Is questioning one's faith inevitable?

its an inevitable part of growth
if growth stops then faith may never be questioned (this is often the very reason that the growth stops - so fath doesnt have to be questioned) but at a certain point we can go no further without re-evaluating what we belive and updating ourselves and our views

i feel i have to always be open to new understanding.

its way more ok to see that i was wrong before and then adapt to new information than it is to deny truth because i am afraid or just stubborn

I have the enviable position of never being part of a religious family, yet I always sought out religion. Though the faiths I tried to follow never really felt 'right' and so I never committed to them. If faith is a deeply held conviction then I guess I have not really questioned my own faith (once I'd established what that was!) but that of others.

There are circumstances in life that anyone will inevitably question their faith, such as a death of a loved one etc. Especially if you are part of a faith that teaches reward for the good as the question arises as to: why that good person has been taken away and those good people left have to suffer the pain of that loss?

Yet, it is exactly these questions and our search for answers that will likely strengthen or break a persons faith.

I agree with OB1, I think questioning faith is essential for growth or progression (that's not to say that remaining where you are is not perfectly fine, things will just remain the same - if it's not broken don't fix it!)

People are inquisitive and on the whole I think we will continue to search for answers when our current system cannot provide them

While on the other hand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af815ksm4RU

I used to question my faith from the time I became (or was made) a conscious member of the Protestant Church. I never really felt 'at home' there, it just didn't feel right. I first checked out Buddhism, later quit the church and basically lived without any religious belief system for probably around 15 years until I found the Temple and with it a place and a religion that indeed does 'feel right' to me. I just know in my heart that this is it.

I can't really speak of the population in general, but I don't know many religious people, although most everyone I know used to be a member of one of our state religions (Protestantism and Catholicism that is) and now isn't.

A great number of my students are Muslims and they seem to adhere to their religious beliefs much more strongly than the Christians (or former Christians) I know.

In an episode of House M.D (Season 2 Episode 19 - House vs God) a faith healer comes in and at one point refuses treatment on the basis of his beliefs. House asks Dr Wilson to help and Dr Wilson makes the argument that one of the hall marks of a saint is humility, a saint would have to consider that they could be wrong even if they believed they were right. The faith healer agrees to the treatment.

Yes. Question everything - when the question come us.

This is a part of life. This is inevitable because we are evolving. We are constantly changing. We either adapt or resist the change. If a person holds onto a faith or a belief to the point that this person resists the obvious change that the Force is offering, suggesting or implementing, that person is stagnant. that person is "dead". And that person is out of touch with what is moving within the world.

If a person's faith is truly "strong" and accurate for the present state of things, no matter the intensity of the questioning, it will not waiver. Look into the doubt, allow for the shifts and welcome these questions because this process should affirm the reasons behind the faith.

If things are true and accurate, questioning will only demonstrate why the faith is in place. If this period of doubt "destroys" the faith, then use that opening to let go, adapt and create a new faith.

Forms constantly change. Spirit is eternal. All things in the material world change. Since we are material beings, we need to allow for this change inside and outside of ourselves.

I don't think anyone should have faith in anything, but rather our beliefs should be firmly rooted in the best objective evidence available to us, and in our own observations. Nothing should be accepted as true on faith.

Red_Eye_Jedi wrote: I don't think anyone should have faith in anything

Nothing should be accepted as true on faith.

whats your opinion on the moon landing?

molecules?

the big bang?

was george washington REALLY the first president of the united states?

is there really such a thing as "quebec"?

am i dreaming of you, or are you dreaming of me?

im not advocating the rejection of burden of proof
im simply responding to the presentaton of an absolute which i know is not realistic for me personally

i accept that a degree of faith is ok because otherwise i wont be able to have faith in simple communication woth other people

if there actually are any other people

I sense that this thread is about to go off topic... So can we keep it about whether one will question their faith, rather than whether someone should have religious/spiritual faith at all

Edan wrote: I sense that this thread is about to go off topic... So can we keep it about whether one will question their faith, rather than whether someone should have religious/spiritual faith at all

I was just thinking about the that. I guess it happens at death or near death, and probably manifests in various forms within psychosis. I guess its only a 'problem' when it causes inappropriate outcomes, such that the belief leads the believer to act in a way which is contrary to the consensual reality, or increases harm to oneself. Watt's and Jiddu K. work with breaking down the conditioned view of the world which incorporates challenging ones beliefs, so its probably a useful thing to be aware of the extent of faith and belief in oneself but also to know what its like to have these challenged or perhaps removed.

