Is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief?

[Willamena]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

Is it also demonstratably rational?

Perhaps more to the point, is it rationally demonstratably irrational?

 

[Jeremiah]

Then have the good manners to present relevant findings, or do you claim that unreasoned positions held by some validates blanket drivel such as:

"Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational ..."?​

Did it ever occur to you that the capacity to recognize such unreasoned positions in fact serves to confirm the value of human reasoning?

"Then have the good manners"

As if you have to room to lecture someone else on manners.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As if you have to room to lecture someone else on manners.

Stop whining ...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

If one's reasoning is rational, then that reasoning is a great basis for deciding things - if one is unable to correctly apply reason, then it's rather arbitrary what basis they use to make decisions.

 

[Jeremiah]

Stop whining ...

You forgot the please.

 

[Jeremiah]

Good point. Reason cannot be irrational.
Like you - said human reasoning can.



What do you think?

"What do you think?"

When it involves the heart then the most rational thing you could do might be very irrational in and of itself.

 

[TheKnight]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

Of course it is. If there is a God that created us and wants us to believe in Him, and also desires that we discover Him via our reasoning faculties, then our reason is sufficient for a belief in God.

Human reason is not irrational, it may reach the wrong conclusions occasionally, but when it tries to reason within the scope of its reasoning ability, then it is perfectly capable of accuracy. Granted, reason isn't something that is a sort of magic ability. It, like anything with us, must be exercised, kept in shape, maintained and disciplined, otherwise it's not reason anymore.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course it is. ...

Shalom ...

(Chassidic Judaism from California. Oy vey!)

 

[TheKnight]

Shalom ...

(Chassidic Judaism from California. Oy vey!)

CA has the third largest Chassidic Jewish population in the world only to Israel and New York.

 

[sandandfoam]

Then have the good manners to present relevant findings, or do you claim that unreasoned positions held by some validates blanket drivel such as:

"Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational ..."?​

Did it ever occur to you that the capacity to recognize such unreasoned positions in fact serves to confirm the value of human reasoning?

Your view is that the studies I put forward above are unreasoned positions or that they are not relevant or both?

blanket drivel

The pleasure is mine

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your view is that the studies I put forward above are unreasoned positions or that they are not relevant or both?

The problem is that your OP is analgous to saying (hypothetically), that if a study showed that the majority of people didn't know how to calculate the area of a circle based on knowing its radius, then would geometry "be a good enough basis" for calculating the area of circle?

 

[cottage]

Of course it is. If there is a God that created us and wants us to believe in Him, and also desires that we discover Him via our reasoning faculties, then our reason is sufficient for a belief in God.

This is the infamous Cartesian Circle.
Descartes has the clear and distinct idea of God, that he exists. And whatever is perceived clearly and distinctly must be true because God is not a deceiver. Hence he exists!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course it is. If there is a God that created us and wants us to believe in Him, and also desires that we discover Him via our reasoning faculties, then our reason is sufficient for a belief in God.

This is the infamous Cartesian Circle. Descartes has the clear and distinct idea of God, that he exists. And whatever is perceived clearly and distinctly must be true because God is not a deceiver. Hence he exists!

Good comment. (Better formatting.)

 

[PureX]

I do not wish to eliminate these tools of yours. But reason is the only one wich is universal. Well, should be at least. That's why this one is easiest to use in large groups. Groups like "human kind".

Intuition, creativity and desire are not universal? I think what we call "reason" much of the time is one of these other tools. We confuse reason with logic, and we worship logical reasoning in our current society. We foolishly think it's the only pathway to "truth".

We are idiots.

We would do well to pay more attention to these others of our gifts, and respect where they can take us.

 

[TheKnight]

This is the infamous Cartesian Circle.
Descartes has the clear and distinct idea of God, that he exists. And whatever is perceived clearly and distinctly must be true because God is not a deceiver. Hence he exists!

What? I'm not trying to prove God's existence. That's not the question. I'm answering the question of whether or not our reason is an applicable tool for deciding whether or not God exists.

The OP is asking whether or not we can use our reason to determine a belief in God. This is a question about our reasoning ability, not about the existence of God.

 

[slave2six]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

If by "belief" you mean "faith" then the definition most appropriate to your question is that faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Therefore, reason does not enter into it. But when reason comes into contact with faith, the results are often cataclysmic.

 

[strange]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

I guess that I'd have to ask you to explain "that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational."

To know God is to have a belief. But to know God does not mean that we understand God. We are apart of God's Creation and it is through and in that Creation that we know that there is a God.

If I asked anybody to give me a description or definition of "nothing," nobody can. Same with defining God. We can only talk about God through our experiences. Since nobody has ever seen God or has had a conversation with God, nobody can claim to be able to define God. God exists in an existence that man cannot comprehend. Maybe science will discover the "God particle" and open mankind's mind to other possibilities defining God's existence, but for now nobody can begin to define God.

Reason states that the cause of our existence is God. So to know God's substance is to know God in the first order. Nobody is in the first order. But to know God exists because we exist is the third order. Existentialism. Reason is about facts and truth. Truth as in history not revelation or just because someone says it enough times that people begin to believe it to be the truth. So the second order comes to us through a revelation of the existence of angels. Angels were made in the image of God and therefore can see God by seeing themselves in a mirror.

So it is that the things that we can see, feel, touch and here are all apart of God's Creation that we can experience and therefore we can reason that there exists a God.

 

[.lava]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

key point is free will, Stephenw. we do not really get what we want if we did not put some effort in it. i mean, without personal proof, it would be difficult for people to have faith "completed". yet personal proofs would not come to us if we did not ask for it because we have free wills and our free wills are deeply respected by....God

imo mind would work for both positive and negative if you depend on simply reasoning.


.

 

[strange]

If by "belief" you mean "faith" then the definition most appropriate to your question is that faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Therefore, reason does not enter into it. But when reason comes into contact with faith, the results are often cataclysmic.

Faith is not belief. Once belief is attached to one's faith that generally implies that one belongs to a religion with doctrine.

 

[.lava]

Faith is not belief. Once belief is attached to one's faith that generally implies that one belongs to a religion with doctrine.

if faith is not belief then what is it? what makes you faithful?


.