Which is more important to you? Reason or faith?

[BurtWorm]

If reason and your faith came into conflict, which would you pay closer attention to?

A by-question: Have your faith and reason ever conflicted?

[longship]

1. Inescapable logic.

Reason will get a person through a time of no faith.
Faith will *not* get a person through a time of no reason.

We've already tried the latter, for centuries after 450 CE nothing of any significance happened. Europe was "A World Lit Only by Fire".

[kwassa]

8. Au contraire..... Faith WILL get a person through a time of no reason

That is the point of having faith.

There is still a lot of "no reason" at many times and places on this globe, right here, right now.

[Rich Hunt]

22. actually, in my experience the opposite is true

...and I'm a rationalist agnostic.

But if you have no faith, you're essentially dead.

(obviously I'm not speaking of faith in strictly religious terms)

I don't think the two are incompatible though, and I think it's a false dichotomy.

[CatholicEdHead]

2. Reason

we were given our brains for a reason, and it was not to turn them off.

[ellenfl]

3. faith is not reasonable to me so i can't vote. eom

[JDPriestly]

4. Pascal - it is reasonable to have faith

Pascal saw it as a wager. He thought it was smarter to bet on the existence of God than on the nonexistence of God. I don't know if that is really faith.

It seems to me you can have faith in life without knowing whether there is a God. I happen to believe in something I call God, but I think my faith is rational because it arises from a sense I have that my life appears to have form and purpose. I seem to constantly confront similar patterns, make similar mistakes, and those patterns and mistakes seem to be teaching me lessons. I rationally do not perceive my life as merely a series of disjointed coincidences, therefore I find it reasonable to have faith that my life has some purpose beyond the obvious. My belief in a God is therefore rational. But, my definition of God is not the traditional one. It has more to do with an energy source or field than with an elderly, very powerful humanoid.

[rogerashton]

15. Surely Pascal's wager would be reason, not faith

if there were anything to it. But bet on the existence of -- which God? Since there seem to be several that threaten us with hell if we believe in other ones!

[Orrex]

19. But Pascal's Wager was debunked almost before it was postulated

It works only if the two choices are "God as you envision him" and "no god whatsoever." If you envision God incorrectly, or if God is a total bastard, or if God has no interest in your belief, or if God only wants souls in the afterlife so that he can torture them, then there are many more ways to lose the wager than dear Pascal supposed.

[PsychoDad]

5. Both equally

Reason reinforces faith. Faith and Reason should never conflict, otherwise one or the other is wrong.

[fighttheevilempire]

6. If only people practiced the faith they claimed to believe...

then there wouldn't be any conflict with reason. I can't think of a time when Jesus conflicted with common sense and reason, yet the modern day fundies can't reconcile the two. What does that say about their faith in relation to its founder?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Galileo Galilei

[meow2u3]

7. Faith and reason go hand in hand

In other words, a rational faith, as opposed to the strictly emotional yet totally superficial faith practiced by some groups (read: ultraconservative faith without reason).

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

9. To answer your question:

You've created a false dichotomy. Faith and reason needn't be foes. Reason, open to revelation is entirely legitimate. Faith, open to reason, is equally legitimate.

Consider this: A man of faith trusts God, because his faith tells him so, and he has a rational expectation in a force greater than himself. Faith is not entirely at war with rational or empirical truth. God wasn't servants, who willingly examine the evidence and seek Him with our free will. He doesn't want slaves.

[BurtWorm]

10. The question is, if reason contradicted your faith, which would you listen

to? That's not a false dichotomy. It's a choice between contradictions. But many faithful throughout the centuries have been content to consider the contradiction a moment of paradox.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. I'd have to say faith. then.

When it comes to those things that reason cannot explain, I have to step out in faith.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

[BoneDaddy]

12. Balance

I am for the middle road. Balance. My faith influences my reason and visa versa. They must co-exist. By faith, we all may mean different things, however, so we need to define our terms first.

Those I have met who only operate from faith, are irrational, devisive, elitist and exclusionary. Those I have met who only operate from reason have no soul, no wonder about the mystery of life, they are often cruel and indifferent. I suggest balance. Science and rationality can explain much but it is limited if we only come from one area. Einstein had both. He was not faithless. His God became the wonder of the universe and he never lost that.

[trotsky]

13. Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side

[onager]

14. Judgmental much?

Those I have met who only operate from reason have no soul, no wonder about the mystery of life, they are often cruel and indifferent.

Pfft! To paraphrase Teller of Penn & Teller: we atheists do plenty of wondering about the mystery of life. We just don't make up stuff out of thin air and moonshine about those mysteries.

