Side-effects of Faith

Originally posted by jaywill

But "trust" and "reasonable" are ambiguous words. Do you mean there is a rational proof of the existence of the Biblical God?

I think I have adaquate evidence that I am on the right track to believe in and pursue the God of the Bible.

I think the armchair philosopher demands total "proof". I think absolute proof of most things requires absolute omniscience which no human being has.

Good point. In different areas of life, we ask for different kinds and amounts of assurance that we are on the right track, and people differ from one another on this.

Originally posted by jaywill
I have no idea why deciding to [b]trust the words of Jesus about Himself and God is not reasonable.

This whole matter of faith in the Bible's Christ not being of reason strikes me as very weird.

It is good reasoning which includes the possibility, power, and Person of God. It is reasoning with God and including God in one's reasoning process.[/b]

Belief in the existence of God is purely of faith.

Even given the existence of God, belief that the Bible accurately depicts God is purely of faith.

Christianity is built upon faith, not reason.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Belief in the existence of God is purely of faith.

Even given the existence of God, belief that the Bible accurately depicts God is purely of faith.

Christianity is built upon faith, not reason.

Belief in the existence of God is purely of faith.

So is belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
New Age of Reason? Have to say I see things trending away from that rather than towards it.

I see things trending both ways quite equally

Originally posted by epiphinehas
There seems to be a much simpler answer, one that doesn't involve any hasty generalizations about a Christian's capacity for rational thought or an unnecessary commitment to the idea that reason plays no part in Christian faith:

Much more likely the major culprit for the widespread Republicanism among the faithful in America is due to the Republican p ...[text shortened]... ng systemically wrong with faith itself. More likely it is a a cultural phenomenon.

What a train wreck. It's almost as if you intentionally tried to include straw man after straw man.

Here are but a few:
"Much more likely the major culprit for the widespread Republicanism among the faithful in America"
Bartlett wasn't looking to provide the above.

"it seems rather presumptuous for someone to say that conservatives (as distinct from Christians) have no reason to hold the positions they do"
Bartlett wasn't saying the above.

"It is a mistake to assume that we must have proof, scientific proof, in order to rationally believe anything."
Bartlett wasn't making that assumption.

Originally posted by jaywill

Belief in the existence of God is purely of faith.

So is belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

C'mon JW. Do you really need the difference explained to you?

Like I said in the OP:
"What's even more alarming is that those who defend such beliefs often seem to view even the most irrational of arguments as being reasonable as evidenced by many discussions on this forum.:

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I see things trending both ways quite equally

Brings Father Guido Sarducci to mind:

The Father also sermonizes about a newly discovered planet moving both toward and away from the earth at 30,000 miles per second. Its inhabitants can't tell "who's a-comin' and who's a-goin'," he says, adding that they age to 100, then go back to the womb. The worst part is facing puberty—"in the opposite direction—verrrry difficult...would be just terrible, look down and a-just see yourself shrinkin' away...day after day...a little a-less of you. They can have it."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20076550,00.html

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Brings Father Guido Sarducci to mind:

The Father also sermonizes about a newly discovered planet moving both toward and away from the earth at 30,000 miles per second. Its inhabitants can't tell "who's a-comin' and who's a-goin'," he says, adding that they age to 100, then go back to the womb. The worst part is facing puberty—"in the opposite dire ...[text shortened]... ve it."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20076550,00.html

😀 lol

What I think odd is that conervatives are charged with not using reason. However, our sitting president, a Democrat, just agreed that the "W" tax cuts were necessary to continue. Not only that, Obama continues to ignore his own "experts" on the economy. I just love it when Bernanke gets up there and pleads with Congress to change their fiscal insanity as his warnings fall on deaf ears. Heck, his own appointed Timothy Gietner said that Obama's recent proposed budget is not sustainable.

If only Obama could bad mouth the scientific experts rather than the economic experts maybe he could be lumped in with the "unreasonable".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon JW. Do you really need the difference explained to you?

Like I said in the OP:
"What's even more alarming is that those who defend such beliefs often seem to view even the most irrational of arguments as being reasonable as evidenced by many discussions on this forum.:

What you consider a blind leap in the dark is not. It is a leap in the dim perhaps, but not in the total dark. And there is a faithful God there to make sure you have a soft landing.

