Faith vs. Reason

As the educator George H. Smith said in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, "confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought."

Most arguments between the theist and the atheist end up becoming repetitious and dull because there is a fundamental disagreement between the atheist and the theist that rarely gets brought up and so is rarely discussed. I am in agreement with Mr. Smith that the conflict between the theist and the atheist is fundamentally a conflict between reason and faith. It is a conflict about how human beings can distinguish between what is true and what is false.

Reason and faith are two mutually exclusive terms, and as such there can be no reconciliation between the two nor common ground met. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason. So the question must be asked, can faith be used as a valid cognitive procedure for acquiring knowledge or is acquiring knowledge solely within the realm of reason?

This sounds like a question that a teacher would give out for homework or essay.FragStains

What would you write if it were? Do you have any opinion on the subject?

[QUOTE="FragStains"]This sounds like a question that a teacher would give out for homework or essay.Decessus

What would you write if it were? Do you have any opinion on the subject?

"I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

"Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it's rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, 'Faith is actually plausible.' You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone."--Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.Silver_Dragon17

I have issues with a scientist who claims that the supernatual world exists, yet gives no evidence or reasons to support his or her claim. Dr. Collins is absolutely a brilliant man, of that I have no doubt. However, having a Ph.D does not exclude someone from the burden of supporting his or her position.

Also, unless Dr. Collins is going to start posting on Gamespot, I would appreciate it if you contributed your own thoughts on the subject instead of relying on the thoughts of others.

"I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

"Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it's rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, 'Faith is actually plausible.' You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone."--Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.Silver_Dragon17

That is what you call faith

One acquire knowledge in whatever form a person wants. Since it's relative to each person, you cannot say that you can only acquire knowledge a certain way. And what is your definition of knowledge?
FragStains

I think that's a very good question. There certainly isn't agreement among philosophers as to what constitutes knowledge, but I'm personally of the opinion that knowledge is belief that most closely resembles reality.

For example, if I have knowledge that the tea kettle on my stove is boiling, it isn't to say that with 100% certainty such a thing is really happening. Instead, such a belief is as close to the truth as can possibly be. Does that make much sense?

[QUOTE="FragStains"]One acquire knowledge in whatever form a person wants. Since it's relative to each person, you cannot say that you can only acquire knowledge a certain way. And what is your definition of knowledge?
Decessus

I think that's a very good question. There certainly isn't agreement among philosophers as to what constitutes knowledge, but I'm personally of the opinion that knowledge is belief that most closely resembles reality.

For example, if I have knowledge that the tea kettle on my stove is boiling, it isn't to say that with 100% certainty such a thing is really happening. Instead, such a belief is as close to the truth as can possibly be. Does that make much sense?

These are all very ambiguous terms. Of course, you could get dictionary definitions for them, but they could debated.

Read the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He basically summarizes all atheist arguments and counters them with reason through faith. Its a very good read. Good for the skeptics.whodeysay85

There is data, and then there is information. Accessing either could constitute having knowledge. Using that knowledge equates to wisdom. Of course, everyone's definition of all these terms will be different, which makes the base point of the original post difficult to discuss. Is knowledge relative? Does just believing in something constitute knowledge? For example, I believe beyond our earth's atmosphere that space exists. I have no concrete proof myself, but does the fact that I believe that there is space, mean that I have knowledge of space.

These are all very ambiguous terms. Of course, you could get dictionary definitions for them, but they could debated.

FragStains

I think most people would disagree that just believing in something constitues as knowledge. For instance, suppose I go to the store today and buy a lottery ticket where I choose the six numbers. This Saturday when the drawing is held, those numbers are called. Do you think it would be okay to say I had knowledge of what those numbers would be? Personally, I don't think so.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="FragStains"]One acquire knowledge in whatever form a person wants. Since it's relative to each person, you cannot say that you can only acquire knowledge a certain way. And what is your definition of knowledge?
FragStains

I think that's a very good question. There certainly isn't agreement among philosophers as to what constitutes knowledge, but I'm personally of the opinion that knowledge is belief that most closely resembles reality.

For example, if I have knowledge that the tea kettle on my stove is boiling, it isn't to say that with 100% certainty such a thing is really happening. Instead, such a belief is as close to the truth as can possibly be. Does that make much sense?

These are all very ambiguous terms. Of course, you could get dictionary definitions for them, but they could debated.

As the educator George H. Smith said in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, "confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought."

Most arguments between the theist and the atheist end up becoming repetitious and dull because there is a fundamental disagreement between the atheist and the theist that rarely gets brought up and so is rarely discussed. I am in agreement with Mr. Smith that the conflict between the theist and the atheist is fundamentally a conflict between reason and faith. It is a conflict about how human beings can distinguish between what is true and what is false.

