Is it reasonable to have religious faith?

[McCulloch]

Dinesh D'Sousa in What's So Great About Christianity (page xvi, xvii), claims to demonstrate seven great truths about Christianity.

This is the fifth of the claims:

It is reasonable to have faith.

At the risk of re-opening the locked debate, Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? can we ask:

• Is it reasonable to have religious faith?
• Doesn't Hebrews 11:1 (the conviction of things not seen) teach that faith is contrary to reason?

[HHB2/3FA]

I think of the snake dancers, and how they risk their lives to prove how religious they are. This has got to be about the most unreasonable show of faith I can think of.

[McCulloch]

I think of the snake dancers, and how they risk their lives to prove how religious they are. This has got to be about the most unreasonable show of faith I can think of.

You mean like people who actually believe Mark 16:15-18? And He [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

[McCulloch]

edited...
Is it reasonable to have religious faith? [*]Doesn't Hebrews 11:1 (the conviction of things not seen) teach that faith is contrary to reason? [/list]

It is just as 'non-reasonable' to NOT believe in things unseen. It all depends upon personal bias.

I believe that there are lots of things that I cannot see. But to believe in one specifically without any evidence is unreasonable. To believe in something that cannot have evidence is nonsensical.

'Faith' alone (a belief in God, in this instance) can be 'reasonable' but can not withstand logical scrutiny.

If you say so. Logic and reason say otherwise.

Typically, 'religious faith' is also linked to alterations in behavior, for instance, embracing ethics. So some philosophers (e.g., Plato) would say that 'if faith prompts one to embrace ethics then yes, 'faith' is a very 'reasonable' posture.

God is real because belief in God makes us more moral? There is a name for that logical fallacy.

'Metaphysics', a branch of philosophy, includes 'the self' in causal relationships (cause-effect) whereas 'science' does not account for the observer's observations. In fact 'science' attempts to eliminate all subjective input.
A metaphysican would say that 'belief' MUST preceed the manifestation because 'reality' is, partly, a projection of the contents of consciousness.
Therefore, having 'faith' is 'reasonable' in fact, even logical (metaphysically speaking) if one desires to have a direct experience of 'God'.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. I don't see how that is necessarily related to faith.

[daedalus 2.0]

'Faith' alone (a belief in God, in this instance) can be 'reasonable' but can not withstand logical scrutiny.

Then how can you say it is reasonable?

"A Belief in God alone can be reasonable".

How? I thought this was the original question. It seems we have (as expected) come full circle:

A: Can a belief in god be reasonable?
T: Yes. Because of and by Faith.
A: What is Faith?
T: A belief in God.
A: So, A belief in God is reasonable because you have a belief in God?
T: Yes.
A: OK, next!

BTW, I will remind the Theists that "god" has not been defined yet, so pop that into the statement above and see how reasonable it sounds!

A: Can a belief in sgrokolack be reasonable?
T: Yes. A belief in sgrokolack is reasonable because of the belief in sgrokolack.

[ceegunz]

I was recently having this discussion in the real world, and would love to continue it here.

I think, first of all, that faith (without evidence) in religious things is not as inherently illogical as the same faith in physical, demonstrable type things. It is possible (probable? improbable? who knows) that a god/God could exist without there being any evidence of this. A brain tumor or a sandwich cannot exist without evidence of this (difficult though that evidence may be to find). Thus, it makes sense to base our belief in demonstrable things based upon their level of evidence, because less evidence to a thing's existence makes it less likely to actually exist. This is not exactly true of metaphysical things.

While there is conclusively (we can be fairly certain) no PROOF either way, I think one can argue that there is a kind of evidence supporting the existence of God. At the risk of spawning an infinitely long debate, I think we can at least say that the fact that "I believe in God" is a kind of evidence that God exists. Now, this is certainly rebuttable evidence--i.e. I believe in God only because I have a natural need to invent a God and society imprints the idea in my mind... etc. But we can always argue over evidence, and until we conclusively can counter any theistic evidence, there is at least SOME evidence that God exists.

Second, religious faith, I think, can be rational if one recognizes that a belief in God can be supported in the same way that the belief that I like Cabernet but not Zinfandel. This is not merely a circular "I believe because I believe," instead its a "I believe because I feel." Why do I feel? Who knows.

