I have started this thread as a discussion site for the slightly more philosophical questions of rationalism, reason and faith, as to which is the best reliable epistemological approach for enquiring into the nature of reality.

I define rationalism and reason pure as the systematic analysis, experimentation, verifiability and questioning of the nature of reality. Scientific rationalism is grounded on the scientific method, but generally, it posits that nothing should be accepted as knowledge until it is proven as true and is consistently verified to be so.

Faith, on the other hand, is the acceptance of claims where no evidence exist. In fact, it is premised on the acceptance of proposition in spite of evidence. For if a claim is sustained by evidence, that claim can no longer be accepted as an article of faith, but now falls within the domain of rational knowledge;

Some example to set the scene:

It is an article of knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun because this has be shown to be so using the techniques of scientific rationalism. It is not an article of faith, as it once was believe some centuries ago (for which the cleric persecuted Galileo and Geordano Bruno) that the earth was the centre of the universe; made so by God as his special creation for his special creatures. So within cosmology, scientific rationalism has displaces faith.

It was once taken as an article of faith that humans have existed on the planet for only about 10000 years. Now this has been shown, through scientific rationalism to be untenable.

Faith claims are the following; Virgin birth, immaculate conception, existence of Jesus, origin of sin etc etc.

So on this thread, I would like the various participants to demonstrate which approach provides the better epistemic methodology for revealing the nature of reality and also provide supporting evidence as to why they are making such claims.

Thankx

=====================================================================================================

Some of my other threads


The Dangers Of Religious Fundamentalism To Intellectualism
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110955.msg1929006#msg1929006

Origin Of Christianity And Diabolical Mimicry In Anticipation
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113860.0.html

Hell Past, Hell Present; Which Do You Prefer?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113947.0.html#msg1971669

Scientific Rationalism, Reason And Faith: Which Produces Systematic Knowledge?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-114253.0.html

On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html

On The Historical Reliability Of The Bible
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-114215.0.html

When And From Where Did Jesus Ascend Into Heaven
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113519.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-114023.0.html#msg1972418
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-114023.0.html#msg1972418

When Was Jesus Born?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113449.0.html

On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus [/b]13012dg
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html#msg1963529

[b] Was Jesus The Prophesied Messiah? Let's Look At The Evidence.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html

What Are Your Chances Of Being Saved?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113283.0.html

Who Wrote The Gospels And When Were They Written?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113277.0.html#msg1962589

God Selects The Rulers Of Countries; G W Bush, Sadam, Pol Pot, Abacha, Hitler
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113186.0.html#msg1961537

Cannibalism In The Bible: Det 28:53-57, Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9, Ezek 5:10, Lam 4:10
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113181.0.html#msg1961343

What Are The Core Tenets (doctrines, Value And Virtues) Of Christainity?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112990.0.html

Faith-healer And Evangelist, Maurice Cerullo, Investigated
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113871.0.html

What Fate For Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Constantine And Tomás De Torquemada?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112997.0.html#msg1958617

Is The Doctrine Of Trinity Biblical? The Johannine Comma
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112865.0.html#msg1957266

On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 2
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112848.0.html

How Is Salvation Achieved?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112833.0.html

Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles And Some History: Who Was Jesus?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112697.msg1954632#msg1954632

Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles: Old Testament Stories
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112679.msg1954426#msg1954426

Human Sacrifice In The Bible: Lev 27: 29 & Judges 11
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112584.msg1953340#msg1953340

Please, Please, Please: Christians - Read Read Read Your Bibles
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112578.msg1953311#msg1953311

When Was Jesus Crucified?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112557.msg1952665#msg1952665

On Conversion To A Religion (christianity Or I-slam)
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112547.msg1952353#msg1952353

Faith-healers And Tele-evangelists
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112398.msg1950528#msg1950528

Where Did Sin Originate?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112377.msg1950291#msg1950291

For The Non-beleivers Only, 1
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112262.msg1948957#msg1948957

Would Christains Be Criminals And Offenders If They Were Not Christians?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112259.msg1948919#msg1948919

On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 1
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112240.msg1948631#msg1948631

Has Atheism Got Principle? No
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112216.msg1948180#msg1948180

It Is Biblical To Have Sex (and Lots Of It) Before Marriage
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112139.msg1946940#msg1946940

Should The Old Testament Laws Be Observed In The Modern Era?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112114.msg1946682#msg1946682

