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.

[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.

I'l bite...what do you understand as the "teaching the Holy Church" in relation to faith?

Now, you ask a good question.

1. Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church presents to us.
2. Subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.

Can you figure out the difference???

The definition given was Paul's...Hebrew 11.1.

What misconceptions have you seen regarding that?

Hebrew:
11:1. Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

What are the things that we hoped for? And what is the evidence of things that appear not?

Paul is not outlining the meaning of faith but the essence of faith in the affairs of man.

They are merely quoting scripture - is that not an accurate description?

Quoting the scripture does not give you a passage to an accurate description of the word, term or doctrine lest understanding the doctrine as believed and professed by the believers. For even Satan is capable of quoting the scripture but that doesn’t mean he is right when he quotes from the scriptures.

Because you say so...?

No.

Can you help me out please...what is " the ignorance of the definition given by someone who has no formal understanding on the subject?

The ignorance is because the definition doesn’t correctly/ truthfully defined the subject in its true sense and therefore one can only deduce the wicked motivation of the person if not “uninformed” is only seeking to malign the belief of others.

[Zzyzx]

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)?

Why would a valid faith require defense?

[Rathpig]

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.

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:

Paul is not outlining the meaning of faith but the essence of faith in the affairs of man.

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.

What are the things that we hoped for? And what is the evidence of things that appear not?

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.

Now as to:

1. Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church presents to us.
2. Subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.

Can you figure out the difference???

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? (???)

1. Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church presents to us.

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.

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.

2. Subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.

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

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

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


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. Show me where I am in error in your opinion.

Playing "ask the right question" is a silly waste of everyone's time.

[Assent]

It is late and I want to chew on this a bit more, but something just does not sit right with me about this definition. It seems to sidestep any need for reason and places a lot of emphasis on "feelings" and "experience."

You disagree? That's fine! As I said before, feel free to edit my definition to your liking, or write one of your own. I was simply tired of everyone arguing about arguing about the definition of faith, so I threw in one of my own.

However, since you did bother to write questions, I will attempt to answer them to my own satisfaction. Your own satisfaction you must, as always, provide yourself.

What purpose does faith serve if it cannot be shared? Is faith really that personal? Is this an offshoot of religious relativism?

Faith cannot be given, but it can be guided to if the one following is willing to go; yes, but it can be empathized with; I'm not quite sure what that is, but by the sound of things, probably.

Are we all truly so complex and different that god cannot reach anyone at the same level of consciousness or reason, even? If we are, then would that not make it difficult for us to relate even to each other?

We are all on separate paths, though they are often similar, and the destination is the same for all. In this way we can relate to those near ourselves, and, until the end when the paths begin to converge, animosity to those on paths that appear far from ours.

If God created man, and man has the ability to reason, and the highest point of "reason" then would be a connection with his creator.....why would God then not make that a part of the process and leave it just to an experiential feeling? Probably other questions coming....

Faith is not a process so much as a reward. I obviously cannot speak for you or anyone else's path, but I had to go through quite a bit of reasoning before I felt something I would describe as "faith."

Besides, humanity has more than reasoning contained within its mind. Would not an approach that uses all of what the mind has to offer be more complete than one that relies only on parts deemed superior? We don't even know if humans are the only reasoning creatures; only that we are the only species on Earth with the imagination to exploit it.

[cfiott]

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.

Is the strong faith of a Moslem who straps explosives around his waist in order to kill people and go to heaven “a fruit of reason and rational thoughts?”

Hindus, Moslems, Christians and many others believe strongly in a god or a number of gods and yet they espouse vastly different views of everything that faith implies (salvation, afterlife, and the like). These people all have faith, but they can’t all be rational, can they? So I think that this idea of faith being a product of reason and rationality falls flat on its face right there. Faith has nothing to do with reason and rationality, nothing to do with right and wrong, and nothing to do with reality. Faith is just a traditional thing.

[jamesearl]

Faith is based on ignorance, and thats fact, end of discussion.


This is why the most educated people are atheist, and less intelligent/educated people theist, because of ignorance.

Just look at the best educated nations in the world, and you will see its people ar ehighly secular, whiles populatins such as Iraq, Iran, United States and african ntions are highly religious, because of poor education and/or low intelligence.


I mean, theist dont debate this, they admit that you need to be ignorant to believe in their nonsense, and that intelligent people are "dangerous" and "bad". Gosh, truth is hard isnt it?

[Easyrider]

Faith is based on ignorance, and thats fact, end of discussion.

Perhaps in some cases, but hardly across the board. The historical accounts of the NT provide a great deal of evidence for faith.

This is why the most educated people are atheist, and less intelligent/educated people theist, because of ignorance.

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."

Just look at the best educated nations in the world, and you will see its people are highly secular, whiles populatins such as Iraq, Iran, United States and african ntions are highly religious, because of poor education and/or low intelligence.

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

[jamesearl]

Perhaps in some cases, but hardly across the board. The historical accounts of the NT provide a great deal of evidence for faith.

What hisotrical accounts? Give detail.

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."

That did not answer anything.

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

Define "greatest" and give detail.

The U.S is some of the most ignorant people in the western world (education) per statistics, the U.S is a very very violant nation compared to the rest of the world, the U.S has a huge amount of poverty compared to the western world, and the list goes on.

Explain why you are not only GREAT, but why you are, according to you, the GREATEST. I get the suspicion that you never been outside of your country easyrider, is this correct? I visited both Europe AND North America, as well as lived in Japan.

Are you saying my subjective view is wrong, as well as Objective FACTS are wrong, and you simple are, right?

[twobitsmedia]

Faith is based on ignorance, and thats fact, end of discussion.

There was no reason to read the rest of this post because it is the "end of the discussion." And from what I understand, that was a fact.

[Rathpig]

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.