WIP01.JPG This article is still under construction
Please post comments, questions and suggestions on the talk page, not in the article itself. Thank you.

There seem to be two kinds of faith. Faith based upon direct experience and faith based upon some idea.

If we look to the use of the word, "God", for example, it can be used to describe an immediate, spontaneous experience or it can be used to describe some idea about some "commonly" understood phenomenon. At least some atheists seem to refer to this idea which they dismiss out of hand as untenable. In fact, some theists rely upon the same definition and conclude the opposite, that it is not only tenable but essential.

Both of these are a kind of faith. Both involve a faith that the "common" definition is accurate and universal. There exists a second possibility. This is the experience of some transcendental awareness that gives rise to the name, "God". This awareness is NOT based upon the definition, but rather is a spontaneous reaction to an otherwise inexplicable, yet undeniable experience. This is another way of language.

Language can be thought of in two ways: arising from idea and arising from experience. Both are necessary for human communication, but experience is no idea and idea is no substitute for experience. So we have these faiths. One comes from an experience and the other is a process of arguing over an idea. They are irreconcilable and incomparable.

We note that there can be no experience of the lack of God without the coexisting experience in some form of the God that is missing. So there are two different faiths: belief in the existence or non-existence of a "God" that is an idea, and belief in the existence of a "God" that one describes as such spontaneously and without prejudice. Since the experience can never be reconciled with the idea, nor can the idea be descriptive enough to accurately describe the experience, these two faiths are impossible to connect or compare. Just as oranges are not the opposite of apples, and vice versa, so these two faiths are not opposite, but rather wholly different entities connected by the dual aspects of language.

I might add that it would seem the atheists consider God as an idea that they don't believe could possibly be manifest in "reality". This is why I consider it to be a faith. There is no direct "proof" either way, since theists can provide no direct "proof" of what they experience, except in the outward behavioral manifestations.