Aside From Being Self Serving, Can Religious Faith Ever Be Rational?

[Kenny]

You know the reality? Would you like to,
tell us about it?

didn't I?

 

[Audie]

didn't I?

didn't I?

You showed us you are an adept in the
dark art of equivocation, otherwise, no.

 

[Skwim]

is the game too hard that you couldn't address the reality?

Hardly a clever retort, but what the heck, I'll take what I can get. In any case, what reality is that, Ken?

.

 

[Windwalker]

If you don't know what religious faith is then I seriously doubt I would be interested in your answer. Simple as that.

I know what it is. I don't think you do however. Which is why I raised the point that I did. Your OP is a strawman argument.

But I already told you what faith is in my OP. Go back and take a look.

.

Yes, and I could just say my definition of atheism is a fervent belief in God. Would it sound like I know what I'm talking about were I to say that?

 

[Skwim]

I know what it is. I don't think you do however. Which is why I raised the point that I did. Your OP is a strawman argument.

I can only suggest that you look up "strawman argument."

Yes, and I could just say my definition of atheism is a fervent belief in God. Would it sound like I know what I'm talking about were I to say that?

If that's what you want to say, fine. And while it could be the case that you knew what you were talking about, what you were saying would would be stupid.

It's also duly noted that you too are unable to reasonably address the OP question, and until you do I have no interest in your silly quibbling.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Windwalker]

I can only suggest that you look up "strawman argument."

I know what a strawman is. I suggest you apply it to your opening statement and see if it fits. You said, "Keep in mind that faith is nothing more than trust in belief".

Who defined faith like that? You? In reality, faith is much more than that, and a whole lot deeper than that silly definition you created. What makes this a strawman, is that you just created your own enemy, stuffed a soldier's shirt with straw, pull your sword, and swiftly dispatch with your "enemy" of straw. It's not a real opponent however, but one you created and defined with your own mind which you then do battle with to impress the would-be damsels in distress with your prowess as an intellectual warrior. Congratulations on your empty victory.

So, can actual faith, not your strawman faith definition, be rationally held? The answer is yes. Faith welcomes truth and knowledge, and the kind of truth which often will devastate one's own beliefs in the service of faith. Now, let's see if you can engage with the actual soldier on the field of valor rather than the one you stuffed with straw, along with your subsequent jeers at the audience members who called out your "battle" as simply a charade of your own manufacture.

 

[Audie]

I know what a strawman is. I suggest you apply it to your opening statement and see if it fits. You said, "Keep in mind that faith is nothing more than trust in belief".

Who defined faith like that? You? In reality, faith is much more than that, and a whole lot deeper than that silly definition you created. What makes this a strawman, is that you just created your own enemy, stuffed a soldier's shirt with straw, pull your sword, and swiftly dispatch with your "enemy" of straw. It's not a real opponent however, but one you created and defined with your own mind which you then do battle with to impress the would-be damsels in distress with your prowess as an intellectual warrior. Congratulations on your empty victory.

So, can actual faith, not your strawman faith definition, be rationally held? The answer is yes. Faith welcomes truth and knowledge, and the kind of truth which often will devastate one's own beliefs in the service of faith. Now, let's see if you can engage with the actual soldier on the field of valor rather than the one you stuffed with straw, along with your subsequent jeers at the audience members who called out your "battle" as simply a charade of your own manufacture.

Hmm. This observer fails to see how that
other than is trust in belief.

Or to sight a strawman.

 

[Fool]

---Keep in mind that faith is nothing more than trust in belief---


Yes

Because ______________________________________________________________________________________.
​

No

Because ______________________________________________________________________________________ .

.​

only if its questioned/tested can it be rationalized.

 

[Windwalker]

Hmm. This observer fails to see how that
other than is trust in belief.

I'll take this as you asking the question then? I'll explain. Simply put, someone can and does change their beliefs through faith. Faith is what gives you the courage to be willing to examine your beliefs and set them aside in favor of new and improved ideas and beliefs. If faith is trust in the belief, or the concept, then beliefs would never change. Beliefs are supports for faith, like the temporary scaffolding on a building which can be changed in order to do new work where and when required.

For instance, I have faith in the reality of God with my person, yet, my beliefs about God have shifted over the course of my life. It is my faith that rests in the unknown that allows me to hold my beliefs lightly, unlike the "true believer" whose faith is so weak that fight tooth and nail to preserve their beliefs. I see that as the opposite of faith. Faith in reality, is simply a trust in the unknown, that which is beyond one's beliefs. It is not trust in one's current beliefs as the OP claimed. Faith is rather a sense, an intuition, while the mind does not know conceptually.

