C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
When Jesus was tempted by the devil, he had no need to doubt God for a second, because he was both God and man. By definition, Jesus had no need of faith in God, since he was himself the object of faith.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are assuming brute facts are not rational!
P
Pugsly
Guest
As suggested above…“Fides et ratio” is your ticket…however…here are my thoughts.
FAITH is a way of seeing into the layers of reality.
REASON puts into ORDER what we see.
A person who puts in order what is physically seen is a scientist.
A person who tries to put into order what he sees with FAITH is a philosopher/theologian.
Both are rational in their method…but (blessed be God) FAITH is accessible even to a small child while SCIENCE would preclude most of us.
I
Ismael
Guest
Since I bow to Peter Kreeft and John Paul II and leave it to them to give the more refined arguments I will give my 2 cents.
First we ought to understand what ‘rational’ means.
Maybe a good definition is: ‘looking for truth without bias, examining all the evidence’
Yes… but people are never 100% rational 100% of the time of course.
A problem is that in looking for truth rarely we have “unquestionable truth”… as a matter of fact only in logic and mathematics perhaps.
Even science is inductive and probabilitstic. People that assert one theory with 99% of certainty today might be proven wrong tomorrow (of course sometimes the probability is so high that it’s almost unquestionable… like no one doubts Newton’s second law, F= m*a)
Every person has a bias. Ironically ‘rationalists’ have huge biases as well. Some of them assert very unlikely things against modern science and research itself (like the ‘Christ Myth Theory’ which for almost 100% is not taken seriously by any serious scholar) or put absolute confidence in unproven theories that still fail to meet Popper’s falsifiability in an experiment that might prove or disprove them them (like Hawking or Krauss physical theories for the Big Bang which might be true, mind you, but still need testing).
Obiously religeous people are biased too. 6-day creationists remind us of that.
The point is Reasonable Faith is NOT Rationalism. It is not a reduction ab absurdum that everything must be perfectly explainable through human reason (and I would argue… there is no sufficient reason even to think so!).
Reasonable Faith means having Faith, which is after all also a suoernatural gift, but it’s not “blind faith”, i.e. it’s having faith but not denying the truths that do not come from faith (like scientific truths for example).
The ‘scientific/rational’ truth of Resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels cannot be proven with 100% certainty, of course. I think that even if we went back in time with a camera and film Jesus rising, there still would be unbelievers.
Can it be disproven? I doubt it… you can rarely ‘disprove’ an event actually, especially if it happened 2000 years ago. I mean I cannot disprove Cesar tapdanced naked on the senate steps… of course there is no reason to believe in it either.
With Jesus and the Resurrection, however, there is A LOT of evidence that indicates that it did happen, as WL Craig and many Bible Scholars have shown.
Obviously many will also not be convinced. Some might object on some points and of course affirm that the evidence is not enough… but if you do not believe in something and do not WANT to believe, ANY amount of evidence won’t be enough.
So in the end faith is a ‘matter of Faith’, but this does not exclude reason either!
I
Ismael
Guest
Faith is not just “placing trust” of “believe what someone says”
It’s also believing IN.
Take the differece if someone says:
Peter I believe you
Peter I believe IN you.
Believing IN God is more believing that He exists. It’s much more deep than that. That’s why the Nicea-Costantinople Creed says 'I beleive IN one God/Jesus Crist/HolySpirit…" and “I believe the Church…” (and not ‘in’ the Church).
Adam and Eve in the tale, believed the serpent, not IN the serpent, I’d say.
Of course faith can be misguided, especially if it’s blind faith.
Indeed… All knowledge requires some a priori assumption. Maybe mathemathics is the knowledge less affected by that, though.
P
polytropos
Guest
I take serious issue with the reduction of faith to this idea of “trust” and its conflation with all of the worldly things we place trust in. I trust that my mechanic fixed my breaks because there isn’t much of an alternative. Also I can test the breaks before I’m flying towards an intersection. This is not an analogy.
I went through Catholic school as an atheist and was told by one of my teachers that I, an atheist, placed faith in the rising of the sun in the same way that he put faith in God. To me this trivializes faith and twists it into “trust” - or maybe to “empirical expectation.” I really don’t think Catholic faith is as easy to come by as faith in one’s mechanic, because many atheists get by in the world quite well without it.
I
Ismael
Guest
Yes I do agree, Faith (with a big F at least) is more than just ‘trusting something’.
However palcing trust and confidence is also a form of faith (small f), but a weaker form of what Faith actually is.
P
polytropos
Guest
Mathematics is actually founded upon a priori assumption. All of Euclidean geometry is predicated upon 5 axioms. If we change one of these axioms, we are talking about a different sort of geometry. The only reason we take these assumptions is because they produce a useful logical system that, incidentally, can often be used to model reality. For instance, if you do not assume the 5th axiom, the parallel postulate, then you obtain a system in which parallel lines can cross: geometry on the surface of a sphere.
