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.

[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".

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.

I don't think I need to read anything. My question was apparently complicated enough for you. I'm flattered.

[Pi]

Someone please demonstrate to me the systematic steps to delineating "faith" through reason.

"Faith" can be one of three results:
1) Brainwashing that produces a blind unquestioned faith
2) Faith as a result of collecting information (evidence) that satisfies rational inquiry.
3) Faith as a result of testing a hypothesis and discovering that the hypothesis is true.

In one process the rational mind is ignored (brainwashing).
The other two processes include rational investigation leading to a personal (not necessarily 'scientific') conclusion of 'faith'.

An example would be someone determining that throughout history there have been countless individuals who have determined that religious/spiritual matters are real and concluding that 'there must be something to all of this spiritual stuff'; (reasonable but illogical) but nevertheless producing 'faith' in the investigator.

A second example would be self experimentation; for instance, a investigator decides to 'trust in God' to handle a few particular situations and finds that in situations where the individual had 'faith' that everything worked out. They have evidence that there is something to the 'faith stuff'.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude either the existence or non existence of God. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence'.

So, any 'systematic steps' would have to depend upon an individual's psychological composition.
It has been said that "Faith, without works, is dead". Suggesting that 'faith' requires also embracing the code of conduct prescribed by the religious methodology (i.e., be nice, obey the commandments, etc., etc).... and to provide yourself with evidence (favorable results) that encourages additional acts of 'faith'. As this process continues (if it does) one gradually and systematically eliminates doubt by producing a body of evidence as to the accuracy of the spiritual teachings.

Religion (faith based systems) operates on a level that is different than 'mundane physics' (scientific cause and reproducable) effect. Religion operates within the realm of 'metaphysics' which is the study of 'true causes' rather than 'apparent causes'.

Every accomplished athlete, musician, artist, etc., at some point in their artistic evolution needed to retrain their mind to find their way into the flow of creative power and (perhaps) genius. The same process presents itself in matters of faith and religion.... it is the mind that (usually) presents the obstacle to personal transformation.

An adventurous experimenter can always say to him or herself, "O.K. I am going to take a 'one day vacation' from the tyranny of my mind and spend an entire day believing in spiritual issues".

If a person can do this (one day experiment) then 'they have rationality' instead of 'rationality having them'. The mind and its addiction to rationality is the warehouse of the ego. The ego that has replaced God as 'The Supreme Being' and does not give up its throne easily. All true religions attempt to 'reverse' this inverted mental condition that has landed its originator (the human 'rational' ego) on 'death row' (meaning life ending in death rather than life leading to eternal life).

All 'logic' is based upon 'reason', but not all 'reason' is based upon logic.... logic is a subset of reason. The goal is to get oneself to the point of the direct experience that 'faith' is quite reasonable and operates within a system of metaphysical logic that can and often seems illogical to 'the chickens who have not, as yet, crossed over the road of strict rationality.

[bernee51]

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.

And on what basis is it determined that the the 'truth' you hold is in fact 'truth' independent of the observer of that truth?

Others claim 'truth' - why is their's not 'truth'

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.

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?

It is saying the same as you...the 'truths' of which you speak are independently available to all and factual.

So faith is the act of intellect assenting to Divine truth… that is profession of faith exists when the intellect assents to those truths…

Faith is as an act of the intellect moved to assent by the will.

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.

I don't think reason comes into it...in fact the opposite...

Martin Luther stated: "This is the acme of faith, to believe that God who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that He is just who, at His own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and to be more deserving of hate than love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive of God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith".

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

In this media, I doubt it. Assumptions can be made, that is all.

. 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.

In other words unless the person first understand the Christian/catholic perspective they are not entitled to discuss or question?

[ST_JB]

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.

And on what basis is it determined that the the 'truth' you hold is in fact 'truth' independent of the observer of that truth?

Others claim 'truth' - why is their's not 'truth'

Good question.

First of all, we have to determine if it is logical to grant that all who claim to have the “truth” different from the other are all “true.”

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

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.

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?

It is saying the same as you...the 'truths' of which you speak are independently available to all and factual.

What do you mean by the words “available to all?” I don’t want to misread your statement, so I have to ask.

Anyway, I do not say that it comes independently available to all. What I was saying is that “truth” operates independently from any perception. That is “truth” is not determined by a person’s personal perception. “Truth” is not subjective. Truth is truth – that is whether one assents or not to this truth, it will never lose its “truthfulness”. That is to say - all those or all that in contrast or stand against this “truth” is “FALSE.”

So faith is the act of intellect assenting to Divine truth… that is profession of faith exists when the intellect assents to those truths…

Faith is as an act of the intellect moved to assent by the will.

Huh??? Please do not try to alter the thought of my post.
just in case i may have misread your post... kindly explain your last post

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.

I don't think reason comes into it...in fact the opposite...

Please explain how it becomes the opposite of reason.

Martin Luther stated: "This is the acme of faith, to believe that God who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that He is just who, at His own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and to be more deserving of hate than love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive of God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith".

Sorry I consider Luther as a heretic.

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

In this media, I doubt it. Assumptions can be made, that is all.

I already explained. And I repeat: 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.

. 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.

In other words unless the person first understand the Christian/catholic perspective they are not entitled to discuss or question?

This is not what I meant... Please don't get me wrong with this... I have explained how and why they can become such a person.

[Fallibleone]

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

Who were you trying to point it out to? Not me I hope, because it's obvious to me that not everyone who claims to hold 'the truth' does. It is also my personal opinion that you don't either.

[ST_JB]

IF you have read the discussion I have with “Fallibleone” in the thread “An Invitation to Unbelievers...” I was trying to point out that it is impossible or illogical to grant all those who claim to have the “truth” as “true”.

Who were you trying to point it out to? Not me I hope, because it's obvious to me that not everyone who claims to hold 'the truth' does. It is also my personal opinion that you don't either.

Hello Fallibleone,

Sorry to drag your name in my last post. it was merely mentioned to make a point, nothing else. And besides, I haven't had any claim in my post.

[Fallibleone]

So do you not believe that that which you have faith in is the truth?

[ST_JB]

So do you not believe that that which you have faith in is the truth?

As I have said I have not made any claim in my last post. I didn't say that what i believe in now is not the "truth". Otherwise, my faith will be in vain.

[Fallibleone]

So do you not believe that that which you have faith in is the truth?

I didn't say that what i believe in now is not the "truth".

Is that the same as 'what I believe in now is the truth'? I merely asked whether you do not believe that that which you have faith in is the truth. I never said that you did make a claim in your post. I simply asked a question.

[ST_JB]

So do you not believe that that which you have faith in is the truth?

I didn't say that what i believe in now is not the "truth".

Is that the same as 'what I believe in now is the truth'?

YES