Reason and faith???

The Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Science" ) deals with this subject:

It is remarkable in this context that the Encyclical opens with an introduction titled "Know Yourself". Self-knowledge is grossly neglected by those who prefer to rely on Science. They often do not look upon themselves as entities to be known by themselves.

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Science" ) deals with this subject:

It is remarkable in this context that the Encyclical opens with an introduction titled "Know Yourself". Self-knowledge is grossly neglected by those who prefer to rely on Science. They often do not look upon themselves as entities to be known by themselves.

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

Why is that remarkable? How is knowing yourself a matter for science?

Originally posted by Starrman
Why is that remarkable? How is knowing yourself a matter for science?

See what I mean ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Acting in a non-logical way is not necessarily stupid. Most people cannot truely explain many of thier actions, cirtainly not in a logical way. Most people base much of thier lives on love (for family or spouse or other) but cant logically explain why. Most cannot truely explain why they follow particular ethics, and thier explanations when they have them ...[text shortened]... tupid if you keep on loving even illogically. However there are limits and sometimes logic wins.

No, I am reffering to logic in the sense of knowledge. Many theists proclaim that they know God exists despite the logical implausibility.

I act illogically all the time and I dont consider my self completely stupid. But if i were to evaluate something mathematically and despite all the relevant axioms, make up my own answer (randomly), i think there would be claim for stupidity.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t think it’s necessarily stupidity, or ignorance. Paul Tillich, the protestant theologian, for instance, was possessed of a huge intellect.

There really seem to be two sources: (1) the assumption of a written revelation, and (2) mystical experience that is translated/interpreted as evidence of the supernatural. Often the first seems to ult ...[text shortened]... ural experiences such as those in Zen—in doing so, I am simply following the general literature.

I didn't mean to incite a debate on stupidity (it was an accident that the word got there in the first place).
I think Jaspers in his existenzphilosophie presented Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as two paradigms of reason and faith (and neither of them are stupid). Kierkegaard believed that reason was limited and embraced the belief in God. Nietzsche was the exact oppostie, he embraced reason but rejected God. I was just wondering if belief in God was incompatible with reason. To accept God do we have to be like Kierkegaard or can, as Jaspers, put it achieve such knowledge of God through transcendence.

Your Zen explanation is basically what I wanted to hear.

Originally posted by amannion
You're right, it is untenable, but as for a 'weakness of intelligence'? I'd like to see the person who only uses logic throughout their daily lives.
The reality is that even the most rational of us humans at times will utilise other forms of thought (or not-thought) to make decisions and to act. We reason only some of the time. (Some more times than other ...[text shortened]... ouldn't go there. To me it's just another way of knowing - neither better nor worse.

Your correct, you can gain knowledge of things without logic (i.e. by directly looking at it [induction]). But we can neither see God (and there would be uncertaintess as wo whether I am seeing him even if I could) or deduce God's existence. So I am wondering how others can know God's existence. I
suspect alot of people go to church either because their parents do, because they feel an obligation or because the church offers some direction. Other then that I dont believe there any reasonable argument to believe in God.

P.S. I couldn't prove to you that say I love caramel but I would know it (inductively) and you could safely assume that I did if you saw how much I willingly ate of it. Same applies to you.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
See what I mean ?

Don't be a smart alec, just answer the question, or is this one of those secret decoder-ring issues again?

Originally posted by Conrau K
It seems to me that faith is untenable from a logical perspective. God's existence is often described as unverifiable. I tend to agree. BUT...

Why is that most theists (endowed with such astute intellects) could succumb to such a weakness of intelligence? If its so obviously untenable and unverifiable why believe in God?

I was discussing this with a ...[text shortened]... an "transcend" the logical barriers of theism and/ or how non- theists could reject it.

I don't get this 'reason versus faith' thing. Aren't all scientists involved in making hypotheses about things and then experimenting to see if they are true? Isn't this what faith is . Religion is the hypothesis and you either give it a go(experiment) or you don't. So faith in God is saying " I'll give this a go and see if it works out " (even the Bible says 'taste and see'😉 . It a proposition to be tested or not tested. Faith is such an integral part of our lives (eg - having faith in a driving instructor) that we wouldn't do much with out it. One may think that the proposition of God is unreasonable but the process of faith and experimenting with something is entirely rational. Most of the time I think Atheists assume that theists believe something that they actually don't and so end up interpreting faith as unreasonable. If you have tested the proposition and found it to be false then fair enough but don't knock the process of faith.

Originally posted by Starrman
Don't be a smart alec, just answer the question, or is this one of those secret decoder-ring issues again?

I wonder who wants to be a Smart Alec here ......

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I wonder who wants to be a Smart Alec here ......

So as usual you're refusing to answer a direct question. What a surprise, make a vague claim and then fail to address the concerns it raises. You're as predictible as ever.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't get this 'reason versus faith' thing. Aren't all scientists involved in making hypotheses about things and then experimenting to see if they are true? Isn't this what faith is . Religion is the hypothesis and you either give it a go(experiment) or you don't. So faith in God is saying " I'll give this a go and see if it works out " (even the Bib ...[text shortened]... on and found it to be false then fair enough but don't knock the process of faith.

