Is faith rational?

[punkdbass]

Obviously many threads have been made on this subject, but I would like to bring up and discuss the following 4 views and hear your guys own thoughts as well.

1. Today in western society the phrase "take a leap of faith" is generally has positive connotations, but to 1800's Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who came up with the phrase, thought that since reason and evidence cant prove God's existence that belief in God meant taking a "leap of faith" across the borders of rationality. To him, taking a leap of faith meant to jump off a cliff hoping that God would catch you. The point being that the act of faith is irrational. But despite this, Kierkegaard still managed to find "beauty" in what he thought to be such an irrational act.

2. American philosopher William James(1842-1910) makes the pragmatic argument that believing in God is "rational" insofar as it doesn't conflict with our other beliefs and if it tends to make us lead better lives. In other words if believing in God is something that makes sense to you and adds a lot of practical benefits to your life, then it is rational to hold onto your belief.

3. To build further onto this point, Conservative Rabbi Elliot Dorff describes the "cost of agnosticism" being that one must consciously ignore the many aspects of or experience that we do not fully understand – or at least renounce any epistemological/existential responsibility for them.. For example, you never truly know if a person is the perfect one to marry.. so you could resolve to never marry to preserve your epistemological purity, but it would come with the cost of never learning about life from the role of a spouse or parent. I think Dorff's main point is that if one refuses to give faith a chance, then you would be forced to take many "sublime" moments of life less seriously.. where as if you had faith, you would take these "sublime" moments more seriously and thus reap practical benefit from them.

4. Abraham Joshua Heschel makes the following points about the topic of faith and reason:

• Religion gives unique insight, and thus cant properly be synchronized with the conclusions of any philosophical system or science
• Reasons goal is the exploration and verification of objective relations, religions goal is the exploration and verification of ultimate personal questions
• Several aspects of religion and our experiences of life go beyond reason (love, prayer, morality, reverence, faith), thus we can’t judge religion entirely with reason, for religion goes beyond the scope and limits of reason.

To be honest I havent thought about the topic of faith and rationality enough.. but for now I cant give you a definitive answer saying that faith IS rational.. but I completely agree with James and Dorff that having faith can bring a lot of positive things to a persons life, and in that sense I definitely view it as being a rational act. And I also agree with Heschel that many personal aspects of faith and religion are perhaps beyond the scope and limits of reason.

 

[Amechania]

i certainly agrede that having faith is rational, for all the reasons these scholars present. Faith itself doesn't seem to be rational, however, as it is intuitive and doesn't pass the test of logic, to my mind. But logic isn't everything. Even logic assumes logic is true.

 

[Skwim]

It depends on the object of the faith. For those things that have no referent in experience or arise from logic, I believe faith only serves a psychological purposes. For example, if having faith in a loving god brings one peace of mind then this faith is rational: It enhances one's life. However it would not be rational to assert that this basis of faith amounts to any kind of fact. Faith based on experience, such as believing and acting upon the notion that the car stopped at the stop sign is not going to suddenly break the law and T-bone you as you go through the intersection---something that has always proven to be the case in the past---can be quite rational. In fact, I would say such faith is a necessity.

 

[Amechania]

It depends on the object of the faith. For those things that have no referent in experience or arise from logic, I believe faith only serves a psychological purposes. For example, if having faith in a loving god brings one peace of mind then this faith is rational: It enhances one's life. However it would not be rational to assert that this basis of faith amounts to any kind of fact. Faith based on experience, such as believing and acting upon the notion that the car stopped at the stop sign is not going to suddenly break the law and T-bone you as you go through the intersection---something that has always proven to be the case in the past---can be quite rational. In fact, I would say such faith is a necessity.

Agree. Faith based on experience is rational. It would be irrational to not have faith that the other driver knows the rules of the road or that the dentist isn't going to molest you, unless you have experienced otherwise. I think maybe this is the reason for alot of faith in the supernatural, and I would include religious faith in that. Some may have experiences of things that can't seem to be explained rationally (or perhaps their mindset is such that they are inclined to accept the implausible more readily) so that they intuit the existence of supernatural forces.

 

[Me Myself]

Faith is not rational, it has nothing to do with reason.

You can rationalize faith, but in itself, faith is not rational.

Just like say, the sense of sight is not rational in itself. It simply does not have to do with reason, but you can rationalize what you see.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

when it becomes rational we find a different name for it.

 

[Quintessence]

I think there are some problems with how people use the words "rational" and "faith" in common usage. They're clouded with emotional and cultural biases that suffuse them with value judgements.

Specifically, since we enshrine reason in my culture, calling something irrational is automatically a slur and an insult. Something irrational is worthless, stupid, etc. This is not so by definition, but since my culture puts such a premium value on what it considers rational, the use of the word takes on a meaning twisted by subjectivism. The word faith has a similar problem. It has become virtually synonymous with irrationality in my culture because it is viewed as the same thing as blind faith. Sometimes you can barely use the word faith without seeing a lip curl into a snarl; it's irrational after all, and reason is put on a pedestal of value where all things otherwise are worthless and stupid.

