Can we have "Reasonable Faith" in a Modern Age

[freesoulhope]

I have come to realise that one of the main excuses for not believing in God, is the arguement from knowledge:

“Religous Faith is unreasonable and obsolete as an explanatory tool of understanding the world around us. Emprical Science is the only reasonable basis for believing in something. Science has revealed only nature. Therefore it is reasonable to be a Naturalist.”

This is basically a Naturalists take on things.

My main questions are:

1. When is faith reasonable?
2. Is all faith blind, despite logically consistent arguements?
3. Does Science make the concept of “reasonable faith” an unreasonable mode of thinking?

To all Theists; Give me all the arguements you can think of in defence of “reasonable faith”.

Peace.

 

[ateista]

I have come to realise that one of the main excuses for not believing in God, is because faith is unreasonable and that science is the only basis for believing something. This is basically Richard Darwkins take on things.

My main questions are:

1. When is faith reasonable.
2. Is all faith blind despite evidence?
3. Does Science make the concept of “reasonable faith” an unreasonable mode of thinking.

To all Theists; Give me all the arguements you can think of in defence of reasonable faith.

Peace.

Even though you called on theists, let me offer a very short (name removed by moderator)ut.

Faith is a belief in something for which there in no 100% proof or evidence; the lack of Carthesian certainty.

It is a very broad concept. It would be foolish to make a general remark and postulate that all faith is unreasonable, or to say that all faith is reasonable. Each case should be analyzed on its own merit, and a decision should be made based uopn the evidence.

I would even go as far as saying that faith without any supporting evidence is not necessarily blind. Blind faith (in my definition) is to believe something that is contradicted by reality.

Is this analysis acceptable?

 

[Genesis315]

You misunderstand what faith is. Theological faith is believing what God has revealed only on the authority of He who reveals it with out being able to empirically discover whether what He reveals is actually the case. This is completely reasonable given what God is–principle and pefect good and principle and perfect truth–He is perfectly credible. Faith is not for no reason believing God exists–it is not a guess.

If you can, read John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio and the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius. They are very good treatments of the relationship between faith and reason.

The problem with Dawkins’ assertion is that you can’t prove empirically that all truth can be verified empirically–there is an internal contradiction in his thesis.

People put faith in the testimony of other people all the time after evaluating the credibility of the testifier–this is how most court trials are decided, almost all of history is learned, and how science itself progresses. We all don’t start from scratch and figure out everything ourselves empirically, but we critically, yet faithfully, receive knowledge from other beings (human and divine).

 

[freesoulhope]

Even though you called on theists, let me offer a very short (name removed by moderator)ut.

Faith is a belief in something for which there in no 100% proof or evidence; the lack of Carthesian certainty.

It is a very broad concept. It would be foolish to make a general remark and postulate that all faith is unreasonable, or to say that all faith is reasonable. Each case should be analyzed on its own merit, and a decision should be made based uopn the evidence.

I would even go as far as saying that faith without any supporting evidence is not necessarily blind. Blind faith (in my definition) is to believe something that is contradicted by reality.

Is this analysis acceptable?

This is a very reasonable analysis. And much appreciated, comming from an atheist

The Abrahamic/Christian God, is the focus of this discussion. Since this God is posited to provide an ultimate explanation for everything

 

[ateista]

This is a very reasonable analysis. And much appreciated, comming from an atheist

Thank you very much!

The Abrahamic/Christian God, is the focus of this discussion. Since this God is posited to provide an ultimate explanation for everything

I understand that, and that is why I only wanted to make a short (name removed by moderator)ut.

Nevertheless, I must comment on this:

The problem with Dawkins’ assertion is that you can’t prove empirically that all truth can be verified empirically–there is an internal contradiction in his thesis.

This is an imprecise representation of empiricism. Empiricism is not applicable to the truths of conceptual existence - namely the abstract sciences - of which epistemology is one. Empiricism is applicable to the realm of actual reality, and therefore no contradiction exists.

 

[CapIV]

umm yea Thomas Aquinas answered this question like seven hundred years ago. There is nothing modern about it. And Aristotle speculated a similar problem over two thousand years ago.

There is as much proof of God as there is for Alzheimers.

 

[mschrank]

“Religous Faith is unreasonable and obsolete as an explanatory tool of understanding the world around us. Emprical Science is the only reasonable basis for believing in something. Science has revealed only nature. Therefore it is reasonable to be a Naturalist.”

There’s two major fallacies being committed here.

Firstly, there is no such thing as “religious faith”. There are individual religions, which scientism has more or less on depending on the religion, but conflating all belief systems together is invalid. “Religious faith” is usually a strawman religion that nobody really practicies which atheists like to knock down with the complexity of “something a four or five year old would understand” (C.S. Lewis).

Secondly, following from the first point, the God of the Bible and Christianity are explicitly, not attempts to explain the material world. That is not what it is really about. To say it is, is begging the question. “All things are material, therefore what the writers of the Bible were trying to understand are material subjects, and ‘religion’ is simply bad science and the modern scientific method is superior to religion”.

 

[BlaineTog]

I agree with ateista, actually (zounds!). Beliefs are propositions which you hold without having deeper logical reasons. They are your premises. Not every statement is a belief, but every statement is part of a chain of reasoning which began with beliefs. This includes science, sense perceptions, the proposition that an external world exists, and even logic itself (because you can’t prove logic with logic). Anytime someone tells you they don’t believe anything, they are either mistaken, exagerating, or they don’t believe in logic either, in which case you can’t have any sort of meaningful conversation with them, not on a logical level anyway.

 

[davidv]

Even though you called on theists, let me offer a very short (name removed by moderator)ut.

Faith is a belief in something for which there in no 100% proof or evidence; the lack of Carthesian certainty.

It is a very broad concept. It would be foolish to make a general remark and postulate that all faith is unreasonable, or to say that all faith is reasonable. Each case should be analyzed on its own merit, and a decision should be made based uopn the evidence.

I would even go as far as saying that faith without any supporting evidence is not necessarily blind. Blind faith (in my definition) is to believe something that is contradicted by reality.

Is this analysis acceptable?

Seems to me that belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusional, not blind. Because blind in my book means not seeing.

 

[ateista]

Seems to me that belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusional, not blind. Because blind in my book means not seeing.

I will not argue. Your wording is acceptable to me.

 

[ateista]

I agree with ateista, actually (zounds!).

Sounds like a time to break out a champange and celebrate. By the way, I am sure that we can agree on many things, maybe even if the subject would entail religion. But, where is the fun in that?

 

[Brady]

It appears to me the God of this modern age is science. Unfortunately some go to far and want to accept only what can be measured…God?..Love?..germs?..(Oh! sorry wrong age)…So if science can replase God then all these other things must also not exist. Evidently other things must not exist…like all the illnesses they have no clue about or haven’t even thought of or recognized as of yet. like fatique syndrom. If one wants to deny God fine, but this is an ignorant arguement. Don’t believe me? Read and see what Darwin said on this subject.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

In order to have faith in God you have to do something to prove that faith, and to put your trust in God.

Over the last three months I have been going through a training process to become a ‘Street Pastor’ Tonight we all went out for the first time, we go to all the known hotspots that bring us into contact with gangs, drugs, alcohol and other problems that exist in our streets late at night.

There are nineteen of us all together and we go out in groups of four, half the team are ladies, and most of us are in our forties, fifties and sixties. We are all volunteers from different churches and different denominations.

If we come across a threatening gang of twenty youths we trust in God and have faith that God will guide us, we pray that we might bring about some kind of peace.

We depend on many people who are back in the church praying for us, and we have faith that their prayers help us.

Our first evening out was good, our faith will be tested more if we come across a violent situation. Will our trust in God be challenged in a way that we will lose our faith?

In the spirit of praying for an inner peace

Eric

 

[catharina]

Hope this helps.

Modern science rests upon reason and proofs.
Say a couple is expecting a baby.
Ultrasounds have proved to the satisfaction of all that the baby will prove to be a girl.

Nonetheless upon delivery, the baby is a healthy boy. It seems his genitals were never fully apparent to the “lens” of the camera. So all certainty and “faith” were negated by the fact of his boyhood. In this small example, one can discount the proof of science. How much more are we to depend on religious faith to explain all of the inexplicables of our lives and our world. Faith in God demands a response of “Yes, I believe.” The gift of faith itself is a gift from God. It is promised that it will be given to all who ask for it - even though the asking might be dependent on a prayer of “God, if You exist, please grant me faith.” No such prayers accompany our reliance on science - yet science can fail us.

 

[Hastrman]

My main questions are:

1. When is faith reasonable?
2. Is all faith blind, despite logically consistent arguements?
3. Does Science make the concept of “reasonable faith” an unreasonable mode of thinking?

To all Theists; Give me all the arguements you can think of in defence of “reasonable faith”.

Truth is one; it cannot contradict itself.

Faith is reasonable when it is consonant with other things known by reason. If it is not, then it is not reasonable–although it may be right. If it continues to assert a thing in the face of logical proof of the contrary (not a lack of proof–you cannot prove a negative, only a contradictory positive), then it is delusion, not faith.

Science of course does not make the concept of reasonable faith an unreasonable mode of thinking, since most scientists (and everyone else) base 90% at least of their thought on statements they take on faith. Unless, that is, you think every scientist has sat down and proved before his own eyes every scrap of science from Bacon to Schroedinger?

I would argue that the existence of God is knowable through reason, but that anything else about him (except that he is all-good, once you have a proper definition of God, but what is “good?”) is a matter where reason is largely helpless.

Aquinas, however, thought that it was in theory possible to deduce the entirety of Catholic doctrine (other than salvation history, since historical events cannot be proved directly) by reason. But, he essentially said, “some people have to work for a living,” and so God grants revelation.