Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[DBT]

If faith is not a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence.....what exactly is 'faith?'

Faith, biblical or otherwise is trust or confidence. Someone can have faith in a thing or a person. Someone could have faith in the truth of a proposition. Therefore when your trust is directed toward a thing/person, it is called 'faith in'; when it is directed toward the truth of a proposition, it is called 'faith that'. Faith doesn’t oppose reason or knowledge, but is actually rooted in them. Is the faith you have in your spouse devoid of knowledge?

I truly respected seyorni's response to my request and so respectfully I respond in kind...

http://www.johnlennox.org/jresources/faith-and-reason/

You may have trust and/or confidence that what you believe is true, and probably do, but nevertheless you still do not have evidence to support what you trust or have confidence in - what you believe is true - is in fact true.

That is why it's called 'faith' and not 'trust' or 'confidence' even though you have trust and/or confidence that your belief is true.

It is the lack of evidence (or insufficient evidence) that turns trust and confidence into faith.

 

[Valjean]

If faith is not a belief/conviction held without the support of evidence.....what exactly is 'faith?'

Faith, biblical or otherwise is trust or confidence. Someone can have faith in a thing or a person. Someone could have faith in the truth of a proposition. Therefore when your trust is directed toward a thing/person, it is called 'faith in'; when it is directed toward the truth of a proposition, it is called 'faith that'. Faith doesn’t oppose reason or knowledge, but is actually rooted in them. Is the faith you have in your spouse devoid of knowledge?

I truly respected seyorni's response to my request and so respectfully I respond in kind...

http://www.johnlennox.org/jresources/faith-and-reason/

I'm sorry, but Lennox' case is so full of holes I finally just stopped taking notes and threw up my hands. How can you not see the inconsistencies, factual errors and non sequiturs? He's a Christian apologist and science denier.

 

[DBT]

Faith doesn’t oppose reason or knowledge, but is actually rooted in them. Is the faith you have in your spouse devoid of knowledge?

Direct experience with people, [other] animals or things, machinery, etc, provides the verifiable evidence that either builds trust and confidence within these relationships, or destroys it. Actual interactions with actual people including actual objects and events of the world is not a matter of faith.

 

[ronburgundy]

I've recently got into a discussion with a friend of mine about Christianity. Long story short...

I argue that some of the claims of Christianity, like "Jesus was bodily resurrected" or "God exists" are of a different kind of reasoning than those found in Science.
A claim like "evolution is a fact" or "the earth is several billion years old" are based in a different kind of thought process than those of faith.


So do you agree that Religion is a different "kind" of thought process than Science. If so, what evidences and arguments would you make to prove that point?

If "anti" counts as a "kind" of reasoning, the I agree. Faith is the definition of anti-reason. It starts with the conclusion it wants to be true, then either stops there or when pressured to support it, makes up whatever nonsense it can to make that conclusion seem like its based on something other than fear and desperation.

 

[remez]

Faith isn't a kind of reasoning; it is an alternative to reasoning - it is relying on someone else to have done the reasoning for you.

Three different comments to that..

Faith isn't a kind of reasoning; ….

True.

it is an alternative to reasoning

No faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true.

it is relying on someone else to have done the reasoning for you.

You can’t be serious. Do you have faith in your wife? Or did someone reason it out for you?

 

[remez]

You trust the man that says that people rises from the dead? Come on!

I note you are not English and appreciate your attempted thought here. But based on the way you stated it, I admit that I would not likely trust his version of events.

 

[remez]

I'm sorry, but Lennox' case is so full of holes I finally just stopped taking notes and threw up my hands. How can you not see the inconsistencies, factual errors and non sequiturs? He's a Christian apologist and science denier.

What case? He was explaining faith. He was not making a case for anything.
What factual errors?
Seriously point out three factual errors that he committed.
Christian Apologist …. Yes.
Science denier…..you’re kidding……how so?

 

[remez]

You may have trust and/or confidence that what you believe is true, and probably do, but nevertheless you still do not have evidence to support what you trust or have confidence in - what you believe is true - is in fact true.

That is why it's called 'faith' and not 'trust' or 'confidence' even though you have trust and/or confidence that your belief is true.

It is the lack of evidence (or insufficient evidence) that turns trust and confidence into faith.

You would have to perform some incredible mental gymnastics to dismiss all evidence as insufficient. And then on top of that proclaim the faith cannot have evidence basically because you said so. And since that of course is true, people of faith have no evidence for what they believe because your version of faith cannot have evidence.

Seriously where is the evidence for your assertions above?

Trust turns into faith….What?
Faith is trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.

Direct experience with people, [other] animals or things, machinery, etc, provides the verifiable evidence that either builds trust and confidence within these relationships, or destroys it.

And that is what we mean by faith. Faith is trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.

Actual interactions with actual people including actual objects and events of the world is not a matter of faith.

If there you mean the actual gathering of the data or epistemic duty is not a matter of faith, then I would agree. Faith isn’t the gathering of the evidence. Faith is trust in that which you have reason to believe is true, which occurs after the evidence is gathered and interpreted.