An example of a possible side-effects of “faith" is for people to believe flying aircraft into tall buildings is a good thing to do; once you have faith in one absurd claim then anything goes.

Faith is dangerous and immoral.
We all have a moral responsibility to use reason, not faith.
It is immoral and highly irresponsible to propagate faith.

clearly the Op has no idea what he is talking about nor the source from which he
gleaned his assertions, here is the actual Biblical definition of faith which thoroughly
and soundly refutes these erroneous assertions,

(Hebrews 11:1-2) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the
evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

the evident demonstration of realities,

Now what are these evident demonstration of realities? well assurances. When one
studies the ancient text one can discern a personality that fulfils its promises and
thus rather than being the product of nothingness as has been erroneously
assumed, the man of faith has assurances, based on evidence of past events as
recorded in the ancient text (the evident demonstration of realities) that what God
wills, he can and will accomplish and his conviction ensues. Its simply a nonsense to
state that this is either dangerous or self delusional, for its based upon evidence
rather than blind acceptance and requires a degree of reasoning and discernment on
the part of the adherent to relate these details to his present situation and how they
may be applicable.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently Bartlett is of the opinion that a side-effect of religious faith is that it also affect non-religious beliefs, i.e,, those of religious faith readily shift an acceptance of things for which there is no proof to beliefs outside of religion. They believe something simply because they are repeatedly told it is true.

Comments?

I think it is difficult to determine whether people of faith are more likely to be irrational about things other than their religion than the average person - and even harder to determine whether or not the religion is to blame.
I think that most people believe some irrational things, and to what extent they do varies from person to person. I do know that even people who are not members of a religion, often hold irrational beliefs. If anything, religion is just one of an array of irrational beliefs people typically hold.
I do think however that irrational beliefs, whether religious or otherwise hold way to much respect in current society. When people believe things like 'alternative' medicine, astrology, religion etc we are often very reluctant to criticize. The attitude of 'well if you believe it then I won't say anything' is way too common.
We should have a more active focus on logical thinking in school too.

Originally posted by jaywill
I have no idea why deciding to trust the words of Jesus about Himself and God is not reasonable.

This whole matter of faith in the Bible's Christ not being of reason strikes me as very weird.

It is good reasoning which includes the possibility, power, and Person of God. It is reasoning with God and including
God in one's reasoning process.

I would say it's not 'reasonable' but that might end up with a pointless and boring debate over the
definition of reasonable.

So I will stick with my preferred word, It isn't (by definition) rational to believe in things without
adequate evidence to justify such a belief.

As there is no evidence for, and plenty against, the existence of god or gods, it isn't rational to believe
in such things. It is (again by definition) irrational.

To have 'faith' (in anything) is to believe without evidence or proof, and often despite evidence or proof
to the contrary. And is thus by definition irrational.

Now I would say that it can't be construed as reasonable to be irrational, and that using reason implies
and requires rationality. Which is why I would say that faith, religious or otherwise, is unreasonable.
But it is certainly irrational.


As for trust... I don't use faith and trust as being interchangeable words.
I use faith to mean belief in things without (or despite) evidence to back it up.

I use trust to mean belief in things with evidence to justify it, belief that is proportional to that justification.

So if you were to go skydiving then you 'trust' that your parachute will open and arrest your fall.
You trust that the person who packed and checked it (possibly you) did so properly.
And you do these things because there is justification for doing so.
In the vast majority of jumps parachutes DO open and DO work as intended.
You understand the aerodynamic principles that make this be so.
You know that the person who packed your chute is a professional who has done this hundreds if not thousands
of times and knows what they are doing.
But you don't trust absolutely so you have a backup chute in-case the main fails. (among other safety checks and factors.)


So I would say that under my definitions you can have faith but not trust in JC or god because you have no evidence
or justification for trusting in them.
You are free to use trust differently from me, however you should be aware that when I say trust I am and will
be using my version not yours.

Originally posted by KellyJay
To the point of the post, everyone has faith;

No, we really don't.

Faith (taken to mean believing things without evidence or justification for doing so) is
never reasonable or rational.
And not everyone has faith by any stretch.

I certainly don't have faith in anything.

And I know many others who can say the same, and the entire skeptical/rational/free-thought
movement is predicated on NOT having faith.

So no, not everyone has faith.