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.

[Rathpig]

Surely you are incapable of presenting my argument in formal logic.

Umm dude, srsly dude, you haven't made an argument.

If you would like to make some actual claims based on logical discourse, I can run it through the symbolic logic forms and see what happens. If you are jonesin' for some predicate calculus, I'll help ya out. Ima playa, yo.

[ST_JB]

Something slippery going on here. I’ll try and break it down.

Ok. A reasonable claim evidenced by protons, neutrons, neutrinos, quarks, Plank length, Plank time, colour force, weak force etc.

Certainly for stuff like atoms, protons, quarks and so forth.

But how does this claim connect to, or follow, the previous sentence? The Greeks coined the idea of atoms. Today the modern conception of atoms - are accepted as fact due to observed effects. The “naked eye” don’t see the atom, but it does see the physical effect. Whilst the connect between theory and effect is a rigorous, it allows for precise predictions, whilst it is always open for falsification. In stark contrast the assenting to the truth of which you speak is of a whole different order, lacking any effects that can be rigorously connected to the theoretical construct, viz., God. But this is a point you have already made at post 52.

Good point.

If you have noticed the point I was making, you will understand that I mentioned that there is what is known as objectivity and subjectivity of faith. In this discussion, it’s either we direct the point to its object or to its subject. The latter as defined only exist by assenting to the former.

So the subject matter of faith has no physical effects that can serve as evidence. Which makes the first paragraph I quoted a non sequitur. If the third sentence is meant to follow from the first two. And if it is not meant to follow, then what exactly are you arguing for?

This is another good point to consider.

The love of parents to their children cannot be subjected to physical evidence but can only be seen as to its manifestation. The effects of this manifestation can be recognized in things the parents endowed with love.

Faith as I said cannot be subjected to physical evidence for it is a habit or a virtue as love is a virtue. Love cannot be subjected to physical evidence as faith cannot be subjected to physical evidence. Both faith and love manifest in us in the absence of physical evidence. What can manifest cannot be regarded as non existence.

If you are saying that it is an act of ignorance correlate “things unreal” with “things that can never be subjected to physical evidence” then this is a pretty radical claim. It is not like you are saying “things for which there is presently no physical evidence”. Your claim is much stronger than that. Without the possibility of any physical evidence, there is no possibility of the thing in question having any noticeable effect on the reality we observe. For most of us that criteria satisfies as the benchmark for something being real. To set the bench mark any lower is to admit any old idle imagining as real. It is not ignorance to dismiss such physical empty notions as unreal. It is critical thinking.

I would say that there is a little bit confusion here on your part in matters of faith. Please take note that faith like love is a virtue and therefore can only be noticed through its manifestation in a person.

Let me do this once more.

“Things unseen” doesn’t mean “things unreal”
For it doesn’t follow that “things unseen” by the naked eye are “things unreal”
Therefore “things unseen” is not “things unreal”.

To say that “things unseen” is “things unreal”
is an act of grieve ignorance.

Looking for physical evidence for faith is like looking for physical evidence for love. For love and faith is a virtue that manifest in us. No person in his right mind can say that he/she has a physical evidence for love. For love and faith can only be known through its manifestation. And that no physical evidence can be identified or produce for love and faith.

[ST_JB]

I am having a hard time finding where you have made a specific argument. It appears that you are more interested in calling me "ignorant" than making any claims and rebutting the claims that I have made.

I’m sorry to hear that you’re having a hard time finding the argument.

If you are speaking about your argument by appeal to the Catholic Church, this is the fallacy of Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) which violates logic because you have claimed truth based on the organization and not the evidence. Which is the point I have been making about faith. It is belief sans evidence.

Appeal to Authority is not always a bad thing. One should defer to the authorities on a subject when ever possible, but the state of being an authority alone does not create truth. When this is a fallacy when you claim the authority is the source of truth without any need for presenting a reasoned argument.

Appeal to Authority could present or not present the truth. That means it doesn’t follow always that an appeal to authority is true or false. An appeal to authority gives weight to the credibility of the statement. This is what an Appeal to Authority means. But as said it doesn’t always follows that it can give true/false statement.

Please quote the statement I have appealed to authority in making statements. Surely you don’t know how appeal to authority is misused in argument lest how it is considered as fallacy in argumentation.

I think that explain the your problem in "formal logic". Now if you have any other arguments that you would like me to list a specific fallacy. please don't hesitate to ask.

So sweet of you to hear that, Rat.

I welcome your help. There might be some points I missed when I took my formal education in “Formal Logic” in my undergrad.

[ST_JB]

Thank you...it is often the case that questions are more important than answers.

The pleasure is mine.

Question is as important as the answer - for the clarity of the answer rests on the perspicuity of the question.

Can I figure the difference? A good question.

As I understand objective in the sense you have used it, it means 'available and factual to all, regardless of the point from which the perception takes place".

Would you agree?

No. This is not negotiable. So perception or personal point of view, opinion has no place in this revealed “truth.” For truth is truth. Truth doesn’t rest on various perceptions of a person but operates independently whether a person will assent to this truth or not – the truth will remain the same.

In other words you point 1. states that the "truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church presents to us" are not only available to all no matter what the point of perception but also factual.

