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

[Midnight Pete]

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

I would take compassion over reason.

Compassion is much, much shorter supply.

 

[Magic Man]

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:

I don't ignore that. I readily admit that faith has more than one definition. The problem is people using the different definitions as if they're for the same word. "Buck" means "dollar" and it also means "male deer", but when I'm talking about one or the other, equivocating the two doesn't help anything.

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.

I understand. I just wanted to make sure. "Blind faith" is actually redundant, but I think it's used because people don't want to accept the definition of faith we're using. They want to believe that their faith is different from blind faith. They use "blind faith" to distance themselves from it, so that they can sing the praises of their faith, while decrying the "bad kind" which is blind faith, even though the two are the same.

 

[Willamena]

You know, all this talk about equivocation... if you'd just specified "blind faith" instead of "faith" at the beginning, i.e. if you hadn't equivocated them, you wouldn't have had all this misunderstanding.

 

[Cordoba]

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 are equally important, together with wisdom and compassion

Faith leads to inner peace, and reason leads to a better standard of living (among other things)

Wisdom is also needed however in order to use scientific discoveries and their technological applications in a benificial way, and compassion with fellow human beings is important for people to live in peace ...

In Islam there is no contradiction between faith and reason

 

[Eliot Wild]

You know, all this talk about equivocation... if you'd just specified "blind faith" instead of "faith" at the beginning, i.e. if you hadn't equivocated them, you wouldn't have had all this misunderstanding.

This is why I am completely beguiled by you. I am. It is bewitching to watch your mind at work. I am infatuated. You appear to have no tolerance for BS. Let's run off together, rent a small cottage in southern Spain, you know, in the Castillian Region where they still speak with a lisp. And we'll spend the rest of our days drinking "Cervetha's" and "Sthangria" while writing poetry and watching Sevillana dancers?

 

[Willamena]

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.

Perhaps you could (successfully) explain it to me, then, because I don't understand it.

 

[ZooGirl02]

Personally, I think that reason is more important. If one has faith but no reason, they are likely to become a bigoted fundamentalist.

 

[Magic Man]

You know, all this talk about equivocation... if you'd just specified "blind faith" instead of "faith" at the beginning, i.e. if you hadn't equivocated them, you wouldn't have had all this misunderstanding.

Except that there's no need for "blind faith". It's the same as the definition of faith we're using. Faith has the meaning of "belief without evidence" (along with all of those other meanings). We don't need to use the term "blind faith", and that wouldn't really be helpful, since everyone will decry blind faith, while still not admitting that the faith they're talking about is the same thing.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Perhaps you could (successfully) explain it to me, then, because I don't understand it.

How are we going to write beautiful poetry together, if you don't understand me?

If 'faith' is based on rationally extrapolated supports, such as my faith that my Mommy loves me dearly, even more so than her other four sons because I'm the only one without children so I never ask her to babysit, then that 'faith' actually falls in the 'reason' camp, because it is a trust or confidence that has a reasonable basis.

If 'faith' is not based on any rationally extrapolated supports, such as that held by the 'Children of the Universal Light' who believe that a divine presence exists in the form of a god who orbits the earth in a magic spaceship, then it falls squarely in the camp of 'faith', or what I would call 'blind faith'.

I cannot speak for anyone else, including the author of the OP, but for my purposes, when considering these two 'ideas' and comparing them, measuring them against one another to see which has the most value, then I consider 'faith' = 'blind faith', because all other faith, such as faith in my Mommy's love for me, is based on some sort of rationally extrapolated supports. And that, as some others like mball have noted, is better termed 'trust' or 'confidence'.

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps you could (successfully) explain it to me, then, because I don't understand it.

OK, well, "faith" means "belief without evidence", and "blind faith" means "belief without evidence". The only reason people add "blind" is because they're trying to distinguish between good faith and bad faith, even though they're the same thing, but it's not something they want to admit.