Founding A State or Nation On Religious Principles
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112086.msg1946268#msg1946268

Great Books About Non-belief
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111928.msg1943935#msg1943935

Who Are The Self-declared Non-believer? Resources For You
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111806.msg1942137#msg194111quc02137

Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111677.msg1939992#msg1939992

What Is The Evidence That The Bible Is The Word Of God?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113161.0.html#msg1960928

Archbishop Cause Furore Over Sharia Law In The Uk
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111645.msg1939155#msg1939155

Eminent Christian Scientist (francis Collins) Explains The Evolution Of Humans
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111482.msg1936158#msg1936158

Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111474.msg1936099#msg1936099

Why Biology Is So Important To Our Modern World
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111466.msg1935975#msg1935975

Genesis Vs Genetics
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111227.msg1932655#msg1932655

Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111474.0.html

Jesus Genealogy
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111222.msg1932616#msg1932616

£300 (three - Hundred Pound Sterling) Essay Competition
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111143.msg1931508#msg1931508

Beware Of Religious Fundamentalism In Your University Campuses
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110965.msg1929160#msg1929160

====================================================================================================

Imhotep,

You wanted to talk about scientific rationalism, so I started this thread for that discussion. But you have not made any input yet. What is happening?

1) Rationalism is[b] "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[/b]

2) Faith is the hypostasis of things not seen.

Rationalism and faith are thus on DIFFERENT LEVELS. It is erroneous to place faith in direct opposition to rationalism or vice versa.

Rationalism should go hand-in-hand with faith and vice versa. Otherwise the consequences can be disastrous.


Pope John Paull II explained this in his letter titled 'Faith and Reason' -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio

Let me quote him ->

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"

Dear therationa and imhotep,

I would like to enter this discussion and make contributions where necessary; but since I'd not like to be seen as barging into this thread, I thought it wise to first seek therationa's invitation to join the discussion. What sayest thou (therationa)?

@Stimulus:

What sayest thou (therationa)?

You really do not have to take permission from them to contribute to the thread. Ithink this response of yours is very shurdy. You should contribute greatly, because I think you at least can defend the belief system, yours for an example, in a very esoterical way, neither leaning this way or that. But trying to define belief as a faith rather that rationality of Science, without its obvious fusion with faith.

Afterall, we see the handwork of a more intelligent being in our processes, without having to disagree with the rationale held by many Science Scholarship.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: You really do not have to take permission from them to contribute to the thread. Ithink this response of yours is very shurdy. You should contribute greatly, because I think you at least can defend the belief system, yours for an example, in a very esoterical way, neither leaning this way or that. But trying to define belief as a faith rather that rationality of Science, without its obvious fusion with faith.

Well, I did not want to barge in here uninvited, as therationa has opined earlier that "stimulus, 4Him and imhotep" were welcome to NOT post replies to his thread. I really do not have any worries with making contributions on any subject; but I'd agree with the substance in imhotep's initial response.

In anycase, as when necessary, I'd be making inputs for our mutual benefits as the discussion progresses.

Enjoy.

FAITH.
AT THE SAME TIME DON`T CONFUSE FOOLISHNESS FOR FAITH
BECOS THERE IS FAITH & THERE IS FOOLISHNESS

stimulus:

@olabowale,

Well, I did not want to barge in here uninvited, as therationa has opined earlier that "stimulus, 4Him and imhotep" were welcome to NOT post replies to his thread. I really do not have any worries with making contributions on any subject; but I'd agree with the substance in imhotep's initial response.

In anycase, as when necessary, I'd be making inputs for our mutual benefits as the discussion progresses.

Enjoy.

Stimulus - I understand your position. And thanks for asking and you are graciously welcome to the discussion. Indeed, everyone is welcome as long as we try to stick to the topic and we stay respectful and civil to everyone. Am currently at work right now,so my input will be rather few and far between though.

FAITH.
AT THE SAME TIME DON`T CONFUSE FOOLISHNESS FOR FAITH
BECOS THERE IS FAITH & THERE IS FOOLISHNESS

wouldn't faith inevitably lead to blind fellowship??

@bawomolo,
NO IT WON`T. ALL YOU NEED IS DISCERNMENT.(acuteness of judgment and understanding)

bawomolo:

wouldn't faith inevitably lead to blind fellowship??

Faith, when alienated from reason, leads to blind fellowship.

