"Faith requires no proof."

[tarasan]

Yes we do. People often take offense to my statement. Irrational==Without evidence or reason. That does not necessarily make it a bad thing. Faith can often be good.

this is what you said

"Faith, by definition is irrational. Why would it require proof?"

firstly faith can definatley be rational so if your going to using that definition then sadly you are wrong, also faith can also be based on evidence, for example I have faith my parents will take care of me because they always have, no I dont know that my parents will take care of me but i definately have evidence there to support it.

i think you shoul ammend your definition by adding in the word "conclusive"

 

[Zadok]

I don't see the difference between your two examples. I mean, we technically don't know that the Bible isn't the infallible word of God either, now do we?

I consider myself a person of "faith" but I find you statement about the Bible quite irrational. The "Bible" itself encourages faith in what is written in one's heart rather that what is written with the pen or even what is written (by the finger of G-d) in stone.

Zadok

 

[DeitySlayer]

we have faith the Earth will be here tommorow
we have faith we will have a Job
we have Faith in our relationships, friendships etc.

However, tarasan, these statements are based on the logical extrapolation of past trends and careful consideration of probabilities and our knowledge of the world.

We have 'faith' the Earth will be here tomorrow. The Earth has been here for the past 4.5 billion years. We can observe no major disruptances in the planet that would signal a sudden apocalypse tomorrow. We know from observation of other planets that they do not vanish into nothingness spontaneously. There is reason behind this statement.

We have 'faith' we will have a job. In the current economic climate, not many do. However, those that do, do so because they know they have skills which are hard to replace. This is a reason why they believe they will have a job.

'Faith' in relationships and friendships is based on extrapolation of the nature of the relationship/friendship in the past.

What is 'faith' in God based on?

 

[Zadok]

I can see how you could argue that faith isn't necessarily irrational, but I don't see how you could argue that it is the most rational choice ever.

I think we agree but are getting cought up in terms. In all things a person is considering - their most rational choice is the expression of their faith. Whenever there is a difference in what two individuals have faith in - it is because one is considering something that the other is not. That may not seem rational to the other but until we understand this principle we will never understand another's faith.

Zadok

 

[tarasan]

However, tarasan, these statements are based on the logical extrapolation of past trends and careful consideration of probabilities and our knowledge of the world.

We have 'faith' the Earth will be here tomorrow. The Earth has been here for the past 4.5 billion years. We can observe no major disruptances in the planet that would signal a sudden apocalypse tomorrow. We know from observation of other planets that they do not vanish into nothingness spontaneously. There is reason behind this statement.

We have 'faith' we will have a job. In the current economic climate, not many do. However, those that do, do so because they know they have skills which are hard to replace. This is a reason why they believe they will have a job.

'Faith' in relationships and friendships is based on extrapolation of the nature of the relationship/friendship in the past.

What is 'faith' in God based on?

on the relationship that people have with him, that people have felt close to said creator(s) and through his messages in whatever they are, like what you have said, people have stated that these experiences that they have had with teh devine have shown them that he is true. Now we cant prove said things however we have been convinced of them through our life experiences.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

this is what you said

"Faith, by definition is irrational. Why would it require proof?"

firstly faith can definatley be rational so if your going to using that definition then sadly you are wrong, also faith can also be based on evidence, for example I have faith my parents will take care of me because they always have, no I dont know that my parents will take care of me but i definately have evidence there to support it.

i think you shoul ammend your definition by adding in the word "conclusive"

merriam-websters dictionary defines faith as a strong conviction or belief in something, especially without proof. Rationality demands proof. Therefore faith is not rational. Faith may be a good thing, but it is not rational. I hope you understood what I am trying to get across without getting offended.

 

[Eliot Wild]

However, tarasan, these statements are based on the logical extrapolation of past trends and careful consideration of probabilities and our knowledge of the world.

We have 'faith' the Earth will be here tomorrow. The Earth has been here for the past 4.5 billion years. We can observe no major disruptances in the planet that would signal a sudden apocalypse tomorrow. We know from observation of other planets that they do not vanish into nothingness spontaneously. There is reason behind this statement.

We have 'faith' we will have a job. In the current economic climate, not many do. However, those that do, do so because they know they have skills which are hard to replace. This is a reason why they believe they will have a job.

'Faith' in relationships and friendships is based on extrapolation of the nature of the relationship/friendship in the past.

What is 'faith' in God based on?

This is an excellent point.

