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.

[byofrcs]

The U.S. is the greatest nation on earth, and most of us are religious.

That claim is simply without merit.

No nation is "the greatest". No nation should claim to be "the greatest". Nationalism is a horrible inhumane ideology. And given the crimes of the U.S. government over the past several years, that statement is intentionally provocative.

Well the US has the greatest number of people in prosecuted and in prison per capita (ref: Nationmaster http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_a ... per-capita and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_p ... per-capita ) easily outweighing the next by a wide percentage.

I feel these two statistics show the poor level of co-operation in society both between people and between the people and the state. The US may be a "great" nation but it is at war with itself. It also happens to be at war with other nations too but that's just shooting charlie and he don't surf.

[ST_JB]

You are dancing around the topic of faith and assuming you can hide behind ad hominem, well-poisoning, and straw men. You can dance the dance, but you are not proving anything about me or the points I have made. Semantics for the sake of semantics will never build into a substantive discussion.

Dancing is as good as your statement is playing around the discussion.

You are right. We will never build a substantive discussion if one has no formal understanding on the subject. And it clearly shows how you appeal to your emotion in defining the subject. Nothing in your post gives meaning to your claim – that is nothing has been substantiated.

I laid out my definition of faith:

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


As others have noted this is actually just a rewording of Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You were finally draw into a statement of substance:

This is just completely wrong. Hebrews 11:1 is a definitive statement. You can twist that into anything more than a simple declaration even though it does show the specious nature of your previous lines of personal attack and obfuscation.

This is the problem when someone who doesn’t believe in God talks about God and his teachings.

How a person can give proper interpretation on the scripture when in the first place he doesn’t believe in such??? Is he capable of giving unequivocal view on the matter??? Can we trust his view on the subject?

How can a person with no understanding lest don’t believe in what is written about the subject can give his interpretation? How can he correctly define something that is abstract to him? It is evident that such person’s motivation is no other than malicious in nature - acting on bad “faith” (intention) to malign the beliefs of others.

Which part of your post that substantiates your claim? Can you point to us that particular part please??

The answer to this is simple: the Abrahamic myth. Paul, or whoever the author of Hebrews may have been, was making a simple declaration that the basis of the Christian religion was belief without evidence. This was being presented as a strength. In this era, the understanding of logical constructs were rather primitive, so belief based on emotional; connection was seen as not only a valid system, but a show of dedication. It is easy to believe when shown proof, but it takes a special attachment to believe without proof. Moreover, it is a sign of faith, and loyalty, that belief is held for "things unseen".

This interpretation of the doctrine of faith is valid in almost every interpretation of the scripture including the Catholic dogma.

Faith is the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God.

“Things unseen” doesn’t mean things non-existence. It clearly denotes only the things beyond the “naked” eye can perceive. But for a person to say that “things unseen” connotes to “things unreal” is an act of GRIEVE IGNORANCE.

Faith can only manifest in us but can never be subjected to physical evidence for faith is a habit as in virtue. And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but "Ask and ye shall receive."

First of all, it is not for anyone to "figure out the difference". You assume that an aloof stance of arrogance will somehow win arguments. That is not even close to reality. Speaking for myself, this is not my first time posting on the internet. Bravado to cover bovine scat nets nothing of substance. Can you figure out the difference??? between an argument of substance and ethereal rhetoric? (???)

I am just stating what I have seen in you post. It is not an arrogance stance but a mere expression of truth in reading your post. If you are true to your statement that you have an extensive understanding on the subject of faith, I would ask you to discuss the subject in the catholic perspective- I’ve been asking you this one since the beginning but all you can do is to entertain us with your song and dance diversionary tactics to mislead this thread. The highly baseless opinionated definition of “faith” is rather an act of an “uninformed” individual trying to give his “understanding” on the subject that is abstract to him. This statement will remain “true” until your claim is substantiated with logical argument.

Objectivity is not found in a relative system. The Christian/Catholic "God" is one in a million of constructive deities throughout history. "The Church" is just one more human created business to provide an income for the idle economic class. Neither this god, or the business created to profit from the myth, mean the least to me, so you fail the test of objectivity.

This is another sweeping statement without valid support. A perfect example of personal opinion rooted in abstracted emotional dilemma.

On an even larger note, you fail the test of meaning anything with the words you wrote. Nothing has been "revealed". No "truth" is evident. All we have is just another quaint cultural mythology. No more or less important than the Veda or any more substantive than the Iliad.

