Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[LOki]

I would hope at this point of my post that question would be unnecessary. What's your opinion?

Agreed. Then let's continue.

I feel the majority of our discrepencies lie not in the spirit of the argument, but rather the semantics of the word "faith." Perhaps this was your point the entire time, and if so, I apologize for my blindered-approach.

You make a point. Apology unnecessary. Allow me to submit a definition of "faith" for review.<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Agreed. Then let's continue.

You make a point. Apology unnecessary. Allow me to submit a definition of "faith" for review.<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>

My definition would, most likely, be only different by the addition of one word:<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established yet.</blockquote> Although I did take the liberty of removing words which seemed to serve no purpose. I'm guessing you left a word or two out, in which case I reserve the right to modify my definition accordingly.

 

[LOki]

My definition would, most likely, be only different by the addition of one word:<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established yet.</blockquote> Although I did take the liberty of removing words which seemed to serve no purpose. I'm guessing you left a word or two out, in which case I reserve the right to modify my definition accordingly.

The clause "...has been established" directly implies "yet", but if you wish to keep it, to make especially clear that the presently available evidence does not invalidate past faith, or evidence available in the future will not invalidate faith now, I'm fine with it.

I'd like to keep "...certainty in the reality of some thing..." for no other reason than to positively and clearly express the object of "certainty." This way the certainty part of "faith" is limited to the assertion of the reality of some thing, rather than being open to certainty in the "something" of some thing; nor should the definition become limited to "the certainty of "mine", or "yours", (for instance) which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The clause "...has been established" directly implies "yet", but if you wish to keep it, to make especially clear that the presently available evidence does not invalidate past faith, or evidence available in the future will not invalidate faith now, I'm fine with it.

My inclusion of the word yet is not for that purpose, but rather to make it clear that the posession and use of faith does not stipulate a loss or even slight reduction in the struggle for ascertaining truth.

I'd like to keep "...certainty in the reality of some thing..." for no other reason than to positively and clearly express the object of "certainty." This way the certainty part of "faith" is limited to the assertion of the reality of some thing, rather than being open to certainty in the "something" of some thing; nor should the definition become limited to "the certainty of "mine", or "yours", (for instance) which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established."

More than welcome to keep it in. I think you had a bit of keyboard squirts when you first typed your definition, as there appear to be extraneous words. It wasn't clear whether there were too many or too few. Apparently too many.

As for the rest of your discussion regarding certainty, it is either too muddled for comprehension, or my mind is currently having a brown out, because I don't understand what in the fuck you're trying to say.

My apologies, either way.

 

[Eightball]

Isn't faith an action of the human will to put trust in something?

I believe that faith can be exercised with the backing of reason.

For instance:

If I sit in a chair, am I exercising faith/belief, that the chair will support my weight and not break and bring me crashing to the floor?

Where am I placing my faith in essence? Well, first of all, the action of sitting in the chair is an act of faith in the chair-builder's ability to build a "sound" chair. Isn't it reasonable to believe that most chair builders know what they're doing?

Now, is faith in God reasonable, or the act of using reasoning?

In my opinion, yes. As there is ample evidence from biblical scripture, that man was impacted by a greater one that he. Are there witnesses to the biblical accounts that really matter in Christian faith for instance?

Actually there are many accounts that a "Jesus" was put to death by the Romans, and these accounts are both secular and Judeau/Christian in origin.

It only takes one or two witnesses in a court of law to presume a fact. Yet, the historicity of Jesus's death by crucifixion, burial, and witnessed ressurrection after burial are recorded by many more than two people. Hundreds actually witnessed Jesus's Ascension into the clouds.

I would say that both secular and Judeau/Christian accounts constitute reasonable, reason, behind this thing called Christian faith for instance.
........
People sit in chairs everyday, and don't know the abilities of the one who built the chair they're sitting in, yet they believe or have faith that they can safely sit without injury. So in most cases we accept by faith that the chair builder was just who we hope he is; a competent chair builder. Is that using reason? Hmmm? Not really.
..........
Yet, faith in the works, and person of this man Jesus, who was accurately, and prophetically predicted as to his place of birth, type of death, type of ministry, and relationship to God hundreds of years prior to His birth/incarnation via Isaiah, Michah, etc. are incredibly shocking, and drive home a strong case for Christian faith, with reason.
........

