By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is Faith Reasonable?

 

Is Faith Reasonable?

Yes 72 32.88%
 
No 116 52.97%
 
I don't know 10 4.57%
 
Darn skeptics 4 1.83%
 
Results 17 7.76%
 
Total:219
WorldBreakerHulk said:
EntilZha said:
 

ALL theories are guesses. The tests are performed to try and determine if there is any supporting evidence for the guess. Sometimes there is, sometimes not. If there is insufficient evidence to support a theory (at this time), but you continue to believe in the theory and continue to study it to find more evidence, by definition, you have Faith in your theory. That is just as valid for Science as it is for Religion.

Example: There is a theory that God created all life, and there is a theory that life created itself. Both are guesses to try and explain where we came from. Neither has irrefutable proof and thus neither is a known fact. Therefore, you have to put your Faith in one or the other.



 

EntilZha said:
 

I guess part of the issue here is if Faith is being considered strictly as a religious idea that has no application anywhere else. I took this thread to be making the statement, all Faith is not reasonable, including non-religious examples.

Section 2b is my point as well. Strong belief in something (a theory) for which there is no proof is the definition of Faith.

PS

I do enjoy having calm, rational, discussions like this. I learn from them, and sometimes even change my opinion. 



A theory with no proof? Theories are composed of facts and strong hypothesis.

From my understanding, Hypothesis are "educated" guesses that can be tested. Theories come from "tested and scrutinized" hypothesis. So I don't agree that theories are just guesses with no proof.

http://notjustatheory.com/

'll Copy paste some of the highlighted stuff.

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested.

 

Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law by it's ok to be smart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA

I do mostly agree with what you are saying, and perhaps I do not have strong enough understanding of Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law, but let me try and explain my point and see what you think. Since you mentioned gravity, let me use that as an example.

Newton developed his theory of gravity in 1687, including the value of G, the gravitational constant.  Newton's theory that gravity was a force was widely accepted and used to correctly predict the existance of Neptune. I am sure that I studied his inverse-square law of universal gravitation in school, and that it is accurate enough to still be used form many calculations even today.

However, Newton's theory did not accurately explain certain things, such as the orbit of Mercury, which showed slight variations. 

Along comes Einstein and his theory of general relativity where he describes gravity as an effect of space-time curvature ratther than a force. This seems to be more accurate and corrects some of the discrepancies seen in Newton's theory. However, it was then discovered that the theory of general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics. And so it goes on. 

My point being that a theory is a way of trying to explain what is happening based on our observations. However, even when a theory seems to adequately explain something, make correct predictions, and have much supporting evidence, it can still be "wrong" (or at least very incomplete). 

Do you see what I am trying to say?





In the absence of evidence to the contrary, always assume you have the upper hand.

NNID = RangerOne

Switch = SW-2393-3671-6907

Around the Network

If faith was reasonable, it wouldn't be faith, pure and simple. Certainty does not require much belief, certainly not faith, if things and phenomenon and mythology that people with faith believed in were reasonable to believe; it quite simply would not be faith, it would be a viable supposition, perhaps even just observations of probable events and characters in history.

Faith is not reasonable, that's why it's called faith. To people of faith, it may seem reasonable from a subjective point of view as one has tailor made a life and philosophy around it and likely incorporated it into most areas of everyday life, but from any objective viewpoint, and certainly scientific or logical viewpoint, it is unreasonable by nature.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
MTZehvor said:

I'd be careful with the word evidence, because evidence can be just about anything. I could cite, for instance, the willingness of so many members of the early church to die for something they would have known for certain was a lie, or the consistency of similar stories found in religious texts all across the globe dating back to times where people could not have possibly interacted, or really something as simple as an example of people claiming that religion changed their life. Evidence can be anything that suggests that something exists, and evidence that may be entirely uncompelling to one person might be very much so to another.



 

If you get people to believe in your cause and become completely behind it they have great potential to die for it. Remember that people way back when were not educated in Europe when they fought in the name of god, or were even taught about god and kept in line. They didnt need scientific proof because back then that type of proof did not matter. People died for honor at the whim of their governments or even their monarchy. Its actually fairly recent that scientific facts and evidence came into the picture. Its also fairly recent that Christians have been so educated in the amount of years of Christianity's existence. With the evolution of law and science over the past two hundred years, many things have changed. The secular world has had an effect of on the modern Christian and they evolve their practice to match it.

I agree that it's possible to get people to die in a cause that they're unsure of; the same thing still happens today. What I think makes the early church unique in this regard is that they would have been completely aware of whether Jesus had actually risen from the dead or not, as they were claiming.

