Is Faith Reasonable?

[RadiantDanceMachine]

MTZehvor said:

RadiantDanceMachine 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.

I did explicitly state that I would be using the Biblical definition, since that is the type of faith that is use as an epistemology.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

However, the definition you offered is actually identical. Here's why...

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Substitution:

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact of truth of a statement

(OP definition) Faith - Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude.

Therefore, when you say:

"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."

 You are completely mistaken as to what faith is.

It is not defined as a tautology, it is demonstrated to be a tautology by modus tollens. All of logic/maths is based upon tautology, that's how they function.  

Here's the thing, though. There is no "Biblical" definition of faith. You're attempting to impose a restriction on a word which is entirely arbitrary and made up. That's exactly my point.

Biggest problem with the rest of your argument is that you've attempted to use two different dictionaries to splice together a single definition. Proof, as it's used in the definition of faith in Merriam Webster, is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact." To be cogent is to be very clear or easy for the mind to understand. In essence, in MW, which is what I'm taking my defintion from, it is enough evidence shown to make something almost undoubtable in one's mind. This is far different from any evidence whatsoever.

To put it another way, the distinction that MW draws is one quite frequently referenced in legal systems. Providing evidence for something is not the same as proving it to be true. One is a suggestion in a mind, the other is actually demonstrating it to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. The latter is what the MW definition is using.

Thus, to bring this all to a head, no, I'm not mistaken about the definition of faith. This is how faith is definied in the dictionary. 

I never claimed it was defined as a tautology, I'm simply saying that this winds up being an undebatable subject if you leave the definitions as is because you have created a tautology which is easily demonstrable. Also, as a side note, not all of logic is based upon tautologies. A tautology is essentially saying the same thing twice; i.e. if you define faith as belief without reason, then obviously faith will not have reason. Most logic exists far outside the realm of tautologies, such as, for instance, the vast majority of informal reasoning and modal logic.

Yes there is, it's what I quoted for you. How did you miss it?

Restriction? Uh...words have to be defined if they are used in arguments, which is why I supplied the corresponding definition to be used in the argument. In the argument supplied that is the definition used, there is nothing to argue about. As I stated previously, definitions are granted a priori true value. You arguing definition is essentially a red herring fallacy due to ignorance about how propositional logic works or emotional fragility because of the conclusion.

All you can do if you find the argument sound is to say that "Yes, under those definitions you are correct."

It's a bit silly to supply the secular definition of faith to controvert the one supplied when it draws straight from the Bible, no? Secular faith and religious faith are different, I'm glad you finally acknowledge it.

Your contention that logic isn't tautology is completely wrong, much to your chagrin. 

Law of Identity A = A (tautology)

Law of noncontradiction A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive, because...tautology. If A is B, we can substitute B for A in the second example, (B) is not B.

Honestly, don't spread bullshit please. It's quite obvious you aren't logically inclined.

 

Moderated - Miguel_Zorro