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

[waitasec]

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.

so reason would have you to believe because some people are better off than others this makes them better.... depending on their circumstance.
i disagree, that is unreasonable.

every person born is born with the same fundamental needs... that is why i disagree.
we are born as an individual and we will die as an individual. that is why we are all "created" equal. the circumstances for which we are individually born into has nothing to do with what we were born with...our individuality our inalienable rights...to live. we are born to live, aren't we?
i still don't understand how faith will tell us to treat everyone equally... reason does.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

No... I don't understand what cause and effect has to do with the process of determining which consequences we deem condemnable and which laudable.

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

Perhaps you could explain how you observe that an action or consequence is wrong.

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

Same question, how do you observe wrongness?

It is faith based on the definition used in this thread... belief without evidence. Morality is based on assumptions, propositions taken for granted. There are no facts that show harming innocents is wrong.

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.

If I said we should multiply harm instead of reducing it, what evidence could you proffer that would say the opposite?

i thought desire is a feeling...

It is.

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...?

That is why it is faith.

it is irrational to assume what you desire will happen

I never said it was rational, only necessary for a healthy humanity.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Actually, you just brought that up... I said "any sense whatsoever" and you said "Not from a scientific perspective." That's not what I asked

True, but you've implied many times that the 'scientific sense' is the only sense that matters.

There are personal reasons that faith matters, and I think that's really the only reason faith can matter.

 

[Penumbra]

Same question, how do you observe wrongness?

It is faith based on the definition used in this thread... belief without evidence. Morality is based on assumptions, propositions taken for granted. There are no facts that show harming innocents is wrong.

I don't have any notions of moral objectivity. "Rightness" and "Wrongness" in terms of morality are a black and white structure that doesn't exist in my worldview.

I think the reason you feel that morality has something to do with faith is because you're using your own understanding of morality in your argument without considering that other understandings of morality exist.

If I said we should multiply harm instead of reducing it, what evidence could you proffer that would say the opposite?

Assuming I understood you were being hypothetical, I would merely ask you to explain why multiplying harm serves any use.

Almost every human dislikes significant harm to themselves. It's unpleasant because it triggers our body to respond to defend itself and/or it puts the mind in an unhealthy position. The understanding that harm is undesirable from personal experience/observation combined with empathy (the ability to understand the feelings of others) rationally leads to a desire to reduce harm.

So I'd ask you to explain your argument as to why multiplying harm would be a good thing to do.

 

[Storm]

I don't have any notions of moral objectivity. "Rightness" and "Wrongness" in terms of morality are a black and white structure that doesn't exist in my worldview.

So you don't think anything is wrong? Genocide, slavery, nothing? And "right" doesn't exist, either?

How, then, is that morality?

 

[Penumbra]

So you don't think anything is wrong? Genocide, slavery, nothing? And "right" doesn't exist, either?

How, then, is that morality?

Morality, in the most primitive state, does not exist. It is subjective. When a shared goal is agreed upon, however, morality becomes objective in regards to that goal.

When a goal is agreed upon, there become objectively superior ways of doing things to achieve that goal than other things. So, for example, if the goal is to promote human flourishing, then genocide and slavery would typically be viewed as objectively worse at achieving that goal than things like sharing, friendship, freedom, and so forth.

Goals can vary a bit, but there are some common ones because we're all the same species with the same basic needs. Human flourishing involving happiness, health, and so forth, is about as close to a universal goal as one can have. And this goal is based on the combination of observation/experience that joy is more desirable to have than sadness and the empathy that most of us have that realizes this will be true for most other people as well.

So no faith needed. Just reason and empathy.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's the value judgments of "right" and "wrong" that make it an assumption, hon. Or axiom, if you prefer.

I don't "assume" that sticking my hand in fire is "wrong". I know that it is "wrong" because getting burned is less a desirable result than not getting burned. This stance is from observation, experience and logical deduction rather than from faith and assumption.

 

[Storm]

Morality, in the most primitive state, does not exist. It is subjective. When a shared goal is agreed upon, however, morality becomes objective in regards to that goal.

When a goal is agreed upon, there become objectively superior ways of doing things to achieve that goal than other things. So, for example, if the goal is to promote human flourishing, then genocide and slavery would typically be viewed as objectively worse at achieving that goal than things like sharing, friendship, freedom, and so forth.

Goals can vary a bit, but there are some common ones because we're all the same species with the same basic needs. Human flourishing involving happiness, health, and so forth, is about as close to a universal goal as one can have. And this goal is based on the combination of observation/experience that joy is more desirable to have than sadness and the empathy that most of us have that realizes this will be true for most other people as well.

So no faith needed. Just reason and empathy.

And how do we agree upon these goals?

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't have any notions of moral objectivity. "Rightness" and "Wrongness" in terms of morality are a black and white structure that doesn't exist in my worldview.

I think the reason you feel that morality has something to do with faith is because you're using your own understanding of morality in your argument without considering that other understandings of morality exist.

I have to echo Storm's sentiment and question here... edit: saw above post.