This is true of all of mathematics. The natural numbers are somewhat natural - but they are still abstract “models” for what we see in reality, and as soon as we introduce concepts like 0, fractions, negative numbers (getting to the real number system) we are making a lot of assumptions.
Mathematics has always appealed to me for this reason. It has an arbitrary basis and is shameless about it. It’s just an expanse of logic for the sake of utility.
Recently I imported this sort of thinking into other modes of thinking (philosophy) and it does not work so well there… because if you are looking for purpose, then you hate to realize that any set of premises you take (and any conclusion you draw from them) is inherently arbitrary.
I
Ismael
Guest
Yeah I was not implying that there is no ‘a priori’ assumption in Math, only that to me Math seems the field of knowledge less affected by this problem and also when a conclusion is reached logically and correctly it is 100% and 100% wrong otherwise, if the premises are also correct that is.
This is an immensely stronger position than natural sciences for example, which also depend on mathematics in the end as well.
I am not sure if you can assert that all mathematics a priori axioms are ‘arbitrary’, some would call them a tautology, something necessarely true, like “A=A”
However Math contains a set of ‘abstract objects’… of course there are two ways people has viewed them: Platonically (ie these objects are real and have some sort of indipendent existence, like Frege thought) or Nominally (they do not exist in themselves they are just ideas we use to model the world, which is the view you seem to have).
However both of these views carry problems with them. Recently an “Aristotelian view on Mathematics” is being proposded, where mathematica ‘objects’ are real but not independent of their instantiation in (material) reality.
Here however we enter the field of metamathematics and there are different views on the matter.
P
polytropos
Guest
I agree, conclusions in math are completely logical given the premises, and with established premises, it is far less ambiguous to establish a conclusion in math rather than, say, philosophy.
As far as math “existing” - I will have to think about that. I certainly have nominalist tendencies. I don’t think that they are “just” ideas - they are certainly represented in reality and the relationships work independent of my using them. I would probably argue (for now) that arriving upon the premises of mathematics is the act of philosophy, not mathematics. “Something is what it is” - the basic observation that is a tautology, is decided through philosophy and then translated into mathematics.
As far as math “existing” - I will have to think about that. I certainly have nominalist tendencies. I don’t think that they are “just” ideas - they are certainly represented in reality and the relationships work independent of my using them. I would probably argue (for now) that arriving upon the premises of mathematics is the act of philosophy, not mathematics. “Something is what it is” - the basic observation that is a tautology, is decided through philosophy and then translated into mathematics.
E
empther
Guest
Take faith out of the picture and what’s left makes no sense at all.
Looked at another way…
The universe makes no sense without God.
Looked at another way…
The universe makes no sense without God.
H
Hamlet123
Guest
How does it go? One has faith in order to be able to be rational… or something like that
J
John_Martin
Guest
Faith, as a Virtue, is a Habit, a habit whereby we know how, and do, believe in the God of Christ as True (and all he entails in Scripture and the Tradition). And, combined with the habit of believing in Jesus as True, this habit, or Virtue, of Faith also declares to our Will that this God and all about Him are Good. It is, then a habit of believing God is True and that being united to Him is Good. It is a habit of the reason. It’s counterpart, Hope, is a habit of the Will, which loves and hopes in what the reason judges good.
Faith is rational in light of its happening in the reason. It is a habit that we use, as opposed to a habit of doubting that things about Jesus are true. And the reason, by design, will reject what it cannot, by syllogism, regard as truth. The big player in the syllogism is the person of Jesus. He, his reality, his person, is outside us, facing us. Somewhere along the line we end up regarding Him as true, and regarding that it is good being with Him. And as we know him, we start to understand all that he taught.
If you are asking, “is it reasonable to have the habit of faith?” The answer is “no” in so far as it is not possible apart from God to have the habit or use it. This habit was infused into you when you were baptized / confirmed. Since it was one of the graces infused into you, you have the habit, and the inclination with it, to hear and understand that what is from God is true. This does not mean you will use this habit, but it is yours, and when you use it, you find it is like second nature to believe in this God, and understand it is good to be united to him.
John Martin
J
jhchadwick
Guest
First these are the definitions I’ll use:
Rational: looking for truth without bias, examining all the evidence
Faith: belief and trust in and loyalty to God
Faith is not rational in that few people in a religion are looking for truth about who is God, particularly if Jesus is God or not. Most simply follow what they have been brought up with. However, recognize that all major religions share so many common positive characteristics. I agree with others who state that the question put is not relevent. However if you approach faith rationally as you would other topics, where would you be? Consider distinguishing between belief in God versus belief in various events in history. A recent event might indeed be your car’s breaks being fixed. Is there a difference? In both cases we are going by what others have written or said.
My faith is rational since I looked for evidence that God exists. After studying those who claim to have spoken with Jesus or Mary, particularly saints and recognized seers, I believe and trust in God. Others do not need that rational.
Fun discussion, I enjoyed reading many ideas on this topic.
