Is Faith reasonable?

[Carpenter Rabbi]

yes but that is the point, the agreement/contract you have with an employer gives you faith that you can work all month and expect to get paid at the end of it.

faith is based on knowledge of the facts...the facts in this case are the contract of employment which stipulate the terms of payment.

That's called "reasonable expectation", from what I've heard (something like that at least). It requires evidence. Faith usually doesn't, and when it does it often isn't called faith.

 

[Skwim]

do you work all week and ask your boss for the money before you start work, or do you have faith that you will be paid at the end of the week or month?

And that goes to the core of the difference between belief and faith. Belief is an acceptance as true that which lacks evidence. Faith is belief accompanied by trust.

 

[waitasec]

do you work all week and ask your boss for the money before you start work, or do you have faith that you will be paid at the end of the week or month?

i have the belief that i won't get paid until i see it deposited in my checking account.

 

[Pegg]

That's called "reasonable expectation", from what I've heard (something like that at least). It requires evidence. Faith usually doesn't, and when it does it often isn't called faith.

that is a fallacy. Faith does require evidence. The bible even describes faith as something that requires evidence:

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld

the 'evident demonstration of realities' are what form the basis for belief. The record of Gods dealings are the 'demonstration of realities'. When the Isrealites crossed the red sea, that was a demonstration of reality that God was guiding them...they could put faith in him because of what they had seen and witnessed.

so their faith was based on the facts. They knew what God could do and even if something he promised was for the future, they knew from past experience, that God could do it. That is faith based on facts.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

that is a fallacy. Faith does require evidence. The bible even describes faith as something that requires evidence:

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld

the 'evident demonstration of realities' are what form the basis for belief. The record of Gods dealings are the 'demonstration of realities'. When the Isrealites crossed the red sea, that was a demonstration of reality that God was guiding them...they could put faith in him because of what they had seen and witnessed.

so their faith was based on the facts. They knew what God could do and even if something he promised was for the future, they knew from past experience, that God could do it. That is faith based on facts.

Other versions have that verse saying "the evidence of things not seen" but it conveys the same idea that you have posted here. Now, when I was a Christian, I was always taught that faith itself was the "evidence" or "evident demonstration", not that faith requires evidence. Most Christians would say that faith requires no objective, logical, or scientific evidence, and that the only evidence required is that which is found in the Bible.

 

[Pegg]

And that goes to the core of the difference between belief and faith. Belief is an acceptance as true that which lacks evidence. Faith is belief accompanied by trust.

you know what the statesman Francis Bacon once stated:

“Man Prefers to believe what he prefers to be true"

so yes, you are right, faith is more about trust and reliance then it is about belief alone.

 

[Pegg]

i have the belief that i won't get paid until i see it deposited in my checking account.

which would be the 'evident demonstration of realities'

from that point on, you know you will be able to get that money out of your account.

Same with faith in God...it is based on facts.

 

[Pegg]

Other versions have that verse saying "the evidence of things not seen" but it conveys the same idea that you have posted here. Now, when I was a Christian, I was always taught that faith itself was the "evidence" or "evident demonstration", not that faith requires evidence.

this is where many churches fail to instill true faith in the believers. Faith should be based on knowledge and understanding...if it has no factual basis, it will likely not inspire a christian to exercise and grow in faith.

for example, if you want faith in Gods ability to provide for you, you need to look at the facts of how God provides for his earthly creatures. If you want to build faith in the resurrection, you need to know all the ways God has shown that he can restore life to the dead....if you have knowledge of all the resurrections that have occured, your faith becomes more sure.

Paul stated: “faith follows the thing heard.”—Ro 10:17 so knowledge must come first, then faith will follow.

Most Christians would say that faith requires no objective, logical, or scientific evidence, and that the only evidence required is that which is found in the Bible.

i think a lot get confused about faith. Faith is our trust and assurance in Gods promises....we haven't seen all his promises come to fulfillment yet. But it is faith that makes me confident that they will become a reality in the future.

for example, the resurrection has not yet happened, but i know it will happen because God has promised it. And i know his promises are true because we have a record of how he has fulfilled many of his past promises.

So really, my faith and my belief is based on the facts of past events. It is just like a friend who you know very well and they promise to do something for you...if you trust that person it is likely because they have a good record of being trustworthy and honest and true to their word. You dont need to doubt them when you know them so well.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

for example, the resurrection has not yet happened, but i know it will happen because God has promised it. And i know his promises are true because we have a record of how he has fulfilled many of his past promises.

