Faith and reason

[McCulloch]

Faith is a fruit of reason and rational thoughts.

Question: Does faith come from reason? Do rational thoughts lead one to faith?

Most non-theists and a good number of theists would deny this.

[McCulloch]

That is the difference between "a reason" and reasonable.

Let's see if I can think of a neutral example...

Ah! Ok, think culturally. Let's say that you are a person who lives in a society that only wears black when mourning. You are visiting a different country, and happen to stumble upon an argument about the virtues of wearing black with various fashionable patterns and designs. To you, the argument is completely ludicrous; why would anyone care about fashion when they're in mourning?!

I imagine that your next argument is that there is no comparison between cultures and the nature of reality, but I am not trying to compare these things. I am trying to say what the definition of "reasonable" is.

I think that we can all agree that cultural preferences and aesthetics are subjective and difficult to process rationally and reasonably.

But we are talking about faith. If you wish to put faith in the same category as cultural preferences and aesthetics, we are done here.

But faith is about things like, is there a supernatural sky daddy, is there an afterlife, if so, how do I guarantee or at least improve the odds that I will be in a good situation in the afterlife. If you assert with confidence that you have the answers to these questions, that is if you have faith, then the answers should be based on reason, evidence and logic. Otherwise you have no basis on which to justify your confidence.

However, the writer of Hebrews says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Not that faith is based on evidence. Faith is irrational.

[Zzyzx]

.

What I seek is someone who believes faith can have a reasonable basis to actually demonstrate this reason through evidence that can be discussed. I say faith can not be reasoned using the standard definitions of logical discourse. I say faith is merely an ethereal emotion.

Perhaps you will find a religionist willing to attempt to apply “reason through evidence” in defense of “faith”. However, evidence to support “faith” based in supernaturalism and magic is in short supply and “reason” without evidence is mere conjecture.

What I have observed in this forum in the past nine months is:

1. Hearsay presented as “eyewitness accounts”. Claims that people saw something (but wrote nothing -- with reports written decades later) are referred to as being eyewitness accounts.

2. Unsupported claims backed only by biblical quotations and “interpretations” – presented as “proof” to known non-theists. When claims are challenged, the response is often, “you can’t prove me wrong” (so much for reason or logic).

3. Claims that “complexity requires a creator” (without evidence that the statement is true).

4. And, believe-it-or-not, claims that the bible is true because it says it is true.

A few theists are capable debaters who employ reason (even if evidence is slight). They are NOT the ones who rush in to “defend the faith” – and they are generally not fundamentalists.

[Assent]

If you assert with confidence that you have the answers to these questions, that is if you have faith, then the answers should be based on reason, evidence and logic. Otherwise you have no basis on which to justify your confidence.

But it is, is my point!

Logic is a form of reasoning.

Reasoning is based on evidence.

You reject the evidence given, and the opposition refuses to justify their evidence, but that does not mean that they don't think it's evidence. They do, and because they don't justify it to you, you are well justified in saying that their arguments are unreasonable.

The evidence, or the premise, or the assumptions, or whatever you want to call the basis of an argument can be proven as true, not true, or untestable. But the logic arising from not true evidence is not what is faulty; the reasoning based on the logic is not false.

This is why atheists and theists can spin around in circles and never touch one another; the first reason is because they reject the evidence that forms the basis of each other's arguments. The second is that, rather than considering one another's evidence, they will prefer to find a different set of evidence that contradicts the other's premise, regardless of whether that evidence is true, not true, or untestable. Reality does not even enter into the function; such an endless argument could be formed around one's favorite pies.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we are all able to be logical, and to be illogical, and to use reason in our arguments. Attack the foundation, the premise, the evidence, if you wish, but do not fault the logic that stems from it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Logic is a form of reasoning.

Reasoning is based on evidence.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we are all able to be logical, and to be illogical, and to use reason in our arguments. Attack the foundation, the premise, the evidence, if you wish, but do not fault the logic that stems from it.

Logic is not quite a form of reasoning, it is actually the study of reasoning. A working definitin might be: “the study of correct reasoning and argument”.

One could say that certain reasoning is “logical” (according to the principles of logic).