Assuming I understood you were being hypothetical, I would merely ask you to explain why multiplying harm serves any use.

It's fun for me to cause harm.

The understanding that harm is undesirable from personal experience/observation combined with empathy (the ability to understand the feelings of others) rationally leads to a desire to reduce harm.

Why, rationally, should any empathy I may feel outweigh the pleasure I have in causing harm?

 

[Penumbra]

And how do we agree upon these goals?

On the most fundamental level, it's understood. People want Eudaimonia, or human flourishing.

When the details are considered, the answer is that we don't agree. Hence war, military, police, ethical debates, etc. People have different levels of inherent compassion, different levels of education and intelligence, different life experiences that show them the direct effects of certain choices, and that sort of thing.

It's fun for me to cause harm.

Then if this were the case you'd belong away from society. Your hypothetical fantasies, if carried out, would result in more suffering than happiness and your place in society would be forfeit if caught.

Why, rationally, should any empathy I may feel outweigh the pleasure I have in causing harm?

For some people, it does not. And they belong away from society.

 

[Father Heathen]

No... I don't understand what cause and effect has to do with the process of determining which consequences we deem condemnable and which laudable.

Go you go through life making decisions on a coin toss, or do you assess possible outcomes?

 

[Storm]

On the most fundamental level, it's understood. People want Eudaimonia, or human flourishing.

When the details are considered, the answer is that we don't agree. Hence war, military, police, ethical debates, etc. People have different levels of inherent compassion, different levels of education and intelligence, different life experiences that show them the direct effects of certain choices, and that sort of thing.

So, how do YOU settle upon the goals you think society should pursue?

 

[Mister Emu]

Then if this were the case you'd belong away from society.

For some people, it does not. And they belong away from society.

Why?

Your hypothetical fantasies, if carried out, would result in more suffering than happiness and your place in society would be forfeit if caught.

Why should society care whether there is more suffering or happiness?

 

[Penumbra]

So, how do YOU settle upon the goals you think society should pursue?

Reason.

A more specific answer to that question is difficult due to the enormity of the concept.

I try to presume as little about what people want, so I go the route of freedom, mostly. Let people do what they want unless it violates the freedom of another. So murdering, raping, slavery, and that sort of thing, are "wrong". The first steps are easy, but it becomes more complicated as the size of the problem grows. For instance, environmental regulation decreases the freedoms of certain people, but viewed another way, it decreases their ability to violate the freedom of others by damaging the world we live in. Complex issues are where reason and a variety of intelligent opinions become really important.

 

[Penumbra]

Why?

Why should society care whether there is more suffering or happiness?

Because society includes most people, and most people don't want to suffer.

 

[Storm]

Thank you for detailing your views, Penumbra.

 

[nameless]

Lol not for being reasonable. But for discarding faith for reason. You can have both if you like. In fact, faith without reason is not encouraged in Islam.

islam is all about to believe, asking no proof.

Surah 2. The Cow

3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I will say both.

you could belive in somthing by witnessing
________________________ by reasoning
________________________ by information transmitting (with auditing)

 

[nrg]

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

Again, using game theory, knot theory, auction theory and many other cool branches in mathematics and logic we can jutsify good behavior because it is an optimal strategy. You cannot be completely rational and never be kind to anyone if your goal is to raise your own standard of living, unless you're omnipotent. You need people to trust you, even Bill Gates does, to survive.

 

[nrg]

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

If you haven't proved that God exist you believe in him because of faith. And since we cannot prove an absolute, neither negative nor positive, we all need some faith. But you cannot reach any conclusion without some sort of faith, and the conclusion becomes less and less likely the more faith you use. Read up on Occam's razor and you'll get a more complete explanation.

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

I hate to break it to you, but you will die in the end. You cannot go around chosing to survive, you can only make choices to improve your life and live longer, and you will have to prioritize. On most jobs, you cannot exercise and work at the same time, and you cannot eat and sleep at the same time and you cannot maintain your hygiene and eat at the same time either. You have to divide your time spent on them and ask yourself "which one is the most important?". I can see myself skipping exercise one day if otherwise it means I wont get to eat. I can skimp on hygiene if otherwise it means I would be late for work. You cannot, however, ignore one of them throughout your life and expect a good standard of living.

since lack of any of those two would lead one to darkness, i 'll take them both.

So you're saying that we need equal parts of faith and reason? It's sort of like saying that we need to make alot of assumptions and no assumptions at the same time.

obviously we disagree on somethings like what faith is. faith is not an assumption IMO but anyways. not the right thread i suppose.

It's kind of hard to have a debate and not agree on what it is that we're debating. Here's dictionary.com's definitions:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Now, I'm making the assumption that you haven't gone and invented your own definition of what faith is (since only you would know what you're talking about) so could you tell me where my definition goes wrong.

well, yeah, i'll take them both. because i don't wish to chose between dying in 20 seconds or dying in 4 days
.

How about dying in 20 seconds or 80 years? That's the choice you make every day when you don't take short cuts by walking over the freeway.