• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married

I like this quote from the UB as it harmonizes the approach of faith and logic to reality:

"The union of the scientific attitude and the religious insight by the mediation of experiential philosophy is part of man's long Paradise-ascension experience. The approximations of mathematics and the certainties of insight will always require the harmonizing function of mind logic on all levels of experience short of the maximum attainment of the Supreme.

But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach.

Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic." UB 1955
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married

"The materialistic sociologist of today surveys a community, makes a report thereon, and leaves the people as he found them. Nineteen hundred years ago, unlearned Galileans surveyed Jesus giving his life as a spiritual contribution to man’s inner experience and then went out and turned the whole Roman Empire upside down." Ub 1955

In the skydiving example you omitted the fact that a person may still have the fear until he actually experience's it, then it becomes the thrill of adventure. Child like trust in God is like that, it's not a mere theory of belief, we experience God by trusting him. Finding the goodness of God we abandon all else in search of more of him.
 
Upvote 0

True Scotsman

Objectivist
Jul 26, 2014
962
78
✟24,057.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Only for those who deny the self evident.

The logical absolutes have not and most likely cannot be demonstrated to be true.

Since they are a precondition of judging anything to be true, this is not necessary.

We cannot prove we are not in the matrix, or brains in vats, or any number of similar scenarios. We cannot demonstrate that anything beyond our own most basic existence is real.

There is no obligation to disprove a claim for which there is no evidence. You should know this.

The logical absolutes are typically taken axiomatically, but that essentially means that they are taken without justification. It's important to keep this in mind when talking about this branch of philosophy.
To the extent that they need to be justified, they are perfectly justified by the axioms and the primacy of existence. You should learn them and keep them in mind when you attack logic.
 
Upvote 0

lumberjohn

Active Member
Oct 23, 2006
111
29
✟22,906.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

I believe I did justify them in my previous post, but I will elaborate. My characterization of faith as exclusive of and at odds with reason is not original to me or any atheistic philosopher. This was a position espoused implicitly by Paul and explicitly by many Christian philosophers and theologians, including but by no means limited to Luther and Tertullian. I did not mean to suggest that Christian theologians were unanimous in their disdain for reason, but there has clearly been a long lasting reluctance to claim that Christianity can be defended on the basis of reason and logic alone.

Christian apologists have consistently insisted on an escape hatch when reason and logic failed to support their arguments. Perhaps it is presuppositionalism, mandating that Christian belief be properly basic, insisting upon the authority of revelation available to us only through ancient unattested documents, or the authority of an intangible “holy spirit” that is available only through subjective experience. Christians have throughout history used the term “faith” to represent these sources of non-empirical knowledge. This warrants its use as shorthand to reference all of them, since they refer to essentially the same concept.

Many Christian theologians have been uncomfortable with jettisoning reason from the process altogether and so have attempted to redefine faith as something closer to evidence-based trust. Liberal theologians since the age of reason have dedicated themselves to making Christianity palatable to the critical mind, and so have retrofitted “faith” as something that bears little resemblance to how it was used for nineteen centuries. It is not necessary to quibble about the meaning of “faith,” however, to acknowledge the basic point – Christian apologetics has consistently incorporated a non-empirical approach as a key component of epistemology.

Your example illustrates the point quite well when applied to the context at issue. The little girl’s submission is based on evidence. Her entire life has presumably reflected a consistent direct experience of a physical and present father she has observed to care for her, protect her, and exhibit superior knowledge. We have a name for this which is entirely non-controversial: trust. Where good evidence warrants belief, that is trust, and trust is always reasonable.

Contrast this with belief in God. God is invisible and incorporeal. He is not directly observable and there is no objective evidence supporting even his existence, much less that he has humanity’s best interests at heart and should be trusted. Humans lack the very thing that made the little girl’s trust in her father reasonable – good intersubjectively verifiable evidence. If one chooses to submit to God as the child submitted to her father, it must be on a different basis altogether.

You yourself have expressed a view of faith that doesn’t rely on logic because it precedes logic. By claiming faith to be a valid premise of logic, you are arguing that Christian faith should be treated as properly basic. But how can you possibly justify this? Once you allow faith as a properly basic belief, all faiths become equally valid. There is absolutely no way to distinguish the true from the untrue, which is the defining characteristic of a fatally flawed approach.

So just for purposes of the remainder of this discussion, let’s use “faith” as a shorthand for a non-empirical basis for knowledge. By claiming that the “truths” of faith do not conflict with the “truths” of reason, the Christian begs the question at issue. Granted, if faith can arrive at knowledge, it cannot conflict with reason – but the crucial question is: Can faith arrive at knowledge in the first place? Is faith a valid epistemological procedure? Unless the Christian can demonstrate that faith is capable of distinguishing truth from falsity, he cannot uphold the compatibility of reason and faith.

