Can Faith Be Rational?

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Then lets use a different framework.

But faith is completely rational. Why? Because where empirical evidence can’t go, it’s not unreasonable to believe on it in faith. Let’s say, for example, you’re making any kind of a decision …Lets say start a business. You can do all the research, the sums and bring in all the evidence that shows it can work. And yet if you’re still asking the question …will I be able to ensure this business will survive for the next thirty years? You’re never going to have the full answer. Now, you can be an agnostic and doubt the effort one put into obtaining and confirming the evidence.” But the data that shows for certain the future survival of the business will never come in. If you wait the business may never start. So you put in all the effort and resources you can, and the leap of faith is a completely rational bridge from knowledge to action."

RegardsTony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then lets use a different framework.

But faith is completely rational. Why? Because where empirical evidence can’t go, it’s not unreasonable to believe on it in faith.

It's completely unreasonable, actually. When empirical evidence isn't enough to lead to a conclusion, the reasonable thing to do is to say "I don't know," not to arbitrarily decide that the answer you want to be true really is true.

Let’s say, for example, you’re making any kind of a decision …Lets say start a business. You can do all the research, the sums and bring in all the evidence that shows it can work. And yet if you’re still asking the question …will I be able to ensure this business will survive for the next thirty years? You’re never going to have the full answer. Now, you can be an agnostic and doubt the effort one put into obtaining and confirming the evidence.” But the data that shows for certain the future survival of the business will never come in. If you wait the business may never start. So you put in all the effort and resources you can, and the leap of faith is a completely rational bridge from knowledge to action."

You're conflating probabilistic decision-making with faith. They aren't the same.

Try going into your bank for a business loan. When you show them your business plan, they'll ask how you developed your revenue projections; tell them "they're based on faith" and see what happens with your loan.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's completely unreasonable, actually. When empirical evidence isn't enough to lead to a conclusion, the reasonable thing to do is to say "I don't know," not to arbitrarily decide that the answer you want to be true really is true.


You're conflating probabilistic decision-making with faith. They aren't the same.

Try going into your bank for a business loan. When you show them your business plan, they'll ask how you developed your revenue projections; tell them "they're based on faith" and see what happens with your loan.

You would not go for a loan if you did not have faith that the effort you put into concluding your results, would attract a positive result.

That is also how Faith works.

Regards Tony

 

[stvdv]

The closest example I know is Pascal's Wager. There are criticisms of this, of course, but the basic idea (from the Wikipedia page is):

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)

Thanks, I did not know Pascal's wager

When people questioned my Master I used to answer "If He is a fraud I lose not much and learned a lot, but what if He is true, and I rejected Him"

Maybe I was Pascal in a previous life

 

[stvdv]

Can faith be rational? If so, how? If not, why not?

Some have faith in surgeons and dentists, and others add God to the list.

If God works for me, would it be rational to take God of the list?
Would you say I am rational if I take surgeons of my list?

 

[crossfire]

hilosophical

blather, blather, blather. Try reading me with at least minimal comprehension before you begin preaching, CF,

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.

I'm going to try one more time convey my understanding of your points and add what I feel is missing:

I do agree with you that intuitions based upon unconscious understanding/pattern recognition are, by definition, non-rational. (Being that they originate in the unconscious mind.)

When these intuitions are brought from the unconscious mind are brought into the conscious mind, the conscious mind will do its best to rationalize the content. Some are more skillful and accurate than others in doing this.

One method of increasing the accuracy of these intuitions parallells the scientific method of falsification via the application of doubt and testing the interpreted message in order to refine the roughly rationalized translation. The application of doubt to these intuitions and the testing of of these intuitions parallels the rational scientific method of making sure theories are falsifible and can be tested to see if they need further refinement, or if they (scientific theories or philosophical {in the sense of love of wisdom} rationalizations appear to be a faithful representation of the gathered data.

Just as a scientific theory that is rigorously tested and vetted gains credibility, so can the rationalized interpretations of unconscious intuitions be rigourously tested by doubt, and gain credibility as to being a faithful representation of the unconscious content thereof.

Scientific applications, especially technological applications, need to maintain a degree of controls in place to filter out chaotic content from the universe in order to be useful. A technological application will often set tolerance variations as a guideline to keep the application useful. Without these various controls in place, chaotic interference may cause wide variations in the desired results. One might say that good faith in technological applications is directly related to the skillfulness of the controls in place to keep the results within a range of useful tolerence.

