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

[Jeremiah]

Faith has nothing to do with language. Your argument does not even make sense in its own context.

 

[KingArfer]

In fact, my faith came from study and reasoning.

 

[bobhikes]

Faith has nothing to do with language. Your argument does not even make sense in its own context.

Mercury Greek God
Opedidus Greek hero opedidus complex
Diva comes from hindu goddess
Pundit Hindu religious scholar
Liberty Roman or greek god

There's way more most of our latin comes from religions. The earliest scribes were religious scribes which is why it is so prevalent.

 

[bobhikes]

Shamans, Witch Doctors, Elder and Guru's all considered both men of science and faith. In tribes the one with the most intelligence also lead the tribe in spiritual awareness. Its used to be a human thing, those with the most intelligence were supposed to be close to god.

At the very least (the reason) we have today owes a great graditude to faith. In early days the only way you got education was because of power or faith. All of the instructors were of faith. But I'm sure none of those earlier scientist did anything just to improve their faith. Of course all of them could distance there faith based training and apply only reason to their works.


Reason and faith are intertwined.

 

[Magic Man]

Language was created in faith alone. There was no reason to why they called something something. I'm sure at first many people called the same things differently. They agree on one term. This was repeated over and over again. All science is based on communication an language. Can you prove that we specifically reasoned the names of everything.

Language was not created on faith. Deciding on an arbitrary name for something isn't faith. All you're doing is trying to move the goalposts. I don't need to believe anything in particular to name an object in front of me a "puolt". Language is not a question of faith or reason. It's a question of coming to agreements on the meanings of different sounds.

Now, back to the question. Can you think of any advancements that are the result of faith?

 

[Magic Man]

Shamans, Witch Doctors, Elder and Guru's all considered both men of science and faith. In tribes the one with the most intelligence also lead the tribe in spiritual awareness. Its used to be a human thing, those with the most intelligence were supposed to be close to god.

At the very least (the reason) we have today owes a great graditude to faith. In early days the only way you got education was because of power or faith. All of the instructors were of faith. But I'm sure none of those earlier scientist did anything just to improve their faith. Of course all of them could distance there faith based training and apply only reason to their works.

You really are stretching. Please just stay on the topic. Faith is belief without evidence. Reason is forming a conclusion based on careful consideration of evidence. What has faith done that's good for us? You didn't get an education because of a belief without evidence. Witch doctors and others like them didn't make advancements because of their religious beliefs or beliefs without evidence.

Just stick to what I'm asking. What advancements has faith (the belief without evidence) given us? I'm talking about advancements that faith specifically gave us, not advancements by people who also had faith in God.

Reason and faith are intertwined.

No, they are not. They are opposites. You have still failed to support this claim.

 

[Magic Man]

Mercury Greek God
Opedidus Greek hero opedidus complex
Diva comes from hindu goddess
Pundit Hindu religious scholar
Liberty Roman or greek god

There's way more most of our latin comes from religions. The earliest scribes were religious scribes which is why it is so prevalent.

I'm sorry. Are you actually trying to argue that faith, as in belief without evidence, is responsible for language because some of America's current words and terms come from names from various world religions?

 

[ellenjanuary]

" I'm faithful that the world ain't reasonable."

There is plenty of supporting proof for that; you don't need faith to draw that conclusion.

Thing is, a lot of the philosophers on this board assume "faith" is a bad word. It ain't. It's funny that these philosophers also take the scriptural definition "faith is belief in things unseeen" as fact, as applying to all theists. It doesn't. Even more absurd, the scanning tunneling electron microscope provides images of the atom using mathematical relationships, not pictures. So, I have a degree of faith in the Standard Model (at least till something better comes along) and these philosophers have what? An incomplete understanding.

 

[Magic Man]

Thing is, a lot of the philosophers on this board assume "faith" is a bad word. It ain't.

When used to mean "belief without evidence" it is.

It's funny that these philosophers also take the scriptural definition "faith is belief in things unseeen" as fact, as applying to all theists. It doesn't.

It's used as a justification for belief in God by many theists. When you ask them tough questions about their god, many times it just comes down to "Well, I just have faith in God".

Even more absurd, the scanning tunneling electron microscope provides images of the atom using mathematical relationships, not pictures. So, I have a degree of faith in the Standard Model (at least till something better comes along) and these philosophers have what? An incomplete understanding.

