The Relationship Between Faith and Reason.

[ReluctantMathematician]

It is by faith. That's what I was getting at when I said miracles don't really exist outside of religious contexts. A miracle is a temporary suspension of the natural law, hence why calling childbirth a miracle is only used as hyperbole.

I don't actually agree with that, but it seems beside the point. We have confirmed that the belief that Jesus walked on water is typically faith-based which is not founded in reason.

 

[Rival]

I don't actually agree with that, but it seems beside the point. We have confirmed that the belief that Jesus walked on water is typically faith-based which is not founded in reason.

From the OED that you also used:

Miracle
An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Logic and reason only ever work on some set of underlying assumptions. In math, these are usually the assumptions of set theory. In the sciences, we have the assumptions related to testability vs knowledge.

But, any logical system that is strong enough to talk about the counting numbers (and has some other simple conditions) will have statements that can be neither proved nor disproved.

When it comes to resolving those questions, logic and reason alone cannot help. In a sense, then, there must be a 'leap of faith' whenever the original axiom system is extended. Logic can then take over, with the additional assumptions, to derive new results.

It may well be that religious questions are simply independent of other questions about existence, especially those leading to science. If that is the case, there is freedom *logically* to either assume or deny such questions. It is no longer a logical matter. it is then a question of which of various assumptions meet the needs for the ones making the assumptions.

Then the person that holds a faith-based belief will abandon that belief in the face of reason?

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

From the OED that you also used:

Miracle
An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

It also says

A remarkable, wonderful, or (in weakened sense) very surprising phenomenon or event; an achievement or occurrence seemingly beyond human power; an outstanding achievement.

And

A wonderful object, a marvel; a person or thing of more than natural excellence; a surpassing specimen or example of some quality.

 

[Rival]

It also says



And

As we are discussing religion I assumed you were using the definition religious people use.

My mistake....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then the person that holds a faith-based belief will abandon that belief in the face of reason?

Do you know that justified reasons are limited, epistemological rationalism is also limited and even empiricism have limits? It sounds like you believe you can solved everything with reason?

 

[Polymath257]

Then the person that holds a faith-based belief will abandon that belief in the face of reason?

If the belief is truly independent of the other assumptions, there is no need to abandon it.

I'm not sure how much mathematics you know, but in math, the Continuum Hypothesis is *known* to be independent of the usual axioms of set theory.

So, if you ask 'is the Continuum Hypothesis True?', that is *completely* a matter of whether you want to extend your system or not to include it. In a sense, either way is a matter of 'faith'. And, either way, there is no internal reason why one way is preferable to the other.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

As we are discussing religion I assumed you were using the definition religious people use.

My mistake....

Actually, it is only you in our conversation that believes religion owns the term miracle. I have never expressed that view.

FYI, I consider semantical games dishonest and a form of lying.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

If the belief is truly independent of the other assumptions, there is no need to abandon it.

I'm not sure how much mathematics you know, but in math, the Continuum Hypothesis is *known* to be independent of the usual axioms of set theory.

So, if you ask 'is the Continuum Hypothesis True?', that is *completely* a matter of whether you want to extend your system or not to include it. In a sense, either way is a matter of 'faith'. And, either way, there is no internal reason why one way is preferable to the other.

I specialize, so expect a high degree of understanding in some areas and not so much in others.

Can a belief be truly independent of other assumptions? Could you provide an example perhaps?

 

[Kenny]

If a person has a faith-based belief, and if faith is beyond reason, then is that belief outside the reach of reason? Can that person effectively engage their faith-based beliefs with reason? Can someone else effectively engage their faith-based beliefs in rational conversation? Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?

I think it can be beyond reason and still be reasonable.

However, the other side of the coin of reasonable faith is foolishness an presumption.

If reason is defined as b: a rational ground or motive - it is possible it may not qualify if it is basic on what we see.

However, within the scope of its definition of : a statement offered in explanation or justification gave reasons that were quite satisfactory - it may.

If it is reasonable to believe someone at his word, then it works.

 

[Vee]

If a person has a faith-based belief, and if faith is beyond reason, then is that belief outside the reach of reason? Can that person effectively engage their faith-based beliefs with reason? Can someone else effectively engage their faith-based beliefs in rational conversation? Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?

I couldn't have my faith without reason. It wouldn't be real faith if I didn't find find reason in it.
The thing is, just because something makes perfect sense to me, it doesn't mean it will makes sense for someone else.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Do you know that justified reasons are limited, epistemological rationalism is also limited and even empiricism have limits? It sounds like you believe you can solved everything with reason?

No, I don't. These are honest questions of inquiry, that I have been kicking around for a while. My working theory as of yet, is there are at least two forms of religious faith.

 

[Polymath257]

I specialize, so expect a high degree of understanding in some areas and not so much in others.

Can a belief be truly independent of other assumptions? Could you provide an example perhaps?

A purely mathematical example is the Continuum Hypothesis:

If you have an infinite subset of the real line, does it have to be in one to one correspondence with either the set of naturals or the set of real numbers?

To answer yes, is to accept the Continuum Hypothesis. To answer no is to reject it.

it is known to be independent of the usual axioms of set theory.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know if there is non-religious support for miracles; I've never come across such a claim. Not sure if that would make sense without some supernatural belief, going by the popular definition of 'miracle'.

