"If it's provable we can kill it."
Or, faith is the currency of the Spirit
Published on December 21, 2007 By EmperorofIceCream In Religion
This is not a rant about the materialism of the Christmas season - even though there's need of such a rant, since this supposedly 'holy' season has become nothing but one more holiday and an excuse for the grossest and most pathetic manifestations of greed. However, I'm not inclined to write it, not today. Instead it's a meditation relating to some of the similarities between faith and money.

It's been borne in upon me, over the last few months, that faith is a tool and not an end in itself. This is one of the Doctrines of Chaos that my wife first introduced me to, when we first began talking online. Needless to say, while I grasped the meaning of the individual words in the sentence 'faith is a tool and not an end', the sentence as a whole at first meant almost nothing to me. It has since, over these last few years, become a cornerstone of my beliefs, though its taken me a long time to grasp even a few of its implications.

Faith is a tool, not an end. An 'end' is a summation, a completion. And most people, when they find a faith, regard it as the 'end' of their seeking after meaning in existence. But not all people. Some, when they find faith, enter into a rapturous 'honeymoon' period in which their newfound faith is in every way sufficient - but, over time, find cause to question what they at first accepted both wholeheartedly and passionately.

I was and am one of those. I won't bore you with the details of the questions I began to ask, or with a recitation of the insufficient answers I received. Suffice it to say that those answers were insufficient, and that insufficiency started me down the road that leads to where I presently am.

Faith is a tool, not an end.

A tool is something used to achieve a purpose. A wrench is a tool. A hammer is a tool. A wrench exists in order to loosen or tighten things. A hammer exists to pound on things. In other words, the existence of hammers and wrenches is contingent. Contingent upon having things to hammer, and things to loosen or tighten. Without those other things there is no purpose to a wrench, and no purpose to a hammer. Money, currency, is also a tool. A tool for the expression of value in exchange. When you buy something you proffer the monetary value of a thing in order to purchase another thing. Money, especially paper money, has no real value in itself - it's simply the universally accepted means for the exchange of values.

In order to use money you don't have to understand anything about exchange rates, commodity prices, use-value, or absolute value. In other words, you don't have to understand how money works. All you have to understand is that everything has a price and that money is how that price is expressed. Faith, generally understood, is like currency. The dollar is money in America, and currency throughout the world. Christianity, on this analogy, is money among the Christians, but currency throughout the rest of the world, the rest of the world that accepts the general value of faith as something in itself.

But unlike real currency, a particular form of faith is not exchangeable outside the spiritual and intellectual milieu in which it evolved and to which it is native. You cannot, on most accounts of such things, be at one and the same time an Islamist and a Christian. They are mutually exclusive forms of spiritual 'money', though both are equally legitimate forms of spiritual currency.

Faith is a tool, not an end. I believe in currency, but I see 'money' as nothing but a tool to be used in order to achieve my objectives. "Christianity', 'Islam', 'Hinduism', 'Seikhism', 'Jainism', 'Zoroastrianism', 'Ritual Magick' - these are all forms of 'spiritual money' and all alike are accessible to the one who knows how to deal with them, as tools to achieve whatever end is desired by the one who engages in manipulation of them.

As an example, tomorrow night is the Winter Solstice, the longest night of the year, and an event recognised in all Solar Myths as a profound moment of change, of renewal and rebirth. I intend to perform Ritual tomorrow night, a Ritual which will engage with these profound concepts and turn them to my own use and advantage. In order to do so I will invoke certain of the Names of God that are known within the Christian tradition (with which I'm most at ease and most familiar). But I could just as easily and with as much faith invoke Names that are known in other traditions.

We all know that currency works to achieve our ends. We also all know that certain forms of currency work more acceptably in some places, and less acceptably in others. But they all work. Faith works too, and in just the same way. Should it be necessary, I can be a Christian in the morning, a Hindu in the afternoon, and Muslim in the evening.

Because all the gods are dead - and all the gods live forever.

Faith is a tool, not an end."

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 04, 2008
I have observable facts for what I believe. You have faith.


I don't know what your stance is on human origins. For those who believe in Darwin's Evolution and random chance is their creator, then what are the observable facts to believe that their ancestors evolved from apes?

on Jan 05, 2008
As for you, Lula, you're confusing faith and belief. Faith is what you have when you don't have observable facts enough to prove a belief that you desperately want to have.


