Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> a (dogmatic) a priori

*2 >>> As a matter of fact it does converge with reason >>> the nemesis of this statement is how a negative stereotype is being spread >>> like a viral meme >>> Faith is congruent to Stupidity (i.e a lack of intelligence) >>> reason has an element of faith (belief) ipso facto and faith has an element of reason (one's intellect)

>>> Furthermore, they are both a means of inquiry into nature

Very nice ^.

I would like to see Kay17 and Mudley try that post on for size.

what is faith? good question. Well to me faith is belief like for example the masses have hope belief and faith that oneday e go better. And so because of this very strong blind faith that they have the vast majority will suffer and smile till the day they die on thier meagre $2 a day (while thier corrupt leaders chop the nations wealth)

When it comes to religion, a quote that captures important aspects of it is one made by Mark Twain.

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

aletheia:

. . .faith is believing God. And it is based on evidence.
. . . .

But, if the evidence were good enough, one would not need faith.

Rhino.3dm:

how can we be sure that those things are not facts in other level of energy or possible in the later feature may be science will be able to make inventions that that will make them visible. Eg i personally thought UFO's are mirage not until last month i was out in the night and my friend notice  two dumbell shape like object moving in a calculated cyclic motion for a while with a bright light like a car head light. I was stunt and that change alot in my perception of things i used to feel arent there, 

What you saw may have been unidentified to you but for others to accept that it may have been some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence would need a lot of evidence especially when we consider the number of satellites and telescopes out there monitoring earth and space.
Or to put it in other words, it's a conclusion made after other possibilities have been excluded.

Faith vs Reason, an epic battle that has raged on for generations. When human inherent rationality clashes with dogma. Both perceived as tools with which to derive knowledge yet, mutually exclusive. . . Its more like a mountain seperating these two.

Faith could be defined as a commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs that lack sensory evidence or rational proof. Or a belief in god or gods without proof. But the key idea is claiming or holding on to a set of beliefs, in an unjustifiable denial of evidence.

And reason referred to as the proper exercise of the mind, Ayn Rand defines faith as 'the faculty that identifies and integrates the material collected by man's senses.' By abstracting the concretes provided by experience into concepts and aligning these into wider concepts man gains knowledge. Its necessary that for a belief to be built, it must adhere to rational standards. In this manner one is able to separate falsehood from truth. It must achieve internal consistency, must not be contradictory to previous validated knowledge, and must be based on evidence. The certitude accorded must be proportionate to evidence.

All knowledge is open to further deliberation and investigation, none is closed to scrutiny. Reason demands an healthy dose of skepticism and sets evidence as boundaries for certainty.

See what the Christian Father Tertullian has to say
'And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible'.
he goes on and 'wishes a plague on Aristotle', reiterates bible verses 'God will destroy the wisdom of the wise', 'its reason that supplies heresies with their equipment'.

Martin Luther, the Protestant leader and avid Jew hater descibes reason as 'beautiful LovePeddler', 'God's worst enemy', 'the bride of the devil'. 'Faith must trample reason, sense and understanding under ger foot'.

Reason investigates, propelled by doubt, curiosity and sets off on his first step 'i know nothing'. Reason knows nothing beforehand, until he discovers the truth would he assert knowledge of it. But why are they (reason and faith) different? Why do they yield different results?

Would continue tomorrow.

Faith asserts knowledge can be sought without evidence or proof, how then can distinguish truth from falsehood? the presence of an idea in one's mind does not constitute knowledge, No it doesn't. Would a persistence make it so? NO! Is it subjected to the test of truth? I must state that rationality of faith is impossible.

faith & evidence r in fact one & d same. like 2 ends of one line, faith speaks in d FUTURE while evidence speaks in d PAST. they r not mutually exclusive, but complemntary.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> a (dogmatic) a priori

*2 >>> As a matter of fact it does converge with reason >>> the nemesis of this statement is how a negative stereotype is being spread >>> like a viral meme >>> Faith is congruent to Stupidity (i.e a lack of intelligence) >>> reason has an element of faith (belief) ipso facto and faith has an element of reason (one's intellect)

>>> Furthermore, they are both a means of inquiry into nature

JeSoul:

Very nice ^.

I would like to see Kay17 and Mudley try that post on for size.

