Augustus
…
My belief system is not based on faith.
It is, to some extent, based on axioms that are not objectively true. Not sure that there is any meaningful difference between not objectively true and faith-based.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My belief system is not based on faith.
It is, to some extent, based on axioms that are not objectively true. Not sure that there is any meaningful difference between not objectively true and faith-based.
That is incorrect.
I can't think of anything more irrational and faith-based than operating under the assumption that your own belief system comprises only things that are objectively true.
If a person has a faith-based belief, and if faith is beyond reason, then is that belief outside the reach of reason? Can that person effectively engage their faith-based beliefs with reason? Can someone else effectively engage their faith-based beliefs in rational conversation? Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?
I never said it was. You are making a lot of assumptions about someone that you don't know. I operate in a state of doubt, measuring likelihood instead of certainty.
You don't appear to be operating in a state of doubt regarding the limitations of human rationality.
To clarify though, I'm making no assumptions about you, I'm describing a fundamental aspect of human cognition.
Hi,
From a popular description of faith your comment makes perfect sense.
However from the bibles point of view it does not.
Here are two scriptures that hopefully demonstrate what I mean:
Ro 12:1 " I entreat you... to present yourselves, a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason...be transformed by making your mind over, that you prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Heb 11:1
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstation of realities..."
cheers.
Sorry for not appearing in the manner you think I should be. I have my doubt you really know that much about human cognition. I think it is far more likely you just assume everyone thinks in the same manner as you do.
Like I said, it's not about you specifically.
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence against the idea that we are consistently rational, of course I think that all people (including me) are not consistently rational. "Rationalists" have a habit of believing that they are subject to the same cognitive limitations as the rest of humanity though.
I also believe that belief/value systems are, to some extent, based on axioms that are not objectively true.
If you want to disagree that's your right, as you note many beliefs seem to be impervious to reason after all.
Then what is it when a person is faced with overwhelming opposing rational arguments and evidence that they themselves don't deny, but believe anyways?
You're jumping ahead don't you think?
First the groundwork to prove that it truly DID come from God is required. Without that, it's still just faith to believe in any of what is CLAIMED any "god" "says".
If a person has a faith-based belief, and if faith is beyond reason, then is that belief outside the reach of reason? Can that person effectively engage their faith-based beliefs with reason? Can someone else effectively engage their faith-based beliefs in rational conversation? Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?
I only need a reason that I accept. I don't need to prove it's right. That is what faith is. If you want to challenge my faith you need to prove my reasoning faulty not my faith.
Beliefs and faith are very important. When all the facts are not known, one patches the gap with beliefs and/or faith. If beliefs and faith did not exist, one would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known.
Beliefs and faith are not the problem. The problem comes through accepting. When one accepts, one no longer questions. Since beliefs are not always true, beliefs must always be questioned.
One can discover that even long held beliefs turn out not to be true in spite of how one might like them.Truth will not always be an agreeable thing.
To question is the start on the journey to Discover the Real Truth. Once the Real Truth is Discovered, one must continue to question it. So often just a new piece of knowledge will change the entire picture.
If one accepts and refuses to question, Truth is not really what one seeks. How can one who does not seek the truth be reasoned to see the truth? That is another story.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Sure. But those base assumptions can both be reasonable or unreasonable.
That doesn't really refute my point about if statements.
You have to assume an infinite subset of the real line before you can conclude yes or no.
Also, you have failed to properly justify why a person must make this leap of faith of yours.
My belief system is not based on faith.
Do you consider any induction to be a form of faith? Because the laws of logic constantly demonstrate themselves in the same way that gravity does. I would not call the lack of Absolute Certainty faith.For example, I would bet that you accept the laws of logic as presented in most books on logic. But that is a type of 'faith'. There are, for example, variants of logic that do not have the law of excluded middle.
Sure.If you believe in anything other than solipsism, there is a type of faith involved.
Maybe this is where they enter into Philosophy.Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?