Faith vs Reason

[SetiAlpha6]

Is religion faith only?

Is religion both faith and reason?

If religion is both faith and reason,
where is the boundary between the two?

If faith teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

If reason teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

If reason and faith teach opposite "truths",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

Should faith always trump reason?

Should reason always trump faith?

Is faith always reliable?

Is reason always reliable?


Any thoughts?

 

[Thoreau]

Is religion faith only?

Is religion both faith and reason?

If religion is both faith and reason,
where is the boundary between the two?

If faith teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

If reason teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

If reason and faith teach opposite "truths",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

Should faith always trump reason?

Should reason always trump faith?

Is faith always reliable?

Is reason always reliable?


Any thoughts?

1) No

2) Yes

3) Science

4) The truth that they feel is right regardless of religious teaching.

5) "...."

6) "...."

7) No

8) No

9) No

10) No

No other thoughts.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

[1] Is religion faith only?

No

[2] Is religion both faith and reason?

Only insofaras reason is applied within a faith context

[3] If religion is both faith and reason,
where is the boundary between the two?

Reason can most often be differentiated from faith by the application of common sense.

[4] If faith teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

Faith doesn't differentiate and nor is it obliged to reconcile conflicting "truths". Faith does not recognise that within the faith paradigm there can be conflict between "truths".

[5] If reason teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

The scientific method and reason will resolve any conflict if all relevant facts are known. However, it must be recognised that reason as expressed by science does not concern itself with the same kind of truth that faith does.

[6] If reason and faith teach opposite "truths",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

Truth arrived at by reason is always to be preferred by rational reasonable minds. However, "truth" arrived at by reason is never regarded as ultimate truth. Absolutes/ultimates in reason and science are rare.

[7] Should faith always trump reason?

No

[8] Should reason always trump faith?

If a choice must be made, then yes.

[9] Is faith always reliable?

No

[10] Is reason always reliable?

No


Any thoughts?

Yes. Absolutes like "always" and "only" are inappropriate in some questions.
Reasoning is the process that occupies a human mind and the human mind can be deceived [hence religious faith]. Our intellect and our five senses are the only tools we have for knowing anything, but, as with most things human, they are not 100% reliable.

Biggles, Prime

 

[lightgigantic]

Is religion faith only?

no
it certainly has issues of application

Is religion both faith and reason?

Isn't any knowledge based claim?

If religion is both faith and reason,
where is the boundary between the two?

at the junction of application ... much like any knowledge based claim ... for instance issues of application is what has rendered space travel reasonable

If faith teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

in accordance with the views of personalities who have resolved the apparent contradictions (IOW if two "truths" are viewed as mutually exclusive and if they are both in fact "true", more often than not it is a consequence of the knowledge base of the person passing the judgment than any inherent fault of the discipline)

If reason teaches that opposite "truths" are "truth",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

reason can only be brought to bear on a particular knowledge base ... for instance it wasn't reasonable to suggest that man was capable of space travel 700 years ago

If reason and faith teach opposite "truths",
which one should the mind accept as "genuine truth"?

depends on the authority of the issue of faith and also the depth that our reason is rendering a claim as incongruent ... for instance if a medical. legal or financial professional indicates something as pertinent to our interests, we tend to accept that advice (provided we hold them in good faith of course), even if our powers of reason don't grant us the ability to see the big picture ... although we may draw the line at having our head surgically removed or investing all our money in government backed enterprise of a war torn third world country .... IOW it may be the case that it wouldn't be reasonable to reject a faith based claim if it has served us well

Should faith always trump reason?

Should reason always trump faith?

faith without reason is fanaticism and reason without a sense of the absolute (or "faith" if you like) is simply a waste of time

Is faith always reliable?

Is reason always reliable?

due to having imperfect senses (what to speak of a material conception of selfhood) we are never always reliable

 

[Lori_7]

is it reasonable to trust someone that you know, and based on that knowledge, believe is trustworthy?

sure it is.

 

[spidergoat]

is it reasonable to trust someone that you know, and based on that knowledge, believe is trustworthy?

sure it is.

People I know and trust can still be wrong.

 

[Lori_7]

People I know and trust can still be wrong.

does that mean you don't have faith in anyone, for fear they may be wrong?

or perhaps, based upon your knowledge of people, you have faith that they will be wrong.

i mean, you can know the most jacked up person, and have faith that they will remain a jacked up person, based upon the knowledge of them.

 

[spidergoat]

I may take someone's word for something tentatively, depending on how important the subject is. I don't think that's the same as faith, because faith implies absolute belief in something/someone in the absence of objective evidence.

 

[Lori_7]

I make take someone's word for something tentatively, depending on how important the subject is. I don't think that's the same as faith, because faith implies absolute belief in something/someone in the absence of objective evidence.

you mean you can't see into the future? so you don't trust anyone?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I make take someone's word for something tentatively, depending on how important the subject is. I don't think that's the same as faith, because faith implies absolute belief in something/someone in the absence of objective evidence.

No it doesn't.
Faith means that you can never know for sure, but based on your
experience, and knowledge, you believe they are trustworthy, and they can
be trustworthy.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

No it doesn't.
Faith means that you can never know for sure, but based on your
experience, and knowledge, you believe they are trustworthy, and they can
be trustworthy.

jan.

Trust isn't the issue, but truth. I can have faith that someone does not intend to lie to me, but that doesn't mean they really know what they think they know.

 

[Lori_7]

Trust isn't the issue, but truth. I can have faith that someone does not intend to lie to me, but that doesn't mean they really know what they think they know.

spider,

we're talking about god. there are some implicit things to consider in that regard.

