Why reason is better than faith

[blueback]

Faith: belief without evidence or logical support (without any, none, nada)
Belief: conviction that a conclusion is true
Reason: to think in a logical manner, to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts

The basic difference between the two ideas is that one starts from what is known and arrives at a conclusion, the other skips the first step entirely and jumps straight to the conclusion.

I would like to point out, before anyone says this, that a "leap of faith" is not faith. It is when you make a logical inference based on a set of facts that aren't enough to reach the conclusion on their own. Also, the many other uses of the word faith can easily be covered by words other than faith. Trust, religion, etc. If the sentence you use faith in can work just as well if you use a word like 'trust' then don't bother.

Okay, my reasoning goes like this:
People can only have faith in things they have been told about, but they can reason to things that no one has ever experienced before, making reason better than faith.

At some point someone had to invent the concepts that people accept on faith. Whether they made them up on their own, worked in a team, or were inspired by God doesn't matter. The idea made sense to them at the time, either they experienced something or it was logical. When God talks to you it must seem pretty logical to believe in God.

People cannot choose to have faith in something that makes sense. If it makes sense then they have emperical or logical support for it, which makes it not faith. This means that the person who invents a new idea cannot have faith in it. Only a person who is told about an idea can have faith in it. So, when certain people claim that faith is good in-and-of-itself, they are trying to limit human knowledge to just what we know right now.

On the other hand, reason can lead us to new ideas. We can take one thing we understand, and another thing we understand, and combine them to see if the outcome makes sense. When it does, we have invented a new thing to understand. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This means that reason is like the surface tension of water in a straw, drawing us forward. We can generate new ideas with reason.

[HackerX]

I would argue that all you have is "faith" in reason, which leaves you no better off than where you started.

I'm going to avoid debating about your definition of "faith". I don't agree with it, but I'm sure you might have an idea of where I might argue by now.

I'd rather just say; I think this now, but tomorrow I might think that. Beyond that, I'll take what comes with an open mind.

[Fanowene]

Reason has to start somewhere... (as in you have to put faith at least in some basics before you can start to use reason)

[blueback]

I would argue that all you have is "faith" in reason, which leaves you no better off than where you started.



you have to put faith at least in some basics before you can start to use reason


Again, if you can say I have "confidence" in reason or I put "trust" in some basics why not just use the words confidence and trust? Why stretch the word faith?

[Fanowene]

Again, if you can say I have "confidence" in reason or I put "trust" in some basics why not just use the words confidence and trust? Why stretch the word faith?
What's the difference?

[Tocsin]

The issue of this thread reminds me very much of Jonathan Miller's discussion of "what belief is" with English philosopher Colin McGinn (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in the first episode of "A Brief History of Disbelief," which some here (if you have a high speed connection) might find interesting in considering the differences between belief, faith, knowledge, and reason.

[Alexander]

I would argue that all you have is "faith" in reason, which leaves you no better off than where you started.

Really? "Faith" in reason is the same as just faith? Just because you can attach a word to a sentence and it's grammatically correct doesn't mean it belongs there.

Faith is like hope, you're not quite sure if it's right or not, but you're remaining optimistic.

Reason is actively taking a look at facts and comparing and linking. You don't need faith to know that 1+1=2. You only need to take two apples, one in each hand, and bring them together. If someone needs faith in reason, we don't call them faithful, we call them autistic.

The whole movement that occurred 10,000 years ago to elevate faith to be on par with reason is just stupid, and it really just needs to stop.

[HackerX]

*sigh* Here we go again.

I'm going to concede and say where I've put "Faith", from your perspective, you should be interpreting that as "Belief" with a context towards theology.

Hence the comment to avoid the discussion debating the definition of faith. That's been done to death.

You concept of reason implies a number of things. Rules if you like. "Implies" implies non absolute. Reason falls apart as soon as you attempt to apply absolutes to what is "reasonable".

[Ligda]

Reason, actually, is based on your perceptions and cognitive thinking (so is belief and faith, but that's beside the point).

How do you know, I mean really know, that your perceptions and cognition are truly accurate about the world around you? How can you tell me that you perceive and know the exact same blue sky as me? That your perceptions of water sensation, of thought, of anything, are the same as everyone else's?

You can't.

You take it on faith that your objective world is the same as everyone else's. Everything is inferential. It's probably true that you and I perceive in the same way, but there's no way to be absolutely certain.

[Alexander]

I'm going to concede and say where I've put "Faith", from your perspective, you should be interpreting that as "Belief" with a context towards theology.

Hence the comment to avoid the discussion debating the definition of faith. That's been done to death.

I'm not all that interested in debating the word faith. To me it's a word without any real power. Reason, on the other hand, I would like to have its integrity maintained.

You concept of reason implies a number of things. Rules if you like. "Implies" implies non absolute. Reason falls apart as soon as you attempt to apply absolutes to what is "reasonable".

I'm not getting at what you're trying to say here.

Reason, actually, is based on your perceptions and cognitive thinking (so is belief and faith, but that's beside the point).

How do you know, I mean really know, that your perceptions and cognition are truly accurate about the world around you? How can you tell me that you perceive and know the exact same blue sky as me? That your perceptions of water sensation, of thought, of anything, are the same as everyone else's?

You can't.

You take it on faith that your objective world is the same as everyone else's. Everything is inferential. It's probably true that you and I perceive in the same way, but there's no way to be absolutely certain.

Very true, but these are faults of the observer, not faults of reason itself.

To make "faith" and "reason" synonymous accomplishes nothing other than to give the religious crowd a way to believe "well, these people who reason, aren't really much better off." To call faith "reason" destorys all debate and inquiry, because everybody just says "well okay, you may be right and I might be" and they all just go home.

[Fanowene]

Reason is actively taking a look at facts and comparing and linking. You don't need faith to know that 1+1=2. You only need to take two apples, one in each hand, and bring them together.
That depends on which number system you are operating in...

To make "faith" and "reason" synonymous accomplishes nothing other than to give the religious crowd a way to believe "well, these people who reason, aren't really much better off." To call faith "reason" destorys all debate and inquiry, because everybody just says "well okay, you may be right and I might be" and they all just go home.
I'm not saying they're synonymous. I'm just saying that reason starts with faith somewhere. And where reason stops faith can continue...

[HackerX]

That depends on which number system you are operating in...


Hmm, that's mere technicality. No, I'm saying it depends on whether the apples actually even exist, or what you (truely) mean by the nature of existence.

Ligda has the right idea (or at least one path of it).

