Universal salvation?

[dmallind]

Poll question: Universal salvation?

It's a highly skewed sample but I am interested in how common this is among the liberal believers on DU. Nonbelievers - it would be nice and more useful if you could keep your votes in the designated slot. Thanks

My definition: all (no exceptions) humans will ultimately be reconciled to the mercy of a loving relationship with God by whatever name, free of sin or punishment, after death.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. I am an agnostic,

and therefore neither a believer nor a non-believer. I see no evidence of salvation nor condemnation, but I'm willing to be surprised.

Mark me down as, I don't know.

[dmallind]

10. Actually if you do not believe you are by definition a nonbeliever.

You may be open to other possibilities later; you may aver we can never know, but if you do not believe what else could you possibly be?

[Ozymanithrax]

38. If you neither believe nor disbelieve by definition you are agnostic.

ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/
Noun: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I neither believe nor disbelieve.

So, in general there are three states.

Believer
Agnostic
Atheist/Non-believer.

I'm not a believer.
I'm not an atheist who disbelieves
I am neither.

[darkstar3]

39. Atheists don't "disbelieve". This common misconception is based on poor definitions.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with believe. I am an agnostic atheist, and so are you.

[Ozymanithrax]

41. Please read the definition. I'm not an Atheist.

I am an agnostic, neither believing nor disbelieving.

[laconicsax]

44. You don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.

Maybe think about it this way--agnosticism and atheism are negative answers to different questions:

Do you believe in a god? Yes or no.
Do you believe that it's possible to know that there's a god? Yes or no.

If you answer "no" to the first question, you're an atheist. Answering "no" to the second question makes you agnostic (answering "yes" makes you gnostic). One can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, but "agnostic" isn't an answer to "do you believe in a god" anymore than atheist is an answer to "do you believe that it's possible to know that there's a god?"

[Ozymanithrax]

51. Very good explanation...

You are correct, saying I do not know and I can not know if there is a god or salvation or an afterlife is not the same things as saying I don't believe there is a God/salvation/afterlife.

[darkstar3]

52. LOL. U MAD?

[dmallind]

40. Incorrect - from your own definition!

Believes nothing can be KNOWN. ****KNOWN***. That is a discussion of epistemology not ontology.

What on earh does "disbelieve" mean? Why not look that one up? You'll see it means just not believing!

If you don't have an active belief that a god exists you are a nonbeliever in that god.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. Actually, the definition comes from a dictionary. Take it up with them.

I neither believe nor disbelieve. It is impossible to know, because I am not omniscient. I can say that I see no evidence of God out my window, only natural phenomena. However, on the opposite side of the Universe, there may be god's galore. I will not state that some deity doesn't exist somewhere that I cannot see, touch, experience, sense, or measure.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in salvation or an afterlife, because I see no natural evidence of either. Lack of evidence isn't proof of lack of existence.

I am an agnostic.

Not knowing whether a god exists isn't the same thing as not believing.

Knowing is knowledge, of which I have none concerning the evidence of a diety.
To believe is to accept something as true or real.
To disbelieve is to refuse to believe in, reject, or to accept that someting is false and unreal.

I neither believe in the existance of god nor accept that the god does not exist. I don't know and am not willing to accept either side of that coin.

And I'm OK with that.

[dmallind]

43. OK let's try this one step at a time. Nonbeliever first.

1) Do you have any belief in the existence of any gods or "salvation" in the afterlife? You said no

2) Do you understand the meaning of the word "lack"? I assume yes.

3) Assuming the above it can be said you lack belief, agreed?

4) (dictionary.com unedited cut and paste)

non·be·liev·er   /ˌnɒnbɪˈlivər/ Show Spelled
Show IPA

–noun
a person who lacks belief or faith, as in god, a religion, an idea, or an undertaking.


So - you objected to being called a nonbeliever. If you don't have that belief you should not have.

[dmallind]

45. and now this strange version of disbelieve you have

Disbelief has absolutely no connotation of believing the opposite: dictionary again


dis·be·lieve   /ˌdɪsbɪˈliv/ Show Spelled
Show IPA
verb, -lieved, -liev·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.