Also, I'm fairly certain everyone was quite aware of the length of Christianity's existence at the time, being a relatively new religion (or, rather, a new extension of a much older religion).





JWeinCom said:
Slimebeast said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

 

Christianity is purely based on faith. There is no rational evidence of what it claims. There is a reason why faith is called blind, because you have to turn off your rational mind. This is why when you are being courted by a missionary that they plead for you to open up your heart. Why? Because the mind is not what they are appealing to. Its the emotions. Historically speaking science and Christianity have been at odds for the longest (even though some scientists were christians). Involving yourself in science against the word of the church in the old days was considered heresey.

First you have to understand what Christianity and christians claim, what internally is the claim. Does Christianity claim that it is based on faith, as in blind faith? Yes, undeniably it does! Very much so. But it also claims that faith is to some extent based on rational thought.

It's another issue then whether that rational thought, that rational attitude, leads to discovery of truth. But you can't deny that the attitude is there. While "blind faith" is more important, it's not the only basis for Christian belief, some of it is also based on rational thought, logical reasoning and search for evidence.

There's a lot of Christian apologists who use sophisticated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God. I'm sure you have seen at least some of the debates on YouTube between Christian apologists and atheist philosophers, and they cover a broad area of topics, including philosophical arguments.

Christians talk about general revelation and special revelation, where the first means that the creation itself, our world, testifies about God, physically and morally (special revelation is where God revealed himself as Yahweh to the Jewish people and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus). The Apostle Paul claims that nature testifies about God, that you can see traces of God in nature, and he claims that human moral, every human's understanding about good and evil is ingrained by God and thus proof of God.

Also, many Christian apologists argue that the Bible is quite pro science and has inspired people to study nature. In fact there's a lot of myths about Christianity's relationship with science, like you say, that it has been at odds with science for the longest, which simply isn't true.

For example, modern science was born in Christian Europe. If you look at the world's cultures where science and innovation historically has been strongest, it's in Christian cultures. All of the famous historical scientists up until the time of Darwin where Christians. Why is that? Is it just coincidence? No. For example it is said that the whole scientific mindset, that the world is governed by laws and allows itself to be studied, is also rooted in Christianity and that this way of thinking got a boost historically thanks to Christianity. It's not fair to say that Christianity is at odds with science.



 

Not to jump in... but I couldn't help myself.

"First you have to understand what Christianity and christians claim, what internally is the claim. Does Christianity claim that it is based on faith, as in blind faith? Yes, undeniably it does! Very much so. But it also claims that faith is to some extent based on rational thought."

Why do we care what it claims one way or the other?  Christianity can claim it is based on rational thought, but it is not, because there is no rational evidence.

Misunderstanding due to terminology here. By faith in that sentence I mean "belief". You could say that Christianity claims that the belief system is based on both "faith" and  a little bit of "rational thought". Also, if my post was worded in response to STAGE, about internal claim which he didn't seem to get.

------------------------------

"It's another issue then whether that rational thought, that rational attitude, leads to discovery of truth. But you can't deny that the attitude is there. While "blind faith" is more important, it's not the only basis for Christian belief, some of it is also based on rational thought, logical reasoning and search for evidence."

Of course you can deny the attitude is there.  If rational thought does not lead to god or religion, and religious people are led to god, then they are not employing rational thought.  Please explain how logical thinking or rational thought is employed in christian thinking.

All those apologists and ther philosophical arguments for example! And there's tons more.

---------------------------------

"There's a lot of Christian apologists who use sophisticated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God. I'm sure you have seen at least some of the debates on YouTube between Christian apologists and atheist philosophers, and they cover a broad area of topics, including philosophical arguments."

Not really.  There are apologists who use sophisticated *sounding* pseudophilosophical arguments, but despite watching many debates I've not seen a good argument.  All I've seen are variations on the flawed cosmological argument, the ridiculous transcendental argument, the even more ridiculous ontological argument, and various forms of presuppositionalists.  I can't recall the exact names, but I've seen quite a few of William Lane Craig, Matt Slick, Eric Hovind, Sye... his last name escapes me but the really retarded guy, and a few others.  If you know of any interesting debates with apologists that provide actual evidence, let me know, but I haven't seen it yet.  

But, no philosophical argument has or can prove god.  Present any you'd like, but they all contain various logical fallacies.  Personal incredulity and special pleading being chief among them.

You're not intellectually honest. You eat arguments by Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss, based on the same type of philosophical argumentation, that end up in believeing in "something from nothing" and "multiverse theories" and "objective morals can be proved scientifically", and those are perfectly fine for you I assume, but somehow the Christian arguments about our existance are "pseudo" and flawed.