[Fanowene]

Hmm, that's mere technicality. No, I'm saying it depends on whether the apples actually even exist, or what you (truely) mean by the nature of existence.
I was trying to make a joke, not to be particularly deep. :-)

[Antares]

We use 'reason' because it makes the most coherent sense to us; one person's 'reason' may be another's 'nonsense'. Although I have erm... confidence (i.e. conclusion through my own reasoning) that logic is nonnegotiable with all available information, logic (or reason. Whatever you would like to call it) may or may not be the best thing for us. For example, I have an extremely difficult piano exam coming up in November. My confidence severely influences my performance (this I know from experience). There's no backing out of this examination and obviously I hope to pass. Even thoguh realistically, I have a very good chance of failing, but if I start taking that seriously (in other words, being realistic), then my chance of passing is even slimmer. I think a little faith there is better than reason. After all, I believe, without evidence, that I will pass. If confidence is the only issue I'm facing (which it pretty much is), then telling myself that I will pass is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy. So yes, I would agree that reason is preferable in most situations, but some harmless faith is beneficial.

[blueback]

How do you know, I mean really know, that your perceptions and cognition are truly accurate about the world around you?

That doesn't matter. I didn't say that reason was synonymous with objectivity, just that it was taking one thing you understand, combining it with another thing you understand, and trying to generate a third thing to understand. It is totally possible to use reason and get to a bad (objectively) conclusion.

That is why there are so many old theories. People tried really hard to explain everything but got it wrong. That means they used reason. That's good enough. Just because we can't see into the X-ray range doesn't mean we can't use reason to analyze X-rays.

We use 'reason' because it makes the most coherent sense to us; one person's 'reason' may be another's 'nonsense'.

Absolutely. Reason is a process, not an outcome.

1) My confidence severely influences my performance
2) There's no backing out of this examination
3) I hope to pass
4) I have a very good chance of failing
5) if I start taking that seriously then my chance of passing is even slimmer.
6)I believe, without evidence, that I will pass.
7) If confidence is the only issue I'm facing then telling myself that I will pass is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Actually, that sounds very reasonable. You used evidence and logic to reach a conclusion. What were you saying about faith (the lack of evidence and logic) again?

[Queen Mum]

Faith: belief without evidence or logical support (without any, none, nada)
Belief: conviction that a conclusion is true
Reason: to think in a logical manner, to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts


Where are you getting your definition of faith? Doing a quick dictionary search, I come up with the relevant definitions (not tied to faith in something specific):

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

But none of these say the faith is entirely without evidence and logical support. Even a child's belief in the Tooth Fairy is based on evidence--the tooth vanishes and money comes in its place. It turns out that the evidence was fabricated and there was in fact another explanation, but that doesn't mean the initial faith was without *any* evidence.

I've never met anyone who believes anything without SOME support in reason, life experience, respect for more knowledgeable people--something. These sources of beliefs can all, at times, provide us with valid conclusions and at times lead us astray. But since no one can possibly observe everything and reason correctly on every point of all knowledge, these other sources of beliefs are necessary for everyone.

Faith allows us to continue to operate in areas where we do not have access to all the facts or complete development of reason. For instance, I have faith that my husband is not cheating on me today based on his past and current behavior and character--but of course I couldn't *prove* it without following him around all day myself. Some extrapolation--some faith--is necessary to function in life.

Or in a more general area, I believe in the quantum theory of physics, even though I know very little about physics and no one has ever personally observed anything at the quantum level. But what I have read about the ideas and experiments confirming its validity make some sort of sense to me, and I am willing to accept what the physicists say as the best current information on the topic. Other kinds of scientists might rely on what the physicists say without reasoning it out from scratch for themselves, and then use those ideas--on faith--to allow them to be more productive in their own research and reasoning.

If everyone had to start from scratch with reason and was allowed no use of faith whatsoever, we'd never get much past banging two rocks together, as we could never build on what other people had already done, or leap out into areas past the current state of progress. (Often a new scientific idea has no proof, but people working under the assumption it is true later find the necessary evidence; e.g. the heliocentric model of the solar system) Thus faith and reason must work together to make progress in human knowledge.

[Antares]

What were you saying about faith (the lack of evidence and logic) again?

Erm... I reached the the conclusion using reason that I should have faith?

[TheLastMohican]

Faith: belief without evidence or logical support (without any, none, nada)


I would argue that using this definition, true faith does not exist. Even when a person accepts something without objective evidence, doesn't that person see the supposed credibility of the source (usually a persuasive person) as logical support?

[dogwoodlover]

To get back to the topic, the conclusion is that reason is "better" than faith.

This, obviously, contains a very relevant value assumption. The assumption is that the creation of new ideas that help us to understand the natural world is GOOD, or desirable, and that faith is not capable of this.

I would agree with the OP's value assumption BUT I would modify the conclusion slighty: "reason is 'better' than faith in confronting nature."

[Tocsin]

I would slightly modify the latest modification...

Reason is 'better' than faith in confronting reality.

[enWTFp]

On the other hand, reason can lead us to new ideas. We can take one thing we understand, and another thing we understand, and combine them to see if the outcome makes sense. When it does, we have invented a new thing to understand. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This means that reason is like the surface tension of water in a straw, drawing us forward. We can generate new ideas with reason. Combining is not the only, and not the most powerful method for creativity.

There exist abstract concepts, especially in pure mathematics, that are useful for our reality, and yet we might have never seen them, or not early enough, if we only used the step-by-step rational reasoning.

The ability to foresee something deep and different, before you are actually able to walk the path to it, is what truly defines humanity, and puts it higher than any machine we are able to invent for now. Some call it divine, and others call the process irrational, but this has led to our greatest achievements of thought, in entire history.

[blueback]

Doing a quick dictionary search, I come up with the relevant definitions (not tied to faith in something specific):

I covered that in the OP. The faith is considered "good" in western society because it is predominantely mone-theistic and the big-3 religions say that faith is good. People have therefore tried to associate a lot of related ideas with the "good" connotation of faith to elevate them. I say just use those other ideas and let the word faith mean what no other word means.

Also, the many other uses of the word faith can easily be covered by words other than faith. Trust, religion, etc. If the sentence you use faith in can work just as well if you use a word like 'trust' then don't bother.


2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

But none of these say the faith is entirely without evidence and logical support.

Right there in the 2nd definition you cited, which is remarkably similar to the one I use. It doesn't say "is barely" or "is sort of" or "is partially" based on proof, it says it's not.

