Is Faith Reasonable?

[Eagle367]

JWeinCom said:

Eagle367 said:

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?

 

Tell me one thing. If you know something, then how can you believe it. Believing something is completely different then knowing it. If this world really is a test to test our beliefs, then what would be the point of God revealing himself to is. Then we would not need to belief, we will know and hence the entire point of testing us would be nullified. God, if he exists, can not be perceived by us as he has made us this way. It's like how we can not percieve 4 dimensional or 5 dimensional beings. We have our limitations.

That doesn't change the fact that it is silly to believe anything without some degree of evidence.  If god made life a test to see if we would believe in him, and then made us in a way that we could not in any way detect his presence, then that would be a sadistic test of the highest order.  Why would a god want us to believe in him without evidence?  To create a way to reward gullibility?

Edit:  And of course you can know and believe something.  They are different, but not mutually exclusive categories.  

 

What if there are subtle evidences that if you willing, you will be able to see. What if there are people who have realized these evidences and we haven't. What if, just like in science, there are ways to verify your beliefs if you are willing to learn. And what if you think that everything is pure randomness but the order of the universe itself is the greatest evidence there is? Also first you believe in something, then you either can verify it or not and then if you have verified it, you will know it. Belief itself means to feel strongly that something is even though there is no clear evidence supporting your feeling. So I think believing and knowing cannot be said for the same thing.