Does religion offend you?

[Cycel]

Religion does offend me a lot.
Religion DIVIDES people; kills friendship; destroys family harmony; blocks brain development!
CHEATS CHILDREN.
Promotes parasitic living.
All those vicious evils of religion should be taken very seriously and a worldwide effort to discredit it should be a daily occurrence!

I suppose in general I don't fret much about the religious among us, even though I do wish the entire population of the world was secular.  I am concerned about the Christian Right and am increasingly worried about radical Islam.  The latter are truly dangerous and unless moderate Muslims are prepared to assert themselves, I think the crazies could do some serious damage to our freedoms in the secular West.

[Achronos]

I am in a perpetual quest to ascertain the nature and extent of truth.

Faith offends me intellectually because it attempts to make the subjective objective and thus is oxymoronic.  Hope, by contrast, glories in the subjective precisely because it's subjective - delights in the subjective as the self's most personal property.  Faith offends me morally because it is inutile and ultimately insane, because it is socially inappropriate in a cosmopolitan milieu, because it is inauthentic in that it demands self-deceit in order to subsist, and because, all too often, it incites injustice.

I wanted to delve deeper into this. In most areas of life, we are concerned with the truth. A cashier has to know how much change she is given. A nurse has to apply just the right amount of medication to a patient. A mathematician checks and double-checks his proofs. A jury listens to all the facts to sort out the truth in a trial. A history teacher has to get the names and dates right. A scientist publishes her work for peer review to ensure everyone gets the same results. In all of these cases and more, what’s important is not opinion; rather, it is truth. Yet, it seems that when it comes to questions of religion and spirituality and the accompanying moral questions, we become relativists. Instead of asking who God really is, we ask, “Who is God to me?” Instead of asking what it means for God to become a man, we suggest, “That’s okay for some people to believe if they want.” Instead of asking whether God expects something of us, we judge religious expectations by what we ourselves want. The pursuit of objectivity goes out the window, and subjectivity reigns.

This fundamental problem is made worse because of the lack of familiarity with the tools of spiritual knowledge; that is, most people are not doing what it takes in order to see what is true. If an astronomer refused to use a telescope, or if a biologist refused to use a microscope, we wouldâ€"at bestâ€"regard them as having incomplete knowledge in their fields. From the Christian point of view, what is lacking is purity of heart; as Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Also lacking is the guidance to achieve that purity from those who have seen God and passed on their experience to the next generation. Plato defined that same problem when he wrote The Republic and included the famous allegory of the cave. In this allegory, prisoners chained up in a cave for their whole lives believe that all reality is defined by the shadows they see on the wall. If one of the prisoners escaped, found his way to the surface, and saw the sun and all reality for what it is, how could he describe his experience to people whose reality is defined by shadows? When he stumbles back into the cave, trying to adjust back to life in the darkness, those in the cave may well ridicule him as having been damaged by his experience rather than enlightened. Such is the plight of many believers today.

Let me submit that the great spiritual battle of our time is not a struggle between believers and atheists; rather, it is a struggle between pride and humility. We expect and demand humility in almost every area of life: what really matters is what is objectively true, not what one of us happens to think is true. We ourselves are not what is important. But when it comes to ultimate questions, we set aside humility and place ourselves at the center of the universe. This temptation to pride is common, even to believers in God. One of the basic assumptions is that truth is not relative, and that Orthodox Christianity represents the fullness of the truthâ€"the locus of the revelation of God in Christ. From that basic position, we will analyze various religious groups and their teachings, seeing what we share and where we differ. Because truth is not relative, all human beings must be willing to set aside what we would prefer to be true and embrace what really is true, changing ourselves, our attitudes, and our beliefs whenever necessary. It has become unfashionable in our time to speak as though a particular belief is true  and another is false. And yet even within my lifetime, I recall quite clearly how many religious groups in our culture used to think of their own beliefs as true, and then logically conclude that any other beliefs were therefore false.

Today however, this conclusionâ€"and especially speaking publicly about itâ€"is seen as not being loving (a word now used to mean nice). Indeed, in our time a public disagreement about religion is sometimes considered offensive. Living in an age of political correctness, we are given new pieces of cultural theology to profess:

All religions are basically the same.

