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

[Storm]

"Many people fear nothing more terribly then to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything and so popular that it will include everyone." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

BTW, thank you for this delicious irony.

 

[blackout]

Y'all seem to have great faith in reason.

The insistence on narrow definitions and parameters in these threads
makes interesting conversation almost impossible.

I have no faith in human beings as a whole
to be CAPABLE of basic pragmatic reason.
Yes, even atheists do unreasonable things
every single day.
Our young up'incoming scientists (apparentely)
are more concerned with twitter gossip
then helping their unconscious science professor.
Choosing the PROPER technology/use of technology
according to whether you've just had your nails done,
or whether someone requires medical help
seems to require a 101
“reasoning your way through basic daily events” class
all it’s own.

So we went to the moon.
big deal.
If it was SO important
surely we would have done it again.
In even more advanced technology.
But,
in the REALISTIC scheme of things
it really does not matter to our actual daily lives.
It certainly does not matter to mine,
one way or the other.
(and of course now we have no "reason"
to beat out the Soviet Union in some constructed "Space War")

We live in faith of our society.
Our spouses, our neighbors.
In faith of our government.
Our elected officials.
Our media/(mediums/go betweens)
Our “money”, our leaders,
Our bankers,
Our whole entire system.

I live day to day
with some VERY loose venere of "faith"
that I will not lose my home
to the UNreasonable interest rates
that drain me week after week.
But really I have no faith that this is so at all.
We may well become just one more
of how many thousands of forecolsures.
I just walk AS IF I won’t find me and my children homeless
because
I couldn’t FUNCTION with that kind of worry
eating me up all day every day.
So I “put up a front of faith”
for the sake of my own well being.
Without SOME kind of faith
that I might improve our economic position
through the employment of my highest skills
I would not even BOTHER to learn 500 cover tunes.
Weather or not it is REASONABLE though
to believe that I can get out from under this debt
and re’ build my ENTIRE career
on my own
with no sleep
at my age
in this limp economy,
with no startup money
and very basic equipment
I really do not know.
So all I have is FAITH...
(and talent/ability) to carry me forward.

Without this...
Action of Faith
I would most likely fall into a personal depression,
to match my economic one.
And who would it serve?
It certainly would not help my children any.

I once had faith in the American dream.

Now I just want my nice one bedroom apartment back.
Yes, me and my 4 kids.
In a one bedroom apartment.

The debt,
The husband,
the big yard,
and the white picket fence,
I can MOST HAPPILY do without.

Yes, appropriately wielded faith
Can work to a person’s advantage.
As well, faith in any ONE aspect of our Being
To the total exclusion of others
can work to a person’s disadvantage.

But perhaps advantage and disadvantage
Are not the point for you?
I do not know what “the point”
Of the things we do
Is
For you.

I personally don't have faith in humanity’s ability to reason
beyond it's own prejudices, "causes", and mind sets.
(and generally overblown sense of Self Importance)
People generally cannot see for even two minutes
out from any other perspective
than the one they presently hold.
Unless maybe they are peering into a microscope.

But have at it anyway.

 

[YmirGF]

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

I have faith that human animals will eventually come around to this realization, though I do admit, I have little evidence to base that assumption on. I do, however, have a great deal of hope.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

" I have no idea how the idea is still around"

Maybe it is because they self brain-wash themselves a little every day. I know some think we can not choose what to believe in but I don't think that is true. If the human mind can be programed, and it can program, then I see no reason why it can't program itself to an extent (a computer that can write it's own programming). I think by a constant self affirmation of "faith", over time a person can make themselves actually believe that God is real. Of course this would have a greater and more lasting effect on a youth. That certainly is not the sum total of it, but I feel it is a major player to the phenomena.

If this is what is happening I don't really have a problem with it myself; I find it interesting. Perhaps religion is an excellent example of how much of a robot humans really are. Maybe religion is showing us exactly the extent humans can be pre-programmed to.

 

[blackout]

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.

It's ALL "Regularly Scheduled Programming".
Even the nightly news.

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.

It's not? Never?

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.

There are many distinctions of "faith".
There are also distinctions of "god",
and "friends".
And everything else.
Faith that your life will not be wrought with difficulties,
faith that your degree will land you a job
that trumps your school debt,
is more worthy the title of "hedgy bet" ,
especially in today's economy.

But depending on what constitutes a satisfying life for you,
your faith may be more or less realistic.

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.

