More like your failure to understand what I said kicking in.
-
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!
Can Faith Be Rational?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
More like your failure to understand what I said kicking in.
Ask yourself: are you really climbing up the ladder of understanding with one hand tied behind your back? If so, congratulations! However, I would not recommend tieing neither your hand of faith nor your hand of doubt behind your back when climbing the ladder of understanding. (Your mileage may vary!)
blather, blather, blather. Try reading me with at least minimal comprehension before you begin preaching, CF,
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Faith is rational but a fallen heart will not respond anyhow. That will take grace.
Please define "fallen heart" and "grace."
I see it is rational. I consider Dr Dinesh D’Souza’s response to the question of faith:
"...you ask if [faith is] scientific, and I would say no. Faith is not scientific. But faith is completely rational. Why? Because where empirical evidence can’t go, it’s not unreasonable to believe on faith. Let’s say, for example, you’re making any kind of a decision … whether to propose marriage. You bring in all the evidence you can. And yet if you’re asking the question … what will life be like with this woman over the next thirty years? You’re never going to have a full answer. Now, you can say, “I’ll be an agnostic and wait for the data to come in.” But the data will never come in. She’ll marry someone else, and you’ll both be dead. So you put in all the knowledge you can, and the leap of faith is a completely rational bridge from knowledge to action."
Thus confirms what Abdulbaha has written in my Faith;
"God has created man and endowed him with the power of reason whereby he may arrive at valid conclusions. Therefore, man must endeavor in all things to investigate the fundamental reality. If he does not independently investigate, he has failed to utilize the talent God has bestowed upon him."
Reason says, that becomes our choice.
Regards Tony
Pascal was a Catholic, approaching religion as a matter of orthopraxy. In his model, if you see to the sacraments and avoid mortal sins, that will be enough to keep God happy.
I agree that Pascal's Wager makes absolutely no sense in sola fide Protestantism, but there's no shortage of Protestants who try to use it anyway.
I'm thinking we each have a different definition of faith, as well as each of us having a different understanding of the function of faith.
Wow - what a ridiculous analogy. Is Dinesh D'Souza married? If so, I feel bad for his wife.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
(Because faith [I refer to faith in the God of the bible] has been so misrepresented, the following might seem ridiculous, but.. )
Yes -and TRUE faith is essentially no different than scientific method -EXCEPT that faith may tend to -or seem to -include more of what I call "unusual arrangements of ordinary things" which are not EASILY or READILY repeatable.
However, science actually does deal with such things -which is why we can have a very accurate idea about what happened at the initiation of our physical universe, when there is no possible way we can go back to the event or (at least presently) repeat it.
Faith not only involves unusual arrangements, but personalities who have decision-making ability -which means they must be willing to provide direct evidence of some things (their existence, abilities, etc.) -though the possibility of such can (arguably, as always) be arrived at logically.
Whether or not someone truly has faith in the biblical God in this time, it is important to note that most people hear of faith in him by reading about what are (described as, if you prefer at this time) the actual experiences of people who lived long ago. The "foundation" of all biblical faith came by a great many personal and group experiences, direct contact and demonstrations of power/ability.
The initial building block of scientific method is a hypothesis -based on prior knowledge -which is possibly incomplete concerning the subject of the hypothesis. Science, generally, may ALWAYS have incomplete knowledge -especially as new things can be/become arranged.
TRUE faith is no more blind than that -and CAN actually have better "vision" -because man alone increases in knowledge alone, and their collective knowledge is an unknown fraction of what may exist to be known at any time. God -essentially the sum of all things being -self-aware, and having been all previous states -is able to GRANT vision, knowledge, etc...
The same sort of thing can actually be true on a smaller scale. Some very knowledgeable/capable person or group may grant knowledge to others (but they can not always allow others to repeat their personal experiences) which can be applied (and allow others to have their own personal experiences). Once science has collected data accurately, it can be recorded -hopefully accurately, easily referenced, etc. -and we do not all have to do all of the initial work in order to apply it -though we SHOULD do some of the basic work so we have a better understanding and firm foundation as individuals.
Assume -for a moment -that the bible is completely accurate (at least basically -before people willingly or accidentally altered it -misconstrued it, etc.) -it would be exactly the same situation.
It is very understandable that the bible is not viewed as a scientific textbook is viewed -partly because scientists and readers of scientific literature tend more to not be wackos (religion/spirituality leaves a lot more room for being a wacko -and many wackos have been associated with the bible) -and because the subject matter deals more with non-human personalities and "super"natural events. However, that does not mean it is not an accurate record of events and experiences.
The main principle of biblical faith is belief in the existence of God. "To have faith, one must believe God exists and that he rewards those who diligently seek him".
It is gained by doing the following... "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"
It is also "from faith to faith" -one thing building on another.
"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith"
It may BEGIN in blindness -by reading scripture and wondering if it is true -just wondering if God exists, for example, but is actually becoming less and less blind. It takes the beginnings of faith to begin to seek God, but even that need not be blind. It is perfectly logical to see a necessity for some sort of "God" given what now exists -but it is at the very least logical to allow for the possibility (though, unfortunately, the antics of countless wackos have made it so the mere mention of God causes minds to clamp shut -at least about that subject -and faces to grimace).