I've never met anyone who believes anything without SOME support in reason, life experience, respect for more knowledgeable people--something.

Yes. It is hard to find people who actually claim to hold conclusions that are completely free of support. Usually, the only area thes conclusions are held in without rendering the person insane are religious. It is generally considered better to believe in God without any evidence or logical reason to do so because that is all God wants. God, apparently, is specifically vague about his own existence because he wants you to have faith.

I consider it a testament to the usefulness of reason that people can barely abandon it even when they are trying to abandon it. However, if it's so useful, why is faith considered better? Well, my opinion on that is that religious leaders find it a lot easier to manipulate people when they stop thinking critically.

Faith allows us to continue to operate in areas where we do not have access to all the facts or complete development of reason.

No, trust and logic allow us to do that. You don't have faith that professional scientists aren't jerking you around, it is simply logical that they are trying to earn a living by doing useful science. You don't have faith that your teenage daughter is going to be home on time, you trust that she will be.

I would argue that using this definition, true faith does not exist. Even when a person accepts something without objective evidence, doesn't that person see the supposed credibility of the source (usually a persuasive person) as logical support?

That is a very good point.
I solve that conundrum by assuming that people who are trying to communicate mean what they say. If someone claims to beleive in God with absolutely not evidence or logical reason why, then that person has faith. If they never offer any support of their position, but instead simply keep repeating that God exists (or doesn't exist) then they probably do have faith.

Besides, the point is more about which we should be aspiring towards. Telling people that it's inherently good to stop thinking is, in my opinion, bad. Telling people that it's inherently good to continue thinking is, in my opinion, good.

I would agree with the OP's value assumption BUT I would modify the conclusion slighty: "reason is 'better' than faith in confronting nature."

Okay, that is a legitimate distinction. I am curious, however, what you are distinguishing nature from. We can measure nature because it affects us; what matters that we can't measure?

There exist abstract concepts, especially in pure mathematics, that are useful for our reality, and yet we might have never seen them, or not early enough, if we only used the step-by-step rational reasoning.

Like the value zero, or the concept of a tangent line? Those are the two that pring to mind based on what you described but both of those make logical sense when compared to things that we can see and touch.

The ability to foresee something deep and different, before you are actually able to walk the path to it, is what truly defines humanity, and puts it higher than any machine we are able to invent for now. Some call it divine, and others call the process irrational, but this has led to our greatest achievements of thought, in entire history.

Like what? I'm curious what greatest achievements people have made without evidence and logic.

[TheLastMohican]

If they never offer any support of their position, but instead simply keep repeating that God exists (or doesn't exist) then they probably do have faith.

I think many people are just intelligent enough to know that taking another person's word for it is not usually seen as sufficient reason for belief (regarding controversial and important issues, that is). Consequently, they might retain their "logical support" of that person's supposed credibility, but be wary of presenting it as the real reason. I doubt that there could exist true faith at the deepest level; what the person says, or refuses to say, is probably often a cover for a known fallacy.

That is only referring to faith in the premise, however. It occurred to me that a person still might have true blind faith in the credibility itself. At some point that kind of "logical support" can have no further layers of support, so many do rely on faith at the most basic levels of interpersonal communication. This could be called the "faith of a child," since it is certainly observed in children as an evolutionary instinct that quickly outlives its usefulness within a lifetime.

Besides, the point is more about which we should be aspiring towards. Telling people that it's inherently good to stop thinking is, in my opinion, bad. Telling people that it's inherently good to continue thinking is, in my opinion, good.


I agree with the former, but the latter could vary from situation to situation. Sometimes our emotions serve the very important purpose of compelling us to stop thinking and start making decisions. They also help us to prioritize. This is basically the same as the "leap of faith" you mentioned earlier.

[Monte314]

Reason cannot be devoid of faith, nor is faith necesarily unreasonable. This is a false dilemma.

[blueback]

Not if you use the words the way I defined. If you disagree with the definitions in the OP then present your own.

[Monte314]

Not if you use the words the way I defined. If you disagree with the definitions in the OP then present your own.

Sorry, I didn't notice the flawed definitions in the OP. I now see that this thread isn't about faith at all, but some easily attacked straw-man. Never mind.

[blueback]

So. . .your disagreement is specifically. . .what?

[Monte314]

So. . .your disagreement is specifically. . .what?

I've already stated my disagreement.

[blueback]

Reason cannot be devoid of faith, nor is faith necesarily unreasonable. This is a false dilemma.

Sorry, I didn't notice the flawed definitions in the OP. I now see that this thread isn't about faith at all, but some easily attacked straw-man. Never mind.

I've already stated my disagreement.
This is all you've stated.

The only thing you've said that comes close to a definition of the words reason and faith is the first post when you declared that there must be a certain relationship between them. That's like saying that you're thinking of two numbers, one of them is 138 bigger than the other, guess what they are.

My definition states that the only relationship between them is that they are mutually exclusive. Either your conclusion is based on evidence/logic (reason) or it isn't (faith). So, all you've said so far is that your definition of them is NOT mine, but you haven't said what yours is.

[Krazy P]

"Reason without emotion has no direction" - J.J. Rousseau (my own translation)

[blueback]

True. Reason is a tool that we use to acheive our emotional goals.

Faith still sucks. (as I define it)

[HackerX]

I kinda agree with Monte on the specific point that it's really a false dilemma.

[metamagnet]

This is all you've stated.

The only thing you've said that comes close to a definition of the words reason and faith is the first post when you declared that there must be a certain relationship between them. That's like saying that you're thinking of two numbers, one of them is 138 bigger than the other, guess what they are.

My definition states that the only relationship between them is that they are mutually exclusive. Either your conclusion is based on evidence/logic (reason) or it isn't (faith). So, all you've said so far is that your definition of them is NOT mine, but you haven't said what yours is.

Monte made his stance clear. The fact that he does not see the need to expand upon it should tell you A) he is not interested enough in the subject to continue discussing it as he made his point clear or B) the very foundation of your argument is wrong.

Yes, everyone can agree that under your definitions of logic, reason, and faith - they are exclusive. But under what authority are your definitions correct? Frankly, your definitions are - to put it lightly - oversimplified. And a quick Wikipedia search on the respective subjects reveals that immediately. Logically, I think such deep ideas should be thoroughly researched before putting faith in 10 word definitions that you have slapped onto them.

[blueback]

...it's really a false dilemma.

Because. . .

The fact that he does not see the need to expand upon it should tell you A) he is not interested enough in the subject to continue discussing it as he made his point clear or B) the very foundation of your argument is wrong.