Reason and faith are two mutually exclusive terms, and as such there can be no reconciliation between the two nor common ground met. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason. So the question must be asked, can faith be used as a valid cognitive procedure for acquiring knowledge or is acquiring knowledge solely within the realm of reason?

Decessus

"I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

"Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it's rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, 'Faith is actually plausible.' You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone."--Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.Silver_Dragon17

who says it exists???

As the educator George H. Smith said in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, "confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought."

Most arguments between the theist and the atheist end up becoming repetitious and dull because there is a fundamental disagreement between the atheist and the theist that rarely gets brought up and so is rarely discussed. I am in agreement with Mr. Smith that the conflict between the theist and the atheist is fundamentally a conflict between reason and faith. It is a conflict about how human beings can distinguish between what is true and what is false.

Reason and faith are two mutually exclusive terms, and as such there can be no reconciliation between the two nor common ground met. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason. So the question must be asked, can faith be used as a valid cognitive procedure for acquiring knowledge or is acquiring knowledge solely within the realm of reason?

Decessus

Faith is based on nothing but Faith so therefore it cannot and should not be used.

zeitgeist.com

learn about xianity ediots

Of course Reason will always trump faith. What has faith given us? The Bible, and belief in God?

Reason has given us everything scientific and technological in our life today.

Of course Reason will always trump faith. What has faith given us? The Bible, and belief in God?

Reason has given us everything scientific and technological in our life today.

Donkey_Puncher

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

Of course Reason will always trump faith. What has faith given us? The Bible, and belief in God?

Reason has given us everything scientific and technological in our life today.

xaos

You can have meaning with out faith. I have meaning because of my job, my family, and my friends. You don't need to bring any supernatural faith into the equation to have meaning.

Secondly, Kansas' decision to rule against evolution only proves that their entire school board is filled with morons.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

Of course Reason will always trump faith. What has faith given us? The Bible, and belief in God?

Reason has given us everything scientific and technological in our life today.

Donkey_Puncher

You can have meaning with out faith. I have meaning because of my job, my family, and my friends. You don't need to bring any supernatural faith into the equation to have meaning.

Secondly, Kansas' decision to rule against evolution only proves that their entire school board is filled with morons.

I didn't say faith gives every individual person meaning; people of faith receive comfort and meaning from their faith, and their faith trumps the lack of rational evidence in support of it and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. My issue is that you seem to have a pretty fundamentalist view of a purely empirical/rationalist view of the universe.

xaos

Is there something wrong with seeing the Universe as a completely naturalistic place devoid of supernatural mumbo jumbo?

[QUOTE="xaos"]

I didn't say faith gives every individual person meaning; people of faith receive comfort and meaning from their faith, and their faith trumps the lack of rational evidence in support of it and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. My issue is that you seem to have a pretty fundamentalist view of a purely empirical/rationalist view of the universe.

Donkey_Puncher

Is there something wrong with seeing the Universe as a completely naturalistic place devoid of supernatural mumbo jumbo?

Not a bit; there is, IMO, something wrong with insisting that other people do, or that those who don't are "morons." I certainly agree that the Kansas School Board thing was absurd at best, but the tone I seem to be reading from you is that you find faith to be stupid. My apologies if I'm misreading your intent or putting words into your mouth. I'll refrain from further comment until I know what you mean here. However, in your original post, you suggest that faith hasn't given anything of significant value and I think at least a couple billion folks would disagree with you on that point.

xaos

I didn't call people of faith morons, I called the Kansas school board morons, because they are. They actively used their "Faith" to interfere with science and reason; something I absolutely am not alright with.

If people have faith in God good for them, keep it to yourself. Once you cross that border and try and pass it off as fact is where theycross the line, just like in Kansas.

What would you consider more benficial to man: Faith in God giving people meaning in life OR Modern medicine, computers, automobiles, plastics, polymers, telecommunications, and mathmatics?

Personally I'm going with Science on this one. ;)

[QUOTE="xaos"]

Not a bit; there is, IMO, something wrong with insisting that other people do, or that those who don't are "morons." I certainly agree that the Kansas School Board thing was absurd at best, but the tone I seem to be reading from you is that you find faith to be stupid. My apologies if I'm misreading your intent or putting words into your mouth. I'll refrain from further comment until I know what you mean here. However, in your original post, you suggest that faith hasn't given anything of significant value and I think at least a couple billion folks would disagree with you on that point.

Donkey_Puncher

I didn't call people of faith morons, I called the Kansas school board morons, because they are. They actively used their "Faith" to interfere with science and reason; something I absolutely am not alright with.

If people have faith in God good for them, keep it to yourself. Once you cross that border and try and pass it off as fact is where theycross the line, just like in Kansas.

What would you consider more benficial to man: Faith in God giving people meaning in life OR Modern medicine, computers, automobiles, plastics, polymers, telecommunications, and mathmatics?