So really, my faith and my belief is based on the facts of past events. It is just like a friend who you know very well and they promise to do something for you...if you trust that person it is likely because they have a good record of being trustworthy and honest and true to their word. You dont need to doubt them when you know them so well.

Up until this point in your post, I was just reading your explanation. But here is where I have the problem come in at. The part I put in bold, this is something that would require faith in what is written, yes? But this faith does not require reason, because reason tells us that resurrection, of the type described in the Bible, does not happen. So, you have to have faith, not based on reason, in a supernatural event that, by definition, is outside the bounds of reason. So, in the Bible definition of faith in Hebrews 11 that you quoted earlier, your explanation was that faith required evidence, however, this evidence itself requires faith, not reason, in order to accept. So if we go back to the title of the thread, "Is faith reasonable", I would have to conclude, from this, that the answer is no. This leads us to the part I have underscored. And this ties in to what I have just said. The "facts" of these past events are supernatural occurrences, that have no basis in reason by definition, written in a book that requires faith, again, not based on reason, in order to accept to be true. Other than faith in said book, the Bible, I have yet to see the reason in it.

The part in red. How many times have you prayed, and god has answered? How many times have you seen god come through on a promise he made in the bible to those who believe in him? Like most believers, you would probably answer, quite a bit. However, how many times has the opposite been true? Most Christians either don't pay any attention to the times god has failed them, or find some way to rationalize it. Now, if the ratio is majority in favor of god's trustworthiness, then fine. However, from 30 years personal experience, god ever rarely came through for me on prayers and promises. So, for me, it is irrational to accept faith in god or the Bible. For you, that is different. Maybe god is kinder to you, and cares more about you. The point I'm trying to make is this: this is all just subjective. There's nothing objective to this. Reason requires more than just subjective experience. And, this is all faith is. Faith, by definition, is a belief held to something that has no rational basis, and to me, the only reason why a person would hold to faith, is because of personal experience.

 

[Pegg]

Up until this point in your post, I was just reading your explanation. But here is where I have the problem come in at. The part I put in bold, this is something that would require faith in what is written, yes?

what has been written is simply a record of events and facts. The bible is certainly the basis of our knowledge of God, but if we look at the bible simply as a story book, then sure i can understand what you are getting at.

Its necessary to make an inquiry of the bible itself and determine if it is legitimate or not. When i started studying i first wanted to know about the bible itself, who wrote it, how we know it is true, why should i believe it, is it historical and is there evidence to support it, who were its writers and why can it be trusted....these are questions that certainly should be asked of any book claiming to be from God. If you study these things and are satisfied that it is a book from God, then you have a firm basis for what is written in there.

But this faith does not require reason, because reason tells us that resurrection, of the type described in the Bible, does not happen. So, you have to have faith, not based on reason, in a supernatural event that, by definition, is outside the bounds of reason.

Under normal circumstances yes. The miracles in the bible are, by their very nature, not normal or natural events. The only reason why they occurred at all is because the creator intervened and demonstrated his power to those present.

The miracles are what established the faith of the Isrealites in the wilderness. The miracles proved that God was the one who was behind the events. For those who witnessed such events, they were based on the facts of what they had seen and heard at that time.

So, in the Bible definition of faith in Hebrews 11 that you quoted earlier, your explanation was that faith required evidence, however, this evidence itself requires faith, not reason, in order to accept.

Faith has nothing to do with belief or reason. Faith is a separate thing which has to do with 'trust'. Why did the isrealites come to have faith in God? Because they saw with their own eyes that God is real, that he has power and he uses his power to save, to heal, to feed etc etc.

Faith follows the things heard.

The part in red. How many times have you prayed, and god has answered? How many times have you seen god come through on a promise he made in the bible to those who believe in him? Like most believers, you would probably answer, quite a bit. However, how many times has the opposite been true? Most Christians either don't pay any attention to the times god has failed them, or find some way to rationalize it. Now, if the ratio is majority in favor of god's trustworthiness, then fine. However, from 30 years personal experience, god ever rarely came through for me on prayers and promises. So, for me, it is irrational to accept faith in god or the Bible. For you, that is different. Maybe god is kinder to you, and cares more about you. The point I'm trying to make is this: this is all just subjective. There's nothing objective to this. Reason requires more than just subjective experience. And, this is all faith is. Faith, by definition, is a belief held to something that has no rational basis, and to me, the only reason why a person would hold to faith, is because of personal experience.