Faith is only valid when based on reasonable, objective data. Christian faith is not "blind" faith......but is based on much information, much first hand accounts/witnesses.

The Isaiah Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the accuracy of Christian/Judeau manuscripts transcribed over 2,000 years in span are not tainted by inaccuracy, as scribes were held to such accountability in duplicating manuscripts, and especially those that were of their religious faith. The Isaiah Chapter 53 Dead Sea Scroll is virtually identical to the present day Isaiah 53 translations. Thats "hard" evidence, and hard evidence allows for the exercise of faith based on good reasoning.

Maybe the Dead Sea Scrolls also confirms that the Christian/Judeau God is truly omnipotent...i.e. all powerful and can protect His written-down word over the many centuries. Maybe that's why Jesus said to His doubting Thomas......."You believe in Me because you have seen my scars, but blessed are those that believe that haven't seen. Now that's faith, and that's us in the 21st century.

 

[LOki]

My inclusion of the word yet is not for that purpose, but rather to make it clear that the posession and use of faith does not stipulate a loss or even slight reduction in the struggle for ascertaining truth.

Does the definition provided stipulate such without "yet"? Or is the issue that you'd like the definition to exclude the possibilty that knowing derived of "faith" might impede the struggle for ascertaining truth. If is this latter bit, I'd say that the state of knowing, regardless of it's derivation, may or may not be an impediment to the struggle for ascertaining truth, and as such is a separate issue.

To establish clarity, and to edit out the extraneuos bits:<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty in the reality of some thing, for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>Are we agreeable?

WERDZ

There has been a long discussion already where each and every assertion you made would be questioned, and not to speak out of turn for The ClayTaurus, we have ascertained that perhaps an ambiguous usage of the term "faith" would be the cause of the questioning of each and every one of your assertions--if not by others, most certainly by me.

If you're up for it, I promise that I'd gladly dissect your points in my peculiar fashion, as I have others, but not until that minimal meaningfulness can be achieved that derives from agreed upon terms.

But right now, I'll say this (and I mean it constructively) about the questions and assertions in your "For instance," and the arguments in your conclusion: They're full of unsupported assertions and question begging, amongst other logical fallacies.

 

[Eightball]

Does the definition provided stipulate such without "yet"? Or is the issue that you'd like the definition to exclude the possibilty that knowing derived of "faith" might impede the struggle for ascertaining truth. If is this latter bit, I'd say that the state of knowing, regardless of it's derivation, may or may not be an impediment to the struggle for ascertaining truth, and as such is a separate issue.

To establish clarity, and to edit out the extraneuos bits:<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty in the reality of some thing, for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>Are we agreeable?

There has been a long discussion already where each and every assertion you made would be questioned, and not to speak out of turn for The ClayTaurus, we have ascertained that perhaps an ambiguous usage of the term "faith" would be the cause of the questioning of each and every one of your assertions--if not by others, most certainly by me.

If you're up for it, I promise that I'd gladly dissect your points in my peculiar fashion, as I have others, but not until that minimal meaningfulness can be achieved that derives from agreed upon terms.

But right now, I'll say this (and I mean it constructively) about the questions and assertions in your "For instance," and the arguments in your conclusion: They're full of unsupported assertions and question begging, amongst other logical fallacies.

Loki:

Why is it that the word "constructive" must be used towards me or other posters.......also...."dissect".....as another verbage too.

First of all, we all share what we think is correct, and if we are teachable, we do receive, take-in, any or some of what others have to share too.

Before you are "constructive" towards me........please be advised, that I would rather that you gained my respect, and didn't see my posts as a dissection-piece to gratify your better knowledge than mine.

Correct me please, but in respect, without the old "I'm the teacher-intellect", and your the subjective, incorrect, religious-one, approach is not condusive to conversation.

Yes, I know you didn't use the above words, but the theme of your response to my post carried that attitude, in my opinion.
...
I personally respect all sides in this debate or difference of philosophy, but I do not respect those that talk-down to others out of pride in one's intellect, creative writing, vast vocabulary.....etc. I doubt many our impressed, but instead sense that the big letter, "P",(pride?) is behind it.
.....
I will respectfully accept what you have to offer/share as constructive much more, if, your posts towards me are laced with respect, and not haughty "I know it, you don't" emphasis.
......
Knowledge is nothing but firing blanks, when it isn't laced with life experience.