So, what are you left with after thorough vetting of the theory and its technological application? You are left with putting your faith in the controls designed to keep the chaos at bay. The universe is quite adept at producing enough chaos to require regular maintence of the controls in order to kick the can down the road and delay the inevitable impermanence that will eventually come.

Now, to transfer this into psychological terms: how does your mind compare to the universe in its ability to produce chaos and order? How skillful can you be at keeping the chaos at bay? Just trying to sit in Zazen can be a useful tool in gauging just how much faith you have in your ability to do so and comparing your actual ability to do so.

From Great Faith arises Great Doubt. From Great Doubt comes Great Awakening.

 

[atanu]

Can faith be rational? If so, how? If not, why not?

I think yes. When faith means complete trust or confidence, it cannot be just based on belief. For example, I have understood rationally (supported experientially) that what is true in my existence is true timelessly. I have understood with conviction the error in the materialistic world view. So, is my conviction, my faith in self rational or irrational?

OTOH, one can have so-called confidence on oneself or on an object, or a thought -- most likely that confidence will be found short-lived.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The closest example I know is Pascal's Wager.

Epicurus said something else. Epicurus - Wikipedia

 

[KT Shamim]

Can faith be rational? If so, how? If not, why not?

Faith *must* be rational. Common sense and religion must go hand in hand.

 

[Skwim]

Faith *must* be rational. Common sense and religion must go hand in hand.

Thing is, common sense and religion don't go together. Need and religion do, Power and religion do, but not common sense and religion.

.

 

[Augustus]

Can faith be rational?

Depends what you mean by 'rational'.

Is it rational to hold 'irrational' beliefs that provide tangible benefits?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can faith be rational? If so, how? If not, why not?

I'll assuming you mean the religious version of "faith" and not the colloquial use of the term, wich is more like "confidence" or "reasonable expectations based on previous experience".


It's easy really.

Just ask the question: is there any position that you couldn't hold, based on faith?
It seems to me that the answer is "no".

On faith, you can believe contradictory things.
Person X believes on faith that hinduism is correct.
Person Y believes on faith that christianity is correct.

One of both necessarily has to be wrong.

This means that faith is not a pathway to truth.
Therefor, invoking faith as a foundation to accept a claim - any claim -, is irrational and unreasonable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I flip the light switch, I have faith that the light will turn on (barring a burnt out bulb or power outage.) However, I can't know for sure that the light will turn on when I flip the switch, I can only know for sure after I flip the switch.

No, sorry.

What you have, is a reasonable expectation that light will go on. And this expectation is reasonable, because it is loaded up with evidence. Because you know what lightbulbs are. You know what electricity is. You pretty much know and understand how wiring works. You understand this process so well, that you also know and understand what can go wrong with it. You understand that the lightbulb needs replacing after a while - so that's one way the light might not turn on. There might be a blackout, meaning you won't be able to feed electricity in the the bulb. Etc. You understand these things so well even, that you can give reasonable estimates of what the chances are that such will be the case when flipping the switch.


Religious faith, is nothing even remotely like that.

I can't discern anything irrational about having faith the light will come on when I flip the switch.

Because you have loads of evidence and understanding of what happens when you flip that switch.
And also because you use "faith" here in a very different way then a theist would when invoking it in context of his religious beliefs....

So, if the OP question concerns religious faith, then this post contains an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If a mountain climber has faith in his abilities, and faith in his equipment, it is generally built on a logical understanding.

Because Paul created "the faith" which is a belief Christ died for you, where they're basically told to not question the authenticity of the convictions; unfortunately that has also caused much of the rest of the religious world to do the same.

Faith comes from practise, so a mountain climber practises, and gains more faith in his skills; for some religious people they also have a practise, thus they feel it gives them more certitude, the more time they've invested.

Rationality comes from being able to question the belief logically; where we can detach our faith which is our trust in our heart, and our belief which comes from a mental construct (idea) in the brain
.
There is a divide of religious values that apply faith/trust into a person, like a cult; which have a hard time looking at rationally, as only ourselves can save us ultimately.

True religion should be a moral compass that should be built on logic; to ultimately want to place all of our trust/faith into it.

In my opinion.

