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

[Jeremiah]

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.

"Therefore, reason does not enter into it. But when reason comes into contact with faith, the results are often cataclysmic.'

When is there ever a case of "faith" without reason?

 

[Alceste]

I agree with you, Stephenw. We are not reasonable beings. I find we rationalize better than we reason, generally speaking. But what is the right answer if not 95 %? It's bugging me. I'll be thinking about it all night now and I won't be able to sleep. I'm going to look up base rate neglect on wiki.

Have you read "Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind"? It's great. I'd recommend it to anyone. The main thrust of it is that our conscious / rational / frontal lobe / thinking section of the brain is good at working things out only to a certain point. Beyond a certain limited level of complexity (which would vary from person to person), the conscious mind loses it's ability to identify patterns and keep track of variables. The unconscious / subconscious / non-rational mind, however, is vastly more competent with complex problems, but as there is no division between rationality and irrationality in the subconscious there's also no guarantee the results will be accessible to reason. He gets into the gritty details, with loads of research to back it up, and he's an excellent writer too. Very engaging. You'd probably love it.

What any of that has to do with believing or not believing in god, I don't know, but IMO reason alone is a ****-poor reason for anything at all. I invite all the players to the table when I want to work something out, although some of them simply whisper their opinion from the shadows.

 

[Alceste]

AHA! It's about 2 %, right?

I will certainly remember that, next time I go to the doctor.

 

[zenzero]

Friend stephenw,

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

For myself - I don't agree.
My reasoning has led me to believe that human reasoning to be biased and irrational. (Of course I could be wrong ) What feels right is my measure of choice. That said I don't believe it to be measurably better that my reasoning - it just feel right to me. I think my beliefs are rooted in unconscious processes over which I have little control so I can hold beliefs which appear to conflict with my reason without experiencing discomfort.

The problem with most humans is that they get stuck at the mind level.
All reasoning are activities of the mind. Religion or where one needs to look for is already there and is available only when that very mind is STILL.
This is the paradox which everyone [most] misses.
It is the mind's nature to keep the individual in thoughts and not use it to still that very mind.

Love & rgds

 

[adduono11]

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

Human reasoning is the exact thing that this decision should be based on. You can't just believe in something for the sake of believing in it. You have to have some sort of basis to back your decision up, and that is what makes me a non-believer. Do you believe that the sun heats us up, just because you want to? No, you base your decsion on the research and findings of people that tells us that this is true. You NEED to reason with something to make yourself truly believe that it is true.

 

[slave2six]

"Therefore, reason does not enter into it. But when reason comes into contact with faith, the results are often cataclysmic.'

When is there ever a case of "faith" without reason?

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This, I believe, was Paul's contention. Faith makes the unseen "real" and is not affiliated with reason (I do not mean "logic" for within the confines of the myth, whichever myth you are choosing to accept, there are all manner of logical nuances but the myth itself is not reasonable seeing as it is not real.)

 

[whereismynotecard]

Does reality have to make sense?

I suppose not. The reality is that there are lightning bugs, or what some may call
fireflies. I believe that they are real, because I see them sometimes:

but no matter how hard I try to reason, I cannot figure out how their butts glow like
that... This particular seemingly real reality does in fact not make any sense at all.

 

[Jeremiah]

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This, I believe, was Paul's contention. Faith makes the unseen "real" and is not affiliated with reason (I do not mean "logic" for within the confines of the myth, whichever myth you are choosing to accept, there are all manner of logical nuances but the myth itself is not reasonable seeing as it is not real.)

"the substance of things hoped for"

Sounds like a reasonable enough reason to have "faith", to me. A person cannot live well without hope. Therefor, it might be more rational to have "faith", for revitalization, then to worry about what can be seen.

 

[strange]

Faith is different than having a faith. A "Leap of Faith" (Kierkegaard) essentially is moving from one state to another without empirical evidence.

 

[Jeremiah]

Faith is different than having a faith. A "Leap of Faith" (Kierkegaard) essentially is moving from one state to another without empirical evidence.

How do you think this Kierkegaadian movement is made?

"[...]it repels the individual by virtue of its absurdity,[...]" - Kierkegaard

And what is the "absurd"?