Or C) he doesn't know why I'm wrong, he just feels it.

Are you really trying to claim, as a couple people before you have, that I'm wrong. . .but you're not sure why?

But under what authority are your definitions correct?

I think they stand on their own; I'm just trying to help everyone become aware of that fact.

The definition I list is in every dictionary.

Frankly, your definitions are - to put it lightly - oversimplified. And a quick Wikipedia search on the respective subjects reveals that immediately. Logically, I think such deep ideas should be thoroughly researched before putting faith in 10 word definitions that you have slapped onto them.

Ah, yes. Wikipedia is obviously a thoroughly researched authority.

I already explained that the word faith is spread around far more than it should be. The many definitions that are different from the one I use, which is one of the definitions by the way, can be easily covered by other words. The word faith is used as a synonym for a lot of words, and shouldn't be; they just confuse the one definition that isn't synonymous with any other words. Why do you guys keep ignoring that point?

Also, I have thought about this topic for quite a while, which is why I am so confident I'm right. The odd fact that a few people keep telling me I'm wrong, but they can't really say why, doesn't deter me.

[dogwoodlover]

I would slightly modify the latest modification...

Reason is 'better' than faith in confronting reality.

No need to make a perfectly fine statement ambiguous.

Okay, that is a legitimate distinction. I am curious, however, what you are distinguishing nature from. We can measure nature because it affects us; what matters that we can't measure?

Simply that which is not considered part of "the natural world" as we know it; if something such as this does "exist," it would obviously not be governed by natural laws.

[metamagnet]

Because. . .

Ah, yes. Wikipedia is obviously a thoroughly researched authority.

I already explained that the word faith is spread around far more than it should be. The many definitions that are different from the one I use, which is one of the definitions by the way, can be easily covered by other words. The word faith is used as a synonym for a lot of words, and shouldn't be; they just confuse the one definition that isn't synonymous with any other words. Why do you guys keep ignoring that point?

Also, I have thought about this topic for quite a while, which is why I am so confident I'm right. The odd fact that a few people keep telling me I'm wrong, but they can't really say why, doesn't deter me.

Ok, out of curiousity, what is faith being used synonymous with? I don't doubt you but I'd be curious as to what you've observed.

Wikipedia was given as an example as to a definition that would disagree with you. Furthermore, your comment suggests you don't trust Wikipedia. I assume you think of yourself as a more credible source on the issue? Feel free to check Wikipedia's bibliography on each subject. You may have *thought* a lot about this issue, but it seems apparent you have yet to actually *research* it.
It is not my responsibility to educate you. I disagree with you. Monte and others disagree with you. You may choose to do some actual research and figure out why, or not. Either way to choice is up to you and is none of my concern. However, I will give you a starting point: the subjects in question are not exclusive to each other. Start there.

[blueback]

Granted, if something is outside nature it could be just about anything, or nothing, or whatever.

If something has any effect whatsoever on the natural world then we should be able to measure it, correct? Given that, are you saying that something outside the natural world might have an effect on the natural world which remains unnatural in that we can't measure it? If so, then I can see why it would matter. If not, the distinction seems to be between things that matter and things that don't.

[HackerX]

However, I will give you a starting point: the subjects in question are not exclusive to each other. Start there.

And that covers the false dilemma part.

[blueback]

Ok, out of curiousity, what is faith being used synonymous with?

This is my post from this thread: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The word faith is generally applied to situations in which other words would do just as well, so I like to limit it to just the second definition. 1) is just trust, 3) is theism, 4) is morality, 5) is religion, 6) promise, 7) truthfulness, 8) is christianity.

Because the judeo-christian religions assert that faith is good in and of itself, and that dogma is accepted faithfully, people expand the word faith to mean "good." So naturally they want to associate other things with it because it elevates those things.

Faith is nothing more than belief without evidence or logical support. "Without" means none. It doesn't mean with only a little, it means with none whatsoever. So, for example, belief that God exists usually isn't faith. The vast majority of people who believe that God exists also believe that they have evidence and logical support for the existence of God, which makes their conclusion not faithful. Very few people are willing to say that they are sure God exists, and that they have absolutely no reason to think so.

Faith is not the difference between evidence and a conclusion. That difference is logic. We use logic to infer from evidence to a conclusion we don't take a "leap of faith."

Wikipedia was given as an example as to a definition that would disagree with you. Furthermore, your comment suggests you don't trust Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. It can be a good place to get a rough overview of a topic, or to learn about well defined topics like the pythagorean theorem, but it is not vetted or peer reviewed. No professionals accept wikipedia as a legitimate citation, so neither do I.

I assume you think of yourself as a more credible source on the issue?

Care to define "credible source?" Or is that another thing that you're sure about, but unable to explain in any way?

You may have *thought* a lot about this issue, but it seems apparent you have yet to actually *research* it.

So. . .what you have learned from your extensive research that contradicts my definitions is. . .Come on, I'm basically giving you a Mad Lib all you have to do is fill in the blank.

I disagree with you. Monte and others disagree with you.

Because. . .

You may choose to do some actual research and figure out why, or not.

So it's some sort of secret? Do I get a decoder ring before I start or do I have to find that in the pirate's lair?

[metamagnet]

^^Ah, I see now hacker, thanks.

^Thanks for the link. Thanks for omitting "Feel free to check Wikipedia's bibliography on each subject." from your response. Did you bother to do so?

Wikipedia is a good place to get a rough overview - agreed. However, if the "rough overview" disagrees with you do you think the nuances, details, and thorough research will magically agree with you?

To clarify, do you think you are more credible than Wikipedia on this topic?

[blueback]

Thanks for omitting "Feel free to check Wikipedia's bibliography on each subject." from your response. Did you bother to do so?


No professionals accept wikipedia as a legitimate citation, so neither do I.


Wikipedia is a good place to get a rough overview - agreed. However, if the "rough overview" disagrees with you do you think the nuances, details, and thorough research will magically agree with you?

I'm not concerned with whether or not wikipedia "agrees" with me. Mostly because it is a compilation of the random musings of a bunch of amateurs, but also because I don't care whether or not most sources agree with me.

Most sources that I have read discussing this topic are, IMHO, less consistent than I am. Their inconsistency leads them to make erroneous conclusions.

For example, several people in this thread have flatly declared me to be wrong, but have not provided a reason why. This is inconsistent because they are comparing my entire argument to their conclusion. They might be right, but they have not given me a chance to agree with them, while I have given them a chance to disagree with me.