 

[DBT]

You would have to perform some incredible mental gymnastics to dismiss all evidence as insufficient. And then on top of that proclaim the faith cannot have evidence basically because you said so. And since that of course is true, people of faith have no evidence for what they believe because your version of faith cannot have evidence.

Seriously where is the evidence for your assertions above?

Not assertions. Just the basic semantics according to accepted definitions of the word 'faith' and it's usage in relation to a class of belief that have no evidential foundation.

Taken from Merriam Webster, here are the defining elements that distinguishes 'faith' from 'trust' and 'confidence'

Faith;
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Trust;
1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something b : one in which confidence is placed

Confidence;
1 a : a feeling or consciousness of one's powers or of reliance on one's circumstances <had perfect confidence in her ability to succeed> <met the risk with brash confidence

(assurance carries a stronger implication of certainty and may suggest arrogance or lack of objectivity in assessing one's own powers)


In other words, one may build trust and confidence through direct experience with people and things, but one has faith in matters that have not been tested. So misplaced trust or confidence in one's abilities or relationships may be based on faith, to some degree. A blend of trust and faith.

Trust turns into faith….What?
Faith is trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.

But if what you believe is true, and what trust is true, has insufficient justification (verifiable evidence), what you believe and trust is true is a matter of faith.

And that is what we mean by faith. Faith is trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.

You are overlooking the most important part: justification. Trust built through direct experience, being verifiable, is not the same as trusting that belief which has no verifiable evidence to support it. Hence the former is trust in your wife, friends, physical processes, and the latter is faith....trust placed in non verifiable beliefs.

If there you mean the actual gathering of the data or epistemic duty is not a matter of faith, then I would agree. Faith isn’t the gathering of the evidence. Faith is trust in that which you have reason to believe is true, which occurs after the evidence is gathered and interpreted.

What evidence is gathered and interpreted in relation to religious claims such as Brahma is manifesting the world or Allah is the one true God, or Jesus is the son of God (Christianity) or Jesus is a false messiah (Orthodox Judaism), these being examples of beliefs and claims that fall into the category of faith based beliefs....

 

[bilby]

Three different comments to that..

Faith isn't a kind of reasoning; ….

True.

it is an alternative to reasoning

No faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true.

Nope - faith is trusting in that which you have NO reason to believe is true. If you have a reason to believe it's true, then it's not faith - it's reason.

it is relying on someone else to have done the reasoning for you.

You can’t be serious. Do you have faith in your wife? Or did someone reason it out for you?

You can't be serious - your faith in your wife is relying on someone else - your wife. She has reason - she either knows that she isn't cheating, or has a reason for concealing her cheating from you. But you don't have reason, all you have is faith - assuming that you to take her word for it that she isn't cheating. Of course, you can take steps to find out if she is cheating or not - but if instead you have faith in her, then you are relying on HER reason, in place of your own.

 

[abaddon]

Get it out of definitions of the terms and ask him to put his beliefs on the table.

If he thinks the John Lennox video that he linked to represents his stance well, then address that. Lennox says John’s gospel is true cuz John says he tells it “so ye may believe” and that's not "blind faith" because you can think on the belief. Then he tries to make atheists/evolution-believers into the persons who have blind faith cuz “the atheist worldview” itself renders the universe unintelligible and so what scientists find about the universe requires “blind faith” as they have no firm ground for their basic assumptions. Then he argues the necessary revelation of truth to humans is not “blind faith” because, again, the same trick of words: believing it doesn't require stopping thinking about it and so faith is compatible with reason.

So you have better material to work with that merely quibbling over the word. Definitions are just people trying to agree on conventions, which of course a person who needs them to mean something different to make his theism seem reasonable will only insist on his own definitions.

 

[remez]

Taken from Merriam Webster, here are the defining elements that distinguishes 'faith' from 'trust' and 'confidence'
Faith;
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Also taken from same dictionary………

Atheist
a person who believes that God does not exist

Back in post 13 I was trying to purpose we reach an understanding of terms. Atheist would now also reflect a “lack of belief” and faith would reflect the original Greek understanding that was trust in that which you have reason to believe to be true. It is so intellectually lazy to simply label your opposition as irrational because you deliberately “mis-reason” a word. Conversation over. This is what I meant back in post 13 as talking past one another.

In other words, one may build trust and confidence through direct experience with people and things, but one has faith in matters that have not been tested.

I’m a theist and I don’t have faith in matters that have not been tested.

I have reasons for being a theist.

BUT, by your reasoning a theist that has reasons for believing God exists does not have faith. Ok, here in the context of your sacred huddle of “God does not exist” atheists, I tentatively concede that I don’t have faith (as defined by you without reasoning) that God exists. I further confess that I’m a theist that has reasons that God exists. Better?

 

[remez]

Three different comments to that..

True.

it is an alternative to reasoning

No faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true.

