Reason or Faith? (moved)

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

Which to follow?

AphroditeGoneAwry · Jul 29, 2015

Both.

Soyeong · Jul 29, 2015

“For faith, properly understood, does not contradict reason in the least; indeed...it is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it.” - Edward Feser

PapaZoom · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
Which to follow?

Reasonable faith. Faith is not believing in something for no good reason. Reason and faith go together.

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

AphroditeGoneAwry said:
Both.

How?

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

Soyeong said:
“For faith, properly understood, does not contradict reason in the least; indeed...it is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it.” - Edward Feser

How is faith properly understood?

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

PapaZoom said:
Reasonable faith. Faith is not believing in something for no good reason. Reason and faith go together.

Not really. Reason tells me that a worldwide flood could not have occurred, that virgins don't get pregnant, and people do not come back to life days after they have died. The faith of Christianity demands that I forego reason in favour of faith.

Soyeong · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
How is faith properly understood?

Faith is synonymous with trust. For instance, if you have good reason to think that a friend is trustworthy based on your past experience with them, then it is reasonable to have faith in them when they tell you that they will do something. If a doubt starts to creep into your mind, then having faith in your friend is keeping your mind focused on the good reasons that you had for thinking that they are trustworthy.

PapaZoom · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
Not really. Reason tells me that a worldwide flood could not have occurred, that virgins don't get pregnant, and people do not come back to life days after they have died. The faith of Christianity demands that I forego reason in favour of faith.

You have to work though each of those individually. I'd say that it's not reason at work but belief. There are books written on understanding the flood. You can't discuss it properly in short bursts. And you're right that virgins don't get pregnant. That's why it's called the immaculate conception. But if you totally reject the possibility of the supernatural then of course it's impossible. As to Jesus rising from the dead, Gary Habermas is a leading expert on this topic. Unless one is totally familiar with all the evidence and arguments for the Resurrection, to dismiss it is to dismiss it out of hand. Habermas is a historian, New Testament scholar, and philosopher of religion. Sure he has faith too, but to suggest there is no reasoning behind believing in Jesus' resurrection is to say so without knowing any of the facts. BTW, you've picked perhaps the best objection to the Christian faith since if there was no resurrection of Jesus, nothing else matters. But if there was, and there are good reasons to believe it, then it opens the door to it all being reasonably true.

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

Soyeong said:
Faith is synonymous with trust. For instance, if you have good reason to think that a friend is trustworthy based on your past experience with them, then it is reasonable to have faith in them when they tell you that they will do something. If a doubt starts to creep into your mind, then having faith in your friend is keeping your mind focused on the good reasons that you had for thinking that they are trustworthy.

But what if I have no reason to believe that my friend is trustworthy? I guess they're not my friend. There are reasons my friends are my friends. They earned by trust, or faith.

Soyeong · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
But what if I have no reason to believe that my friend is trustworthy? I guess they're not my friend. There are reasons my friends are my friends. They earned by trust, or faith.

You can only trust someone as far as you have reason to.

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

PapaZoom said:
You have to work though each of those individually. I'd say that it's not reason at work but belief. There are books written on understanding the flood. You can't discuss it properly in short bursts. And you're right that virgins don't get pregnant. That's why it's called the immaculate conception. But if you totally reject the possibility of the supernatural then of course it's impossible. As to Jesus rising from the dead, Gary Habermas is a leading expert on this topic. Unless one is totally familiar with all the evidence and arguments for the Resurrection, to dismiss it is to dismiss it out of hand. Habermas is a historian, New Testament scholar, and philosopher of religion. Sure he has faith too, but to suggest there is no reasoning behind believing in Jesus' resurrection is to say so without knowing any of the facts. BTW, you've picked perhaps the best objection to the Christian faith since if there was no resurrection of Jesus, nothing else matters. But if there was, and there are good reasons to believe it, then it opens the door to it all being reasonably true.

That's why I chose it. Is there a difference between faith and belief? If reason is not at work, but belief/faith, then how can I have reasonable faith?

I don't have to reject the supernatural, but I cannot put it into play unless I have a reason to accept it. I will look up Habermas.

Soyeong · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
Not really. Reason tells me that a worldwide flood could not have occurred, that virgins don't get pregnant, and people do not come back to life days after they have died. The faith of Christianity demands that I forego reason in favour of faith.

The Hebrew word "erets" means "land" and is used a number of times in the Bible to refer to a localized area, such as the land of Egypt or the land of Israel, so it is not necessarily a worldwide flood, and it is doubtful that Noah traveled everywhere on the globe to check. Virgins don't get pregnant IF God does not cause them to become pregnant and people do not rise from the dead IF God does not raise them, so believing these things is not going against reason, but is based on it being reasonable that God exists and would do those things and on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

PapaZoom · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
That's why I chose it. Is there a difference between faith and belief? If reason is not at work, but belief/faith, then how can I have reasonable faith?

I don't have to reject the supernatural, but I cannot put it into play unless I have a reason to accept it. I will look up Habermas.

