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
the_dark_lewd on 09 January 2016
hershel_layton said:
This shouldn't be political.

99% of conservatives are die-hard Christians. They still think evolution is a "myth". They also think that anything in the Bible means it's true.

99% of liberals won't even give a response. They'll call you racist(even though religion has nothing to do with race). They also have a funny idea of what freedom of speech is. They can criticize everything they want, yet they'll cry that they're being harassed if someone says one word against them.


Leave this to scientists(and real ones. Not those idiot creationists in the south that claim to be "professionals"). When scientists debate, there usually isn't any bias or feelings brought into the argument. It can create great arguments that'll usually find an answer(even if it isn't clear).

Where on earth are you getting your figures. If those were really 99%, I sense we'd have destroyed the world by now.





Around the Network
snyps on 09 January 2016
JWeinCom said:

That's still not quantum physics.  Quantum physics deals with particles in a quantum state, where they can exist as a wave and particle.  But, as mentioned earlier, things like light cause this state to change, to (possibly) something that exists in our everyday life.  Once they've formed molecules, it no longer makes sense to apply the rules of quantum physics to them anymore.  By that point, we'd just go to physics or more likely chemistry.  Judging by the fact that the movie uses this... errrr... "experiment" I would imagine it's psuedoscience.

There's nothing wrong with thinking positively.  But to think your positive thoughts will change the composition of water is a bit out there.

 

The movie is full of quantum physicists who can take 2 hours to properly explain what I'm failing to say in my twenty sentences. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 09 January 2016

Faith is not rational, but is essential to the human experience because we're emotional beings and social at that. Thats the most I can say. Faith is not based on facts, for you must believe without seeing. I dont religiously live by faith, but I have faith in people because I am a member of the human race. 



EntilZha on 09 January 2016

Your definition of Faith is at best, very poor, and appears to be constructed to support your claim.
Faith can be reasonable, or unreasonable, just like everything else in the world.
Faith can be based on evidence, but is lacking irrefutable proof.
Having faith that the world is flat, is unreasonable. The evidence the world is round is irrefutable.
Having faith my wife loves me is reasonable, even in the absence of irrefutable proof of the fact.

Some people say that having Faith in an idea that can not be proven/observed is unreasonable, or silly.
Scientists have Faith in ideas that can not be proven/observed. They are called theories.
Scientific theories are ideas that are supported by evidence. This evidence may, or may not, be accepted by all Scientists.
Many Scientific theories are either never proven, or are disproven.
Despite the fact the Scientific ideas have been disproven countless times throughout ancient and recent times, many people still have 100% Faith in Science. Is that reasonable?



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

NNID = RangerOne

Switch = SW-2393-3671-6907

S.T.A.G.E. on 09 January 2016
EntilZha said:
Your definition of Faith is at best, very poor, and appears to be constructed to support your claim.
Faith can be reasonable, or unreasonable, just like everything else in the world.
Faith can be based on evidence, but is lacking irrefutable proof.
Having faith that the world is flat, is unreasonable. The evidence the world is round is irrefutable.
Having faith my wife loves me is reasonable, even in the absence of irrefutable proof of the fact.

Some people say that having Faith in an idea that can not be proven/observed is unreasonable, or silly.
Scientists have Faith in ideas that can not be proven/observed. They are called theories.
Scientific theories are ideas that are supported by evidence. This evidence may, or may not, be accepted by all Scientists.
Many Scientific theories are either never proven, or are disproven.
Despite the fact the Scientific ideas have been disproven countless times throughout ancient and recent times, many people still have 100% Faith in Science. Is that reasonable?

 

Science isnt based on faith. Its a study. Religious theology and science cannot be compared. Theories arent guesses and have to go through tests to prove itself from the stage of hypothesis. Everything made around you by man is based on a theory.



Around the Network
Dante9 on 09 January 2016
MTZehvor said:

I'd say the problems lie in your definitions, as...well, really, I can't find anything that supports a definition of faith as "Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude."

According to Merriam Webster, faith is merely "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," with other dictionaries having similar definitions. In other words, faith extends to anything that you cannot demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have faith, for instance (totally hypothetical, no one try to use this on the NFL thread), that Kansas City will win tomorrow's playoff game. I have plenty of reasons as to why I think this, such as Houston generally sucking and KC's defense being set up almost specifically to foil Houston's offense. I am quite confident in KC winning, and I would argue it's a very reasonable belief, but in the end, it is still something I cannot prove, therefore it is faith.

So, no, faith does not imply a lack of reasonability. Certain beliefs that you may have faith in might be unreasonable, but as a whole concept, no.

EDIT: As a side note, if you leave the definition faith as is, then there's hardly a debate to be had, as you've simply created a tautology. Reasonability requires...well, reason, and if faith is, by definition, absent of reason, then obviously it must be unreasonable.

 That's not much of an analogy, because those sports teams are known to exist to begin with. And any team will beat any other team eventually, it's just a matter of variables in the game itself.
What religion is asking you to have faith in, is that there are these teams somewhere out there that nobody has ever seen. You can't see footage of them on the internet or anything else in the way of evidence. You just have to believe that they're there, because someone wrote it on a piece of parchment 2000 years ago. By someone who had the knowledge and sensibilities of that age, no less. Some people will tell you that they have "visions" or "feelings" of these teams and may even claim to know what the players are thinking and what they want.

That's not reasonable.



Jumpin on 09 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

Billions of people across the globe embrace beliefs not based upon reason or evidence, but based upon faith. By doing this, faith is committed to an epistemology. This way one can draw conclusions about things and make declarations such as "I know God exists by faith". But let's not isolate this to mere god beliefs, this applies to any faith position. These would include paranormal claims, such as psychics or mediums, ghosts, or even those whom believe there are unicorns on Pluto. Definitions are in order here and since definitions are arbitrary, they are granted what is known as a priori true status which is to say that any definition is a *true* premise. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche quipped "Faith is not wanting to know what is true", I've attempted to use the Biblical notion of it without the allusions or poetry. 

Faith - Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude. 

Reasonable - Having sound reasoning. 

P1) Reasonable implies having sound reasoning.  (R → SR) [definition, a priori]

P2) Faith is absent sound reasoning. (⌐SR)[definition, a priori]

C) Therefore faith cannot be said to be reasonable. (⌐R) [modus tollens]

A very basic syllogism to demonstrate the falsity of the claim that "Faith is Reasonable" given that you embrace these definitions. If you think I've been uncharitable to faith, proctor a definition you think sufficiently describes faith as well as any arguments you think support the idea that faith is reasonable.

What say you, VgChartz, is this faith thing reasonable?

Reason is the cornerstone of rationalism, and rationalism is not the same thing as empiricism. You begin by defining faith as being unempirical, but not irrational. So your second premise is false.

Also, Nietzsche was a pretentious cunt whose philosophy is the sort of thing that impresses teenagers.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Player2 on 09 January 2016

Nope. That's what I was told at the religion class in my religious school.



tiffac on 09 January 2016

Faith the secret sauce to the world's best business. Tax Free~~



Frank_kc on 09 January 2016

I am really shocked that no faith has the highest percentage. To answer the question about faith, we need to ask our-self one question: What is the purpose of life? are we created only to eat, sleep, work and then die? Is this really what life is about?

With no offence to the majority of who voted NO, knowing that most of them are Atheist and the Agnostic, if you found a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped this watch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself? Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened to emerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals that lay buried in the earth. The watch must have a manufacturer. If a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch.