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.

[Goat]

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?

I would say that discussing those issues is of an extreme importance to those who are affected by other peoples personal beliefs, when those people try to impose those religious beliefs into the public policy. An example of this is the attempt to push 'Intelligent Design' into schools (creationism relabled), even though 'intelligent design' has nothing to do with science.

[ST_JB]

Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.

Definitely.

What do you mean by tangible evidence of "faith"?

I say faith is a belief based outside of evidence or in it's most extreme form, a believe in spite of evidence. My use of "faith" is a shortcut for "faith in a deity" as it is used in standard Christian apologetics.

Now I have often had theist accept my stated definition as accurate. Many believe that faith is a personal emotion that can not be discerned through the tools of reason and logic. That is obviously the point where I have to agree that we have nothing to discuss. However if faith is not ethereal, as a certain member here seems to indicate, then this would require some actual tangible evidence upon which to base faith.

Emotional subjectivity is obviously not evidence. The old cliche about having faith in the rising sun is obviously not a retort.

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.

I wonder what kind of theist can accept your definition of faith. I would rather believe that your erroneous definition leads you to misconception of the word. I would consider your above definition as a definition of an uninformed individual in an attempt to define an unknown subject has fallen into great fallacy in argument and in reason. That such attempt is only an appeal to emotion, baseless and without reason.

It is in this regard that I would like to ask your understanding on the subject. If your definition of faith is what you've mentioned, i would not wonder how you came into a wrong notion in understanding "faith." Otherwise, I shall be waiting.

It seems to me that you are incline to philosophy as can be seen in your approach on the sbject. If it is true, this would be the first time I would be discussing with a philospher in a real sense of the word. I am looking forward to learn new things from this discussion.

A philosophical approach in defining "faith" would be much interesting.

[Rathpig]

A philosophical approach in defining "faith" would be much interesting.

All approaches to metaphysical questions would be considered "philosophical". I do not think that my approach is any different than that of so many, and much more intelligent, scholars who have proceeded me. I'm a little man. These were great men.

But my definition of "faith" is fairly standard:

Faith is belief without evidence and in many cases belief in spite of evidence.

I think that any application of reason is going to arrive close to this same definition, and I must strongly retort that I am far from "an uninformed individual" and see where no case can be made that my definition appeals to emotion. Perhaps in fact it is yourself that should offer a definition and allow that to be explored before making untenable claims about the reasoning of others. The perhaps we can determine where the middle ground may lie.

To add further in reply to your gross mischaraterization of my character, i should add that I am rather well-informed on matters of human superstition and mythology. I would ask that you please point out in specific terms where my views on faith involve either emotion or fallacy.

We must start from the basis that the only objective approach to "faith" is philosophical.

[bernee51]

Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.

Definitely.

What do you mean by tangible evidence of "faith"?

I say faith is a belief based outside of evidence or in it's most extreme form, a believe in spite of evidence. My use of "faith" is a shortcut for "faith in a deity" as it is used in standard Christian apologetics.

Now I have often had theist accept my stated definition as accurate. Many believe that faith is a personal emotion that can not be discerned through the tools of reason and logic. That is obviously the point where I have to agree that we have nothing to discuss. However if faith is not ethereal, as a certain member here seems to indicate, then this would require some actual tangible evidence upon which to base faith.

Emotional subjectivity is obviously not evidence. The old cliche about having faith in the rising sun is obviously not a retort.

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.

I wonder what kind of theist can accept your definition of faith.

What definition of 'faith' would you accept?

I would rather believe that your erroneous definition leads you to misconception of the word.

How is the definition erroneous?

I would consider your above definition as a definition of an uninformed individual...

You offer no definition of your own yet you feel comfortable offering ad hominems.

It is in this regard that I would like to ask your understanding on the subject. If your definition of faith is what you've mentioned, i would not wonder how you came into a wrong notion in understanding "faith." Otherwise, I shall be waiting.

While you are waiting would you like to offer a ST_JB's definition of 'faith' - perhaps with a few examples to illustrate.

[ST_JB]

A philosophical approach in defining "faith" would be much interesting.

All approaches to metaphysical questions would be considered "philosophical". I do not think that my approach is any different than that of so many, and much more intelligent, scholars who have proceeded me. I'm a little man. These were great men.

But my definition of "faith" is fairly standard:

Faith is belief without evidence and in many cases belief in spite of evidence.

I think that any application of reason is going to arrive close to this same definition, and I must strongly retort that I am far from "an uninformed individual" and see where no case can be made that my definition appeals to emotion. Perhaps in fact it is yourself that should offer a definition and allow that to be explored before making untenable claims about the reasoning of others. The perhaps we can determine where the middle ground may lie.

To add further in reply to your gross mischaraterization of my character, i should add that I am rather well-informed on matters of human superstition and mythology. I would ask that you please point out in specific terms where my views on faith involve either emotion or fallacy.

We must start from the basis that the only objective approach to "faith" is philosophical.

My apology. I am not saying that you are an uninformed individual in general. I was referring to your understanding on the subject only.