Nope - faith is trusting in that which you have NO reason to believe is true. If you have a reason to believe it's true, then it's not faith - it's reason.

Ok you got me, I humbly confess, I have reason that God exists. I denounce faith (your version) and confess I have reasons to be a theist. Now with that confession can we then move forward rationally? I also confess to have reasons to challenge your atheistic beliefs that God does not exist. I’ll from this point forward encourage other theists to confess their reasons as well.

 

[remez]

Lennox says John’s gospel is true cuz John says he tells it “so ye may believe” and that's not "blind faith" because you can think on the belief.

Not sure why Dr. Lennox says the gospel is true. I don’t remember him making a statement to the end in the provided clip.
But Dr. Lennox points out that John (gospel writer not Lennox) stated that a purpose to record these events was to provide reasons to believe. John was interested in recording the testimony and evidence.

Then he tries to make atheists/evolution-believers into the persons who have blind faith cuz “the atheist worldview” itself renders the universe unintelligible and so what scientists find about the universe requires “blind faith” as they have no firm ground for their basic assumptions.

He is referring to your foundation of philosophical materialism. Which is debatably an unsound foundation that God does not exist. Only mentioned as an ironic counter to your atheistic claims that theism is a blind faith? Whether he makes the case is arguable.
Personally I like Peter’s expressed concern that we should ever be ready to provide reasons for our faith. Or Paul’s incredible debates in Athens.

So you have better material to work with that merely quibbling over the word. Definitions are just people trying to agree on conventions, which of course a person who needs them to mean something different to make his theism seem reasonable will only insist on his own definitions.

I have already confessed I have reasons to believe God exists and reasons to challenge your beliefs that God does not exist. No faith (as defined by you guys) required.

 

[abaddon]

I’m a theist and I don’t have faith in matters that have not been tested.

I have reasons for being a theist... I’m a theist that has reasons that God exists. Better?

Can you explain a bit about how God's existence has been tested enough so that you came to trust that God exists?

You may challenge my belief that God does not exist also if you wish. But I'd like to get this out of a quibble over definitions and make it a more edifying conversation where we can see the co-existence of faith and reason in action.

 

[atrib]

I’m a theist and I don’t have faith in matters that have not been tested.

Pray tell us what these tests are so we may replicate them and demonstrate to ourselves that your supernatural friend exists.

 

[DBT]

I’m a theist and I don’t have faith in matters that have not been tested.

The question is: tested, exactly how?

All religious believers may say the same thing, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc, yet they cannot all be right.

Either one set of beliefs is true and the others are wrong, or all of them are wrong, but they can't all be right.

The difference between a justified belief and faith lies in the quality evidential support.

You appear to equivocating justified belief, including knowledge, with a class of belief that does not have evidential support.

I have reasons for being a theist.

I'm sure you have, but so has every believer, the Hindu, the Muslim and so on, but they can't all be right. Reason alone does not prove a proposition.

For that you need verifiable evidence.

BUT, by your reasoning a theist that has reasons for believing God exists does not have faith.

I don't know how you could come to that conclusion except through conflating reason and verifiable evidence...which are two different things.

Ok, here in the context of your sacred huddle of “God does not exist” atheists, I tentatively concede that I don’t have faith (as defined by you without reasoning) that God exists. I further confess that I’m a theist that has reasons that God exists. Better?

Your conclusion is flawed because you conflate 'reasons for believing' with justification through verifiable evidence. Reasons for believing that something is true may be subjective.

Being subjective reasons, therefore not testable, they do actually justify the belief.

 

[DBT]

Also taken from same dictionary………

Atheist
a person who believes that God does not exist

A person who does not believe in the existence of something usually does so because there is little or no verifiable evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of that thing.

 

[bilby]

Three different comments to that..

True.

No faith is trusting in that which you have reason to believe is true.

Nope - faith is trusting in that which you have NO reason to believe is true. If you have a reason to believe it's true, then it's not faith - it's reason.

Ok you got me, I humbly confess, I have reason that God exists. I denounce faith (your version) and confess I have reasons to be a theist. Now with that confession can we then move forward rationally? I also confess to have reasons to challenge your atheistic beliefs that God does not exist. I’ll from this point forward encourage other theists to confess their reasons as well.

Sweet.

All you need to do now is provide your reason(s) why God exists, and we will all be on the same page.

Knock yourself out.

 

[remez]

I’m a theist and I don’t have faith in matters that have not been tested.

I have reasons for being a theist... I’m a theist that has reasons that God exists. Better?

Can you explain a bit about how God's existence has been tested enough so that you came to trust that God exists?

You may challenge my belief that God does not exist also if you wish. But I'd like to get this out of a quibble over definitions and make it a more edifying conversation where we can see the co-existence of faith and reason in action.

Thank you. That is what I was after. But the context my part in this thread has shifted a bit. I entered this thread in hopes to present that theists have reasons for what they believe and reasons to reject atheism. But the word faith here kills all rational conversation in the eyes of atheists. But hold on I may have found a way to precede.