To clarify, do you think you are more credible than Wikipedia on this topic?

Care to define "credible source?" Or is that another thing that you're sure about, but unable to explain in any way?

I have provided a clear definition of the terms I'm using, a logical progression of ideas, and a clearly stated conclusion. You have only provided a conclusion. At least do me the courtesy of providing a definition of your own so that I can work out the middle part for myself.

[metamagnet]

Once again, do you think you are more credible than Wikipedia on this topic?
The definition of "credible source" is not required to answer this question. If you don't want to answer, just state so.

One could argue your whole argument is a conclusion, but I'd rather not bother going there.

If you want a more comprehensive definition concerning my views on the subject, refer to Book 1 and Book 3 in "Mere Christianity" and Chapter 3 in "Jesus Among Other Gods".

[Fanowene]

My main reason for not wanting to pick your argument apart is that I A) have made up my mind about the definitions of both words and what they mean to me and B) have been down the road of this discussion way too many times to still find it worthwhile. I could understand if there were/are other people interested in going all the way, though.

[Queen Mum]

Right there in the 2nd definition you cited, which is remarkably similar to the one I use. It doesn't say "is barely" or "is sort of" or "is partially" based on proof, it says it's not.

Yes, but you said without evidence. There is a huge gap between a belief that is without evidence and one that is without proof. Evidence is what the police need to search your house for more evidence. Proof is what they need to get a conviction.


Yes. It is hard to find people who actually claim to hold conclusions that are completely free of support. Usually, the only area thes conclusions are held in without rendering the person insane are religious. It is generally considered better to believe in God without any evidence or logical reason to do so because that is all God wants. God, apparently, is specifically vague about his own existence because he wants you to have faith.

I consider it a testament to the usefulness of reason that people can barely abandon it even when they are trying to abandon it. However, if it's so useful, why is faith considered better? Well, my opinion on that is that religious leaders find it a lot easier to manipulate people when they stop thinking critically.

This is my post from this thread: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The word faith is generally applied to situations in which other words would do just as well, so I like to limit it to just the second definition. 1) is just trust, 3) is theism, 4) is morality, 5) is religion, 6) promise, 7) truthfulness, 8) is christianity.

Because the judeo-christian religions assert that faith is good in and of itself, and that dogma is accepted faithfully, people expand the word faith to mean "good." So naturally they want to associate other things with it because it elevates those things.

Faith is nothing more than belief without evidence or logical support. "Without" means none. It doesn't mean with only a little, it means with none whatsoever. So, for example, belief that God exists usually isn't faith. The vast majority of people who believe that God exists also believe that they have evidence and logical support for the existence of God, which makes their conclusion not faithful. Very few people are willing to say that they are sure God exists, and that they have absolutely no reason to think so.

Faith is not the difference between evidence and a conclusion. That difference is logic. We use logic to infer from evidence to a conclusion we don't take a "leap of faith."



OK, perhaps I am seeing where the difference is coming in. If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

1) Belief in things for which there is at least some evidence is a belief, but is not faith, because
2) faith is believing something with no evidence whatsoever, and
3) monotheistic religions teach that it is better to believe in God without any evidence because God likes it better.

The problem is with point 3; this is simply not what mainline Christianity or Judaism teach. (I'm not as familiar with Islam, but I would be quite surprised to find it true there, either. There are probably crackpots everywhere who teach all kinds of crazy things in the name of other beliefs, but I won't try to defend them.)

In fact, their scholars have written stacks upon stacks of books on the topic of how we can know God exists and what he is like, independent or supplementary to the Bible. They have written stacks upon stacks of books on evidence for the reliability of the Bible. You may not agree with the conclusions drawn, but they are not trying to insist on faith without evidence.

The distinction between general belief in God and the specifically religious faith taught by Christianity and Judaism is the move from a general belief about God to faith in God as a person. It is directly analogous to my trust in my husband or my child.

Broken down into logical steps, that kind of faith would look like this.
1) I have accepted the inductive evidence for the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as a descriptor of who he is.
2) Given the description of God in the Bible, I will rely on him to act in the way he is described in that book.
3) I will therefore live my life in the way that the Bible states will be pleasing to God.

This is obviously several steps beyond merely accepting the existence of God, but it is still based on deductions using reason from evidence. It does not fit the definition you initially gave.

[blueback]

Thank you for using an actual argument, rather than dogma.

Yes, but you said without evidence.

I don't want to get into the huge debate about what the word "proof" means. Suffice to say that most dictionary definitions use the words evidence and logic, not the word proof.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

1) Belief in things for which there is at least some evidence is a belief, but is not faith, because
2) faith is believing something with no evidence whatsoever, and
3) monotheistic religions teach that it is better to believe in God without any evidence because God likes it better.

Basically. I appreciate that you made the distinction between belief and faith. It's like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square; faith is a belief but belief is not faith.

The problem is with point 3; this is simply not what mainline Christianity or Judaism teach. (I'm not as familiar with Islam, but I would be quite surprised to find it true there, either. There are probably crackpots everywhere who teach all kinds of crazy things in the name of other beliefs, but I won't try to defend them.)

The problem with this defense is that it is an assertion that cannot be disproven. Unless, of course, you establish an acceptable scale with which to measure the distinction between "mainline" religious organizations and "crackpots." For example, just poll people and the top three organizations are declared mainline, or maybe all the ones with more than 100,000 adherents, etc.

However, then you run into the problem of trying to either create enough organizational categories for every single difference of opinion or you stuff people who don't quite agree into the same category. To do that you have to establish what is a meaningful disagreement and what is not; you also have to establish which particular set of tentents belongs to which organizational category. Is it whatever the category was founded with, or can the category change their tenets over time? If the category changes, does it need to adopt a new category name and leave the old category name with the people who didn't change their minds?

So, why not just see what the Bible has to say about it?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1 KJV
Faith is not based on anything measurable.
But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
James 1:6 NASB
Don't doubt the things that cannot be measured.
In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be put into confusion.
Psalm 71:1 KJV
Don't be confused by things that cannot be measured.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:5-6 KJV
Don't use your own understanding.
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mark 6:23 KJV
The laws of nature don't matter, only faith in the power of God.

In fact, their scholars have written stacks upon stacks of books on the topic of how we can know God exists and what he is like, independent or supplementary to the Bible. They have written stacks upon stacks of books on evidence for the reliability of the Bible. You may not agree with the conclusions drawn, but they are not trying to insist on faith without evidence.