But thanks for the gratuitous personal judgment on my non-existent soul, my cruelty and my indifference. If you're going to be that way about it, maybe I better go cancel all my charitable donations.

Geez, you sound just like Poopy Bu$h claiming that atheists can't be patriots and shouldn't be citizens.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Dude!

I'm glad I didn't see this thread earlier.
But you speak for me as well.

Uppity atheist.

[Darranar]

16. Reason is based on blind faith, like everything else...

so I guess that faith is more important to me for that reason.

[Orrex]

18. That argument is made only by those faithful who lack all reason

Reason is the opposite of faith because reason allows for its own disproving and in fact grows stronger as its arguments are refined through re-examination.

Blind faith--and all faith is blind faith--seldom allows for correction of the thing in which one has placed one's faith. Never does a Christian say "God has changed to keep stride with cultural development;" instead he says "Our perception of God has changed as our culture has developed."

In fact, by making such a statement, the Christian is actually saying "my faith is blind and I have no sincere interest in any evidence that contradicts my preconceptions about the god in which I've placed my faith."

Reason, in stark contrast, requires continual re-examination of one's beliefs, arguments, and preconceptions. That's how a body of knowledge grows, and that's how reason evolves.

Perhaps one's framing of one's faith evolves, but faith does not.

[Darranar]

20. True faith in God is supposed to involve re-examination, too...

particularly of one's behavior, to prevent it from becoming sinful.

What faith in God tends not to examine very closely is faith in God itself. It is assumed; it is not questioned. The same thing is true of reason by most of those who use it. One examines one's arguments, but not one's core assumption: that reason leads to the truth.

We have no way of knowing that, in fact, if x necessitates y and x is true, y is also true. We assume it; it is an assumption intrinsic to our cognition, and one probably impossible to escape.

Reason rests entirely on our faith that it works. Anything else that could possibly justify reason must also rest on faith, because without a faith-based starting point, no one can get anywhere at all.

[hedgetrimmer]

21. Possibility

[servant_wayne]

23. 0 = 0

When considering the scenarios that try to explain the creation, there are two choices: The creation is due to an intelligent designer, a Creator; or that matter itself is the eternal. Although neither scenario can be proven, only one of these two seemingly impossible scenarios is possible. Even though the Biblical account of the creation is but primitive mumbo-jumbo, it is equally naive to think that lifeless matter created its self.

I do not argue that one has to believe that God is, but that its illogical to believe that God is not. A belief in God does not require the rejection of evolution as a means to explain what has occurred after the so-called "Big Bang". To claim evolution was not the engine driving creation after the "Big Bang" is as thoughtless as claiming that creation is simply the results of random actions of inanimate matter. For if the creation had been solely dependent upon inanimate matter, there would be no universe but a void, 0 = 0.

Proof of God

We, the created, are the proof of God. Logic demands that the source of creation had to be a living, intelligent, eternal. No substance of matter, whether it is hydrogen or helium, seen or unseen, can meet the absolute demand of being a living, intelligent, eternal. No matter how infinitesimal a particle of matter may be, it is nonetheless lifeless. What is lifeless has no will and thus it could not have created its own self in a void. In order for lifeless matter to have materialized in the void, it had to be subject to the will of a living source. Without the will of a living a source to create lifeless matter, there would be no universe, but a void, 0 = 0

The evidence that the source of creation is intelligent is seen in the design of the creation; in the laws and reason that govern the universe. Had law and reason not proceeded inanimate matter, the universe would not be comprehensible, but incomprehensible chaos.

Knowing that the inanimate could not have created themselves and that the universe is governed by laws and reason testifies that another dimension exists; one that is superior to the created and is best described as a Spiritual realm, whose intelligent designer is God.

Wayne L. Harrington
Harrington Sites: http://www.harrington-sites.com

[onager]

24. The universe is governed by reason?

:rofl:

Well, good. If a large asteroid is ever on the verge of smashing into Earth and eliminating Life As We Know It, maybe you and your metaphysical buddies can just reason it away.

[Beetwasher]

25. Wow, What A Load Of Crap!

It's rare that I get to see up close the delusions of a true believer wanting so much to have his belief in god be rational and justified that he posts something so blatantly ridiculous and riddled w/ so many flat out bullshit assertions and assumptions.

Where do I even begin:

"...its illogical to believe that God is not."

Buddy, I got news for you, it's VERY logical to NOT believe in things for which there is no evidence.

"Logic demands that the source of creation had to be a living, intelligent, eternal."