Personally I'm going with Science on this one. ;)

[QUOTE="whodeysay85"]Read the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He basically summarizes all atheist arguments and counters them with reason through faith. Its a very good read. Good for the skeptics.espoac

I believe that both faith and reason go hand in hand. Reasonable people have faith that what they believe in is reasonable. Vis a vis, people of faith believe that what they believe in is reasonable. However, atheists go by what scientists claim to be fact. Scientists aren't always right, but atheists have faith in them regardless. Theists generally believe in ancient texts, but those texts (such as the Bible) have a good amount of wisdom to guide a person through their life, and have documented real events. In fact, scientists have recently found evidence of the Red Sea crossing. Religion also gives a person a sense of purpose; a belief that there really is something beyond our time here in earth.

From what I've seen in both science and my personal life, I find God/Christianity to be more logical, ergo, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

As the educator George H. Smith said in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, "confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought."

Most arguments between the theist and the atheist end up becoming repetitious and dull because there is a fundamental disagreement between the atheist and the theist that rarely gets brought up and so is rarely discussed. I am in agreement with Mr. Smith that the conflict between the theist and the atheist is fundamentally a conflict between reason and faith. It is a conflict about how human beings can distinguish between what is true and what is false.

Reason and faith are two mutually exclusive terms, and as such there can be no reconciliation between the two nor common ground met. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason. So the question must be asked, can faith be used as a valid cognitive procedure for acquiring knowledge or is acquiring knowledge solely within the realm of reason?

Decessus

do you live in a **** box or what? More than half the atheists usually use that argument. For my part, when in conflict with stupid believers, I always use it.

They are not mutually exclusive... in any way. You can have reasonable beliefs. The debates between atheism and theism are quite childish and get nobody nowhere. It is a complete waste of time.foxhound_fox

Several hundred years worth of philosophy go against your idea that the debates are childish and a waste of time. Countless decisions are made everyday based on religious beliefs. If those beliefs are unfounded, then don't you think as rational human beings we have a responsibility to not act on those beliefs?

Faith and reason seem like a false dichotomy, much like religion and science. They deal with radically different areas of experience. It's like saying which is better, music or dessert. Science and reason deal with the tangible, measurable empirical aspects of our experience. Faith and religion deal with ineffable mystery and questions of purpose and meaning that science doesn't even ask, since answering them cannot be done by empirical means. The different spheres of competence for the two means it usually turns out useless at best and destructive at best when someone tries to mix them, such as when someone tries to "sicentifically disprove God" or people push for "intelligent design/creation science" to be included in public school curricula.xaos

I think it is incorrect to say that they deal with radically different areas of experience. Both propoents of faith, and proponents of reason believe that knowledge is aquired though their respective means.

If your position is that faith reveals knowledge about purpose and meaning, how does it do it?

there are christian philosophers that back theirbeliefs with reason. though i havent read one that made a particularly convincing case.

edit: freudian slip, i really did mean beliefs

[QUOTE="FragStains"]This sounds like a question that a teacher would give out for homework or essay.Decessus

What would you write if it were? Do you have any opinion on the subject?

I would if I wanted to decphire what you said. I sureley would give an educated, and genius response if this was my homework, but sadly, I am on Gamespot where I really could care less about vocabulary and my beliefs. I believe in God, and I love him. What you believe may not be right for me, and visa versa.

As the educator George H. Smith said in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, "confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought."

Most arguments between the theist and the atheist end up becoming repetitious and dull because there is a fundamental disagreement between the atheist and the theist that rarely gets brought up and so is rarely discussed. I am in agreement with Mr. Smith that the conflict between the theist and the atheist is fundamentally a conflict between reason and faith. It is a conflict about how human beings can distinguish between what is true and what is false.

Reason and faith are two mutually exclusive terms, and as such there can be no reconciliation between the two nor common ground met. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason. So the question must be asked, can faith be used as a valid cognitive procedure for acquiring knowledge or is acquiring knowledge solely within the realm of reason?

Decessus

Acquiring knowledge in a strictly mundane sense is based on reason almost exclusively. I say almost though, as faith can inspire one to search for deeper meaning, as faith in God might push a man to search for a scientific proof of God. Faith is used in the search of acquiring knowledge in that case. So no, while reason is used almost exclusively in the acquisition of mundane knowledge, faith can be used to assist the acquisition of knowledge, or to increase one's knowledge of the supernatural. They can work together, the problem there is the word "exclusive."

Well that's my interpretation anyway. If I'm way off, you can tell me in a polite way :)

Nope....you can arrive at faith through reason. Therefore Smith was it?...is simply stating bias.LJS9502_basic

hmmmm... that may just be the dumbest thing i've ever read...