Faith vs Proof

[beetlemaniac]

I've been angsting about the issue of learning for as long as I can imagine. My main difficulty lies in 1) developing the interest; and 2) sustaining the attention on what I'm reading. This topic of meta-learning and "learning how to learn" has come up repeatedly in this forum, but I had not actually grasped the full import of the idea. Just thinking about learning as a skill seems to free some energy in order to push ahead with a topic that I'm currently grappling with. I searched TED for some videos on learning how to learn and I found this:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...f8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's left me kind of wondering -- why did it take so long for me to figure out that I could learn a new way to learn?

I think it's because I was stuck in what seemed to be a time loop, where I lived cycles upon cycles of making certain choices over and over again, in the course of finding out what made me tick, what the purpose of this life was. One thing that stood out to me was that the end of my cycles always saw me going back to the fundamentals of the Work. The C's did make a mention of learning cycles...

There is something of an emotional component to this as well, of a slowly developing trust in life and the process. It's probably related to some wounding too -- the loss of love that was felt in childhood. Recently I met a lady who showed me something, I don't know what, but I felt quite changed after meeting her. I find it hard to explain what shifted, but in the course of interacting with her I came face to face with thoughts of unworthiness. It was an interesting view into the subconscious beliefs that I held about life -- one of the layers of the onion. The night after meeting her, I deconstructed these thoughts and managed to prove to myself that I was not "unworthy", specifically in terms of class / social status, the main prejudicial way society has made me view myself and others. That I am simply human, the same as any other human being.

Maybe our purpose here is really just to learn. And to learn, you need to know how to learn!

 

[Menna]

Maybe Faith & Proof. They work together with ones being.

Proof requires evidence and evidence is gathered from experiences in life however people have different experiences even when the situational experience is the same. Faith and proof can change. Truths can change. People can change leading to different views of the truth and views of that which was once proven. Faith can also change.

To me showing someone who has faith proof can be looked at the same way as showing someone the answer to an equation without showing them the workings of the equation. It messes them up. Let them figure it out so they can then handle the next equations and not have to ask for the answers because they dont have the fundamentals down. If they never figure out the equation then what? The best thing to do is nothing IMO unless its family, friends or close one even then all I do is talk objectively to my knowledge. IMO most of the time no one is right or wrong because what is right is what is best in the certain situation and what is best could be wrong.

 

[Woodsman]

On the other hand, when I think of faith, I think of something totally different. It doesn't have or give all the answers, but it drives us to find them. It doesn't want us to believe anything and everything just to be comfortable. It's okay with, "I don't know" or "Oops! I was wrong". It doesn't need to control everything, because it knows that we will not implode or disappear if we think about what other people need before we think about what we need. It likes evidence that something is true, but it also realizes that things change, that "always in motion is the future", and it reminds us that there are infinite possibilities. Faith doesn't need to convert other people to "my" beliefs. Instead, it just leads by example.

I like this. It describes the qualities of faith which I find fit with me.

Q: (L) Mike Lindeman has proposed that we submit the
channeling to 'rigorous testing.'
A: Mike Lindemann does not channel, now does he? What
sort of rigorous testing does he propose?
Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want short-term
predictions and all sorts of little tests...
A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?
Q: It tells us that he wants proof.
A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as we have
explained again and again. Now, listen very carefully: if proof
of that type were possible, what do you suppose would
happen to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic Directive
Level One?
Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you are believing in
the proof and not the spirit of the thing. You are placing your
reliance upon a material thing. You have lost your free will.
Someone has violated your free will by the act of
PROVING something to you.
A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is their prerogative!
Q: (PZ) [unintelligible remark]
A: You did not completely understand the previous
response, Pat. And what would constitute proof?
Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were
verifiable about a number of things.
A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere
coincidences. We have already given predictions, will
continue to do so, but, remember, "time" does not exist. This
is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and
cannot and never will. The primary reason for our
communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves
to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy, and
assisting your advancement.
Q: (L) Are you saying that your primary reason is just to
teach us? This small group?
A: Because you asked for help.

I find that "squishy" proof (for the kinds of supernatural/non-linear qualities of the Universe generally accepted around here as having real force) is ALL over the place. The seeker just needs to look around. -Though very little, or perhaps even none of it, can be materially quantified and packaged up to present to others. It's a very personal process.

How can one package up the accuracy of an astrological forecast? Or the validity of some energetic experience? I can recount dozens of cool stories which I personally found profoundly convincing that "Something Was Going On", but which to others can only ever remain stories. -Stories which can be readily James Randied into dust by any clever person familiar with the art of illusion and psychology, etc. (Or just a plain old accusation of, "Liar!"). Richard Dolan books about UFOs, or journal articles about children recalling past lives can all be explained away if people are determined enough. Crop Circles are just the result of guys with planks and ropes, after all. -And all of that stuff can easily be ignored anyway among the circus of other distractions in our world.

But when one is looking, trying to collect knowledge, then enough examples build up over time so that, when combined with one's own logical reduction strategies, "If A + B = C, then perhaps C - A = B..?" the shift from uncertainty into practical belief isn't so much a leap of faith as it is a half-inch hop or less.

Faith beyond that point becomes a natural progression, a matter of knowing you've already done the work and the fevered questioning and self-doubting, filed all of that away for recollection if necessary, but generally just left as a foundation stone. This allows one, when some non-material phenomenon occurs, to get on with incorporating it into daily activity without the laborious necessity of questioning it to death. -Like having already worked out how to walk, we can just have faith in our previous efforts when it is time to cross the street.

The C's once gave an example about air planes. -If people spent all their time first trying to prove the existence of air, flight would never have been achieved. (Couldn't find the reference for that, so I'm paraphrasing.)

I'm not even sure I'd call the thing which motivates me "faith" at this point. It's more like "working knowledge".

That isn't enough for a materialist sceptic, of course. And it shouldn't be. 3D reality, despite its many problems, can still be pretty neat, where whole types of experience only work when you are committed to it, and which fade away once you leave for a higher level.

I mean.., you can't enjoy chasing frizbees and getting tummy rubs or sniffing out the doggy news at the foot of the fire hydrant after you elect to grow into another phase of existence; you're leaving behind something special which you cannot go back to. If you're not ready, if you haven't chased enough tennis balls (or your own tail) to your complete satisfaction, or if you haven't truly figured out why you don't eat your own puke, then having some know-it-all try to pull you into a 3D existence.., psh! To hell with that guy!

Faith is like a universal fail-safe valve which only allows those who truly want to move onward and upward the ability to do so, while not accidentally dragging along anybody who isn't ready.

 

[3DStudent]

That makes sense Woodsman, on faith and proof. I see a little bit better that proof is totally unnecessary and impractical. Those who have faith and can see reality will accept it as it is. And those who are materialists have the freewill to deny any sort of "proof", because it's their choice. Both sides of the coin are possible this way.

 

[Zar]

Maybe Faith & Proof. They work together with ones being.

Proof requires evidence and evidence is gathered from experiences in life however people have different experiences even when the situational experience is the same. Faith and proof can change. Truths can change. People can change leading to different views of the truth and views of that which was once proven. Faith can also change.

To me showing someone who has faith proof can be looked at the same way as showing someone the answer to an equation without showing them the workings of the equation. It messes them up. Let them figure it out so they can then handle the next equations and not have to ask for the answers because they dont have the fundamentals down. If they never figure out the equation then what? The best thing to do is nothing IMO unless its family, friends or close one even then all I do is talk objectively to my knowledge. IMO most of the time no one is right or wrong because what is right is what is best in the certain situation and what is best could be wrong.

Very interesting discussion, I was thinking about how proof and faith could be different stepping stones for the growth of each individual (or even sts vs sto). Proof and faith are similar in that they are assimilated with trust, proof seems easier to trust when one isn't very developed, as it instil beliefs and doesn't require much work from the person to discover(or any). Faith I find requires a more advanced form of trust when one realizes that proof is "squishy" through much work and development. Proof could be seen as training wheels for lower developed souls.

Very well said Scottie, and timely too! When I think about the idea of faith, it is inseparable from the idea of trust. Maybe they're just synonyms. Most of people's problems with trust, I think, come from their interactions with other people, who have at some point betrayed their trust, or let them down and taught them that trusting is dangerous. Dangerous because to trust someone is to open yourself in some way to them, to make yourself vulnerable. When you do that, and the other person does not see or appreciate what you have done, they don't do what you expect them to do, and your feelings get hurt in some way.

But in many cases, this trusting of others we engage in includes at least a bit (and sometimes a lot) of projection on our part onto the other person. We imagine that the person means something by what they say, when they didn't mean that. Or we don't take all the factors about the other person into consideration and trust them when we should not. So learning and knowing a lot about ourselves and other people can protect us from the hurt that arises from trusting when we should not.

Of course, we don't just trust people, we place our trust in things too. We trust our car, for example, to always start. But when it doesn't, we don't feel hurt as we do when people let us down (frustrated yes, but not hurt). After all, the car doesn't intentionally not start to hurt us, and most likely it is our own fault because we didn't maintain it properly. With people though, we expect more because we invest more in people, we invest our feelings.

And maybe that's the important point, that when we extend trust to someone, we are looking for someone who values us enough to see, recognize, understand and care for our feelings, for who we are as a person. That's why a "betrayal" of trust can hurt so much, because it feels like a rejection of us, of our most personal feelings, of who (or part of who) we understand ourselves to be. So when we extent trust, we are actually looking for a validation of, respect and love for who we as human beings.

But very often trust can be a one-sided affair. We go on the hunt for this validation, but how much have we given to others in that respect? If we want to be valued, respected and loved as human beings, how much work have we done to engender that value, respect and love in others FOR us? Or is it a case where we expect to have that love and respect without doing anything to deserve it? "But Wait!" I hear you say, "everyone deserves love and respect!" Sure they do, just like everyone else. So when the entire population is going around trying to get (or demanding) this love and respect from others, how is anyone going to get when there not givers?

So it seems to me that the first step in feeling like we can trust others (i.e. get love and validation from others) is to make ourselves trustworthy people and we do that by being loving towards others and validating them. For sure, it takes strength and courage to do this, but it is the best way to get what we need. And interestingly, as part of this process of extending love and validation to others, we become stronger people, we find resources we didn't know we had, which ends up meaning that we don't need or demand that others be so impeccably (by our needy standards) trustworthy i.e. understand, validate and love us.

In addition, by giving to others in this way, we may come to realize or know ourselves as fundamentally trustworthy, valuable and lovable people, which is kind of what we'd been looking for from others our whole lives.

I agree with Joe's remark about faith maybe being indispensable from trust, and that even proof may be another form of trust. If seen from this perspective it's easy to understand how new 3D souls go about hunting for validation as all they have is "proof" of not being loved (experiences) and facing trauma as children, due to all the narcissism and this pathologically corrupted world. As you develop and the amount of "proof" increases you begin to realize how "fluffy" proof is and how little you actually know by placing your trust in fluff.

Developed souls I find tend to be more innately curious and through a burning desire to know they begin to realize/discover that proof is not all that it's made out to be. Through much work we can come to develop a higher form of trust in the universe/ourselves/others and we are able to "see" due to the attained knowledge. Trusting others then doesn't cause any/much pain because to trust I think one must come to know who it is you are trusting, and who you are. And having this depth of knowledge will allow you to give the appropriate level of trust that can be accepted per individual case, i.e. don't trust a psychopath with things that are outside their realm/capabilities.

Hope this makes sense as they're just some thoughts I was having.

Edit:

Every minute of every day, the universe sits across the dance floor, making eyes at us in the hopes that we will ask it to dance. Do we declare that we first must have proof that the universe is real and safe, or do we just shut up and dance, and see what happens?

Also I love this quote scottie, I'd like to use it as one of my signature quotes if that's ok with you.