What matters is living a good life.

We all worship the same God.

Religion is a private matter.

Don’t impose your beliefs on others.

No religion has everything right.

We’ll find out what’s true when we get to heaven.

These kinds of statements have one common assumption behind them: that beliefs about God and the ultimate nature of reality are not very important. That is why they should not be discussed publicly. That is why their details do not really matter. That is why we should not try to win people over to our faith. There is no such thing as truth. Everything is relativeâ€"except, perhaps, that everything is relative. Yet for nearly everything else in lifeâ€"whether it is politics, healthcare, or even the scoring records of your favorite football teamâ€"we demand seriousness, detail, and accuracy. Distracted by such transient things as these, our culture has successfully ignored a basic syllogism: If there really is a God, then who he is and what he might want from us are more important than anything else in the universe. As believers, we are not in the nice business. We are in the truth business. Obviously, as an Orthodox Christian, it is my belief that the Orthodox Christian faith is uniquely true. I would not be Orthodox if I did not believe it was the truth revealed by God in his son Jesus Christ. My faith is such that, if I encountered a part of the Orthodox faith that made no sense to me or struck me as incorrect, then it is I who needs to be reformed, not the Orthodox Church. Indeed, this is the view of all classical, traditional religions, rather than the modern consumer-style understanding of faith which is popular in our cultureâ€"that each person is the arbiter of what is true and false, that he can pick and choose what bits of spirituality and belief he likes from a sort of religious buffet.

The nature of truth, however, is that it is true, no matter what anyone says about it. In the face of truth, there is no opinion. Most people already believe this, but do not often apply it to the question that matters most: who is God and what does he want from me? There is good and there is evil. There is truth and there is falsehood. These basic assumptions, based on our own everyday experience, should inform all of our thoughts and actions regarding what is ultimately true.

If you have ever joined Facebook, then you probably know that users can put together profiles of themselves detailing various bits of information about who they are and what they do. One of the details that can be specified is labeled Religious Views. This is what most people think of when they think about religion, that it is a question of views, that religion is an opinion you hold, something you think. (Notice that Facebook does not even use the term beliefs.) For most traditional religions, however, faith is not merely a set of views; rather, religious faith is a whole way of life, a purposeful way of living that has a set of goals at its heart which inform everything in that way of life. In this, Facebook is representing a secularist philosophy, which is not so much an outright denial of spiritual truths as it is a compartmentalization of elements of life into neat categories which have nothing to do with each other. In this box, I keep my views on economics. In this one are my views on cable television. In this one I have my reading preferences, and in this one I keep my religion. Even the word religion itselfâ€"not a word I prefer to use in regards to Orthodox Christianityâ€"means something quite different. The Latin religio means reconnection. To build and rebuild links. What you are trying to link yourself to will vary from one religion to another, but the key is that there is something happening there. It is not just something you think or agree with, and it is not just about you; there is an Other.

Here is a fundamental truth about all religious practice: what you believe and what you do make a difference. If this is true, then we must also accept that if you change what you believe and what you do, you will get different results.This is true of everything in life. My brother is a chemical engineer. My sister is a biologist. (You may wonder what happened to me.) They know this to be true. If you do not believe them, ask a doctor. Ask a physicist, ask a psychologist, ask a brick layer, ask a janitor. They will all tell you that what you believe and what you do make a difference. If you change those things, you will get different results. What concerns me is that we often do not apply this basic principle to what matters most in human life. In a religious context, this fundamental truth means different religionsâ€"because they believe differently and practice differentlyâ€"will yield different results. Sometimes those different results are all put under one label like salvation. But what does it mean to be saved? To a Hindu practicing yoga, salvation means release from the physical body and being absorbed into the oblivion of the universe; the annihilation of individual personhood in Nirvana. I guarantee that is not what salvation means to a Baptist. But what a Baptist means by salvation and what an Orthodox Christian means by it are not the same thing either. As such, the members of those different faiths have different methods of trying to get where they want to go. Furthermore, because there exists truth and falsehood, and because most religions have traditionally claimed that their faith was true and that others are at least somewhat false, that means that some religious believers are fundamentally mistaken about their beliefs and practices. This means they are not going to get the results that they think they will.

