The Relationship Between Faith and Reason.

[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.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

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.

 

[Augustus]

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.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

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.

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.

 

[Neuropteron]

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?

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.

 

[Augustus]

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.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

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.

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.

 

[Ancient Soul]

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.

Your first verse really does not apply just because it has the word "reason" in it, because the overall context is submitting to your "god's" will.

Then your second verse is invalid because it is a corruption of the older translation of:

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

**********************
But even using a corrupted interpretation, it is flawed because everything in the bible distorts the Christians view of the world, and does not match up to reality.

 

[Augustus]

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.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

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.

I am not a rationalist either. Also, I have never seen a scientific study "against the idea that we are consistently rational", but if you happen to have access to a study that explores the idea of how "consistently rational" humans are let me know, that would be an interesting read.

Also, I would hope there are some beliefs that are "impervious to reason" otherwise life would be pointless. I never said that was a bad thing.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

I didn"t say it would be easy

 

[bobhikes]

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".

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.

 

[Bird123]

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?

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!!

 

[Ancient Soul]

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.

Easy enough, your reasoning is faulty because you have not the slightest bit of proof to base any of your beliefs upon. As just because someone wrote a mythology that it's what ""god" says", or it "came from "god", is always a lie.

reasoning
(ˈriːzənɪŋ)
n
1. the act or process of drawing conclusions from facts, evidence, etc
2. the arguments, proofs, etc, so adduced

So if you have no facts, absolute proof that it came from the true God, then you have used no reasoning ability what so ever to believe in any of it.

 

[Ancient Soul]

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!!

You nailed it!

 

[Polymath257]

Sure. But those base assumptions can both be reasonable or unreasonable.

It's more of a problem when they are internally inconsistent. So, when faith is used to deny the conclusions of science, that is usually an internal contradiction to a system that has both faith and scientific pretensions.

But, like I said, even in math there are known questions that cannot be answered with the current set of assumptions. To choose one answer over another cannot be a matter of proof.

It *can* be a matter of personal preference, or esthetic sense, or some other condition different than logic or reason.

 

[Polymath257]

That doesn't really refute my point about if statements.

I didn't say it did. But your statement seems irrelevant to the point I was making.

You have to assume an infinite subset of the real line before you can conclude yes or no.

The set of all real numbers is an infinite subset of the real line. So is the set of natural numbers.

So, that gives two examples of infinite subsets of the real line.

The question is whether *all* infinite subsets of the real line have some property.

We know there are uncountably many real numbers and uncountably many infinite subsets of the set of real numbers.

Also, you have failed to properly justify why a person must make this leap of faith of yours.

No leap of faith for that particular one. Just the usual axioms of set theory that underlie all of modern math.

 

[Polymath257]

My belief system is not based on faith.

Almost certainly not true.

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.

If you believe in anything other than solipsism, there is a type of faith involved. At the very least, you assume that your senses gives at least some reliable information about a world external to yourself. That is a type of faith as well.

Of course, these are different in type than *religious* faith. Religious faith is a set of assumptions that go above and beyond those typically accepted about how to determine information about the external world.

 

[ppp]

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.

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.

If you believe in anything other than solipsism, there is a type of faith involved.

Sure.

 

[Salty Booger]

Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?

Maybe this is where they enter into Philosophy.