How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

[Augustus]

"based upon logic and or reason"

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

If someone holds a belief that gives them happiness and security and is beneficial for both themselves and society, would it be logical or reasonable to stop believing it simply because it is based on an epistemologically shaky premise?

 

[McBell]

If someone holds a belief that gives them happiness and security and is beneficial for both themselves and society, would it be logical or reasonable to stop believing it simply because it is based on an epistemologically shaky premise?

I never made any claim about continuing or stopping.
That is your strawman.
I am merely pointing out that an irrational belief doe snot become rational simply because the belief is beneficial.

 

[Augustus]

I never made any claim about continuing or stopping.
That is your strawman.
I am merely pointing out that an irrational belief doe snot become rational simply because the belief is beneficial.

And I am pointing out that following a belief system that is built on an epistemologically shaky foundation may be perfectly rational.

Religious people can be irrational, for example it is irrational to believe that the world is a few thousand years old, or to adopt an excessive scriptural literalism but it it not irrational per se to be religious.

 

[McBell]

And I am pointing out that following a belief system that is built on an epistemologically shaky foundation may be perfectly rational.

Religious people can be irrational, for example it is irrational to believe that the world is a few thousand years old, or to adopt an excessive scriptural literalism but it it not irrational per se to be religious.

then whats the problem?

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Your use of the word, "feel" (I bolded above) give the lie to the idea that your, "faith is not a blind acceptance of an arbitrary proposition, but the result of long contemplation." In the end you fall back on that most subjective of criterion, "feelings" a thoroughly irrational stance.

 

[Sapiens]

And I am pointing out that following a belief system that is built on an epistemologically shaky foundation may be perfectly rational.

Religious people can be irrational, for example it is irrational to believe that the world is a few thousand years old, or to adopt an excessive scriptural literalism but it it not irrational per se to be religious.

So where do you draw the line between the rational and the irrational. We agree that YEC is irrational, that scriptural literalism is irrational, well ... let's turn the question around, would you list a few things exclusive to that, "epistemologically shaky foundation" that are, in fact, perfectly rational, and that we might agree to as we do YEC and literalism?

 

[JustWondering]

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.

You have to believe to begin with before evidence magically appears? How convenient for you. I have yet to see any evidence to prove the supernatural exists. All "evidence" I've been presented with was extremely flimsy and could only be considered evidence if you wanted to believe to begin with. So the faithful's argument to believe eventually ends up being "you should believe because I believe and I obviously believe for a good reason I just don't have ANY evidence to support my position". Which is the basic argument for any supernatural belief system. So why should ANYONE believe one supernatural belief system to be true and discount all others when they have no evidence or facts to make a logical decision? Excepting a supernatural belief system to be true is based on emotion not logic and reason and is therefore irrational. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

A rational person needs evidence before accepting extraordinary claims to be true.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Nothing virtuous about faith it just means you are willing to trust unseeingly untrustworthy people or things.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

So you are not certain the Abrahamic god actually exists? If you are certain this god exists how did you come to this conclusion. What do you think your beliefs would be today if you were born into a culture that worshipped a different god? Would you have still believed in the Abrahamic god?

 

[AllanV]

You have to believe to begin with before evidence magically appears? How convenient for you. I have yet to see any evidence to prove the supernatural exists. All "evidence" I've been presented with was extremely flimsy and could only be considered evidence if you wanted to believe to begin with. So the faithful's argument to believe eventually ends up being "you should believe because I believe and I obviously believe for a good reason I just don't have ANY evidence to support my position". Which is the basic argument for any supernatural belief system. So why should ANYONE believe one supernatural belief system to be true and discount all others when they have no evidence or facts to make a logical decision? Excepting a supernatural belief system to be true is based on emotion not logic and reason and is therefore irrational. Thank you for proving my point.

I know exactly what you are saying. I lived my young life fully with some freedom. I had no indication of anything supernatural and didn't slow down long enough to think about it, or would have known what to think about in the first place.

At 24 years old I bought some rural bush covered land and lived with my wife and baby son without power or phone. I quit my job and lived for two years from savings and part time work.
I simply had a dream one night and it came into my thoughts the next day while quietly doing some wood work.
I gradually became energized to the point where my knees buckled and there was trouble breathing. My mind was opened up to another mind with unlimited knowledge and I knew God was true instantly.
God is very close and is like an observer just a little deeper and beyond the mind that is usually thought from. It is as though all of creation is a mist with a clothing of light. God makes everything that is seen appear at every instant. God is an energizing Spirit.
It lasted 5 seconds. My first words were " the stupid ********" as I understood the ignorance and deception being perpetrated on this planet. That "b" word means fatherless children of course.
I thought perhaps this is what Christians are about, I found a small pocket Bible and read it constantly.
That was the beginning point. For three years whole concepts came into my thoughts.
Religion, alternative technology many areas were explored and people met.