Faith can also be seen as "living *as if*".

If living *as if* keeps a person from madness,
then it is not madness at all.

Why are you so driven by the need
to MAKE people see and experience life
the way you do?

You do realize it's not a realistic notion at all, right?

And It's the very same question I would ask someone
of a doctrinal religion
who seeks to make everyone
live by THEIR own dictates.
Even down to legislation.

Why can't everyone just live and let live.

I may not agree with some of my theist friends here,
but I love them the way they are,
and would not seek to change them in any way.
These are the ones BTW,
who also
do not seek to change me,
or tell me who, or how I 'need' to live.

These type comments,

("Faith that x exists") is bogus tripe that's so laughable that I have no idea how the idea is still around

are haughty and insulting,
and leave no room whatsoever
for people's unique personal life experience/experience of life.
But then you already knew that, I'm sure.
(well maybe not that last part. I don't know.)

Your words step up to invalidate personas... persons... sentient beings...
of which you yourself, have no inner or in'depth understanding.
You cannot... will not... ever evidence the inner workings of another human being.
You will never walk life in another person's shoes.
Yet we all know how easy it is to belittle and judge others, regardless.
Religions have no monopoly on judgementalism or superficiality.

So if that's fine with you,
I guess that's fine then.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

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."

What she said. :yes:

 

[Sunstone]

Faith and reason are equally important to humanity because, though reason has increased our lifespan, multiplied our creature comforts, and taken us to the moon and back, faith still allows us to bed choir boys -- which is spiritually important to our crucial and essential corps of priests, without whom we would not know right from wrong. Therefore, I say faith and reason are equally important.

 

[Willamena]

but it is not reasonable to have an intense desire for your belief to be true.

Good thing he's, instead, talking about hope and faith.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Faith and reason are equally important to humanity because, though reason has increased our lifespan, multiplied our creature comforts, and taken us to the moon and back, faith still allows us to bed choir boys -- which is spiritually important to our crucial and essential corps of priests, without whom we would not know right from wrong. Therefore, I say faith and reason are equally important.

*Goes off to find a mop to clean up all the sarcasm that is dripping on the floor*

 

[Walkntune]

I have faith that human animals will eventually come around to this realization, though I do admit, I have little evidence to base that assumption on. I do, however, have a great deal of hope.

What is an animal except a label we put on a certain pattern created by a frequency of energy? What is faith except a willingness to release all resistances that interfere with our frequency or in other words. intuitive knowingness?

 

[Magic Man]

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

Idealism, hope, morality.

A humanity which believes in nothing except that which has evidence is not lacking at all. The unhealthy humanity is the one which believes in things without evidence.

You can still have idealism, hope and morality without faith and with reason.

Faith in the ability of humanity to improve.

That's a different use of "faith", though. That's in the sense of "trust" or "confidence" rather than "belief without evidence".

So, again, what is necessary about believing in things without evidence?

 

[Midnight Pete]

OK. I would say we process it on the right instead of on the left side of our brain.
So basically this whole argument is should we use reasoning from the right or left side of our brain.

Why restrict yourself to just one side of your brain when you could be using both of them holistically?

 

[Magic Man]

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

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

BORING!!

Then you've been using one of the other definitions of faith. Faith also means trust or confidence (as Meow Mix has pointed out). But the definition we're interested in here is belief without evidence, as in the opposite of reason.

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.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. I don't have to have compassion to not hate or start conflicts and war.

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.)

Reason can exist without compassion, and compassion is unnecessary for a world without conflict and hatred. I'm not sure where you get the idea that compassion is required for reason to exist. I'll agree that the best effect is for both to exist, but the world could be perfectly fine without compassion but with reason.

 

[Magic Man]

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.)

And that might be best for you, but if all of humanity did that, we wouldn't be around much longer. And you don't have to be pessimistic or manically depressed if you only use reason and not faith.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Oh, wow, you're going back to that? Yeah, I guess, if you're going to assert things like 1+1 doesn't equal 2 and never has, there's really no point in trying to have a conversation with you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Start with Reason
and if it works for you add faith.

I makes a very potent mixture.

Even matters of faith need reason.

 

[Magic Man]

I've read a bit of what's been heretofore posted, but not all of it. So, please forgive me if I am rehashing anything.

Since the question attempts to draw a distinction between 'faith' and 'reason', for the purpose of measuring their values against one another, then I am going to assume we are talking about a type of faith that is accepted without justifiable reasoning. So, I am going to qualify my answer as only applying to 'blind' faith, that which functions as a guiding behavioral mechanism without the benefit of rationally extrapolated supports.