Beliefs are like the leaves on the tree of faith. The leaves come and go with the seasons, but the tree remains alive. That's faith in the deeper religious sense of the word, not this "trust in belief" notion. If it is "nothing more than trust in belief", then what exactly is it that seeks for new understanding? What is it in us that seeks to grow and expand our understanding, and change those beliefs? According to his definition of faith as "trust in belief", faith would mean we have stopped seeking any understanding at all. That is a distorted view of faith, a caricature, a strawman.

 

[Audie]

I'll take this as you asking the question then? I'll explain. Simply put, someone can and does change their beliefs through faith. Faith is what gives you the courage to be willing to examine your beliefs and set them aside in favor of new and improved ideas and beliefs. If faith is trust in the belief, or the concept, then beliefs would never change. Beliefs are supports for faith, like the temporary scaffolding on a building which can be changed in order to do new work where and when required.

For instance, I have faith in the reality of God with my person, yet, my beliefs about God have shifted over the course of my life. It is my faith that rests in the unknown that allows me to hold my beliefs lightly. Faith in reality, is simply a trust in the unknown, not trust in one's current beliefs. Faith is rather a sense, an intuition, while the mind does not know conceptually. Beliefs are like the leaves on the tree of faith. The leaves come and go with the seasons, but the tree remains alive. That's faith, not this "trust in belief" notion.

"trust in belief" or not may be a matter of semantics.
Lets drop that phrase.

Thanks for the polite post. No call for jousting.

Simply put, someone can and does change their beliefs through faith.

Interestingly, we both are saying the same thing there,
but seeing the implications as opposite.

Are you saying that rather than faith coming
from belief, the belief is based on faith?

As I understand it, you are making a choice
to have faith, is that not so? And of course.
believing / choosing to believe that the choice
is the right one.

Faith is rather a sense, an intuition,

You are talking about feelings here, rather
than logic, are you not?

Please clarify these points so I will know
if am going the right way.

 

[Windwalker]

Simply put, someone can and does change their beliefs through faith.

Interestingly, we both are saying the same thing there,
but seeing the implications as opposite.

Are you saying that rather than faith coming
from belief, the belief is based on faith?

I would say yes, but with some qualification. If faith is actually active, then we build up beliefs as support structures for faith. We have to have some conceptual frameworks, some type of symbolic model for the mind to be able to relate experience to in order to translate it into something meaningful for the mind. A healthy faith can and does stay alive and grow and improve when one allows their belief structures to be examined and revamped as needed for the changing needs of the person, or group. I would see it somewhat like changing the colors of the spots on your fur to better adapt to the environment for the sake of survival. It is the survival impulse, that which leaves one open to adaptation that is a measure of the strength of faith. A truly mature faith, actually seeks out to shake the leaves of that tree loose for the benefit of new growth, and the infusion of more nutrients to the root system. The root system is faith, the leaves are beliefs which open, collect light, then die off for new leaves to come in in the next season of the tree's life.

When someone lacks faith, then beliefs become the all-important thing. Their sense of stability and security rests in their ideas, and thus their ideas must be "right", correct, true, authoritative, etc, to the point of near-infallibility because without them, their worlds fall apart. "If you tell me that God's promises in the Bible to me aren't what I believe, then I may as well just go on a shooting spree if there is no truth". You see? That's not faith. Faith rests in the unknown. The "true believer" rests in their ideas of truth, and they must be right at all cost, because there is nothing else then. Using the tree analogy, it's like a plant that is reaching into sand to hold itself in place as it stretches its leaves out to collect sunlight. The root system is fragile, and a simple strong wind will rip it free from its base. The leaves is all they have to keep it alive, and so defend the leaves with all you've got, because it is all you've got. Hence, the "true believer" is no depth, no faith. Only beliefs.

As I understand it, you are making a choice
to have faith, is that not so?

I actually don't think so. I liken faith to that innate urge of a plant to reach for sunlight, cracking through concrete sidewalks in order to live. It is an impulse which reaches deep into life itself, and impels us towards being and becoming. The foliage which collects light stand in service of that system. I believe everyone by virtue of being alive has faith at this level. Some grow better suited foliage for the environment they are in. Which is why I say that atheism is actually in support of faith. It's beliefs are better suited to help that plant survive in a modern world, where the types of plants that grew in other environments had leaves better suited for that environment, the theistic, anthropomorphic God leaves. It's all the same thing actually, even if the leaves look entirely different to the casual observer.