God does not always give us what we ask for...not even me. The reason is because most of what we ask for we either dont really need, or we dont deserve, or we are not entitled to.

Even the apostle Paul begged God for something, and Paul admitted that he did not get it.
2Cor 12:7 Therefore, that I might not feel overly exalted, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, that I might not be overly exalted. 8 In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; 9 and yet he really said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.”

However, God has promised that if we put him first, he will supply our 'needs' alone. Putting God first is the key... but we cannot expect to live like kings and queens. We will not experience our hearts desires in this dying world
Matthew 6:33 “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these [other] things will be added to YOU

and if we keep living like this life is the only life, then we will not be content because God will not fulfill all our desires in this world. He does promise to fulfill all our desires under his own kingdom rulership...but we have to wait for that time to arrive.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

what has been written is simply a record of events and facts. The bible is certainly the basis of our knowledge of God, but if we look at the bible simply as a story book, then sure i can understand what you are getting at.

Its necessary to make an inquiry of the bible itself and determine if it is legitimate or not. When i started studying i first wanted to know about the bible itself, who wrote it, how we know it is true, why should i believe it, is it historical and is there evidence to support it, who were its writers and why can it be trusted....these are questions that certainly should be asked of any book claiming to be from God. If you study these things and are satisfied that it is a book from God, then you have a firm basis for what is written in there.

Very good. This would be an excellent start to anyone wanting to be able to test the veracity of the Bible.

Under normal circumstances yes. The miracles in the bible are, by their very nature, not normal or natural events. The only reason why they occurred at all is because the creator intervened and demonstrated his power to those present.

The miracles are what established the faith of the Isrealites in the wilderness. The miracles proved that God was the one who was behind the events. For those who witnessed such events, they were based on the facts of what they had seen and heard at that time.

So, the miracles that were performed by god, since they themselves are outside the realm of reason, were what established the Israelites' faith that god was who he said he was, then this raises a question: if miracles help establish one's faith, then why does god not perform such awesome miracles today that he did in the biblical era? I've heard Christians answer this by saying, if god were to perform such a great miracle, like those in the Bible, then that would reduce faith. But, it seems to me, that god would be more willing to perform such a miracle in our day and age, seeing as how we are so scientifically advanced than our predecessors. And another point, if it wasn't a detriment to faith then, why now?

Faith has nothing to do with belief or reason. Faith is a separate thing which has to do with 'trust'. Why did the isrealites come to have faith in God? Because they saw with their own eyes that God is real, that he has power and he uses his power to save, to heal, to feed etc etc.

Faith follows the things heard.

This poses a real problem for me. Faith, or it's idea, according to Christians today, is to be possessed, not by seeing great and flashy miracles that cannot be explained, or by god showing himself to people, because then this would not be faith. While I agree, it would be hard to not accept something that one has seen with their own eyes, and has been examined and proven to be, beyond a doubt, the hand of god, as it were. However, and again I reiterate my last point, why was god so quick to show himself all throughout the Bible, and today, not barely a word?

God does not always give us what we ask for...not even me. The reason is because most of what we ask for we either dont really need, or we dont deserve, or we are not entitled to.

Even the apostle Paul begged God for something, and Paul admitted that he did not get it.
2Cor 12:7 Therefore, that I might not feel overly exalted, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, that I might not be overly exalted. 8 In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; 9 and yet he really said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.”

I won't disagree with this.

However, God has promised that if we put him first, he will supply our 'needs' alone. Putting God first is the key... but we cannot expect to live like kings and queens. We will not experience our hearts desires in this dying world
Matthew 6:33 “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these [other] things will be added to YOU

and if we keep living like this life is the only life, then we will not be content because God will not fulfill all our desires in this world. He does promise to fulfill all our desires under his own kingdom rulership...but we have to wait for that time to arrive.

What do you consider a need? A place to live, even a safe place to live? Especially if you have a family? Food to eat? A job to pay your bills? A marriage to stay together, for the family not to be torn apart? Would you consider these needs? If so, if you can consider these needs, if you can read the Bible and say that god gives these basic needs and necessities to those who seek him, who put him first, then I take issue. Would god allow two loving parents to lose their home, their job, and watch as their little girl suffers? And this while the parents are busy crying out to god? Is this the love of god? And actually, I'm going to stop there, because I can feel the anger rising in me. And yes, that was me. So, if that's the best that god can do, then I have no need for him, I can do better by myself. And now I'll shut up before I say something (not toward you, but god), that might get me in trouble.