Notice that the first citation is simply "to have no belief in". With me so far? Nothing there at all about believing the negative or opposite just not have any belief

[Ozymanithrax]

50. And as an agnostic, I do not disbeleive.

I simply don't know, short of becoming omniscient, I can not know.

[dmallind]

58. Omniscience concerns knowledge. Belief is a binary condition

It's right there in the dictionary - to disbelieve means to lack belief. If you do not have something you lack it. There is no third option. Believe or disbelieve - knowing is no part of either word,

[Ozymanithrax]

67. The definition of agnostic is right there in the dictionary...

ag·nos·tic   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled
Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

I don't disbelieve in God because i do not think it is possible to know that God doesn't exist.
I don't believe in God because i do not think it is possible to know that God does exist.

It is unknowable, and therefore, I do not disbelieve.

I know lots of Christians who have tried to force their world view on me. Now, it seems I know atheists who try to force their world view on me. I'm not seeing a big difference between the two sides, other than the prefix "dis" since both sides have selective understanding of words and insist others accept limited understanding as gospel or un-gospel.

I have no problem with people being atheists and stating that they do not believe in God. That is their world view.
I have no problem with people being Christians and stating that they believe in God. is their world view.

I am an agnostic, neither believing nor disbelieving, because in my world view there is insufficient evindence for either stand, and being a finite individual there is no way such evicence could ever be found.

[dmallind]

70. Where does that definition contain the word "believe"?

Believe and know are not synonyms. Why do you think they are?

[dmallind]

46. and finally the a word everyone runs away from...

again unedited dictionary. com citation...

a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled
Show IPA

–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


So we know that disbelieve simply means to have no belief right - no mention of averring the negative as you claimed? And we can see atheists disbelieve the existence of gods

So....... How again are you not one?


You are not a strong atheist (explicit atheist) it's true. Neither am I. I lack the universal knowledge needed to say no gods exist anywhere. But we are both, like almost all atheists, weak or implicit atheists who simply lack belief/disbelieve/are nonbelievers.

Why are you not "ok with that"?

We know what agnostic means - we can read the writings of the gy who invented the term in 1869 millennia after the term "atheist" began. As is obvious from gnosis, the concern here is dismissing mystically revealed universal metaphysical certainty - IOW we can't know about metaphysical claims.

I am 100% agnostic and 100% atheist. There is no contradiction there.

[Ozymanithrax]

54. Actually, I am an agnostic.

I do not lack belief or disbelieve, and am not a nonbeliever. I do not see any proof of deity but I also see no proof that a diety doesn't exist. I do not see anyway that with my limited senses that I can prove or disprove. It is something that is for me unknowable. Show me proof one way or another, and I will accept belief or disbelief. Without that, I remain an agnostic.

[dmallind]

57. Run away from it all you like. Choose your own label, even a wrong one

But it won;t change the basic fact that atheists are those who do not possess any beliefs in gods.

Some fat people call themselves husky or big boned. They're still fat. I am fat.

Some pasty people call themselves fair-skinned or milk-skinned. They're still pasty. I am pasty.

Some atheists call themselves agnostics or not-religious. They're still atheists. I am an atheist. So, unless you are lying about your beliefs, are you.

[Ozymanithrax]

66. You can ignore real words, English, and history make up your own definitions...

That is called making shit up. Since you have no valid facts to back pu your claim, it is faith base. Since it is faith based, you must be a faith based atheist.

[dmallind]

71. This from someone who thinks believe = know? What chutzpah!

From thesaurus.com

Main Entry: believe
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: trust, rely on
Synonyms: accept, accredit, admit, affirm, attach weight to, be convinced of, be credulous, be of the opinion, buy*, conceive, conclude, consider, count on, credit, deem, fall for, give credence to, have, have faith in, have no doubt, hold, keep the faith, lap up, place confidence in, posit, postulate, presume true, presuppose, reckon on, regard, rest assured, suppose, swallow*, swear by, take as gospel, take at one's word, take for granted, take it, think, trust, understand


Main Entry: know
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: understand information
Synonyms: apperceive, appreciate, apprehend, be acquainted, be cognizant, be conversant in, be informed, be learned, be master of, be read, be schooled, be versed, cognize, comprehend, differentiate, discern, discriminate, distinguish, experience, fathom, feel certain, get the idea, grasp, have, have down pat, have information, have knowledge of, keep up on, ken, learn, notice, on top of, perceive, prize, realize, recognize, see, undergo



Is there ANYONE else who can't see the difference?