Where TRUE faith differs from science, however, is in the fact that the components of reality in most of their varied arrangements do not themselves have a will (though it should be noted that our own "will" is by arrangement of precisely those things). "Faith" is in one who does have a will -and when one has the beginnings of true faith and seeks that one, that one becomes personally involved. Before that, one mostly has SIMPLE belief.
"Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you."
If one seeks God and has personal experiences as a result of God drawing near to them, such would not be "unscientific" -any more than if you had personal dealings with some knowledgeable and capable hermit who then left for parts unknown. You, however, might be able to reproduce and demonstrate what you were shown to others -whereas the one who sought God would have to convince others to also draw near to God before God drew near to them. (Though God does, at times, initiate contact in various ways -and started the whole thing even though he sometimes withdraws)
As one "lives by faith" -keeping the commandments of God, etc. -God directs their path and leads them through experiences which give them more and more reason to believe in various aspects of himself, his declarations of things to come, etc., -does reward them in various ways now -and makes himself known to them -sometimes by great and obvious things, sometimes by only tinges of the greater reality.
It should be understood, however, that God once dealt more directly with humans -and will again -so ALL will eventually have very obvious reasons to believe he exists -whether by experiencing what is written about the future in this time -or by suddenly being alive again after death and all that it entails.
{It is also true that faith in God is not simply belief in the supernatural -that miraculous things are possible, etc. -it is faith in "God" -as the most high, all-powerful, etc. -and in his absolute positive regard for you and your future (which does come by way of allowing temporary adversity, however [It seems logical to me that the "original" was necessarily "perfect" because he had to be in order to continue -not having the same buffers in place which allow us to err quite a bit before consequence). Supernatural things (not UN-natural, but presently beyond OUR ability and understanding) are very much possible -and very much do happen -but many seek or are drawn toward power rather than God and righteousness. God has employed many shows of power and ability in the past, but only as a beginning -to draw attention to what followed -which was the teaching of righteousness by word and direct personal -sometimes unpleasant -experience.}
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Active Member
The very definition of faith describes it as being a belief not based on proof, which makes faith irrational from my perspective.
Why don't you think about it, is that rational? Everyday there are thousands of ways you can die and in you sleep as well. It is rational to go through you daily routine without thinking about you vulnerabilities. You are a far better person then me and most people I know. They worry about things they see on the News but have faith it won't happen to them.
Why should a friendship have an end? Even if one of you dies does that mean the friendship doesn't exist. If your friend had family you would just abandon that family on his death or would your friendship make you keep in touch. Love and Friendship can last to the end of your life even if there's ended long ago. I guess you would need faith to understand this though.
If something is uncertain logic is not going to help. If you need an immediate choice on something you have no information on logic is not going to help. If you are in immediate danger logic tends to be to slow. Faith in yourself will be necessary to get through it. This is only rational.
No, we disagree.
How about having faith in an untested idea or theory. I know people who have faith in homeopathic remedies. Others have faith in seeing their family doctor. Are both scenarios about faith? Perhaps we consider having faith in seeing the family doctor not faith at all because they have training in medical science and supposedly give advice based on evidence. We consider faith in homeopathy faith as there’s no scientific evidence. Therefore the word faith becomes associated with no evidence.
What happens if whatever we once believed is now supported by scientific evidence or science appears to refute its truth?
leov
Well-Known Member
Anologies do not always work for all. The same thing can be given another framework.
Regards Tony
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
Imo, rational is in the eye of the beholder. Many people believe they are rational. Others would not agree. So, if a person has faith they are being rational, to themselves they are rational about their faith. It's hard to change that even if one would want to change it to another person's rationale.
Moz
Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
HI. I love this.
Vampires do exist.... No not the Bram stoker version but beings who use sex money and their priveldged position to suck the life out of all they encounter. I'm sure you can think of a couple right now. I could actually go for a couple of thousand words to fully explain some of the underlying truths in that story. Truths Stoker did not invent he was just reflecting on deeper thurhs, most of which come from the biblical stories our ancestors have been internalising for millenium. The vampiric architype is clearly biblical.
Leprachuans and santa as welll.
And bataman wow he is real. I know many batmen whose will is akin to a superpower. Their are many sources that flesh out the origin of the batman hero architype in western culture as being firmly rooted in Scripture. Particularly Moses. So..... no bible then maybe no batman. That would be sad.
I think many mock the wisdom of the past at their own peril. The evidence of authenticity is that those "stories" of Eden,Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob inform mankind of the fundemental lessons of sacrifice, humilty, courage, self sacrifice commitment, self introspection and dignity. Get rid of the Bible and then what.... Rationalism. Good luck with that.
Peace.
What framework?
As I understand D'Souza's analogy:
- he wanted a marriage that would look a specific way decades in the future.
- he realized that he had no rational basis to say whether that outcome would happen.
- using wishful thinking, he decides that this outcome will happen and uses that as the basis for his decision to marry.
That's ridiculous. Who does that? Who would say to their sweetheart, effectively, "I have a concept of how I want us to be from now until far into the future. I have no idea if you'll be able to fit into the box I've designed for you, but I'm going to insist that you fit into it regardless."
That's not a relationship based on love.
I suspect - or maybe just hope - that D'Souza actually loves and respects his partner, and the strained analogy was mostly fabricated so that it would be relevant to the point he wanted to make.