Well, in life one is exposed to claim after claim (aliens, ufo's, santa claus, mammy-water, bush baby etc). what criteria then should we apply to separate claims that correspond better with reality from others that do not? to use an example, how do we decide that the Leprechaun theory should not be taken just as seriously as the germ theory of disease? the answer is that we know by applying the standard of reason. if faith were a viable alternative to reason, then what are its rules? how do we know when to apply it? how do we know when someone has misapplied it? how can we tell the difference between the effects of faith and the effects of inadvertent, though well-meaning, self-delusion? indeed, how can we test its validity?

Let's illustrate this problem.  A member of christian sect X believes that all other sects are damned, and she says that she knows this through faith. the person she is talking to is a member of sect Y that believes only sect Y is the one true faith, and that all others are damned, including members of sect X and, of course, she knows this through faith. Clearly they both cannot be right. The member of sect Y asks the member of sect X how she knows that she is not really just hearing the deceitful voice of satan leading her down a false path. To that our sect X member confidently replies, "I know that through faith as well." Not surprisingly, these are the same answers given by the member of sect Y to exactly the same questions regarding her confidence in the truth of her favorite sect.  There is no independently validated method to resolve this. If reason is not the standard, then there literally is no standard, and people who abandon it have simply written themselves a blank check to believe whatever they choose. Cloaking this irrationalism with comfortable terms like "faith" does not make it any less irrational.

okeyxyz:

faith & evidence r in fact one & d same. like 2 ends of one line, faith speaks in d FUTURE while evidence speaks in d PAST. they r not mutually exclusive, but complemntary.

and i hope you're not just talking the christian faith but faith in the belief systems of muslims, hindus, buddhist, mormons, guru mharji's followers etc that all these faiths are all together one and the same, not mutually exclusive and infact complimentary to the evidences provided by reality. you see how dumb you sound?


[center][/center]

So to answer to d topic: Faith is d practice of what u believe(what inspires u) so as to actualize dat belief. But faith does not exist in a vacuum, u still have 2 follow established wisdom in d pursuit of dis inspiration\belief, & in d process u discover new ideas or actualise d same beliefs u set out for in d begining. remember, these actualised beliefs were not in ur past, but in ur future b4 now.

Kay 17:
. . .
Martin Luther, the Protestant leader and avid Jew hater descibes reason as 'beautiful LovePeddler', 'God's worst enemy', 'the bride of the devil'. 'Faith must trample reason, sense and understanding under ger foot'.

The same Luther also called reason "something divine". And those who know Luther's work would explain that in terms of earthly matters, Luther did esteem reason and to some extent even relegated Scripture behind reason on such matters; it is in respect of spiritual matters that he 'denigrated' reason since it has a tendency to lead to idolatry.

Kay 17:
. . .
See what the Christian Father Tertullian has to say
                             'And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
                              And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible'.
he goes on and 'wishes a plague on Aristotle', reiterates bible verses 'God will destroy the wisdom of the wise', 'its reason that supplies heresies with their equipment'.

Similar point addressed by old post here  " . . . someone like Tertullian (himself a great scholar and intellectual) is sometimes referred to as "anti-intellectual" --- a charge that has been refuted in the literature. Incidentally, Tertullian seems to be a particular victim of misattribution/mistreatment as with the "Credo Quia Absurdum" quote -- see here for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum."

Am very certain of what i saw and i reckon it shouldnt be more 100meters in altitude. . . Yes it could be anything but i bet you what i saw was totally freaky.

thehomer:

What you saw may have been unidentified to you but for others to accept that it may have been some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence would need a lot of evidence especially when we consider the number of satellites and telescopes out there monitoring earth and space.
Or to put it in other words, it's a conclusion made after other possibilities have been excluded.

Rhino.3dm:

My bad how can i miss this.
It makes me understand that simply because i dont believe in something doesnt mean its not real and my free will and ability to make good or bad decision, selection will definately speak against me if am caught up in this line. Spritually

. . . But scientifically i still cant figure out how an aerodynamic object of that size can be self propell and what if there is an alien threat? Are those objects manned or they are some mini drones or intellignt ariel vehicles? What if they are secret spy planes or objects or black magic, voodoo, witch craft? Thise questions keep on popping in on my mind daily. . .

Venire dentro.

Dear Rhino, rational thinking also places a lot of responsibility on the thinker. It gives no room for wild conclusions as i have highlighted above. I would ask:

How were you able to verify the size of the lighted object?
How did you get to conclude it was self propelled?
How come it may be an alien ship and not a meteor, crashing artificial satellite, initial stage of a rocket or astronauts re-entering the atmosphere e.t.c?