If something is revealed to a person by another person and is not revealed to another that doesn’t mean that there was no revelation happened. If your faith is disastrous that you weren’t able to grasp the belief in God because the failure of your “intellect” to assent to the truth of his existence that doesn’t mean that others’ “intellect” must be operating in “unreasonable” way or illogical way. A sweeping statement of yours can only be deduced as an appeal to emotion since nothing has been substantiated from the claims you’ve made. Your disagreement is basically can be characterized as only disagreement to the object of “faith”. And this disagreement to the object of “faith” will never result to profession of “faith”. It is understandable too that such act of “intellect” is in doubt to the object of the “faith” and therefore could not profess what is not amenable to him.

Non sequitur doesn't make for a very good argument. What truth?

Doesn't this put us right back to my definition of faith?

Now, this post of yours clearly shows your lack of understanding on the subject. In every act of the “intellect” there we find the object and the subject of such act. It is in no doubt that your understanding lacks support of logical argument as your post clearly shows vagueness towards the subject or even to logical approach.

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

Faith is an act of intellect assenting to divine truth… pardon me but I have to ask how do you understand the meaning of the words “act of intellect?”

I suggest that rather than burden the forum with ad hominem, obfuscation, equivocation, men of straw, non sequitur, well poisoning, false bravado, and other various and sundry attempts to use the entire formal and informal fallacy list on one topic, take my definition of faith and delineate it under your system.

I would rather conclude that your claim as “extensively” knowledgeable in the subject of faith is an act of emotion than intellect. It is clearly demeaning on your part that you have made some sweeping statement more than you could chew. Your petty definition is disappointing as the claims are not substantiated. For a person to claim to possess an “extensive” understanding on the subject is surely malicious in nature if all he can do is to give a petty definition base on emotion that is malicious in nature.

Show me where I am in error in your opinion.

Please read your definition>>>

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

Your claim is that you have an extensive understanding on matters of faith. But when ask to discuss the subject in Christian/Catholic perspective all you can give is a sweeping statement such as this one, and I quote:

The answer to this is simple: the Abrahamic myth. Paul, or whoever the author of Hebrews may have been, was making a simple declaration that the basis of the Christian religion was belief without evidence. This was being presented as a strength. In this era, the understanding of logical constructs were rather primitive, so belief based on emotional; connection was seen as not only a valid system, but a show of dedication. It is easy to believe when shown proof, but it takes a special attachment to believe without proof. Moreover, it is a sign of faith, and loyalty, that belief is held for "things unseen".

This interpretation of the doctrine of faith is valid in almost every interpretation of the scripture including the Catholic dogma.

“Things unseen” doesn’t mean things non-existence. It clearly denotes only the things beyond the “naked” eye can perceive. For a person to say that “things unseen” connotes to “things unreal” is an act of GRIEVE IGNORANCE.

There are things in this world that are not perceivable by the “naked” eye but held to be true. Such things can be demonstrated only as to its effects. Faith is an act of the intellect assenting to the truth. This truth may be abstract to “Rathpig” for the reason that he might not amenable to such or could be beyond his “intellect” can process as to make amenable in any manner as to profess such “faith”.

It is therefore, in this regard that Rathpig’s petty definition is in error that he failed to account in logical argument the bases for his claim. His failure to present his understanding on the subject as profess and believed by Christians/Catholics is also worth mentioning as this will show his credibility to give his counter claims against faith.

For a person to be credible to the opposition must in the first place has a full understanding to what he opposed for.

Otherwise such opposition is meaningless, empty and questionable as to its motivation. It is in this respect that such opposition can be considered as an appeal to emotion.

[Rathpig]

Well ST_JB,

I have no idea what you said, but I know you said all of it. I also know that you refuse to discuss the topic rationally and feel that somehow ad hominem, non sequitur, and even a little old fashion projection will win the day.

Okay, I will concede to your vastly superior intellect. You win an internet. (Don't spend it all in one place.)

Cognitive dissonance has no known cure. I am not the Dr. House of metaphysicians, so I will not even try to save some from themselves. We have reached that point.


For the rest of the crowd:

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

My definition of faith is not as expansive as the author of Hebrews.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

I could expand on my definition and say that faith is what you wish was true even if no evidence exists. I think this is accurate throughout Christian history. Faith is something that stands in contrast to reason even when reason may provide a simple answer.

One area where faith and reason collide that has always fascinated me is the Noah's Ark tale. No educated person in the current era could take this myth literally, yet many people do believe it is an actual story of a man who built a boat that housed representatives of every land animal on earth.

What glorious faith must be required to believe something that is simply impossible. It is half possible or "kinda" possible. It is simply not possible. Noah's Ark is not literal.

Yet we have the concept of faith.

One could even say that faith is the ability to believe a lie - when you know it is a lie.

[ST_JB]

What is this...a game of 'ask the right question"?