I suppose I must amend my former position a bit, at least to the regard that I probably need to admit there are different types of "FAITH". There is faith that is born of "rational extrapolation", as DeitySlayer puts it. And there is also faith that is born of something else, perhaps "HOPE".

Perhaps as well, there are more types of faith which are grounded in other reasons too.

But I still stand by my personal conviction that any type of faith is misguided and misapplied when it is irrational.

 

[Zadok]

....
What is 'faith' in God based on?

The hope, belief, rational or faith that there is something in the universe of greater intelligence, enlightenment and more understanding of justice than man.

Zadok

 

[tarasan]

merriam-websters dictionary defines faith as a strong conviction or belief in something, especially without proof. Rationality demands proof. Therefore faith is not rational. Faith may be a good thing, but it is not rational. I hope you understood what I am trying to get across without getting offended.

im not offended dont worry i just dont see how your getting this from teh definitions that websters states let me pull one up,


The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.Faith, that is, fidelity, - the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason.

this one gives us a direct look at probable evidence, like I said before,

in fact in all 7 variations only one distinctly says the definition that you are talking about.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Rationality demands proof.

I respectfully disagree.

One can be rational and make a good guess. One can engage in rational speculation. One can have rational expectations. An expectation is something looked for but without absolute knowledge that it will occur.

I believe Faith can be based on rational expectations and/or rational considerations.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how a perfect being could possibly utilize a medium for communicating divine knowledge that is so fallible and imperfect. The written word--Language--is a fallible medium. Language undergoes severe changes overtime--over short periods of time, as a matter of fact. Words take on new meanings. New words are processed into languages all the time and old words disappear completely.

If a Divine Being were going to communicate his Divine Knowledge and Law to mankind, I believe it would be through a less changing and less infallible medium, like mathmatics.

It is merely my personal perspective, but I see a belief in human language as communication from God to be irrational.

All you are saying is that you find it hard to believe that God would use the Bible as his mode of communication. You have no proof that he didn't, just as you have no proof that he exists or not. I just don't see how you could say one is rational while the other is irrational.

I consider myself a person of "faith" but I find you statement about the Bible quite irrational. The "Bible" itself encourages faith in what is written in one's heart rather that what is written with the pen or even what is written (by the finger of G-d) in stone.

Zadok

I'm not talking about your personal beliefs. Eliot Wild claimed that since we really don't know wether God exists or not, it's perfectly rational to have faith that he does. He then went on to say that it was irrational to believe that the Bible was infallible. This is just introducing a personal bias into the assesement. We don't know that the Bible is infallible or not, just as we don't know that God exists or not.

I guess you could say that it is something that we base our life on.

we have faith the Earth will be here tommorow
we have faith we will have a Job
we have Faith in our relationships, friendships etc.

to be honest if you think about we have USE much more faith in our lives than we do knowledge.

Although to be honest I thnk he should rephrase his statement to be a little more modest

But it is not the "faith" part that makes it rational-- its the reasons, or the evidence, you have to create that faith, which makes it a rational stance to hold.

For example, I have faith that on July 4th, at least somewhere in the U.S., there will be fireworks, because fireworks are the way that Americans celebrate July 4th, and I have experienced this for the past 23 years of my life.

This faith is rational because of my reasons strongly support it.

Now, say I have faith that there will be fireworks on July 4th because my dog told me that there would be.

I would say that this faith is not rational, because it is extremely unlikely that my dog would know this information and that he could communicate it with me.

The only thing that changed between the two faiths were the reasons supporting it.

 

[Zadok]

merriam-websters dictionary defines faith as a strong conviction or belief in something, especially without proof. Rationality demands proof. Therefore faith is not rational. Faith may be a good thing, but it is not rational. I hope you understood what I am trying to get across without getting offended.

I hope that you do not find my response offensive but - you have come to a most irrational conclusion because you have faith in something most irrational. One will never learn a new thing until they are willing to consider something that has not been proven yet. Faith is the first rational step to better understanding. Proof may be a necessary step to knowledge but faith must exist to even consider a quest for proof.

Zadok

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

im not offended dont worry i just dont see how your getting this from teh definitions that websters states let me pull one up,


The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.Faith, that is, fidelity, - the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason.

this one gives us a direct look at probable evidence, like I said before,

in fact in all 7 variations only one distinctly says the definition that you are talking about.

