Quote from: falcon9:
"Regarding the general concept of 'religious faith', (not any particular "faith"); you and others have claimed that it's not "irrational". Where is the rationality then in faith-sans-evidence?"
I am going to c/p something from GotQuestions.org. I can say or write some of it myself, however, there is a lot more involved that if you don't mind, the answer from the site says it much better than I do, and includes more reasons for the comments:
Actually, the c&p avoids the question of substantive evidence specifically by arbitrarily attributing "creation" in toto as 'evidence'. This is an invalid attribution as
any other arbitrary attribution, (such as invisible pink unicorns, opaque blue elves, etc.), can be substituted for a 'creator g-d' if the 'believer' has "faith alone" in the attribution. This is a circular 'argument' for "faith" since is essentially becomes 'faith requires faith'. Additional refutions of the assertions made by some otehr xtian are interspersed below:
"Fideism is the idea that religious faith and reason are incompatible with each other. It is the view that religious faith is separate from reason and cannot be reconciled with it. According to fideism, faith involves a degree of absolute certainty and personal commitment that goes beyond what can be rationally justified. Therefore, one cannot and should not seek evidence for religious belief."
The premise is correct however, the conclusion drawn by the faith-holder writer of the quoted article is not. If one cannot provide evidence to support what is simply believed in, that does not mean such evidence should not be sought, (that would be a cop-out intended to dodge the burden of proof requirement for the religious reliance upon faith alone - sans evidence). Basically, such a conclusion abdicates responsibility for making an unsupported faith-based claim by making the further irrational claim that 'faith doesn't need evidence', (as if it is exemption by decree and it is not).
"A Christian who embraces the philosophy of fideism would say that the rational and scientific arguments for God are irrelevant because the essence of true Christianity is that people are saved by faith alone."
This type of xtian 'argument' is invalid due to the introduction of a further unsubstantiated claim, ("that people are saved by faith alone"), to support the previous unsubstantiated claim/proclamation, (that "rational and scientific arguments for God are irrelevant"). Using additional unsubtantiated claims to support previous unsubstantiated claims is an invalid and irrational 'argument'. In refutation of that invalid argument's syllogisms; there is no substantive evidence that "people are saved", let alone "by faith alone" as this is an unsupported religious belief itself and cannot logically be used to support other specious religious beliefs, (that's what a circular arugment does, i.e., 'this is true because I say it's true therefore, it must be true' being self-referential). Further, the premise of such an 'argument' rests upon "faith", (which cannot be rationally used to justify itself), therefore the xtian premise, syllogisms and conclusion constitute an illogival circularity.
"Man’s rational abilities have been corrupted by sin and are untrustworthy, and the truths taught in Scripture must be believed even if they cannot be supported through logic or reason."
The first part of this assertion, (" ... corrupted by sin ..."), has an unsubstantiated religious basis in belief and is therefore, circular and invalid. The other part of the assertion, that "man's rational abilities ... are untrustworthy ..." is also a religious belief rejecting reason because reason does not support baseless religious beliefs, (as the writer of this article goes on to admit). Such an arument invalidates itself due to inherently biased preference for irrational faith over a rational ability to reason. Since the premise is false, the conclusion that followed, ("truths taught in Scripture must be believed even if they cannot be supported through logic or reason"), would be false even if it did
not make the irrational and credulous 'demand' that "scripture
must be believed ..." especially and specifically
because it "cannot be supported through logic or reason." The conclusion is not supported by the non-reasoning involved in arriving at it.
"In the simplest terms, it is the belief that if one could prove the existence of God, then faith would not be necessary or relevant."
Exactly so; "belief" or "faith" would be unnecessary/irrelevant if any believer could prove the existence of the 'g-d' they propose to have "faith in".
Since there is no such evidence, (arbitrary attributions which retroactively claim that the 'universe' constitutes such evidence are false attributions because the attributions themselves are unsupported claims).
"Many of the earlier writings on fideism came about as a response to the increasing reliance on human reasoning that was made popular by rationalism. One of the early advocates of fideism was the Danish philosopher Soren Aaby Kierkegaard (1813-1855). He believed that because faith is characterized by absolute certainty and passionate personal commitment, it can never be supported by reason."
Such a "response" was characterized by an unwillingness of religious believers to apply logic and reasoning to religious assertions which were/are based upon faith/belief alone. While Kierkegaard created his three premises according to logic, he did so within the 'religious cultural belief systems' surrounding him at the time. The initial premise of fideism concerns an a priori assumption that "absolute certainty" is a prerequisite of fideism. This assumption is often latched-onto by religious adherents who exclaim that 'if one cannot prove or disprove, with 'absolute certainty', then one may as well give up on that method and rely upon an irrational
"feeling" of certainty, ("faith alone"), to give the illusion of comfort.
The irony there is that an illusion/'feeeling' of certainty still isn't "absolute certainty" either therefore, the advantages of rationality and reasoning, (limited only by available information), are more useful and functional than irrationality and unreason.
