• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Relationship Between Faith and Reason.

firedragon

Veteran Member
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?

There are two sides. Thaqlid which is simple faith without reason. Some people propagate it. They follow their madhab or school of thought without question.

Then you get the oldest concept which is Aqal which means reason. Your whole faith is based on reason.

So reason does not conflict with faith when one has his faith completely based on reason.

I gave you an islamic perspective. I think that applies across faiths.
 
I didn't say it did. But your statement seems irrelevant to the point I was making.



The set of all real numbers is an infinite subset of the real line. So is the set of natural numbers.

So, that gives two examples of infinite subsets of the real line.

The question is whether *all* infinite subsets of the real line have some property.

We know there are uncountably many real numbers and uncountably many infinite subsets of the set of real numbers.



No leap of faith for that particular one. Just the usual axioms of set theory that underlie all of modern math.

To be honest I think your entire line of argument is irrelevant to the point. It is a misshapen and awkward attempt to parallel in abstract mathematical concepts that I am not even convinced lines up that well with the OP.

Also, you saying the words "all real numbers" does not actually prove this number line exists. It is a concept that exists in your head, entirely in your imagination, it is not real. Just like this concept of infinite subsets does not actually exist. You can't prove those concepts without creating some initial assumptions in the first place. At its base math rest on a bed of assumptions.

And you still have not justified this leap of faith you were talking about.

there must be a 'leap of faith'

Why must there be a "leap of faith"?
 
Last edited:
Almost certainly not true.

For example, I would bet that you accept the laws of logic as presented in most books on logic. But that is a type of 'faith'. There are, for example, variants of logic that do not have the law of excluded middle.

If you believe in anything other than solipsism, there is a type of faith involved. At the very least, you assume that your senses gives at least some reliable information about a world external to yourself. That is a type of faith as well.

Of course, these are different in type than *religious* faith. Religious faith is a set of assumptions that go above and beyond those typically accepted about how to determine information about the external world.

Cogito, ergo sum. . . the only thing I am unable to doubt, as the act of doubting it creates it. That is the core of my worldview, for lack of a better term. As far as these laws of logic. . . I'd have to see them first to give you my take on them. I am not big into formal logic, just the basics that I needed for math.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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?
Great post. I fully agree.

Faith starts when reason stops
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Cogito, ergo sum. . . the only thing I am unable to doubt, as the act of doubting it creates it. That is the core of my worldview, for lack of a better term. As far as these laws of logic. . . I'd have to see them first to give you my take on them. I am not big into formal logic, just the basics that I needed for math.

So what is your solution to the malicious, powerful, cunning demon, which might deceive you in regards to the rest as not covered cogito, ergo sum?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Easy enough, your reasoning is faulty because you have not the slightest bit of proof to base any of your beliefs upon. As just because someone wrote a mythology that it's what ""god" says", or it "came from "god", is always a lie.

reasoning
(ˈriːzənɪŋ)
n
1. the act or process of drawing conclusions from facts, evidence, etc
2. the arguments, proofs, etc, so adduced

So if you have no facts, absolute proof that it came from the true God, then you have used no reasoning ability what so ever to believe in any of it.

I'll play this is a game I done many times.

First that is a definition of reasoning not the definition. I always look for the definition of a word from a source and then post it but I always phrase it with this is the definition I want to use. I will assume that is what you meant to do.

Define Act or process of drawing conclusions
Define Fact
Define evidence
Define arguments, proofs, etc

The truth is is you keep digging you will get to a point where reason is defined as fact and fact is defined as reason. Circular reasoning. Try it I've done it multiple times I believe truth or true ends up in the definition as well. There is no definitive answer to what is reason just another word that isn't reason.

