George Smith asks:
"Why does the Christian employ two concepts, reason and faith, to designate different methods of acquiring knowdledge, instead of just using the concept of reason itself?

What purpose does faith have in knowledge?

I agree with illy.  I find that faith and reason are interrelated.  People who tote reason as the savior of mankind don't realize that many of the theories we have come up with have consistently been challenged then changed from each mode of thought to another.  The purpose of this is to come up with some common belief that hopefully a tested theory can remain true.  This is where faith steps in.  Faith is a fundamental part in upholding this reason in that reason is the method in which we discover new things, and faith is our belief that a tested theory is probably true.  But that doesn't mean it is true.   As each generation of scientists challenge the older generation, an accumulation of new knowledge continues. 

Illy's comment on theology descriptively notes this.  Many people have reasoned their way into thinking that Jesus is their lord and savior and faith is what keeps one in believing that he does exist, even though there is a chance he may not. 

I understand faith as something to which you would say "I have faith in (blank) and there is nothing that can change my faith"

An equivilent statement for reason might be "I think (blank) because it apears resonable to think so, if you can provide conflicting evidence or sufficient reasoning I will change what I think"




Faith and reason are diametrically opposed. Faith relies on complete and intentional ignorance of questioning, reason invites and requires questioning. While it is probable that no single person can be completely without faith it should be a goal to be as reasonable as possible.

You've got a pretty good point about confidence, but it depends on how you define faith.

Some definitions of faith include confidence, so I'm not sure they're entirely separate concepts. An alternate definition of faith is a belief not based on proof.

faith      /feɪθ/ [feyth]
–noun
1.   confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.   belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

so, faith fills a gap when you are tired of finding reasons?
you both are saying that faith is a filter in which one acquires knowledge. how does faith work? how do you determine faith from reason? why use faith at all if reason is fully capable of determining knowledge?

Faith is not a source of knowledge, faith is a condition that you place about something. As a philosopher I find faith of little value and it inadvertently spreads ignorance. It is often true that those who have "faith" assume that faith is all they need, no they don't knowledge, all they need is faith... This perpetuates ignorance and it angers me. 

I find that reason alone is sufficient for crossing a bridge.  it is more than an educated guess, and vastly more reasonable than taking it on faith.

So, if I observe a car going across a bridge, I need to have faith in mathematics in order to finally walk across? (frankly, I don't do mathematics calculations when I cross a bridge, I use Reason - it is reasonable to conclude that a bridge is built to hold weight across a span.  Do you know of any bridges that aren't meant to do this?).

No.  Reason is sufficient to cross a bridge and answer all other things in the universe.  Even in your example, you allude to the fact that if you knew all the math in history, you wouldn't have faith - you would have knowledge.

You are conflating the terms - which is common.  Faith is not that little extra reason when Reason fails.

Reason alone is reason to cross the bridge. There is a REASON I accept the engineers calculations (many in fact). I can use Reason to judge the situation. Faith does not apply. You are suggesting that I can't know everything, but that is not the question. I need only enough to make a reasonable decision.

Example:

Imagine the bridge is a fake. By all measure it looks, acts and feels like a real bridge.  I even see (fake) cars crossing it.  By all REASONABLE standards I should trust the bridge and would, just as I would trust a real bridge.

Now, where does faith come in?  Would faith warn me that the bridge is not real? No. Faith is not a reliable source of knowledge.


Likewise, faith wouldn't hold me up while I crossed the fake bridge, I would fall and REASONABLY conclude that the bridge was fake.


1. You need to show how faith works to obtain knowledge.
2. You need to show how Reason fails in obtaining knowledge.

You need to show that in order for Faith to save Reason, that Reason needs to be saved and Faith saves it. (Of course, you will have to do this using Reason - ah, the irony).