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

[Riverwolf]

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.

As in, superstition. I prefer to use that word for such a definition.

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

Compassion is acting on our caring for others. No compassion, no caring for others.

Basically, a total lack of compassion is basically an indication of psychopathy.

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.

Yeah, a world full of psychopaths. THAT'S a good world. :sarcastic

It's compassion that allows us to care that people are suffering in the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

I know. I don't believe that.

I try to be reasonable and logical, and though I do suffer from some mild depression now and then, it's not manic or due to a lack of faith in a Sky God.

 

[waitasec]

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

hope is desire...
desire cannot exist with out want...
faith in what you don't believe in isn't faith...it is irrational

 

[Nerthus]

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?

For my future, I hope it will be reason.

At least I know that my decisions will based on my logical working out, not on a hunch.

 

[waitasec]

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.

how i see it is; what they would like is hope
what they think is faith

hope works because you desire for good and it is what gets you through the day not faith...

seeing the light at the end of the tunnel implies evidence, when the light at the end of the tunnel is what you hope to see...
imo...

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Exactly, I was going to reply with this but had to see if someone else already did. And you did.

If the OP said "blind faith" people would be like "Oh, no, I don't have *BLIND* faith." But then if we asked what faith means I'm sure at least someone would say believing in the unseen (i.e. unevidenced) or some such. Or they might avoid it in that conversation but in some other thread explain that faith is the evidence of that which is unseen and all that.

When asking people why they believe in God I usually get a mixed bag. Some people are willing to straight up say that their belief is irrational, others believe for anecdotal or personal experience reasons, haven't really ran into any yet who claimed to believe for wholly rational reasons. This involves a lot of faith then, or at least some weakly justified claims (personal experience claims, etc.).

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

But reason isn't dichotomous with trust/confidence.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

I haven't eliminated anything. You can still use the word "faith" to mean other things, but not in the context of this discussion. It's like a said earlier, with the example of "buck". It's the same letters in the same order, but it has 2 very different meanings. When I'm discussing a male deer, I'm not saying the other definition of "buck" doesn't exist, just that it's not helpful in the particular discussion I'm having. So, no, dictionaries aren't wrong.

Ouch.

Why ouch?

 

[Willamena]

Exactly, I was going to reply with this but had to see if someone else already did. And you did.

If the OP said "blind faith" people would be like "Oh, no, I don't have *BLIND* faith." But then if we asked what faith means I'm sure at least someone would say believing in the unseen (i.e. unevidenced) or some such. Or they might avoid it in that conversation but in some other thread explain that faith is the evidence of that which is unseen and all that.

When asking people why they believe in God I usually get a mixed bag. Some people are willing to straight up say that their belief is irrational, others believe for anecdotal or personal experience reasons, haven't really ran into any yet who claimed to believe for wholly rational reasons. This involves a lot of faith then, or at least some weakly justified claims (personal experience claims, etc.).

Faith is always "believing in the unseen," that's basically what it is --whether it be something induced (like cause and effect) or something guessed at. Faith is always without proof, but never without evidence, with only two exceptions, the two things for which there cannot be evidence: "God", and "an objective reality".

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Yes that's exactly why equivocation is a bad thing.

When the hypothetical person considers faith to be a good thing because after all, we have faith in our friends and our future etc. -- they're actually, even if they don't know about it, thinking about reason because it's reasonable to have confidence in those things.

However since they're equivocating the different contexts of faith, it leads them to believe that faith that something exists is on the same level as faith/trust/confidence, but it's not. So it might become hard to understand to such a person why faith that something exists is not reasonable whereas faith (as in trust/confidence) is reasonable.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Actually, that's the exact context in which I'd use hope. I don't believe I'm going to find a bag with a million dollars in it, but I sure hope that happens. Also, I believe my dogs will be excited to see me when I get home, and I hope they are. Hope doesn't require you to believe something will happen.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Exactly, I was going to reply with this but had to see if someone else already did. And you did.

