Reasonable Faith

[Gladius]

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.

We can discuss/debate the various definitions of faith and/or reason, but my intention in this OP was not to. Hence my attempts to clarify what I define them as (not objectively what they are).

The point of the OP was to discuss whether it is consistent to argue that you are applying 'reason' to your particular brand of theism, whilst excluding every other alternative from consideration.

 

[Gladius]

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

Care to debate me?

Don't know about debate, but I would be interested to hear your explanation for how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Gladius]

Does that also apply to empirical evidence?

Does what apply?

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

OK. I don't really care about any but Christianity ... and I don't know the nature of your "investigations" but my experience is that they are often based on strawmen. But, all that aside, in what way are they "incredible"? In that they seem improbable/impossible, that they lack evidence, that they are internally inconsistent?

I'll poison the well a bit. For too many of these conversations, people speak to me about all the "errors" of Christianity as if Moses couldn't even put on his own sandals without making a mistake. I consider such extreme cynicism as too far gone to entertain. I hope that's not where you're at.

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.

Understood. And I still think rationalism just misses the whole point, but I'm willing to entertain the discussions. I've gotten these kinds of challenges before. For example: Why would you accept that Moses had a spiritual experience and reject that Mohammad had one?

My answer: I don't reject that Mohammed had a spiritual experience. For me it's not a matter of what experiences he might have had, but that he rejected Jesus as the Christ.

So, in regard to that particular issue - spiritual experiences in other religions - I think I am being consistent - or at least I try to be. Just one example.

 

[Received]

We can discuss/debate the various definitions of faith and/or reason, but my intention in this OP was not to. Hence my attempts to clarify what I define them as (not objectively what they are).

The point of the OP was to discuss whether it is consistent to argue that you are applying 'reason' to your particular brand of theism, whilst excluding every other alternative from consideration.

Fair enough.

 

[Received]

Does what apply?

Does empirical evidence also apply to the standard that we should only believe things with empirical evidence?

 

[Gladius]

OK. I don't really care about any but Christianity ... and I don't know the nature of your "investigations" but my experience is that they are often based on strawmen. But, all that aside, in what way are they "incredible"? In that they seem improbable/impossible, that they lack evidence, that they are internally inconsistent?

Pretty much on the money.

Understood. And I still think rationalism just misses the whole point, but I'm willing to entertain the discussions. I've gotten these kinds of challenges before. For example: Why would you accept that Moses had a spiritual experience and reject that Mohammad had one?

My answer: I don't reject that Mohammed had a spiritual experience. For me it's not a matter of what experiences he might have had, but that he rejected Jesus as the Christ.

So, in regard to that particular issue - spiritual experiences in other religions - I think I am being consistent - or at least I try to be. Just one example.

Sure, I wasn't accusing YOU of anything. It appears you aren't claiming to be able to demonstrate "reasonable" faith, so we have no further points of contention on this thread.

 

[Gladius]

Does empirical evidence also apply to the standard that we should only believe things with empirical evidence?

Oh I see what you did there. Very clever.

No it does not. It is a principle widely supported by scientists and atheists is all, and in my opinion, is currently the best methodology for determining truth somewhat objectively (as opposed to presupposing heresay or relying on individual mental "experiences").

And no, it does not determine philosophical absolute truth, but nothing does (not even philosophy). But if you prefer to live in the philosophically hypothetical universe of infinite conflicting possibilities instead of the real one, and have nothing defined as real or true, that's your choice.

But you can't have it both ways (and still be intellectually credible).

 

[quatona]

Does empirical evidence also apply to the standard that we should only believe things with empirical evidence?

The nutritional values of a nutrition chart are pretty disastrous.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Don't know about debate, but I would be interested to hear your explanation for how you came to this conclusion.

Debate me on it.

I don't get down with the whole open forum back and forth discussions where threads are often derailed. Lets debate the issue.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The nutritional values of a nutrition chart are pretty disastrous.

Plenty fiber.

 

[quatona]

Debate me on it.

I don't get down with the whole open forum back and forth discussions where threads are often derailed. Lets debate the issue.

If you had a point that stands on its own legs, you wouldn´t need to debate. You could simply write down your compelling argument for everyone to see.

 

[KCfromNC]

Does empirical evidence also apply to the standard that we should only believe things with empirical evidence?

Yes, there is lots of empirical evidence that this approach gives better results than others we have tried.

 

[Received]

The nutritional values of a nutrition chart are pretty disastrous.

Did you know that cigarettes can smoke themselves?

 

[Received]

Oh I see what you did there. Very clever.

No it does not. It is a principle widely supported by scientists and atheists is all, and in my opinion, is currently the best methodology for determining truth somewhat objectively (as opposed to presupposing heresay or relying on individual mental "experiences").

And no, it does not determine philosophical absolute truth, but nothing does (not even philosophy). But if you prefer to live in the philosophically hypothetical universe of infinite conflicting possibilities instead of the real one, and have nothing defined as real or true, that's your choice.

But you can't have it both ways (and still be intellectually credible).

Okay, so this means you're down with what's best or what works.

What if someone was to say the same about religion, dropping a stack full of studies on its psychological benefits?

 

[Received]

Yes, there is lots of empirical evidence that this approach gives better results than others we have tried.

That's not what I asked.

 

[Gladius]

Okay, so this means you're down with what's best or what works.

What if someone was to say the same about religion, dropping a stack full of studies on its psychological benefits?

No, I'm down with the best method for determining truth from falsehood (in the real world).

Hypotheticals aren't necessary for this argument.

Is there a pyschological study which evidences that it is better for an individual to believe things that are false instead of things that are true?

If so, I'd be happy to read and critique it.

You see, I'm one of those atheists who isn't arguing for objective morality. I choose my own. And according to my morality lying (even to myself) is never superior to the truth.

However, I am willing to consider arguments for the opposite based on reason, if you (or any pyschologists) have any.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Arguments based on unsupported premises are not reasonable arguments

 

[KCfromNC]

That's not what I asked.

Really? The fact that it objectively works better than other methods isn't something you'd apply to judging a given standard?

 

[Received]

Arguments based on unsupported premises are not reasonable arguments

In what sense are they unsupported? If the premises are previous conclusions that are invalid, then yes. Nobody is supporting this, though. If the premises are unsound, or their soundness or veracity is unknown, they can perfectly be made to reach valid conclusions and be consequentially reasonable.