In the Orthodox Christian faith, our one and only purpose in life is to become more like Jesus Christ. Whether we go to heaven when we die is only one element in a much larger picture. That picture, ultimately, is of the Holy Trinity. An Orthodox Christian’s life has one goal: union with the Holy Trinityâ€"the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritâ€"the One God who created all things. The path to that union is Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Salvation is the attainment of eternal life. In John 17, in his prayer to the Father before his crucifixion, Jesus defines what this means. He said, “And this is life eternal: that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” To know Godâ€"that is what eternal life means, not just living forever. He later prays, “And the glory you have given me, I have given them. That they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent me, that you have loved them as you have loved me.”

Thus, in the Orthodox Christian faith, being savedâ€"having eternal lifeâ€"means knowing God in Jesus Christ. It also means receiving from Jesus the glory he has from his Father. In reality, salvation is about far, far more than getting out of hell when we die. It is a deep, intimate knowledge of God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.In this deep knowledgeâ€"which is experience rather than accumulation of factsâ€"those who are being saved receive the very glory of God. Going to heaven or hell at the moment of death simply means that our experience of God in this life continues into the next, although amplified. If we love God and know him deeply, our experience in the next life will be endless intense joy. If we reject God in this lifeâ€"or simply ignore himâ€"our experience of his love will be alien to us and felt as suffering. He pours out the same love on everyone. Some want it, some don’t.

This is why doctrine matters. This is why heresy is so very dangerous. All of our doctrine is oriented toward an intimate knowledge of God, because the character of our knowledge of him will determine our eternal vector, our perpetual experience in the life to come. This knowledge depends on our adherence to living out correct doctrine in our daily lives. Let us say I was a practicing homosexual. This is not true, but because some people believe it, it affects their relationship with me. Also let's say I am a priest, it may even affect relationships between members of my parish community. My relationships with many people would break down. Some people may even approve of this and try to get closer to me, but those relationships would also be based on a distorted reality. Those outside our parish may hear the rumor and never visit or consider joining. Those closest to meâ€"my wife and familyâ€"will have their lives badly disrupted if they believe the rumor. It will destroy my family life, which would reverberate across our extended family, friends, the parish unity, and so onâ€"all because of a false belief about who I am. Perhaps the rumor is not so serious. Let us say it was believed I had a drinking problem. The effects of that rumor would likely be just as serious, though nowhere near as explosive. In any case, all of those relationships are affected, not merely by the moral actions of those involvedâ€"that is, whether they have done good or evil to each otherâ€"but by what they believed about each other and how they act on those beliefs.

Magnify all of those effects by the worship and the knowledge of the very God of the universe. Some false doctrines about him can cause unimaginable spiritual destruction. Others are of lesser effect. But all of them, to one degree or another, take us away from a true, pure knowledge of the only true God. That will affect how and whether we receive his glory, and how we experience him in the next life. Living a moral life according to the law of God is indeed critical for life in Christ, but it is not enough. Religion is not just ethics. We must know God for who he truly is. This is why doctrine matters.

[Persimmon Hamster]

Plato defined that same problem when he wrote The Republic and included the famous allegory of the cave. In this allegory, prisoners chained up in a cave for their whole lives believe that all reality is defined by the shadows they see on the wall. If one of the prisoners escaped, found his way to the surface, and saw the sun and all reality for what it is, how could he describe his experience to people whose reality is defined by shadows? When he stumbles back into the cave, trying to adjust back to life in the darkness, those in the cave may well ridicule him as having been damaged by his experience rather than enlightened. Such is the plight of many believers today.