It is hard to find people who actually claim to hold conclusions that are completely free of support...I consider it a testament to the usefulness of reason that people can barely abandon it even when they are trying to abandon it...Besides, the point is more about which we should be aspiring towards. Telling people that it's inherently good to stop thinking is, in my opinion, bad. Telling people that it's inherently good to continue thinking is, in my opinion, good.


...the move from a general belief about God to faith in God as a person. It is directly analogous to my trust in my husband or my child.

You trust the people you know well because you have a lot of emperical evidence which indicates they are worthy of trust and a lot of logic which indicates your evidence is a reliable predictor of the future. If you can say the same thing about God then you trust God, you don't have faith in him. Why use one word to confuse a half-dozen topics when you can use a half-dozen words?

Broken down into logical steps, that kind of faith would look like this.
1) I have accepted the inductive evidence for the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as a descriptor of who he is.
2) Given the description of God in the Bible, I will rely on him to act in the way he is described in that book.
3) I will therefore live my life in the way that the Bible states will be pleasing to God.

This is obviously several steps beyond merely accepting the existence of God, but it is still based on deductions using reason from evidence. It does not fit the definition you initially gave.

You are missing the distinction I drew between the one useful definition of the word faith, which describes a bad idea, and all the other things that the word faith is used to describe, which aren't necessarily bad.

When I say "faith" I mean only, and exactly, the definition I gave in the OP. When you (and others) hear the word "faith" you hear a half-dozen different concepts which are distinct from each other. You focus on the one that you personally tend to associate with the word "faith" and then you think that is what I'm talking about.

Faith: belief without evidence or logical support is the only dictionary definition of the word faith that cannot be covered by another perfectly well established word. Therefore, it is the only concept that faith should be used to describe. This is an important step to take because it helps to clarify a complicated discussion.

[Tocsin]

All this debate over "faith" made me recall the Devil's Dictionary definition.

"Faith n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

To which I might add:

Faith: The essential ingedient that a con artist requires from a prospective dupe or mark, without which the con cannot succeed.

This would apply to religion just as well as criminal deception. There are other things fools can be parted with besides just their money.

[dogwoodlover]

Granted, if something is outside nature it could be just about anything, or nothing, or whatever.

If something has any effect whatsoever on the natural world then we should be able to measure it, correct? Given that, are you saying that something outside the natural world might have an effect on the natural world which remains unnatural in that we can't measure it? If so, then I can see why it would matter. If not, the distinction seems to be between things that matter and things that don't.

Yes. For instance, if a supernatural being "existed" outside of nature, and was able to "communicate" to human beings through religious experiences, this should be measurable.

It's worth noting that "religious experiences" can in this sense be measured, in terms of its effects on the thinking and behavior of individuals.

[Queen Mum]

So, why not just see what the Bible has to say about it?


Fair enough. But a basic principle of interpreting any text is to consider the whole text, not just isolated passages. I'm going to throw in a few other passages to consider, and then do some summary of themes in the Bible as a whole.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Sensory evidence is called in to back up the existence and basic attributes of God.

Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not enough [to receive it].

People are urged to test whether God will fulfill his promises; if he will do what he has said he will do.

I Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Well, just what it says. Test things (through reason and experience) to find out whether they are true or not; if they are, stick with them.

What about the verses you raise?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1 KJV
[B]Faith is not based on anything measurable.
No, faith allows us to be confident in things that are not measurable because of who is telling us about them. If you read all of chapter 11 it is clearly referring to things either in the distant past or eternal rewards, neither of which are subject to our current sensory experience. The point is, having come to belief in God and trust in his attributes, you can then take his word for what he says about the afterlife.

But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
James 1:6 NASB
Don't doubt the things that cannot be measured.

Don't doubt the character of God--if you read the passage ahead of this, you'll see it's referring to asking God for wisdom. Obviously nobody (let alone an omniscient being) would be too pleased to have you come asking for advice if you didn't expect it to be good enough to follow.

In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be put into confusion.
Psalm 71:1 KJV
Don't be confused by things that cannot be measured.
The word "confusion" here means "shame" in the Hebrw, and that's how it's usually translated. In other words, "I've trusted in you, God, don't embarrass me by falling through." (This theme is repeated several times in the Psalms.) Clearly the Psalmist has not stopped using his head or his eyes, since he's still a little concerned that God might let him down.

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:5-6 KJV
Don't use your own understanding.

No, don't rely on your own understanding. If God is omniscient, it's quite rational to deduce that he is smarter than we are and where our ideas and his conflict, we're the ones in error.

In summary, all these verses fit in with what I was initially saying: Having come to believe that God exists and has the attributes described in the Bible, faith means a person should act in accordance with that belief and rely on God as being wiser, stronger, and better than mere mortals. Further, one should rely on what he says on matters not available to human knowledge, such as the afterlife. However, they do not speak to the initial belief in God as something that should occur without evidence.

For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mark 11:23 KJV
The laws of nature don't matter, only faith in the power of God.

This leads into the bigger themes of the Bible I wanted to address. It is inconsistent to demand empirical evidence of God's interaction and then a priori dismiss miracles. If a supernatural being did interact with the world, how would he demonstrate it to our senses other than by doing something supernatural?

And this is precisely what is shown both in the Old and New Testament. You want to know how to know I am God: Well, *boom* watch this. Consider a story from Jesus:

And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This {fellow} blasphemes." And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'?
"But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home." And he got up and went home. (Matthew 9:2-7, NASB)

Here Jesus first claims to do something only God can do--forgive sins. Seeing observers who doubt his power to do this, he says, "Fine, I'll also do something you can verify with your own eyes--I'll tell this paralyzed guy to get up and walk home, and he will do it." He is giving them empirical evidence.

As to the extent an individual believer is entitled to ask for a particular miracle, that's a complex doctrinal issue that is beyond the question of whether the Bible requires blind faith.

You are missing the distinction I drew between the one useful definition of the word faith, which describes a bad idea, and all the other things that the word faith is used to describe, which aren't necessarily bad.

When I say "faith" I mean only, and exactly, the definition I gave in the OP. When you (and others) hear the word "faith" you hear a half-dozen different concepts which are distinct from each other. You focus on the one that you personally tend to associate with the word "faith" and then you think that is what I'm talking about.

Faith: belief without evidence or logical support is the only dictionary definition of the word faith that cannot be covered by another perfectly well established word. Therefore, it is the only concept that faith should be used to describe. This is an important step to take because it helps to clarify a complicated discussion.