[Ozymanithrax]

48. OK, lest get this straight. Agnostic = Don't know.

I do not lack belief. I do not have belief. I don't know, and since I am not omniscient (which is all knowing) I can never know.

from dictionary.com

ag·nos·tic   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled
Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

I understand, that some poeple like to think only two states are possible, but they are wrong.

In face, most believers I know are also part Atheists. Most claim their own God exists and do not believe int he exists of Allah or other concepts of god.

I am happy being an agnostic and not knowing.

[dmallind]

59. Do you not see the difference between "believe" and "know", honestly?

That seems to be the crux here. telling me whether you know, or even can know, something is immaterial as to whether you believe it or not.

I do not know whether my spouse is faithful to me. I believe she is, but I lack certain knowledge of all her activities when I am not present.

[Ozymanithrax]

68. I see that if I believe, I must accept something that is beyond knowing...

If I disbelieve, I must accept that something is absolutely known. I.e., I disbelieve in unobtanium (the mythical metal used to hold the plot to the movie avatar together that allowed floating mountains and violations of other natural laws). It has no place in the periodic chart of elements and is known to have been made up as a plot device.

To say I think my wife is faithful is not the same thing as saying I believe my wife is faithful. I could also say I think my wife is unfaithful, but unless I have caught her getting down and dirty, to say I disbelieve in my wife's ability to keep her legs crossed is equally without Merit by cause I base that disbelief on knowledge that I don't have.

If someone can measure out of pound of God, I will believe in some form of deity. Likewise, if someone can extend my natural senses so that I can see everywhere in the universe that there is no form of deity, I will disbelieve. Until one side or the other can manage that feat, I remain an agnostic.

[dmallind]

69. Denial again..

No - if you disbelieve you must accept bugger all. Belief has NOTHING to do with knowing. I cited a dictionary and explained it logically. You are simply not accepting what words mean.

[dmallind]

72. Ozy's perfectly valid discussion between an agnostic and an atheist must run thusly:

Ath: Do you know Joan, the old woman across the street with all the cats?

Ag: I believe her.

Ath: Believe her about what?

Ag: I was just answering your question. Go on.

Ath: Err....ok. She told me that she believes Palin is the only presidential candidate worth squat and that she'll be elected in a 450 EV landslide next year.

Ag: Well if she knows that she'll know anything, the silly fool. Of course what do you expect - she's a young earth creationist.

Ath: uhhh....Really?

Ag: Yep, she knows that all believed species on earth were created as is 6000 years ago.

Ath: Ermm.... Oh I get it. What about the dinosaurs?

Ag: Oh she knows that they only died out because they missed Noah's ark.

[GliderGuider]

2. There is nothing to be saved for, and nothing to be saved from.

We are all perfect, exactly as we are.

[peace13]

5. And the heads explode!

Your Homepage is terrific. Bookmarked so that I can indulge myself later. Thank you! Peace, Kim

[GliderGuider]

7. Thanks. You're welcome. :-) nt

[peace13]

3. More likely that...

Humans will ultimately be reconciled to the mercy of a loving relationship with their own inner light and come to accept that inner grace and love supersedes any fear of punishment upon death.

[RevStPatrick]

4. There is nothing wrong with us...

...that we need to be saved from.
The only "sin" is that we've built systems in our civilization that go against the laws of nature.
And... when you're dead, you're dead.
End of story.

[GliderGuider]

8. Is your sig line is a reference to Daniel Quinn's book?

If so, way to go. I preferred "The Story of B" even to "Ishmael". It was instrumental in my awakening to the state of the world.

[RevStPatrick]

9. Indeed!

I've been an advocate for moving "Beyond Civilization" for quite a while now....

