What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[Willamena]

True for SOME axioms, such as Euclid's which aren't knowledges.

My examples though are examples of knowledges -- absolute ones.

There are only three true axioms:
- existence exists
- consciousness
- identity

Axiom

Edit: Axioms are the foundation of knowledge. Knowledge is what springs from them.

 

[blackout]

Faith is always "believing in the unseen," that's basically what it is --whether it be something induced (like cause and effect) or something guessed at. Faith is always without proof, but never without evidence, with only two exceptions, the two things for which there cannot be evidence: "God", and "an objective reality".

Even "believing" in, or "heeding"...
or even simply not discrediting "The Seen"
will be considered un'evidenced tripe by some.
(if they don't approve of the way in which you Saw it)

 

[Willamena]

Even "believing" in, or "heeding"...
or even simply not discrediting "The Seen"
will be considered un'evidenced tripe by some.
(if they don't approve of the way in which you Saw it)

Brilliant! Just so.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you follow the ST: Enterprise series, this becomes abundantly clear.

As far as I'm concerned, the events and characters from Enterprise never happened. That's how much that series sucked.

Why oh why must Star Trek twist the knife of our collective fanboy sexual frustration with characters like T'Pol and Seven of Nine? :sad4:

Hey, just convince yourself that it never happened.

 

[Jeremiah]

A world full of reason but void of compassion is probably the best definition of Hell there is. Nothing otherworldly or supernatural. Nothing eternal, nothing to do with religion.

Jean Paul Sartre indicated that hell is other people.

"Jean Paul Sartre indicated that hell is other people."

No Exit is the play where he says that. That was a great play, one of best I have ever seen. I saw it at the Imago Theater, here in Portland, with their tilting stage, it was a real treat.

 

[Jeremiah]

Faith is always "believing in the unseen," that's basically what it is --whether it be something induced (like cause and effect) or something guessed at. Faith is always without proof, but never without evidence, with only two exceptions, the two things for which there cannot be evidence: "God", and "an objective reality".

"Faith is always "believing in the unseen," that's basically what it is "

In my opinion, I think you are too liberal with your use of "always". "Faith" comes in many shapes and sizes. Kierkegaard called faith "passion for inwardness".

"(like cause and effect)"

Cause and effect is demonstrable, you can see it in action. Ever play a game of marbles?


"Faith is always without proof, but never without evidence"

As I have pointed out before, to someone else, evidence is proof.

"the two things for which there cannot be evidence: "God", and "an objective reality"

There is plenty of evidence that there is an objective reality. Besides "objectivity" is simply a classification of the intersubjective reality that manifest itself before us. No matter what the true nature of reality is an "objectivity reality" will always be evident to us.

-----

I, myself, don't consider a belief that is based on a prudent rationalization from empirical evidence a matter of faith, that is a matter of reason. Also, empirical evidence does not always mean that it can be seen, but only that there is real hard evidence that it exist.

 

[Walkntune]

Why restrict yourself to just one side of your brain when you could be using both of them holistically?

I guess so the original question of the OP can have some subject matter to debate about?

 

[Willamena]

"(like cause and effect)"

Cause and effect is demonstrable, you can see it in action. Ever play a game of marbles?

Or billiards --just so. Things induced are not directly observed (though they are observed in effect).

As I have pointed out before, to someone else, evidence is proof.

Proof is that evidence that convinces us conclusively of a thing. Not all evidence is capable of that.

"the two things for which there cannot be evidence: "God", and "an objective reality"

There is plenty of evidence that there is an objective reality. Besides "objectivity" is simply a classification of the intersubjective reality that manifest itself before us. No matter what the true nature of reality is an "objectivity reality" will always be evident to us.

No argument, there. By "objective reality" I meant objective, not intersubjective.

I, myself, don't consider a belief that is based on a prudent rationalization from empirical evidence a matter of faith, that is a matter of reason. Also, empirical evidence does not always mean that it can be seen, but only that there is real hard evidence that it exist.

No argument, there.

 

[Meow Mix]

There are only three true axioms:
- existence exists
- consciousness
- identity

Axiom

Edit: Axioms are the foundation of knowledge. Knowledge is what springs from them.

Enjoyed the article -- it has the same conclusions I make, though it seems that the axioms described fulfill the definition of knowledge. For instance identity is a belief (even though it must be held), is justified (self-justified), and is true (incorrigibly so).