You are talking about, perhaps, what philosophers call qualia.  The cave scenario seems a clumsy one.  In the case of the cave prisoner, he can expose his companions to the same experience if he simply unchains them and takes them to the surface--quite easy to achieve, physically.  Why not adopt a better analogy: the problem of proving to a blind man that color exists as a property of objects, and of describing the experience of colors to him.  You can certainly do the former, but the latter is far more difficult (if not impossible).  You could explain the concept of light, explain that it occurs at varying wavelengths each appearing as a unique color to the eye, that he is limited in his ability to naturally detect/sense it, and you could easily create an instrument that would map the color of an object into something he can perceive -- numbers (frequencies), perhaps, or sounds.  He can then take the instrument and apply it to every object around him and come to discover that the reported color agrees with what those with sight have stated.  Indeed an entire civilization of blind men could actually come to discover the property of color themselves, given enough time and the motivation to lead them to it.  However, a blind man can never actually 'experience' color in exactly the same way as you...so he will never exactly know what you mean when you say something looks "red".  But is there really a difference, now that he knows how to determine that something is red, and that red exists?

Well, the problem is, you are claiming that you possess a sense beyond my own which you have used to gain an experience beyond my comprehension, and yet you have no ability to create a similar instrument that could prove the existence of that which you perceive by it through consistent, repeatable methods, nor can you even offer a meaningful explanation to aid in comprehension of your description.  Science has shown no indication that such a sense exists, nor any indication that there is any force or observation to be perceived by it.  It seems entirely to be an invention in the minds of believers.  Can you explain to me, physically, repeatably, how I can perceive God in the same way that you claim to have, even if I may not be able to experience it the same way you do?  Please do not say "by studying the Bible and following its teachings" -- a great many have done this who yet have never gained such an experience.  Ah, but they did it wrong, right?  They just didn't try hard enough...long enough.  Well there is no such problem with the blind man and color.  Give him the instrument, tell him how to use it, and he will have no difficulty whatsoever in ascertaining the color of the very first object he tests.  So you must tell us precisely which teachings to follow, and precisely how to study, and precisely what words to pray toward the sky--you must describe, physically, how to replicate the experience, in every last detail.  Then we can test for ourselves.  Until you can do this, and the rest of us can verify, then I will assume you are just making things up.

I occasionally suffer from sleep paralysis (or, "old hag syndrome").  It can be a terrifying experience...until you know what it is, and that others experience it, too.

[Achronos]

You are talking about, perhaps, what philosophers call qualia.  The cave scenario seems a clumsy one.  In the case of the cave prisoner, he can expose his companions to the same experience if he simply unchains them and takes them to the surface--quite easy to achieve, physically.  

But in Plato's scenario it is not suggested that the others could escape, so the scenario only works in the constraints of what it presents. Now you saying the escapee could unchain the others is added to the scenario but takes away the point.

However, a blind man can never actually 'experience' color in exactly the same way as you...so he will never exactly know what you mean when you say something looks "red".  But is there really a difference, now that he knows how to determine that something is red, and that red exists?

Of course the difference is that he couldn't create what red actually looks like, but beleives based on faith that such a color exists. The only thing he could determine what is red is what is pointed out to him.

Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’.

Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures.

A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge â€" river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion.

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud?

Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law). Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

Can you explain to me, physically, repeatably, how I can perceive God in the same way that you claim to have, even if I may not be able to experience it the same way you do?

Personally, I believe that Christianity is superior to other religions because the message of Christ speaks more fundamentally and completely to the human condition than any other belief systems before or after (and yes everyone has a belief system). In his own words,

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Here Christ calls us to action, urging us to live the life he showed us how to live, and to see for ourselves whether his message resonates with our hearts. Far from an intellectual assent, the actualization and realization of these words in my life is what my 'faith' is based upon.

My experience is different from many others (I was an atheist for 20 years), how could I ever pyshically show you what is in my heart? The way I experience God was in my very heart, I tried my best to escape, to deny, but I couldn't do it anymore. I was doing everything in my power to escape from the truth when in actuality I was damning it.

I believe that each indiviudal's experience will be different; there is no certain way to pray, no certain way to study, or any of that to experience God. Constantine's came in the form of a cross in the sky, Putin was transformed (again) after a car accident, and so on and so forth. And yes it would be so much easier if we had just a glimpse of Himself (or a certain way to carry out), but I don't believe that path was ever meant to be easy.

[Persimmon Hamster]

But in Plato's scenario it is not suggested that the others could escape, so the scenario only works in the constraints of what it presents. Now you saying the escapee could unchain the others is added to the scenario but takes away the point.

