Misconception Faith vs. Reason

[Phaedrus]

This is a subject that came up in a different thread, but I thought it deserved more delving into. Looking at Creationism and other theories, such as that of random convergance, there came the idea that something that requires less faith is more reasonable.

This is a very interesting/odd idea, and I was wondering what you all thought of it. In general, I define faith as something that doesn't require the backing of reason. I realize negative definitions aren't generally the most reliable, but in this case I find it apt.

This is the secondary definition at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Because of this, I see faith and reason as generally unrelated. However, "People" often construe them as at odds, when it's more often then not that the people themselves are at odds. Just looking for different opinions here, watcha think?

General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable"

Addition: What is your natural characterization of the word "reasonable". What connotations do you associate with it?

Note: The word require in my definition is important.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

People attack the faith of others when they want to change them. The "reason" advocates as they like to think of themselves, are trying to create a society which is not really consistent with the christian worldview, they're creating a totalitarian world using the arguments that "it's best for the majority", pure democracy, mob rule. Christian faith deals with individuals, not THE GROUP and as such, is inherently incompatible with their vision. This is why godless liberals attack christians on almost a daily basis. Christian faith is in their way.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable"

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.

 

[LOki]

General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable"

I think that something that requires less faith has more opportunity to be reasonable, while it can still be as unreasonable as all get-out.

As knowing is probably the greatest impediment to learning--something requiring less faith has less "knowing" (unsupported in logical proof or material evidence) getting in the way of using the faculty of reason to learn the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Addition: What is your natural characterization of the word "reasonable". What connotations do you associate with it?

The application of sound logic and/or verifiable evidence to establish, or judge, the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Connotations=sanity, rationality, and to be valid, objectivity.

Note: The word require in my definition is important.

Noted.

People attack the faith of others when they want to change them.

Or they can burn them, stone them, hang them, torture them, dash their babies against rocks, etc...

The "reason" advocates as they like to think of themselves, are trying to create a society which is not really consistent with the christian worldview,...

Bullshit.

...they're creating a totalitarian world using the arguments that "it's best for the majority", pure democracy, mob rule.

Bullshit.

Christian faith deals with individuals, not THE GROUP and as such, is inherently incompatible with their vision.

Bullshit.

This is why godless liberals attack christians on almost a daily basis.

Bullshit.

Christian faith is in their way.

Truth.

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"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Or they can burn them, stone them, hang them, torture them, dash their babies against rocks, etc...

Jesus H., step into the now.

 

[dmp]

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"?

EVERYBODY uses Faith. Nobody is completely free of faith. Faith in Science and faith in random chance = Macro evolution. Faith in one's car or one's tires or one's spouse.

Christian faith, specifically, is under attack - but that's expected and foretold. Christians know non-christians will eventually seek to kill them. It's happened before and is on the way towards happening again.

(shrug).

 

[HopeandGlory]

This is a subject that came up in a different thread, but I thought it deserved more delving into. Looking at Creationism and other theories, such as that of random convergance, there came the idea that something that requires less faith is more reasonable.

This is a very interesting/odd idea, and I was wondering what you all thought of it. In general, I define faith as something that doesn't require the backing of reason. I realize negative definitions aren't generally the most reliable, but in this case I find it apt.

This is the secondary definition at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Because of this, I see faith and reason as generally unrelated. However, "People" often construe them as at odds, when it's more often then not that the people themselves are at odds. Just looking for different opinions here, watcha think?

General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable"

Addition: What is your natural characterization of the word "reasonable". What connotations do you associate with it?

Note: The word require in my definition is important.

I agree with your definition. I have a strong faith but I can't in all honesty apply any reason to it. In fact, if I relied on reason alone, I could argue myself out of all faith!

I suppose what I do is cherry-pick between the bits I like. I reject certain tenets and doctrines and try to apply what I consider proof-positive scientific evidence to coincide with my beliefs.

This doesn't come close to explaining away a sense of spirituality. I think on the whole, we can think too much and we certainly don't know everything . . . nothing like!

I don't consider my beliefs to be at odds with each other - I just think it's arrogant of mankind to assume he has or will ever have all the answers. Just as I assume it's foolish of mankind to believe without question, everything that was written down by various mediaeval scribes!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

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.

 

[HopeandGlory]

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.

Good point. A live devoid of faith would be pretty bleak. I guess most of us base our faith on a number of factors which make it seem more or less viable. It can never be totally infallable.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Agreed--faith is choice you make when you just decide something to be true and/or you have no ability to control it.

 

[Nienna]

Faith is believing in something you can't see. I don't think faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Of course, this depends on your definition of "reason." In the realm of mechanical science, faith has little place, since mechanical science is all about measurement and observation.

But, if logic and probability are included in one's sense of what reason is, then reason is not limited to things seen. Therefore, faith need not be "unreasonable."