Speaking as an ex-mountaineer, I would say it was more about assessment than faith. We tend to do that which is within our capabilities and/or experience, and when we do push ourselves we tend to know it - and are grateful when we succeed - also accepting of our failures too. Our equipment we tend to trust knowing that it has been tested and is on sale because of this (marked with a suitable stamp). Faith is left at the bottom of the mountain - for me at least.

 

[crossfire]

No, sorry.

What you have, is a reasonable expectation that light will go on. And this expectation is reasonable, because it is loaded up with evidence. Because you know what lightbulbs are. You know what electricity is. You pretty much know and understand how wiring works. You understand this process so well, that you also know and understand what can go wrong with it. You understand that the lightbulb needs replacing after a while - so that's one way the light might not turn on. There might be a blackout, meaning you won't be able to feed electricity in the the bulb. Etc. You understand these things so well even, that you can give reasonable estimates of what the chances are that such will be the case when flipping the switch.


Religious faith, is nothing even remotely like that.



Because you have loads of evidence and understanding of what happens when you flip that switch.
And also because you use "faith" here in a very different way then a theist would when invoking it in context of his religious beliefs....

So, if the OP question concerns religious faith, then this post contains an equivocation fallacy.

How much knowledge of electricity does a two year old have? A two year old certainly can understand how light switches work and what happens when you flip them, and can have faith that the lights will turn on or off with just a flip of the switch. (Some tots have put so much faith in this that they will throw a tantrum if you keep them from playing with the light switch or if the lights don't turn on or off as expected for some reason.) The fact that parents often need to put child proof safety plugs into their electrical outlets to keep the children from putting stuff in them demonstrates that a tiny tot's faith that the lights will turn on when you flip the switch is not dependent upon their understanding of electricity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How much knowledge of electricity does a two year old have? A two year old certainly can understand how light switches work and what happens when you flip them, and can have faith that the lights will turn on or off with just a flip of the switch. (Some tots have put so much faith in this that they will throw a tantrum if you keep them from playing with the light switch or if the lights don't turn on or off as expected for some reason.) The fact that parents often need to put child proof safety plugs into their electrical outlets to keep the children from putting stuff in them demonstrates that a tiny tot's faith that the lights will turn on when you flip the switch is not dependent upon their understanding of electricity.

Not only two-year-olds!

WARNING! DO NOT TRY THIS - ESPECIALLY IN THE UK (where the voltage is 240v - and usually lethal)

At a young age, but probably old enough to know better, I once got on a stool and pushed the prongs in on a light fitting (nothing happens until you do) and of course got an electric shock. That certainly taught me all about electricity. Not the only time too.

 

[crossfire]

Not only two-year-olds!

WARNING! DO NOT TRY THIS - ESPECIALLY IN THE UK (where the voltage is 240v - and usually lethal)

At a young age, but probably old enough to know better, I once got on a stool and pushed the prongs in on a light fitting (nothing happens until you do) and of course got an electric shock. That certainly taught me all about electricity. Not the only time too.

I'm sure you are not the only one. I distinctly remember repeatedly sticking my finger in the outlet just for the thrill of it before I turned two years old.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why don't you think about it, is that rational?

To me it is. I simply don't. It's rational if one is not attached to relative reality.

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.

Faith has little to do with it. If it happens, it happens. All experience death of the body. I don't understand why one would worry about it or spend much time thinking about it. I see no point in having faith that I might be immune to it. I will continue on after my body dies.

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.

Friendships end for many reasons, often as a result of succumbing to one's ego, but always upon temporal death. I'm not sure why you're equating love with friendship here. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, there are differences. Friendships end. Marriages end. Most wedding vows acknowledge that the marriage is dissolved a temporal death.

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.

So instinct is based on faith and not logic?

 

[Sunstone]

Depends what you mean by 'rational'.

Is it rational to hold 'irrational' beliefs that provide tangible benefits?

Obviously, not in all cases. Would it be rational to believe in the irrational notion that black people are racially inferior if doing so benefited one's sense of self-worth, meaning, or purpose in life? i think not. Some other criterion besides "it benefits me" would be needed to warrant saying that believing in an irrational belief is rational.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How much knowledge of electricity does a two year old have?

How about we don't include infants that don't even have the ability of proper reasoning, to the point that they think that my face physically disappears when I play the piekaboe game with my hands?

A 2-year old is not really the bar against which rational reasoning is measured.


If anything, 2-year olds are a fine example of how blind belief without proper evidence or understanding, are not pathways to truth. You can pretty much make them believe anything.