Rational: looking for truth without bias, examining all the evidence
Faith: belief and trust in and loyalty to God
Faith is not rational in that few people in a religion are looking for truth about who is God, particularly if Jesus is God or not. Most simply follow what they have been brought up with. However, recognize that all major religions share so many common positive characteristics. I agree with others who state that the question put is not relevent. However if you approach faith rationally as you would other topics, where would you be? Consider distinguishing between belief in God versus belief in various events in history. A recent event might indeed be your car’s breaks being fixed. Is there a difference? In both cases we are going by what others have written or said.
My faith is rational since I looked for evidence that God exists. After studying those who claim to have spoken with Jesus or Mary, particularly saints and recognized seers, I believe and trust in God. Others do not need that rational.
Fun discussion, I enjoyed reading many ideas on this topic.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Faith is “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”. This definition I found on Google. If no proof is needed, then truth cannot be arrived at by reason.
We often hear of blind faith. This is based on mysticism or an emotional feeling that influences ones belief. The Sufi cult of Islam and the Kabbalah cult of Judaism emphasize getting in touch with God through concentrated praying and rituals. Reason does not enter mental processes in these efforts. These are esthetic pursuits without any goals for proof. No proof has been given that there is any phenomenon called art or music. We accept these concepts because of our esthetic appreciation of them. The same can be said for faith. In such situations, religious experiences are emotional and esthetic in nature without the need for rational proof to believe in them.
We often hear of blind faith. This is based on mysticism or an emotional feeling that influences ones belief. The Sufi cult of Islam and the Kabbalah cult of Judaism emphasize getting in touch with God through concentrated praying and rituals. Reason does not enter mental processes in these efforts. These are esthetic pursuits without any goals for proof. No proof has been given that there is any phenomenon called art or music. We accept these concepts because of our esthetic appreciation of them. The same can be said for faith. In such situations, religious experiences are emotional and esthetic in nature without the need for rational proof to believe in them.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
That is the most ridiculous and biased definition that I have seen of faith. It does not even deserve to be referenced and I would question the integrity of anyone who would write such or reference it in seriousness.
Here are much better definitions for faith, from dictionary.com
- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
- belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
- belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
- a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
I suggest that it is impossible to prove much of anything. Examine any proof, and you will find assumptions and principles that must be accepted before such proof is even possible. And yet, because of our faith in all that is unproven to us, we are still able to live our lives, go about our business, and actually do things of merit. It is only faith that allows this. Will the sun come up tomorrow? Will I die in my sleep tonight? Only faith gives us a definitive answer. Science gives us an indication, but no proof. It is only by faith that we continue on.
And if you want to see an example of the most blinded faith, just look into the eyes of an atheist when he is trying to explain why he BELEIVES that there is no god.
1
1patterson
Guest
t
truth is not simply an academic concept. The way we think about truth has a direct bearing upon the way we live our lives. What’s more, our understanding of right and wrong is directly dependent on our worldview: is the universe God’s creation or a closed cosmic cube?
youtu.be/E8wk5OSuDaM
F
ffg
Guest
I use what I would consider a rational train of thought when defending or doing my part in this fight. (using history and logic to deduce Truth)
I find it funny when people who think they are rational thinkers write off history to defend their bubble logic. In these cases, especially online, you just don’t get a response, most of the time.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Dan Grelinger has replied in a judgmental way by using the terms “ridiculous” and “biased”. This is counterproductive. In order to keep this forum from becoming a shouting match, please don’t let your emotions get the best of you.
Now as to the question, “Is Faith Rational?”, since this is a religious website, the term “faith” should be used in that context. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
“In religion, faith often involves accepting claims about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. While some have argued that faith is opposed to reason, proponents of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence.”
For reading on the history of reason vs. mysticism, see “History of God” by Karen Armstrong. She is a thorough scholar and this book is a masterpiece.
Now as to the question, “Is Faith Rational?”, since this is a religious website, the term “faith” should be used in that context. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
“In religion, faith often involves accepting claims about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. While some have argued that faith is opposed to reason, proponents of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence.”
For reading on the history of reason vs. mysticism, see “History of God” by Karen Armstrong. She is a thorough scholar and this book is a masterpiece.
F
ffg
Guest
I would agree with Dan that the earlier definition you provided is pretty poor.
Let’s analyze - Faith is “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”.
So you are saying with “Faith is” that you agree with this text.
Strong - what basis does it have to be strong?
belief in God - probably the most simplistic definition of Faith, could just end there.
or in the doctrines of a religion - please provide the religion that has no god or God. If Atheism is thought, we could argue for hours about that the god of Atheism is whatever is important to the person.
Based on spiritual apprehension - Since apprehension has multiple meanings, I’m guessing you do not mean taking a criminal into custody, so the definition is basically saying that out of fear or of something bad.
rather than proof - Here is where the person creating the definition writes off world history and the events that have happened in time in order to substantiate what they want people to think is a fact - that people are religious out of fear, an opinion.
Yeah, “ridiculous” and “biased” sound about right.
- Status