Again, that's equivocation. Having faith in something like that means trusting in it or having confidence in it. That is different from the "belief without evidence" definition.

 

[ellenjanuary]

When used to mean "belief without evidence" it is.



It's used as a justification for belief in God by many theists. When you ask them tough questions about their god, many times it just comes down to "Well, I just have faith in God".



Again, that's equivocation. Having faith in something like that means trusting in it or having confidence in it. That is different from the "belief without evidence" definition.

So you say, philosopher!

Then again, I'm quite atheistic for a theist.

 

[bobhikes]

What advancements has faith (the belief without evidence) given us? I'm talking about advancements that faith specifically gave us, not advancements by people who also had faith in God.
quote]


The thing to fail to see is that if I have faith in God. That faith alone without reason could be why I create something. I would then work out proving the reasons for others. This is how some people and yes some scientists created. Can I prove this no but neither can you prove it isn't true. Belief alone is all that you need to try reason is only needed to explain it to others.

For example I have faith that some day I will write a book on belief that will be excepted by the comminity at large. English was my worst subject in school. I have never been able to finish any book that I started to write. I need much more education on belief and humanity but I have faith that I will do this. If I suceed in the future is it faith that caused the book or reason. There is no doubt reason is necessary in the proof but only my faith caused the result.

Some scientific discoveries are the same. Some are actually accidents and some are based on a scientists faith. Do I know which are which no, no one could. But based on some of the accidental discoveries that I do know, I also know there is a percentage of discoveries caused by faith alone.

Probably some medical one's. Like someone finding a cure for a loveones uncurable disease. It is their faith that drives them but they reason the results. Without the faith there would be no results.

 

[Magic Man]

The thing to fail to see is that if I have faith in God. That faith alone without reason could be why I create something. I would then work out proving the reasons for others. This is how some people and yes some scientists created. Can I prove this no but neither can you prove it isn't true. Belief alone is all that you need to try reason is only needed to explain it to others.

1) What have people had faith in that they set out to prove with science?

2) It's not a question of why you did something, it's how. I don't care why the Wright brothers invented the airplane; I'm only concerned with how they did it. They didn't need to have any faith to decide to try it, and they certainly didn't use faith to figure it out.

For example I have faith that some day I will write a book on belief that will be excepted by the comminity at large. English was my worst subject in school. I have never been able to finish any book that I started to write. I need much more education on belief and humanity but I have faith that I will do this. If I suceed in the future is it faith that caused the book or reason. There is no doubt reason is necessary in the proof but only my faith caused the result.

No, you're equivocating again. You're using a different definition of faith here. You don't believe without evidence that this will happen. You hope it will happen, and you may believe it's possible because you trust yourself.

Some scientific discoveries are the same. Some are actually accidents and some are based on a scientists faith. Do I know which are which no, no one could. But based on some of the accidental discoveries that I do know, I also know there is a percentage of discoveries caused by faith alone.

Probably some medical one's. Like someone finding a cure for a loveones uncurable disease. It is their faith that drives them but they reason the results. Without the faith there would be no results.

First, accidents are not examples of faith. A scientific discovery happening by accident has nothing to do with faith.

Second, it is not someone's faith that drives them to find a cure for a loved one's disease. We have cured many diseases before. It's more than reasonable to believe that, even though we don't currently have a cure, we can find one, just as we have with so many other ones.

There is a fundamental lack of understanding here. You're not really grasping what I'm saying or asking, but I'll try again.

Again, this fails to answer my question. What has faith given us? What advancements have been made only through faith and not through reason? What advancements have been made that couldn't have happened without faith?

 

[bobhikes]

1) What have people had faith in that they set out to prove with science?

2) It's not a question of why you did something, it's how. I don't care why the Wright brothers invented the airplane; I'm only concerned with how they did it. They didn't need to have any faith to decide to try it, and they certainly didn't use faith to figure it out.



No, you're equivocating again. You're using a different definition of faith here. You don't believe without evidence that this will happen. You hope it will happen, and you may believe it's possible because you trust yourself.



First, accidents are not examples of faith. A scientific discovery happening by accident has nothing to do with faith.

Second, it is not someone's faith that drives them to find a cure for a loved one's disease. We have cured many diseases before. It's more than reasonable to believe that, even though we don't currently have a cure, we can find one, just as we have with so many other ones.

There is a fundamental lack of understanding here. You're not really grasping what I'm saying or asking, but I'll try again.

