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

[strikeviperMKII]

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.

It's also going to be really helpful in 4 and a half billion years...

You've missed my point.

Besides, often science for science's sake is where unexpected shoot-off breakthroughs occur.

And how do we know that? Because we've done science when there was no logical reason to do so. I'm glad you've made my point for me.

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 think its funny when people babble in tongues, other than that its basically useless. In terms of science, of course. I never have, nor will make that claim. Stop implying that I am.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

That certainly would be.

I'm not really feeling up to doing such extensive research at the moment on that subject, but it would be a great thing to see. (I hadn't actually considered that.)

But it's like asking how Christianity uses reason and having someone say Newton was a Christian.

Not really, because Newton was one man. I cited an entire set of civilizations.

One person can't really represent a civilization.

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.

Not a great physicist?! For the time, that was fantastic!

I prefer not to judge historical people by modern standards, but by the standards of the time.

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.

Rare, yes, but it really shines forth when it's present.

But I tend to view faith (alone) and blind faith separately. Good faith has at least some sort of logical benchmark, though it's probably an admittedly weak one; not so with blind faith, which has nothing whatsoever for a benchmark of trust.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.)

This is a false dichotomy though.

Why do you suppose reasonable people are manically depressed? This reminds me of the foul lies some theists have spread through history about atheists as depressed, hopeless individuals who have nothing to live for... why do they assert that? I have no idea.

Nor do I have any idea why you seem to be suggesting reasonable people would be depressed, and why they wouldn't be optimistic?

I noticed above that you define faith as confidence, but it's reasonable to have confidence. That's not the context of "faith" being asked about in the OP, I'm pretty sure. The context of "faith" asked about in the OP is more about belief in the ontological existence of something without evidence, i.e. "faith in God." Or so I assumed based on who the OP was.

There's nothing incompatible about confidence and reason. There's everything incompatible with "faith in god [existing]" and knowing something through reason.

 

[Meow Mix]

And how do we know that? Because we've done science when there was no logical reason to do so. I'm glad you've made my point for me..

Science for science's sake isn't faith, if that's what you're implying.

 

[Riverwolf]

And how do we know that? Because we've done science when there was no logical reason to do so.

I wouldn't call that "faith." I don't really know if there's a single word in the English language for exactly what that is, but it's not "faith."

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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

Same thing. All definitions of faith are based off the same idea.

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

Does ANYONE dispute that? Anyone at all?

Of course it is irrational. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. You're making the equivocation there.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not a great physicist?! For the time, that was fantastic!

I prefer not to judge historical people by modern standards, but by the standards of the time.

Sorry, you misinterpreted me.

I meant the reason he was a great physicist (which he was) was not because he was a Christian

 

[gnomon]

as a pessimistic, manically depressed "reasonable" person.

Careful now. That's my demographic.

 

[Meow Mix]

Same thing. All definitions of faith are based off the same idea.

Not really. Some are induction, some are confidence, some are irrational belief.

Of course it is irrational. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. You're making the equivocation there.

In what sense is believing something without evidence ever useful in any sense whatsoever?

 

[Riverwolf]

This is a false dichotomy though.

Why do you suppose reasonable people are manically depressed?

I don't. I was giving an example of two given options and which one I'd rather have.

Some people would be manically depressed without some sort of faith to latch on to.

This reminds me of the foul lies some theists have spread through history about atheists as depressed, hopeless individuals who have nothing to live for... why do they assert that? I have no idea.

Neither do I. Most atheists seem perfectly happy and content to me. I've seen no reason to think that atheism automatically means depression.

Nor do I have any idea why you seem to be suggesting reasonable people would be depressed, and why they wouldn't be optimistic?

I'm not saying that reasonable people are always depressed.

I noticed above that you define faith as confidence, but it's reasonable to have confidence. That's not the context of "faith" being asked about in the OP, I'm pretty sure. The context of "faith" asked about in the OP is more about belief in the ontological existence of something without evidence, i.e. "faith in God." Or so I assumed based on who the OP was.

"Faith in God" is the same as saying "trust that God exists" or "trust that God loves us and will save us" or something along those lines.

It's really not much different than the faith that I have that whenever I'm crossing the street I most likely won't get hit by some speeding car.

There's nothing incompatible about confidence and reason. There's everything incompatible with "faith in god [existing]" and knowing something through reason.

I haven't really seen it. I believe in God (albeit a pantheistic God), but I try to be as reasonable and realistic as I can be, much as I seriously want to believe in a world with magic, miracle-working Sages, gods like in the old legends, etc.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sorry, you misinterpreted me.

I meant the reason he was a great physicist (which he was) was not because he was a Christian

Ah. Sorry.

 

[Meow Mix]

But I tend to view faith (alone) and blind faith separately. Good faith has at least some sort of logical benchmark, though it's probably an admittedly weak one; not so with blind faith, which has nothing whatsoever for a benchmark of trust.

This seems to me that you're just drawing a distinction between a strongly justified belief and a weakly justified one (as opposed to a completely unjustified one, what you call "blind faith").

Is that a fair assessment?

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Not at all I support my position 100%. I blame you for nothing we have debated many times on the same subject line to no avail. It is not going to change this time unless you can admit 1+1 has not and never will equal 2 or I will even except that .999999999999...999to infinity is not 1. If you agree on either point then we could posssibly have some fun.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

Which parts of what I wrote imply mere confidence?

That said, I'd say if there was a problem, it would be your demands that we subdivide faith. It would be my contention that there is no fundamental difference between faith in God and faith in your friends to return the monies you loan out.