 

[007]

...requires faith.

Best answer so far in this babbling thread of hypotheticals, conjectures and rediculousness.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Best answer so far in this babbling thread of hypotheticals, conjectures and rediculousness.

Certainly better than your contributions.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Does the definition provided stipulate such without "yet"? Or is the issue that you'd like the definition to exclude the possibilty that knowing derived of "faith" might impede the struggle for ascertaining truth. If is this latter bit, I'd say that the state of knowing, regardless of it's derivation, may or may not be an impediment to the struggle for ascertaining truth, and as such is a separate issue.

I just want to cover my bases that you're not sneaking in a definition that is anti-faith.

To establish clarity, and to edit out the extraneuos bits:<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty in the reality of some thing, for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>Are we agreeable?

Sounds good, more or less, to me.

 

[007]

Certainly better than your contributions.

:fu2:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

:fu2:

Right back atchya bub.

 

[LOki]

Why is it that the word "constructive" must be used towards me or other posters.......also...."dissect".....as another verbage too.

I use words to convey concepts with meanings. As theses concepts have discrete meanings, I try to be precise in my word choices. I also like to have fun, even if it's at my own expense. So I say "dissect," because someone once noted that I am fully willing to take every thing someone posts as arguemt to be worth taking note of--they seemed to consider it amusingly quirky. I say "constructive," because I'm aware that a certain flavor of moron takes the questions I ask of their principle assumptions, and my illuminations on the patently self-evident errors in those assumptions, to be arrogant and have a "know-it-all" tone--so in the interest of clarity I offer "constructively" in a effort to avoid the long discussion of the long list of logical errors your arguments are rife with, out of respect for the substance of your argument--assuming, out of repect for you, that there's substance to your argument.

First of all, we all share what we think is correct, and if we are teachable, we do receive, take-in, any or some of what others have to share too.

Before you are "constructive" towards me........please be advised, that I would rather that you gained my respect, and didn't see my posts as a dissection-piece to gratify your better knowledge than mine.

LOLercoaster!

Correct me please, but in respect, without the old "I'm the teacher-intellect", and your the subjective, incorrect, religious-one, approach is not condusive to conversation.

Yes, I know you didn't use the above words, but the theme of your response to my post carried that attitude, in my opinion.

Even more LOLsome!

...
I personally respect all sides in this debate or difference of philosophy, but I do not respect those that talk-down to others out of pride in one's intellect, creative writing, vast vocabulary.....etc. I doubt many our impressed, but instead sense that the big letter, "P",(pride?) is behind it.
.....
I will respectfully accept what you have to offer/share as constructive much more, if, your posts towards me are laced with respect, and not haughty "I know it, you don't" emphasis.
......
Knowledge is nothing but firing blanks, when it isn't laced with life experience.

Side splitting, pointing at the hypocritical-and-presumptive-circusfreak-critic-of-intentions-and argumentative-"tone" LOLs!

Eightball, you don't have to like my tone, and you don't have to like me questioning your principle assumptions, but if you are going to have a meaningful conversation with me, if that is your intent, then making sense logically is a prerequisite, using meaningful terms is prerequisite, itellectual integrity is prerequisite; and if you find 4 syllable words like "prerequisite" offensive on the grounds that "know-it-alls" know what they mean, I would encourage you to try learning their usage, and discover that they don't make you a "know-it-all", but they do allow you to better know, and convey, what you're trying to say. You'll also discover that those certain morons, so big letter "P" Proud of their dumbness, find *that* offensive.

Does the definition provided stipulate such without "yet"? Or is the issue that you'd like the definition to exclude the possibilty that knowing derived of "faith" might impede the struggle for ascertaining truth. If is this latter bit, I'd say that the state of knowing, regardless of it's derivation, may or may not be an impediment to the struggle for ascertaining truth, and as such is a separate issue.

I just want to cover my bases that you're not sneaking in a definition that is anti-faith.

Fear not, I am as well aware as you that an anti-faith definition of "faith" makes the term meaningless.

