Is Faith Reasonable?

[S.T.A.G.E.]

MTZehvor said:

Dante9 said:

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.

I'd argue this is wrong on two accounts.

Like the OP, you're taking the actual definition of "faith" and limiting it to something it is not. Faith, as defined by the dictionary, is not belief in something you have no evidence for. It is simply a firm belief in something you cannot prove. The sports example works well, as I am saying that I have faith in a particular team winning in a specific game. Can I prove that the Chiefs will be victors roughly 8 hours from now? No, I cannot. But I am quite confident in it. Thus, it is faith.

Now, you can argue that some things that require faith have far less evidence for their existence/truthfulness, but again, that's taking the actual definition of word and limiting it in scope.

Secondly, there's an issue with your definition of "reasonable" as well, in that some people may believe it is quite reasonable to assert from what you've stated that they should believe in God/these theoretical football teams. What sounds reasonable to some people does not sound reasonable to others. I have plenty of friends that would argue that the changes they've experienced within their lives from believing in God are enough evidence for them to have faith in his existence. Is that unreasonable? I'm not entirely sure, but at the very least, they certainly think it isn't. Again, this all comes down to what you assert as the basis for reason and evidence.

 

Your friends statement in Christianity is known as "testimony". Again, faith does not require proof so if you believe as well thats all you really need. No need to search for evidence. Thats your personal truth. Personal truths are accepted by groups of people as the truth, but nothing trumps a universal truth which cannot be debated known as a fact.