No, Ock, I'm not confusing faith and belief. I acknowledged (reply 17) to EOIC that we are looking at faith differently.

I'm saying that faith (itself) is not an end and belief represents an important part of my faith.

Faith, I think, and EOIC may agree, is one of the most unsettling words in the NT. Christ instructing His disciples concerning His Second Coming to judge the living and the dead, asks, "Yet when the Son of man comes, will He find..faith on the earth?"

Faith that I'm talking about is one of the 3 theological virtues, the other two being hope and charity. They are infused virtues as opposed to acquired ones. The gift of faith is continuously being offered by God. It's up to man to do the taking.


Faith is what you have when you don't have observable facts enough to prove a belief that you desperately want to have. Conjecture != observable facts. If I see a sign saying I'm entering Fudpucker, Tenessee, I'll assume that I am - but I'll believe it when I see it.

I have observable facts for what I believe. You have faith.




Faith, is a firm adherance of the soul to a truth which is not clearly "seen" as true. (That's why I gave the example of believing in evolution..must be done by faith (becasue there are no definitive proofs of one species evolving into a completly different one).

By faith we accept something as true even though we do not fully understand it as true. If we fully understand something, then we could simply know it; we would not have to believe it. Faith constitutes real knowledge, and it is certain knowledge, not empirical knowledge. I do not see the Incarnation as I see the computer keys in front of me. But in faith I accept the Incarnation of our Lord on Christmas Day as true and as a fact is more real than the fact of the computer screen in front of me. To see the soul we need the eyes of faith.

on Jan 06, 2008
You all are making this infinitely more difficult than it needs to be.

One wishes to abandon herself to God, in the form of Jesus Christ. Another wishes to follow the Noble Truths (or is that 'Truth'? I can never remember). Another wishes to be obedient to the Prophet and his revelation. Go right ahead.

In exactly the same degree that these various faiths are true, so are they equally false. And we all get exactly what it is we've imagined and had faith in, at the end. Dante said something interesting, in the early Cantos of the Inferno. In relation, I believe, to the Virtuous Pagans whom he placed in Limbo, a place neither of Heaven nor Hell but suited to the likes of those who find in human reason everything necessary in order to live a good life. He said, if I remember correctly, that they had not the charity to abandon themselves to something that could not be discerned by their reason, but which was implied by that reason.

If you've been taught from the cradle that God made you, it's a leap of charity to believe that, in fact, you made god, and made it in your own image. It's an even greater leap to believe that God, as opposed to the gods, is at once the Source of everything - and indifferent to the outcome of everything save in a purely aesthetic sense.

By all means continue to believe in the things you believe. So long as enough of you believe, and believe hard enough, with sufficient sincerity, your gods will continue to exist and behave just as you want them to. They'll save the Righteous and damn the Sinner - or lead you into the bliss of Nirvana, if that's what you require of them. And so long as you continue to debate, and refute each other, and by doing so reinforce in your own minds the things you believe in, for just so long as enough of you do these things your gods will continue to be 'real' and 'true'.

But one day they'll all die. Just as Ra, and Odin, and Jupiter, and Zeus, and Loki, have all died - because the human sensibility that found a need for them, and created them in its image, has died. That sensibility can resurrected in a sense. It can be invoked, and used as a template, to serve the will of the Magickian at his need and pleasure. But it has no greater reality than the reality of his will, just as previously it had no greater reality than the faith of those who believed gave to it.

You make your own Heaven, your own Hell. And those rewards and punishments in which you believe are those which you will eventually receive.
on Jan 06, 2008
I don't know what your stance is on human origins. For those who believe in Darwin's Evolution and random chance is their creator, then what are the observable facts to believe that their ancestors evolved from apes?


Evolution is not even remotely random chance.

Natural selection is a complex process, very different from "chance".
on Jan 07, 2008
You all are making this infinitely more difficult than it needs to be.


Ah the basis of control based religion.
on Jan 07, 2008
I don't know what your stance is on human origins. For those who believe in Darwin's Evolution and random chance is their creator, then what are the observable facts to believe that their ancestors evolved from apes?


I brought up this point to show Ock that Evolutionists must believe on faith not observable facts.



Evolution is not even remotely random chance.


To most people who believe (have faith) in Evolution Theory, the universe is thought to have begun with a gigantic explosion somewhere between 10 and 20 billions of years ago. At the beginning, some form of molelular "soup", chemicals, somehow came together by chance and the earth began to form about 4.5 billion years ago. Then the idea of spontaneous generation, the hypothesis that life came from non-life, that living cells eventually emerged by chance and life began to diversify. Evolution essentially means that all present species upon earth have evolved over millions of years by chance processes without a transcendant Creator.

Evolution operates by random chance processes.

Natural selection is a complex process, very different from "chance".




Natural selection is not evolution. New, higher genetic information is not gained, but instead tends to be lost; at best, natural selection only conserves existing genetic information in life forms. Variety within kind is not evolution. The wide variety found with each 'kind' of plant or creature should not be confused with evolution because new, higher genetic information is not gained in the process giving rise to variety.

EOIC posts:
And we all get exactly what it is we've imagined and had faith in, at the end.


Since Evolution operates by random chance, then man's mind itself is a result of accidental processes. How than can we be sure that the mind can be trusted especially when we know we make mistakes?

In his book, God, Science and Evolution, E.H. ANdrews, wrote, "Either mind is a consequence of the electrical impulses and organization of an anatomical organ, or else it is a self-existent phenomenon which "rides upon brain function without deriving from it."

Evolution has contributed significantly to the blurring of perception of objective truth. The notion that everything in existence is constantly changing tends to facilitate attitudes of moral relativism and to undermine the notion of absolute principles.
on Jan 07, 2008
Lula: Try reading some literature not produced by the CC.
on Jan 07, 2008
Lula: Try reading some literature not produced by the CC.



Actually I learned Evolution Theory from my daughter's very secular biology book. My faith tells me it's a futile theory.

In this case it is as EOIC posts:


And we all get exactly what it is we've imagined and had faith in, at the end.


Getting back to my main point to Ock's comments, origins beliefs necessarily involve faith decisions since no one was there in the ancient past to see these processes. All have to wrestle with faith to answer these questions....are we to believe that matter always existed? How have the laws of nature come into operation? Did the complexity of DNA arise somehow by itself? A person can either believe that matter was created by a transcendent God or that matter has always been in existence. Belief in either Creation or Evolution has to be made on the basis of faith, either faith in the trustworthiness of as a reliable eye-witness or faith in random chance.

on Jan 08, 2008
Evolution theory is not based on chance. They made it over such a long period of time that chance didn't enter into it. Given 10 years, evolution is a terrible theory, as there would have to be a mutation within those 10 years. Less likely then a mutation over billions of years.

If you roll dice one, the chance of getting at least one 2 is very low. But as you add more roles, the probability approaches 100%. Given a billion years of dice rolls (fun fact: a billion years is the standard playing time for a game of Monopoly with the free-parking house rule) there is still a very low chance of not ever getting a 2, but the chance is nearing 100% that at least one 2 occurs.

Of course, the metaphor breaks down because the number they're trying to get on 2 6-sided dice is 1. A 0% probability with any number of occurences is still 0%.
on Jan 08, 2008
Perhaps someone could tell me exactly what evolution has to do with the topic of the thread? Stick to the point, or I'll delete anything your sorry confused selves post. You forget, I write what I write for my own satisfaction, and you're all guests here.

I didn't write about evolution and I'm not remotely interested in your views regarding evolution.

Evolution is one explanation of how we came to be discussing these issues. Within its own epistemological universe it's as valid as the argument that God created the universe and everything in it. The former view finds its validity within the technocratic episteme that characterizes the current civilization of the West; the latter relates to the spiritual, magical, episteme of Middle Eastern cultures that developed in the ancient world.

And there is absolutely no way to decide which of both epistemes is the more valid. You believe in one and you deny the other, and there is no objectively independent third place in which one can stand in order to judge between them.

So quit with this idiot diversion into nonsensical 'debate' about a non-issue and get back to the thread.
on Jan 09, 2008
Perhaps someone could tell me exactly what evolution has to do with the topic of the thread?



I'm guilty of first bringing up Evolution Theory..but only because it makes a valid point to Ock after he wrote:

As for you, Lula, you're confusing faith and belief. Faith is what you have when you don't have observable facts enough to prove a belief that you desperately want to have. ....

I have observable facts for what I believe. You have faith.


Your article focuses on faith and our origins according to evolution theory has to be taken in faith.

As far as discussing ET per se, I will gladly respect your request.
2 Pages1 2