How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

[Cephus]

It's not 'blind' faith. There is a spectrum between 'blind faith' and 'proof'. In a subject where the word 'proof' in the mathematical/scientific sense doesn't exist, one must take all the evidence and argumentation and determine their most objectively reasonable position.

Of course it's blind faith. Did you read the difference I provided? One can be independently verified. The other cannot. One can be shown to be correct, the other has to be believed without any possibility of independent validation.

Come up with a way to objectively and independently demonstrate the claims made by religion and I'll agree it isn't blind faith.

 

[JustWondering]

We have faith in our bank, faith in our home, in our friends and family... the opposite of faith is fear, mistrust, disbelief... imagine a life where you did not trust anything or anyone.

Faith in organizations, businesses, and people in our lives based on experience is much different from faith in invisible supernatural forces/beings.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course it's blind faith. Did you read the difference I provided? One can be independently verified. The other cannot. One can be shown to be correct, the other has to be believed without any possibility of independent validation.

Come up with a way to objectively and independently demonstrate the claims made by religion and I'll agree it isn't blind faith.

Is this not a logical statement; Based on the evidence I believe XYZ is the most reasonable position but I don't have proof.

 

[Cephus]

Is this not a logical statement; Based on the evidence I believe XYZ is the most reasonable position but I don't have proof.

It depends on the evidence. What most theists call evidence is, in fact, just opinion. It isn't objective, it's an emotional leap from an unjustified and non-demonstrable experience. That's not evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

It isn't objective, it's an emotional leap from an unjustified and non-demonstrable experience.

Objectivity requires the study of human experiences and objectively considering all possible explanations, normal and paranormal, and determining the most reasonable position on what is going on.

 

[Cephus]

Objectivity requires the study of human experiences and objectively considering all possible explanations, normal and paranormal, and determining the most reasonable position on what is going on.

No, actually, objectivity requires separating one's position from their personal experiences. The definition of the word is " not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

 

[Willamena]

To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

What distinguishes you from skeptics?

 

[JustWondering]

What distinguishes you from skeptics?

Skeptics as I understand require evidence before accepting any claims as fact. Since I require evidence before accepting any claims about supernatural beings/forces I am a skeptic about supernatural beings/forces.

 

[AllanV]

I disagree, faith in a supernatural belief system does not require evidence (or what I would consider evidence anyway). If faith in supernatural belief systems required actual evidence, different faiths could be actually tested and scrutinized to discern the correct belief system. I don't see that happening. I don't foresee it happening.

Faith having evidence is there for a believer not a non believer. There is enough evidence now for everyone but it will not believed for what it is.

 

[AllanV]

We have faith in our bank, faith in our home, in our friends and family... the opposite of faith is fear, mistrust, disbelief... imagine a life where you did not trust anything or anyone.

Yes and as time goes on the evidence would increase or diminish faith.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
The word is an enlivened word a Rhema and indicates a deepening relationship as faith increases giving a really strong indication.
A commitment to seeking must be taken seriously.

 

[AllanV]

Skeptics as I understand require evidence before accepting any claims as fact. Since I require evidence before accepting any claims about supernatural beings/forces I am a skeptic about supernatural beings/forces.

I am a skeptic of Christians' commitment because I have interacted with them and they are no different in their general approach to life they just take the label Christian. When some of them talk, even the leadership it is as though they hate God. Now and then someone will come out as an Atheist. The energy coming off their hearts and from their inner being can be any thing from false, forced or showing imbalance.

I was told once by a pastor that every one was let in and it was a test of faith. But weak faith needs greater evidence and does not need to be eroded further.

 

[George-ananda]

No, actually, objectivity requires separating one's position from their personal experiences.

Correct. And it's not my experiences but the experiences of many others that I objectively consider.

The definition of the word is " not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Correct.

 

[Glaurung]

To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

The question of faith is simply to ask yourself whether or not you feel an obligation towards belief. My faith is not a blind acceptance of an arbitrary proposition, but the result of long contemplation and the acknowledgement that I feel moved towards the belief in God. There is no article of reason that is contrary to this, only the instance of ideologues such as yourself.

There is no amount of reason that will 'prove' God, but I accept this as a limitation of human reason and not as an excuse to abandon the obligation to faith given to me by God. (As tempting as it can be at times) Of course, the misuse of faith by those who use it as a cover for outright irrationality are definitely worthy of criticism, but that's another question.

By faith I do not claim certainty, I claim trust in God despite the lack of it. And that's actually far harder than atheistic nihilism ever was.

 

[Cephus]

Correct. And it's not my experiences but the experiences of many others that I objectively consider.

But you cannot, by definition, objectively consider the experiences of others because you can no more test those experiences than you can test your own. All you can do is listen to the claims presented. You cannot prove that any of the claims are actually so. Therefore, you can employ your personal feelings in the matter, making your evaluation immediately subjective.

 

[Augustus]

Being beneficial or not has nothing to do with being rational or not.

It has plenty to do with being beneficial.