This is hardly the only case in the English language where words overlap in meaning. You're quite right that in a debate it is essential to clarify terms at the outset; what I am saying is that you are defining faith in a way that does not fit within the common meaning or history of the term.

Faith comes from "fides" which means trust; the word from which we get "confide" and "fidelity." It has been defined as reliance in the person and actions of God in response to his revelation of himself (which occurred through sensory evidence) for hundreds of years in the Church. (E.g. Westminster Shorter Catechism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Catholic Catechism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).) If anything, the definition that refers to a belief with a lack of proof is a corruption of this meaning, not the original one.

It might be nice if language only had one term for each meaning, but it doesn't and never will. It might be useful (though I'm not sure why, since no one will ever own up to it) if there were a term that meant only "belief without any evidence," but there isn't.

If all you are saying is that believing in something with absolutely no evidence is not a good idea, then no one could possibly disagree with you, but why bother to argue a point so obvious? If you are also saying that all Christian belief is such "faith," then I continue to disagree for the reasons I have stated.

[blueback]

In summary, all these verses...

Oh. . .look. We disagree on how to interpret the Bible. I wonder why that sounds so familiar. So who's right? You or me? Actually, I'm pretty sure I know how you're going to answer that.

Having come to believe that God exists...a person should act in accordance with that belief

Hmmm.
So once we believe that God exists, we should do what he tells us to do. Sure, why not. Of course, that is presupposing that we believe God exists.

It is inconsistent to demand empirical evidence of God's interaction and then a priori dismiss miracles.

Oh, don't worry, I didn't demand anything of God.
Also, miracles only happened back when people still thought everything was made out of four elements, suggesting a correlation between natural explanations and a lack of miracles.

As to the extent an individual believer is entitled to ask for a particular miracle, that's a complex doctrinal issue that is beyond the question of whether the Bible requires blind faith.

Granted. But it can still be fun to tell the kids in the cancer ward that if they pray to God he will heal them. . .and if he doesn't it's their fault.

This is hardly the only case in the English language where words overlap in meaning.

Thanks Captain Obvious. I already explained that in a coversation as complicated as this one it is of utmost importance to be clear. I never claimed that we should parse our everyday conversations. What exactly does a 70% chance of rain mean? Well, it depends on what your definition of "of" is. Thanks for refuting a position I never took.

You're quite right that in a debate it is essential to clarify terms at the outset; what I am saying is that you are defining faith in a way that does not fit within the common meaning or history of the term.

I am using the word to represent the one definition it consistently has in every dictionary which isn't covered by any other words. Every other use of the word faith can easily be replaced with trust, religion, or belief (for example) and mean the exact same thing.

It might be useful (though I'm not sure why, since no one will ever own up to it) if there were a term that meant only "belief without any evidence," but there isn't.

Yes there is. It's in the dictionary. I'm sure I must have mentioned it already. . .

If all you are saying is that believing in something with absolutely no evidence is not a good idea, then no one could possibly disagree with you, but why bother to argue a point so obvious? If you are also saying that all Christian belief is such "faith," then I continue to disagree for the reasons I have stated.

Why do you insist on ignoring things I've stated quite clearly.

I already stated that the majority of religists don't clam to believe much of anything without evidence and logic. However, they do claim that faith, as I described it, is a good thing. The Bible is to be believed, and the Bible says that faith, as I described it, is good.

Joh 29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I have also said, in the OP, that the reason faith is worse than reason is that you have to be TOLD about something to have faith in it. If you arrive at it on your own your belief can't be free of evience or logic.

(Romans 10:17 KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Gal 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

I am certain of these two facts because 1) even people who think that faith is good have a really hard time not using reason and 2) even God had to TELL people about himself to give them the chance to have faith in him. There was a point in time BEFORE God decided to come down to Earth and make sure everyone was aware of him. However, he then withdrew from the Earth to give people the chance to have faith, leaving his followers and instructions behind.

The whole mess is one contradiction after another, it is not internally consistent, which is why reason is better than faith. Things you have faith in can contradict each other and there is nothing you can do about it. Reason can resolve contradictions.

[zibber]

"Reason without emotion has no direction" - J.J. Rousseau (my own translation)

True. The (insanely) important thing to realise here, though, is that faith/emotion is indeed useful in guiding reason, but should not be confused with reason. That's the key to the alleged "false dilemma", I think. There's definitely a distinction between logical reasoning and creating and perpetuating mythology; you can't just bypass a discussion of the differences between these two things so vital to human existence (and so often so nonchalantly confused, in terms of validity, in important discussions) by invoking a false dilemma, as Monte and others so briefly (hastily?) did.

Quoted for significance: "Things you have faith in can contradict each other and there is nothing you can do about it. Reason can resolve contradictions."


Ligda has the right idea (or at least one path of it).

You being the arbiter occasionally gracing us with hints? That's kind of how that comes across.

[HackerX]

You being the arbiter occasionally gracing us with hints? That's kind of how that comes across.

Nah, I don't see the point in pushing my point too much. I've got better things to do with my life than try and fight this fight.

[blueback]

but apparently nothing better than pointing out that you have something better to do. Like the people who spend all their time teaching you how to get rich in real estate (or whatever) instead of spending all their time getting rich in real estate.

It suddenly occured to me that maybe we agree on more than we think. If you guys think that it is wrong to hold a conclusion with no evidence or logical support then I'm willing to pass on the argument about what we call it. Hell, we can make up a new word, that would be fine with me. If the word faith is the disagreement, and not the underlying definition, then lets bypass that problem.

[TheLastMohican]

Hell, we can make up a new word, that would be fine with me.

That's really not a bad idea. I'll think about it.

[Queen Mum]

Oh. . .look. We disagree on how to interpret the Bible. I wonder why that sounds so familiar. So who's right? You or me? Actually, I'm pretty sure I know how you're going to answer that.

Well, you were the one who started quoting it. I didn't expect us to agree. However, I do think my interpretation is more in line with what historical Christian thought has been (which I thought was what we were discussing; not whether X is true, but whether Christianity teaches X.)

Hence, all I was saying was that given someone has come to an evidence-based belief in some things--(the existence of God, the general reliability of the Bible), subsequent steps of "faith"--action on those beliefs in reliance on the earlier inductions--are still reasonable deductions from those initial conclusions. If one doesn't come to those initial conclusions, then of course the rest do not follow.

Also, miracles only happened back when people still thought everything was made out of four elements, suggesting a correlation between natural explanations and a lack of miracles.


Actually miracles only happen to people who know perfectly well they can't happen. Otherwise there's not much miraculous about it, is there?