"To substantiate his view of the relationship of faith and reason, Kierkegaard put forth three arguments, the first of which is the Approximation Argument. According to Kierkegaard, arguments can never prove things with absolute certainty because it is always possible that the evidence to support the argument has been misinterpreted, or that an error in reasoning has occurred. He believed that since faith requires absolute certainty, which cannot be attained through rational argument, then faith must always go beyond the evidence, and, therefore, it cannot be supported by reason."
The Approximation Argument applies to religious beliefs as well. "Faith" does not "go beyond the evidence" since it doesn't even pretend to
have supporting evidence. This is also a circular argument in that it concludes that, since faith cannot be supported by reason/evidence that it must go "beyond" such instead of simply being an invalid/irrational position in the first place.
His second argument was the Postponement Argument.[/b] "This argument is based on his belief that there is always the possibility of new data or evidence that will invalidate previous conclusions. Therefore if we were to base our faith on rational scientific investigation, we would have to wait forever until all the data is in. In order to have the certainty that faith demands, one must choose to believe what cannot be acquired from scientific investigation."
This 'argument' merely concedes impatience and that a religious adherent "must
choose to believe what cannot be acquired from scientific investigation". This means that the believer is choosing to be irrational due to impatience, rather than evidence or reasoning.
His third argument was the Passion Argument. "This argument emphasizes the personal commitment that in inherent in faith. He felt that since our evidence is imperfect at best, there is risk involved in believing any conclusion. He thought that the faith that goes against all known evidence is the most valuable because it is the riskiest faith of all. His view was that if we had conclusive evidence for God’s existence then belief in God would be unremarkable and uninteresting. In other words, if we could prove God’s existence through evidence or reason, then faith would be unnecessary."
Look at Kierkegaard's first sentence and apply it to religious "belief", (specifically, " ... the personal commitment that in inherent in faith ..." is as risky as going by "imperfect evidence" - not superior to rationality). The assertion that "faith that goes against all known evidence is the most valuable because it is the riskiest faith of all ..." is not "valuable" because he claims it is, (sans evidence), and in fact has less value than something supported by evidence. For instance, one could claim that they have a solid gold cat statue but, it's hidden from view and there are no pictures of it. Should others simply take that person at their 'word' for it or, decide that they're 'trusted' and no evidence is needed? That would be a faith-based conclusion which has an irrational basis opposite of evidentiary-based reason. Again, Kierkegaard concludes that "faith", (or empty belief), would be unnecessary in light of any valid evidence. That accounts for some xtians attempting the logical fallacy demand that others 'prove g-d/something doesn't exist', (as this requires negative evidence, the logical burden of proof requirement relies upon positive evidence).
"Christian fideism has both ***strengths and weaknesses. ***One of its strengths is that it correctly acknowledges that rational and logical arguments cannot ultimately prove the existence of a transcendent God as revealed in Scripture.
Then the logical conclusion drawn from this premise is that xtians hold an irrational and logically-baseless "faith/belief" in something for which there is no conclusive evidence. Accordingly, such "belief/faith" has an irrational basis, (since it is excluded from having a rational/logical basis by the premise).
"It also correctly acknowledges neither evidence nor reason is an adequate basis for faith in God."
Hold on a sec, "Soren"; shifting the
"basis" from evidence and reason to lack of evidence and unreasoned "faith" is an intentionally
illogical argument, (e.g., attempting to use pseudo-logic to invalidate rational logic as a basis is inherently disingenuous). Essentially, such an assertion is reduced to "this is so because I say it's so", rather than justifying it by using evidence and reasoning.
"That is because faith is based on who God is and the surety of His promises and not in the evidence of His existence."
That's another specious religious faith-based belief which lacks evidence or reasoning in support of its claim and is a circular argument.
"On the other hand, one of the shortcomings of Christian fideism is that a faith which is not both reasonable and logical will only be as strong as we feel at that given moment in time."
Since the admission of an unreasonable, non-logical 'feeling' as a basis for "faith", fideism is essentially 'picking' either illogic or logic as a basis without fully admitting to an illogical basis of faith, (cherry-picking instead).
"However, faith that is founded on fact is both reasonable and logical and as such has many outside evidences to support it and strengthen it."
That has not been established, it's merely been proclaimed. Earlier, Kierkegaard established that xtian "faith/belief" eschews logic and reasoning and therefore, cannot be "founded on fact both reasonable and logical" as these are mutually-exclusive assertions, (invalidating the latter irrational conclusion that irrational faith/belief has a basis in reason and logic). There are no "outside evidences to support and strengthen" faith/belief referenced, (therefore, this assertion is merely another unsupported claim used to attempt to support other unsupported claims).
"Understanding the rational and logical foundations of our faith in Christ ..."
That is a false conclusion as it is based upon the false premise delineated above.
"While we cannot prove God’s existence scientifically, we certainly have ample evidence of His existence in creation alone (Psalm 19:1-3; Romans 1:18-32)."[/b]
The attribution is arbitrary since it lacks supportive evidence. This is emphasized by referencing a dubious source which, itself, relies upon "faith/belief" alone for veracity. That's not evidence, it's hearsay and a circular justification attempt.
Community Forum
Topic: daily Bible verse (Read 246588 times)
October 17, 2011, 03:02:30 pm