 

[jayleew]

Any thoughts?

Read William James' essay "The will to believe"

He hits on this subject, and addresses some of your questions.

He does a pretty good job of spelling out all the influences that we must consider when exploring faith vs reason.

 

[Photizo]

Faith is an offense to reason, yet faith is the only means by which one pleases God, the most reasonable of all. Furthermore, He has established the only faith that 'connects' to Him originates from Him. It is distinct from a type of self determined 'belief'/adherence to a particular 'faith', denomination, or 'religion'.

"...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

From a human perspective this is not only highly offensive but highly irrational.

"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine."

 

[Cris]

lori,

is it reasonable to trust someone that you know, and based on that knowledge, believe is trustworthy?

sure it is.

That is not strictly "faith", that is "reason". You have knowledge of that person's past deeds, that's why you trust them, i.e. evidence of their trustworthiness exists. This is a reasonable position. Reason is based on evidence.

The term "faith" has two very distinct meanings, one is the example above, and the other is in the religious context where it means conviction of truth despite absence of any evidence. In that scenario faith is quite irrational.

Religionists are forced to accept that their beliefs are based on faith (zero evidence) but they don't want to be accurately labeled as irrational so they continue to give the alternate example for the meaning of "faith" and erroneously claim the meanings are the same.

 

[Cris]

Is religion faith only?

Yes entirely. There is no evidence to support any religious supernatural claim. Reason rests entirely on evidence.

Is religion both faith and reason?

No this is impossible. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Faith is belief without evidence while reason is belief strictly based on evidence. There is no common ground.

Should faith always trump reason?

Should reason always trump faith?

Is faith always reliable?

Is reason always reliable?

When evidence is present then reason is 100% accurate. With faith it becomes a coin toss.

 

[Doreen]

You cannot reason all the way down. Reason always includes non-rational portions. But people tend to take their own assumptions as obvious rather than faith based.

 

[Cris]

doreen,

You cannot reason all the way down. Reason always includes non-rational portions. But people tend to take their own assumptions as obvious rather than faith based.

Not correct, and a fatally flawed argument.

If evidence is absent then no reasoned/rational conclusion can be drawn. The error here is the implication that a conclusion must be made and that is rarely the case.

For example given a choice of whether to believe something is true or not -

1. Is there clear unambiguous evidence - then believe it is true. (reason).
2. If evidence is absent then choose to abstain from making a choice.

There is no need to ever choose a faith based decision.

 

[Doreen]

doreen,

Not correct, and a fatally flawed argument.

If evidence is absent then no reasoned/rational conclusion can be drawn.

Well, that isn't true, first of all. You are thinking of inductive reasoning, but in deductive reasoning you do not need evidence.

Further any sense of the world has assumptions in it. And these ride under evidence levels.

The error here is the implication that a conclusion must be made and that is rarely the case.

NOt can, is. I am noting what people do, regardless of belief system or epistemology. They make assumptions about what is going on. In fact we cannot avoid this.

For example given a choice of whether to believe something is true or not -

1. Is there clear unambiguous evidence - then believe it is true. (reason).
2. If evidence is absent then choose to abstain from making a choice.

And what evidence do you have that this lifestyle choice you are suggesting is the best one? Did you arrive at this way of living via a study of empirical studies showing it worked best?

There is no need to ever choose a faith based decision.

So you never make decisions unless you have done empirical testing yourself?

 

[Cris]

Doreen,

Well, that isn't true, first of all. You are thinking of inductive reasoning, but in deductive reasoning you do not need evidence.

In deductive reasoning logic is the evidence. Not all evidence must be phsyical. With inductive reasoning there always remains a doubt and depending on the statistical quantities involved the doubt may be large or very small. In the strictest sense inductive reasoning is irrational, and must be excluded where there is a requirement for certain truth.

Further any sense of the world has assumptions in it. And these ride under evidence levels.

NOt can, is. I am noting what people do, regardless of belief system or epistemology. They make assumptions about what is going on. In fact we cannot avoid this.

This is inductive reasoning that all people exercise most of the time, we could not funtion effectively without doing this.

And what evidence do you have that this lifestyle choice you are suggesting is the best one? Did you arrive at this way of living via a study of empirical studies showing it worked best?

Like everyone else I use inductive reasoning in most of my life activities. When I go to sit in a chair I do not expect it to collapse, but I know with all such choices there is a small statistical probability that at times I may be wrong. In essence there is substantial evidence that the oft repeated activity has a high probability of reprodicibility.

“
There is no need to ever choose a faith based decision.
”
So you never make decisions unless you have done empirical testing yourself?

In the case of quality inductive decisions there is substantial evidence that the event will be repeatable, i.e. the sun is highly likely to rise again tomorrow. But as I explained in my earlier message "faith" based decisions (i.e. of the religious style) have no previous evidence to support them. In this case religious faith does not qualify as inductive or deductive reasoning, and without such evidence there is absolutely no justification in making a decision rather than abstaining.

Even in the inductive case I could of course live a paranoid lifestyle and test every condition for certainty before I acted, e.g. check the chair will not collapse before sitting down.

As for your other suggestion that one must do their own empirical testing to be certain: But this is just another case of inductive reasoning. For example scientists make dicoveries and have their work peer reviewed and must undergo signficant re-testing and replication of their results before tentative acceptance that the theory is useful. The inductive reasoning here is that such a methodology has substantial evidence that it works very well and that such decisions are inductively sound.