I am using the word to represent the one definition it consistently has in every dictionary which isn't covered by any other words. Every other use of the word faith can easily be replaced with trust, religion, or belief (for example) and mean the exact same thing.


It's an interesting way to approach word definitions by a sort of mathematical cancellation process, but it doesn't really make sense in language to claim a derivative meaning of a word is the real one just because there are other words to cover the other meanings. I say go for the inventing a new word idea.

I already stated that the majority of religists don't clam to believe much of anything without evidence and logic. However, they do claim that faith, as I described it, is a good thing. The Bible is to be believed, and the Bible says that faith, as I described it, is good.

If you know what other people think better than they do, there's not much chance you'll ever find out differently, is there?

I have also said, in the OP, that the reason faith is worse than reason is that you have to be TOLD about something to have faith in it. If you arrive at it on your own your belief can't be free of evidence or logic.

Just because you have to receive information second-hand does not mean you suddenly don't have evidence. If we only had evidence for things we personally had experienced, our ability to reason would be limited indeed.

The whole mess is one contradiction after another, it is not internally consistent, which is why reason is better than faith. Things you have faith in can contradict each other and there is nothing you can do about it. Reason can resolve contradictions.

And reason can create new contradictions and uncertainties (e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorem, or for that matter back to quantum theory); there are limits to everything.

Anyway, I think we've staked out our positions clearly enough that there's not much to be gained in further discussion.

[blueback]

You seem too serious to be doing this on purpose.

...all I was saying was that given someone has come to an evidence-based belief in some things--(the existence of God, the general reliability of the Bible), subsequent steps of "faith"--action on those beliefs in reliance on the earlier inductions--are still reasonable deductions from those initial conclusions. If one doesn't come to those initial conclusions, then of course the rest do not follow.

Yeah, again, I said that religious people usually think they have a good reason for their conclusions. HOWEVER, one of those conclusions is that the Bible is right, and the Bible says faith as I described it is a good thing. Then a few of them take it all the way and actually say that.

You've ignored that point like three times now and keep making the same statement over and over again like it refutes some position I've taken.

Oh, wait. . .dogmatically asserting the same thing over and over again because you don't listen to other people's ideas. . .you really are religious aren't you?

Actually miracles only happen to people who know perfectly well they can't happen. Otherwise there's not much miraculous about it, is there?

Wouldn't that imply that more miracles should happen the more we learn about the natural world? I can't find a timeline or anything but I'm pretty sure that less miracles have been confirmed in the modern era.

Also, fun fact: apparently, miracles actually make people less respectful of God. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you know what other people think better than they do, there's not much chance you'll ever find out differently, is there?

Mmmm. . .I love the smell of platitudes in the morning. So comforting. It's like your lack of critical thought is penetrating me through osmosis and I suddenly don't worry about things making sense.

Just because you have to receive information second-hand does not mean you suddenly don't have evidence. If we only had evidence for things we personally had experienced, our ability to reason would be limited indeed.

Are you doing this on purpose? I don't think you are but I figure it's always good to ask.

I said that if you arrive at a conclusion on your own you can't have faith in it. If someone hands you a conclusion completely out of the blue you can have faith in it. Please, not the word CAN. Can does not mean must. I am now aware that you like to stretch the meanings of words to suit your purpose at the time, but even you should have a hard time stretching "can" to mean "required."

And reason can create new contradictions and uncertainties (e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorem, or for that matter back to quantum theory); there are limits to everything.

I keep telling myself that you are trying to discuss honestly, but sometimes it's hard.

Yeah, reason can create contradictions, which can then be resolved. Faith, on the other hand, cannot resolve the contradictions it creates.

Anyway, I think we've staked out our positions clearly enough that there's not much to be gained in further discussion.

Whatever dude. I'll still be here.

[dogwoodlover]

If you guys think that it is wrong to hold a conclusion with no evidence or logical support then I'm willing to pass on the argument about what we call it.

I don't know of any "believer" that has at least some intellectual proficiency that doesn't attempt to support their beliefs logically. The demands of logic are almost universally accepted, though the demands of empiricism are not.

[Tyrant Soup]

Monte made his stance clear. The fact that he does not see the need to expand upon it should tell you A) he is not interested enough in the subject to continue discussing it as he made his point clear or B) the very foundation of your argument is wrong.

Very poor argument. These are not the ONLY possible choices.


Yes, everyone can agree that under your definitions of logic, reason, and faith - they are exclusive. But under what authority are your definitions correct? Frankly, your definitions are - to put it lightly - oversimplified. And a quick Wikipedia search on the respective subjects reveals that immediately. Logically, I think such deep ideas should be thoroughly researched before putting faith in 10 word definitions that you have slapped onto them.

The distinction is not so deep that it cannot be discussed here. If you disagree with Blue's definition, then why don't you present your own? Repetitiously asserting that his definition is bad is simply an attempt to shout down a point that you cannot refute.

[reb]

as an aside, i watched 'a brief history of disbelief' on documentary channel. it might offer some historical 'species' perspective to anyone who is not traditional in their thinking..

[JessicaHavenLea]

Faith: belief without evidence or logical support (without any, none, nada)
Belief: conviction that a conclusion is true
Reason: to think in a logical manner, to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts

The basic difference between the two ideas is that one starts from what is known and arrives at a conclusion, the other skips the first step entirely and jumps straight to the conclusion.

Okay, my reasoning goes like this:
People can only have faith in things they have been told about, but they can reason to things that no one has ever experienced before, making reason better than faith.

People cannot choose to have faith in something that makes sense. If it makes sense then they have emperical or logical support for it, which makes it not faith. This means that the person who invents a new idea cannot have faith in it. Only a person who is told about an idea can have faith in it. So, when certain people claim that faith is good in-and-of-itself, they are trying to limit human knowledge to just what we know right now.

On the other hand, reason can lead us to new ideas. We can take one thing we understand, and another thing we understand, and combine them to see if the outcome makes sense. When it does, we have invented a new thing to understand. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This means that reason is like the surface tension of water in a straw, drawing us forward. We can generate new ideas with reason.

This my major gripe with religion (read: Christianity). I am expected to umm..."will" myself to believe things that I KNOW are not possible. That is something I can't do. If I say "I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin" I must also "will" myself to disbelieve that humans require to parents (and that artificial insemination/in vitro were not available options in times BC).

If you must force or persuade yourself to ignore your own reasoning in order to have faith then is that faith even real?

[Mau]

Reason = an end in itself.
Faith = looking for reasons to make ends meet.