The point is, how do you describe a perception or experience to another lacking sufficient basis for understanding/comparison.  You must do so either by describing it in terms they can understand, or drawing comparisons to that with which they are familiar, or by simply showing them so they can experience it for themselves.  In the cave scenario as you presented it, I could argue all of these things are quite easily possible, unlike the religious experiences to which you referred.

Of course the difference is that he couldn't create what red actually looks like, but beleives based on faith that such a color exists. The only thing he could determine what is red is what is pointed out to him.

How do you conclude any of that?  There is no faith involved, you can prove it to him.  And you can provide him (or he can provide himself) a mechanical, repeatable means to detect it himself, without your help.  That was my point.  Additionally, understanding how it works, he certainly could "create" red, or do you mean he could not create an image of red in his mind?  He could create an image as he imagines it but perhaps that image would differ in some way from how a sighted man can imagine it.  But, is there really a difference there?  That is a difficult philosophical question.  I feel like I am repeating myself here and like you really made no effort to understand.

...

I hope you are copying and pasting all of that hinduism/metaphorical business from somewhere, perhaps a collection of arguments you've previously prepared, because it's not really worth your time to try so hard at convincing me of the existence of the supernatural.  I am aware of the "problem of induction".  It is a philosophical argument; meanwhile, in the real world, science continually reveals new knowledge and new applications for knowledge with real utility in the world based on inductive reasoning.  Is it possible that the laws of nature will not always be as they seem now, or have not always been?  Perhaps.  When that day comes, I'll start caring.  Meanwhile I'm going with what is in front of me.  It is impossible to do otherwise.

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles?

I've never witnessed a miracle firsthand.  I've never met someone who has, and can show proof of it along with proof that they did not simply hallucinate/dream/imagine it.  If I did witness a "miracle" myself, and could be certain I was lucid and not hallucinating, I would assume there is a natural explanation to which I am simply currently ignorant.  This would not be a contradiction of the authority of my perception; I would accept that I had perceived it and I would conceive of many possible explanations for it, not all of which would be easily falsifiable.  If all falsifiable explanations were investigated and falsified, I would simply move on because there is no other alternative.  Totally unfalsifiable would be that something supernatural (or beyond my normal ability to perceive/comprehend) was the cause.  I am not interested in considering all of the totally unfalsifiable explanations because to do so would be to descend into madness.  Fortunately, I am nowhere near such madness (at least in my own opinion), because I have never witnessed a miracle.

....The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also...

...Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

Prove that ash may be produced by a divine miracle.  Then I will be happy to talk about all the rivers and spiritual oceans you'd like.

Personally, I believe that Christianity is superior to other religions because the message of Christ speaks more fundamentally and completely to the human condition than any other belief systems before or after (and yes everyone has a belief system). In his own words,

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Here Christ calls us to action, urging us to live the life he showed us how to live, and to see for ourselves whether his message resonates with our hearts. Far from an intellectual assent, the actualization and realization of these words in my life is what my 'faith' is based upon.

My experience is different from many others (I was an atheist for 20 years), how could I ever pyshically show you what is in my heart? The way I experience God was in my very heart, I tried my best to escape, to deny, but I couldn't do it anymore. I was doing everything in my power to escape from the truth when in actuality I was damning it.

I am genuinely, sincerely glad that you have chosen to practice at least some of the teachings of Christ as far as gentleness and humbleness of heart.  I am happy his message, as you interpret it, has resonated within your heart and has allowed you to find rest for your consciousness.  I can quite easily imagine how remaining as gentle and humble as possible would lead a person to enjoying a much more personally fulfilling life than the opposite.  I strive for the same way of living, myself, and it is not always easy.  But I do not do it because I believe in the supernatural.  I strive for it because I believe it to be wise and fulfilling--the most productive way to contribute to the society of which I am a part.

I believe that each indiviudal's experience will be different; there is no certain way to pray, no certain way to study, or any of that to experience God. Constantine's came in the form of a cross in the sky, Putin was transformed (again) after a car accident, and so on and so forth. And yes it would be so much easier if we had just a glimpse of Himself (or a certain way to carry out), but I don't believe that path was ever meant to be easy.

