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

[outhouse]

yes, read outhouse's comments for further information on the superiority of science. We are to follow and obey and not question it.

This is my stance when it comes to evolution.

Evolution is not up for debate anymore. Its solid, we know its happening and happened.

You can question and learn all you want about evolution, but the debate on evolution vs creation is closed. Thats why they dont teach the creation myth in schools.

now if you want to debate abigenesis feel free its in its infancy, you will still be fighting a loosing battle but since we know so little ID will debate it

 

[outhouse]

Scientific facts are challenged and amended all the time.

exactly. science grows and expands AND admits errors and corrects them

 

[bobhikes]

It is kinda funny that with reason we were able to build the atomic bomb and use it twice. The biggest threat to humankind today is the launch of the one of the thousands of nuclear weapons that reasonably exist today.

Go reason!

 

[Revoltingest]

It is kinda funny that with reason we were able to build the atomic bomb and use it twice. The biggest threat to humankind today is the launch of the one of the thousands of nuclear weapons that reasonably exist today.

Go reason!

It was one way to counter the deep faith of the Japanese soldier in their emperor god.

 

[bobhikes]

It was one way to counter the deep faith of the Japanese soldier in their emperor god.

I'm guessing the resonable way and from a christian country no less.

 

[outhouse]

I'm guessing the resonable way and from a christian country no less.

it was from compashionate people

without the bomb the loss of life would have been extreme in japan. this is a fact.

 

[waitasec]

exactly. science grows and expands AND admits errors and corrects them

tell that to the pharmaceutical industry...

i agree with you in regards to the growing and expanding but not with the admitting. we also have to realize when it comes to $$ science will bow down to that too.... hence how scientific studies that show severe adverse conditions arise as a result of the drug in question... there is a back and forth between lawyers to further the study which would cost more money. one would have to be a lawyer to understand...i happen to know one that advocates for the 'consumer' and i heard some interesting stories.

in europe, the pharmaceutical industry is more accountable to the public then the US because it over seen by what we would call 'bureaucrats' and have deemed certain meds to be too dangerous and require further studies, where as in the states we focus on the rights capitalism has acquired.
cha ching

 

[bobhikes]

it was from compashionate people

without the bomb the loss of life would have been extreme in japan. this is a fact.

So if you can save more lives by killing some lives this is reasonable. I'm all for that. I have a maltusian belief system. But if it is not countered with faith. Eventually we will all be dead.

Faith supports reason
Reason supports faith

Neither will work without the other and only those that blindly support either are the true problems.

 

[Magic Man]

It is kinda funny that with reason we were able to build the atomic bomb and use it twice. The biggest threat to humankind today is the launch of the one of the thousands of nuclear weapons that reasonably exist today.

Go reason!

Sure, along with all of the technological advances that make life much better for us, there are things like this. Now the question is what faith (belief without evidence) has given us. Can you name anything good that we can't get through reason, too?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If it passes through a human brain, anything is subjective. Math is logic. It is a tool, and is useless until used. Once used, it becomes subjective.

 

[Willamena]

Truth is not subjective. What we think is true, however, is very much subjective.
We can never know the former. We only have the latter.

Is that true?

 

[outhouse]

not with the admitting

ill buy that in your context no problem.

I was speaking generaly

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Is that true?

Har, har. Truths cannot be known, only experienced, and any statement about them (even this one) is flawed.

 

[bobhikes]

Sure, along with all of the technological advances that make life much better for us, there are things like this. Now the question is what faith (belief without evidence) has given us. Can you name anything good that we can't get through reason, too?

No because to get anything good you need both.

I have to believe in something strong enough before I will put the time in to reason it out.

Anything that was a first was done because of faith. The person had great faith they could suceed even though others laughed at them.

Every great scienctific theory is because of a scienctist of great belief without evidence at first. They need to find the evidence to support the belief. The greater the theory the more belief they need.

It's amazing to me that no matter what is said you never get this. Faith is not just religion it is life, as is reason without both neither works.

 

[Magic Man]

No because to get anything good you need both.

I have to believe in something strong enough before I will put the time in to reason it out.

Believing is not having faith. Believing without evidence is having faith. You don't have to believe in something without evidence to put the time in to reason it out. So, no, you don't need both. My question was whether you can name something faith has given us that we couldn't have achieved without faith.

Anything that was a first was done because of faith. The person had great faith they could suceed even though others laughed at them.

That's not true. The Wright brothers didn't have to have faith. They used reason to figure out that you could build a machine that would allow you to fly.

Every great scienctific theory is because of a scienctist of great belief without evidence at first. They need to find the evidence to support the belief. The greater the theory the more belief they need.

It's amazing to me that no matter what is said you never get this. Faith is not just religion it is life, as is reason without both neither works.

No, every great scientific theory does not start with faith. The scientist doesn't say "I believe this is true despite not having evidence". They say "Let's see whether this is true by finding some evidence for or against". Again, belief is not faith. Belief without evidence is.

The scientific method is the ultimate example of reason, and it does not rely on faith at all. A hypothesis is not faith.

 

[bobhikes]

Like I said you will never get the fact the faith and reason are intertwined.

Just for fun I love to see you debate against reason or evolution or anything scientific. I bet you would be terrible at it. You can't see the other side at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Like I said you will never get the fact the faith and reason are intertwined.

No, I will never get the idea that they're intertwined because they're not. It's not a fact, and it's not even true.

Just for fun I love to see you debate against reason or evolution or anything scientific. I bet you would be terrible at it. You can't see the other side at all.

I can see the other side, but what's the point? The side against things like evolution is based on ignorance and bias.

Is there any chance you'll explain why you think faith (belief without evidence) and reason are intertwined, even though they're opposites? Your attempt before failed, so I was hoping for a different one, or maybe just an admission that it's not the case. A hypothesis in science is not taken on faith. It is not believed. It is brought up to see if it's true. So, science isn't an example of the intertwining of reason and faith. Can you explain it to me?

 

[PolyHedral]

If it passes through a human brain, anything is subjective. Math is logic. It is a tool, and is useless until used. Once used, it becomes subjective.

Math on its own tells you things about the universe, and its statements are undeniable. The only subjective part of mathematics is applying the statements to other situations.

 

[bobhikes]

Can you explain it to me?

How about this Explain early man's survival before speech and writing. Did he rely more on faith or reason. If he relied on faith how is it that we came about.

 

[Mister Emu]

Judging actions on how they impact others is an excellent basis for morality.

I agree, and I've never argued otherwise. However, that does not mean that believing that acts that harm others are "wrong" is evidenced.

what is morality if not protocol for conduct?

A system of judging actions as wrong or right.

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.

If I were to offer the opposite, that causing unnecessary suffering was in fact good, what evidence could you produce saying otherwise?

Second, You're confusing believing something exists with believing something is right or wrong.

No, I'm not... Faith, as per those arguing against the concept in this thread, is a belief without evidence. Holding a conviction upon the rightness or wrongness of an action falls under that definition. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, not evidenced objective statements.

Morality is based on desire, not evidence.

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

A populace without hope is very unhealthy, I can't imagine desiring a society that believed the only options were as we are or worse than we are. Hope is a form of faith, a belief that events will be positive in the future. Even using the distorted definition of this thread, it is often a belief without evidence.

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

The quibble does not care what standard of evidence you use. Whether it is loose or strict.

You could, but you'd be wrong.

There evidence to that effect? I see lots of greed, rapaciousness and violence in the world... The only difference I see is that more often the power is apportioned to those not quite so afflicted.