 

[Pegg]

So, the miracles that were performed by god, since they themselves are outside the realm of reason, were what established the Israelites' faith that god was who he said he was, then this raises a question: if miracles help establish one's faith, then why does god not perform such awesome miracles today that he did in the biblical era?

when God first came into contact with the Isrealites, they didnt really know him. they were the descendents of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, but they had not known God in the way their forefathers had known him. They had been born into egypt as slaves and they had no formal religious instruction apart from some oral traditions handed down from generation to generation.

So God used Moses to establish true worship on the earth...to give Isrealites a formal way to come to know him and to worship him. When Moses was chosen for the task, he didnt even know the God who was speaking to him....he asked for his name and then he asked for proof. God gave him proof in the form of miracles. So its quite normal for us to seek proof, however, once proof is established, then like in a court of law, the case is established by the facts and a judgement can be made.

it was the same with God and the Isrealites. God showed them the proof, and what they had witnessed was enough proof for them to accept God based on those facts.

The last time God established his truth by means of miracles was in the first century (1600 years after he established it with Isrealites) through Jesus and his apostles...and like the Isrealites, the proof back then was sufficient enough to establish the Christian congregation and start the ball rolling.

For us today, there is proof by way of prophecies which we can see coming true in our day. But we are not quite at the point when we will once again see the proof with our own eyes... for now we need to look to other forms of proof such as the fulfillment of prophecy.

I've heard Christians answer this by saying, if god were to perform such a great miracle, like those in the Bible, then that would reduce faith. But, it seems to me, that god would be more willing to perform such a miracle in our day and age, seeing as how we are so scientifically advanced than our predecessors. And another point, if it wasn't a detriment to faith then, why now?

seeing miracles does not necessarily give a person faith...it would certainly make a person 'believe' but faith runs deeper then mere belief. Would you believe in God if you saw a miracle? Perhaps. Would you put your trust in him? Not necessarily.

The bible says
James 2:19 You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder
Have the demons seen Gods miracles? Yes. Have they seen his power? Yes. Do they put their faith in him? No.
Faith runs deeper then belief. Faith is about hope and reliance on God. The demons do not place their hope and reliance on God...they have turned against God and that is why they can believe in him but not have faith.

So God is not about to show a miracle to make people believe...he has already established a means to believe in him... he's given us plenty of evidence... he's looking for us to take up the reins so to speak and start trusting him.

However, and again I reiterate my last point, why was god so quick to show himself all throughout the Bible, and today, not barely a word?

all throughout the bible was a period of 1600 years. In some cases, the Isrealites heard nothing and saw nothing from God for several centuries...that could mean 3 or 4 generations of Israelites never saw anything to prove to them that God was real.
So he wasnt always quick to show himself....yet there were always Isrealites who did believe even though they had never seen anything themselves and there were always some who gave up their worship. What gave some the confidence that others lacked? It was the written record that instilled confidence in those who remained faithful...they put their trust in the written word of God even though they had never witnessed him personally.

its the same with us...we have the complete written record which, if we study it well, can instill in us the confidence to put our faith and trust in God.

What do you consider a need? A place to live, even a safe place to live? Especially if you have a family? Food to eat? A job to pay your bills? A marriage to stay together, for the family not to be torn apart? Would you consider these needs?

What Jesus said was that our basic needs are clothing food and shelter... he said:
Matthew 6:31 So never be anxious and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or, ‘What are we to drink?’ or, ‘What are we to put on?’ 32 For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. For YOUR heavenly Father knows YOU need all these things.

He never said that we wont have tribulations, trials and sufferings. These are the things common to all people, believers and non believers alike. God is not partial, so if he made a commitment to save each of his own people from all the trials of life, then he would be acting partially if he did not do the same for non believers. So he doesnt do that.

He doesnt save us from disasters or from sickness or persecution or tragic accidents in this world. But he does care for our basic needs.
Psalm 37:25: “I have not seen anyone righteous left entirely, nor his offspring looking for bread”!

 

[waitasec]

of course unfounded faith is reasonable...

why make decisions based on anything other than what god says

 

[punkdbass]

I think faith can be reasonable. But ultimately what makes something "reasonable" or not is entirely subjective.

We use the rules of logic to determine if something is reasonable or not.. but how do we know that the rules of logic are actually TRUE in reality? So if it is possible that the rules of logic aren't even true, then that would mean the question of whether or not something is reasonable is entirely subjective.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think faith can be reasonable. But ultimately what makes something "reasonable" or not is entirely subjective.