-----------------------------------

"Christians talk about general revelation and special revelation, where the first means that the creation itself, our world, testifies about God, physically and morally (special revelation is where God revealed himself as Yahweh to the Jewish people and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus). The Apostle Paul claims that nature testifies about God, that you can see traces of God in nature, and he claims that human moral, every human's understanding about good and evil is ingrained by God and thus proof of God."

Creation is not evidence of god, and I believe we've talked about the blind watchmaker already.  The bible is unverifiable, obviously fallacious, and so abominable that we should all sincerely hope it is false.  The concept of good and evil can be explained much better through naturalistic means (certain traits are necessary for a social species.  We don't last long without empathy) and the idea of laws handed down by a static god is not consistent with the moral variation we see across cultures and time.  Aside from this, the bible is a moral cespool where god commands murder and rape, among other things.

If you had studied this issue in depth, you would have discovered that Dawkins contradicts himself, and argues as if there exists objective morals while at the same time claiming it's all subjective because it's a result of evolution.

Yes, God commands murder and rape in a context. Context is everything.

----------------------------------

"Also, many Christian apologists argue that the Bible is quite pro science and has inspired people to study nature. In fact there's a lot of myths about Christianity's relationship with science, like you say, that it has been at odds with science for the longest, which simply isn't true."

That argument is obviously wrong.  A literal interpretation of the bible is definitely at odds with scientific facts.  The idea of faith is inherently incompatible with the scientific method.  It may be overly simplistic to say Christianity is at odds with science, but while there have been great christian scientists, science has generally been supressed by science.  Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, evolution, to stem cell research, aids prevention, and other issues in moern times.

I said that the Bible apparently has inspired many religious people to study nature, hisorically. I've heard that claim. I don't make a big deal out of it though, because it doesn't have that effect on me.

----------------------------------------

"For example, modern science was born in Christian Europe. If you look at the world's cultures where science and innovation historically has been strongest, it's in Christian cultures. All of the famous historical scientists up until the time of Darwin where Christians. Why is that? Is it just coincidence? No. For example it is said that the whole scientific mindset, that the world is governed by laws and allows itself to be studied, is also rooted in Christianity and that this way of thinking got a boost historically thanks to Christianity. It's not fair to say that Christianity is at odds with science."

What are you calling modern science?  Greeks had figured out a round earth, its circumferance, a heliocentric universe, and the existence of atoms. There were scientific advances made in the early islamic world, india, and the rest of asia as well.  I would certainly not say all of the famous scientists were christians, but more of them were back then than today.  Why?  First off, things like the inquisition.  Secondly, the church had the money.  So you had to play ball.  Thirdly, scientists had less information to draw on, so their decisions were less informed. 
Modern science as in the 17th and 18th centuries where we saw the first systematical approaches for study and the origin to the scientific method.

The inquisition was far less nasty than modern myth has it. Something like 5000 people were killed by the Inquisition when people imagine it was millions. And again context, The Church Inquisition was actually more tolerant towards heretics than the authorities where. If the authorities were to decide - and authorities at that time believed in a divine order just like the church did, but they were also very serious about threats toward that divine order - many more people would have been killed.

-------------------------------------

Christianity held back science for quite a while, and science was kickstarted again during the renaisance when greek and roman culture was being rediscovered.  The enlightenment period coincided with further weakening of the church's power, and a rise in deism and rational thought.  This happened to occur in a christian europe, but that's simply because christianity dominated so much of the world, that it was incredibly likely to happen in a christian world.  There is no reason to say that christianity is the cause of this, and the idea that the scientific mindset is rooted in christianity is ridiculous.

And why did christianity dominate so much? All in all, there's a positive correlation between the prevalence of christianity and a beneficial environment for science, historically. And that's an important point to make towards the nasty accusations that are made against Christianity.

------------------------------------------


You're alluding to a lot of arguments that apologists have made, but those arguments range from flimsy to plain stupid.  If you think there are any actual good arguments apologists have made, feel free to present them, but I've yet to hear one.  The cosmological argument, depending on its particular phrasing, is probably the strongest they have, but even that falls far far short of being actual evidence.

It's not solid proof for God's existance (the cosmological argument among other philosophical arguments), and I doubt anybody made that claim, but I classify it as evidence towards a theistic worldview versus an atheist worldview.

Response in italics.





Why argue about something that can't be seen? Why not ask about Faith in Humanity? XD



Around the Network

No it's not reasonable or logic but our brains think more in emotions than reason. Concluding that we are not rational beings and beleving in a faith makes sense for some, not me though.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar