Mageth

I don't think faith is a reliable basis for holding a belief; that's why I don't claim to have faith (not because I don't think they're compatible).

If you think they (faith and reason) are compatible, then you might want to explain why. I'm not saying you do, just asking.

I see faith an reason as "compatible" only so far as one person can use both faith and reason to arrive at "beliefs". However, the territories they cover are mutually exclusive; if you use reason to arrive at a "belief", then faith does not apply, faith is not necessary to hold that belief. If you use faith to arrive at a belief, then reason does not apply, for if you could use reason to arrive at the belief, then you would not need faith.


If not, then that's a problem for believing God's judgment will be "objective and impartial", from where I stand. Of course, one has to resort to faith to hold that belief, so reason doesn't apply.

Yahzi

IIDB will not ask you to leave because of what you believe in, only because of how you behave (hence the rules against insulting people, spamming, etc). Rather neatly demonstrates the difference between secular and sectarian policy, doesn't it?

Exactly, it's all part of God's plan. Your atheism is part of God's grand plan. So is mine. In fact, while I am beating and robbing Christians, I make a point of explaining to them that this is all part of God's great plan - that they should be beaten and robbed by an atheist. I explain that I can't understand God's plan, but I have faith that it will work out alright in the end, and at that point I usually start beating them harder.

Oddly, not one of them has ever said, "Why yes, thank you for advancing God's plan and making me a participant!" Why do you suppose that is?

Yahzi

Why? What is the basis for this faith? What is your evidence?

You have none. You've just chosen to have faith. Well, I have faith that the Easter Bunny will forgive me for killing all omelette-eaters. (And the spelling is on purpose - The EB does not tolerate the blasphemy of writing out the o-word - really, that is doctrine, and the fact that I don't know how to spell omelette is symbol of my awesome faith, not a sign of simple ignorance). I don't have any evidence or basis for this, I just have faith.

If you are allowed to have faith without reason, then so am I. That's called the Golden Rule.

dado

ah yes...the Enron defense.

Irishbrutha

I sort of thought it was understood by everyone that we all do have faith without reason? About everything except that "I" exist. Everything's about belief and that belief has to be fidestic. Once you've adopted sensory validity and reason's validity then we can move on to the discussion of whether or not theism is valid. But it cannot be said to be less valid than empiricism. Because empiricism is accepted through faith. Your reason is accepted as a legitimate function through your faith that it is. There is nothing wrong with faith in and of itself. Rather than saying faith is irrational, we should recognize that faith is non-rational, yet can be described by reason. See Plantinga's "Warranted Belief". Epistemology's goal is to discern what we can know and how we know it. Knowledge is justified true belief. Well since we can no longer call any justified belief true we must be prepared to denote how beliefs are justified. I would say my belief in the empirical and my senses is justified by my necessity to function in a physical world. I would further say my need to function in a world ruled by laws (as determined based upon my prior belief), justifies my belief in reason. Kierkegaard went further and said that we will not be truly fulfilled until we go beyond the physical realm, beyond the rational (or ethical -kinda shooting from the hip), into the spiritual realm. In either case the "leap" of faith is just as non-rational in the first two steps as in the last. I have to read more Kierkegaard before I can really explain the third leap, but it cannot simply be poo-poo'd because it's faith.

miata

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
Thomas Paine


Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

If God did exist he may not be cruel. Since I don't believe in God this does not bother me.

Mageth

Interesting post, but I'd like some clarification. You say "empricism is accepted through faith". But then you go on to describe why empiricism (and reason) are justified - using reason.

If there are justifiable reasons to practice empiricism, where does the need for faith to accept empiricism come in? If it works, and is thus justified, why do I need "faith" in empiricism? Since empiricism/reason have been validated (IMO, and perhaps yours) through experience as valid means to "function in a world ruled by laws", why would I still need "faith" as a basis for them? They work, demonstrably so.

Faith

I don't necessarily see them as incompatible, I see them as two distinctly separate sources upon which beliefs can rest. I am fully cognizant that there is nothing especially "logical" about having faith in God. It involves believing in something that transcends all things natural, for which (by virtue of its very nature) there is no empirical proof. Once something can be demonstrably proven, faith obviously no longer applies.

Forget religious faith for now. Do you have faith in your friends or your spouse to always be there for you? Do you have faith that you will still have a job on Monday? Is there any empirical proof to support your faith in these things? If not, how can you be using reason to arrive at your beliefs?



You can choose to have faith in anything you want to, Easter Bunny, faeries, leprechauns, whatever. There needn't be evidence for the object of your belief. If there is, it's no longer faith.

Mageth

Yes, that's pretty much what I said, I believe.

I wouldn't say there is "empirical proof" to support my "faith" in those things (there's always uncertainty); however, there is experiential evidence. I'd call it "trust" rather than "faith", however, as "faith" implies believing without evidence. (To support that, note that below you say "There needn't be evidence for the object of your belief. If there is, it's no longer faith")


I trust that my wife will be here for me because I know my wife well, have experienced that she is "faithful" to me, and has been there for me in the past. Therefore, I trust that she will be here for me in the future. I trust that I will have a job on Monday because I've worked there for five years, and am doing a reasonably good job apparently, they have not fired me yet, there's a ton of work for me to do, and my company is in no danger of going under. Similarly, I trust that the sun will come up tomorrow because I'm 48 years old and have experienced it coming up every day of my life. So I have good reason to trust my job will be here, my wife to be with me, and that the sun will come up on Monday.

Newton Joseph

\
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good grounds exist.
Indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction
------Bertrand Russell

SO TRUE, BERT