Reasonable Faith

[Gladius]

In order for someone to honestly argue that their belief in the Christian God is based upon reason instead of blind faith, are they not required to have honestly tested the alternative hypotheses? These would not only include atheism, but other Gods.

Note that I'm not arguing that anyone has to base their Christian belief on reason (so those of you who do not, need not respond), just if they purport to.

By reason I mean the following:
the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way.

By Logic I mean:
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

 

[Received]

Being reasonable can involve all sorts of blind faith propositions, which aren't (because they're based in blind faith) falsifiable in any way. Reason works with premises, which are assumptions. You can make a perfectly reasonable theology based on the flying spaghetti monster, so long as you work logically from premises to conclusions and cogently from previous experiences to generalizations.

 

[lesliedellow]

In order for someone to honestly argue that their belief in the Christian God is based upon reason instead of blind faith, are they not required to have honestly tested the alternative hypotheses? These would not only include atheism, but other Gods.

In order for a scientist's acceptance of the standard model of particle physics to be reasonable, is he not required to first of all falsify every other crackpot theory it is possible for somebody to dream up?

Or is it okay for him to say that it seems to fit the facts well enough, so he will assume that it is true, until he has good reason to think otherwise?

 

[True Scotsman]

In order for someone to honestly argue that their belief in the Christian God is based upon reason instead of blind faith, are they not required to have honestly tested the alternative hypotheses? These would not only include atheism, but other Gods.

Note that I'm not arguing that anyone has to base their Christian belief on reason (so those of you who do not, need not respond), just if they purport to.

By reason I mean the following:
the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way.

By Logic I mean:
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

We only need to use the word faith when there is no Objective evidence to support a belief. If we have Objective evidence, which means reducible to percepts, Then we don't need faith.

Faith is belief without integration which means unconnected to percepts. Faith is subjective, reason is objective.

So reasonable faith is a contradiction in terms. There could be such a term as rationalized (reason unconnected to reality) faith but it would be a redundancy.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

We only need to use the word faith when there is no Objective evidence to support a belief. If we have Objective evidence, which means reducible to percepts, Then we don't need faith.

Faith is belief without integration which means unconnected to percepts. Faith is subjective, reason is objective.

So reasonable faith is a contradiction in terms. There could be such a term as rationalized (reason unconnected to reality) faith but it would be a redundancy.

Heb 11.1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is also described a gift from God and not of ourselves. Sounds like it is personal experience of His Reality that confirms all your beliefs and puts you into the "knower" category.

And given the entire creation was made through the Logos; I would imagine it is perfectly logical and reasonable. Man however, has a hard time maintaining those things.

 

[True Scotsman]

Heb 11.1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is also described a gift from God and not of ourselves. Sounds like it is personal experience of His Reality that confirms all your beliefs and puts you into the "knower" category.

And given the entire creation was made through the Logos; I would imagine it is perfectly logical and reasonable. Man however, has a hard time maintaining those things.

On the contrary, I do not believe in God. I hold a primacy of existence or objective view of the world (by world I mean existence) which means that knowledge of reality can only be gained by looking outward at reality and not
inwardly to the subjective. I recognize the objective orientation of the subject/ object relationship.

It is the axioms of existence, consciousness, identity and the primacy of existence that confirm all of my knowledge.

 

[Resha Caner]

...is based upon reason instead of blind faith ...

That "blind" is an adjective modifying "faith" means one should recognize other kinds of faith that are not blind. I find it interesting that the only faith unbelievers seem to discuss here is "blind faith." Whether "reasonable faith" is the right alternative, I don't know. Others have made good points in that regard.

When I first started reading about Kierkegaard, I was encouraged by the possibility that maybe someone had finally found a way to talk to unbelievers about faith. Unfortunately, it seems to have devolved to the derogatory phrase "blind faith." I'll admit I don't know Kierkegaard that well because I was discouraged by that fact, but that's where it is.

So, with respect to "reason," I'm not one who claims to base my theology on reason. You'll need to find some Scholastics or neo-Platonists for that. And in answer to the question, yes, if that's someone's premise, they need to remain intellectually honest to that premise - however, as lesliedellow points out that doesn't mean testing every faith system. If that were true, the same burden would be on everyone, including atheists.

