Can faith be rational? If so, how? If not, why not?
-
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!
Can Faith Be Rational?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
I don't think if you're rational you need faith.
Humans aren't always rational. So maybe sometimes faith is all you have. Being rational, one makes decisions based on information, experience, sound thought. Sometimes though, lacking information, we still have to make choices. So you may have to rely on ideas that haven't been soundly proven.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not have a 'faith', I have a religion. It is perfectly rational, matches 100% with science in 2019 and will keep matching with it all the time.
Interesting question, (not unexpected, from you). I think many folks will see their own faith as rational, while view others are irrational. In order to avoid that, do you have a sense of what exactly you mean by rational, and do you think it has more or less a universal understanding?
Of course I don't need to make any claims about my faith being rational or not.
Last edited:
The closest example I know is Pascal's Wager. There are criticisms of this, of course, but the basic idea (from the Wikipedia page is):
Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)
Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)
When I flip the light switch, I have faith that the light will turn on (barring a burnt out bulb or power outage.) However, I can't know for sure that the light will turn on when I flip the switch, I can only know for sure after I flip the switch.
I can't discern anything irrational about having faith the light will come on when I flip the switch. I don't even have to be able to trace the reasoning that the light should (theoretically) turn on when I flip the switch for the faith to be rational. (I don't have to be an electrician in order to have justified faith in this instance.)
I can't discern anything irrational about having faith the light will come on when I flip the switch. I don't even have to be able to trace the reasoning that the light should (theoretically) turn on when I flip the switch for the faith to be rational. (I don't have to be an electrician in order to have justified faith in this instance.)
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
re: #1. Speaking for myself, as a believer, I don't think so.
re: #2. Not applicable.
re: #3. I'm missing too many puzzle pieces or there are too many missing dots.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I regard faith as trust in belief, and can see faith as being rational in some instances.
My favorite example is when one drives up to a controlled intersection just before a car to one's left arrives. Now, there's no guarantee the driver of the other car is going to grant you the right of way as he should, but you take it on faith (trust) that he will and not T-Bone you as you drive ahead. To me this is a rational use of faith in that not to do so would leave both drivers momentarily stalled wondering what the other is going to do, and perhaps hold up traffic.
.
Last edited:
InChrist
Free4ever
I believe faith can be rational because there must at least some evidence and reason in place before one places faith in something.
You may like reading this...
"On the other hand, reason and evidence may legitimately point the direction for faith to go—and must do so. Indeed, faith must not violate evidence and reason or it would be irrational. Faith takes a step beyond reason but only in the direction that reason and evidence have pointed.The idea of a “leap of faith” (that faith must be irrational) has been promoted by some schools of philosophy and religion. If that were true, however, there would be no basis other than feelings or intuition for what one believes. As a consequence, one could believe or have faith in any thing. As the saying goes, “If it works for you, it’s okay”—a senseless idea that denies the absoluteness of truth.By this theory, it is faith that is important rather than the object of one’s faith. Never mind what one believes.One has to believe in something, so take the leap. It is the believing that causes the effect one seeks—a theory that has some temporary and limited truth. Yes, believing in the Star Wars Force or that God is some kind of magic genie who exists to do one’s bidding may indeed bring a superficial sense of well-being for a time. Eventually, however, that belief will prove to be a delusion, and the bubble of euphoria will burst, leaving the person worse off than before.Faith Is a Response to Proven Truth On the surface it may seem legitimate to reject reason and evidence, because God is far beyond our ability to fully comprehend and thus beyond any proof we could under stand. How could evidence, much less proof, have any part to play in one’s faith in God? As we have noted, however, if reason doesn’t have some role to play, then one could believe in any kind of “god”—an idea that is clearly false. One must have some evidence even to believe there is a God. Otherwise, how could the idea of God be sustained?"
https://www.thebereancall.org/sites/2014.thebereancall.org/files/In Defense Preview_0.pdf
Skwim
Veteran Member
The trouble with Pascal's wager is the type of god one is talking about. If he's omniscient, he would see your ploy for what it is, a scheme to receive "infinite gains" under false pretenses, and hence not accord your position any value. You're going to Hell whether you don't live as though god exists or just pretend to. Of course, if he's not omniscient and is capable of being fooled then he isn't much more than an uncomprehending, insensitive guardian of the gates of Heaven and Hell whom you'd better suck up to no matter what you believe.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Trouble is in justifying the evidence. Is the basis for the evidence rational; can it stand on its own devoid of all subjective need?
.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Are you asking about the word faith as it's used in the context of religion? if so, faith is a belief without evidence. And since reason is evidence-based, no...faith cannot be rational, IMO.
Do you know you will wake up tomorrow or do you have faith.
Do you know you friendship will last or do you have faith.
Faith can be very rational when dealing with uncertainties.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Faith and pleasure are reason for life.
If a mountain climber has faith in his abilities, and faith in his equipment, it is generally built on a logical understanding.
Because Paul created "the faith" which is a belief Christ died for you, where they're basically told to not question the authenticity of the convictions; unfortunately that has also caused much of the rest of the religious world to do the same.
Faith comes from practise, so a mountain climber practises, and gains more faith in his skills; for some religious people they also have a practise, thus they feel it gives them more certitude, the more time they've invested.
Rationality comes from being able to question the belief logically; where we can detach our faith which is our trust in our heart, and our belief which comes from a mental construct (idea) in the brain
.
There is a divide of religious values that apply faith/trust into a person, like a cult; which have a hard time looking at rationally, as only ourselves can save us ultimately.
True religion should be a moral compass that should be built on logic; to ultimately want to place all of our trust/faith into it.
In my opinion.
PureX
Veteran Member
It can and it is in most instances. But we have to differentiate between faith, and pretense. The key difference being that faith is a choice made in the recognition of our unknowing, while pretense is the presumption of knowledge that we cannot logically possess. Once we have identified and accepted our lack of knowledge, we are then free to choose to trust that what we hope to be the truth, is the truth, for the benefits that acting on such a hope can provide us.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
If faith is belief without evidence, what is belief?
So I was born so as to have faith and pleasure? If so, what difference would it make if I was never born?
.
.
If faith were rational, it would instead be called reason.
Can be using personal experiences a.k.a anecdotal evidence.