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

[strikeviperMKII]

Faith leads us to curl up in dark corners moving our hands in special motions to ward off the demons and pixies.

Reason brought us to the moon and back.

Reason enabled us to get to the moon. It was faith that actually got us to do it.

I predict that some people will respond, though, that they're "equally important." I find that to be pretty silly myself though, when you compare what faith has done for humanity and what reason has done for humanity. The benefits are hardly "equal."

If faith is used within its own domain, it is greatly beneficial. Once taken outside that domain, it is a hindrance. Same goes for science.

 

[waitasec]

To reason one must at least have faith in him/her self.

faith in what sense?
you know you exist. seems to me your speaking of confidence.

You can't reason faith in ones self.

sure you can. especially if someone is desperate enough to, or needs to justify anything reasoned to be questionable...

 

[Meow Mix]

...it's not obvious?

Muslims at the time were obviously doing something right with their faith along with reason that equally faithful Europe wasn't doing at the same time.

I think it's a perfect indication that Islam does (or at least is supposed to)encourage reason.

Just because someone who makes a scientific discovery happens to be a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu doesn't mean their reasoning capacity has anything to do with their being a Muslim or whatever any more than having, say, a mustache has anything to do with it.

I asked what faith had to do with reason, not examples of people in cultures of faith that so happened to use reason. There's no causal connection as was implied.

 

[Meow Mix]

Reason enabled us to get to the moon. It was faith that actually got us to do it.

This is mere equivocation of a context of "faith" that's synonomous with "confidence."

This is the problem with the "faith" debate. Many faith defenders constantly equivocate all different kinds of contexts of faith as if they were the same thing. You can't do that.

 

[Penumbra]

Reason.

 

[Walkntune]

Faith leads us to curl up in dark corners moving our hands in special motions to ward off the demons and pixies.

Reason brought us to the moon and back.

Well, in 1973
I wonder who we're gonna see
who's in power now
think I'll turn on the TV
Man on the news says
Russia's gonna beat us
they shot all our dreamers
and there's no one left to lead us
we need a solution
we need salvation
let's send some people to the moon to gather information!
...they brought back a big bag of rocks...
only cost $57 billion, must be nice rocks!

Larry Norman

 

[gnomon]

If faith got us to the moon they wouldn't have run a vast array of experiments and mathematical tests to 1) figure out how to get into space and 2) figure out when to launch to be able to reach the moon.

Not by any meaning has the term faith been useful to say "Well, the science looks good enough so let's give it a go.". Hope would be a better term. As in the first astronauts saying "I hope this damn thing doesn't blow up.".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Reason enabled us to get to the moon. It was faith that actually got us to do it.

No it didn't. There is a calculated risk based on reason of which the astronauts were well aware of before hand that such a trip could not end well, and be potentially lethal if something goes wrong. The decision to go is based on reasonable risk and not of what is called blind faith.

In other words, there were preparations involved whereas faith is the deficit of this.

 

[Willamena]

Some seem to think that reason should take a backseat to faith. While others seem to believe not only is faith unnecessary but it is detrimental.

So which do you think is more important to humanity and why?

Both, equally (provided you mean faith in its native context of an investment of trust or confidence). In fact, you can't have one without the other in equal measure. They are two sides of a coin called "knowing." Faith carries us forward, to and through the gap of unknowing; reason cements the gap behind us.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, in 1973
I wonder who we're gonna see
who's in power now
think I'll turn on the TV
Man on the news says
Russia's gonna beat us
they shot all our dreamers
and there's no one left to lead us
we need a solution
we need salvation
let's send some people to the moon to gather information!
...they brought back a big bag of rocks...
only cost $57 billion, must be nice rocks!

Larry Norman

If this is meant to question the value of reaching another solar system body, $57 billion is a small price to pay for the technology that will ultimately be the sole chance of survival for the human race. Eventually this planet WILL be uninhabitable.