 

[Willamena]

Except that there's no need for "blind faith". It's the same as the definition of faith we're using. Faith has the meaning of "belief without evidence" (along with all of those other meanings). We don't need to use the term "blind faith", and that wouldn't really be helpful, since everyone will decry blind faith, while still not admitting that the faith they're talking about is the same thing.

Except there is a need, because the other context is the more common (as indicated by the context appearing first in dictionaries). The philosophical dichotomy of reason vs. faith is a much more interesting (and useful) discussion when faith is taken in the 'trust or confidence' sense. That is the dichotomy that is meaningful in an epistomology, and in a theological context.

 

[Willamena]

If 'faith' is based on rationally extrapolated supports, such as my faith that my Mommy loves me dearly, even more so than her other four sons because I'm the only one without children so I never ask her to babysit, then that 'faith' actually falls in the 'reason' camp, because it is a trust or confidence that has a reasonable basis.

If that's how it's being seen, then it makes (a bit) more sense.

Thanks for the image.

 

[Magic Man]

Except there is a need, because the other context is the more common (as indicated by the context appearing first in dictionaries).

It doesn't really matter where it appears in the dictionary or how common it is. There are several definitions of the word, and people should not use them all as if they're interchangeable.

The philosophical dichotomy of reason vs. faith is a much more interesting (and useful) discussion when faith is taken in the 'trust or confidence' sense. That is the dichotomy that is meaningful in an epistomology, and in a theological context.

It may be more interesting to you, but not to me. I don't see the point in discussing that. It's not much of a dichotomy. The point of discussing the real "faith vs. reason" dichotomy (the one where faith means "belief without evidence) is that they are opposites. Trust and confidence are not opposites of reason.

 

[Willamena]

Trust and confidence are not opposites of reason.

Yes, but the way you've all defined it (as Eliot explained it), if there's faith with evidence, then faith becomes reason.

That's one of the reasons equivocation could be a bad thing.

 

[waitasec]

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

he's using hope and belief interchangeably with faith
faith is belief without evidence
hope is a desire for good
belief is subjective

It isn't unreasonable to hope that things will get better

I agree... So you acknowledge that there are instances where belief without evidence is useful, and perhaps even reasonable

if hope, a desire for good, were to be used instead of belief without evidence; then i would agree...
it isn't unreasonable to hope or desire for good things
but it is unreasonable to have faith (that is why it's faith...)
belief without evidence is not hope
belief without evidence is faith.
these are 2 completely different things

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.

hope is not believing it is a desire.
basically he is saying hoping in a belief which is not based on evidence keeps people, which is unreasonable. because he uses hope interchangeably with faith

hope, a desire to get through, keeps people alive
is reasonable

 

[Storm]

Hope you don't believe isn't really hope, is it?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, but the way you've all defined it (as Eliot explained it), if there's faith with evidence, then faith becomes reason.

Well, yeah. If you use evidence and critical thinking to come to a conclusion, that's reason, not faith.

That's one of the reasons equivocation could be a bad thing.

The reason equivocation is a bad thing is because it uses a word in different ways as if they are all the same.

 

[Magic Man]

Hope you don't believe isn't really hope, is it?

Why not? Isn't that why people say "Well, I don't believe it's going to happen, but I hope it will"?

 

[Willamena]

Well, yeah. If you use evidence and critical thinking to come to a conclusion, that's reason, not faith.

But now you've entirely eliminated the other context of faith, left no room for it to exist. By your definition, faith can ONLY be 'blind faith'.

I guess all those dictionaries are wrong.

The reason equivocation is a bad thing is because it uses a word in different ways as if they are all the same.

Ouch.

 

[Storm]

Why not? Isn't that why people say "Well, I don't believe it's going to happen, but I hope it will"?

That's drawing a distinction between what they think and what they would like. I wouldn't call it hope. Hope only works if you believe in it, if you can see the light at the end of the tunnel.