You see assertions must be done with caution and responsibility,

Observe a plane flying far away and stretch forth your palm and it will be completely covered from view but you know it's an illusion.

Enigma:

The same Luther also called reason "something divine". And those who know Luther's work would explain that in terms of earthly matters, Luther did esteem reason and to some extent even relegated Scripture behind reason on such matters; it is in respect of spiritual matters that he 'denigrated' reason since it has a tendency to lead to idolatry.

From your post,a ready conclusion is reason is deficient in spiritual matters! Isn't that a difference?
Faith asserts the existence of a god or gods,that has been the guidepost of all religions. Yet they are all composed of different doctrines! Are we to accept that Allah, God, Zeus, Jupiter and their gang exists together?

Tertullian's comment that the resurrection is impossible but fir faith is accepted. An unhealthy dose of faith it is, to disregard rationality.

Enigma:

Similar point addressed by old post here  " . . . someone like Tertullian (himself a great scholar and intellectual) is sometimes referred to as "anti-intellectual" --- a charge that has been refuted in the literature. Incidentally, Tertullian seems to be a particular victim of misattribution/mistreatment as with the "Credo Quia Absurdum" quote -- see here for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum."

I'm accusing him for attacking reason! it also points out that reason and faith have different6 destination. Not whether he believes on the basis of absurdity.

Kay 17:

From your post,a ready conclusion is reason is deficient in spiritual matters! Isn't that a difference?

In one sense this is correct; however, if you understand both Luther and Tertullian well, you will realise why it is not wholly correct. Reason on its own, i.e. pure worldly reason, can only take you so far. For example, it may not be able to take you to a point of accepting the virgin birth of Jesus; but when reason is "washed" and cleansed and thus conditioned or influenced by spiritual regeneration (e.g. the Christian new birth), that "holy" reason will take you through and beyond acceptance of the virgin birth.

Kay 17:
Faith asserts the existence of a god or gods,that has been the guidepost of all religions.

This is a subtle untruth because it it is not just faith that asserts the existence of a god (or gods); even your much-vaunted reason (including philosophy) asserts the existence of god. What is even more some scientists are now starting to talk of the so-called God-gene.

Yet they are all composed of different doctrines! Are we to accept that Allah, God, Zeus, Jupiter and their gang exists together?

Again, another false argument! Whether perceptions of God differ is not of itself good enough reason to deny the existence of God.

Tertullian's comment that the resurrection is impossible but fir faith is accepted. An unhealthy dose of faith it is, to disregard rationality.

I think a better understanding of Tertullian's brilliance including his oratory/rhetoric would be beneficial.

Enigma:

but when reason is "washed" and cleansed and thus conditioned or influenced by spiritual regeneration (e.g. the Christian new birth), that "holy" reason will take you through and beyond acceptance of the virgin birth.

and can this superior "holy" reason also take you through and beyond the acceptance of muhammads claim of the moon literally bowing to him or the muslim extremists faith in possessing 72 virgin after blowing themselves up or joseph smith's claim of angels physically delivery gold scriptural plates to him or scientologists claims of visitation from other planets or it only pertains to the acceptance of absurd "christian" dogmatic claims (like an invisible man or ghost impregnating a virgin with himself)?

we all know what happened when reason was most frowned upon in human recorded history during medieval times


[center][/center]

@ Kay 17 & Mudley

>>> the rigors of my course (I'm a Comp Engineering pupil) won't allow me to comprehensively deal with your post now

@Kay 17 >>> reason in part why i 'could not' defend the 'hetrophobic stuff' >>> know what I mean

>>> suffice to say now that you guys effectively DEDUCE is that the scientific method is purely INDUCTIVE (from facts to conclusion)                                while the 'religious method' is purely DEDUCTIVE (conclusion to facts) >>> Muddily   is especially guilty of this one by virtue of his
motifake (on the scientific vs creationist method)


>>> standard of reason: an irony especially when I consider how this 'standard' changes with time

>>> faith in the belief systems: it's obvious you have your own belief system (so you took this okeyxyz's use of faith to mean belief system)

>>> Mudley's analogy of Sec X & Sect Y: my forethought is that your analogy isn't half as brilliant as the famous (?) Hylas & Philonous analogy given by Berkeley (I respect this guy a lot, although Spinoza is 1st on my list). But it (your post) does have valid points (which I'll overlook) >>> But (in your post) you ignore how similar (and applicable) your analogy is to (scientific) schools of thought e.g Newtonian vs Einsteinian