To establish clarity, and to edit out the extraneuos bits:<blockquote>Faith:
Conviction of certainty in the reality of some thing, for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.</blockquote>Are we agreeable?

Sounds good, more or less, to me.

Good. If it runs into problems, we can fix them then.

If I may, I'll resume the discussion with the following, unless you have an objection:

As I understand our conversation, before we became side-tracked, we were having this exchange:

That's entirely dependant, I feel. Certainly, on an absolute level, that which requires less faith is more reasonable. Faith fills in for the absence of confirmation. It does not exclude reason, though. Only confirmation.


However, on a less absolute level, if something requires faith for you personally, it does not make it necessarily less reasonable. There are plenty of complex realities that require the average person's faith, but the requirement of said faith does not detraact from their reasonable-ness.


And stuff.

Is this placing "faith" symbolically in the spot of "I don't know" and then manipulating that "knowledge" within our desciptions of reality that include knowledge (to use your word) confirmed by logic and evidence?

If so, why not just say "I don't know" or "I am only certain to this degree"?

Do you not place faith in anything?

Faith is often required in life so that you don't go insane, as non-intellectual as that sounds. I have no idea of knowing whether or not my girlfriend or wife has/will have cheated on me, as I haven't been tethered to her throughout our relationship. So I must place faith in her, faith based on other factors, so that I'm not a complete nutcase. Faith is not merely a substitution for "I don't know." The two can, but often are not required to be interchangeable.

At this point, I believe, is where the converstaion broke down:

Do you not place faith in anything?

Let's assert, for discussion's sake, that I do not. What of it?

Faith is often required in life so that you don't go insane, as non-intellectual as that sounds.

I disagree. The application of unverified assertion, and logical fallacy necessarily leads to a denial of reality; if severe, that denial of reality might be easily constured to be insanity.

I have no idea of knowing whether or not my girlfriend or wife has/will have cheated on me, as I haven't been tethered to her throughout our relationship. So I must place faith in her, faith based on other factors, so that I'm not a complete nutcase.

To the degree that your belief in your girlfriend's or wife's fidelity is not evaluated on observations referenced logically and scrutinized for objectivity, is the degree by which faith is involved.

What of belief in fidelity where there is evidence of infidelity? Is that not faith? What if there is palpable evidence of infidelity, yet you maintain constant in your belief of fidelity? Is that not faith? What if you witness, and others witness besides you, infidelity and you maintain belief in fidelity? Is that not faith?

Faith is not merely a substitution for "I don't know." The two can, but often are not required to be interchangeable.

I'm not yet sure how your basis for these assertions--except, right now, I think I've just suggested that faith may involve the denial of knowledge based on evidence. Yikes!

The salient questions to this topic of "Faith vs. Reason" I think are:<blockquote>"General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable"</blockquote>Which is best answered in the light of the question we have between us, which is:<blockquote>"Is "faith" a requirement for life as a human being, and if so, what is it a requirement for? Everything? Just some things?"</blockquote>If "faith" is not a requirement for anything--at least anything meaningful to us as human beings--then the point of evaluating the faith requirement of "something" in relation to being reasonable becomes meaningless. I don't think it's fair to Phaedrus that the point be conceded by stipulating to *that* technicality.

So..., I think it's apparent that I am asserting that "faith" is not a requirement for life as a human being. I am asserting that in the place of "faith" a person can formally or informally place "I don't know", or "I am sure within X degree of certainty", and function just fine as a human being, without making positive declarations of knowledge that are not based in evidence or valid logic (e.g. "There is no God." or "The blood of Christ is the sole path to redemption.").

 

[The ClayTaurus]

As I understand our conversation, before we became side-tracked, we were having this exchange:At this point, I believe, is where the converstaion broke down:The salient questions to this topic of "Faith vs. Reason" I think are:<blockquote>"General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable"</blockquote>Which is best answered in the light of the question we have between us, which is:<blockquote>"Is "faith" a requirement for life as a human being, and if so, what is it a requirement for? Everything? Just some things?"</blockquote>If "faith" is not a requirement for anything--at least anything meaningful to us as human beings--then the point of evaluating the faith requirement of "something" in relation to being reasonable becomes meaningless. I don't think it's fair to Phaedrus that the point be conceded by stipulating to *that* technicality.