"What now is the absurd? The absurd is- that the eternal truth has come into being in time, that God has come into being, has been born, has grown up, and so forth, precisely like any other individual human being, quite indistinguishable from other individuals...." - Kierkegaard

To me, at this time, it seems Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is belief in the "absurd"

"Without risk there is no faith, and the greater the risk the greater the faith; the more objective security the less inwardness (for inwardness is precisely subjectivity), and the less objective security the more profound the possible inwardness." - Kierkegaard

"[...]there can be no stronger expression for inwardness than when the retreat out of existence into the eternal by way of recollection is impossible; and when, with truth confronting the individual as a paradox, gripped in the anguish and pain of sin, facing the tremendous risk of the ojbective insecurity, the individual believes." - Kierkegaard

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...od-enough-basis-belief-non-4.html#post1582555
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.
You say that as if the two things were entirely unrelated! The crucial point is not the proof that Descartes offers for God’s existence, but the means by which it is concluded. His criterion (‘the clear light of reason’) is that anything that we perceive clearly and distinctly is true. Descartes is reasoning fallaciously (in a circle) to his unsound conclusion! Therefore the ‘clear light of reason’ has misled him.

 

[TheKnight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
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.
You say that as if the two things were entirely unrelated! The crucial point is not the proof that Descartes offers for God’s existence, but the means by which it is concluded. His criterion (‘the clear light of reason’) is that anything that we perceive clearly and distinctly is true. Descartes is reasoning fallaciously (in a circle) to his unsound conclusion! Therefore the ‘clear light of reason’ has misled him.

I'm not saying that our reasoning is perfect, but it's all we have to determine anything. So why should we distrust it?

 

[Alceste]

I'm not saying that our reasoning is perfect, but it's all we have to determine anything. So why should we distrust it?

Reason is only the part of the iceberg of our consciousness that happens to be visible above sea level. We have quite a lot more going on beneath our conscious awareness, and all of it feeds into our efforts to determine things. That invisible bulk, like the underwater mass of an iceberg, is why we should distrust - or at the very least be skeptical of - reason.

 

[TheKnight]

Reason is only the part of the iceberg of our consciousness that happens to be visible above sea level. We have quite a lot more going on beneath our conscious awareness, and all of it feeds into our efforts to determine things. That invisible bulk, like the underwater mass of an iceberg, is why we should distrust - or at the very least be skeptical of - reason.

Isn't that invisible bulk part of our reasoning process? With appropriate training, one can fine tune one's reasoning.

 

[Willamena]

Descartes is reasoning fallaciously (in a circle) to his unsound conclusion! Therefore the ‘clear light of reason’ has misled him.

Is that true? If so, then you make no different mistake than Descartes did.

 

[cottage]

I'm not saying that our reasoning is perfect, but it's all we have to determine anything. So why should we distrust it?

Yes, I agree with you. But it is the way we apply reason that may mislead. Descartes was correct when he said anything we perceive clearly and distinctly is true. He was referring to necessary truths. For although we might be misled by our senses (for example a stick in water appears bent but when withdrawn is seen to be straight), a triangle’s three angles are always equal to two right angles and we know intuitively that a fish can never be a mammal. But is it necessarily true that God isn’t a deceiver? If it isn’t self-evident that God is benevolent, or wholly good, then clearly it doesn’t take a massive leap of logic to say he not beyond deception. So Descartes misused reason on two counts: a premise not demonstrably true and a conclusion given in advance.

 

[Jeremiah]

Reason is only the part of the iceberg of our consciousness that happens to be visible above sea level. We have quite a lot more going on beneath our conscious awareness, and all of it feeds into our efforts to determine things. That invisible bulk, like the underwater mass of an iceberg, is why we should distrust - or at the very least be skeptical of - reason.

"like the underwater mass of an iceberg"

You can't walk on the "underwater mass of an iceberg".

 

[cottage]

Is that true? If so, then you make no different mistake than Descartes did.

Please see post 56

 

[Father Heathen]

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

There is nothing necessarily irrational about pondering the possible existence of god, but there is a lot that's irrational about the ways man portrays god or the things that man attributes to god.

 

[slave2six]

Reason is only the part of the iceberg of our consciousness that happens to be visible above sea level.

And just how did you come to such a conclusion? Based on evidence of any sort? I guess the real question is, "How can you discover such a thing outside of the realm of reason?"