I can not deny what happened and many have tried to re interpret what happened.
Therefore the faith I have has evidence for me at least.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

Really, so the magic ritual described in Numbers 5:15-29 and divination using Urim and Thummim are scientific? Several verses in the bible suggest that the earth is set upon pillars and the sun circles the earth. I'm sure further delving into the bible will reveal even more "accurate" insights on physical science.

2. It's practical wisdom would, by following it, prove subjectively to always be reliable.

You mean like the rules on how to sell off your daughter or marry her off to her rapist?

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.)

Please provide a prophecy from the bible that can be obviously substantiated from non-biblical sources.

 

[AllanV]

A rational person needs evidence before accepting extraordinary claims to be true.

Of course that's true we all try to hold ourselves in a rational state and some of that is because there is a worry of what others will think. I got over that when I was young.

 

[JustWondering]

I know exactly what you are saying. I lived my young life fully with some freedom. I had no indication of anything supernatural and didn't slow down long enough to think about it, or would have known what to think about in the first place.

At 24 years old I bought some rural bush covered land and lived with my wife and baby son without power or phone. I quit my job and lived for two years from savings and part time work.
I simply had a dream one night and it came into my thoughts the next day while quietly doing some wood work.
I gradually became energized to the point where my knees buckled and there was trouble breathing. My mind was opened up to another mind with unlimited knowledge and I knew God was true instantly.
God is very close and is like an observer just a little deeper and beyond the mind that is usually thought from. It is as though all of creation is a mist with a clothing of light. God makes everything that is seen appear at every instant. God is an energizing Spirit.
It lasted 5 seconds. My first words were " the stupid ********" as I understood the ignorance and deception being perpetrated on this planet. That "b" word means fatherless children of course.
I thought perhaps this is what Christians are about, I found a small pocket Bible and read it constantly.
That was the beginning point. For three years whole concepts came into my thoughts.
Religion, alternative technology many areas were explored and people met.

I can not deny what happened and many have tried to re interpret what happened.
Therefore the faith I have has evidence for me at least.

The human brain is a complex organ but fallible. Every religion and extraordinary belief system has people who experienced something unexplainable that verified their beliefs.

Since this other mind had unlimited knowledge did you come away with some kernel of knowledge that can be substantiated but was previously unknown to anyone.

 

[AllanV]

The human brain is a complex organ but fallible. Every religion and extraordinary belief system has people who experienced something unexplainable that verified their beliefs.

Since this other mind had unlimited knowledge did you come away with some kernel of knowledge that can be substantiated but was previously unknown to anyone.

Yes I have.

 

[Cephus]

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.

But utility really has no bearing on fact. Anything can have utility to the individuals involved. Racism can be said to have longevity and ubiquity and be useful for the people who practice it, that doesn't mean that we ought to value it. I'm looking at the overall value to the whole of society and whether or not it can be defended intellectually, rather than emotionally.

Religion simply cannot.

 

[Cephus]

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.

And how can you do that when you have no way of measuring all of the "possible explanations"? How do you make the determination that the supernatural is more likely than the natural? How do you decide that a god is a better explanation than aberrant brain chemistry? You cannot make these determinations for experiences that you, yourself have, how can you possibly think that you can do it for experiences described to you by others?

The only rational answer one can have to these things that you claim are not amenable to proof/disproof is "I don't know". If you cannot examine these things rationally, you cannot make a determination at all. Being uncomfortable with not knowing is not a license to just make something up. That seems to be all you and other theists are doing though. Inventing answers doesn't make them defensible answers.

 

[Cephus]

If someone holds a belief that gives them happiness and security and is beneficial for both themselves and society, would it be logical or reasonable to stop believing it simply because it is based on an epistemologically shaky premise?

Yes, it would be both logical and rational to reject any position for which there is no objective evidence. Your happiness has no bearing on reality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes, it would be both logical and rational to reject any position for which there is no objective evidence. Your happiness has no bearing on reality.

That is just more of that stereotypical emotionless mr spock reasoning.

Evidence is the point of objectivity. By requiring evidence for everything you are rejecting subjectivity altogether.

 

[Cephus]

That is just more of that stereotypical emotionless mr spock reasoning.

Evidence is the point of objectivity. By requiring evidence for everything you are rejecting subjectivity altogether.

But the claim here was that he was being objective. I pointed out that he wasn't. There is a time and a place for emotion and a time and a place for subjectivity. Being able to recognize where these things fit and where they do not is an important part of the maturation process.