|
Gojira
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2007, 01:35:13 PM » |
|
So, if I observe a car going across a bridge, I need to have faith in mathematics in order to finally walk across? No. You put faith in your reasoning that it is safe. (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?). My mathematical example was not in context to the bridge but in context to the knowledge of mathematics in general. 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. I am not conflating terms. You are assuming that through my example that knowledge is faith is reason and so on... No they are distinctively separate. You are questioning my reasoning for these terms however you have not specifically defined these terms your self. So please enlighten me. While you ponder that, let me take the first step: Reason –verb (used without object) 8. to think or argue in a logical manner. 9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. 10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reasonIn this definition, reason is a process. One tries to infer specific pieces of knowledge to formulate conclusions that will most likely end up determining some sort of action later. Faith n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Knowledge is ideas. Reason is a process of interpolating ideas and forming a conclusion that transforms into an original idea that is either acted upon or not. Faith is the trust that you put in the ideas you have created through the process of reason. Now, understand these are how I define my concepts and maybe they should have been defined in the OP for the thread. I do understand that these two words can be defined in all sorts of ways like this one, which I find many on this thread happen to generally agree with: Faith n. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faithIf you take this definition literally, then yes my interpretation is wrong. However, I do not confer that logical proof and material evidence is something that can be directly relied on. That understanding is determined by a long arduous journey in the developmental philosophies of scientific modeling. This was the point I was trying to make. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2007, 02:35:30 PM » |
|
No. You put faith in your reasoning that it is safe. I have a reason to believe the bridge is safe. It is not faith. By the definitions you provided, it is reasonable to trust the bridge. I will address your other questions when you address my fake bridge example. I would like you to tell me what process faith offers that reason can't. To say "you have faith in reason" is absurd. Reason is developed through a series of steps that conform to reality. It is carefully constructed on facts, such as, "things fall to earth if unsupported". I don't then use faith to determine if I have judged correctly, it is the very process of Reason that I use. Since you are the one not using the definition literally, perhaps you can explain why you are trying to redefine it for your purposes? Why do you need to redefine "faith" so that it fits your world view? Why isn't Reason enough? Why can't I use reason to trust reason? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2007, 03:03:31 PM » |
|
I will address your other questions when you address my fake bridge example. I don't understand the issue you are trying to address with your "fake bridge" example. I don't see how it has any context to my argument. I think we are at a misunderstanding here in determining what exactly each other are saying. I would like you to tell me what process faith offers that reason can't. To say "you have faith in reason" is absurd. Reason is developed through a series of steps that conform to reality. It is carefully constructed on facts, such as, "things fall to earth if unsupported". I don't then use faith to determine if I have judged correctly, it is the very process of Reason that I use.
Since you are the one not using the definition literally, perhaps you can explain why you are trying to redefine it for your purposes? I am using one of the definitions in the dictionary. There are many definitions of reason and faith found in the dictionary. The ones I am explicitly talking about are the ones I have defined in my post. Why do you need to redefine "faith" so that it fits your world view? Why isn't Reason enough? Again, I am not redefining faith. There are multiple ways to define it. These words are not absolute concepts until they have been defined. I defined them in the context of what Webster's and American Heritage dictionary's is. Apparently my views on the definitions of Faith and Reason have validity to it if a dictionary can commonly consider the many definitions of one particular word. My second definition in my post on faith, ("Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence") is the definition I assume you resort to arguing about does not mean that my first definition of faith is flawed. What I did was try and explain why in the context of my second definition that logical or material evidence is just as ambiguous and requires some sort of faith to believe in that such logical or material evidence exists. To gain an understanding of what I am saying, think to yourself what exactly a concept is and how it is derived from our personal experiences in the world. We are trusting our senses that this is the "real world" around us, however there are many other hidden variables that no one knows about yet that could disprove anyones assumptions currently made. We all put faith in these assumptions, even if it is tested to be 99.99 9% correct. Why can't I use reason to trust reason? Because you put faith in your reasoning. Do you question even where your reasoning comes from and why you resort to reason? If you can't understand my phrasing of language or care to think outside the box, well then maybe we will have to agree on a misunderstanding or at least disagreement. I understand what you say. Try to understand what I say. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2007, 03:15:55 PM » |
|
Like I said, it doesn't take any faith to cross a bridge. You know that the probability of the bridge collapsing is very very slight so it is reasonable to cross the bridge. No faith required.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2007, 03:38:14 PM » |
|
I understand what you are saying: that at some point reason becomes insufficient and you must "put faith" in reasoning. Like a White Knight faith comes in and saves Reason from uselessness; that without Faith, one can't make use of Reason.