 

[Meow Mix]

"Faith in God" is the same as saying "trust that God exists" or "trust that God loves us and will save us" or something along those lines.

It's really not much different than the faith that I have that whenever I'm crossing the street I most likely won't get hit by some speeding car.

I disagree. I want to examine them each:

1) "Trust that God exists." This is totally baseless. Do you "trust" that your friends exist, or do you know they do through reason? When driving to my girlfriend's parents' place once we came across a sign by some farm that said, "JESUS IS REAL." She quipped, "I'd be wary of any salesman that first had to convince me his product was real by saying so." That always kind of stuck with me.

2) "Trust that God loves us and will save us." Can you see how the connotation has shifted? The faith is no longer about the existence of something, but rather in how it will behave. This is a totally separate thing!

In one context we have to just believe that something exists... in another context we know the thing exists but we're believing how it will act.

Having faith that something exists is always irrational. That's just hocus pocus mumbo jumbo.

Having confidence in how something known to exist will behave, though, can be completely rational: we can base that confidence on past experience, on statistics, on induction because we form an expectation that's reasonable based on those things.

Now if I had "faith" that my girlfriend will get home tonight and hit herself repeatedly in the forehead with a frying pan while doing the macarena, spinning around and doing a handstand... that would not be reasonable at all because I have no precedent -- no REASON -- on which to base that belief.

 

[Meow Mix]

Which parts of what I wrote imply mere confidence?

That said, I'd say if there was a problem, it would be your demands that we subdivide faith. It would be my contention that there is no fundamental difference between faith in God and faith in your friends to return the monies you loan out.

Then your contention would be wrong.

You don't know God exists, but you do know that your friends exist.

Would you find it strange if Bill and Tom were best friends for 30 years, and one day Bill told you "I have faith that Tom exists?"

People don't say those kinds of things. They don't say so for obvious reasons: because there is obviously more than one context of the word "faith."

To have "faith" that something exists at all is completely different than to have "faith" (confidence) in how something KNOWN to exist will behave.

 

[Meow Mix]

Again, it seems to me that the reason this "faith" business stays around even with its obvious irrationality is because people are so willing to turn it into a package deal through equivocation. It's like getting cable TV where all you want are the good channels but nooo, you have to also get those stupid channels too and pay for them.

No one is going to say that faith -- in the context of having confidence in our friends and our future, etc. -- is irrational because it's not.

However faith that something exists without evidence is totally irrational. So people who think faith is virtuous sort of package both of these contexts into one deal and say "Ha! You can't get rid of faith in God as rational because after all you have faith in your friends, right?"

But this is fallacious. It's equivocation. "Faith in God" (as in, in the EXISTENCE of God) is irrational. Faith that I can have confidence to loan my friend $5 or that I will have a satisfying life ahead of me is not irrational. There's a distinction.

Ontological faith ("Faith that x exists") is bogus tripe that's so laughable that I have no idea how the idea is still around, except as I've been saying because so many are willing to lump it in with equivocation as a "package deal" with more rational contexts of faith.

People need to be able to recognize the difference to put a stop to that madness.

 

[Mister Emu]

In what sense is believing something without evidence ever useful in any sense whatsoever?

Hope... believing that things will get better, even when there is no evidence that it will, keeps people alive and sometimes vibrant even in terrible conditions.

You don't know God exists.

Actually, I do.

Would you find it strange if Bill and Tom were best friends for 30 years, and one day Bill told you "I have faith that Tom exists?"

Perhaps not, but if Bill knew about Andy only through Tom's tales of their youthful misadventures, Bill might say "I have faith that Andy exists".

To have "faith" that something exists at all is completely different than to have "faith" (confidence) in how something KNOWN to exist will behave.

Not really, as they are both faiths, you don't know how they will act, you don't know that the thing exists. You don't know either thing, both beliefs are faith.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hope... believing that things will get better, even when there is no evidence that it will, keeps people alive and sometimes vibrant even in terrible conditions.

It isn't unreasonable to hope that things will get better; and in fact the data on life satisfaction shows that it usually does. There's no magical faith there, still just reasonable inference.

Actually, I do.

Aside from the fact that I doubt that severely, I must point out that if you "know" God exists then you don't have faith in God's existence.

Perhaps not, but if Bill knew about Andy only through Tom's tales of their youthful misadventures, Bill might say "I have faith that Andy exists".

If Andy is a human being ascribed with ordinary traits then he's probably well within his epistemic duty to go ahead and accept the claim without skepticism.

If Andy is a mouse who turned into a boy and can turn purple objects green magically, Bill would probably need to start bringing out the skeptic card: extraordinary claims and all that.

Not really, as they are both faiths, you don't know how they will act, you don't know that the thing exists. You don't know either thing, both beliefs are faith.

You can reasonably infer how a friend will act: nobody becomes friends with one another until they're at least familiar with one another.

It's totally different from just believing that something exists without evidence.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Science for science's sake isn't faith, if that's what you're implying.

It isn't 'believing something without evidence', of course. But it is believing that the world will tell whether your ideas are right are wrong. You do have evidence of that, but only experience.

I wouldn't call that "faith." I don't really know if there's a single word in the English language for exactly what that is, but it's not "faith."

See above.

Not really. Some are induction, some are confidence, some are irrational belief.

All are based on the experiences of an individual or group of individuals. The basis of faith (which is faith itself) remains the same.

In what sense is believing something without evidence ever useful in any sense whatsoever?

From a scientific perspective, it isn't. But since when were we talking only science?