How do you define rational?

 

[Augustus]

Which is entirely irrelevant. You can make the same claims about racism and sexism and all manner of other xenophobic beliefs, they clearly have provided a positive personal and societal benefit or they wouldn't have lasted so long, yet we don't accept that these are sufficient reason to keep them around today. Just because the belief makes someone feel good doesn't make the belief true. If all you're going to argue is utility, that religious beliefs are good because they are useful, then you really cannot argue against racism on the same basis.

A very facile analogy.

Religions are complex collections of rules, philosophies and knowledge that have evolved over thousands of years, racism is a narrow attitude/behaviour. Being less racist would not fundamentally change the world, becoming less religious would.

Never said it makes anything true either, simply that its longevity and ubiquity offers pretty strong evidence for its utility. On that basis, it is not irrational to be religious.

 

[Kolibri]

Faith as I wish to approach it here is how the Bible defines it, as anything else that comes after this definition is subject to this premise.

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration (or "convincing evidence.") of realities that are not seen."

So, by this definition Biblical Faith involves 2 things
1. a title deed to our hopes.
2. convincing evidence that unseen things are real.

By that definition it can truly be said that "faith is not a possession of all people." (2 Thess 3:2b)
But by definition, that sort of faith would be very valuable and rooted in reason.
It is not an emotional conversion though emotions are very much tied into our hopes and the things we care about.

The Bible relates at least two things that will help a person build faith, if that is what they wish.
1. Observing creation.
2. Observing the effect of following the Bible's practical wisdom.

1. "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." - Rom 1:20
....."Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." - Hebrews 3:4 (Which is more complex - our homes or our bodies?)

2. "Taste and see that Jehovah is good; Happy is the man who takes refuge in him." - Ps 34:8 (Of the five senses, taste requires us to internalize to experience by making it a part of us.)

Going beyond that, there are ways to be convinced (claim faith as per this definition), that the Bible is really the word of at least a God. Three such ways could be...
1.Though not a science text book, when touching on physical science it would always prove accurate.
2. It's practical wisdom would, by following it, prove subjectively to always be reliable.
3. When it claims to foretell the future, it would always have proved much more accurate than the weatherman who tells us it will rain tomorrow. (There may even be evidence that the book was written before the fulfillments via archeology and other written records.)

I consider what I have is faith. It satisfies my need and allows me to trust in someone about what is best for me in the long run and not just what I may want.

 

[McBell]

It has plenty to do with being beneficial.

How do you define rational?

"based upon logic and or reason"

I do not define rational as "that which is beneficial".

 

[idea]

Faith in organizations, businesses, and people in our lives based on experience is much different from faith in invisible supernatural forces/beings.

Trust based on experience is not faith, and I understand that many people do have a hard time having faith in anything or anyone. I guess I am an optimist, I prefer to hope for the best, to expect progression and growth in people despite what experience has shown their ability to be.

Quick story - I once lost our family dog, we put up signs all over the neighborhood, and everyone was calling us about every stray mut within 20 miles of us... so I was roaming an open space area checking out yet another stray dog report to see if it was ours... so I run into these two lost dogs (not mine), and they are growling and backing away from me. They have collars on,and I know their owners would appreciate me returning them home, just as I would appreciate someone else returning our dog home. I brought a leash with me, and I was hiding it behind my back, contemplating if I was willing to chase them through the forest or not, if I was willing to be bit or not, when the prompting comes to me "just invite them to go on a walk!" So, despite what I saw - their outward signs of hostility & mangy fur - I smiled, called out to them in a friendly voice, showed them the leash,and invited them to go for a walk with me. When I showed faith in them, they showed faith in me. We had a nice walk together, and I was able to return them to their owner. ... Anyways, I've come to think having faith in others - despite what I see or experience - is the best route to take in life. I think there is an unseen force for good out there, call it supernatural or not. I think there is more good in people than we can see or experience, at least I know most of my good intentions and deeds go unnoticed, and I suppose others' good deeds go unnoticed too... so I prefer to have faith in the unnoticed and unseen.

Yes and as time goes on the evidence would increase or diminish faith.

Yes, living with an attitude of faith brings experiences which change faith into a sure knowledge.

 

[George-ananda]

But you cannot, by definition, objectively consider the experiences of others because you can no more test those experiences than you can test your own. All you can do is listen to the claims presented. You cannot prove that any of the claims are actually so. Therefore, you can employ your personal feelings in the matter, making your evaluation immediately subjective.

I can objectively consider all possible explanations, normal and paranormal, and determine which is most reasonable when all things are considered. One again I am not talking 'proof' but most reasonable position.

And some of these phenomena claim anomalous physical events and knowledge of information that could not be known through 'normal' channels. I look for patterns in numerous cases and consider all possible explanations. This is how objective detective work is done.

My personal objective assessment is that things almost certainly happen that do not fit in a materialist/physicalist worldview. You may call an objective assessment 'subjective' but that is all any of us has on subjects not amenable to proof/disproof.