Some definitions:

: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
Merriam Webster


Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a controversial matter.
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php



Logic is the study of methods of reasoning and argumentation, both proper and improper.
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyb ... /Logic.htm



Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic



Logic, strictly speaking, is the science or study of how to evaluate arguments and reasoning. Logic is what allows us to distinguish correct reasoning from poor reasoning. Logic is important because it helps us reason correctly — without correct reasoning, we don’t have a viable means for knowing the truth or arriving at sound beliefs.
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalargu ... uction.htm

All of us would do well to become intimately familiar with “logical fallacies” – common mistakes in debate – so we do not commit errors in logic – and so we recognize when others are attempting to use faulty logic in arguments. Here is one list of logical fallacies, there are others.

http://logicalfallacies.info/
• Bandwagon Fallacy
• Fallacist's Fallacy
• Fallacy of Composition
• Fallacy of Division
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy
• Irrelevant Appeals
o Appeal to Antiquity
o Appeal to Authority
o Appeal to Consequences
o Appeal to Force
o Appeal to Novelty
o Appeal to Pity
o Appeal to Popularity
o Appeal to Poverty
o Appeal to Wealth
• Moralistic Fallacy
• Naturalistic Fallacy
• Red Herring
• Weak Analogy
• Accent Fallacies
• Equivocation
• Straw Man Arguments
• Affirming the Consequent
• Argument from Ignorance
• Begging the Question
• Complex Question
• Cum Hoc
• False Dilemma
• Hasty Generalisation
• 'No True Scotsman'
• Post Hoc
• Slippery Slope
• Sweeping Generalisation
• Tu Quoque

[Rathpig]

Ah! Ok, think culturally...

..... such an endless argument could be formed around one's favorite pies.

I don't know if you did this intentionally or if it merely reasonable to make the connection, but you have demonstrated part of my larger point.

A person who is not plagued with xenophobia will accept another culture at face value in most ways. One may say it is "strange" that the Scot eats haggis, but no one would call the Scot "unreasonable". One may say that they don't understand how any pie eater prefers mince over apple, but very few rational people would say a preference for mince is "unreasonable".

Now when the Scot says that I must eat the haggis at my own dining table or suffer the curse of the Highlands, I will reply that this is a very "unreasonable" position. He can eat all the haggis he desires, I will abstain. When I am wanting a bit of sweet and tasty dessert with coffee on my sunporch and an interloper says, "You must eat this mincemeat pie or Dine in Hell with the 300!", I will rightly reply, "Sir, you are beyond reason and it would behoove you to flee!"

Reasonable people can make a reasoned application of the term "reasonable".

As concerns the application of faith, the term "reason" and it's various forms are not much different that the examples above. If someone was to say that they had "faith" in the continuing bull-market and never asked me to invest, I would merely say that their faith was an opinion and opinions are like, umm, let's just say we all have them. This is subjective reasoning, and everyone has a right to such.

When the Christian religion enters the picture of reasonableness then it is much like the joker forcing the mincemeat or the haggis. They are not forming an opinion about their own reality, they are asking me to eat the dish or suffer The Curse. This is why in the context of this thread reasonableness becomes my business and not a mere subjective endeavor. They make a statement feigning objective reality, so they must now make a reasonable accounting.

[Assent]

I don't know if you did this intentionally or if it merely reasonable to make the connection, but you have demonstrated part of my larger point.

A person who is not plagued with xenophobia will accept another culture at face value in most ways. One may say it is "strange" that the Scot eats haggis, but no one would call the Scot "unreasonable". One may say that they don't understand how any pie eater prefers mince over apple, but very few rational people would say a preference for mince is "unreasonable".

Now when the Scot says that I must eat the haggis at my own dining table or suffer the curse of the Highlands, I will reply that this is a very "unreasonable" position. He can eat all the haggis he desires, I will abstain. When I am wanting a bit of sweet and tasty dessert with coffee on my sunporch and an interloper says, "You must eat this mincemeat pie or Dine in Hell with the 300!", I will rightly reply, "Sir, you are beyond reason and it would behoove you to flee!"

Reasonable people can make a reasoned application of the term "reasonable".

As concerns the application of faith, the term "reason" and it's various forms are not much different that the examples above. If someone was to say that they had "faith" in the continuing bull-market and never asked me to invest, I would merely say that their faith was an opinion and opinions are like, umm, let's just say we all have them. This is subjective reasoning, and everyone has a right to such.

When the Christian religion enters the picture of reasonableness then it is much like the joker forcing the mincemeat or the haggis. They are not forming an opinion about their own reality, they are asking me to eat the dish or suffer The Curse. This is why in the context of this thread reasonableness becomes my business and not a mere subjective endeavor. They make a statement feigning objective reality, so they must now make a reasonable accounting.