Uh, no. Logic demands no such thing. You think just because you assert this, it's true? Good grief.

"In order for lifeless matter to have materialized in the void, it had to be subject to the will of a living source."

Err, according to who? This is true merely because you say so? What a load of crap. Just because we don't understand YET how matter came to be in this universe, doesn't mean we won't eventually understand it. Only lazy, incurious people say "god did it!" and think that's a good enough answer. You're god has the same problems you postulate for matter. Your god ALSO materialized in the void, somehow. You don't think that's a problem for your "logic"?

[More Than A Feeling]

26. I choose Faith, and here is why.

Reason does wonders for explaining the natural world. Unfortunately, human nature is not reasonable, and people rarely act as economists wish they would, according to their own best interests. My faith explains why that is.

Reason is like a map that is missing many landmarks. It's not that the landmarks don't exist, the map is just wrong. It can teach you many things, but it can't teach you the purpose and meaning of life. Those aren't on the map. Without purpose and meaning, how can I choose which of the many options reason does offer?

Does reason conflict with faith? All the time! Reason says that human beings would realize that war sucks and that we are ruining the environment and that gays are people too. Are those things accepted and acted upon? No, they are not. Why? Because human beings are imperfect. They misuse their freedom. They store up treasure where thieves break in, rather than storing up treasure in heaven. In a word, they are insecure, and latch on to transient things and make them absolute.

My faith says: It's ok. There is a purpose, you don't have to try to control others to feed your insecurity. Realize your limited nature, and trust in the absolute. Live under the Law of Love, and work towards making this world a copy of the kingdom of heaven, where there is brother(sister)hood. You will fall short because you are a part of nature, not God, but you are forgiven your failure. Have the courage to keep trying.

That is why I choose faith over reason.

[trotsky]

28. That's quite a misrepresentation of reason.

When in fact, creating "faith" so that you can reconcile things as you describe is simply using reason to apply a set of criteria that you arbitrarily introduced.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Perhaps you better explain what you mean by "reason"

and the connotations the word has for you.

To me, the original poster's dichotomy between "faith" and "reason" was a conflict between basing your life on something that cannot be proven, and basing it solely on those things that can. So a better question might have been faith vs. science, if that is the case.

If what it actually meant was something understandable versus something that made no sense, then the question is meaningless, because if faith made no sense, noone would know anything about it, or be able to comprehend it in anyway. No one could tell anyone about it, and no one could say whether they had it or not.

I do not think that this is the case with faith. You may disagree, because of course what does and does not make sense is in the eye of the beholder. What I mean is that if faith was a word from a language that noone on earth knew anymore, that kind of not-making-sense.

Either way, the question between you and me has to do with our interpretation of the original question, IMHO.

[trotsky]

30. You've made up a few statements

that are unsupported, and you reason from that point on.

This is your "faith."

[More Than A Feeling]

31. You just repeated yourself

"That's quite a misrepresentation of reason. When in fact, creating 'faith' so that you can reconcile things as you describe is simply using reason to apply a set of criteria that you arbitrarily introduced."

-and-

"You've made up a few statements that are unsupported, and you reason from that point on. This is your 'faith.' "

My reason and my faith are not now conflicting, which is what the OP was asking about. What is happening is that I am using my reason to explain why I would choose faith if my reason and faith did conflict. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul", dontcha know? That does not make my faith and my reason the same thing.

You are saying something similar to those who insist that atheists have faith. Furthermore, if you weren't going to address anything I said in my 2nd post, why did you reply again?

[trotsky]

32. I repeated in hopes of clarifying,

but it obviously failed. I could decide to believe that an invisible pink unicorn pushes objects together instead of there being a force called gravity, and could then just as easily say my "faith" does not conflict with my "reason," since it becomes, in essence, faith-based reasoning.

[More Than A Feeling]

33. Would it give your life meaning if there were such unicorns?

Would that meaning be absolute and eternal rather than finite, limited, and relative? If so, then by all means, go ahead.

(for myself, it would be finite. No different than if I decided to worship my house, which will eventually rot or be torn down.)

[trotsky]

34. Not sure where you're going with that one.

Why does life have to have a "meaning"? And why should the extent to which we feel a thought is comforting help make it real?

[shimmergal]

27. This dichotomy has never made much sense

to me.

After all, reason is a technique or a faculty of the mind, not a source of ultimate truth.

Faith gives hints of where to go when there's not much convincing evidence (IMO) on either side.

Actually, on many things I give more weight to personal experience than either of the above two choices.