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

[Father Heathen]

Why should they care if the suffering is not theirs?

Psychologically healthy humans have an innate empathy and compassion, and being social animals this has aided the species survival. "The golden rule" is mutually benefital and of rational self-interest.

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

Judging actions on how they impact others is an excellent basis for morality. what is morality if not protocol for conduct? Humor us, let those gears in your head turn just a little.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

Once you have explained the how and the why, what more do you need to understand it?

Do enlighten me.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Love. If we can't learn to love each other, neither faith nor science can do anything to help.

 

[Midnight Pete]

WE HAVE A WINNER! :danana:

 

[Magic Man]

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

First, yes, there is. My basis for saying murder is wrong is the reasonable fact that it causes unnecessary suffering, which is a bad thing. Also, it stems from the reasonable fact that generally people don't want to be murdered, and you can see that treating others as you'd want to be treated is a good way to go.

Second, You're confusing believing something exists with believing something is right or wrong. Judging things good, bad, ugly, right or wrong is not the same thing as trying to figure out whether something exists.

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

Again, no, it's not, but then that's not really relevant. Hope and faith are completely different things.

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.

Actually it does matter. If you're using an accurate definition, your quibble is not warranted.

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

You could, but you'd be wrong.

 

[waitasec]

reason would say; if we do not help each other, our species would die
faith would say; you have to help each other within certain guidelines

 

[Jeremiah]

As it is generally being express here, it makes "faith" seem like a excuse to be intellectually lazy. I am beginning to think that those with this "faith" don't at all care about objective truth, but rather play, as if it is, a game. Just something to entertain them until they die.

I think Plato was right when he drew a distinction between lovers of truth and lovers of opinion. I think "faith" has become an excuse for those lovers of opinion to stay enamored in their own imaginary world.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Once you have explained the how and the why, what more do you need to understand it?

Do enlighten me.

That's like saying it's easy to solve a rubic's cube after you've been told that all you need to do is get the same color squares on each side.

Until you actually start dealing with emotions, you have no idea how complicated it is.

 

[waitasec]

Until you actually start dealing with emotions, you have no idea how complicated it is.

truth has no regard for emotions...

 

[Midnight Pete]

reason would say; if we do not help each other, our species would die
faith would say; you have to help each other within certain guidelines

Reason doesn't care about helping other people. It's self-interest.

 

[lunamoth]

Reason doesn't care about helping other people. It's self-interest.

Unless of course it is in one's self-interest to care for others. :devil:

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's like saying it's easy to solve a rubic's cube after you've been told that all you need to do is get the same color squares on each side.

Until you actually start dealing with emotions, you have no idea how complicated it is.

No-one said it wasn't complicated. But it is within our grasp to understand.
And there is no reason to think that there is anything mysterious or magical about it, except in the strictest metaphorical sense.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Reason doesn't care about helping other people. It's self-interest.

Unless of course it is in one's self-interest to care for others. :devil:

And it is.
Altruism works, which is why we find it again and again in other social mammals.
Human morality isn't just human morality. It is the way to make a flock, a pack or a society work. And we need that flock.

That is why, no matter how different the culture, no matter how estranged the religious views might be, there is still a baseline of moral tenets that is universal.

Again, it comes down to Evolution. Those flocks that had it survived. Those that didn't, did not.

 

[lunamoth]

And it is.
Altruism works, which is why we find it again and again in other social mammals.
Human morality isn't just human morality. It is the way to make a flock, a pack or a society work. And we need that flock.

That is why, no matter how different the culture, no matter how estranged the religious views might be, there is still a baseline of moral tenets that is universal.

Again, it comes down to Evolution. Those flocks that had it survived. Those that didn't, did not.

No arguments from this corner.

 

[crocusj]

Reason doesn't care about helping other people. It's self-interest.

Helping others has nothing to do with either faith or reason, it is no more than group co-operation as seen in most herd animals, of which we are one. All gregarious animals operate with rules (ie morality) without which the group would not function. Indeed, many herd animals mete out summary justice to group law transgressors without any apparent "consciousness", certainly without faith and - as far as I am aware - no idea at all of a god concept. This is not reason it is merely instinctive utilisation of the obvious advantages that order allows a social group. If the need for morality and morality itself did not arise initially from humans being social animals then please enlighten me. The fact that our intelligence allows our morality to supersede our instinct in order to help those whose survival is not evidently important to the continuation of the species probably shows a lack of both reason and faith but an abundance of humanity. We do not need to be led to our humanity by faith or reason - thankfully - because both are clearly flawed and at the whim of others. Nothing wrong with seeking the truth but in the meantime I'll continue to help the old lady across the road not to make myself feel better but because she needs to get to the other side.

 

[outhouse]

in most herd animals

nope we are not a heard animal allthough i understand where your coming from.

we are highly social by nature, but we do not heard.

 

[outhouse]

you are right that faith has not one thing to do with kindness

 

[strikeviperMKII]

truth has no regard for emotions...

Yet you have them. Does that not make them a truth?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

No-one said it wasn't complicated. But it is within our grasp to understand.
And there is no reason to think that there is anything mysterious or magical about it, except in the strictest metaphorical sense.

I never said it was impossible, or even improbable to understand emotions.

If you want to deal with emotions logically, be my guest.
In my experience, it doesn't work very well. Possibly because emotions are not logical...but that's just a guess.

 

[crocusj]

nope we are not a heard animal allthough i understand where your coming from.

we are highly social by nature, but we do not heard.

I stand corrected (again)!!!