Reason, when alienated from faith, leads to hardness of heart.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth

imhotep:

1) Rationalism is[b] "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".[/b]

2) Faith is the hypostasis of things not seen.

Rationalism and faith are thus on DIFFERENT LEVELS. It is erroneous to place faith in direct opposition to rationalism or vice versa.

Rationalism should go hand-in-hand with faith and vice versa. Otherwise the consequences can be disastrous.


Pope John Paull II explained this in his letter titled 'Faith and Reason' -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio

Let me quote him ->

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know Himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves"

Imhotep, this topic runs the risk of going off course. First let's come to an agree definition of what faith and reason/rationalism is. Once we are happy with that I shall publish our agree definition on the main body of the post. Then we can discuss as to whether they are opposing and/or complimentary. Shall we.

I like your definition of rationalism, but I did not quite get your definition for faith. Can you present that again in simple layman language?

therationa:


Imhotep, this topic runs the risk of going off course. First let's come to an agree definition of what faith and reason/rationalism is. Once we are happy with that I shall publish our agree definition on the main body of the post. Then we can discuss as to whether they are opposing and/or complimentary. Shall we.

I like your definition of rationalism, but I did not quite get your definition for faith. Can you present that again in simple layman language?

I am saying that faith should not be divorced from reason. Divorcing them has led many astray. Reason should be [i]enlightened [/i]by faith.

The scientific progress made in Europe can be attributed to Christianity. Christianity ultimately deleted superstition from the minds of the would-be scientists. This left them free to reason properly. Compare this with Africa where some people still believe that Sango is responsible for thunder and lightening.

The definition of faith is taken from the book of Hebrews 11:1. I chose to leave the Greek word [i]hypostasis [/i]for your further research.

imhotep:

I am saying that faith should not be divorced from reason. Divorcing them has led many astray. Reason should be [i]enlightened [/i]by faith.

The scientific progress made in Europe can be attributed to Christianity. Christianity ultimately deleted superstition from the minds of the would-be scientists. This left them free to reason properly. Compare this with Africa where some people still believe that Sango is responsible for thunder and lightening.

The definition of faith is taken from the book of Hebrews 11:1. I chose to leave the Greek word [i]hypostasis [/i]for your further research.

OK. Take for instance the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception OR assumption. Assumption is not in the bible nor is immaculate conception. Now, do you accept these as articles of faith? What level of rationalism and reason have you used to investigate the plausibility of these doctrine?

therationa:


OK. Take for instance the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception OR assumption. Assumption is not in the bible nor is immaculate conception.

Nice. I will give you a Catholic's answer.

Catholics believe that the Church has Authority [/i]from Christ to teach the truth ([i]Matt 28:16-20 -> Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.).

This teaching authority is referred to as the Magisterium (from the Latin Magisterium, "office of superintendent/president/master/chief; instruction; control/governance" of the Church.

Note that the bible as it stands today was first approved at a synod of bishops in Hippo, somewhere in modern day Algeria in 393 AD. See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

So, the bible, to Catholics, stands on the Authority of the Church.

Other teachings (doctrines) grew out of the deepening faith of the Christians through the centuries. Doctrines such as

1) the Trinity
2) Immaculate conception
3) Assumption
4) Ban on contraception
5) Ban on homosexuality
6) Ban on euthanasia (mercy killing for very old people)
7) Ban on abortion
Ban on embryonic stem cell research

are also taught by the Church on the basis of the Magisterium.

therationa:
Now, do you accept these as articles of faith? What level of rationalism and reason have you used to investigate the plausibility of these doctrine?

Yes, I accept them because I accept the teaching authority of the Church. These doctrines are based on[i] theological (note that Theology is ultimately the study of God) reflections[/i] spanning centuries. Some of them are available online (like Aquinas' Summa Theologica). I have read a good number of these reflections, and I agree with them.

For the more philosophically minded amongst you!