You ask good questions. Reason is at work. You're using reason all the time. Is it reasonable to believe an all powerful God could create this universe out of nothing? If that seems at least reasonable, then after that, it seems all other claims from the Bible seem trivial. I know of many skeptics that "investigated" the claims of Christianity and today they are Christians. CS Lewis was an atheist. His friend J.R. Tolkien was not. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity (worth reading) and it was through reason that he came to believe it was all true. Habermas may not be the best to start with. There are a number of books I (and others) could recommend. My first would be Mere Christianity by Lewis. However I read J Warner Wallace's book Cold Case Christianity and found it to be excellent. If you have Kindle (or a kindle app) you can get the Kindle version for 1.99. http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Chr...229831&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity

You can get the Kindle app on a PC (probably mac) too. Wallace was an atheist and used his background to investigate the claims of the gospels.

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

Soyeong said:
The Hebrew word "erets" means "land" and is used a number of times in the Bible to refer to a localized area, such as the land of Egypt or the land of Israel, so it is not necessarily a worldwide flood, and it is doubtful that Noah traveled everywhere on the globe to check.

That is quite reasonable.

Virgins don't get pregnant IF God does not cause them to become pregnant and people do not rise from the dead IF God does not raise them, so believing these things is not going against reason, but is based on it being reasonable that God exists and would do those things and on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Does God often have virgin pregnancies and raise people from the dead? Or are these unprecedented, and unrepeated?

Soyeong · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
Does God often have virgin pregnancies and raise people from the dead? Or are these unprecedented, and unrepeated?

As far as I know, they happened once.

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

PapaZoom said:
You ask good questions. Reason is at work. You're using reason all the time. Is it reasonable to believe an all powerful God could create this universe out of nothing? If that seems at least reasonable, then after that, it seems all other claims from the Bible seem trivial.

Honestly, my first problem here is that I cannot reason God. God is unfathomable, and from a strict perception, unreasonable. However, even with the caveat that God is reasonable, is it not also reasonable that something else which is currently unfathomable, and not-God could have created the universe?

I know of many skeptics that "investigated" the claims of Christianity and today they are Christians. CS Lewis was an atheist. His friend J.R. Tolkien was not. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity (worth reading) and it was through reason that he came to believe it was all true. Habermas may not be the best to start with. There are a number of books I (and others) could recommend. My first would be Mere Christianity by Lewis. However I read J Warner Wallace's book Cold Case Christianity and found it to be excellent. If you have Kindle (or a kindle app) you can get the Kindle version for 1.99. http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438229831&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+Christianity

I am about half-way through Lewis, and a small stack of other books, but I can add this to the pile. I've read a couple of articles by Habermas and have seen him dismantle naturalistic means of resurrection, and criticize the "New Athesits" but have yet to see a reasonable view of the resurrection. Any idea where that is?

You can get the Kindle app on a PC (probably mac) too. Wallace was an atheist and used his background to investigate the claims of the gospels.

I have a kindle.

AphroditeGoneAwry · Jul 29, 2015

Reason tried and born out begets faith. And faith makes belief stronger when one cannot reason.

God is reliable and faithful to us. Everything I've studied in the Bible thus far has been borne out by knowledge and understanding in the spiritual and scientific realms.

There is only One Truth. And that truth holds true under the toughest scrutiny of reason, and the invisible effervescence of faith.

God holds Himself above reason alone, because He requires that we have faith to ultimately believe. It's easy to believe in what you can reason and prove. He wants us to reach beyond who we are and how we think and make that leap of faith in order to grasp a hold of Him. But He doesn't leave us dangling above thin air, He gives us enough of the rock of reason to stand firmly upon.

JGG · Jul 29, 2015

Soyeong said:
As far as I know, they happened once.

Do you see my dilemma? I was not there to witness either event so I do not know that they happened. I also know of no such events that have occurred since. By the same reasoning I could claim that God could cause a toaster to turn into an elephant, but I have no reason to believe it.

Soyeong · Jul 29, 2015

JGG said:
Do you see my dilemma? I was not there to witness either event so I do not know that they happened. I also know of no such events that have occurred since. By the same reasoning I could claim that God could cause a toaster to turn into an elephant, but I have no reason to believe it.

It has been not been your experience that resurrections happen, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible or against reason. The difference between the resurrection of Jesus and a toaster turned elephant is that we have a lot of evidence that the resurrection is an historical event, start with four eyewitness accounts.

JGG said:
Honestly, my first problem here is that I cannot reason God. God is unfathomable, and from a strict perception, unreasonable. However, even with the caveat that God is reasonable, is it not also reasonable that something else which is currently unfathomable, and not-God could have created the universe?

I realize you have a lot of books already, but I recommend Aquinas (A beginner's guide) by Edward Feser if you're philosophically inclined. If something exists that has attributes that correspond to our idea of God, then why not label it God?

I am about half-way through Lewis, and a small stack of other books, but I can add this to the pile. I've read a couple of articles by Habermas and have seen him dismantle naturalistic means of resurrection, and criticize the "New Athesits" but have yet to see a reasonable view of the resurrection. Any idea where that is?

I have a kindle.

Here's a pdf for Mere Christianity:

https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf

I also recommend doodle videos of his works:

https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle

Reason or Faith? (moved)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads