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

[Willamena]

Reason needs faith in exactly the same way a fish needs a bicycle.

Oh, man, I can't believe I have to pull this one out again...

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, man, I can't believe I have to pull this one out again...

Exactly! The fish doesn't need a bicycle...he could've roller bladed instead.

 

[Dan4reason]

and yet its the reality of today's world

we are given all sorts of things by science...we use them without question. We spray our food with herbicides, wash ourselves in chemicals we cannot pronounce, eat foods prepared with ingredients we have no idea of, burn fuels we know to be doing damage to our environment, use gadgets that may be increasing our risk of developing cancers....

we put a lot of faith in science.

I would not use "faith," I would use trust. You need some trust to live life because you have 100% evidence that anything is true or is not false. Sciencism does not say that people should not trust things. It only says that the scientific method is the best way to know truth.

 

[gnomon]

I only need to look at how people take care of their children to answer the OP question.

Reason and faith: Humans can progress.

Reason alone: Humans can progress.

Faith alone: We'd all be dead with our parents speaking in tongues over our sickbed, exorcising our demons, throwing acid on us, burning us, etc.

 

[darkendless]

Reason and faith: Humans can progress.
.

Albeit slowly and painfully while we explain to the logic-ignorant people whats going on.

 

[Magic Man]

You think a humanity without morality is lacking nothing?

Nope, but then again that's has nothing to do with what I said. I said a humanity only believing things for which they have evidence is not lacking. That humanity can still have morality.

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

No, it's not. If I believe that killing is bad, I'm not believing that something exists without evidence. You're confusing things now. The reason I believe killing is bad is because I can see the evidence of the suffering it causes, and that is reasonably considered to be a bad thing.

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.

Hope is not a necessity, not that it matters for the current discussion.

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.

If you're using a good definition of "evidence", then you complaint doesn't do much. If you consider the fine-tuning argument to be evidence for God, then you can consider anything to be evidence for anything. Basically, the idea is to apply the same standards to the evidence for God as you do for evidence for other things.

Second, you can argue anything, but there's no good argument for saying that faith in humanity's ability to improve is the "belief without evidence" definition of faith. Believing that humanity can improve can easily come from evidence such as the fact that humans overall have improved over the course of our existence.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

That's pretty much it. That's the problem with these threads. People pretend "faith in humanity and family and friends" is the same as "faith that God exists". If we could get people to realize they are two different definitions of faith that are as different as the two different definitions of "buck", then we could make progress on this topic.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

you can't see the distinction between the 2 meanings...?

a justification for an action
i love my husband because i just DO.

or

to form judgments by the process of logic
i know my husband loves me by what he does

so hope and love would apply to the second distinction

They are both justifications. You are just making a qualification on the second that the justifications have to be 'by process of logic'. Hope and love fall under both. You do not have to logically be in love with someone to be in love with them. But, as I said before, that love means something, and those meanings can be thought out rationally.

 

[jarofthoughts]

They are both justifications. You are just making a qualification on the second that the justifications have to be 'by process of logic'. Hope and love fall under both. You do not have to logically be in love with someone to be in love with them. But, as I said before, that love means something, and those meanings can be thought out rationally.

Love is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain, just like all your emotions are.

When you fall in love with someone you get a dose of dopamine to encourage you to mate. This is why people who are in love sometimes seem as if they are on a high, because in a very real way that is what they are. But this feeling doesn't last.

In the relationships that have staying power and also in social relationships with friends and family the feeling of love is mainly due to what is sometimes called the "cuddle hormone", namely oxytocin.

There you have it. Love explained. Do you want the Evolutionary basis to go with that or will that be all?

 

[Jeremiah]

Yes, but you need to have faith that the system is consistent. It's impossible for a system to prove itself. It's even impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent, complete and true. You need faith, albeit a small ammount, but you still need it.

However, if your point is that you should call the conlcuiosn reasonable because you used strictly more reason than faith, I don't object to that.

"Yes, but you need to have faith that the system is consistent. It's impossible for a system to prove itself. It's even impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent, complete and true. You need faith, albeit a small ammount, but you still need it."

Your "system" may need to be based on "faith", mine however is founded and supported on reason.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Why do people always come up with the strange assumption that without faith science is free to do what it wants and will turn evil?

Because that is exactly what happens. Without faith, with God, without conscience, you get people like Harry Harlow and his Pit of Despair.

 

[Willamena]

Because that is exactly what happens. Without faith, with God, without conscience, you get people like Harry Harlow and his Pit of Despair.

You don't need faith in God to have a conscience.

 

[gnomon]

Because that is exactly what happens. Without faith, with God, without conscience, you get people like Harry Harlow and his Pit of Despair.

There are human beings with the utmost faith willingly putting their own children to death in the name of faith.

Is the next argument that the faith of some is better than the faith of others?

 

[Midnight Pete]

You don't need faith in God to have a conscience.

You can't have faith in God without one.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't have faith in God without one.

Au contraire...tis done all the time.

 

[Willamena]

You can't have faith in God without one.

How so?

 

[gnomon]

You can't have faith in God without one.

You can't have faith in God without a God?

You can't have faith in God without a conscience?

I would assume the latter true assuming life forms without a conscience have not developed a faith in God.

But you can lack faith in God with a conscience.

 

[Penumbra]

Certain gods seem especially suited to people without a conscience, actually.

It depends on what kind of god one is talking about.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Love is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain, just like all your emotions are.

When you fall in love with someone you get a dose of dopamine to encourage you to mate. This is why people who are in love sometimes seem as if they are on a high, because in a very real way that is what they are. But this feeling doesn't last.

In the relationships that have staying power and also in social relationships with friends and family the feeling of love is mainly due to what is sometimes called the "cuddle hormone", namely oxytocin.

There you have it. Love explained. Do you want the Evolutionary basis to go with that or will that be all?

The fact that emotions are simply chemical reactions in you brain is just an explanation of how, and even why (biologically). If that's all you want emotions to be, then go for it. In my experience, however, it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

I would just like to note that this is an argument against gettig caught, not against the act itself.

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

Why should they care if the suffering is not theirs?

The reason I believe killing is bad is because I can see the evidence of the suffering it causes, and that is reasonably considered to be a bad thing.

Whatever your basis for morality is, there is no evidence that that should be the basis for morality.

Hope is not a necessity, not that it matters for the current discussion.

Hope is necessary for a healthy humanity(which was my first argument, not that it was necessary in general).

If you're using a good definition of "evidence", then you complaint doesn't do much.

It does not matter what definition of evidence is in use for me to quibble about making distinction between those ideas lacking evidence and those lacking enough evidence.

Believing that humanity can improve can easily come from evidence such as the fact that humans overall have improved over the course of our existence.

That is arguable I think I could make a fair argument that humans are as rapacious, brutish, murderous, greedy, etc. as ever.