Wikipedia presents the simplest comparison between reason and faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
“Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility.
Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority.
The word faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held with lack of reason or evidence, a belief that is held in spite of or against reason or evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.�
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:
1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.�
Opinions?
A comparison between "faith" and reason
Moderator: Moderators
-
2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Re: A comparison between "faith" and reason
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]
Seems to me, faith in reason is an epistemological position, just as faith in inspiration, revelation, authority, etc, is.
My own persuasion is that we have a rational God, who created a rational universe, amenable to interrogation by reason. And that is why reason mostly 'works', when inspiration, revelation and authority may sometimes not.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Seems to me, faith in reason is an epistemological position, just as faith in inspiration, revelation, authority, etc, is.
My own persuasion is that we have a rational God, who created a rational universe, amenable to interrogation by reason. And that is why reason mostly 'works', when inspiration, revelation and authority may sometimes not.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Fri May 12, 2017 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4184
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 176 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Post #3
I started a thread a while back on close to this same subject.
viewtopic.php?p=810344
True faith as the Bible describes faith is never unreasonable. There is never a conflict. There might be something we don't understand why we do something but that is not faith. That's trust.
There is what people call faith but really it's credulity. The definition is "a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true." Credulity is not faith and thus there are conflicts in reasonableness and belief.
Example: I watch superman fly on TV. I credulously believe I can fly too.
There is no faith in the example above. The evidence that men can fly is false or a trick. It was not meant to deceive. It was just imagination. But a credulous person will rush to believe that people can fly without examining more evidence.
Many people read the Bible. Some that call themselves believers don't examine to see if what they read was true. They are in fact being credulous. The same happens with unbelievers by calling it not true. They don't examine all the evidence either. Thus 'believers' fall away easily and 'unbelievers' can never gain actual faith. Credulity is dangerous.
On the other hand, “Faith is . . . the convincing evidence of realities that are not seen.�—HEBREWS 11:1,
viewtopic.php?p=810344
True faith as the Bible describes faith is never unreasonable. There is never a conflict. There might be something we don't understand why we do something but that is not faith. That's trust.
There is what people call faith but really it's credulity. The definition is "a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true." Credulity is not faith and thus there are conflicts in reasonableness and belief.
Example: I watch superman fly on TV. I credulously believe I can fly too.
There is no faith in the example above. The evidence that men can fly is false or a trick. It was not meant to deceive. It was just imagination. But a credulous person will rush to believe that people can fly without examining more evidence.
Many people read the Bible. Some that call themselves believers don't examine to see if what they read was true. They are in fact being credulous. The same happens with unbelievers by calling it not true. They don't examine all the evidence either. Thus 'believers' fall away easily and 'unbelievers' can never gain actual faith. Credulity is dangerous.
On the other hand, “Faith is . . . the convincing evidence of realities that are not seen.�—HEBREWS 11:1,
Post #4
2timothy316 wrote:
On the other hand, “Faith is . . . the convincing evidence of realities that are not seen.�—HEBREWS 11:1,
Question: Is that statement based on reason or faith? (It's called circular reasoning)
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4184
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 176 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Post #5
polonius.advice wrote:It is based on evidence. Reason alone while important, is not enough. No one can reason something in to reality.2timothy316 wrote:
On the other hand, “Faith is . . . the convincing evidence of realities that are not seen.�—HEBREWS 11:1,
Question: Is that statement based on reason or faith? (It's called circular reasoning)
Like the wind. When we see trees move that is evidence there is a wind. But I can't reason the wind to blow.
Note the scripture says evidence of 'realities that are not seen'. Like a child growing up. We can't see them as adult yet but we can 'see' the reality that they will be an adult based on the evidence that people grow up.
-
2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #6
Uh huh. But that is not the task to hand. No one is asking of a mere human to create a new universal reality. Merely that we might understand the one that presses upon us. And, by that understanding, come to the knowledge of how best we might influence it.2timothy316 wrote: No one can reason something in to reality.
And centrally, that is a pragmatic quest, rather than a psychological one. If reason works better than theology, then let us dispense with that theology, or upgrade it to a state where it can compete with or encompass the discoveries of reason.
Best wishes, 2RM.
-
ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: A comparison between "faith" and reason
Post #7Wiki is wrong...polonius.advice wrote: 2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.�
Opinions?
I opine that faith sometimes grows from a reasonable scrutiny of the evidence and so I find that there must be a 3d option.
Christian faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen so it denies being based upon proof but contends that the things hoped for are in evidence.
Would we have a hope in the resurrection if there was zero evidence, no mention of it, no prophecy about it, no church speaking about it, no Bible at all? The rejection of the evidence as implausible doesn't mean there is no evidence at all.
The acceptance that the evidence is reasonable to be the substance of our hope, our faith, is not proof we are irrational.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
Re: A comparison between "faith" and reason
Post #8ttruscott wrote:Wiki is wrong...polonius.advice wrote: 2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.�
Opinions?
I opine that faith sometimes grows from a reasonable scrutiny of the evidence and so I find that there must be a 3d option.
RESPONSE:
Please clarify your argument. Here you seem to be telling us that "evidence" leads to faith. That would not be fideism, but a rationalist argument.
Post #9
[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]
Like the wind faith is something we don't need to think about. Thinking about it is just an abstraction. The wind is real, it is happening to us. No thought about it is necessary. We know when the wind is blowing not because we see a flag waving in it we feel it. Thinking about it is just a mental exercise. The wind is happening, feel the breeze.
Like the wind faith is something we don't need to think about. Thinking about it is just an abstraction. The wind is real, it is happening to us. No thought about it is necessary. We know when the wind is blowing not because we see a flag waving in it we feel it. Thinking about it is just a mental exercise. The wind is happening, feel the breeze.
Post #10
RESPONSE: No. The wind, a physical event, is experienced objectively. It exists. "Faith" is not objective unless it is founded on an objective reality.dio9 wrote: [Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]
Like the wind faith is something we don't need to think about. Thinking about it is just an abstraction. The wind is real, it is happening to us. No thought about it is necessary. We know when the wind is blowing not because we see a flag waving in it we feel it. Thinking about it is just a mental exercise. The wind is happening, feel the breeze.
(Wind is a poor example to use since it may just be hot air
)
