The Middle Way between faith and skepticism.
I do not think that faith in and of itself is a negative thing, I see it more as a motivating factor; but I do think that faith without reason can be an unskillful motivating factor when it comes to our actions, i.e., acts leading to harmful results. People who kill thousands of other innocent people out of faith is certainly one example of how I think faith can be an unskillful motivating factor. Nevertheless, is faith, as opposed to skepticism, always going to lead to such behavior? On the issue of faith in Buddhism, for example, while there is certainly room for skepticism toward matters of faith, there is also a limit to that skepticism. The Buddha often stated that faith in a teacher is what leads one to learn from that teacher, to put their teachings to the test to see what results they will bring; and the only valid basis for faith is the instruction that, when followed, brings about the end of one’s own mental defilements (DN 11).
As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, “The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone’s faith … We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that’s the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice” Faith in Awakening. In other words, one must have at least a modicum of faith that an end to suffering is possible, otherwise one will not bother working toward that goal.
One must also understand what faith means in this context. In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as “confidence,” “conviction,” or “faith.” More specifically, it is a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that is rooted in understanding as well as what we would conventionally refer to as faith in the West, i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. To give an example, for one to truly take refuge in the Buddha (as a teacher), one has to take his awakening on faith until they too have achieved that particular goal. Until then, they have no way of verifying the experience of awakening until they have experienced it for themselves. Therefore, while saddha by itself is not a sufficient condition for arriving at the end of suffering, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice. The question is, does this type of faith lead to unskillful or negative behavior?
Biased as I am, for me the answer is no. For one reason, taking the doctrine of kamma on faith, as a working hypothesis, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening, “…instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won’t you tend to be more responsible and compassionate? If, on the other hand, you were to believe in any of the alternatives — such as a doctrine of an impersonal fate or a deity who determined the course of your pleasure and pain, or a doctrine that all things were coincidental and without cause — what would those beliefs lead you to do? Would they allow you to put an end to suffering through your own efforts? Would they allow any purpose for knowledge at all?”
To put it another way, if I ask a person who I feel to be wise, which should be determined by careful observation and analysis of their words and deeds per AN 4.192, “What when I do it will be for my long-term welfare and happiness,” and their answer leads me to place faith in putting forth the effort to abstain from killing, abstain from stealing, abstain from lying, abstain from sexual misconduct, abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness; to cultvating wholesome mental states (e.g. compassion, equanimity, etc.) and abandoning unwholesome mental states (e.g., greed, hatred, etc.); to developing alertness, mindfulness, and wisdom through various forms of meditation, will this type of faith lead to unskillful actions that harm myself or others? In most cases, if the effort is genuine, the answer is no. Therefore, in a pragmatic sense, faith is not inherently detrimental to oneself or society.
Therefore, while I think that having a healthy skepticism towards matters of faith, or anything else for that matter, is an important thing to have, I also think that there are limits to that skepticism if we are sincere in following the Buddha’s advice to the Kalamas, i.e., there are times when one should be able to admit that they lack knowledge in a particular area and, in essence, be willing to place their faith or trust in others who do have that knowledge. Nevertheless, this kind of faith or trust should not be “blind” in the sense that one is willing to do anything whatsoever without a modicum of questioning because that kind of faith can have the potential to lead to unskillful actions. In other words, I think that it is healthy for people take an honest look at their beliefs and what their beliefs motivate them to do. I think that this kind of self-awareness can eventually dispel a lot of the harm that misguided faith can engender.
We have discussed 'faith' a number of times here and these discussions and disagreements have led me to similar conclusions as yourself. As I have said before, it is a shame that a part (and, probably a small but vocal part) of the Christianities has hi-jacked the word and transformed it into a robotic, 'corpse-like' rejection of analytical thought. That, to me, is not faith but is a doctrine-dogma poison.
Surprising as it may be to many, the Christian gospels do not demand this sort of brain-dead lock-step. Rather they are more along the lines that you outline. "Here," they say, "is one who is worthy to be heard and here are the reasons." That many of those reasons are culture-specific presents a problem to some. In my own case, I have little difficulty with them; they seem peripheral.
As you say - and I believe it to be the rock on which a new life is built - the first step is the recognition of dukkha or, as the Twelve Step programme puts it, that our life is out of control. Both the Buddha and the Christ seem to me to say that there is a way out. Like a guide in the rain forest, they say, "I am worthy of trust. Follow me." Only if we realise that we are lost among the trees will we bother to listen and to follow.