No. As I’ve said I’m here only to defend my faith from misconstrued or poor understanding on the subject.

What faith (exactly) is being misconstrued by whom (exactly)?

No offense, Z but I guess you have a limited understanding of what faith really implies.

Why would a valid faith require defense?

Defense in such that one is ready to make an answer to any misconception if not malicious post directed to any Christian teachings/doctrine or belief.

[Blood On Your Hands]

Why would a valid faith require defense?

Defense in such that one is ready to make an answer to any misconception if not malicious post directed to any Christian teachings/doctrine or belief.

Faith is so hard to defend because essentially you're defending nothing.

Faith is belief in something without evidence to suggest otherwise.

[ST_JB]

Why would a valid faith require defense?

Defense in such that one is ready to make an answer to any misconception if not malicious post directed to any Christian teachings/doctrine or belief.

Faith is so hard to defend because essentially you're defending nothing.

Faith is belief in something without evidence to suggest otherwise.

I know my faith. I know what I believe in. It may appear abtract to others but only because they haven't grasp the evidence for such. Evidence needs not to be scientific such as proving the existence of God for it is not the function of science to prove something beyond its limits. In fact science has a lot of explaining to do about the physical structure of the earth and to assume the job of explaining something that cannot be verified by its techniques would be too much of a job.

In other words, it may not be as appealing as believing that pluto exist but i would say that faith can be known through reason - with the proper understanding on the subject and its object.

[allansmith]

I know my faith. I know what I believe in. It may appear abstract to others but only because they haven't grasp the evidence for such. Evidence needs not to be scientific such as proving the existence of God for it is not the function of science to prove something beyond its limits. In fact science has a lot of explaining to do about the physical structure of the earth and to assume the job of explaining something that cannot be verified by its techniques would be too much of a job.

Quite right. Science can only discover a tiny sub-set of truth. The trouble is, some people are so intoxicated by this success they then think science can answer all questions. It's patently absurd, but there it is.

Did you know that believe comes from "be leven", which means "to love and desire"?

To believe in God isn't to hold a certain mental picture or to entertain a certain philosophical view, but it's to love and desire him. It's the same with faith. A person of faith is faithful to God, like a man is faithful to a woman. Again, it's all about love. The heart comes first, the mind comes second. As Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'."

[Fallibleone]

ST_JB, I would like to echo the previous poster's request that you lessen the size of your signature. It is making it impossible to view the whole page without scrolling left and right.

I know my faith. I know what I believe in. It may appear abstract to others but only because they haven't grasp the evidence for such.

This is one possibility. Another is that it is abstract. There are more possibilities too. I am glad that there are people on this planet who do acknowledge that they are beings of worth. What I am not glad about is that some of those people do not acknowledge that they are surrounded by other beings of equal worth (and talents). In other words, it is a positive thing to realise you are clever. It is not a positive thing (or true) IMHO to think that everyone else is less clever. It might help to think of other alternatives to why your faith is 'misunderstood'.

Evidence needs not to be scientific such as proving the existence of God for it is not the function of science to prove something beyond its limits. In fact science has a lot of explaining to do about the physical structure of the earth and to assume the job of explaining something that cannot be verified by its techniques would be too much of a job.

'Science can't explain everything so Goddidit.'

[ST_JB]

It is quite sad that this discussion has to be truncated sooner that I expected.

Well ST_JB,

I have no idea what you said, but I know you said all of it. I also know that you refuse to discuss the topic rationally and feel that somehow ad hominem, non sequitur, and even a little old fashion projection will win the day.

Are you not the one who’s guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad hominem with your sweeping statement without support?

Okay, I will concede to your vastly superior intellect. You win an internet. (Don't spend it all in one place.)

Cognitive dissonance has no known cure. I am not the Dr. House of metaphysicians, so I will not even try to save some from themselves. We have reached that point.

No cure??? The theory suggests that a person experiencing Cognitive dissonance is more likely will seek to change something to eliminate dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance theory as proposed by Leon Festinger in the 50’s can be best known in the example of unbelievers especially those who had believed prior to disbelief but abandoned such belief due to inconsistencies they have experienced in their belief between science and religion. According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions. To eliminate dissonance most unbelievers abandoned their faith in lieu to their “belief “in science.

The theory was first published in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Issue 58, pages 203-210.

The study, experiment and procedures can be read in the below link including the results.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/

[Zzyzx]

ST_JB, I would like to echo the previous poster's request that you lessen the size of your signature. It is making it impossible to view the whole page without scrolling left and right.

Tech note: If your browser supports an "ad block" function, simply block the offending graphic. Firefox completely eliminates the "overwidth" problem this way.