To summarize, you could not do as I asked.  Therefore whenever you speak of a special ability to see something which I cannot, or perceive something beyond my own ability, I will continue to assume you are making things up.

[Fininho]

Faith is not superior to reason.
When you say "I have faith" you had to reason about that!
You cannot put out any statement without processing the thought in your brain: hence reason having all the power.
In truth, you cannot say "I have faith" without asking permission to reason to say it.

[Achronos]

Reason itself is a matter of faith.

[Fininho]

Rhetorically, only.
Religious faith is illusion - not reality.

[Asmodean]

Reason itself is a matter of faith.

Reason may require you to trust, but only when it's reasonable  

[Inevitable Droid]

My faith is such that, if I encountered a part of the Orthodox faith that made no sense to me or struck me as incorrect, then it is I who needs to be reformed, not the Orthodox Church.

This is horrifying, sickening, infuriating.  It is intellectual evil.  Like a glimpse of the fangs of an approaching vampire, reading these words has tempted me to lift up a technological device or other artifact of science like a crucifix to ward off an abominable wickedness that this way comes.

[Asmodean]

This is horrifying, sickening, infuriating.  It is intellectual evil.  Like a glimpse of the fangs of an approaching vampire, reading these words has tempted me to lift up a technological device or other artifact of science like a crucifix to ward off an abominable wickedness that this way comes.

Me, I'd just call it intellectually bankrupt... Or self unaware. Or... Eh well... Gimme one of those devices you have there for warding  

[Achronos]

My faith is such that, if I encountered a part of the Orthodox faith that made no sense to me or struck me as incorrect, then it is I who needs to be reformed, not the Orthodox Church.

This is horrifying, sickening, infuriating.  It is intellectual evil.  Like a glimpse of the fangs of an approaching vampire, reading these words has tempted me to lift up a technological device or other artifact of science like a crucifix to ward off an abominable wickedness that this way comes.

If the Orthodox Church presents the truth as such, I cannot merely pick and choose what I want. I can't decide "Oh I'll do this" and "I won't do that", which you see in alot of the modern Christian denominations. So I would need to change my ways in order to be fuller in the truth of the Word of God. You might see that as an intellectual prison, but quite the contrary for to me it represents everything that is intellectually good. Remember there is no opinion in the face of truth, that is exactly what I wanted to strive for in the Christian faith.

[Achronos]

To summarize, you could not do as I asked.  Therefore whenever you speak of a special ability to see something which I cannot, or perceive something beyond my own ability, I will continue to assume you are making things up.

As far as I am concerned (considering I was an atheist), it was my intellectual criticism that slowly lead me to realize the reality that Jesus Christ did exist, and continues to be seated on the right hand of God.

However, I needed one final proof. I challenged Christ to provide for me, a change of heart and well-being (even if there are facts that prove he existed and is indeed the Messiah that the Old Testament was pointing to), the final proof was for my heart to be changed (via his sovereign grace), to showcase that there is such a thing as "being born again" or "being regenerated as a new creature".

And such a change has happened. But don't think this is special pleading, for it is a personal experience that is for the purpose of proving to me that he exists. I cannot prove to you, that I was once a sinner, and I am now a person saved. Hence, this is also known as experiential theology.

EDIT:

Rhetorically, only.
Religious faith is illusion - not reality.

"Faith is to believe what we do not see. The reward of this faith is to see what we believe." - Augustine

"Faith is only as valid as its object. You could have tremendous faith in very thin ice and drown.… You could have very little faith in very thick ice and be perfectly secure." - Stuart Briscoe

"Faith commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate facts; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on the above conviction; and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct." - W. H. Griffith Thomas

The bible itself illustrates such a use of 'faith'.

1 Samuel 12:7
(7) Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD, which he did to you and to your fathers.

Isaiah 1:18
(18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isaiah 41:21
(21) Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

Acts 24:25
(25) And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

1 Peter 3:15
(15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
(21) Prove all things (πανÏ,,α δοκιμαζεÏ,,ε - "Test everything"); hold fast that which is good.

1 John 4:1
(1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Acts 17:11
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Faith is not an abstract placebo (like Oprah's "The Secret") - because if it were, then there should be no reason for trying to understand who Jesus Christ is, whether he really exists or not, and that I shouldn't even be discussing this because I would rather go on with some sort of emotional hype like an Emu sticking its head in the sand and ignorantly telling myself that "I am safe".