I would add that I do not think that this soret of faith is reserved to the 'spiritual' realm. I put great faith in my cardio-thoracic surgeon and not only because he stood over me with a sharp knife in his hand. I put faith in the statins that I take because I have watched my cholesterol come down.
Test the teacher and the teaching, certainly, but don't do it so long that you die before deciding to trust yourself to them.*
*P.S. Ignatius of Loyola has an interesting passage in the Annotations on his Spiritual Exercises on this sort of person.
The Torah or Old Testament is just a precusory story of the misadventures of a people seeking God in the wilderness.
Then in the fullness of time comes this Jesus and his merry band of followers.
Here's where the two paths come into play. Here you have this Jesus the brightest kid on the block, realizes he's God's son. He say's everyone else is too. Thus the OUR FATHER. Problem is he freaks out the local tribe in charge and ends up getting himself killed cause he's out slapping everybody in the face with his revelations. After his death his followers take up the cause in his nmae and in the end are all killed. Except one, John the one who stays home and out of the fray and spins poems whith his wisdom, and thus to him is the new Jerusalem revealed.
Or am I just wack?
The Torah or Old Testament is just a precusory story of the misadventures of a people seeking God in the wilderness.
Then in the fullness of time comes this Jesus and his merry band of followers.
Here's where the two paths come into play. Here you have this Jesus the brightest kid on the block, realizes he's God's son. He say's everyone else is too. Thus the OUR FATHER. Problem is he freaks out the local tribe in charge and ends up getting himself killed cause he's out slapping everybody in the face with his revelations. After his death his followers take up the cause in his nmae and in the end are all killed. Except one, John the one who stays home and out of the fray and spins poems whith his wisdom, and thus to him is the new Jerusalem revealed.
Or am I just wack?
First of all, Iawa, I think we are misreading the Tanakh (Old Testament) if we see it as some sort of 'precursor' narrative or even as historical fact (whatever that may be). As the long history of Judaism proves, it is a collection of texts which stands on its own. The early Christian 'heretic' Marcion wanted to ditch most of it and things may have been better if the church had gone along with his idea. It is, however, a common aspect of religions that they all appear to pretend to a long pre-history. It gives them respectability. Even Judaism does the same, connecting the Mosaic revolution with the Abrahamic legends and, ultimately, with "In the beginning". Christianity imported the whole shebang (plus a few apocryphal texts) and has subsequently ignored the two millennia of Jewish theological development.
As for John, he didn't stay at home. That task was left to James the Just, Jesus's brother and the family. They remained in and around Jerusalem, leading a particularly Jewish church. John, legend tells us, went to live in Ephesus where he looked after Mary the mother of Jesus. He was a prisoner on Patmos, working in the mines there. That is where (again according to legend) he received the visions that became the Book of Revelation. His grave can still be seen in Ephesus, although I cannot find my photo of it: it is a plain slab of stone.
The stories of most of the others of the disciples have disappeared because the Petrine legend was given primacy by Rome - even if there is genuine doubt that Peter ever went there. We have, however, strong evidence that Thomas Didymus travelled as far as Southern India where he founded a church that still exists and where he is buried.
As for what Jesus actually believed about himself and his special relationship with the divine principle that he called Father (not, you notice, 'Adonai' or 'Adoshem' and certainly not 'Yahweh'), we have no real idea. That he maintained that a personal relationship with this Father was a way of liberation seems to be central. Extrapolation of the Pauline, Hellenistic vision of Jesus as divine arose later and fitted well with the Roman need to distance people from their intimate connection with their own "Christ-nature".
As I studied the gospels, including that attributed to Thomas, I realised that they contain pointers to a simpler yet more personal practice than the churches preach. Above all, they teach the abandonment of any traditional idea of 'self' (ahamkara), the transitory nature of 'the world', the reality of suffering and the promise that it, too, passes if we follow a way of meditation and prayer. They also teach that each being contains "that of God" which could incarnate in the practitioner, bringing benefit (or 'salvation') to all beings.
Is it surprising that Buddhism called me so strongly?
If we are too open-minded, we will believe anything. If we are too skeptical, we will believe nothing.
Between these two poles is a middle way.