Whoa I'm not "knocking the process of faith" (n fact thats exactly what I wanted to know... the process of faith that is). I'm just looking for a reason why they could believe in God as an outright fact (even though it seems unverifiable). Sure, you can experiment,
but then begs the questions, should I try faith in invisible elves?

Originally posted by Conrau K
No, I am reffering to logic in the sense of knowledge. Many theists proclaim that they know God exists despite the logical implausibility.

I act illogically all the time and I dont consider my self completely stupid. But if i were to evaluate something mathematically and despite all the relevant axioms, make up my own answer (randomly), i think there would be claim for stupidity.

Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are many good arguments for believing in God, even if no one can prove God exists. And the same is true of the contrary, you can not prove God does not exist.

Consider the case of logic. Can you prove logic is true? No, to attempt so would be circular - a logical fallacy. To try to prove otherwise would be absurd - you have to presume logic is true to give an argument against it. So logic is not believed because it's provable, but because it just is. Logic is transcendental in that sense. It is immune to worldview assumptions.

The existence of God is likewise a transcendental proposition. We can neither prove nor disprove God exists. To prove God, you'd have to use have logically a-priori propositions. But to have such knowledge would require God's self revelation, which assumes God revealed himself, which begs the question. And to prove God does not exist, you'd have to claim to have access to total knowledge - therefore - you'd be God - which is absurd. So you can not logically "know" God exists any more than you can prove logic is true.

All in all, the existence or non-existence of God is a pointless debate. The question should be, if God exists, what would be true about him. Would he speak to us. Could we know things about him. In essence, can we know God.

Knowing God, is not to say we can prove God exists. It's merely to know things about God. But since even hypothetically, God is transcendental, if things can be known of him, it must be by his revealing them to us. Therefore the existence of the Bible, while in no way proving God exists, does give evidence in favor of that conclusion. For if an almighty being, eternal and immutable and all-knowing, does exist, then the only way we could know him, is if he wills it, and if he wills it, what better way then by speaking to us in a immutable fashion. So we have the written Word of God, more than 3000 years old, and yet is endures with little evidence of change or alteration.

Then there is apparent moral order. Many diverse and separate people seem to have common moral standards. Do not steal, do not murder, obey your parents, respect your elders, don't eat the yellow snow. OK, the last didn't count, but you get my point. We all have a sense of right and wrong. And while there are many theories for why, there is also the possibility we have a common creator that gives us innate knowledge of good and evil - that it is better to do things against your own self-interests for the better of others. That meeting the letter of the law is not excuse for violating the intent of the law. The God of Christianity fits with these observations. Not a proof, but evidence for Christianity.

So while belief in God is faith, it is not unreasonable or blind. One could even argue that besides the Bible and moral law, creation itself is evidence of God. Again, it's not a proof, but if God exists, then the apparent reliability of the laws of nature makes a sense. A perfect almighty being could create the world, give if form and substance. Give it rules, patterns, processes. Many of the things we observe are explainable by an eternal, immutable God.

And then for us to have any knowledge that is objectively true, what can we found it on? Is there any knowing if there is nothing but what we can physically sense? Can we really deduce anything useful from "I think therefore I am"? Is language just a product of evolution, and nothing can be known univocally and objectively, but only possibly and equivocally. God knows if knowledge is possible - but that presuppose God doesn't it - so I won't beg the question and just say that knowledge and language are evidence in favor of the self revelational God of the Bible.

Or just maybe it's all random matter in motion simply catching up with the odds. And maybe the skeptics are right, life has no certain meaning, knowledge is unknowable (maybe since skeptics refrain from making any universal true/false statements), and "what you see is what you get, as far as it matters or you can tell"... Hey! It's an option! I won't deny it's one you can take, but it sure bites.

So I prefer the Christian worldview over skepticism and randomness and uncertainty. At least with the Christian worldview, you have a rational explanation for meaning, morality, and order in the universe. I mean, what's not to like? Christianity meets all the desiderata of a coherent and comprehensive worldview.

You telling me that's unreasonable? Call me a fool cause I think it works. Do I know it's true? No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

Originally posted by Starrman
So as usual you're refusing to answer a direct question. What a surprise, make a vague claim and then fail to address the concerns it raises. You're as predictible as ever.

The Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Science" )

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM


You might read the encyclical first .... It usually helps.

Originally posted by Coletti
You telling me that's unreasonable? Call me a fool cause I think it works. Do I know it's true? No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

Not entirely. Of course, the smattering of Appeals to Tradition, Popularity, and the question begging don't help much. Statements like "language and knowledge are evidence for God" really don't make much sense. As I see it, your reasoning for belief in God boils down to 2 factors:

1. I really, really want the (Christian version of) God to exist.
2. It would totally suck if he didn't.

(taken from godlessgeeks.com!)

Originally posted by Coletti
Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are ...[text shortened]... No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

I hate to say it, but this is a pretty good post. It's about the best defense of a theist position that I've seen in this Forum. Of course, the Christian God isn't terribly rational or logical in the Old Testament so it's not a particularly strong defense of that belief system, but as far as some type of Creator God with SOME interest in humanity the post makes some interesting points that deserve an actual response and not merely scorn.