It's hard to escape these value judgements, so any discussion of faith and rationality are hampered by clouded lenses through which we view these two words. The biases that come with the two words are bad enough that I tend to avoid using them entirely. Whenever I hear someone call something "irrational" I translate that to "I disagree with the reasons or can't understand them" because we use the term to make emotional statements and value judgements. Same deal with the word faith, depending on what mouth it is coming out of. It's not used as a passive description, but is suffused with emotion and personal values.

All that said, it's not surprising I'd prefer to avoid a question like this entirely. You can't call something irrational without it being an insult, but to call something rational in less value-laden meanings of the term can be misleading. The entire construction of the categories itself can be misleading, honestly. It can craft an oversimplified either-or dichotomy where something must be in one category or the other, yet these categories are things we made up in our heads. Of what real use is that? How is determining whether "faith" (whatever it means) is "rational" (whatever it means) or not of any use? I'm not sure it is of any significant use. Except, perhaps, if you're using those biased, emotion-laden meanings and want to put down what someone else thinks.

 

[George-ananda]

I wonder if the future will bring a decline in the need for faith. This debate on faith has been going on for centuries (millenias maybe). So we assume today that this debate will always be with us. But I wish to argue that the Information Age may change all that. But it will take decades (not centuries).

I feel we are at or close to the point where evidence will replace faith. . What I'm getting at is the cutting edge of science and parapychological studies will make belief in spirituality the most logical and rational belief. Many already say that continuation of consciousness at death has been conclusively shown (no not sceintifically proven) and that strict materialist views are untenable.. .I personally would agree. Now, I'm more than a little aware of the objections to this opinion. However I think we're still early in the paradigm shift that will evolve for decades.

 

[Valjean]

If it were rational it wouldn't be faith. It would be knowledge.

Faith is belief without adequate evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it were rational it wouldn't be faith. It would be knowledge.
Faith is belief without adequate evidence.

when it becomes rational we find a different name for it.

What deeze guyz said.

 

[George-ananda]

I had another thought about this OP. Like the OP author, I don't feel I've thought out this 'Faith' thing yet.
Let's take the well-known example of traditional Christian faith. And let's assume that objectively speaking, there is insufficient evidence to rationally conclude for or against the traditional Christian view of God and Jesus.

The OP described arguements for having faith without conclusive evidence. And I get the arguements.

How does a Christian have faith and not be plauged with doubts that would remove so much of the joy from belief. Do you self-brainwash to remove doubt (although never admit that to yourself...but somewhere down deep in your dark nights...). Do you live with and acknowledge the doubts and find peace with them someway?

I guess these questions are for people of faith. Thoughts?

 

[George-ananda]

If it were rational it wouldn't be faith. It would be knowledge.

Faith is belief without adequate evidence.

I'm not sure if this was in response to my post #8, but

Isn't knowledge that something is true better than having faith that it is true.

 

[Amechania]

How does a Christian have faith and not be plauged with doubts that would remove so much of the joy from belief. Do you self-brainwash to remove doubt (although never admit that to yourself...but somewhere down deep in your dark nights...). Do you live with and acknowledge the doubts and find peace with them someway?

I guess these questions are for people of faith. Thoughts?

Those are good questions. I asked something similiar to someone I know who seems to be brimming with Christian faith as a convert. She said that doubt is an aspect of faith, and without doubt faith wouldn't be real. She said that faith was a process of overcoming doubt as you grow closer to God. Through prayer, study, and personal sacrifice the hope of initial conversion becomes the reality of a life of faith. So maybe there is a little brainwashing of the self-inflicted kind, but it seems to be a gentle and productive form in her case anyway.

 

[Skwim]

If it were rational it wouldn't be faith. It would be knowledge.

Faith is belief without adequate evidence.

But a belief can also be based on inadequate evidence.

I consider faith to be a belief with trust.

 

[shivadas]

Faith isn't rational since ultimately we are all God, so really faith is worshiping that which we truly are...
We are seeking the self in the outside world....
But faith can be handy, for instance i n bhakti yoga our egos surrender to god, and thus our ego is subservient to the true self... we love our true self until we become our self.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it were rational it wouldn't be faith. It would be knowledge.

Faith is belief without adequate evidence.

No. Faith is belief without conclusive evidence.

 

[Nooj]

How does a Christian have faith and not be plauged with doubts that would remove so much of the joy from belief. Do you self-brainwash to remove doubt (although never admit that to yourself...but somewhere down deep in your dark nights...). Do you live with and acknowledge the doubts and find peace with them someway?

I agree with Amechania. If you brainwash yourself to remove doubts, are you really doing faith? Or a cheap imitation of it?

I don't think that faith is the peaceful, dull repose of a person who has drugged themselves on certainty. Faith is fire. If you're not busy burning, you're not busy living!