OB1Shinobi wrote:
whats your opinion on the moon landing?

molecules?

the big bang?

was george washington REALLY the first president of the united states?

is there really such a thing as "quebec"?

am i dreaming of you, or are you dreaming of me?

im not advocating the rejection of burden of proof
im simply responding to the presentaton of an absolute which i know is not realistic for me personally

i accept that a degree of faith is ok because otherwise i wont be able to have faith in simple communication woth other people

if there actually are any other people

OB1Shinobi,

I believe my first post answered most of your questions. I do not hold anything to be "true" based on faith. Rather I hold something to be true, only if there is good hard objective evidence to validate it. Those beliefs are subject to change as new objective evidence is presented. I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

If you find this answer unsatisfying, you are welcome to message me in private. Continuing it here will only derail the thread further.

I am not following this thread too much, but, I wanted to comment:

I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

Never had your senses fooled?

The point is that no amount of faith actually helps to protect you from being mistaken. If anything, it helps you to insist that you aren't when really you are. At the very least it helps you over that tiny gap still needed to absolute certainty which in my humble opinion is undesirable both in the sense that it is unnecessary and in the sense that I'd actually positively rather not have it.

It is not difficult to be wrong and change your mind once you find out if you are not bound to your sources by an unreasonable conviction. No part of the rationalist's ego suffers from their argument being defeated. There is no cost in questioning beliefs but it reportedly is difficult to question one's faith. So if you have no faith, it cannot be shaken, whereas what can be shaken pains you not even once it breaks.

The point is that no amount of faith actually helps to protect you from being mistaken. If anything, it helps you to insist that you aren't when really you are. At the very least it helps you over that tiny gap still needed to absolute certainty which in my humble opinion is undesirable both in the sense that it is unnecessary and in the sense that I'd actually positively rather not have it.

Nothing can prevent anyone from being wrong...

"Faith", depending on how one sees/defines it, can prevent some folks from growing any further, but, not everyone...

Jestor wrote: I am not following this thread too much, but, I wanted to comment:

I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

Never had your senses fooled?

My own observations have been recorded on video, for later review.

I have no doubt of what I've observed first hand.

I am sure you understand what I am referring to.

Best regards.

Jestor wrote: Nothing can prevent anyone from being wrong.

Is that so? Proof, please.

"Faith", depending on how one sees/defines it, can prevent some folks from growing any further, but, not everyone.

I would also add "in any areas" for two reasons: The fact that a sentence says "some, but not all" doesn't make it any less absolute so I think it is a stretch to say that there are people who are immune enough to the perils of irrational conviction that their growth is unhindered by it. Secondly, while there conceivably are such people, judging by how diverse the areas where faith is employed and the propositions that it reinforces in people's minds are, my intuitive guess is that, at least in principle, everybody is susceptible to the lures and the dangers of unreason.

Red Eye wrote:

Jestor wrote: I am not following this thread too much, but, I wanted to comment:

I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

Never had your senses fooled?

My own observations have been recorded on video, for later review.

I have no doubt of what I've observed first hand.

I am sure you understand what I am referring to.

Best regards.

I do bud...

And, while I do trust what I observe with my senses, I also have to realize that my senses can be fooled... So, that 'trust' comes with a "grain of salt"...

Ive been fooled by magicians both in my face (front row at Siegfried and Roy, at a magic show), and on TV and video (Chris Angel, David Copperfield)...

All I am saying, is you have to leave room for doubt...

Hold your convictions, but loosely...

So that if proven wrong, your world doesnt come crashing down... :blink:

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote: Nothing can prevent anyone from being wrong.

Is that so? Proof, please.

... so, you want to prove that "there isnt anything that can prevent anyone from being wrong"?

That sentence kinda hurt my brain, lol...

1) Provide proof for you to tear down? Therefore, proving my statement...

or 2) Provide proof that you are not able to tear down? Therefore, proving myself wrong?

lol...