If the OP said "blind faith" people would be like "Oh, no, I don't have *BLIND* faith." But then if we asked what faith means I'm sure at least someone would say believing in the unseen (i.e. unevidenced) or some such. Or they might avoid it in that conversation but in some other thread explain that faith is the evidence of that which is unseen and all that.

When asking people why they believe in God I usually get a mixed bag. Some people are willing to straight up say that their belief is irrational, others believe for anecdotal or personal experience reasons, haven't really ran into any yet who claimed to believe for wholly rational reasons. This involves a lot of faith then, or at least some weakly justified claims (personal experience claims, etc.).

Why do people have to justify their beliefs to you, personally?

And what makes you think you are the judge of other people?

Meox Mix, you may have a lot of brains but you're still very immature.

 

[Willamena]

I haven't eliminated anything. You can still use the word "faith" to mean other things, but not in the context of this discussion.

The way you've defined it, we would be using "reason," not "faith." They are not the same thing.

 

[Willamena]

But reason isn't dichotomous with trust/confidence.

That's right --knowledge is.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why do people have to justify their beliefs to you, personally?

And what makes you think you are the judge of other people?

Meox Mix, you may have a lot of brains but you're still very immature.

If you'll notice, the forum I almost exclusively post in is in the "RELIGIOUS DEBATES" forum.

In a debate, if someone brings something to the table -- such as the claim that "A god or gods exist" -- they'd better be ready to define it and justify it.

Else they have no business bringing it to the table in a debate. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

I'm here to learn about other religions on one hand -- which I do -- but I'm also here to understand beliefs and why people hold them and what their justifications are. You won't find me asking people to justify their beliefs in DIR sections.

I don't think I'm immature for knowing what I want, and knowing which forum is conducive to it.

 

[Magic Man]

As in, superstition. I prefer to use that word for such a definition.

You mean you prefer to use "superstition" for "belief without evidence"? That's fine, but you should also remember that "faith" means "belief without evidence", which is why sometimes it's used as justification for believing in God.

Compassion is acting on our caring for others. No compassion, no caring for others.

Basically, a total lack of compassion is basically an indication of psychopathy.

Here is the definition of compassion from dictionary.com:

"a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering."

You can care for others without compassion. And no a lack of compassion is not an indication of psychopathy.

Yeah, a world full of psychopaths. THAT'S a good world. :sarcastic

Except that it's only you who claims a lack of compassion means you're a psychopath. That's not a fact. A world of reasonable people without compassion or faith would not be a world of psychopaths.

It's compassion that allows us to care that people are suffering in the world.

Yup, but that doesn't mean it's necessary for people not to suffer. In purely logical terms, you can make a case for making sure everyone is taken care of and suffering is reduced as much as possible. You don't need compassion to try to eliminate suffering.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's right --knowledge is.

I wouldn't say so, depending on the context of knowledge. If it's not absolute knowledge -- for instance let's say we're talking about scientific or tentative knowledge -- then that knowledge itself is a form of trust/confidence.

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't say so, depending on the context of knowledge. If it's not absolute knowledge -- for instance let's say we're talking about scientific or tentative knowledge -- then that knowledge itself is a form of trust/confidence.

What is "absolute knowledge"? Not familiar with that term.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is "absolute knowledge"? Not familiar with that term.

Infinitely justified knowledge; knowledge that's impossible to be false. Incorrigible knowledge.

Example: if something exists, then it exists as what it is.

Example: I know absolutely that I, myself, exist (by cogito ergo sum), though I can't prove to you absolutely that I exist. In any case you can know in the same way that you, yourself, exist.

 

[Magic Man]

Why do people have to justify their beliefs to you, personally?

They don't. It's just weird that people sing the praises of faith in the context of religion, but not in any other context. It's not OK to just believe that black people are bad because you have faith.

And what makes you think you are the judge of other people?

Meox Mix, you may have a lot of brains but you're still very immature.

Who's trying to be the judge of other people here? The one who is making an argument that faith is not as good as reason because it doesn't rely on evidence or the one calling someone else immature?