences of Buddhists throughout the millennia as examples of its truth. Do you believe me? Probably not. Why? How can you refute it? Why should I expect you to? Wouldn’t you say it is up to me to convince you, not for you to convince me how silly my story is? The default position for all of us is the lack of knowledge – or the potential for knowledge.