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

[Jeremiah]

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.

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

The idea that "all man are created equal" is a rationalization put forth by John Locke as an argument against rule by divine right. His political philosophy was incorporated into our political structure, and it is very much a rationalization.

 

[Jeremiah]

True morality is not based in faith it is based in reason. In fact morality based in faith too often turns out to be immoral and sometimes very harmful. Morality should always be the product of prudent reasoning.

 

[Storm]

True morality is not based in faith it is based in reason. In fact morality based in faith too often turns out to be immoral and sometimes very harmful. Morality should always be the product of prudent reason. You can't have true morality with out real comprehension.

Do you plan on actually addressing my argument at some point?

 

[nrg]

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 consider, and given what we know, this, currently, is our most reasonable conclusion."

You're absolutely right down to 100%. As I said before, make the least ammount of assumptions. If you and I are waiting on a bus, and I say "I have a feeling the bus will come in ten minutes!" and you say "Um, hate to burst your bubble, but the time table says we're gonna be hanging around here for at least an hour.", it takes far less assumptions to go with your story.

This is the only point I've been making. Occam's razor's awesome!

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

Yep, starting out your reasoning with an assumption really isn't the best thing to do.

 

[nrg]

what if i have a reason to have faith.

Depends if that reason is logic or not.

IMO it is unthinkable to divide them.

Uh, really? You mean that you shop things randomly and never ever do the math and check if you can pay your bills? You need to make at least one assumption but you should use reason for all your vital decisions.

btw if you give up water, nearly 70% of your body goes along with it. that would be instant death

.

Obviously I meant the intake. But if we go with your interpretation that we take away all the water or all the air the anology becomes useless because the relationship of faith and reason is not of the kind that one cannot be prioritized over the other. Do you want a surgeon who has faith that mathematics, chemistry and biology is consistent but has only used a limited ammount of reason and has a vague idea of what he's doing?

 

[.lava]

Depends if that reason is logic or not.

i thought reason is with logic all the time.

Uh, really? You mean that you shop things randomly and never ever do the math and check if you can pay your bills? You need to make at least one assumption but you should use reason for all your vital decisions.

i was saying -imo- it is not possible to divide reason from faith. because faith depends on reason.

yes, i am not very good at money issues. i think it is not a good example.

Obviously I meant the intake. But if we go with your interpretation that we take away all the water or all the air the anology becomes useless because the relationship of faith and reason is not of the kind that one cannot be prioritized over the other. Do you want a surgeon who has faith that mathematics, chemistry and biology is consistent but has only used a limited ammount of reason and has a vague idea of what he's doing?

so either way giving up one would lead you to certain death. so?

as for the question, i would definetely follow the advice that's given by Mohammad SAW and let the one who knows what he is doing treat me. job should always be given to the people who knows how to do it

.

 

[nrg]

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.

Actually, logic, reason and math can justify that too, at least if you're willing to go on semi-higher levels of it.

In game theory, tit-for-tat is a really powerful strategy for iterative prisoner's dilemmas. Basically, you co-operate on your first move and then repeat the other players move. It's the way most of us interact in life. You might smile and greet a person and voulenteer to help him, and if goes on the aggresive you defend yourself in any way possible (and I'm scaling this down to even minor things, such as gossip, where you would try stop helping a person who's slandering you slander you).

You can also use knot theory to explain why we should all be treated as equals. Robert Aumann, Nobel Laureate in economics, used it to explain that in a working knot between two ropes they are all "under" and "over" each other the exact ammount of times. Likewise, a sustainable relationship between people needs to prioritize both parties conditions equal ammounts of times.

You can use game theory for much, much more when it comes to explaining moral behaviour than any other mathematical branch though, especially when you read papers about it being applied to auctions, and you can also use first and second order logic in order to see why stereotyping is an absolutely horrible way to deal with classification if math isn't your thing.

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

I don't agree. Faith basically states what something should be and than doesn't have to give any arguments, because otherwise it wouldn't be faith. That's really bad. Faith is something that's required to explain what is, and we want as little as possible while we're doing it.

 

[Storm]

Actually, logic, reason and math can justify that too, at least if you're willing to go on semi-higher levels of it.

In game theory, tit-for-tat is a really powerful strategy for iterative prisoner's dilemmas. Basically, you co-operate on your first move and then repeat the other players move. It's the way most of us interact in life. You might smile and greet a person and voulenteer to help him, and if goes on the aggresive you defend yourself in any way possible (and I'm scaling this down to even minor things, such as gossip, where you would try stop helping a person who's slandering you slander you).

You can also use knot theory to explain why we should all be treated as equals. Robert Aumann, Nobel Laureate in economics, used it to explain that in a working knot between two ropes they are all "under" and "over" each other the exact ammount of times. Likewise, a sustainable relationship between people needs to prioritize both parties conditions equal ammounts of times.

You can use game theory for much, much more when it comes to explaining moral behaviour than any other mathematical branch though, especially when you read papers about it being applied to auctions, and you can also use first and second order logic in order to see why stereotyping is an absolutely horrible way to deal with classification if math isn't your thing.

Indeed, math is not my thing. I have a few questions, but I probably wouldn't understand the answers, anyway.

Anyway, all that strikes me as the (quite proper) application of reason to a matter of faith. My argument was never that faith is superior, but that the two should be joined.

I don't agree. Faith basically states what something should be and than doesn't have to give any arguments, because otherwise it wouldn't be faith. That's really bad. Faith is something that's required to explain what is, and we want as little as possible while we're doing it.