Can these reasons support much beyond the existence of God or something specific about God/Jesus/The Trinity/heaven/etc? Probably not. But for purely metaphysical assertions, if someone feels it to be true, I think this is at least evidence towards that assertion. And if there is some evidence for it, without substantial evidence against it, a belief is reasonable.

[Staralfur]

When considering whether or not it is "reasonable" to have religious - or in fact an theistic - faith, you must first consider why, in fact, we ever came to this conclusion in the first place.

Imagine two people arguing. One man, the first, is disgruntled by the others behaviour. This is a simple concept which we pass by every day, but one which we never seem to consider to really think about. This man - the first - has expectations of the other. He expects the other man to adhere to some sort of pre-programmed standard. He himself feels that he is appealing to this standard, and he certainly expects the other man to know about it. After expecting pre-knowledge, he also expects the other man to adhere to it also.

Quarreling in the first place becomes completely needless unless there is some sort of agreement of what is Right and what is Wrong. This Law or Rule of Right and Wrong is today often referred to as the Law of Human Nature.

This Law, or standard, or Rule, is enough, in my opinion, to at least give us reason to wonder if there was some sort of outside input to our psyche.

[bernee51]

I was recently having this discussion in the real world, and would love to continue it here.

I think, first of all, that faith (without evidence) in religious things is not as inherently illogical as the same faith in physical, demonstrable type things.

To use the word ‘faith’ in comparing religious faith with secular trust in ‘things’ is a fallacy of equivocation. It is usually used by religious believers as an attempt to somehow level the playing field.

It is possible (probable? improbable? who knows) that a god/God could exist without there being any evidence of this. A brain tumor or a sandwich cannot exist without evidence of this (difficult though that evidence may be to find). Thus, it makes sense to base our belief in demonstrable things based upon their level of evidence, because less evidence to a thing's existence makes it less likely to actually exist. This is not exactly true of metaphysical things.

If there is no physical evidence then all that can be assessed is the metaphysical aspects of any deity.

While there is conclusively (we can be fairly certain) no PROOF either way,…

I disagree. In order to be a creator ‘god’ the entity must have certain characteristics. These would include but not be limited to all-powerful, unchanging, and eternal. It can be shown in metaphysical terms that such a deity is illogical and thus impossible.

I think one can argue that there is a kind of evidence supporting the existence of God. At the risk of spawning an infinitely long debate, I think we can at least say that the fact that "I believe in God" is a kind of evidence that God exists.

The same then is evidence for Santa, invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns.

Now, this is certainly rebuttable evidence--i.e. I believe in God only because I have a natural need to invent a God and society imprints the idea in my mind... etc. But we can always argue over evidence, and until we conclusively can counter any theistic evidence, there is at least SOME evidence that God exists.

Not that you have demonstrated. Please present some ‘theist evidence’ that is in need of being countered.

Second, religious faith, I think, can be rational if one recognizes that a belief in God can be supported in the same way that the belief that I like Cabernet but not Zinfandel. This is not merely a circular "I believe because I believe," instead its a "I believe because I feel." Why do I feel? Who knows.

‘I feel’ because of my imaginings, wants, fears, rehearsing, justifying, analyzing, commentating, fantasizing, worrying, etc.

Can these reasons support much beyond the existence of God or something specific about God/Jesus/The Trinity/heaven/etc? Probably not. But for purely metaphysical assertions, if someone feels it to be true, I think this is at least evidence towards that assertion. And if there is some evidence for it, without substantial evidence against it, a belief is reasonable.

Given that ‘feelings’ are a mental construct this would lead to the only conclusion that “God/Jesus/The Trinity/heaven/etc� are also a mental construct.

[ceegunz]

To use the word ‘faith’ in comparing religious faith with secular trust in ‘things’ is a fallacy of equivocation. It is usually used by religious believers as an attempt to somehow level the playing field.

Well, I can't speak for how believers usually use words... I am merely a single believer, and probably an abnormal one, at that. This appears to be a common mistake made by all parties on this forum, to assign typical points of views to individuals, and it really doesn't make sense.