[rug]

6. Anybody who wants it.

[dmallind]

11. How does one demonstrate wanting or not wanting, and when? nt

[rug]

16. The first step is forming a coherent understanding of what it is you want.

For instance, if you're referring to the conventional Christian notion of salvation from the effect of sin, etc., you're dealing with a lot of theological concepts including the nature of sin, redemption, divine mercy, etc. So, if you come to the convential conclusion that there is a loving God whose son died to save you from the effects of your own sin, then you acknowledge it and try to live according to that God's merciful will.

If you're a Buddhist, you seek karma.

If you're a unversalist, you learn what it is and why humans - all - are destined for salvation.

It's not really a matter of demonstrating it, it's more a mattyer of learning about it and trying to live in accord with what you've learned,.

[dmallind]

47. and if we do none of those things? nt

[rug]

55. How can you want something you don't know?

[dmallind]

60. I don't - that's the point.

I do not give my own salvation/afterlife a single passing thought, even in my situation, any more than I worry about being given a lump of coal by Santa. I am curious however as to the beliefs of others concerning what happens to those like me. Not me personally - but I'm a useful example. And not only those like me. I have been almost entirely innocuous; minor wrogdoing like speeding and thoughtlessness, minor good works like some charitable giving and volunteering on a moderate scale. I'm pretty much your boring 1-1 socccer game. Never believed in any gods. More interesting examples are the Gandhis of the world - great works (mostly) but believer in a different faith than most here. Or McVeigh and Nicholls - terrible wrongdoers but deeply committed Christians. Do they get saved? Atheists? Fake believers going through the motions? Heck even those who fail on both works and faith - the Pol Pots of the world. If universal salvation is true, Pol Pot gets it just like Albert Scweitzer, right?

[rug]

62. Then it shouldn't matter.

Especially when not all religions have the notion of salvation, universal or peculiar.

[dmallind]

63. Are things that pertain to you personally all you care about or all that interest you?

I should hope not. So why should it be that way for me?

[rug]

64. No, but if I didn't believe in salvation I wouldn't worry if it were universal or not.

If, on the other hand, you want to learn what a specific religion believes about salvation and universalism, then that's something else altogether.

[dmallind]

65. I'm not "worried" at all - but I am curious how DU believers view the topic

Why? Because as so often is true, the DU echo chamber feeds the view that it is reflective of the world. Most DU believers accept US in most or all its parts. They claim most Christians do. However surveys show a vast majority who believe in a literal hell and literal devil. What intrigues me is the disconnect and why it exists,

[Deep13]

12. What if I don't like Him?

The greatest place in the world suddenly loses its appeal as soon as one realizes the door is locked. I know you did not mention eternity, yet most people who believe in an incorporeal afterlife do claim it is for eternity. So after the first few dozen trillion (that's 1,000,000,000,000) years when the stars go out, what will our immortal souls do to fight off the boredom while the universe starts to get old? If you say, c'mon, souls who are with god don't get bored or experience time in the usual way, my response is that such a soul would not be me. I get bored and need intellectual stimulation. So whatever my soul is, it represents an end to me and the beginning of something else which is not me. Ergo, no eternal salvation.

And doesn't the question beg another question? Salvation from what?

[rug]

17. Measurements, including trillions of years, are meaningless when discussing eternity or infinity.

I doubt it's linear.

[Deep13]

25. Time is linear.

That's why we grow old and not young and why causes precede effects. Time moves in the same direction as entropy.

[rug]

26. Eternity is timeless.

That's what it's called infinity, no forward, backward, up, down or sideways.

[Deep13]

30. Eternity is an endless time.

Infinity is an endless quantity, including a quantity of time. In point of fact, both are theoretical concepts. There is not an infinte amount of anything in the universe, not even time.

What time there is, however, is certainly linear. That is unless the proponents of string theory manage to find additional time dimensions curled up on the sub atomic scale. But those newly discovered dimensions would not be what we are calling time.

Anyway, time may have no meaning to god, but it certainly means something to me.

[silverweb]

13. Part of the whole.

When we are each simply a manifestation/part of the Whole, "salvation" would seem to be rather irrelevant, eh what?

