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.

[twobitsmedia]

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.

I think most would deny it because they believe faith is an arbitrary emotion which someone reaches based on nothing. Faith is a conviction. If someone is holding "convictions" based on how they feel, I do not know what they have, but the way I see it, it is not faith.

[Rathpig]

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.

I think the best way to settle such a case would be to ask for the tangible evidence of "faith". Reason and rational thought is derived from reproducible points by definition. When one knows the basis of reasoning, reasonable people agree on the outcome. One can equivocate that it is their subjective reasoning that guides a point, but this is a convoluted way of saying that they don't agree with reality for they will devise their own.

Reason and logic are by their nature systematic.

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

[Assent]

I think the best way to settle such a case would be to ask for the tangible evidence of "faith". Reason and rational thought is derived from reproducible points by definition. When one knows the basis of reasoning, reasonable people agree on the outcome. One can equivocate that it is their subjective reasoning that guides a point, but this is a convoluted way of saying that they don't agree with reality for they will devise their own.

Reason and logic are by their nature systematic.

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

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to contradict you. Science is derived through reproducible results. Reason is the derivation of conclusions based on evidence, however scientific that evidence may be. Logic is a methodology of reason, and commonly held (myself included) to be the only proper way that reasoning should be obtained.

If you read some of the old books on the nature of Christianity, you would see reasoning and logic being used quite frequently, even though they would be basing this on evidence you would throw out for being suspect or unscientific.

[Rathpig]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to contradict you.

I don't think you are exactly contradicting me as much as adding onto what I started.

Let me explain:

Throughout history you are correct that what people called "reason" was applied to faith; however they were using a gross misapplication of the word. They were assuming premise not in evidence and extrapolating from this flawed basis. Though reason can have a subjective element, reason is never so subjective that it is unreproducible.

That is the difference between "a reason" and reasonable.

Just because someone says they are using reason, and especially logic, this is not a reason to give them a pass on evidence. To be complete a reasonable statement must flow from a reasonable observation in a reproducible environment. It doesn't rise exactly to the burden of proof that science requires, but it does strongly approach the methodology of science. After all, words have specific meaning, and applying magic thinking to the methodology of reason doesn't make magic thinking reasonable. It merely makes the author either deluded or defrauding.

I think this is why so many theist bristle strongly at the use of "reason" under an exacting definition. They believe a reality that they desire to be reasonable. But you can't use induction from emotion to reach a conclusion of reasoned thought.

Saying something is reasonable or logical doesn't make it so. It must survive scrutiny.

[ST_JB]

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.

I would say that faith can be explained througn reason.

[Rathpig]

I would say that faith can be explained througn reason.

Please elaborate. I would be interesting in this exercise.

[ST_JB]

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.

I think the best way to settle such a case would be to ask for the tangible evidence of "faith". Reason and rational thought is derived from reproducible points by definition. When one knows the basis of reasoning, reasonable people agree on the outcome. One can equivocate that it is their subjective reasoning that guides a point, but this is a convoluted way of saying that they don't agree with reality for they will devise their own.

Reason and logic are by their nature systematic.

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

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

[Rathpig]

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.

[Assent]

That is the difference between "a reason" and reasonable.

"Reasonable" is such a subjective word that I hesitate to apply it to any person's opinion. "Reasonable" means that you can agree with the premise of the argument. As such, you can only speak for yourself when using the word, or at best yourself and everyone else who disagrees with the premise for the same reason(s). Others may find the same argument reasonable because they do agree with the premise of the argument.

Let's see if I can think of a neutral example...

Ah! Ok, think culturally. Let's say that you are a person who lives in a society that only wears black when mourning. You are visiting a different country, and happen to stumble upon an argument about the virtues of wearing black with various fashionable patterns and designs. To you, the argument is completely ludicrous; why would anyone care about fashion when they're in mourning?!

I imagine that your next argument is that there is no comparison between cultures and the nature of reality, but I am not trying to compare these things. I am trying to say what the definition of "reasonable" is.