Ah, excellent. Now we get to the part where we agree, and yet still disagree. My favorite.

I do agree that threats of punishment for deviance are uncalled for, as are unverifiable or false claims that the physical world backs up what are really personal beliefs. I also despise the idea of using force to perpetuate these beliefs. But increasingly in today's culture, it becomes easy to ignore those who try to make you believe, since they have lost the power of physical force (note that I do not include those who act on their beliefs to behave irrationally; morals and beliefs, I have noted in another thread, I believe are separate).

Thus, you are able to, in a nearly unprecidented way for Western Civilization, listen to a person condemn you, and then nod, shrug, and walk away. Confronting them will usually never work; they are too certain about their opinions to simply say, "Oh, wait, I don't have any good data on this. That makes you right automatically, since you are the only other option!"

So my question is this: If you don't like haggis, then how come you went to an all-you-can-eat haggis smorgasbord and picked a fight with the locals?

[Rathpig]

Thus, you are able to, in a nearly unprecidented way for Western Civilization, listen to a person condemn you, and then nod, shrug, and walk away.

I wish this was true. I am a citizen of the United States, and over the last 7 years we have regressed to situation where the danger of religious control of government is ever present. Though Reagan begin the illegal inclusion of religious doctrine into government, it has taken two decades to realize the dream of Falwell and Robertson. Evangelical Christianity and Opus Dei Catholicism has been given an un-Constitutional center stage in the Bush Administration. The recent appointments to the Supreme court have edged the U.S. close to a de facto legal theocracy. Trillions of taxpayers dollars fund Zionism, U.S. foreign policy is influenced almost as much by religion as it is by corporate hegemony, and even education itself is under assault by superstition.

I wish I could walk away. Christianity has created a war on liberty that pales in comparison to the billions wasted in the false "War on Terror". I feel it is a position of conscience to oppose the forces of superstition and theocracy.

So my question is this: If you don't like haggis, then how come you went to an all-you-can-eat haggis smorgasbord and picked a fight with the locals?

I was unaware this is all-Christian site. Even though I have had multiple invites to some rather well known theistic forums, I do not venture into those areas because I know the limitations.

If this is a Christians only site, then I will gladly leave. It was my understanding that this was an open discussion forum for all ideologies. Perhaps I should seek clarification on this point from the administration of the forum.

[Assent]

I wish this was true. I am a citizen of the United States, and over the last 7 years we have regressed to situation where the danger of religious control of government is ever present. Though Reagan begin the illegal inclusion of religious doctrine into government, it has taken two decades to realize the dream of Falwell and Robertson. Evangelical Christianity and Opus Dei Catholicism has been given an un-Constitutional center stage in the Bush Administration. The recent appointments to the Supreme court have edged the U.S. close to a de facto legal theocracy. Trillions of taxpayers dollars fund Zionism, U.S. foreign policy is influenced almost as much by religion as it is by corporate hegemony, and even education itself is under assault by superstition.

I wish I could walk away. Christianity has created a war on liberty that pales in comparison to the billions wasted in the false "War on Terror". I feel it is a position of conscience to oppose the forces of superstition and theocracy.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned those who let their religious-based morals affect their actions.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've got to the part where they start handing out manditory memberships in those organizations you've mentioned, and until they do, I think my point is still valid.

Oh, and schools have been "under assault by superstition" for at least 80 years now. Good ol' Scopes.

I was unaware this is all-Christian site. Even though I have had multiple invites to some rather well known theistic forums, I do not venture into those areas because I know the limitations.

If this is a Christians only site, then I will gladly leave. It was my understanding that this was an open discussion forum for all ideologies. Perhaps I should seek clarification on this point from the administration of the forum.

Ok, so my analogy's off, but my point remains. I doubt you have come to a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion" to agree with non-theists, so why are you here?

[Rathpig]

.... so why are you here?

I heard the coffee was good and the chairs were comfy.

Why, pray tell, do you roam these halls?

[Assent]

I heard the coffee was good and the chairs were comfy.

Why, pray tell, do you roam these halls?

By expressing my opinions, I learn how to better express my opinions.

Why, did you come for the same reason? Well if so, then pull up a chair, 'cause I hear the fireworks around here can be quite good. Especially when Smersh comes over to light a few fuses.