Would you agree?

It is factual or truthful. But I don’t think I can agree as to the point of perception you are talking about. Would you care to elaborate just in case I missed the point?

Now it is obvious that to the majority of humanity these 'truths' may be available but not factual. I do, as non-believer, have these 'truths' available to me but in order to be seen as factual they require subjectivity. Which leads me to point 2.

No. This is factual. As I have said this is true to all even to the person who is not professing the faith. The truth remains and never changes as the “truthfulness” rest not on profession. The reference of its truthfulness is not the subject. So faith is the act of intellect assenting to Divine truth… that is profession of faith exists when the intellect assents to those truths… but truths exists even if the person do not assents to those truths…

Faith, subjectively, is having the ability to see the truths objectively in so much as it is objectively true to all those who subjectively have faith.

Would you agree?

No. Faith subjectively, is assenting to those truths… truths remain the same to all even to those who do not assent to those truths.

So essentially faith is only objective to those who have come to a subjective habit or virtue by which they assent to those truths.

No. Faith is an act of the intellect assenting to divine truth… that means, as I have explained earlier…faith will be come a habit or virtue in assenting to those truths revealed to the Church and presents to us. One may not or refuse to assent to those truths but what was missing is the habit or virtue only not the “truth”.

The question remains...from whence does the subjective arise?

My earlier post was very clear… faith is the act of the intellect assenting to divine truth moved by the will of which bestowed by God with grace. Thus, intellect + will + grace = faith.

Does it arise from reason? Or is it the equation of feeling with knowledge?

Indeed. The object of faith which is the truth of which the intellect assents to with his will is by all means arises from reason.

Perhaps the ignorance is not malevolent and the questioner is merely not well informed. Would it not be the compassionate thing to inform that person as to how you define faith in order to provide some common ground on which to talk.

One can tell if the person asking is acting in bad faith. An Honest question is an exception much more an objective question. But for someone who claimed to be highly informed on particular subject as believed and understood in a Christian/catholic perspective but failed to present his understanding on the same is definitely an “uninformed” and ignorant man. A person can challenge the one particular Dogma, Teaching or term but to give another meaning in contrary to what is held by those who profess or believe is in no way an “informed” individual but rather “uninformed” person appealing to his malicious personal opinion.

[Zzyzx]

.

One can tell if the person asking is acting in bad faith.

How is this done without error? Is it by mind reading?

Is this representative of the real world or is it self-deception? Can someone actually tell if another person is acting in bad faith?

A person can challenge the one particular Dogma, Teaching or term but to give another meaning in contrary to what is held by those who profess or believe is in no way an “informed” individual but rather “uninformed” person appealing to his malicious personal opinion.

Those who “profess or believe” disagree with one another on the meaning of “dogma, teaching or terms”. Does that mean that they are all uninformed and malicious?

[Beto]

Surely you are incapable of presenting my argument in formal logic.

Let me ask you a very direct question...

Why is "faith" in the Abrahamic god logical, as opposed to "faith" in the Mesopotamic goddess Aruru?

Simple question, and by all means use your own definition of "faith".

[TMMaria]

I think the best way to settle such a case would be to ask for the tangible evidence of "faith"..

Tangible evidence was what settled the case for me. May you have the grace the see the tangible evidence opening your eyes" to the now intangible to you...just as the case was settled for Thomas the Apostle or for Saul the persecutor who turned to St. Paul, God's Apostle to the Gentiles.

Ever heard of the song:

Amazing Grace....I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.

I am sure that once you go through the kind of "tangible evidence" leading you to that giant leap of faith...the song will be most sweet and most passionate to you.

[Rathpig]

I think the best way to settle such a case would be to ask for the tangible evidence of "faith"..

Tangible evidence was what settled the case for me.

So please present your "tangible evidence".



I should probably note that "tangible evidence" is an objective criteria. It is not an emotional reaction, a cultural bias, or an unsubstantiated "miracle". These things are subjective, in most cases relative, support that is neither tangible or evidence. Evidence must be the same to any reasonable observer, and reproducible or sustained.

Pointing to characters in a mythological book or the lyrics of songs is hardly proof of anything.

[Beto]

Pointing to characters in a mythological book or the lyrics of songs is hardly proof of anything.

If it was, we would have literary works far more ancient than the Bible, preserved for over 3000 years, thus making "faith" in the described gods far more "logical".

[ST_JB]

Surely you are incapable of presenting my argument in formal logic.

Let me ask you a very direct question...

Why is "faith" in the Abrahamic god logical, as opposed to "faith" in the Mesopotamic goddess Aruru?

Simple question, and by all means use your own definition of "faith".

Hi Beto,

If this is all you can offer, i suggest you read more about sumerian texts. If you are inclined to a more fanciful reading... read the 12th Planet, a series of the earth chronicles by zecharia sitchin. For a more traditional approach, try The Old Testament in the Light of the Records of Assyria and Babylonia by Theophilus G. Pinches. Also The Religion Of Babylonia and Assyria - by the same author.

My favorite is the 12th planet by sitchin. The religion of babylonia... is good as well.

I'm sure it will be of great help in your attack to christian faith.

Have a nice day! Enjoy your reading.