I think this illustration is best and makes the most sense: Consciousness

[dmallind]

14. All-inclusive terminology wiould require a book not a DU poll nt

[silverweb]

32. Of course.

That's why I chose the first option in the poll, even though it doesn't precisely reflect my view.

[laconicsax]

15. All praise to the Dictator!

May His Will be done!

[rug]

18. "free, and to none accountable, preferring hard liberty before the easy yoke of servile pomp."

[laconicsax]

19. Better to die free than live in eternal servitude. n/t

[rug]

20. Live Free or Die!

[laconicsax]

21. Just as God commands...oh wait....n/t

[rug]

22. Taxed Enough Already!

[laconicsax]

23. So you've taken to repeating RW slogans now? n/t

[rug]

24. Just paraphrasing.

[laconicsax]

27. I'm pretty sure that isn't what Milton meant. n/t

[Deep13]

28. Not sure what you are getting at...

...but an eternity with god and everyone else with no choice in the matter must be the most extreme case of imprisonment imaginable, however benevolent it is intended. Ordinary life requires a balance of liberty and other practical considerations. I would much rather drive without speed limits. Nevertheless, I also prefer not to get killed either by my own driving or the recklessness of others. Likewise, others probably don't want me running them over. But what practical considerations could there possibly be after we are dead that would require such a condition. Sure, desire for freedom and fear of subjugation are purely human considerations caused by our primate animal instincts. The think is, though, I am a primate animal. How ever much my soul may love to spend eternity with god and all the other souls, that soul isn't me.

[rug]

29. Contrast the notion of eternity with the notion of sempiternity.

[Deep13]

31. I see.

Eternal exists outside of time while sempiternal exists within it. Except one definition I read defined sempiternal as existing eternally.

Anyway, I submit that something existing out side of time does not really exist because it is an instant object with no duration. Similarly, something without one of the three spacial dimensions also cannot really exist. An object cannot have zero length and still be real.

Again, god may exist outside of time and souls might too, but a person does not. Altering a person's conciousness to such a degree that time no longer matters means effectively that the person has ended and a new entity, the soul, the nous, whatever you want to call it, begins. That means no eternal salvation for the person.

[roguevalley]

33. for me its simple. We are spiritual beings having a physical existence

The source of all existence is pure love. There is no stronger force in the universe. We are here to learn something for ourselves and when we go, we go back to where we came from. There are many different notions about God and eternity but it would be illogical to believe that some can go back to the source and others can't. We all do.

Our ego is the biggest obstacle we have to understanding the world, life and each other. The ego protects our illusions and delusions and separates each of us from the other.

I had a near death experience and I went from here to a beautiful place that was a street in the town where I lived. It is hard to tell you how beautiful the sun was, how green the grass. I was utterly safe. My mother told me I had to go back and I did in the blink of an eye. There was no pain, no fear, death didn't hurt and I wasn't lost. I was surrounded in love.

Every nurse and doctor I meet I ask them if when a person faints or passes out do they have a dream or vision? To the last person they said no. I didn't see a tunnel and I didn't meet a famous religious figure. A lot of NDE's don't. But I met my angel mother and she was young and beautiful and well.

I know there is more to this illusion of life than the moment. I know that God is perfect love and acceptance. I know that we have been separated and are separated from God's love/the Source's love/the diety's love by ego and the world illusion we live in. I am not afraid to die. I am only afraid that I will die before what I feel I have to do here is over.

When my mother and father died I held their hands. I remember thinking at the time that I had done it a hundred times before. It was as familiar a feeling and act to me as putting on shoes. I know life is wondrous and I tell you from me that death is not a fearful thing and it hasn't pain with it.

I know that I look at the world differently and try to be patient to everyone I see (and I fail I know but I keep trying) because everyone you see is a perfect, powerful and wondrous being having a physical experience here too.

That is what I know.

[laconicsax]

34. The source of all existence is pure love?

Why would "pure love" result in a universe that is inhospitable to life, and when life does take hold, it has to hold on just to scrape by?

Wouldn't "pure love" result in a universe that's largely hospitable to life, or at least doesn't have the forces of nature acting against it?