 

[Magic Man]

I know you so well I can post both sides of our debate so other than trying to be unsuccessfully funny there is no point.

In other words, you don't want to actually support what you're saying so you're just going to pretend that it's somehow my fault you're refusing to? OK.

 

[Magic Man]

Why not?

Because they are polar opposites. It's like saying you can have a hot house that's cold. Reason is the act of thinking about something, finding evidence for it and coming to a conclusion. Faith is believing something you're told without thinking about it and without any evidence. If I'm using reason to come to a conclusion, I'm not using faith, and vice versa.

And I disagree to a point; compassion is paramount to survival through cooperation. So, I'd say it should come before reason.

You can survive through cooperation by way of reason. Compassion is nice, but unnecessary.

 

[Mister Emu]

In what sense is faith "necessary" whatsoever?

A humanity which believes in nothing except that which is proven is lacking, is unhealthy.

Idealism, hope, morality. Faith in the ability of humanity to improve. Without faith we would stagnate. Without reason stagnation might be preferrable.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This is mere equivocation of a context of "faith" that's synonomous with "confidence."

This is the problem with the "faith" debate. Many faith defenders constantly equivocate all different kinds of contexts of faith as if
they were the same thing. You can't do that.

Was there any logical reason to go to the moon? Do we honestly need to know what the moon is made out of to live our lives? We did fine before we went to the moon.

But we didn't go to the moon because science told us it was possible. We didn't do it because we needed to know the moon's composition, or anything about the moon that we didn't already know.

We did it simply because we could. Because we had a reason other than reason to do it. Is that not faith?

 

[Meow Mix]

A humanity which believes in nothing except that which is proven is lacking, is unhealthy.

Idealism, hope, morality. Faith in the ability of humanity to improve. Without faith we would stagnate. Without reason stagnation might be preferrable.

Confidence is a different context of "faith" than the one the OP is asking about.

Nobody denies the utility of confidence in something like the future of humanity, confidence in our friends, confidence that we can accomplish a goal.

That is NOT the same context of faith as believing in a deity on faith.

This is, as I've been saying, a huge problem in the "faith" discussions: faith supporters will often flicker between different contexts of faith, equivocating them as if they are the same.

Skeptic: Faith in things without evidence is irrational.
Believer: But don't you have faith the sun will rise tomorrow?
Skeptic: Ah, but that's equivocating two contexts of faith. One is unsupported belief that something exists, the other is the use of induction -- which is different.
Believer: Fine, then, what about faith in a friend to loan them $5?
Skeptic: More equivocation. I have confidence my friend will return my $5 from my experience with them, and I certainly know through reason that they even exist. This is entirely different from having the unsupported notion that some ineffable being exists through "faith."

Equivocation -- it somehow keeps this "faith" concept alive, when really there are like three different kinds of "faith."

One of them is most certainly irrational: belief in the existence of things without evidence.

Does ANYONE dispute that? Anyone at all?

 

[Meow Mix]

Was there any logical reason to go to the moon? Do we honestly need to know what the moon is made out of to live our lives? We did fine before we went to the moon.

But we didn't go to the moon because science told us it was possible. We didn't do it because we needed to know the moon's composition, or anything about the moon that we didn't already know.

We did it simply because we could. Because we had a reason other than reason to do it. Is that not faith?

Uh... pretty sure we developed the technology to do it for political reasons (take that, USSR) though I'm sure the scientists understood the most important part about it: such technology is the ONLY means by which we can ensure continued survival of humanity when -- not if, WHEN -- our planet becomes uninhabitable.

Besides, often science for science's sake is where unexpected shoot-off breakthroughs occur. Radar technology accidently led to the microwave, which has unquestionably raised the quality of life by reducing cooking times for those moments where we just don't want to take the time to fire up the ol' oven.