As that it is a fallacy of equivocation, I agree, and this was my point. Belief in the existence of physical, or perhaps any demonstrable things, is different than belief in the existence of metaphysical things. So, to ask for conventional evidence for the belief in the metaphysical ignores this difference.

I disagree. In order to be a creator ‘god’ the entity must have certain characteristics. These would include but not be limited to all-powerful, unchanging, and eternal. It can be shown in metaphysical terms that such a deity is illogical and thus impossible.

That is quite a statement. Why do you say so? Certainly a lot of very learned and talented philosophers and theists over the centuries would fervently disagree with your premises and conclusion. Perhaps this is not the thread for a debate over metaphysics, but it may be necessary to resolve this question.

The same then is evidence for Santa, invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns.

A common objection, but I fail to see its point or applicability. Are you suggesting that anyone thinks they really believe in Santa or invisible pink unicorns? But these aren't applicable, because these are things that, presumably, would have evidence--Santa lives at the North Pole, etc. So it is illogical to believe in them simply based upon feelings. My whole point is that we cannot expect the same proof of God or metaphysical things are Santa, or a sandwich.

Given that ‘feelings’ are a mental construct this would lead to the only conclusion that “God/Jesus/The Trinity/heaven/etc� are also a mental construct.

How in the world does it follow (indeed, as the "only conclusion") that because a feeling is a mental construct (which I might contest), whatever the target of that feeling must also be a mental construct? So, if God did exist, He would cease to exist and instead be reduced to my mental construct if I felt a belief in Him?

[bernee51]

I disagree. In order to be a creator ‘god’ the entity must have certain characteristics. These would include but not be limited to all-powerful, unchanging, and eternal. It can be shown in metaphysical terms that such a deity is illogical and thus impossible.

That is quite a statement. Why do you say so? Certainly a lot of very learned and talented philosophers and theists over the centuries would fervently disagree with your premises and conclusion. Perhaps this is not the thread for a debate over metaphysics, but it may be necessary to resolve this question.

Buddhist metaphysics hold that the concept of a creator deity is self defeating. Beings (metaphysical or otherwise) are subject to the characteristics they display or a credited with. Think 'unchanging'. Before the act of creation one of the characteristics of god was "he who has not created' after creation he changed to 'he who has created'.
The act of creation itself was either unwilled by god, or god was acting out of a desire to create. Either way he is subject to powers greater than himself. There goes all-powerful

The same then is evidence for Santa, invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns.

A common objection, but I fail to see its point or applicability.

My response was to your… "I think we can at least say that the fact that "I believe in God" is a kind of evidence that God exists.�

I believe (despite the lack of evidence) that IPU exists is logically IDENTICAL to I believe (despite the lack of evidence) that god exists.

Are you suggesting that anyone thinks they really believe in Santa or invisible pink unicorns? But these aren't applicable, because these are things that, presumably, would have evidence--Santa lives at the North Pole, etc.

That could be just a story – like god is a grey haired man in the sky. ‘Living at the north pole’ doesn’t reflect the reality of ‘Santa�

So it is illogical to believe in them simply based upon feelings. My whole point is that we cannot expect the same proof of God or metaphysical things are Santa, or a sandwich.

Exactly – what proof is their of god - any god - other than “I believe�

Given that ‘feelings’ are a mental construct this would lead to the only conclusion that “God/Jesus/The Trinity/heaven/etc� are also a mental construct.

How in the world does it follow (indeed, as the "only conclusion") that because a feeling is a mental construct (which I might contest), whatever the target of that feeling must also be a mental construct?

Because all we believe and all we perceive existence to be is and can only be a mental construct. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

So, if God did exist, He would cease to exist and instead be reduced to my mental construct if I felt a belief in Him?

That is the point, he cannot cease to exist – he does not exist.

[ceegunz]

First, I am making a distinction between feeling and believing. If there were no distinction, my argument would be circular: I believe in God because I believe in God. Instead, my argument is that I believe in God because I feel (something) regarding God. The feeling is not the product of an argument, and is not the kind of thing which can be rationally evaluated.

I suppose if someone really felt the existence of an IPU, that is evidence that an IPU exists. But what's wrong with believing an IPU exists? Let's assume for a moment a material existence only, so nothing is beyond the interaction of