>>> propelled by doubt >>> that's the method (take note of scientism) mainstream science sought to harmonize itself with Popper's 'falsifiability theory' after the initial shock

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
- Karl Popper

The problem I  have with you, Mudley, Kay & strong atheists >>> is how you equate reason (in the faith-reason debate) with [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/logical-positivismlogical empericism]logical empericism[/url] ONLY >>> you hard-line stance on faith is , seemingly, similar to David Hume's

and Mudley forgets the impact of Black Death during the dark ages

Uyi Iredia:

and Mudley forgets how the impact of Black Death during the dark ages

Did the Black death set scientific progress back? If anything it propelled it forward. How? But totally rattling the social structure of Europe thereby loosing the grip of the church and causing people to question the Church. 'did this happen to us because our bishops are so corrupt'?

@ Pastor AIO >>> thank u >>> this is what i wanted Mudley to induce but WRT Christianity >>> his picture was to demonstrate how the Church's influence
>>> in the Dark Ages supposedly led to an intellectual decline >>> he neglects other crucial factors that were behind that period
>>> and quid pro quo overlooks how the Dark Ages ushered in the Renaissance Era

Uyi Iredia:

and Mudley forgets how the impact of Black Death during the dark ages

maybe if you don't solely rely on the use of google and wikipedia you'd be able to have a grasp of what the hell i'm talking about and not come up with incoherent rebuttals. we're not talking about population decrease here but a suppression of the intellect after the fall of the glowing roman empire. the black deaths (bubonic plague) occurred way after the crusades and the times of charlemagne when only religious monks were encouraged to read and write (smh @ you not even able to deduce the point pastorAIO was trying to make)

and pls don't even bother to reply back to me cos i'm sick of trying to decipher what the hell you're driving at with all that incoherency you patched together off of google and wikipedia

>>> as if that would stop me >>> ESMH at your reasoning 

first >>> i gave a valid reason why i won't be able to fully comment on your lack of alacrity on the subject of faith in the quandary of the faith-reason debate
(i'm  an engineering student)

second >>> so given my time constrictions i post links (u don't expect me to DHL you books that influence my convictions now, do you ? bozo)

third >>> u lazily brush off my previous (and crucial, howbeit, 'incoherent') post aside by telling me u can't decipher it (slowpoke, and u just had to be sarcastic)

Finally >>> Uyi calls out to the little child hiding in the dark cave of ignorance (the type talked about in Plato's allegory of the caves) >>> Mudley, Mudley, come out & reason

@ Pastor AIO >>> was I (as Mudley posed) wrong (in my conclusion) about your post ?

@Uyi Iredia:

Faith is a believe and can say its totally a surrender , that we shown at any person or our dear ones. Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

@ nuclear boy >>>    >>> I've come across worse-than Mr Mudley on Richard Dawkin's site & youtube
                    >>> so it'll take something ingenious on his part to get me gaga BTW wetin u dey laff at the yab  or the grammar 

In one sense this is correct; however, if you understand both Luther and Tertullian well, you will realize why it is not wholly correct.  Reason on its own, i.e. pure worldly reason, can only take you so far. For example, it may not be able to take you to a point of accepting the virgin birth of Jesus; but when reason is "washed" and cleansed and thus conditioned or influenced by spiritual regeneration (e.g. the Christian new birth), that "holy" reason will take you through and beyond acceptance of the virgin birth.

I th9nkthere is the agreement now that reason and faith are different paths towards different destinations.

Enigma's fault with reason is that it DOES NOT follow the preconceptions of faith! Like the virgin birth. At first instance such a story ought to scrutinized, because it can either be true or false. Joseph Smith's claims of divine revelation can likewise be accepted without scrutiny, there is no difficulty with that!

A simple question, I lay down what are the standards of faith?

Again, another false argument! Whether perceptions of God differ is not of itself good enough reason to deny the existence of God.

I'm concerned with the use of faith, it supports all religions in their different complexions! We are still on the validity of faith.

How is superstition different from faith?

>>> and quid pro quo overlooks how the Dark Ages ushered in the Renaissance Era

After being in the dark, you appreciate light. After languishing in ignorance and superstition, a little light would help.

I will define faith as a blind step. Who agrees?

SØren Kierkegaard >>> i'm ambivalent about answering, myself, given the prevailing status & your previous arguments

@Uyi:

The VAST difference in grammar and intelligence is really amusing. University professor versus area-boy. The guy no know him mate

Thankfully, Uyi has nothing to say but quote dead Christian existentialists.