I had to ask to confirm your understanding on matters of "faith". I have met so many people with opposition to the word but never did I find someone who had clear understanding on the concept of the word as applied and believed in Christianity – that is according to the understanding and teaching of the Church and of those who profess the faith.

So to start with, I want to ask for your understanding on the subject as to verify the point of departure of your opposition. Will you???

[Rathpig]

So to start with, I want to ask for your understanding on the subject as to verify the point of departure of your opposition. Will you???

Ask anything you desire if you feel my "understanding" is incomplete. Where I think you are taking exception is that my view cuts away the chaff and presents the wheat. I don't have to agree with or acknowledge as valid any specific doctrine of faith to "understand" the word and it's usage.

I know the verbose versions. I prefer my lean and sporty model.


Why don't you drive your version of the term out here for a look under the hood?

[ST_JB]

Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.

Definitely.

What do you mean by tangible evidence of "faith"?

I say faith is a belief based outside of evidence or in it's most extreme form, a believe in spite of evidence. My use of "faith" is a shortcut for "faith in a deity" as it is used in standard Christian apologetics.

Now I have often had theist accept my stated definition as accurate. Many believe that faith is a personal emotion that can not be discerned through the tools of reason and logic. That is obviously the point where I have to agree that we have nothing to discuss. However if faith is not ethereal, as a certain member here seems to indicate, then this would require some actual tangible evidence upon which to base faith.

Emotional subjectivity is obviously not evidence. The old cliche about having faith in the rising sun is obviously not a retort.

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.

I wonder what kind of theist can accept your definition of faith.

What definition of 'faith' would you accept?

I would rather believe that your erroneous definition leads you to misconception of the word.

How is the definition erroneous?

I would consider your above definition as a definition of an uninformed individual...

You offer no definition of your own yet you feel comfortable offering ad hominems.

It is in this regard that I would like to ask your understanding on the subject. If your definition of faith is what you've mentioned, i would not wonder how you came into a wrong notion in understanding "faith." Otherwise, I shall be waiting.

While you are waiting would you like to offer a ST_JB's definition of 'faith' - perhaps with a few examples to illustrate.

I don’t have my own definition of the term. I am only most indebted to the teaching the Holy Church.

The reason I am asking for an honest answer of one’s understanding on the subject is that I have seen a grievous misconception in the above - given definition. How come a person with little understanding or no understanding at all on the subject can give an accurate meaning of the word but only to appeal to his/her emotion in defining such term? Non-theists’ attempt to define particular teaching or Christian doctrine simply result to terrible error due to lack of understanding on the concept of the word, term or particular doctrine. Now, to bail out the misconstruction on the subject, I have come to ask for the understanding on matters of faith. Otherwise, we have to be contented to the ignorance of the definition given by someone who has no formal understanding on the subject.

[ST_JB]

So to start with, I want to ask for your understanding on the subject as to verify the point of departure of your opposition. Will you???

Ask anything you desire if you feel my "understanding" is incomplete. Where I think you are taking exception is that my view cuts away the chaff and presents the wheat. I don't have to agree with or acknowledge as valid any specific doctrine of faith to "understand" the word and it's usage.

I know the verbose versions. I prefer my lean and sporty model.


Why don't you drive your version of the term out here for a look under the hood?

I am not expecting you to give a reply. I do not believe either that you are capable of such definition I am asking for. If you cannot define or identify the point of departure for your argument, then it is clear that you are only appealing to your emotion. I am not asking for a “valid” definition yet. All I was asking is how you understand the subject as believed by those who profess. We are not yet in the validity of the claim. We are only in identifying your point of departure.

[Rathpig]

Otherwise, we have to be contented to the ignorance of the definition given by someone who has no formal understanding on the subject.

Okay ..... stop right there.

1). You need to define your terms. I defined mine.

2). My "formal understanding on the subject" is rather extensive.

3). You are assuming that your definition is correct and exclusive (please see #1).

4). You have, over several posts, stated that my definition is incorrect, yet you haven't address a single point concerning that definition. Please elaborate.

I am immune to your powerful magic attacks to the person. I am wearing the enchanted knickers of ad hominem blocking +10. Ironically they match my Helm of Secular Humanism and my Sword of Anachronistic Religious Empire Thwarting.

Come on ST_JB, at least play the game with style. Sayin what is the equivalent of, "nanna nanna boo boo - you eat poo poo" with a line like "only to appeal to his/her emotion" is not even average debating tactics. Nothing in my definition or my delineation of the topic was an appeal to emotion. It may have struck a raw nerve in your cosmology, but please don't sling fallacy terms without a manual.

I am willing to be a civil little poster if you are so willing.

Let us back up to #1 above and start the game anew.

[Rathpig]

All I was asking is how you understand the subject as believed by those who profess.

Now you see this is where you jumped the proverbial shark. I don't have to define my terms in light of the mythology of others. My definition is objective. You are asking for special pleading to the term.

We are going to start here:

You need to define your terms. I defined mine.

again:

You need to define your terms. I defined mine.

Once we are on an equal footing of fair disclosure then we can work out just who is the closest to reality.