So..., I think it's apparent that I am asserting that "faith" is not a requirement for life as a human being. I am asserting that in the place of "faith" a person can formally or informally place "I don't know", or "I am sure within X degree of certainty", and function just fine as a human being, without making positive declarations of knowledge that are not based in evidence or valid logic (e.g. "There is no God." or "The blood of Christ is the sole path to redemption.").

I'm not sure you can blanket statement this. While I agree that faith is not a requirement for life, or at least a productive and sane life, to be possible, I would also submit that a faith-free life is not something which you can guarantee every individual is capable of living.

So faith is, in fact, not meaningless, as there are individuals who do indeed need to rely on it in order to successfully function. It is not a requirement for each and every human, but that does not mean it is a requirement for none of them.

 

[Eightball]

Loki:

One of the loathsome trends in our society is this concept that "man" is the center; not too much different from Copernicus going against the Church's stubborn mindset that the Sun revolved around the earth.......in fact all things revolved sadly, around the earth back then. This "earth is the center" was the church's lack, and closed-minded response to objective reasoning. It also was a feeble attempt to control the masses, as was the denial of the basic scripture in the hands of the layman. Guttenburg, and Martin Luther, truly were revolutionarys.

I see secular thought/pursuit as a return to "earth is the center"/"Alchemist" reasoning, and it is indictative of a deep loathing of subjection, humbling, contrition, and objective reasoning about man's position before a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent creator.

To believe in a creator, is not to believe in something unprovable. In fact, to believe in a higher creator is to exercise the portion of one's soul that hungers to fill the need to "know", beyond, touch, smell, seeing, and hearing.

Why is it that man can be so unreasoning and animal-like, when lacking that hunger to know, yet when that hunger to know is present, man tends to throw away instinctual desires, and needs to self satisfy the "basic".

Maybe the former Saul of Tarsus who pursued early Christians with noted passion and later became one of it's greatest converts can shed some light, as he was a teacher of teachers(Pharisee), and of skill and education in the ways of Jewish education and religion with few peers.

Romans Chapter 1, verses 18 through 22......(18)For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness(Post Luther Church),(19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.(20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.(trees, birds, volcanos, micro-life, atomic structure)(21)For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.(22) Professing to be wise, they became fools,......

Is this evolutionary? If it is, then even random molecular fashioning from the 4 billion year old primordial soup, cries at a creator's presence/hand.
.......

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not sure you can blanket statement this. While I agree that faith is not a requirement for life, or at least a productive and sane life, to be possible, I would also submit that a faith-free life is not something which you can guarantee every individual is capable of living.

So faith is, in fact, not meaningless, as there are individuals who do indeed need to rely on it in order to successfully function. It is not a requirement for each and every human, but that does not mean it is a requirement for none of them.

I think one would need to differentiate between different types of faith. We have faith that a chair will be there when we sit. There is a miniscule probability that it will break, move, or even just cease to be a chair... Yet we are still sure our furniture is relatively permanent fixtures.

I would differentiate this way:

Faith (capital F): A religious or non-religious belief system based on unproven and unprovable assertions. Examples: There is no God... Or God is named Bob... Both of these are as unprovable as they are unproven.

faith (small f): A belief based on experience and understanding, necessary to be able to run a life at a level where we can effect the world....

 

[LOki]

One of the loathsome trends in our society is this concept that "man" is the center; not too much different from Copernicus going against the Church's stubborn mindset that the Sun revolved around the earth.......in fact all things revolved sadly, around the earth back then. This "earth is the center" was the church's lack, and closed-minded response to objective reasoning. It also was a feeble attempt to control the masses, as was the denial of the basic scripture in the hands of the layman. Guttenburg, and Martin Luther, truly were revolutionarys.

I see secular thought/pursuit as a return to "earth is the center"/"Alchemist" reasoning, and it is indictative of a deep loathing of subjection, humbling, contrition, and objective reasoning about man's position before a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent creator.

Question begging, unsupported assumptions, contradicting each other.

To believe in a creator, is not to believe in something unprovable. In fact, to believe in a higher creator is to exercise the portion of one's soul that hungers to fill the need to "know", beyond, touch, smell, seeing, and hearing.

Petitio principii.

Why is it that man can be so unreasoning and animal-like, when lacking that hunger to know, yet when that hunger to know is present, man tends to throw away instinctual desires, and needs to self satisfy the "basic".

Rhetorical.

Maybe the former Saul of Tarsus who pursued early Christians with noted passion and later became one of it's greatest converts can shed some light, as he was a teacher of teachers(Pharisee), and of skill and education in the ways of Jewish education and religion with few peers.

Romans Chapter 1, verses 18 through 22......(18)For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness(Post Luther Church),(19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.(20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.(trees, birds, volcanos, micro-life, atomic structure)(21)For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.(22) Professing to be wise, they became fools,......

Is this evolutionary? If it is, then even random molecular fashioning from the 4 billion year old primordial soup, cries at a creator's presence/hand.
.......

Petitio principii all the way through.

 

[LOki]

I'm not sure you can blanket statement this.

I'm not sure I can validly make it either, but I'll do my best to see if I can!

While I agree that faith is not a requirement for life, or at least a productive and sane life, to be possible, I would also submit that a faith-free life is not something which you can guarantee every individual is capable of living.

I think I am making that assertion, implied by the assetion that there are perfectly rational, logically valid, and evidence based replacements for the assertions of faith. (e.g. "I don't know." or "I am only certain to this point.")

So faith is, in fact, not meaningless, as there are individuals who do indeed need to rely on it in order to successfully function.

I'm not sure I'm saying faith is meaningless (for my part, I spent a bit of effort placing meaning to it), and perhaps the question parses the subject thin, but I think I am questioning the point of faith, particularly in the face of knowledge founded upon evidence and valid logic.

It is not a requirement for each and every human, but that does not mean it is a requirement for none of them.

Where in those humans, does that requirement reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm not sure I can validly make it either, but I'll do my best to see if I can!

Godspeed, then. Godspeed good sir.

I think I am making that assertion, implied by the assetion that there are perfectly rational, logically valid, and evidence based replacements for the assertions of faith. (e.g. "I don't know." or "I am only certain to this point.")

But I submit to you that some people are unable to fuction merely by saying "I don't know." I can't operate in my relationship by constantly saying to myself "I don't know if she's cheating on me or not. I'm kind of sure, to a certain degree, but I don't know and I may never know." It makes my mind wander and expend thoughts and energy on all sorts of unnecessary hypotheticals. Having faith in her squashes that. Now I suppose you could argue that one could train oneself to not let uncertainty so drastically interfere with normal human operation, but I would counter that that is not within the normal confines of human intuition.

I'm not sure I'm saying faith is meaningless (for my part, I spent a bit of effort placing meaning to it), and perhaps the question parses the subject thin, but I think I am questioning the point of faith, particularly in the face of knowledge founded upon evidence and valid logic.

Well I question the point of faith in the face of knowledge and valid logic as well. I mean, if I see her in the act of cheating, faith is pretty much thrown out the door. I think for many, faith steps in as the subsitute for being in constant doubt about nearly everything. And while faith certainly fosters intellectual laziness and a lack of curiousity for La Verdad (the unquestionable one) among some, that does not invalidate faith, but rather exemplifies those who use faith incorrectly. IMO. My description almost leaves faith's role as a coping mechanism of sorts.

Where in those humans, does that requirement reside? Is that place where faith resides necessarily a function of being human such that it must be filled with faith?

It depends. Again, I'm not sure you can answer that with a yes or a no for every person.

 

[no1tovote4]

It is not "reason" to say that God doesn't exist. There is equal evidence for that assertion as to say for certainty that God does exist. They are both unprovable.

It takes Faith to assert with certainty either statement as a "fact".

Without the small (f) faith that I spoke of earlier, one could never be reasonably assured that they are actually speaking to a person rather than a figment of their imagination. They couldn't be assured that a door was there, they'd have to check on every occassion. One could not be assured that what they see is fact because seeing is not really evidence of something's existence.

Without this minute amount of faith one would be almost incapable of effecting their own life in a positive way at all. Imagine having to question each new person you meet to ask them to prove they are real.. Would you be able to get a job? Would you eat, and why?