We use the rules of logic to determine if something is reasonable or not.. but how do we know that the rules of logic are actually TRUE in reality? So if it is possible that the rules of logic aren't even true, then that would mean the question of whether or not something is reasonable is entirely subjective.

We checked. We did experiment. We invented counterexamples. So far, logic has always worked.

 

[punkdbass]

We checked. We did experiment. We invented counterexamples. So far, logic has always worked.

Ha I know, it's just something I've been thinking about lately. I have a TON of faith in the rules of logic, and by no means am I questioning them.

But if you want to get super philosophical, how do we know that they are true? how can we know that the rules of logic actually exist in reality? Is it possible that in reality the rules of logic could actually be different?

I think logic, science, math, etc, all require faith to a certain degree, because their foundations all contain assumptions at some level. I think I'm going to make a thread about this

 

[URAVIP2ME]

of course unfounded faith is reasonable...
why make decisions based on anything other than what god says

Faith is being sure of the things we hope for.
We hope to see the friend that we have plans to meet together.
The basis or foundation for confidence in that friend showing up would have to be based on an accurate knowledge or confidence that we are making the right choice or decision to meet because we know that trusted friend well.

Why does a person think they can trust a friend and count on his word?
When we have a problem we know for sure we can count on that person to come to our aid because you have spent time with that friend.
You have known him for more than a day or two.
Your friend has proven his dependability time after time again and again.
Genuine religious faith produces that same hope and conviction of not being let down. Not just for the present but confidence in future dependability.

Such genuine faith is not credulity in which such a credulous faith is not based on reasoning on Scripture, but a readiness to be gullible and building a faith on shifting sands of emotion or even on superstition.
Jumping to conclusions seldom leads to happy endings.
Credulity [blind faith] can lead to jumping to wrong conclusions that are out of harmony with Scripture.
Genuine Bible-based faith does affect people lives and outlook.
So, like having faith in a trusted friend is genuine. Such faith is a like a strong chain with added links of confidence and trust that connect or binds us to God.

Bible faith does start with things heard [Acts 17v11], then, in turn, the things heard is through the word about Christ.- Romans 10v17.
Genuine faith is not acquired without effort. -Proverbs 2 vs1-9
Effort to discover for yourself as to be convinced that the Bible is reliable.
As a person thinks deeply or mediates on those things heard,
so that those things heard sink in deeply then faith grows.
-Romans 10v10
The 'things heard' from people that love as Jesus loved.
-John 13 vs34,35; 2nd Thess. 1v3

As Pegg nicely brought out about God's willingness to successfully guide or direct our steps, and also God's willingness to care for our needs.
Not only care for our daily physical needs [daily bread], but care for our spiritual needs now and right into the coming time of Jesus starting his peace-filled messianic 1000-year reign over earth.
Genuine faith gives us a fresh perspective on life, and more than just thinking God or Jehovah exists, but accepting with confidence in God's ability to act as a rewarder of those earnestly seeking God through prayer [Luke 11v13 B] and through the pages of Scripture.

- Colossians 1 vs 9,10

 

[Pegg]

I think faith can be reasonable. But ultimately what makes something "reasonable" or not is entirely subjective.

We use the rules of logic to determine if something is reasonable or not.. but how do we know that the rules of logic are actually TRUE in reality? So if it is possible that the rules of logic aren't even true, then that would mean the question of whether or not something is reasonable is entirely subjective.

thats a good point

the rules of logic do not hold true in the world of quantum mechanics.

 

[Tiberius]

i didn't imply that out purpose is the same as that of a white blood cell, nor is it the same as that of a rock or an asteroid.

are you telling me that rocks and asteroids have no purpose? do volcanoes, which we consider destructive, have no purpose?

i am not aware of anything that exists which doesn't have a purpose. if you know anything to the contrary tell me and if your reasoning is sound i will change my view.

First of all, my point was that if the universe was designed as a playground for humanity, as the Bible claims, then an asteroid on the other side of a distant galaxy has no purpose for that.

Secondly, the very word "purpose" implies that there is some intelligent entity that created it for that purpose. But if there is some intended purpose, what is the purpose for all those natural things like volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami etc that kill so many?

 

[Tiberius]

My faith is trust but verify. No verify, no trust, no faith. I have faith only in those things which exist, and I can verify that they exist or have existed. There are religions that teach that this world is only an illusion, yet I have found no evidence to support it. But at least I am still looking.

I like this. Very wise.