By appealing to faith , the Christian wishes to claim the status of knowledge for beliefs that have not fulfilled the minimum requirements of knowledge. He wishes to consider an idea as having a referent in reality while rejecting the process by which man knows reality. Regardless of the particular manner in which the Christian characterizes his version of faith, he cannot escape its irrational bias. His only chance of escape, to claim that the articles of faith can also meet the requirements of reason, is a dead end, because it renders the concepts of faith inapplicable. Faith is possible only in the case of beliefs that cannot be rationally demonstrated.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Occams Barber
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
To illustrate this, one need only ask whether an individual would ever reconsider his or her theological commitments if the supposed reasons for those commitments were shown to be dubious or demonstrably wrong. Quite often, the answer is no. Some Christians claim that their faith is not based on arguments or evidence, but on the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit." The arguments and evidence are therefore superfluous to establishing and maintaining belief; little epistemic weight is assigned to them. This raises an important question: if one's theological commitments are not amenable to reason, then in what sense are they are reasonable? How does one reason with someone who will not reconsider their position?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's just a vague affirmation, give me examples if you want me to answer them.

Many Hindus believe that since they can "remember" their past lives, that is evidence that Hinduism is correct.

To me of course, it's not really any different from your claim that thousands of christians live in communion with Christ. Im sure they think they do...just as those Hindus think they remember past lives.

So why is the christian communion with Christ "evidence" and Hindu memory not?
 
Upvote 0

lumberjohn

Active Member
Oct 23, 2006
111
29
✟22,906.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For those who may feel I am erecting a strawman, just consider this passage from William Lane Craig, considered one of the most popular and well-respected Christian apologists of today:

"I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter."

In other words, Craig will only acknowledge the validity of reason if it can be shown to support Christianity. If the arguments for Christianity are shown to be illogical and unreasonable, Dr. Craig claims reason must be rejected in favor of blind faith. For Craig and other apologists like him, non-Christian hypotheses aren’t even “on the table” as options. Craig has acknowledged that he would continue to believe despite the weight of rational arguments undermining Christianity, and he believes others should as well.

Imagine you and I are playing a game, like Monopoly, with clearly defined rules. I explain that those rules will apply only so long as I remain ahead. If at any point you get ahead of me, I will declare the rules null and void. At that point, you are simply to accept that I have won. Would you find this fair? Would you believe we were competing on a level playing field? That is the advantage that apologists like Craig demand for Christianity.

I would submit that if apologists require such an advantage, they must recognize their position to be indefensible. They are requiring an exception to the rules that govern all other inquiry, a textbook example of special pleading. No one would demand such a thing unless they knew reason and logic were not on their side. The smarter apologists realize that while they can fool people with smoke and mirrors much of the time, they cannot demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity against opponents adept at pointing out their deceptions. Accordingly, they must always allow themselves a “Get Out of Jail Free” card - the rejection of reason and appeal to blind faith. They must retain the ability to claim that if their arguments are shown to be unreasonable, belief is still warranted.
 
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That's not the kind of 'faith' we are talking about. As I indicated earlier, 'faith' is sometimes used synonymously with 'confidence' or 'trust,' which may or may not be justified.

If it's based on evidence, then faith is unnecessary.

Are we talking about how faith is actually practised in religion or how you use the word? Because those are not necessarily the same.

Apparently the concept you attach to the word "faith" has nothing to do with what religious people, secular people, or dictionaries understand it to be. You can redefine "faith" and then argue against it, but that's called a strawman.
 
Reactions: Architeuthus
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Apparently the concept you attach to the word "faith" has nothing to do with what religious people, secular people, or dictionaries understand it to be. You can redefine "faith" and then argue against it, but that's called a strawman.

Zippy, I can't find any definition of faith... apart from what yourself and others have posted on this forum...that includes some variation of "belief/trust based upon evidence/proof."

Here's what Webster has to say...

2

a (1) :belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) :belief in the traditionaldoctrines of a religionb (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) :complete trust

In the rare instances when I actually hear someone use the term "faith" those are the relevant definitions. What exactly do you think is the strawman being erected here? What's the concept of faith that's inconsistent with the way society uses the term?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Apparently the concept you attach to the word "faith" has nothing to do with what religious people, secular people, or dictionaries understand it to be. You can redefine "faith" and then argue against it, but that's called a strawman.
Which dictionary would you prefer to use? How about Dictionary.com?

Unfortunately, dictionary definitions are rarely precise. But I think this entry entry nicely captures the many senses of the word 'faith'. We are focused on the religious sense of the word. So where is the strawman you accuse me of?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

I have faith that from here on out, the discussion will involve claims of how everyone/society is using the term "faith" incorrectly.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

You asserted, but you didn't show it.

including but by no means limited to Luther and Tertullian.

Tertullian died a heretic. Luther's views--especially on faith and reason--were never widely accepted by the Church (indeed he is also considered a heretic by many), and are now rejected even by Lutherans.

I did not mean to suggest that Christian theologians were unanimous in their disdain for reason, but there has clearly been a long lasting reluctance to claim that Christianity can be defended on the basis of reason and logic alone.