Again, this fails to answer my question. What has faith given us? What advancements have been made only through faith and not through reason? What advancements have been made that couldn't have happened without faith?

I can't win with you Faith by your defination leaves no evidence and while you can speak for the wright brothers, all scribes, all doctors, all scientists, all cavemen and even me, I won't suppose my opinion on them or you.

Wilkipedia
Reason is thought by rationalists to be more reliable in discovering what is true or what is best. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and potentially in conflict with reason.

Notice even they say potentially.

Rarely is anything definate.

 

[Magic Man]

I can't win with you

Not when you refuse to understand what's being said.

Faith by your defination leaves no evidence and while you can speak for the wright brothers, all scribes, all doctors, all scientists, all cavemen and even me, I won't suppose my opinion on them or you.

Huh? I'm not speaking for anyone. You have yet to provide something faith has given us that reason can't. What I'm saying is that faith has no part in the scientific process. I don't need to speak for anyone to say that. A hypothesis is not faith, as I've already explained. A scientist who decides to test something, like looking for a cure for some disease, isn't using faith for that hypothesis. Only if he came up with a hypothesis based on nothing and stuck to it without testing it in any way would he be using faith.

Wilkipedia
Reason is thought by rationalists to be more reliable in discovering what is true or what is best. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and potentially in conflict with reason.

Notice even they say potentially.

Rarely is anything definate.

Sorry, how was this supposed to be an argument? I don't even know what tradition is doing in there. It doesn't belong. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion and faith is pretty obvious, and not at all controversial. A Wiki entry doesn't change that. Faith is the opposite of reason, and emotion and reason don't really go together.

 

[bobhikes]

Not when you refuse to understand what's being said.



Huh? I'm not speaking for anyone. You have yet to provide something faith has given us that reason can't. What I'm saying is that faith has no part in the scientific process. I don't need to speak for anyone to say that. A hypothesis is not faith, as I've already explained. A scientist who decides to test something, like looking for a cure for some disease, isn't using faith for that hypothesis. Only if he came up with a hypothesis based on nothing and stuck to it without testing it in any way would he be using faith.



Sorry, how was this supposed to be an argument? I don't even know what tradition is doing in there. It doesn't belong. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion and faith is pretty obvious, and not at all controversial. A Wiki entry doesn't change that. Faith is the opposite of reason, and emotion and reason don't really go together.

I get it all that matters is your belief. My belief that I have faith is wrong in writting a book book because you say so. Wilkipedia is wrong because you don't agree. Unless you can prove either it can be said that you have unshakable faith(belief without evidence) in reason.

 

[PolyHedral]

You can't really say that anyone has (blind) faith in reason. Reason gets results.

 

[ellenjanuary]

And, how come when a theist does it; it's equivocating? But when an atheist does it, it is justification through reason? What's that all about?

 

[bobhikes]

.

Mother Tereasa saving hundreds of thousands of children and adults in India on pure faith alone. I forgot I read her biography pretty amazing.

As a child she believed she had a calling from god. Her parents were against.
As a nun she believed god called her to help the poor in india. The church was against. She says it was her faith in God that allowed her to go.
Everytime she got money she spent it imediately expecting God to provide more for her and her poor.
She had faith that god would provide her with a worldwide nunnery when the church wouldn't. She was eventually approved.


She was disappointed and saddened many times. Pretty obvious if you refuse to build a savings but she never gave up her faith and always believed it was god plan for her.

As a plus I recommend it as a great story.

 

[Willamena]

You can't really say that anyone has (blind) faith in reason. Reason gets results.

Your first sentence is denied by your second.

 

[waitasec]

Mother Tereasa saving hundreds of thousands of children and adults in India on pure faith alone. I forgot I read her biography pretty amazing.

As a child she believed she had a calling from god. Her parents were against.
As a nun she believed god called her to help the poor in india. The church was against. She says it was her faith in God that allowed her to go.
Everytime she got money she spent it imediately expecting God to provide more for her and her poor.
She had faith that god would provide her with a worldwide nunnery when the church wouldn't. She was eventually approved.


She was disappointed and saddened many times. Pretty obvious if you refuse to build a savings but she never gave up her faith and always believed it was god plan for her.

As a plus I recommend it as a great story.

mother theresa perpetuated the problem by calling birth control a form of abortion...
reason would say, lets educate and teach these poor people how to use contraceptives and lower the birth rate
faith would call birth control evil