The relation of faith to reason is of utmost importance for the thinking believer. The problem of how to combine these aspects of person-hood has existed from the earliest apologists. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all struggled. Augustine made the first serious attempt to relate the two, but the most comprehensive treatment came at the end of the medieval period when Christian intellectualism flowered in the work of Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas held that faith and reason intertwine. Faith uses reason, and reason cannot succeed in finding truth without faith. Reason accompanies, but does not cause, faith. Faith is consent without inquiry in that faith’s assent is not caused by investigation. Rather, it is produced by God. Commenting on Ephesians 2:8â€"9, Aquinas contended that “free will is inadequate for the act of faith since the contents of faith are above reason...That a man should believe, therefore, cannot occur from himself unless God gives it.” Faith is a gift of God, and no one can believe without it.

Nonetheless, “this does not prevent the understanding of one who believes from having some discursive thought of comparison about those things which he believes” (On Truth, 14.A1.2). Such discursive thought, or reasoning from premises to conclusions, is not the cause of the assent of faith, but it can and should accompany it. Faith and reason are parallel. One does not cause the other because “faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn’t coerce the will”. A person is free to dissent, even though there may be convincing reasons to believe.

As a matter of tactical approach in apologetics, if the authority of Scripture is accepted (faith), appeal can be made to it (reason). “Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But Mohammedans [see Islam] and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other...We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent” (Summa Theologica, 1a.2.2).

However, some Christian truths are attainable by human reason, for example, that God exists and is one. “Such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of the natural reason.”

Reason or philosophy can be used in three ways, Aquinas says:
1. It demonstrates the “preambles of faith” (that God exists, that we are his creatures).

2. It analyzes teachings of philosophers in order to reveal corresponding concepts in Christian faith. Aquinas gives the example of Augustine’s 'On the Trinity', which draws on philosophy to help explain the Trinity.

3. It opposes attacks against faith from logic (Gentiles, 1.9).

Reason can be used to prove natural theology, which studies the existence and nature of one God. It can be used to illustrate supernatural theological concepts, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. And it can be used to refute false theologies. The apologist directs the person to accept two kinds of truth about divine things and to destroy what is contrary to truth. The person is directed to the truths of natural theology by the investigation of the reason and to the truths of supernatural theology by faith.

Aquinas’s view of the relation of faith and reason blends positive elements of presuppositionalism and evidentialism, of rationalism and fideism. Aquinas stresses the need for reason before, during, and after beliefs are acquired. Even the mysteries of faith are not irrational.

On the other hand, Aquinas does not believe that reason alone can bring anyone to faith. Salvation is accomplished only by the grace of God. Faith can never be based on reason. At best it can only be supported by reason. Thus, reason and evidence never coerce faith. There is always room for unbelievers not to believe in God, even though a believer can construct a valid proof that God exists. Reason can be used to demonstrate that God exists, but it can never in itself persuade someone to believe in God. Only God can do this, working in and through their free choice.

These distinctions of Aquinas are eminently relevant to the discussion between rationalists and fideists or between evidentialists and presuppositionalists. With regard to belief that God exists, Aquinas sides with the rationalists and evidentialists. But with respect to belief in God, he agrees with fideists and presuppositionalists.

[Persimmon Hamster]

However, I needed one final proof. I challenged Christ to provide for me, a change of heart and well-being (even if there are facts that prove he existed and is indeed the Messiah that the Old Testament was pointing to), the final proof was for my heart to be changed (via his sovereign grace), to showcase that there is such a thing as "being born again" or "being regenerated as a new creature".

And such a change has happened. But don't think this is special pleading, for it is a personal experience that is for the purpose of proving to me that he exists. I cannot prove to you, that I was once a sinner, and I am now a person saved. Hence, this is also known as experiential theology.

Recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

[Cite134]

Religion can and does provide a sense of community and meaning for people. In this sense, I cannot say that it offends me.
However, any religion that condemns me in such a condescending manner simply because I reject its idea on the 'truth' of existence, then it does offend me.