If faith really is trust, then there must be someone to trust in, and a reason to trust. That is, you must trust because there is doubt. Trust implies and requires the existence of doubt. Otherwise you wouldn't need to trust, you'd be certain.

 

[Quintessence]

No. Faith is belief without conclusive evidence.

How is conclusive different from adequate? Aren't both ultimately dependent on what some individual person decides is enough?

 

[Awoon]

Faith is hoping to wake up tomorrow

 

[s2a]

Obviously many threads have been made on this subject, but I would like to bring up and discuss the following 4 views and hear your guys own thoughts as well.

1. Today in western society the phrase "take a leap of faith" is generally has positive connotations, but to 1800's Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who came up with the phrase, thought that since reason and evidence cant prove God's existence that belief in God meant taking a "leap of faith" across the borders of rationality. To him, taking a leap of faith meant to jump off a cliff hoping that God would catch you. The point being that the act of faith is irrational. But despite this, Kierkegaard still managed to find "beauty" in what he thought to be such an irrational act.

2. American philosopher William James(1842-1910) makes the pragmatic argument that believing in God is "rational" insofar as it doesn't conflict with our other beliefs and if it tends to make us lead better lives. In other words if believing in God is something that makes sense to you and adds a lot of practical benefits to your life, then it is rational to hold onto your belief.

3. To build further onto this point, Conservative Rabbi Elliot Dorff describes the "cost of agnosticism" being that one must consciously ignore the many aspects of or experience that we do not fully understand – or at least renounce any epistemological/existential responsibility for them.. For example, you never truly know if a person is the perfect one to marry.. so you could resolve to never marry to preserve your epistemological purity, but it would come with the cost of never learning about life from the role of a spouse or parent. I think Dorff's main point is that if one refuses to give faith a chance, then you would be forced to take many "sublime" moments of life less seriously.. where as if you had faith, you would take these "sublime" moments more seriously and thus reap practical benefit from them.

4. Abraham Joshua Heschel makes the following points about the topic of faith and reason:

• Religion gives unique insight, and thus cant properly be synchronized with the conclusions of any philosophical system or science
• Reasons goal is the exploration and verification of objective relations, religions goal is the exploration and verification of ultimate personal questions
• Several aspects of religion and our experiences of life go beyond reason (love, prayer, morality, reverence, faith), thus we can’t judge religion entirely with reason, for religion goes beyond the scope and limits of reason.

To be honest I havent thought about the topic of faith and rationality enough.. but for now I cant give you a definitive answer saying that faith IS rational.. but I completely agree with James and Dorff that having faith can bring a lot of positive things to a persons life, and in that sense I definitely view it as being a rational act. And I also agree with Heschel that many personal aspects of faith and religion are perhaps beyond the scope and limits of reason.

One might just as reasonably inquire whether or not magical/wishful thinking is "rational".

Is "hope", or "love"...rational?

When speaking of "religious faith", I typically point to the definition of that concept as provided by Easton's Bible Dictionary,[] to wit:

"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true".


From there, a slew of endless interpretations of whatever constitutes having "faith" means....many of which may defy any expression of something being "true", or "false", or beyond any explanation borne of logic or reason. So, as you illustrate in some of your enumerated references, "faith" is essentially an existential interpretation of "truth"... which may or may not be borne out by any available objectively obtainable evidences or fact.

Let's be fair though to the very idea of an existential "truth".

It's not difficult to persuade a 4 year old to have "faith" that Santa Claus is "real". In that child's mind, Santa is just as real as any other tangibly existent thing. But that "faith", no matter how sincere, or earnest, or piously believed...does not constitute one iota of fact or "truth". Santa is an invention of mythos crafted to instill a hope and an ideal of behavior with the consequence of reward/punishment. With maturity we come to recognize and acknowledge the myth of Santa, and that Santa isn't an existent entity. However, the hope and inspirations of charity, kindness, empathy, and motives of good behavior may remain. In effect, there's nothing wrong in "believing" in Santa, as long as we come to realize and accept that Santa isn't "real", but rather an "ideal" of inspiration and "faith". Of course, there is a downside that accompanies such a "faith". What if Santa doesn't come for Xmas? What is to be construed by such an obvious snubbing? Was I bad? Did Santa forget about me? Is Santa dead?

I'll avoid the predictable analogies in substituting "god" for "Santa" here...for we all know that wishful thinking and hope are inherent human nature, and even our best enlightened capacities of reason and logic often wither in the face of our very personal emotions.

If you will allow then, I submit that there are many differing aspects of "faith" that do not include any aspects of religion (or more pointedly, "deities") whatsoever, including the more obvious human emotions of fear, doubt, empathy, loneliness, hope, and love. Virtually any human emotion can be assigned with some reasoned rationale as support, though the merits of that rationale or reasoning can always remain suspect to any outside observer of any individual's behavior or actions, for good or ill. But I think it fair to say that "faith" never imparts certainty or empirical fact of anything but an existential "truth". If that's enough for someone, then so be it....and Santa LIVES!