You have a depressingly narrow view of faith, then.

 

[nrg]

i thought reason is with logic all the time.

Then I don't understand your question. If you have logic backing it up it isn't faith anymore.

i was saying -imo- it is not possible to divide reason from faith. because faith depends on reason.

No it doesn't, that's why it's faith. If you can logically back something up, you have a complete argument and you don't need to make assumptions. If you don't have a complete argument (wich you can never have) you need faith. If you believe in God because you have logic supporting it, it isn't faith anymore, it's a rational conclusion. That's the reason John Lennox believes in God, because it makes sense and is logical to him.

so either way giving up one would lead you to certain death. so?

Who said giving it up completely? I meant prioritizing and recognizing reason as a higher priority. If I'm in the desert and given the choice of a bottle of water or being able to breathe for 10 minutes, I'm going with air. And throughout the struggle in the desert I will continue to choose air as a higher priority, but saying that air is a higher priority is not the same as saying that I can live just fine without water.

as for the question, i would definetely follow the advice that's given by Mohammad SAW and let the one who knows what he is doing treat me. job should always be given to the people who knows how to do it

.

Yes, because it does matter if someone has faith in the consistency of medical science if he is to be a doctor but using reason is a higher priority.

If I've understood this debate properly the debate is "which one is more important for the future of humanity, reason or faith?". The debate is not "something's gotta go, faith or reason! Take your pick!"

 

[.lava]

Then I don't understand your question. If you have logic backing it up it isn't faith anymore.
No it doesn't, that's why it's faith. If you can logically back something up, you have a complete argument and you don't need to make assumptions. If you don't have a complete argument (wich you can never have) you need reason. if you believe in God because you have logic supporting it, it isn't faith anymore, it's a rational conclusion. That's the reason John Lennox believes in God, because it makes sense and is logical to him.

i don't get it. so i am one of those people who believes in God but don't have faith?

Who said giving it up completely? I meant prioritizing and recognizing reason as a higher priority. If I'm in the desert and given the choice of a bottle of water or being able to breathe for 10 minutes, I'm going with air. And throughout the struggle in the desert I will continue to choose air as a higher priority, but saying that air is a higher priority is not the same as saying that I can live just fine without water.

either way person would die. IMO priority has to be staying alive, not how long you'd suffer before you die.

Yes, because it does matter if someone has faith in the consistency of medical science if he is to be a doctor but using reason is a higher priority.

If I've understood this debate properly the debate is "which one is more important for the future of humanity, reason or faith?". The debate is not "something's gotta go, faith or reason! Take your pick!"

since lack of any of those two would lead one to darkness, i 'll take them both. obviously we disagree on somethings like what faith is. faith is not an assumption IMO but anyways. not the right thread i suppose. well, yeah, i'll take them both. because i don't wish to chose between dying in 20 seconds or dying in 4 days

.

 

[Renji]

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?

Depends on 'where' you are going to apply these 'things'.

For me, reason without understanding is nothing and faith without action is also nothing. So if you misapplied both, then it would be useless.

 

[Renji]

But for the sake of the poll, I voted reason...

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

Evidence that morality is functionally positive is not evidence that the value judgements it(whichever one you wish to discuss) are correct, or that they can be objectively correct.

Religion works as well, as the historical success of religious societies attests to... is that evidence that the claims various religions make are true?

True morality is not based in faith it is based in reason. In fact morality based in faith too often turns out to be immoral and sometimes very harmful. Morality should always be the product of prudent reasoning.

Morality is based on assumptions, such as 'harming the innocent is wrong', from which we then reason out our morality.

 

[Father Heathen]

Morality is based on assumptions, such as 'harming the innocent is wrong', from which we then reason out our morality.

How is morality based on assumptions when we experience cause and effect?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Faith must be in accordance with logic and reason, otherwise it's superstitious not faith.

 

[Mister Emu]

How is morality based on assumptions when we experience cause and effect?

I'm at a loss in understanding what cause and effect have to do with it.

Morality is based on assumptions like "harming the innocent is wrong", or "creating the most benefit to others is right". The belief that harming the innocent is wrong is not evidenced, it is, according to the definition demanded in this thread, a faith.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm at a loss in understanding what cause and effect have to do with it.

You really don't understand how an action is judged by its consequences? WOW.

Morality is based on assumptions like "harming the innocent is wrong", or "creating the most benefit to others is right". The belief that harming the innocent is wrong is not evidenced, it is, according to the definition demanded in this thread, a faith.

There is no reason to "assume" when can it be experienced and observed.

 

[Storm]

You really don't understand how an action is judged by its consequences? WOW.


There is no reason to "assume" when can it be experienced and observed.

It's the value judgments of "right" and "wrong" that make it an assumption, hon.

Or axiom, if you prefer.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm at a loss in understanding what cause and effect have to do with it.

Morality is based on assumptions like "harming the innocent is wrong", or "creating the most benefit to others is right". The belief that harming the innocent is wrong is not evidenced, it is, according to the definition demanded in this thread, a faith.

They're not really assumptions. More like observations. I don't see how faith has anything to do with it.

Most people understand that being harmed is not pleasant, in part by observation and in part by inductive reasoning. If harm is unpleasant, then a rational argument lead to the desire of its reduction or elimination.

 

[waitasec]

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

i thought desire is a feeling...

that what is desired will come to pass.
more like...
expected to come to pass...not will because that is after all unknown, isn't it...?
it is irrational to assume what you desire will happen, you can only hope that it will happen. unless your presumptuous...