Consider when it differentiates between Euclid's postulates and Euclid's axiom of a two-dimensional plane -- there's nothing compulsary about a two-dimensional plane, it's rather "IF you have a two-dimensional plane THEN these rules follow..." which is true, of course; but that's different from something like identity which is incorrigibly true and known.

 

[Jeremiah]

Or billiards --just so. Things induced are not directly observed (though they are observed in effect).


Proof is that evidence that convinces us conclusively of a thing. Not all evidence is capable of that.


No argument, there. By "objective reality" I meant objective, not intersubjective.


No argument, there.

"Or billiards --just so. Things induced are not directly observed (though they are observed in effect)."

Seems like a direct observation to me.

"Proof is that evidence that convinces us conclusively of a thing. Not all evidence is capable of that."

"Proof" is simply something that moves us to believe what we do and that includes any form of evidence that adds to the movement. Which, depending on the persons, could be very weak evidence.

"No argument, there. By "objective reality" I meant objective, not intersubjective."

I know what you meant.

 

[Willamena]

Enjoyed the article -- it has the same conclusions I make, though it seems that the axioms described fulfill the definition of knowledge. For instance identity is a belief (even though it must be held), is justified (self-justified), and is true (incorrigibly so).

Consider when it differentiates between Euclid's postulates and Euclid's axiom of a two-dimensional plane -- there's nothing compulsary about a two-dimensional plane, it's rather "IF you have a two-dimensional plane THEN these rules follow..." which is true, of course; but that's different from something like identity which is incorrigibly true and known.

Something justified is demonstrated to be true. The truth of an axiom is necessarily assumed, rather than demonstratable.

Axiom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't say so, depending on the context of knowledge. If it's not absolute knowledge -- for instance let's say we're talking about scientific or tentative knowledge -- then that knowledge itself is a form of trust/confidence.

Understanding "absolute knowledge" as axioms, I see what you're saying. I'm taking "trust/confidence" for what it is in this context: belief. To assert belief is to include uncertainty; to assert knowledge is to exclude uncertainty. Faith is a type of belief that, rather than choosing between the new stereo or the washer/dryer, takes Door #3.

But I'm guessing I'm sidetracking the thread. Have a good weekend everyone.

 

[.lava]

Some seem to think that reason should take a backseat to faith. While others seem to believe not only is faith unnecessary but it is detrimental.

So which do you think is more important to humanity and why?

IMO reason without faith is a misery and like a body without Spirit. Faith without reason is a robot and a bigot. that's why i think they are both very important

.

 

[gnomon]

What definition of faith is being used in the thread?

 

[Magic Man]

What definition of faith is being used in the thread?

All of them, unfortunately.

 

[gnomon]

All of them, unfortunately.

Ha!

I think I'll stay out of this thread.

 

[Sunstone]

"What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

Obviously, the answer is, "nudity".

 

[Mister Emu]

if i may...
hope is not a belief it is a desire.

I am talking about hope as a noun as opposed to a verb.
Hope: the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best.
"I have hope; things will get better." vs. "I hope things will get better."

A humanity which believes in nothing except that which has evidence is not lacking at all.

You think a humanity without morality is lacking nothing?

You can still have idealism, hope and morality without faith and with reason.

If you define faith as a belief without evidence, then morality is a form of faith.

Yes, you can have hope with evidence, but it remains a necessity even when lacking evidence; often those are the times when it is most necessary.

That's a different use of "faith", though. That's in the sense of "trust" or "confidence" rather than "belief without evidence".

Even as I've noted my complaint in a fundamental difference in a belief that lacks evidence and a belief that lacks enough evidence, faith in humanity's ability to improve can certainly be argued to be the former.

 

[Midnight Pete]

IMO reason without faith is a misery and like a body without Spirit. Faith without reason is a robot and a bigot. that's why i think they are both very important

.

MY MAN, GIMME FIVE ON THAT! :woohoo::danana:

 

[Jeremiah]

IMO reason without faith is a misery and like a body without Spirit. Faith without reason is a robot and a bigot. that's why i think they are both very important

.

So since I am without faith, and I strive to let reason be my guide in all thing. According to you I should be in misery. But since I am not, as I am a fairly content person, then you must be wrong.

I don't need to pretend life is something other then what it is to find happiness.