I dispute the suggestion that faith is belief or acceptance of something without evidence. This is because what constitute evidence may or may not be physically visible. Thus the underlying assumption behind the statement that "faith is acceptance without evidence" is that only what is sensed by the physical senses is evidence. My view is that it is very possible to experience using the organs of the spirit or soul. Therefore it is possible using these spiritual faculties to see, hear, smell, torch etc things which are completely invisible to the brain and the physical organs under its control. Until the invention of microscope, micoorganisms were not believed to be in existence, and yet today a high school kid is aware of millions of bacteria in an apparently very clean mouth. Faith as opposed to "blind faith" is belief in something which one has personally experienced with his spirit. Thus if you believe in life after death because you were told in your religion or you read it in a book, that does not yet qualify as faith. It becomes faith when you have personally experinced life after death and in that case that knowlege is a part of you, it is hardwired in your soul, it is a living conviction. That is what I call faith.

m_nwankwo:

I dispute the suggestion that faith is belief or acceptance of something without evidence. This is because what constitute evidence may or may not be physically visible. Thus the underlying assumption behind the statement that "faith is acceptance without evidence" is that only what is sensed by the physical senses is evidence. My view is that it is very possible to experience using the organs of the spirit or soul. Therefore it is possible using these spiritual faculties to see, hear, smell, torch etc things which are completely invisible to the brain and the physical organs under its control. Until the invention of microscope, micoorganisms were not believed to be in existence, and yet today a high school kid is aware of millions of bacteria in an apparently very clean mouth. Faith as opposed to "blind faith" is belief in something which one has personally experienced with his spirit. Thus if you believe in life after death because you were told in your religion or you read it in a book, that does not yet qualify as faith. It becomes faith when you have personally experinced life after death and in that case that knowlege is a part of you, it is hardwired in your soul, it is a living conviction. That is what I call faith.

QFT!! Quoted for Truth.

I'm so impressed and in agreement with the above post. There is no such things as 'Blind' faith. Faith isn't blind. It is those that cling to doctrines without evidence that are blind, not the faithful.

With Faith we percieve, and with faith we act upon the world. l

The five physical senses do no reveal but a fragment of reality. Those who are awakened percieve further. The dead remain with the dead.

Just thought I would resurrect this old one to see if people have any new thoughts about it.

huxley:

Just thought I would resurrect this old one to see if people have any new thoughts about it.

Sure, I wonder what people think might be the difference between the two words Sensible and Reasonable. Is being Sensible being Reasonable, or are they 2 different things altogether.

according to merriam webster this is the definition of Sensible:

Main Entry:
1sen·si·ble
Pronunciation:
\ˈsen(t)-sə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin sensibilis, from sensus, past participle of sentire to feel
Date:
14th century
1: of a kind to be felt or perceived: as a: perceptible to the senses or to reason or understanding <felt a sensible chill> <her distress was sensible from her manner> barchaic : perceptibly large : considerable c: perceptible as real or material : substantial <the sensible world in which we live>
2 a: capable of receiving sensory impressions <sensible to pain> b: receptive to external influences : sensitive <the most sensible reaches of the spirit>
3 a: perceiving through the senses or mind : cognizant <sensible of the increasing heat> ; also : convinced by perceived evidence : satisfied <sensible of my error> b: emotionally aware and responsive <we are sensible of your problems> c: conscious
4: having, containing, or indicative of good sense or reason : rational , reasonable <sensible people> <made a sensible answer>
5: designed for practical ends (as comfort) rather than for appearance <sensible shoes>

I don't know how the word Sensible came to be equated with Reasonable in the english language, but just over a century ago a Sensible person was someone that was too ruled by their emotions. Their senses ruled them. Sensibility was not considered Rational.

Reason on the other hand is related to the CAUSE of an event, the SOURCE of the event. The ability to reason is the ability to perceive the Origin of an event.

I know I have quoted Plato on this before but got no response from anyone. Huxley wouldn't bite and neither would anyone else, but I'll try again. You never know, third time lucky . . .

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal).  The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real.  . . . . Thus a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed - will be, that is, as irrefutable and incontrovertible as a description in words can be; but analogously a description of a likeness of the changeless, being a description of a mere likeness will be merely likely; for being has to becoming the same relation as truth to belief.  Don't therefore be surprised, Socrates, if on many matters concerning the gods and the world of change we are unable in every respect and on every occasion to render consistent and accurate account.  You must be satisfied if your account is as likely as any, remembering that both I and you who are sitting in judgement on it are merely human, and should not look for anything more than a likely story in such matters.

What is Plato's understanding of what Reasoning is and what it does? And how does he contrast it with OPINION and IRRATIONAL SENSATION in other words SENSIBILITY? I understand him to be saying that Reason is for apprehending the eternal, which opinion and sensation are for apprehending what is temporal. Would anyone else agree with me?