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

[Magic Man]

You can have your reason. I like seeing the word without reason.

Yes, you've made that quite clear.

I see butterflies and dragons in the sky with my kids.
I talk of angels and dreamcatchers protecting them when they sleep.
I know a jolly old guy that laughs and brings my kids toys.
Leprechuns and 4 leaf clovers bring us good luck.
A shinny Heads up penny's bring a smile to my face.
I know love


This is far more important to me than evolution, the big bang theory, paleontology etc. I hope your reason makes you as happy.

Huh? So, let me get this straight:

Are you saying you actually believe leprechauns, Santa, dragons and angels are real? Or are you just saying you pretend to with your kids?

And you're saying being superstitious is a better way to go through life than learning about the real world through scientific research and common sense?

And by the way, I know love, too.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree that faith is believing in something without evidence, it is believing in something that cannot be seen.

What's the difference? Are you just saying we can't trust our eyes, but we can trust our other senses?

The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. It tells me that I am here and I see that I am. It tells me that the world had a beginning and science backs that up. It tells me that man has a fallen human nature and we have evidence of that. It tells me that Jesus saves and I see evidence of changed lives. It tells me we all die and I see that.

So, it tells you some very obvious things that any person or worldview could tell you, and you believe it? What is the evidence of man's "fallen nature"? And what is the evidence that Jesus saves?

Faith and reason go hand in hand. Not that there aren’t unreasonable people in the world, such as those that deny faith when they use it every day. Have you ever bought something that you didn’t try out in the store first? Of course, we all have. Your reason said that it was okay, but you still had to have faith to do that. Humans operate and function on faith, or else we couldn’t move. We couldn’t go to bed unless we had a reasonable faith that we would wake up. We couldn’t plan anything unless we had a reasonable faith that we would do it in the future. It even takes faith to believe that the world would be better off with no religion.

Again (maybe you just haven't read the thread) none of that is believing without evidence, which is what the faith we're talking about is. Buying something without trying it doesn't require faith. It requires me to make the decision that, while it's possible this thing won't fit, I'll take the chance and bring it back if I have to. No faith. Whether or not I believe I'll wake up in the morning doesn't affect my going to sleep at night. Faith in that situation would be me saying "I have no doubt I'll wake up in the morning. I am 100% sure about that". That's not what I do. I just figure there's a good chance of it (because there's nothing obviously wrong with me, and I've woken up thousands of mornings already), and don't even think about it. You don't need faith to plan something. I planned a party recently by sending out invitations and getting my house ready. I believed the party would happen because my friends said they'd be there. I understood that some might not show up even if they said they would, but I had good reason to believe there would be a party. No faith involved. And no, it doesn't take faith to believe the world would be better off without religion.

 

[Magic Man]

We didn't see the big bang, but scientists believe that it happened because of evidence. That is forensic evidence, not objective.

The point is we have objective evidence for thing like the big bang theory. We don't for God. It would be kind of silly for the phrase to mean "belief in the unseen, because of evidence we can hear, touch or taste".

 

[waitasec]

If you have a point make it, so I can destroy it. And stop asking me what my definition of words are, it gets old.

What is your definition of is
What is your definition of you
What is your definition of definition
What is your definition of what
What is your definition of of

why are you so hostile?
i guess you can't define it then?

tell me, when you can't define something do you just rely on faith to reveal it's meaning?

 

[darkendless]

I disagree that faith is believing in something without evidence, it is believing in something that cannot be seen. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith.

Its something you can't see nor demonstrate to someone else, thus i is unreasonable.

Christianity has caused many of the problems in this world but prefers to palm the blame off on others.

 

[lunamoth]

I wonder if for the future well-being of humankind we should start jettisoning our DNA into space, hoping for collisions on hospitable planets to start the life process over again. We might even get lucky and hit a planet where they have the technology to resurrect our species.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder if for the future well-being of humankind we should start jettisoning our DNA into space, hoping for collisions on hospitable planets to start the life process over again. We might even get lucky and hit a planet where they have the technology to resurrect our species.

Considering the odds & the costs, we'd be better off using the money on this planet.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Here is the Biblical definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We see that there can be evidence of things not seen.