I cannot provide you any proof, sorry... Of course, I am merely stating my opinion, (I say opinion, because I cannot prove it, ..), and welcome a chance to learn... If you can find fault in my statement, please, show me, I really love to learn...

"Faith", depending on how one sees/defines it, can prevent some folks from growing any further, but, not everyone.

I would also add "in any areas" for two reasons: The fact that a sentence says "some, but not all" doesn't make it any less absolute so I think it is a stretch to say that there are people who are immune enough to the perils of irrational conviction that their growth is unhindered by it.

It doesnt make it anymore absolute either, lol...

I try to never box myself in (speak in absolutes), although it does happen on occasion...... Such as my other sentence, which is an sort of an absolute, and I feel a correct statement, however, I recognize the impermanent state of all things, and realize that it too could be proven false at some point, lol...

The world being ever changing... lol...

I try to be open as I can, and I do hold some beliefs, but I cant think of any I hold as an 'irrational conviction', as I am aware that any of it can be proven wrong, and while it might sting (which was a lesson I learned here at TOTJO, lol), it shouldnt... Unless it is this idea, lol...

I am sure there are others, which leads to the second half of what you posted...

Secondly, while there conceivably are such people, judging by how diverse the areas where faith is employed and the propositions that it reinforces in people's minds are, my intuitive guess is that, at least in principle, everybody is susceptible to the lures and the dangers of unreason.

I would agree that we are all susceptible...

Even myself, lol, despite my previous thoughts about myself, lol...

Jestor wrote:
Ive been fooled by magicians both in my face (front row at Siegfried and Roy, at a magic show), and on TV and video (Chris Angel, David Copperfield)...

All I am saying, is you have to leave room for doubt...

When you are recording yourself alone, you can rest assured Chris Angel, David Copperfield, and Siegfried and Roy aren't hiding in your closet to pull the wool over your eyes.

What I've seen, experienced and documented first hand leaves zero room for doubt.

Best regards.

My objection was not so much with the content as it was with t he phrasing. Being a scepic I do not myself think that there is anything to guarantee one's being correct on a synthetic proposition, so I reckon we are on the same page here, Jestor. However, to boldly (both figuratively and in text format ) declare that "nothing" could ever do so I cannot. That is not something I can show to be true so I cannot assert that it is, even if I suspect so. If you wonder, the reason I asked for 'proof' in this case rather than evidence as I usually would is because no amount of things we can exclude as preventives against being wrong, we will never be able to conclude that we have covered an exhaustive list; therefore, the truth of the proposition can only be demonstrated by a logical analysis that concludes that it is not even in principle possible to prevent oneself from being wrong.
Point in case, it was the power of the proclamation and the absoluteness of the statement, really... The wording, rather than the message was what I responded to, knowing you and understanding that what you meant wasn't quite exactly how you put it. On that note, lest I be rightfully called out on hypocricy, I must stress that absoluteness itself is not necessarily a problem. When for instance I say that "no amount of faith can prevent one from being wrong", I actually do mean "no amount" and assuming there is a way to map faith to something more quantifiable and maybe also monotony of the resulting function I can actually prove that.

It was similar in the second response also. Since in the statement I quoted "any" can mean both any one thing and all things, it is, for someone who doesn't know you, not clear whether you mean that there are people who do grow in some areas despite their faith in it or in others or that there are people who grow in all areas despite their faith with some. My suspicion is, and as of yet I have no demonstration of it ready, that faith in the definition we ended up agreeing upon is a hindering factor to growth in everybody who has it; that is not to say people with faith don't grow, rather that there is for each a non-empty set of areas in which the faithful doesn't grow, grows slowly or only grows little in comparison with someone who has no faith pertaining to the considered areas.

It's quantifiers I tried to add. Semantics. We are otherwise on very close pages on this one, it seems.

It is not just inevitable, it is required.

"If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet the Ghost, kill the Ghost".


Faith is a standard of personal systems based around concepts of our existence. It is not made to be absolute, because the universe is dynamic. The changing elements of life and nature, require that we adapt.

Therefore meeting god, buddha, satan, yoda, what have you, are obstacles in themselves. You must question their source, you must find your path without them, even if that path is based around those idols of worship.

Doubt is wisdoms ally. Blind faith, is its enemy.