 

[LOki]

EVERYBODY uses Faith. Nobody is completely free of faith.

Ok, would you like to test this assertion against its counter assertion: "You are wrong DMP, I don not use faith ever; I am completely free of faith." I'm willing to be the patsy.

Faith in Science and faith in random chance = Macro evolution. Faith in one's car or one's tires or one's spouse.

Faith in science and random chance only means faith that our observtions can be valid, and that validation can be achieved through consistently agreeing observations and rigoruosly valid applications of logic.

Christian faith, specifically, is under attack - but that's expected and foretold.

No. The application of faith ingeneral, and Christian faith, in this country, is being questioned--that notion that faith is necessarily applied to everything by everybody, and in this country, Christion faith is necessarily applied to everything by everybody.

Christians know non-christians will eventually seek to kill them. It's happened before and is on the way towards happening again. (shrug).

This may be true, but not because Christians believe in Jesus, or are Christians.

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 beilif 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!

A live devoid of faith would be pretty bleak.

Demonstrate.

Agreed--faith is choice you make when you just decide something to be true and/or you have no ability to control it.

Is this choice to assert the truth of something without knowing its truth as honest as saying, "I don't know."? How is this "choice you make when you just decide something to be true and/or you have no ability to control it" different than admitting you do not know if something is true, or you have no control over it?

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, would you like to test this assertion against its counter assertion: "You are wrong DMP, I don not use faith ever; I am completely free of faith." I'm willing to be the patsy.

Faith in science and random chance only means faith that our observtions can be valid, and that validation can be achieved through consistently agreeing observations and rigoruosly valid applications of logic.

No. The application of faith ingeneral, and Christian faith, in this country, is being questioned--that notion that faith is necessarily applied to everything by everybody, and in this country, Christion faith is necessarily applied to everything by everybody.

This may be true, but not because Christians believe in Jesus, or are Christians.

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

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.

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 beilif 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?

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!

Demonstrate.

Is this choice to assert the truth of something without knowing its truth as honest as saying, "I don't know."? How is this "choice you make when you just decide something to be true and/or you have no ability to control it" different than admitting you do not know if something is true, or you have no control over it?

After science, reasonong and logic has the answers to everything and tied up in a neat little box, there will be no need for faith. Science has tried to present the truth based on facts and reason to us for hundreds of years, only to have to admit they were wrong. (again)

 

[The ClayTaurus]

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 beilif 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?

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!

You're splitting hairs, and more than likely intentionally missing my point.

I'm sorry you (hypothetically) lack the ability to place faith in anything, and I'm sorry you (hypothetically) look down your nose at those who can as merely unenlightened and not fully tuned into their situations. I'm hardly a religious zealot, so my feelings on faith are not religiously-driven. More so interpersonally driven.

Yes, faith of fidelity when their is none can be detrimental. But faith of fidelity where there is fidelity is a good thing. Unless you plan on treating your relationship forensically. And if that's the case, well, good luck with that. The human condition is not something to be purely treated analytically, in my opinion. You of course are (hypothetically) more than welcome to.

But I do not wish to speak in hypotheticals any longer. What of you, actually? Do you have a difficult time making and maintaining relationships? If you're so absent of faith, you're either a loner, or you have some magic secret that would be nice for the rest of us to know. Otherwise, if you do place faith in people, then I'll go back to my statement about intentionally missing the point, and bid you adieu, sir.

 

[MissileMan]

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 beilif 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?

I would say that faith is belief where there is no evidence. Belief even in light of contradictory evidence would be denial or self-delusion.

 

[LOki]

Science has tried to present the truth based on facts and reason to us for hundreds of years, only to have to admit they were wrong. (again)

This a common accusation from you. You state it quite emphatically. You wish to treat the honestly aquired knowledge derived from observation of reality and rigorous application of valid logic, cross examined, questioned, revised, and improved upon with the additions of more accurate observations and skeptical review as inferior to knowledge aquired how? Introspective illumination? Self revealing epiphany? Stating your unsupported opinion as fact?

It is valid to critique the past descriptions of reality provided by scientific effort as invalid in the light of current scientific discovery--yet upon what basis do you assert that this is an indictment of science? In what way does such indictment not reveal that unsupported assertions of fact are even less valid?

You're splitting hairs,...

Perhaps, but the intent is not to split hairs but parse out some answers.

... and more than likely intentionally missing my point.

Bullshit accusation.

I'm sorry you (hypothetically) lack the ability to place faith in anything, ...

Thanks, but entirely unnecessary.

...and I'm sorry you (hypothetically) look down your nose at those who can as merely unenlightened and not fully tuned into their situations.

Bullshit accusation.

I'm hardly a religious zealot, so my feelings on faith are not religiously-driven. More so interpersonally driven.

