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

[Jeremiah]

How can someone so smart be so dumb?

Pete, let's try to keep this civil please. Address the post not the person.

 

[Storm]

Jeremiah, you never did say what you thought was ambiguous, much less popular, about post #93.

 

[waitasec]

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

how is morality a form of faith?
because you are told/taught what is right and wrong?
that's not faith.

you do not need faith (belief without evidence) to understand morality....


with all due respect, do you say these things hoping in faith they make sense?

 

[Tathagata]

I find these results rather shocking for a "religious education" site. Either there is a majority of Atheists here or many people are lying.



.

 

[Storm]

I find these results rather shocking for a "religious education" site. Either there is a majority of Atheists here or many people are lying.

A few other options:
1) Even the faithful recognize the value of reason.
2) Many of the faithful did not vote due to the limited options of the poll (that would be me).
3) The faithful just don't want to be dragged into yet another thread detailing why their faith is worthless.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[Storm]

how is morality a form of faith?
because you are told/taught what is right and wrong?
that's not faith.

you do not need faith (belief without evidence) to understand morality....


with all due respect, do you say these things hoping in faith they make sense?

Well, I declared morality a matter of faith, but that's not quite the same thing. I'd be happy to elaborate if you're interested, though.

 

[waitasec]

Well, I declared morality a matter of faith, but that's not quite the same thing. I'd be happy to elaborate if you're interested, though.

that would be great!!

 

[Tathagata]

A few other options:
1) Even the faithful recognize the value of reason.

I figured that would be the reason for most, though I don't find it believable. Most religious find faith to be of the highest value and virtue while reason is just something that serves a function. In some religions (like Christianity), reason is discouraged (i.e. the Bible says "lean not on your understanding," etc.).

2) Many of the faithful did not vote due to the limited options of the poll (that would be me).
3) The faithful just don't want to be dragged into yet another thread detailing why their faith is worthless.

Just off the top of my head.

Mmm, that's probably it too.

 

[Storm]

OK, then.

Let's start with the foundation of human rights: the proposition that all men are Created equal.

This is not what reason tells us. Reason shows that some folk are smarter, better looking, richer, and made unequal by any and every measure imaginable. Yet faith (and bear in mind that I am not speaking of religious faith exclusively) tells us that we should treat them equally nonetheless. So we act as if it were true.

Basically, my argument can be boiled down to a single point: reason deals with what is, while faith deals with what should be.

 

[Mister Emu]

the noun, describes a desire

No, it does not. It describes the feeling, or belief, that what is desired will come to pass.

 

[nrg]

Both faith and reason are needed...

Yes, and the question was which one is more important. They are both vital and you cannot completely remove one of them, but you can establish which one of them is more important, just like your analogy of water and air. I'll die much, much faster from asphyxiation than dehydration so air's more important, but that doesn't mean you can remove water completely.

 

[Storm]

Yes, and the question was which one is more important. They are both vital and you cannot completely remove one of them, but you can establish which one of them is more important, just like your analogy of water and air. I'll die much, much faster from asphyxiation than dehydration so air's more important, but that doesn't mean you can remove water completely.

An interesting argument, coming from an atheist. May I presume that you share my understanding of "faith," or is there something else at play?

 

[nrg]

Ok sorry but i had to say this, going to the moon and back did not cure misery, poverty and suffering.

The Expenses and human resources that went into that could've easily eliminated misery. I , for one, have not gained anything from rocket science, or from the fact that we went to the moon and came back

Actually, NASA has contributed alot more than most people think to our everyday lives. Your computer monitor, for example, and fire alarms. And all the jobs their new technologies created have stimulated the American economy, and the world economy, a hell of alot.

But ok, let's roll with some other fields driven by reason. Medical science, agricultural science, computer science and mathematics must have contributed something to your life.

 

[Mister Emu]

how is morality a form of faith?

Because morality, or the belief that actions have right/wrong values, has no evidence. If you define faith as those beliefs which have no evidence then morality naturally falls under it.

you do not need faith (belief without evidence) to understand morality....

No, you do not need faith to understand the various moralities... but you do need to have beliefs without evidence to hold a morality.

 

[nrg]

An interesting argument, coming from an atheist.

Yeah, our arguments tend to be the dullest of the lot, I'll admit that.

May I presume that you share my understanding of "faith," or is there something else at play?

I'm studying computer science, logic and mathematics right now, so I've come across Gödels incompleteness theorems way too many times now. Something cannot state that it's true and be both complete and consistent, so absolute truths are impossible. You need to make at least one assumption without evidence every time you assert something to be true, and since my definition of faith is "believing something without evidence", I deem faith to be necessary. We'll just need to watch out so we don't make more assumptions than necessary.

 

[Storm]

Thank you for elaborating!

 

[Jeremiah]

Yeah, our arguments tend to be the dullest of the lot, I'll admit that. I'm studying computer science, logic and mathematics right now, so I've come across Gödels incompleteness theorems way too many times now. Something cannot state that it's true and be both complete and consistent, so absolute truths are impossible. You need to make at least one assumption without evidence every time you assert something to be true, and since my definition of faith is "believing something without evidence", I deem faith to be necessary. We'll just need to watch out so we don't make more assumptions than necessary.

A direction drawn from prudent and complete rationalization based on all available evidence can remain an approximation of the truth. It does not need to move to a statement of "absolute truth". It is acceptable to say, "All things considered, and given what we know, this, currently, is our most reasonable conclusion."

Also, there is a huge difference between a conclusion drawn from reason and one drawn from because-I-want-to-believe.

 

[Jeremiah]

It seems, to me, that the only justification of "faith" people can muster is to obscure the lines between trust and/or reason. Then gloss over religious faith in the process and pretend it is all the same.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Because morality, or the belief that actions have right/wrong values, has no evidence. If you define faith as those beliefs which have no evidence then morality naturally falls under it.

Untrue.

If you look at the various societies around the globe and also to other social animals you will find an array of similar moral tenets in play. Despite sporting different cultures, religions and even species there are several basics that are universal. This goes to show that morals are founded in something much more evidence based that a mere human supposition, namely that these morals work.

Hence the flocks/herds/tribes/societies that had them survived while those that did not didn't.

Evolution baby!

 

[.lava]

Yes, and the question was which one is more important. They are both vital and you cannot completely remove one of them, but you can establish which one of them is more important, just like your analogy of water and air. I'll die much, much faster from asphyxiation than dehydration so air's more important, but that doesn't mean you can remove water completely.

what if i have a reason to have faith. IMO it is unthinkable to divide them. btw if you give up water, nearly 70% of your body goes along with it. that would be instant death

.