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

Forums - Politics - 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
MTZehvor on 09 January 2016
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.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 09 January 2016
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.



hershel_layton on 09 January 2016
the_dark_lewd said:
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.

 

Well of course they're not actual figures. I thought you'd sense that it's a generalization. Of course, this mainly refers to America's political system.



 

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

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

RadiantDanceMachine on 09 January 2016
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

 

 





Azhraell on 09 January 2016
JRPGfan said:

Its open to interpretation. In his image could many any number of things, non of which have to do with physical appearance.

You have alot of mis conceptions.

Sorry but I don't understand what you meant here. As far as I know god created men to his image and resemblance, or that's what I heard.

Could you be more specific? what are those "lot" of misconceptions and what's open to interpretation? I don't think anything I said is false or my opinion, except the first part





Around the Network
LMU Uncle Alfred on 09 January 2016

It's understandable in a sense that it can help people get through times of pain. In that sense it's reasonable if it helps someone get back on their feet and have something to strive for.

Maybe they could have strived for something else to get them back on a positive note, but that depends entirely on their environment, the people they live around and where their mind was when they needed help.



Lube Me Up

MTZehvor on 09 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

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.

 

 

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

Let me rephrase. There is no religious definition of the word "faith" besides what you made up in the OP.

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.

Words need to be defined, but within reason. You can't just suddenly decide that faith is arbitrarily limited to what you have absolutely no evidence for. This is exactly why topicality arguments exist within the world of debate; because while there is a right to define, that right only exists as long as the definition is fair to both sides. 

The rest of the quoted section is a rather absurd personal attack, which I'll simply respond to by saying I've been quite respectful in disagreeing with you, and I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to me.

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.

You're ignoring a vast portion of the field of logic if you're going to seriously suggest that all of logic is confined to tautologies. 

A tautology is simply saying that the starting position is the same as the ending conclusion. S is E because the two are equivalent.

That's by no means the extent of logic, however. To reference other examples, there are contradictions (the opposite of tautologies), there's simplifications, predicate logic, etc. As an extremely basic example of logic that is not a tautology, I can say that if the United States elects Donald Trump, then Obamacare will be repealed. The two are by no means logical equivalents, but it is a very basic if then statement that forms the fundamental blocks of logic.

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

Again, I've been quite civil in debating this, and I'd ask you to extend the same level of respect. There's no need for insults in what should be a simple, enjoyable debate of ideals.



JRPGfan on 09 January 2016
leyendax69 said:
JRPGfan said:

Its open to interpretation. In his image could many any number of things, non of which have to do with physical appearance.

You have alot of mis conceptions.

Sorry but I don't understand what you meant here. As far as I know god created men to his image and resemblance, or that's what I heard.

Could you be more specific? what are those "lot" of misconceptions and what's open to interpretation? I don't think anything I said is false or my opinion, except the first part

Your thinking littarly in his image means god looks like us? sorry but no.

It could mean any number of things like we have free will, we re carbon based, we enjoy the same things. Maybe its that we have 2legs,2arms,ahead ect.

(and those things could be true for many life forms in the universe)

I think its silly to think god should looks like us.





JWeinCom on 09 January 2016
leyendax69 said:
JRPGfan said:

Its open to interpretation. In his image could many any number of things, non of which have to do with physical appearance.

You have alot of mis conceptions.

Sorry but I don't understand what you meant here. As far as I know god created men to his image and resemblance, or that's what I heard.

Could you be more specific? what are those "lot" of misconceptions and what's open to interpretation? I don't think anything I said is false or my opinion, except the first part

 

I'll clear it up for you.

Anything that the bible says that does not conform to reality as we know it is therefore a metaphor, parable, etc.  So, if you find any way in which the bible contradicts science, that means you're interpreting it wrong, because the bible cannot be wrong :-/

Thought I'd just save you the trouble.



JRPGfan on 09 January 2016
JWeinCom said:
leyendax69 said:

Sorry but I don't understand what you meant here. As far as I know god created men to his image and resemblance, or that's what I heard.

Could you be more specific? what are those "lot" of misconceptions and what's open to interpretation? I don't think anything I said is false or my opinion, except the first part

I'll clear it up for you.

Anything that the bible says that does not conform to reality as we know it is therefore a metaphor, parable, etc.  So, if you find any way in which the bible contradicts science, that means you're interpreting it wrong, because the bible cannot be wrong :-/

Thought I'd just save you the trouble.

Thats just it... almost all of it is. No one actually thinks the universe was created in 7days.... that doesnt mean it couldnt be how a smarter being would discribe 7 differnt phases or passages of time it took, to a human.

The only things in the bible thats actually from god are the 10 commandments, everything else not so much, just storys writen down by man.

Or so Ive always been led to believe.