And of course.
believing / choosing to believe that the choice
is the right one.

We can and do choose our beliefs, yes. Those are choices.

Faith is rather a sense, an intuition,

You are talking about feelings here, rather
than logic, are you not?

It is different than logic, yes. I'd caution calling it "feelings" per se, as I think it is deeper than that. It is deep "knowing" without knowing cognitively. Feelings can vary, emotions are responses to faith, but not what define what faith actually is. It's what comes before ideas and beliefs, which are really just tools to help try to connect the mind with the heart, so to speak. Faith is about the 'heart', or the 'soul', which is before and beyond emotions. Beliefs are about the cognitive mind with its supporting logic. But they do not exist in pure isolation, but inform each other in a nonlinear way.

Please clarify these points so I will know
if am going the right way.

Hopefully this makes some sense as to what I'm getting at. I'm sure I can at some point find a more succinct way to express this.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Windwalker, post: 5719309, member: 41917"

Are you saying that rather than faith coming
from belief, the belief is based on faith?


I would say yes, but with some qualification. If faith is actually active, then we build up beliefs as support structures for faith.

When someone lacks faith, then beliefs become the all-important thing. Their sense of stability and security rests in their ideas, and thus their ideas must be "right", correct, true, authoritative, etc, to the point of near-infallibility because without them, their worlds fall apart.

Faith rests in the unknown. The "true believer" rests in their ideas of truth, and they must be right at all cost, because there is nothing else then.


As I understand it, you are making a choice
to have faith, is that not so?

I actually don't think so. I liken faith to that innate urge ............ I believe everyone by virtue of being alive has faith at this level. ......Which is why I say that atheism is actually in support of faith.


It's beliefs are better suited to help .....survive in a modern world,


We can and do choose our beliefs, yes. Those are choices.

You are talking about feelings here, rather
than logic, are you not?



It is different than logic, yes. I'd caution calling it "feelings" per se, as I think it is deeper than that. It is deep "knowing" without knowing cognitively.


Hopefully this makes some sense as to what I'm getting at. I'm sure I can at some point find a more succinct way to express this.[/QUOTE]

I tried to succinctify it for my own use.

Did I leave out anything vital?

If not, I will go with a response to that part.

I left that thing about the infallibles in,
but not to go into further than to say that
we see so many whose hard rigid and
presumably brittle shell depends on
being right no matter what.

 

[Skwim]

I know what a strawman is.

Then why do you use it incorrectly?

You said, "Keep in mind that faith is nothing more than trust in belief".
Who defined faith like that? You?

Actually, it comes from page 171 of Religious Belief and the Will, by Louis P. Pojman. Ever have a class in philosophy? Heck, have you ever picked up a book on philosophy and read it? My guess is, No.

In reality, faith is much more than that, and a whole lot deeper than that silly definition you created. What makes this a strawman, is that you just created your own enemy, stuffed a soldier's shirt with straw, pull your sword, and swiftly dispatch with your "enemy" of straw. It's not a real opponent however, but one you created and defined with your own mind which you then do battle with to impress the would-be damsels in distress with your prowess as an intellectual warrior. Congratulations on your empty victory.

So, can actual faith, not your strawman faith definition, be rationally held? The answer is yes. Faith welcomes truth and knowledge, and the kind of truth which often will devastate one's own beliefs in the service of faith. Now, let's see if you can engage with the actual soldier on the field of valor rather than the one you stuffed with straw, along with your subsequent jeers at the audience members who called out your "battle" as simply a charade of your own manufacture.

Boy, I really stepped on your toes this time. Sorry about that. . . . . . . well, kind of. Actually, I was hoping to get people thinking a bit, but what the heck a person can only do so much.

Have a good day

.

 

[Kenny]

Hardly a clever retort, but what the heck, I'll take what I can get. In any case, what reality is that, Ken?

.

The problem here is that we want to "separate" what is indivisible. You can make a distinction in application but it is the same faith.

The answer to your OP:

You can have irrational faith in application in the natural realm as you can have irrational faith in the spiritual realm... but it is still faith. The natural and the spiritual can have a distinction but they are indivisible.