True. I can across a rare few who takes scriptures literally.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

A purely mathematical example is the Continuum Hypothesis:

If you have an infinite subset of the real line, does it have to be in one to one correspondence with either the set of naturals or the set of real numbers?

To answer yes, is to accept the Continuum Hypothesis. To answer no is to reject it.

it is known to be independent of the usual axioms of set theory.

I have this ongoing rant against Bayesian probability because I don't believe you can model human belief so simply with mathematics. So I am not sure I even buy into your argument yet. At any rate "If you have" sounds like an assumption that is needed in the first place to concluded yes or no.

 

[Polymath257]

I have this ongoing rant against Bayesian probability because I don't believe you can model human belief so simply with mathematics. So I am not sure I even buy into your argument yet. At any rate "If you have" sounds like an assumption that is needed in the first place to concluded yes or no.

pretty standard mathematical language, actually. if you want more precision, the issue is the following:

it is true that every infinite subset of the set of real numbers is either in one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers or in one-to-one correspondence with the set of real numbers?

We know that such infinite sets exist: the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers are both infinite sets. And, for example, the set of rational numbers is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers, while intervals are in one-to-one correspondence with the set of real numbers.

The question is whether these are the only two possibilities for infinite subsets of the set of real numbers.

The point is that it is *known* that both answers, yes or no, are consistent with the other axioms. So there is no way, from the axioms of math as usually assumed, to answer this question: it becomes a 'matter of faith' and not of reason or logic.

Not sure what Bayesian statistics has to do with this.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Faith and reason are perfectly joinable. I don't think I've ever met a religious person who is religious for no reason other than 'faith'; most serious practitioners have considered the arguments, studied the text/s if they have one/some, and utilised their experiences of the world to back up their faith.

I think you made a mistake.

Your comment of:

"I don't think I've ever met a religious person who is religious for no reason other than 'faith'"

Doesn't seem to fit your opening statement, nor the last.

 

[Windwalker]

If a person has a faith-based belief, and if faith is beyond reason, then is that belief outside the reach of reason?

This is a really well-worded set of questions. I'd like to take a stab at this for my own mind.

What I'd say is that the nature of the belief, if it is inspired by faith, is not the same kind of belief as believing things in the mundane sense of the word. If it is faith, it is looking to the ineffable to begin with, which is beyond being able to be cataloged and indexed along with everything else in the mundane world of daily doings.

What sort of faith-based belief that I would see, would have to do with the 'big questions' of life, being, meaning, and existential purpose. Faith reaches to God. What beliefs arise from that, will generally center around insight and revelation, things which are not invested or accomplished through the facilities of reason and logic.

So yes, that belief is 'beyond' reason, but I would not say it is outside of its acknowledgement, and certainly not in violation of it. Rather it's a partnership, where each has its uses and strengths to yield to the other. They harmonize and complement. But when one operates without the other, reason without faith, or faith without reason, pretty soon we become unbalanced with the world, and we suffer.

Can that person effectively engage their faith-based beliefs with reason?

To clarify from above, I would never acknowledge belief statements, like evolution is wrong, to be "faith-based". That's not faith in the religious sense of the word. That's not an impulse to the Divine, which is which what a spiritual or religious faith is. That's an assertion of the mind in ignorance and fear, and an abuse of the word faith as a bypass for reason. Spiritual insights are not about scientific truths. They are not about facts and figures. They are about the nature of existence holistically, not technically.

So then to answer this question, yes, certainly. If they are being true to faith, they must be true to reason. Reason cannot let you experience the human body. You need to get up and move around and experience it for that. In this sense, the experience of the body itself, is beyond reason. But reason lives well with the knowledge of the body, which only came through the body itself. It's the same thing with the spiritual body in us. Not really different, actually. Just different aspects of the whole being. Different ways of knowing and knowledge, and living together as a whole.

Can someone else effectively engage their faith-based beliefs in rational conversation? Or is faith and reason simply oil and water?

Yes, certainly. I am right now.

 

[Rival]

I think you made a mistake.

Your comment of:

"I don't think I've ever met a religious person who is religious for no reason other than 'faith'"

Doesn't seem to fit your opening statement, nor the last.

Not sure what you mean? You'll need to explain

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

pretty standard mathematical language, actually. if you want more precision, the issue is the following:

it is true that every infinite subset of the set of real numbers is either in one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers or in one-to-one correspondence with the set of real numbers?

We know that such infinite sets exist: the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers are both infinite sets. And, for example, the set of rational numbers is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers, while intervals are in one-to-one correspondence with the set of real numbers.

The question is whether these are the only two possibilities for infinite subsets of the set of real numbers.

The point is that it is *known* that both answers, yes or no, are consistent with the other axioms. So there is no way, from the axioms of math as usually assumed, to answer this question: it becomes a 'matter of faith' and not of reason or logic.

Not sure what Bayesian statistics has to do with this.

I understand a simple if-then statement. Thank you very much. If-then statements function perfectly fine when the if part is an assumption and in fact, they are very commonly used in such a fashion. It is an if-then statement. Saying, I must first assume the truth about A first then B. So how about you prove the if statement first, without any prior assumptions.