And I'll probably need some scotch and water for this . . . Yeah, that's better.

Okay, as someone else wrote earlier (forgive me for not properly crediting the author, as I simply can't remember who it was), there is a huge difference, or so it seems to me, between 'faith' and 'blind faith'. If one has justifiable reasons for 'betting' on the unknown outcome due to rationally supported extrapolations, then that 'faith' falls within the camp of reason. If one has no justifiable reason for betting on a particular unknown, then they are acting on 'blind faith', one might say.

I have 'faith' that my Titans will beat the Redskins this weekend, based on certain rationally extrapolated expectations. The Titans are simply, in my opinion, more skilled and deeper on both sides of the ball. Plus, our defense can be monsters when fired up. It would be a position of absolute 'blind faith' to assume that Jesus himself is going to enter the game as our starting quaterback since we seem to be a bit weak at that particular position given recent injuries to both Vince Young and Kerry Collins. Although I will add, I would love to see the son of God throw the deep ball to Randy Moss.

Once a certain religious person told me that 'salvation was only attained through blind faith'. Then that person proceeded to give me explanations, some quite reasonable, for believing in the concept of 'salvation' and the need for it. To which I claimed their belief wasn't a matter of 'faith' but one based on reasoning, albeit somewhat flawed reasoning, in my humble opinion.

So, I suppose I personally believe the future well-being of humankind would be sorely undermined if we had to proceed without 'reason'. Conversely, however, I see no 'reasonable' harm, none that can be positively and conclusively identified, by proceeding headlong into the future without 'blind faith', leaving behind forever a type of faith that seeks not only to explain operative 'how's' and 'why's' of this world without any basis in reason but which is also used to bind 'non-believers' to its will.

Actually, this particular post required TWO glasses of scotch to complete. I guess I'm a more prolific drinker than philosopher. So it goes.

As Meow Mix has pointed out, this is equivocation. You faith in your Titans is not "belief without evidence"; it is "trust or confidence". When discussing the dichotomy of reason and faith, the definition of faith used is "belief without evidence". For these purposes, "blind faith" is equal to "faith".

 

[LuisDantas]

Start with Reason
and if it works for you add faith.

I makes a very potent mixture.

Even matters of faith need reason.

Actually, matters of faith are those that need reason most of all.

 

[Erebus]

Faith can sometimes be beneficial on a personal level. For the future of mankind though I'll take reason any day.

 

[Eliot Wild]

As Meow Mix has pointed out, this is equivocation. You faith in your Titans is not "belief without evidence"; it is "trust or confidence". When discussing the dichotomy of reason and faith, the definition of faith used is "belief without evidence". For these purposes, "blind faith" is equal to "faith".

Well, that's kind of what I was trying to say. I apologize for being unclear. I was trying to point out that very same distinction. I guess I didn't do it well enough.

What you call 'trust' or 'confidence', some others refer to as 'faith'. And then they interchange that with 'blind faith' in such debates as this one, effectively blurring the line of distinction I was trying to draw.

And it just seems to me that your approach is to ignore the fact that many people refer to 'trust' or 'confidence' based on reasonable, rational extrapolations, as 'faith', at least in some contexts. And to make matters worse, they have about a kazillion dictionaries out there that will back 'em up on their claim:

Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

I was just trying to undercut that slippery-slope mentality in one fell swoop. Personally, I agree with you. For the purposes of distinguishing the two concepts in order to gauge their values against one another, 'faith' = 'blind faith'. But some people won't accept that.

Hell, given the content of the posts I've read, MOST people don't accept that. I am still seeing posts where people are saying we can't do without 'faith' because that means we must get rid of 'faith' in our friends, 'faith' in our family, 'faith' in mankind, 'faith' that the future will be absolutely wonderful for each and every one of us, even Tiny Tim too. (Sorry 'bout that last part; I've been reading some Dickens to get hyped for the Holiday Season and his prose is seeping out of my very pores--anagram, by the way, prose = pores.) Sorry, again. I'm really hungover and can't stop the sillyness.

But yes. I see what you're saying. And I agree. I was just trying to point out that there is a distinct, irreconcilable difference between 'faith' that is really more of a 'trust/confidence' than 'blind faith' which is what we are acting on when we have absolutely no rational basis to support our belief.