The Relationship Between Faith and Reason.

[Ancient Soul]

Many people both religious and non-religious consider chid birth a miracle. Just like many people both religious and non-religious consider theft a sin.

Only if something like a ROCK gave "childbirth".

And NO, most people do NOT call theft a "sin", but a CRIME.

 

[Ancient Soul]

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?

For the most part, yes, "oil and water".

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Actually, this is a statement with a universal quantifier: a 'for every' statement. It is a question whether this holds *for all* infinite subsets of the set of real numbers.

What do you consider the 'if' part of my statement to be?

 

[exchemist]

Let's say a person believes Jesus walked on water and that their justification for believing so is that they have faith in it. Then do you think it is possible to engage their belief that Jesus walked on water with a rational conversation about humans and their lack of ability to walk on water?

One could certainly have a rational discussion about whether miracles occur, or may have occurred.

But that is a very specific example, of one type of claim that by no means all religious people would make. As such, it does not really illustrate anything very significant, in the context of this thread.

 

[exchemist]

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.

That is uncalled for.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Actually, this is a statement with a universal quantifier: a 'for every' statement. It is a question whether this holds *for all* infinite subsets of the set of real numbers.

What do you consider the 'if' part of my statement to be?

That doesn't really refute my point about if statements.

If you have an infinite subset of the real line

You have to assume an infinite subset of the real line before you can conclude yes or no.

Also, you have failed to properly justify why a person must make this leap of faith of yours.

 

[Nova2216]

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?

Faith is fact based (1Tim. 2:4) (Heb.11:6).

Facts are based upon truth (Jn 17:17) (Jn 12:48).

It is only safe to reason within truth (Jn 1:14) (1Peter 4:11).

What is truth? - Is answered in (Jn 17:17) (Mt. 28:18-20) (Mt.4:4).

 

[bobhikes]

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?

All faith-based beliefs come from a reason. For example God says.... God says is still a reason. If one can then prove or cast doubt on gods reasoning then one should be able to engage in rational conversation. In summary you must prove or cast doubt on the reasoning behind the faith.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Faith is fact based (1Tim. 2:4) (Heb.11:6).

Facts are based upon truth (Jn 17:17) (Jn 12:48).

It is only safe to reason within truth (Jn 1:14) (1Peter 4:11).

What is truth? - Is answered in (Jn 17:17) (Mt. 28:18-20) (Mt.4:4).

Facts are not based on truth. That is why I prefer them over faith.

 

[joe1776]

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 pretty much oil and water because people who can accept beliefs on faith and the people who cannot can look at the same evidence and see it differently.

For example, my mind is incapable of faith. I look at the Christian Bible and see 2,000 years of evidence that its authors were not divinely inspired as they claimed. Christians look at the Bible and see a sacred text and proof of their faith.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Faith is fact based (1Tim. 2:4) (Heb.11:6).

Facts are based upon truth (Jn 17:17) (Jn 12:48).

It is only safe to reason within truth (Jn 1:14) (1Peter 4:11).

What is truth? - Is answered in (Jn 17:17) (Mt. 28:18-20) (Mt.4:4).

Nothing in your OWN WORDS?

If you are going to try convincing anyone of your statements, you will need to have something better than faith based mythology to back them up, something more rational from you would be preferable.

 

[Augustus]

I am talking about faith-based beliefs. Such as Jesus walked on water, God is real, homosexuality is a sin, and so on. All of which I have heard people express they hold these beliefs because of faith.

All belief/value systems rely on certain axioms that are 'faith-based' in the sense that they are not objectively true. The broader worldview may well be perfectly rational, but only under the assumption that these axioms are correct

 

[Ancient Soul]

All faith-based beliefs come from a reason. For example God says.... God says is still a reason. If one can then prove or cast doubt on gods reasoning then one should be able to engage in rational conversation. In summary you must prove or cast doubt on the reasoning behind the faith.

You're jumping ahead don't you think?

First the groundwork to prove that it truly DID come from God is required. Without that, it's still just faith to believe in any of what is CLAIMED any "god" "says".

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

All belief/value systems rely on certain axioms that are 'faith-based' in the sense that they are not objectively true. The broader worldview may well be perfectly rational, but only under the assumption that these axioms are correct

My belief system is not based on faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

The way I see it...
Faith is the antithesis of reason.
Faith isn't reasonable.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

All faith-based beliefs come from a reason. For example God says.... God says is still a reason. If one can then prove or cast doubt on gods reasoning then one should be able to engage in rational conversation. In summary you must prove or cast doubt on the reasoning behind the faith.

Then what is it when a person is faced with overwhelming opposing rational arguments and evidence that they themselves don't deny, but believe anyways?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there nonreligious support for things like miracles that are not confirmed by our own biases and conclusions from them?

I'm sure their conclusions are logical based on their own criteria. Anyone can use reason with their own criteria to determine truth bit when asked can one reason, say walking on water, by universal truth such as reason, how do literalist work that our?

Inventing your own criteria just so you can defend a belief that you wish to hold, isn't reasonable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Sure. But those base assumptions can both be reasonable or unreasonable.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Faith is fact based (1Tim. 2:4) (Heb.11:6).

Facts are based upon truth (Jn 17:17) (Jn 12:48).

It is only safe to reason within truth (Jn 1:14) (1Peter 4:11).

What is truth? - Is answered in (Jn 17:17) (Mt. 28:18-20) (Mt.4:4).

Have to intersect here.

Sounds like a fallacy.

The word is truth and truth is a fact therefore the word is a fact.

If the Word is a fact, it must be verified by methods outside it's own criteria. Once you do that, you no longer need faith, you have knowledge. Since the bible says faith is what saved not "things scene" there's no reason to declare the word is truth or a fact. It is not based on that, so truth and fact and reason aren't good terms here. Those verses do not verify that scripture is a fact, it just makes a claim about itself that people take on faith not knowledge.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Inventing your own criteria just so you can defend a belief that you wish to hold, isn't reasonable.

Not me, "they". I'm talking third person not first. Has nothing to do with me.