Faith vs Reason, must they struggle?

[AnnaG]

Faith is simply the hope that what you believe in is the truth. Reason is the process through which we use our intelligence and available information to (hopefully ) the best of our abilities. Reason can survive without faith. Faith can't survive without reason.

A little tidbit I found interesting a while ago:

Religion: Biological Accident, Adaptation — or Both | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Faith can't survive without reason.

You really think so? Seems to me it's survived pretty well without it for thousands of years. I'd say faith denies reason and makes a point of pride of it, claiming to be superior as a way of understanding the deepest nature of things. Needless to say, I also think that's BS. Faith, in this context at least, is belief despite the absence of evidence, and sometimes in the face of the evidence. Evidence is the basic raw material that reason operates on, I think faith and reason are completely antithetical and intrinsically hostile to each other.

 

[AnnaG]

You really think so? Seems to me it's survived pretty well without it for thousands of years. I'd say faith denies reason and makes a point of pride of it, claiming to be superior as a way of understanding the deepest nature of things. Needless to say, I also think that's BS. Faith, in this context at least, is belief despite the absence of evidence, and sometimes in the face of the evidence. Evidence is the basic raw material that reason operates on, I think faith and reason are completely antithetical and intrinsically hostile to each other.

Yes, I do think so. Sometimes faith can make a good argument for some things it claims. It must use reason to do that, right? Otherwise none of it would make ANY sense at all.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Sometimes faith can make a good argument for some things it claims.

I've yet to see one. If a well reasoned and valid argument can be made in support of a claim, I'd say it's been removed from the realm of faith.

 

[AnnaG]

I've yet to see one. If a well reasoned and valid argument can be made in support of a claim, I'd say it's been removed from the realm of faith.

The "Golden Rule". I admit it is not an original idea by Chritianity, but it seems to have been reasonably adopted by a least a few Christians. Lao Tzu seems to have reasoned things out quite well when he wrote the Tao Te Ching.

Anyway, the bases for religions may not be reasoned out, but that does not preclude them from operating however they can using reason. They need it to function.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The Golden Rule is not a faith claim though, it emerges quite reasonably from the observed fact that we're social creatures with common physical and emotional needs, desires, interests, and so forth, and need to make rules for ourselves so our societies can function. Though if you look around at most societies it would appear that the real Golden Rule is as one of Johnny Hart's characters in the Wizard of Id put it: whoever has the gold makes the rules.

I don't disagree that faith attempts to use reason to justify its claims, but the claims it can justify, like the Golden Rule, really come from somewhere else. Religious justifications for them are just post hoc rationalizations. Anything that's truly a faith claim, such as the core claim that there's at least one supernatural entity that has some interest in us, cannot be justified by reason. Faith generally views that as a strength, not a weakness.

 

[AnnaG]

The Golden Rule is not a faith claim though, it emerges quite reasonably from the observed fact that we're social creatures with common physical and emotional needs, desires, interests, and so forth, and need to make rules for ourselves so our societies can function. Though if you look around at most societies it would appear that the real Golden Rule is as one of Johnny Hart's characters in the Wizard of Id put it: whoever has the gold makes the rules.

I don't disagree that faith attempts to use reason to justify its claims, but the claims it can justify, like the Golden Rule, really come from somewhere else. Religious justifications for them are just post hoc rationalizations. Anything that's truly a faith claim, such as the core claim that there's at least one supernatural entity that has some interest in us, cannot be justified by reason. Faith generally views that as a strength, not a weakness.

Mr. Sinister, my original point is that religions use reason. They cannot avoid it unless they are absolutely insane (or whatever the antithesis of reason is). I do not believe there is any such thing as a totally insane person, and hence a religion that is totally insane. For example, if we could not reason, we would not learn that putting our hand in fire is a bad idea and would continue to reproduce the same activity. No-one can survive without reason. Religion is a society and societies simply reflect their members.

 

[bluedog]

But to make the rule, you must first observe that society would benefit from it, THEN "by faith" that b follows a, at least once, one could be reasonable to assume, "Faithfully" that others could and would follow suit.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Mr. Sinister, my original point is that religions use reason.

No Ms. Gilbert, it was not. It was "Faith can't survive without reason." I"m arguing that it can, and does. Its core claims not only survive without reason, it actively denies reason as a useful approach to understanding them.

 

[AnnaG]

No Ms. Gilbert, it was not. It was "Faith can't survive without reason." I"m arguing that it can, and does. Its core claims not only survive without reason, it actively denies reason as a useful approach to understanding them.

You're right, I did say that. I suppose the difference between us would depend upon our definitions of faith and reason.
Faith to me is the motive for a religion. Reason is the rationale behind the faith and its workings. As I said, faith may be based upon nonsense but what the faith has motivated people to do and how to go about it has been reasoned.

 

[karrie]

Only thereafter, one must remind themselves of the reason they have faith. I see it as a harmonious symphony not a denigration of both. Your opinion?

Peace out:fish:

I see them as separate things. I have both. I have faith. And despite what many who have come to a different conclusion would say, I have used reason to explore the basis of my faith. My reason has showed me that religion is a human endeavour, but one I still find value in. My reason has showed me that not all people see religion or faith the same way. Most importantly, my reason has found nothing scientific to explain why so many people are wired to perceive a deeper connection to the world, to humanity. It has shown why we're wired to perceive smell, touch, sound, light, but it falls short of explaining spiritual perception adequately. And so, my faith remains, separate, and perhaps despite my reason.

 

[darkbeaver]

I have great faith in reason as does Mr Sinister.