What I often attempt to do is try to translate faith concepts into the language of reason in the hope that rationalists will better understand it. I can't say I've been too successful with that.

 

[Received]

That "blind" is an adjective modifying "faith" means one should recognize other kinds of faith that are not blind. I find it interesting that the only faith unbelievers seem to discuss here is "blind faith."

When I first started reading about Kierkegaard, I was encouraged by the possibility that maybe someone had finally found a way to talk to unbelievers about faith. Unfortunately, it seems to have devolved to the derogatory phrase "blind faith." I'll admit I don't know Kierkegaard that well because I was discouraged by that fact, but that's where it is.

So, with respect to "reason," I'm not one who claims to base my theology on reason. You'll need to find some Scholastics or neo-Platonists for that. And in answer to the question, yes, if that's someone's premise, they need to remain intellectually honest to that premise - however, as lesliedellow points out that doesn't mean testing every faith system. If that were true, the same burden would like on everyone, including atheists.

What I often attempt to do is try to translate faith concepts into the language of reason in the hope that rationalists will better understand it. I can't say I've been too successful with that.

The interesting thing about Kierkegaard is he was a hardcore fideist, and even scoffed at the idea of proving a God who is everywhere (which says something about his sense of faith as a preconceptual action-mediated thing rather than a concept-driven, rational sort of thing). He thought that faith was the third (and hardest but most rewarding) stage of existence, the other two being the aesthetic (appreciating things from afar, passivity, sensationalism, big time despair) and the ethical (personal becoming without the particularized continuity of faith). Faith isn't something you make a leap "of" but rather a leap "to" from these other spheres. It's a purely transrational sort of thing, and to argue that it's irrational is to assume rationality is the standard, when in fact Kierkegaard would say that rationality is too often a cover for the aesthetic mode of existence, where thinking is the goal and therefore the broader requirement of existence as action (therefore faith) is left at the door.

 

[Resha Caner]

The interesting thing about Kierkegaard is he was a hardcore fideist, and even scoffed at the idea of proving a God who is everywhere (which says something about his sense of faith as a preconceptual action-mediated thing rather than a concept-driven, rational sort of thing). He thought that faith was the third (and hardest but most rewarding) stage of existence, the other two being the aesthetic (appreciating things from afar, passivity, sensationalism, big time despair) and the ethical (personal becoming without the particularized continuity of faith). Faith isn't something you make a leap "of" but rather a leap "to" from these other spheres. It's a purely transrational sort of thing, and to argue that it's irrational is to assume rationality is the standard, when in fact Kierkegaard would say that rationality is too often a cover for the aesthetic mode of existence, where thinking is the goal and therefore the broader requirement of existence as action (therefore faith) is left at the door.

Cool. I didn't know that. I especially like the idea of a leap "to" rather than a leap "of" faith. Very interesting.

 

[Received]

Cool. I didn't know that. I especially like the idea of a leap "to" rather than a leap "of" faith. Very interesting.

Indeed. If you want to be more of a Kierkegaard nerd, you could say that the faith Kierkegaard has in mind isn't about a leap or about stepping on the ground, but a synthesis of the rising and falling that makes up walking. The rising is possibility (or imagination or infinitude, where God's command or Logos at that particular moment is consciously or preconsciously made apparent before us) is accompanied by the "grounding" of necessity (where we act out that command our Logos). Without either one movement isn't possible: we're either floating up and up toward the clouds by drifting between our own abstractions, imaginations, or philosophies (here the idealization of contemplation or "reason" is very much antithetical to life), or being more and more crushed by the necessity of being stapled to the floor by mechanized following-alongness that determines our actions (one thinks of the conformist or typical fratboy too scared to walk with his own particularity).

I absolutely love Kierkegaard conception of faith, and it's changed the whole way I look at the world. His Sickness Unto Death is an incredibly hard first ten pages, but worth the pain for the gold you get from it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I absolutely love Kierkegaard conception of faith, and it's changed the whole way I look at the world. His Sickness Unto Death is an incredibly hard first ten pages, but worth the pain for the gold you get from it.

Thanks. It does sound interesting, but in the end it didn't make you a Lutheran, so it can't be that good.

 

[Received]

K was a Lutheran! Just a bad one.

 

[Resha Caner]

K was a Lutheran! Just a bad one.

I know. I didn't specifically hunt down Lutherans, but much of the philosophy/theology I like turns out to have come from Lutherans:
* C.F.W. Walther
* Hermann Sasse
* David Scaer
* John Warwick Montgomery
* Alan Padgett
* and now possibly Kierkegaard

... though I suppose Kant is the bad egg in the Lutheran basket.

Anyway, why don't you join us?

 

[Received]

Kant is a bad egg in a few other things as well.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In order for someone to honestly argue that their belief in the Christian God is based upon reason instead of blind faith, are they not required to have honestly tested the alternative hypotheses? These would not only include atheism, but other Gods.

Note that I'm not arguing that anyone has to base their Christian belief on reason (so those of you who do not, need not respond), just if they purport to.

By reason I mean the following:
the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way.

By Logic I mean:
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Christianity best accounts for the aspects of human experience when compared to its alternatives.

Care to debate me?

 

[Gladius]

Being reasonable can involve all sorts of blind faith propositions, which aren't (because they're based in blind faith) falsifiable in any way. Reason works with premises, which are assumptions. You can make a perfectly reasonable theology based on the flying spaghetti monster, so long as you work logically from premises to conclusions and cogently from previous experiences to generalizations.

I defined reason and contrasted faith as the opposite of reason for the purposes of the OP.

The type of reason I am referring to is one that excludes suppositions and pronouncements as evidence.

 

[Gladius]

In order for a scientist's acceptance of the standard model of particle physics to be reasonable, is he not required to first of all falsify every other crackpot theory it is possible for somebody to dream up?

Or is it okay for him to say that it seems to fit the facts well enough, so he will assume that it is true, until he has good reason to think otherwise?

No, it is not the scientist's obligation to falsify all competing theories which are put before him/her. However it wouldn't hurt.

It is their professional obligation to honestly consider peer claims that his theory is false.

That my friend is the scientific method.

 

[Received]

I defined reason and contrasted faith as the opposite of reason for the purposes of the OP.

The type of reason I am referring to is one that excludes suppositions and pronouncements as evidence.

Is this up for discussion?

Faith isn't the opposite of reason; that would be irrationality, and faith isn't commensurate with reason, but rather the sort of trust that puts into place conclusions of reason, and is even present in reasoning itself through the trust or confidence that reason is a valid means of attaining truth.

As for reason that excludes suppositions, I can only go back to my logic class as an undergraduate: premises are by definition assumptions, and conclusions can be either valid or invalid in that the they follow the premises or not, or they can be sound or unsound in that the premises are known to be true. You're conflating reason with soundness. They're different things.

 

[Gladius]

That "blind" is an adjective modifying "faith" means one should recognize other kinds of faith that are not blind. I find it interesting that the only faith unbelievers seem to discuss here is "blind faith." Whether "reasonable faith" is the right alternative, I don't know. Others have made good points in that regard.

When I first started reading about Kierkegaard, I was encouraged by the possibility that maybe someone had finally found a way to talk to unbelievers about faith. Unfortunately, it seems to have devolved to the derogatory phrase "blind faith." I'll admit I don't know Kierkegaard that well because I was discouraged by that fact, but that's where it is.

So, with respect to "reason," I'm not one who claims to base my theology on reason. You'll need to find some Scholastics or neo-Platonists for that. And in answer to the question, yes, if that's someone's premise, they need to remain intellectually honest to that premise - however, as lesliedellow points out that doesn't mean testing every faith system. If that were true, the same burden would be on everyone, including atheists.

What I often attempt to do is try to translate faith concepts into the language of reason in the hope that rationalists will better understand it. I can't say I've been too successful with that.

Appreciate the honest response Resha.

I was a bit naughty referring to blind faith, I should have said "belief without empirical evidence".

I can't speak for all atheists, however I have honestly investigated all the world's current major religions and found them to be equally incredible.

My objective with the OP question was to highlight to those who appear to devote significant time and energy into "rationalising" the existence and actions of their God, that their arguments would be more intellectually credible (to all) if they applied a similar methodology in regards to (at least the major) competing hypotheses.

 

[Received]

I was a bit naughty referring to blind faith, I should have said "belief without empirical evidence".

Does that also apply to empirical evidence?