If I implied that you are a religious zealot, I assure you it was not my intent.

Yes, faith of fidelity when their is none can be detrimental. But faith of fidelity where there is fidelity is a good thing. Unless you plan on treating your relationship forensically. And if that's the case, well, good luck with that.

I will stipulate that beliving that which is trure is good regardless of whether you have evidence of that thruth or not. I just ask you why the caveat? If I shut my eyes to the reality of my relationships so that I won't see evidence of infidelity, won't I also be shutting my eyes to evidence of fidelity? Is belief in fidelity (or anything else) necessarily better if that belief is established without evidence?

The human condition is not something to be purely treated analytically, in my opinion. You of course are (hypothetically) more than welcome to.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Stipulated.

But I do not wish to speak in hypotheticals any longer.

Fear?

What of you, actually?

If it were relevent or enlightening, it'd be worth going into. Since its not, and is more importantly likely to lead to more bullshit presumptions and bullshit accusations, I'll respectfully decline to accept this invitation.

Do you have a difficult time making and maintaining relationships?

No.

If you're so absent of faith, you're either a loner, or you have some magic secret that would be nice for the rest of us to know.

Bullshit accusations.

Otherwise, if you do place faith in people, then I'll go back to my statement about intentionally missing the point, and bid you adieu, sir.

Perhaps if you could make your point more clear for me, perhaps my responses would be less likely to illicit such defensive, and unproductive rejoinders.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Perhaps, but the intent is not to split hairs but parse out some answers.

Not that you care, but I feel you may be losing sight of some answers by splitting hairs as finely as you are.

Bullshit accusation.

Apologies

Thanks, but entirely unnecessary.

Hypothetically or otherwise?

Bullshit accusation.

Hypothetical bullshit accusation?

If I implied that you are a religious zealot, I assure you it was not my intent.

I was not suggesting that you were. Rather, it was merely a preemptive declaration so that we don't needlessly go down the wrong roads.

I will stipulate that beliving that which is trure is good regardless of whether you have evidence of that thruth or not. I just ask you why the caveat? If I shut my eyes to the reality of my relationships so that I won't see evidence of infidelity, won't I also be shutting my eyes to evidence of fidelity? Is belief in fidelity (or anything else) necessarily better if that belief is established without evidence?

Ah, but you draw a connection between faith and a laziness for the truth. One CAN have faith and also be in constant observation. Faith in fidelity does not imply closing ones eyes to the reality. Correct?

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Stipulated.

Just being... friendly

Fear?

Fear? Fear of what? I find hypotheticals to be tiresome, especially when you are so unwilling to actually delve into anything concrete regarding your own existence.

If it were relevent or enlightening, it'd be worth going into. Since its not, and is more importantly likely to lead to more bullshit presumptions and bullshit accusations, I'll respectfully decline to accept this invitation.

No intention of creating bullshit accusations. I do find it rather... interesting... your refusal to touch your own personal experience. It's completely relevant, as it speaks to your own arguments. I'm curious as to how your faith-free life (if indeed it is, since you've yet to offer conclusively how much faith you operate with) works, and not in that "oh it works well" or "oh it doesn't work well" kind of way.

No.

Demonstrate.

Bullshit accusations.

I accused you of nothing, sir. Merely stating possibilities.

Perhaps if you could make your point more clear for me, perhaps my responses would be less likely to illicit such defensive, and unproductive rejoinders.

The defensive unproductive rejoinders aren't just coming from one corner, although I do like your use of the word.

 

[dilloduck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilloduck
Science has tried to present the truth based on facts and reason to us for hundreds of years, only to have to admit they were wrong. (again)

This a common accusation from you. You state it quite emphatically. You wish to treat the honestly aquired knowledge derived from observation of reality and rigorous application of valid logic, cross examined, questioned, revised, and improved upon with the additions of more accurate observations and skeptical review as inferior to knowledge aquired how? Introspective illumination? Self revealing epiphany? Stating your unsupported opinion as fact?

Is a lie closer to the truth if it is presented in some official scientific format with "reasoning" attatched as opposed just blurted out at poker party?

Do your logic thing---those with "beliefs" aren't going to get in your way. When you get life explained you can tell us all " I told you so".

 

[MissileMan]

Is a lie closer to the truth if it is presented in some official scientific format with "reasoning" attatched as opposed just blurted out at poker party?

Do your logic thing---those with "beliefs" aren't going to get in your way. When you get life explained you can tell us all " I told you so".

What lie specifically are you alluding to?

 

[dilloduck]

What lie specifically are you alluding to?

Just in general---science and religion both look for answers and explanations

The argument appears to be that science is much more trustworthy but has goofed up since it's inception. It's a process and to date hasn't solved the great mysteries any more than religion has.