You can also have rational faith in application in the natural realm as in the spiritual realm.

 

[Skwim]

The answer to your OP:

You can also have rational faith in application in the natural realm as in the spiritual realm.

Okay, but how about explaining the nature of rational faith in the spiritual realm, which I take to mean religion. Aside from being self serving, in what way is such faith rational?

.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think nearly everyone has a rationale for what they choose to place their faith in. What they don't have is proof in advance that their choice is correct. Because that's what faith is: trust in advance of any proof, that what one hopes and/or believes to be so, will be so. This is NOT an irrational course of action when sufficient evidence is not available to determine and choose a reasonable course of action, and when some course of action must nevertheless be chosen and embarked upon.

We should look for evidence before we decide on a faith. Sometimes it is external, sometimes it is internal, such as the effect that the Word on God has on us.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ironically the entire TOS premise was that Spock didn't grow as a character until he realized the utility of emotion and thus became more human.

I feel this is a pretty specious. Saying that Spock didn't "grow as a character" until he developed emotion is to posit that "emotion" is better to have than whatever Spock had in its stead prior to that. Within the plot of the series, this is an entirely human contrivance that is meant to flatter humans specifically, and therefore draw the audience (an audience known to be human, and known [on average] to enjoy being flattered) further in to enjoyment of the show.

In other words, imagine a real Vulcan society, with their own, logically-based television programming. I could easily see them writing in an emotional, erratic-type character who "grows as a character" when they finally reach a state of realizing the utility of being logical, and thus becoming more Vulcan. Is emotion/faith/[whatever] objectively better than something else? Is it known to be objectively good to practice or maintain many states in moderation?

As humans, we like to feel and portray ourselves as a sort of paragon of life - and so we tend to romanticize many of the things that we humans tend to partake in as "good," but do we even know for sure that that is the case? We're humans. That doesn't necessarily mean "good," and it doesn't necessarily mean that, objectively, anything we do is the best thing to be doing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I feel this is a pretty specious. Saying that Spock didn't "grow as a character" until he developed emotion is to posit that "emotion" is better to have than whatever Spock had in its stead prior to that. Within the plot of the series, this is an entirely human contrivance that is meant to flatter humans specifically, and therefore draw the audience (an audience known to be human, and known [on average] to enjoy being flattered) further in to enjoyment of the show.

In other words, imagine a real Vulcan society, with their own, logically-based television programming. I could easily see them writing in an emotional, erratic-type character who "grows as a character" when they finally reach a state of realizing the utility of being logical, and thus becoming more Vulcan. Is emotion/faith/[whatever] objectively better than something else? Is it known to be objectively good to practice or maintain many states in moderation?

As humans, we like to feel and portray ourselves as a sort of paragon of life - and so we tend to romanticize many of the things that we humans tend to partake in as "good," but do we even know for sure that that is the case? We're humans. That doesn't necessarily mean "good," and it doesn't necessarily mean that, objectively, anything we do is the best thing to be doing.

Yep, it's utopianist humanocentric theming. Welcome to Gene Rodenberry. xD A character growing and developing while still not holding to the humanist ideals the Federation has was done several times in later Star Trek works, but it was far and away outside the intention of the creator. For what it's worth, anyway, DS9 is my favorite.

 

[ChanaR]

Yes,

Firstly religious faith is first built on experience not different than other things in life. People experience a sense that there is meaning in life apart from the materialistic world. Call this a sense of the divine. We may interpret that sense differently, whether it is mana, or pantheism, or monotheism, or whatnot. And there are those whose Divine radar is broken just as there are those born blind or deaf. Nevertheless we can say that this sense of the Divine is a universal trait among human beings. We either trust our senses, or we succumb to the belief that we are all insane and we can no longer function.

Secondly it is reasoned from probability. When something is probably true, it is not a for sure thing that it is true, which is why it takes faith, but it's a good gamble. Human beings do this ALL THE TIME. Why shouldn't we then do this with religion?

 

[Windwalker]

I tried to succinctify it for my own use.

Did I leave out anything vital?

If not, I will go with a response to that part.

That was awesome! Thanks. I think it covers most of what I would say nicely. Sorry to put you to the effort. I think I do need to refine my thoughts more concisely.

I left that thing about the infallibles in,
but not to go into further than to say that
we see so many whose hard rigid and
presumably brittle shell depends on
being right no matter what.

Yes, it's a fascinating topic worth exploring on its own sometime!