Then there were X-rays... rubber was an accidental discovery as well... science for science's sake, even something as monstrously disconnected from everyday life like the Large Hadron Collider will improve our quality of life before the end through unexpected technologies -- I assure you.

Now, if someone could rock back and forth and babble in tongues and make momentous breakthroughs that increase the quality of life I would be impressed with faith. But it appears to me that all faith does is waste precious time and resources on irrational superstition. (No offense, faithers -- I tried to qualify it as "appears to me")

 

[Riverwolf]

Just because someone who makes a scientific discovery happens to be a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu doesn't mean their reasoning capacity has anything to do with their being a Muslim or whatever any more than having, say, a mustache has anything to do with it.

I'm aware of that. Which is why I'm not referring to a scientific discovery; I'm talking about general advancement that exceeded the rest of the world at the time. (From what I've heard, anyway).

That's not at all the same thing as a single scientific discovery.

I asked what faith had to do with reason, not examples of people in cultures of faith that so happened to use reason.

It looked more like you asked how Islam used reason. I provided that.

If that's not what you asked for, then woops.

EDIT: Oh, wait! You DID originally ask for an example of how Islam uses reason.

There's no causal connection as was implied.

How can you be so certain? Looks pretty darned clear to me.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because they are polar opposites. It's like saying you can have a hot house that's cold. Reason is the act of thinking about something, finding evidence for it and coming to a conclusion. Faith is believing something you're told without thinking about it and without any evidence. If I'm using reason to come to a conclusion, I'm not using faith, and vice versa.

...that's not how I've always defined faith.

Faith is synonymous with trust. I guess reason should be pessimistic?

BORING!!

You can survive through cooperation by way of reason. Compassion is nice, but unnecessary.

Sorry, but a world without compassion is a world of nothing but conflict, hate, and war. That's a world that will destroy itself, regardless of how much "reason" there is.

It's through reason that I recognize compassion as fundamental.

IOW, a world without compassion is a world without reason. They must go hand in hand for the best effect, but compassion can exist without reason (though in that case it risks being foolish and misplaced.)

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm aware of that. Which is why I'm not referring to a scientific discovery; I'm talking about general advancement that exceeded the rest of the world at the time. (From what I've heard, anyway).

That's not at all the same thing as a single scientific discovery.

Ok, granted.

However it's fairly clear that discovery flourishes in places and times of relative secularism -- such as the Renaissance. In today's world the places with the most universities and output of useful knowledge are also generally the most secular.

In fact, an interesting experiment would be to see how secular the mideast societies were when these discoveries were flourishing. I'd predict fairly confidently that if there was a lot of progress going on that it was probably at relatively secular times/places -- don't know for sure, but that seems to be the trend.

It looked more like you asked how Islam used reason. I provided that.

If that's not what you asked for, then woops.

EDIT: Oh, wait! You DID originally ask for an example of how Islam uses reason.

But it's like asking how Christianity uses reason and having someone say Newton was a Christian. There's no causal relationship between the two. Some people can be deeply religious but SEPARATE their religious life from their scientific life. Newton was not a great physicist "because" he was a Christian, so that example would be absurd. This is also why I'm objecting to the example you gave.

Now if someone were to say Thomas Aquinas exhibited a great deal of reason, that IS directly related to his Christianity and I would indeed agree that he is an example of a great use of reason within the constraints of Christianity. I don't doubt that such examples also exist for Islam, but my point is that the use of great reason when it comes to faith is (to me) obviously rare and usually takes a back seat to blind faith.

 

[Riverwolf]

Now, if someone could rock back and forth and babble in tongues and make momentous breakthroughs that increase the quality of life I would be impressed with faith. But it appears to me that all faith does is waste precious time and resources on irrational superstition. (No offense, faithers -- I tried to qualify it as "appears to me")

I don't know.

I, personally, would rather live as an optimistic superstitious fool than as a pessimistic, manically depressed "reasonable" person. (Though I'd certainly most rather have the optimism and the reason together.)