Question: Does faith come from reason? Do rational thoughts lead one to faith?twobitsmedia wrote:Faith is a fruit of reason and rational thoughts.
Most non-theists and a good number of theists would deny this.
Moderator: Moderators
Question: Does faith come from reason? Do rational thoughts lead one to faith?twobitsmedia wrote:Faith is a fruit of reason and rational thoughts.
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.Assent wrote:This is what I was talking about when I mentioned those who let their religious-based morals affect their actions.Rathpig wrote: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.
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.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 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.
Definitely.Rathpig wrote: Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.
Rathpig wrote: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.ST_JB wrote: What do you mean by tangible evidence of "faith"?
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.
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.ST_JB wrote:
A philosophical approach in defining "faith" would be much interesting.
What definition of 'faith' would you accept?ST_JB wrote:Definitely.Rathpig wrote: Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.
Rathpig wrote: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.ST_JB wrote: What do you mean by tangible evidence of "faith"?
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.
How is the definition erroneous?ST_JB wrote: I would rather believe that your erroneous definition leads you to misconception of the word.
You offer no definition of your own yet you feel comfortable offering ad hominems.ST_JB wrote: I would consider your above definition as a definition of an uninformed individual...
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 wrote: 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.
Rathpig wrote: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.ST_JB wrote:
A philosophical approach in defining "faith" would be much interesting.
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.
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.ST_JB wrote: 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???
I don’t have my own definition of the term. I am only most indebted to the teaching the Holy Church.bernee51 wrote:What definition of 'faith' would you accept?ST_JB wrote:Definitely.Rathpig wrote: Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.
Rathpig wrote: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.ST_JB wrote: What do you mean by tangible evidence of "faith"?
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.
How is the definition erroneous?ST_JB wrote: I would rather believe that your erroneous definition leads you to misconception of the word.
You offer no definition of your own yet you feel comfortable offering ad hominems.ST_JB wrote: I would consider your above definition as a definition of an uninformed individual...
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 wrote: 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.
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 wrote: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.ST_JB wrote: 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???
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?
Okay ..... stop right there.ST_JB wrote: Otherwise, we have to be contented to the ignorance of the definition given by someone who has no formal understanding on the subject.
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.ST_JB wrote: All I was asking is how you understand the subject as believed by those who profess.