• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are faith and reason incompatible?

b.finton

b.finton

In the Unity of Faith
Reason follows faith and measures its congruence with that which is otherwise known and has been judged to be true. We are at our best when we keep our thumbs off the scales.

When our "truths" are examined mercilessly by reason, we must admit that their foundations and final proofs are faith. Reality is not in our hands.

It's odd that scientists now say that Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect. Yes, I guess-- out of my league, but the interesting thing is that it spawned so much technology that works. Go figure.

b.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
b.finton said:
Reason follows faith and measures its congruence with that which is otherwise known and has been judged to be true. We are at our best when we keep our thumbs off the scales.

When our "truths" are examined mercilessly by reason, we must admit that their foundations and final proofs are faith. Reality is not in our hands.

It's odd that scientists now say that Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect. Yes, I guess-- out of my league, but the interesting thing is that it spawned so much technology that works. Go figure.

b.
Click to expand...
You try so hard.
 
Gambit

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
And what qualifies as scientific evidence is intersubjective verifiability. I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...

Right. Scientists do not always agree on the evidence. The point is that what one individual might characterize as an unreasonable belief, another might characterize as a reasonable one. I guess that's why some debates never seem to reach any kind of resolution.
 
Gambit

Gambit

Well-Known Member
b.finton said:
It's odd that scientists now say that Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect. Yes, I guess-- out of my league, but the interesting thing is that it spawned so much technology that works. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Einstein's theory of relativity has been falsified. But even if it has, all scientific theories are tentative and potentially falsifiable. That's not problematic for science. In fact, that's how it progresses.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Gambit said:
Are faith and reason incompatible? Are belief and rationality mutually exclusive? I identify faith with the intuitive aspect of the mind and reason with the analytical aspect of the mind. It seems to me that both must work in tandem in order for us to properly function in life. What sayeth you?
Click to expand...

If we take a look at how human intuition is useful to explain the facts around us, then yes. Intuition is rationally untenble as a reliable source of truths.

If it is useless for the physical world, how can it help for things that do not have a shred of evidence to exist?

Ciao

- viole
 
H

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Gambit said:
Are faith and reason incompatible? Are belief and rationality mutually exclusive? I identify faith with the intuitive aspect of the mind and reason with the analytical aspect of the mind. It seems to me that both must work in tandem in order for us to properly function in life. What sayeth you?
Click to expand...

Faith is fundamental for humans to reach a truth efficiently.

To reach a scientific truth, humans put faith to a small group of humans called scientists. 99% humans don't bother verifying whether earth is actually revolving around the sun.

To reach a daily truth occurred in this world, humans put faith in a small group of humans called reporters. Again, humans don't bother to verify each piece of news by themselves.

To reach a historical truth occurred in the past, humans put faith in a small group of humans called historians. History as a whole can hardly be evidenced and verifiable. The volume of history available to us is fully depending on how much have been written down by this small group of historians. As an example, what George Washington was doing on a specific date, say Feb 02 of 1766? This piece of information will never reach humans if no humans wrote it down.

To reach a truth supposed to be unreachable by humans, putting faith in humans is the only way such a truth can be somehow reached. An example is that humans in stone age had no way to know the existence of black holes. If you are sent to them (by a time machine), the only way for them to reach such a truth is through you. You are the way, the truth (and the life if black holes do concern human lives) to them. No one can thus reach such a truth without putting faith in your words.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Gambit said:
Right. Scientists do not always agree on the evidence. The point is that what one individual might characterize as an unreasonable belief, another might characterize as a reasonable one. I guess that's why some debates never seem to reach any kind of resolution.
Click to expand...
At issue is whether a theory is falsifiable and, then, whether the evidence purporting to falsify the position is intersubjectively verifiable.
 
Gambit

Gambit

Well-Known Member
viole said:
If we take a look at how human intuition is useful to explain the facts around us, then yes. Intuition is rationally untenble as a reliable source of truths.
Click to expand...

That's a micharacterization of the argument that I made in the OP. I argued that intuition and analysis must work in tandem, not that intuition is sufficient unto itself.
 
H

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
At issue is whether a theory is falsifiable and, then, whether the evidence purporting to falsify the position is intersubjectively verifiable.
Click to expand...

There is a prerequisite for science to be accurate or to be faith free. Science is accurate because science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeating phenomenon. The phenomenon repeats itself endlessly for you to predict its behavior by applying your theory. A simple example is 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, that is, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You don't need faith to believe this because you can predict the result before every single experiment. And your prophecy will always come to pass (if your lab setup is correct). If your prediction shall fail, you deserve a Nobel Prize because you have falsified the chemical truth.

As long as your predictions never fail, your brain will recognize that it is a truth. Its certainty is faith free.

However, people today call everything a science. It is because humans are trying to explore into every realm to give everything an "explanation". They do so with the assistance of science. However, if the phenomenon itself isn't a repeating one, you will not get the same accuracy as you can deliver from a true science.
 
Cephus

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Jayhawker Soule said:
Faith is unreasonable when, and to the degree that, it conflicts with evidence.
Click to expand...

I would go farther than that and say that faith is unreasonable not only where it conflicts with evidence, but where it makes assertions that cannot be backed up by or supported by evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top