You are taking a view like D.E. Trueblood. It is a Skeptical position; that we must take Reason on Faith, at the heart of it.
Allow me another example:
I come to a bridge and reason through whether or not it will support me. Then, I pull out a coin and flip it. Heads I cross, tails I don't. If it is heads and I trust my Reasoning and cross the bridge, have I relied on the coin to give me information on whether the bridge is sturdy? Has the coin provided information? Imparted knowledge?
It appears that you are claiming that faith is the determining factor as to whether reason can be trusted.
It seems you are saying that reason can't be achieved without Faith. But, I don't see where Reason has failed in offering a method for determining reality. Perhaps you can explain?
Edit: "To pretend to prove by reasoning that there is no force in reason, does indeed look like philosophical delirium. It is like a man's pretending to see clearly, that he himself and all other men are blind"
Thomas Reid
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 03:47:05 PM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2007, 03:49:07 PM » |
|
It appears that you are claiming that faith is the determining factor as to whether reason can be trusted. Exactly. It seems you are saying that reason can't be achieved without Faith. But, I don't see where Reason has failed in offering a method for determining reality. Perhaps you can explain? This is not necessarily my most personal assumption of faith. I believe faith comes in many forms. But to answer your question, when scientific ideologies shift, the reason for this is based on my presumptions. When we learned that the world was suddenly round or that it was not the center of the universe, many people were still bent on believing that we were flat or the center of the universe. If you think of it, it is like the chicken or the egg question, was it reason that came first or faith? I believe reason came first and was sustained by faith. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,061
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2007, 04:02:48 PM » |
|
I believe reason came first and was sustained by faith. That's a good way to put it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2007, 04:07:16 PM » |
|
huh? Isn't it sustained by Reason? You reason something through and make a decision based on reason, not faith.
really, I think you simply prefer your opinion and don't wish to engage in debate, G, since you are cherry-picking my comments.
Please tell me why Reason fails to provide what you claim faith does provide?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2007, 04:26:58 PM » |
|
really, I think you simply prefer your opinion and don't wish to engage in debate, G, since you are cherry-picking my comments. I am not cherry picking. I don't exactly know what we are debating here when I have already established my position. I could entertain your viewpoint but I already understand it. Why continue with debate when an understanding as already been established? I don't really know how you or I would be able to get around arguing any of our examples because, from how I see it, seems that these ideas have already been well established. All I see from gaining here is running in circles. Unless a new viewpoint can be introduced, I see this debate going no where. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2007, 05:22:41 PM » |
|
really, I think you simply prefer your opinion and don't wish to engage in debate, G, since you are cherry-picking my comments. I am not cherry picking. I don't exactly know what we are debating here when I have already established my position. I could entertain your viewpoint but I already understand it. Why continue with debate when an understanding as already been established? I don't really know how you or I would be able to get around arguing any of our examples because, from how I see it, seems that these ideas have already been well established. All I see from gaining here is running in circles. Unless a new viewpoint can be introduced, I see this debate going no where. If you say so. Obviously, we aren't debating, you are simply espousing your idea, which since I have rebutted, and you have not rebutted me, I would have won the debate... ;-) I cant understand why people are frightened of new ideas. Im frightened of the old ones. - John Cage In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. - Nhat Han Seriously, though, I am just asking questions, proposing scenarios that would allow you to elucidate your view and offering an alternative. I simply don't see where faith has any part in the reasoning process. You offer that it comes after reasoning, but it sounds like you are saying "faith' when you mean "decide to act". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2007, 05:30:03 PM » |
|
No sorry barney you failed in your attempt to rebut the big G. We clearly use reason to asses the efficacy of the bridge, make a choice to travel it and then faith and locomotion carries us across. Gojira and illy seem spot on this one. I concur, this thread is done.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 13, 2007, 05:32:22 PM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2007, 07:35:19 PM » |
|
How is faith used? faith in reason? no one (in history) has shown the flaws in reason that make faith necessary. Reason helps you acquire knowledge faith does not. Faith is the belief in something you can't reason. If you can reason, there is no need for faith. I am suprised at the lack of argument on this. I was expecting Tillich, or Aquinas or some one - not just flat assertions without reason to back it up. I suppose you take it on Ignoran.... Faith.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2007, 11:05:15 AM » |
|
So, I see that the people who rely on Faith don't care to help those who don't by explaining what explanatory, or knowledge-aquisition, power Faith has. Again, I return to the bridge example (offered up by Goj), I have reason to expect the bridge to hold me and the act of walking on the bridge is in response to my reason. To say it is Faith in Reason that makes me walk is absurd, just like saying Faith is Reasonable. They are two different things (if you don't believe me, read the bible or other religious texts). In fact, the Bible is quite hostile towards Reason. Here is a Bible Study for you all - from a Xian source: Faith Transcends Reason
Bible study on faith.