Hardly the Biblical definition.

Faith is the tool to use when things get unreasonable. As my faith is based on love, it is also based on empirical evidence; and not everybody's idea of faith is. I still say you need both, but with ambiguity in the terms, I'd say reason is preferred.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

What's the difference? Are you just saying we can't trust our eyes, but we can trust our other senses?

Not seen doesn't just mean with your eyes.

 

[Magic Man]

Not seen doesn't just mean with your eyes.

Yes, that's my point. That being the case, there's no difference between "things without evidence" and "things unseen".

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Yes, that's my point. That being the case, there's no difference between "things without evidence" and "things unseen".

To the person who does not see, this is the case. They do not see what is there, so they do not see the evidence for what is there. After you do see, however, the evidence is quite plain.

 

[jarofthoughts]

To the person who does not see, this is the case. They do not see what is there, so they do not see the evidence for what is there. After you do see, however, the evidence is quite plain.

Ah.

The infinite regression game.

It's old. Change the channel please.

 

[Willamena]

Ah.

The infinite regression game.

It's old. Change the channel please.

How is what he said related to infinite regression? I'm missing a step.

 

[jarofthoughts]

How is what he said related to infinite regression? I'm missing a step.

By continually presupposing another level of "evidence" that for some obscure reason is only available to those that agree with him. I've seen this game before and the "evidence" will always, by his definition, be out of our reach so that we would just have to take his word for it.

It is very similar to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Magic Man]

To the person who does not see, this is the case. They do not see what is there, so they do not see the evidence for what is there. After you do see, however, the evidence is quite plain.

OK, let's break this down. You said when someone uses the term "things unseen" in this situation they're not just talking about using your eyes, but presumable their other senses, too. That means the thing is not only unseen, but unsensed, and therefore without evidence.

And just to clear up your misconception, no, it's not that people just don't see the evidence; it's that the evidence isn't there.

 

[Willamena]

By continually presupposing another level of "evidence" that for some obscure reason is only available to those that agree with him. I've seen this game before and the "evidence" will always, by his definition, be out of our reach so that we would just have to take his word for it.

It is very similar to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

He didn't presuppose "another level" of evidence, he only supposed evidence. If you can't see something, in the figurative sense he's using the word, it's because there's no evidence for it. When you do see, then there it is --it comes into existence at that moment, evidenced by your understanding it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

OK, let's break this down. You said when someone uses the term "things unseen" in this situation they're not just talking about using your eyes, but presumable their other senses, too. That means the thing is not only unseen, but unsensed, and therefore without evidence.

And just to clear up your misconception, no, it's not that people just don't see the evidence; it's that the evidence isn't there.

Oh, no I wasn't talking about senses. When I said 'eyes' I meant all the senses. So 'not seen' doesn't just mean 'not sensed'. In fact, you could very well be sensing all the evidence you need. You just don't see it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

He didn't presuppose "another level" of evidence, he only supposed evidence. If you can't see something, in the figurative sense he's using the word, it's because there's no evidence for it. When you do see, then there it is --it comes into existence at that moment, evidenced by your understanding it.

He presupposed a level of "evidence" that somehow is unavailable though the use of our senses (or a suitable scientific extension thereof), but which somehow is available to those who believe.

There is no such thing.

Personal revelation is not evidence, it's lunacy.

 

[Willamena]

He presupposed a level of "evidence" that somehow is unavailable though the use of our senses (or a suitable scientific extension thereof), but which somehow is available to those who believe.

There is no such thing.

Personal revelation is not evidence, it's lunacy.

Is intuition a sense? Is common sense a sense? The word "sense" refers to the mental phenomena that are our interpretations of the world around us, and includes more than just physical senses. It is the "sense" we make out of the world (or that our brains make, if you like). It is all the information that has "reached" our brain, ordered, organized and structured not just by the physical processes of cognition but by interpretation piled on interpretion, with a helping of interpretation on the side. Every bit of information allows for a connection to be drawn between it and another bit of information.

Personal revelation is realization. It is making a connection.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think you're using two different versions of "sense" as the same thing there. There's logical sense (of which nonsense is the negation) and there's physical senses, which would be constructions that feed data to the brain.