Let me help you out with the link: Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Eliot Wild]

All you are saying is that you find it hard to believe that God would use the Bible as his mode of communication. You have no proof that he didn't, just as you have no proof that he exists or not. I just don't see how you could say one is rational while the other is irrational.


I'm not talking about your personal beliefs. Eliot Wild claimed that since we really don't know wether God exists or not, it's perfectly rational to have faith that he does. He then went on to say that it was irrational to believe that the Bible was infallible. This is just introducing a personal bias into the assesement. We don't know that the Bible is infallible or not, just as we don't know that God exists or not.

You are absolutely correct. I freely admit my assessment of Biblical fallibility is a personal perspective. But I believe my assessment, while subjectively based, is correct. One might say that I have FAITH it is correct.

But I also base this belief on certain inconsistencies and historical errors I find in the Bible. I just didn't want to turn this into a debate over Biblical accuracy. But I believe there is enough evidence to support the assertion that the Bible is fallible, and hence cannot be the product of an infallible author.

But again, I will admit to this being a personal perspective. I suppose I am saying, I personally believe people who place faith in the Bible as the infallible word of God to be irrational, but I don't want to have that argument here.

 

[tarasan]

Let me help you out with the link: Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

hmmmm so tell my that definition is better than the one I gave, especailly since if you look at the webster site I went on it totally gave you a more wholistic view of what Faith ment.

 

[Eliot Wild]

You are absolutely correct. I freely admit my assessment of Biblical fallibility is a personal perspective. But I believe my assessment, while subjectively based, is correct. One might say that I have FAITH it is correct.

But I also base this belief on certain inconsistencies and historical errors I find in the Bible. I just didn't want to turn this into a debate over Biblical accuracy. But I believe there is enough evidence to support the assertion that the Bible is fallible, and hence cannot be the product of an infallible author.

But again, I will admit to this being a personal perspective. I suppose I am saying, I personally believe people who place faith in the Bible as the infallible word of God to be irrational, but I don't want to have that argument here.

Actually, let me amend/clarify my point. I don't believe everyone who places faith in the bible to be irrational, at least I don't think they are full-blown crazy. But I personally believe such a belief to be irrational.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I hope that you do not find my response offensive but - you have come to a most irrational conclusion because you have faith in something most irrational. One will never learn a new thing until they are willing to consider something that has not been proven yet. Faith is the first rational step to better understanding. Proof may be a necessary step to knowledge but faith must exist to even consider a quest for proof.

Zadok

Again, I am not arguing that faith is a bad thing, just that it is irrational.

How is faith required to learn something new? Can you give me an example other than god?

 

[Zadok]

....

I'm not talking about your personal beliefs. Eliot Wild claimed that since we really don't know wether God exists or not, it's perfectly rational to have faith that he does. He then went on to say that it was irrational to believe that the Bible was infallible. This is just introducing a personal bias into the assesement. We don't know that the Bible is infallible or not, just as we don't know that God exists or not.

...

I find it most interesting that you imply that you have faith that the Bible is infallible and to demonstrate you point - you reference a man. I express my faith in the Bible (but not that the bible is infallible) and I reference the Bible. Sometimes I believe a person expresses a false faith; saying they have faith in something but demonstrate that their true faith is really in something else. This I believe is not rational and tends to give some a misleading and misunderstanding of real religious faith.
Zadok

 

[Eliot Wild]

I don't believe everyone who places faith in the bible to be irrational, at least I don't think they are full-blown crazy. But I personally believe such a belief to be irrational.

Earlier, when I first used this example as "irrationally-based faith", perhaps I should have chosen a better one. Falvlun caught me and he gets frubels for it. My example could have been better chosen.

I was merely trying to make the distinction between what I saw as two different types of faith, one based on rational considerations and another type based on irrational beliefs.

Perhaps I should have said something like . . . Since there is no proof that God doesn't exist, faith in His/Her existence is not necessarily irrational. However, Faith that Leprechauns created the universe with toy Lincoln Logs is a bit irrational.

If somebody asks me to prove the universe WASN'T created by Leprechauns with Lincoln Logs . . . Well, you got me there too . . . I can't do it. But I still believe such a belief to be irrational.

 

[Zadok]

Again, I am not arguing that faith is a bad thing, just that it is irrational.

How is faith required to learn something new? Can you give me an example other than god?

Why should someone go to school and learn mathematics? Do electrons really exist? What is just? Do we really know? Have we really proven everything we think we know or are we pursuing, by faith, what others may tell us and what we think are the most logical course we can imagine in life?

Zadok