Humans define the world through there experiences as such it is experiences not facts that define words. This is why what was fact 10,000 years ago is not fact today. What was fact 5000 years ago is no mostly not fact today. What was fact 2000 years ago is less factual today. Just 75 years ago after the building of the computer what we knew as facts have been dropping at an incredible rate. 100 years from today some of your facts will be obsolete and a form of God and Religion will still exist as it did 10,000, 5000, 2000 and 75 years ago along with your wrong facts.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you consider any induction to be a form of faith? Because the laws of logic constantly demonstrate themselves in the same way that gravity does. I would not call the lack of Absolute Certainty faith.

In some sense, the acceptance of *any* assumption is a matter of faith. But some assumptions are required to get past even solipsism.

Induction (in the scientific sense, not the mathematical one) is problematic. And, in fact, the whole scientific method is partly to deal with some of the inadequacies of induction. When you *try* to show an idea false and devise as many ways as possible to do so, the fact that the idea survives all those challenges is much more convincing than if the goal is to show it is true.

And, yes, I do regard even logic as a set of assumptions. There is more than one type of logic known and we have generally chosen the one closest to what Aristotle wrote about. But there are paraconsistent logics that allow for contradictions without problems, for example. It is even possible to build mathematics from such logics.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Cogito, ergo sum. . . the only thing I am unable to doubt, as the act of doubting it creates it. That is the core of my worldview, for lack of a better term. As far as these laws of logic. . . I'd have to see them first to give you my take on them. I am not big into formal logic, just the basics that I needed for math.


You might be surprised how much is required to actually do math. For example, calculus without infinite sets doesn't work very well.
 
You might be surprised how much is required to actually do math. For example, calculus without infinite sets doesn't work very well.

When asked to prove your if statement, your "proof" was to simply say it exists but somehow that was not an assumption? That is neither an application of math or logic, so you are not really employing either one in this conversation. You either prove your statements or you assume them.

You might be surprised at how many assumptions we make just to do math.
 
Last edited:

ppp

Well-Known Member
In some sense, the acceptance of *any* assumption is a matter of faith. But some assumptions are required to get past even solipsism.
I generally consider faith to be some combination of an unevidenced and unfalsifiable conclusion. So yeah. I am on board with my assumption that I am not the only mind to be a faith based belief.

And, yes, I do regard even logic as a set of assumptions. There is more than one type of logic known and we have generally chosen the one closest to what Aristotle wrote about. But there are paraconsistent logics that allow for contradictions without problems, for example. It is even possible to build mathematics from such logics.
Any suggestion on a good text that discusses some of those paraconsistent logics? A survey, rather than a deep dive.
 

Nova2216

Active Member
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.

You mentioned truth twice in one sentence.

God mentioned truth twice in one scripture while defining truth. (Jn 17:17)

Joh 17:17 ¶ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
 

Nova2216

Active Member
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.
The words of mere men only confuse people when it comes to spiritual matters.

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I'll play this is a game I done many times.

First that is a definition of reasoning not the definition. I always look for the definition of a word from a source and then post it but I always phrase it with this is the definition I want to use. I will assume that is what you meant to do.

Define Act or process of drawing conclusions
Define Fact
Define evidence
Define arguments, proofs, etc

The truth is is you keep digging you will get to a point where reason is defined as fact and fact is defined as reason. Circular reasoning. Try it I've done it multiple times I believe truth or true ends up in the definition as well. There is no definitive answer to what is reason just another word that isn't reason.

...

Yeah, that is Agrippa's Trilemma.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You mentioned truth twice in one sentence.

God mentioned truth twice in one scripture while defining truth. (Jn 17:17)

Joh 17:17 ¶ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Scripture verified itself. Facts aren't self-verified. Since facts aren't self-verified, it's not truth (factual).
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
This is true in Christianity. (Jn 17:17).

Joh 17:17 ¶ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

That would mean one can't say scripture is true/fact in the general sense of the word. It would only be verified by itself so it doesn't make sense to say it's truth any other way. Facts aren't verified by themselves but outside sources. Since scripture doesn't do that, it's not fact.
 

Nova2216

Active Member
Last edited:
Top