Why would "pure love" result in a world where millions can be killed by floods, disease, and starvation?

Wouldn't "pure love" result in a world with safeguards against those things?

Why would pure love result in a world that's full of suffering?

[roguevalley]

35. the universe is always creating. Its inhospitable to us but not to other

things out there that we can only guess at. Most of the suffering of this world is the direct result of what we choose to do ourselves. The earth is in agony now and showing it in tornados and the like. We choose our paths. If we chose better the world and all its people would be better off. We don't choose love. We choose greed, hate, and all the rest. The world reflects our free will choices. We could choose love and peace and sharing and caring but we don't. It isn't God or anyone else to blame but us. We could have love but we choose otherwise because our egos prevent us from caring about each other better.

Everyone talks about peace and love and having a better life. But they don't make the choices to have this be the way we live. We all WANT it but we don't WORK for it. Sad really.

There are children dying because of what we choose. Free will and ego. Sad. Love trumps everything else. When someone risks themselves for others and does something good, the power of it is tremendous. People exclaim over it and wonder if they could do the same. They could. They should. But many don't. When we see bad -anthony and the rest- we are never surprised. Would that it was the other way around but we have to want it more.

[laconicsax]

36. What you are claiming is factually incorrect.

When I say that the universe is inhospitable to life, I don't just mean our brand of carbon-based, oxygen-breathing, water-drinking life. I mean any form of life. The vast majority of the universe is made of what's known as the interstellar medium, the majority of which has a density of about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. To put that in context, an Olympic swimming pool filled with interstellar medium will have about 2.5 billion hydrogen atoms.

That may sound like a lot, but the same swimming pool filled with water will have 1.5 x 10³³ molecules of water (3x10³³hydrogen atoms) or about 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as many hydrogen atoms as the same volume of interstellar medium. That's 1.2 trillion trillion times more. The area between star systems is empty. The area within star systems is also very empty. While stars and planets are fun, most of a star system is space between objects.

Even in areas where there's enough stuff to make something, the parts that could sustain anything are a small proportion to the rest. Most of the volume of the Earth (and other rocky planets) is too hot and molten for life and gas giants don't have enough non-hydrogen and helium parts to make anything.

The universe is inhospitable to life simply because almost all of it is too empty for anything more than atoms, simple molecules or dust to float around in isolation and the rest isn't conducive to the formation complex chemicals or structures.

Now for the rest:

Human actions don't cause tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, droughts, or any other natural disaster. To claim otherwise is nonsense. Life is nasty, brutish, and short. Just because we in the first world live in comfort and plenty doesn't mean that some Internet-assembled philosophy has any relevance to reality.

[dimbear]

37. Did you ever wonder how Superman manages to fly and hover?

It's totally against the laws of physics. That's a clue that Superman is fictional. Your brain has, what, a terabyte of data in it? To just what is that going to be downloaded?

[fmiddel]

53. Maybe heaven is a wireless hard drive

Before my recent doubts about religion, I might have answered this by saying "Heaven" as in, heaven being a wireless hard drive. After all, we have that wireless technology now, so if there was really a God I'm sure He would too. It is difficult if not impossible to come to any conclusion whatsoever purely through logic and reason. I'll just have to wait until I die to find out.

[fmiddel]

49. I’m a somewhat atheistic,

somewhat libertarian, slowly recovering Pentecostal, so would probably vote ‘Believer who does not accept the idea of salvation/judgement’ but I’m still considering. I was fairly sure that God existed until recently, when I had an argument in my church with a pastor there. He was a little too fire and brimstone for me, and I began to wonder if I was just kidding myself.

[laconicsax]

56. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Silent3]

61. You left out the option of salvation by one and only one "true" faith

Hopefully not too many DUers buy into that crap, but it's not an uncommon view of salvation in the world at large.

The option "Believer who believes in salvation dependent on faith alone (regardless of which faith)" could, I suppose, be taken to mean what I'm suggesting, but there are people who think faith is somehow important without it mattering what it is that a person has faith in (that's not terribly uncommon in liberal circles). The given option sounds to me more like that "have faith, but any faith will do" school of thought.