Claiming that faith is the opposite of reason is completely different from claiming that Christianity can be defended on the basis of reason and logic alone.


Perhaps "revelation" is the word you're fishing for. We believe that some revealed things are inaccessible to unaided reason. What does that have to do with the three sentences I criticized?


Yes.


Apart from the fact that I disagree with about everything you wrote there, you are conflating faith with belief in God's existence. Biblical faith is not belief in the existence of God, it is trust and adherence to the God you already believe to exist. God's existence may be a matter of faith for some, but strictly speaking it is part of the preamble of faith (praeambula fidei).


What are you talking about? You seem to be fairly shoddy at reading minds.

So just for purposes of the remainder of this discussion, let’s use “faith” as a shorthand for a non-empirical basis for knowledge.

Define empirical.

By claiming that the “truths” of faith do not conflict with the “truths” of reason, the Christian begs the question at issue.

Reason and revelation have the same Author.


Nonsense.

You've truncated rationality and knowledge, and are begging the question with respect to your own narrow view. But more foundational than that, you're not even sure what you're talking about when you say "faith." The closest thing to a definition you've given is "non-empirical." Yet that isn't a definition, and futhermore you haven't defined empirical.

Anyway, these long diatribes show you more willing to hear the sound of your own voice than actually interact. You are running with misrepresentations left and right, and I'm losing interest.
 
Reactions: Architeuthus
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Tertullian died a heretic. Luther's views--especially on faith and reason--were never widely accepted by the Church (indeed he is also considered a heretic by many), and are now rejected even by Lutherans.
Is Joel Osteen a heretic too?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Which dictionary would you prefer to use? How about Dictionary.com?

Sure. I'll take definitions 1, 2, & 3 all together. None of those definitions oppose trust or imply a lack of evidence, yet you are telling us that ("religious") faith is not trust and implies a lack of evidence.


You're confusing the burden of proof. Find me a definition that says faith is belief/trust without any evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Beliefs and trust are not generally formed without evidence (and in an earlier post to you I even posited the psychological impossibility of such a claim). When someone says they have a belief, it is assumed they have a reason for their belief. If faith were belief absent any evidence, then dictionaries would obviously include that latter part given its abnormality. The only reason believers have need of the extra (and redundant) clause about evidence is due to the irrationality of foreseen atheist allegations.

In any case, it is notable that the definition I gave did not include a clause about evidence. I wouldn't generally include such a clause, given its obviousness. Yet in a systematic theology text such as Berkhof's the more complete definition that anticipates polemics should not surprise anyone.

To reiterate, you all are resting your case on a definition that doesn't exist, namely that faith is belief in something without any evidence or reason.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Is Joel Osteen a heretic too?

He certainly isn't an authoritative source for the vast majority of Christians, nor does he pretend to be a systematic theologian. But if you asked him, do you think he would say that faith is something devoid of any reason or evidence? The tweet certainly doesn't imply that.

But what's your point? Are you trying to settle the philosophical definition of faith by reference to a tweet by Joel Osteen? What in the world are you doing here? Looking for "gotcha" moments? It seems that Architeuthus and anyone else seeking serious discussion about truth is right to ignore you.
 
Reactions: Architeuthus
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sure. I'll take definitions 1, 2, & 3 all together. None of those definitions oppose trust or imply a lack of evidence, yet you are telling us that ("religious") faith is not trust and implies a lack of evidence.
See definition 2. As I noted earlier, it's not precise (dictionary definitions rarely are), but it broadly fits with 'faith' as I have described it. Ana's definition from Webster's is an even better fit.

Where did I claim that faith is belief without any evidence? That's not my position. More accurately, the purported evidence is not sufficient to warrant the level of confidence assigned to the belief.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
He certainly isn't an authoritative source for the vast majority of Christians, nor does he pretend to be a systematic theologian.
I'm interested in what believers actually believe, not what Sophisticated Theologians pretend that believers believe.

See above. Sharing Osteen's tweet was not intended as a "gotcha." It was to illustrate the kind of faith I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
In the evidence of the example of thousands of people who live in communion with Christ,
Can even one of them demonstrate that this experience is more than imagined?
in the evidence of the lives of the Saints,
Untestable.
in the evidence of the life in the Church of Christ,
Relgions do not require actual gods in order to exist. They cannot be all right.
in the evidence of history,
The Bible is not history.
in the evidence of the Bible,
The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
in the evidence of our existance,
We are only evidence of us.
in the evidence of this universe,
The universe is evidence of itself.
in the evidence of our souls...
What is a "soul"?
There is no lack of evidence,
Indeed. Terrible, untestable, unfalsifiable evidence, and faulty and fallacious arguments. Lots of it, though.
just people who deny the truth
I do not deny your "truth", I take the neutral position; disbelief until convinced otherwise.
and won't accept it because they prefer to live in a lie
Why would I not want to be shown that there is more to human existence than this brief biological stint here on Earth?
 
Upvote 0