Rationalism, otherwise called Modernism, is a Hermeneutical method of interpreting Scripture in light of that which the interpreter deems rational. Characteristically, Rationalists deny miracles in Scripture since they seem "unreasonable." For example, Modernists deny that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
Faith transcends (rises above the limits of) Rationalism. Faith "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). "Hermeneutics means theory of interpretation" (A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, p. 282). Christians live by faith, not by theories of interpretation.
Faith transcends Rationalism because it is not limited to human theories, logic, reason, knowledge, and understanding. This message rings loudly in Scripture demanding that we "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). However, Rationalists walk by sight, not by faith.
Hebrews records two examples of faith in the destruction of Jericho. The first is the destruction of the walls. The Bible says: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days" (Heb. 11:30). Now what does circling the walls of Jericho for seven days have to do with the walls falling? Logically, nothing. Rationalists attempt to explain this event in a way which dismisses the intervention of God. But we understand that Israel obeyed God in a very simple thing whereby God gave them victory over Jericho.
The second example of faith, in the destruction of Jericho, is the salvation of Rahab. The Bible says: "By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace" (Heb. 11:31). Remember that the spies told her to bring her relatives into her house, not to go outside the house during battle, and to bind a scarlet cord in the window through which she had let them down to escape (Josh. 2:17-20). Then after the walls fell, Joshua sent in the spies to rescue Rahab who lived on the wall (Josh. 6:20-23). Now what does tieing a scarlet cord in a window and staying in a house have to do with being saved from the destruction of Jericho? Logically, nothing. And what does faith have to do with the salvation of Rahab and her household? By faith she obeyed God; therefore, God saved her. The cord did not save her - God saved her because of her faith.
Paul writes: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). What do we learn from the Scriptures? We learn obedience through faith - not through logic and reason. Faith rises above the carnal mind of man to obey God whether or not His commands seem reasonable.
Now think about those things which God desires from His children today? Think about the manner of life God desires us to live. And think about the salvation He is ready to give all those who walk by faith. No, we cannot earn God's blessings. But He requires that we walk by faith in obedience to His ordinances apart from human reason and understanding.
Do you believe? If you do, you will obey God whether or not it seems rational to your mortal mind. God is not seeking to save "smart" people. He is seeking those who believe. Concerning this fact Paul wrote: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:20-21). http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/faith-transcends-reason.htmCrossing the bridge seems rational to my mortal mind. Please tell me where Faith enters in? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 11:07:15 AM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2007, 11:33:28 AM » |
|
No sorry barney you failed in your attempt to rebut the big G. We clearly use reason to asses the efficacy of the bridge, make a choice to travel it and then faith and locomotion carries us across. Gojira and illy seem spot on this one. I concur, this thread is done.
How is it faith when, knowing the probability of the bridge collapsing as I cross to be vanishingly small, I decide to cross fully knowing the magnitude of the risk I am taking? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2007, 11:52:54 AM » |
|
No sorry barney you failed in your attempt to rebut the big G. We clearly use reason to asses the efficacy of the bridge, make a choice to travel it and then faith and locomotion carries us across. Gojira and illy seem spot on this one. I concur, this thread is done.
How is it faith when, knowing the probability of the bridge collapsing as I cross to be vanishingly small, I decide to cross fully knowing the magnitude of the risk I am taking? I simply don't understand this line of logic myself. Maybe I need more Faith? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
