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]

It seems that you are knowledgeable in logical arguments... can you please Present to our readers the fallacy of my argument in "formal logic ??"

I shall be waiting. Thank you.

I present to you the greatest logical fallacy of all... appeal to faith. But then again, you probably don't acknowledge this particular one. If that's the case, I'll just refer to your entire argumentation as bald assertion.

[Furrowed Brow]

[1] There are things in this world that are not perceivable by the “naked” eye but held to be true. [2]Such things can be demonstrated only as to its effects. [3]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”.

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

There are things in this world that are not perceivable by the “naked” eye but held to be true.

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

Such things can be demonstrated only as to its effects.

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

Faith is an act of the intellect assenting to the truth.

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.

Faith can only manifest in us but can never be subjected to physical evidence for faith is a habit as in virtue.

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?

“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.

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.

[Rathpig]

The Catholic definition of anything is meaningless until you can demonstrate that the basis of the Catholic religion is real.

Thank you Rathpig.

You are indeed extremely "knowledgeable" on matters of faith.

You did a good job in proving yourself beyond reasonable doubt.

No actually thank you, ST_JB,

By not attempting to make a refutation of my direct questioning of reality in the Catholic religion, you provide even more support for my definition of faith.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Thank you again for acknowledging my definition.

[Rathpig]

It seems that you are knowledgeable in logical arguments... can you please Present to our readers the fallacy of my argument in "formal logic ??"

I shall be waiting. Thank you.

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.

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.

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

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.

[bernee51]

Now, you ask a good question.

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

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???

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

[allansmith]

Faith is belief without evidence.

A faithful person is full of faith. Yes?

Now let's apply your definition.

Is a faithful husband one who "believes in his wife without evidence"? Not really. That's not the heart of it. Rather, he is one who loves his wife through thick and thin, refusing to betray her.

Is a faithful soldier one who "believes in his captain without evidence"? No. He is one who loves and trusts and obeys his captain enough to die for him.

[bernee51]

Faith is belief without evidence.

A faithful person is full of faith. Yes?

Now let's apply your definition.

Is a faithful husband one who "believes in his wife without evidence"? Not really. That's not the heart of it. Rather, he is one who loves his wife through thick and thin, refusing to betray her.

Is a faithful soldier one who "believes in his captain without evidence"? No. He is one who loves and trusts and obeys his captain enough to die for him.

Like I said, to really see a good fallacy it takes a specialist. Here we have folks the fallacy of equivocation.

The implication of the your faith claim is that atheistic criticisms of religious faith are inherently hypocritical.

I suggest that with your use of word 'faith' you believe you level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith.

"A faithful husband who "believes in his wife without evidence"" is open to all, regardless of belief. The 'without evidence' part is also disputable. He may believe in his wife but it is one the evidence that she also believes in his and is faithful. Marital disharmony exists for all, at one time or another, due, in part to a shifting of 'belief' but not necessarily 'faith'

Nonetheless this 'faith' of which you speak is the sort of faith which can apply to the "faith" that your brakes will work, or the "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. This "faith" is only as strong as the evidence or reason allows and it is defeatable given new evidence or arguments.

The faith you claim - religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence.

The fact that atheists might have the former kind of faith and the fact that theists have the latter kind of faith does not mean that atheists and theists are operating or thinking the same way. It does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.

_________________

[Rathpig]

Faith is belief without evidence.

A faithful person is full of faith. Yes?

Now let's apply your definition.

Is a faithful husband one who "believes in his wife without evidence"? Not really. That's not the heart of it. Rather, he is one who loves his wife through thick and thin, refusing to betray her.

Is a faithful soldier one who "believes in his captain without evidence"? No. He is one who loves and trusts and obeys his captain enough to die for him.

I think bernee51 covered this semantical equivocation completely, but let me add a few things.

1). I am a "faithful" husband because I remain true. I do not have "faith" in my wife. I have trust. I am faithful because I trust. This is a comletely different use of the word than that offered by religion which was the topic of the thread.

2). A "faithful" soldier in many instances is much closer to religious faith than the example of the husband. A soldier doesn't choose his captain, and in many instances a soldier has no evidence of his captain's worthiness to lead.

The military is requires blind faith in leaders; however your use of the word is the exact same connotation as that of the husband. You are using "faithful" as a synonym of "true". Once again not the topic of the thread.


In both of these examples "faith" exist only dependent on the subject. Faith can be lost because the subject gives evidence that faith in undeserved. Once gain this is completely different from religious faith.

I see though, after just a few days here, I will have to carefully define the minutia of every term because numerous posters are not familiar with the common fallacies of logical discourse or the rules of language use. In most conversations that begin from a thesis the parties use context and connotation to determine the proper placement of words.

I will be more careful in the future.

[Zzyzx]

.

I see though, after just a few days here, I will have to carefully define the minutia of every term because numerous posters are not familiar with the common fallacies of logical discourse or the rules of language use. In most conversations that begin from a thesis the parties use context and connotation to determine the proper placement of words.

I will be more careful in the future.

A few members play word games and use other dishonorable debate tactics, usually in vain attempts to defend religious beliefs against reason and evidence.

However, notice how many guests visit the site (106 in the past 24 hours vs. 38 members) and how far they outnumber the active (posting) members. I am confident that many or most of them recognize semantic or tactical games that are offered in lieu of substantive debate.

Those people are our true audience – our “opponents” are sounding boards. Unfortunately, there are few strong debaters among theist members and the best post relatively infrequently. The most vocal theists are not among those who have earned my respect (and a few of the worst and weakest have earned my use of the “ignore” option).

Perhaps it is inevitable that many of those who attempt to promote and defend worship of invisible super beings that cannot be verified will use tricks and tactics because they have no evidence. “Believe on faith alone” is regarded as a virtue – and, of course, the promised reward comes after the victim is conveniently dead. Circular “reasoning” is required because there is a single source of “truth” with no independent or impartial verification.

[ST_JB]

It seems that you are knowledgeable in logical arguments... can you please Present to our readers the fallacy of my argument in "formal logic ??"

I shall be waiting. Thank you.

I present to you the greatest logical fallacy of all... appeal to faith. But then again, you probably don't acknowledge this particular one. If that's the case, I'll just refer to your entire argumentation as bald assertion.

Appeal to Faith??? Logical Fallacy???

Surely you are incapable of presenting my argument in formal logic. We shall then use the informal logic in this case.

Thank you for your information.