Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Howard
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying".
Faith comes from revelation. It comes because some authority has said it is so. From the priesthood, from a holy book. Whatever. There is no evidence or "proof" for faith. That's what we mean by taking something "on faith". We mean that we accept it because of our trust (or faith) in the source. Christian faith relies on acceptance of the truth of the bible, Islamic faith on the Koran etc.
Because there is no evidence or proof or natural (to take on the previous argument) justification there is no way you can decide between faiths. There is no way you can prove that the Christian after-life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation is wrong. Neither has any natural justification - they rely on the bible/church or the Hindu holy book. Each will be accepted by "the faithful" but no one can justify to a neutral rational being that either of these is closer to the truth than the other.
If you believe you can, than explain to me why the Christian after life is correct and the Hindu reincarnation incorrect (which I presume is your view). Holding the unpleasant idea that there is no after-life I'm open to your persuasion.
If faiths contradict then clearly one or more of them has to be wrong - and clearly faiths contradict. But there is no way of knowing which is wrong so it is clearly difficult to justify belief in any of them because it may be that the one you choose is wrong. It is also a very real possibility that they're all wrong - but a very peculiar idea of "truth" if they're all right.
Faith is at the opposite end of the justification spectrum to evidence/reason. In fact it only really exists in the absence of these. When it is supported by evidence/reason it ceases to be faith. If there is evidence/reason then the "truth" no longer has to be taken on faith - faith is no longer necessary.
|
I went to quote only specific parts of your post, and found it was just about all relevant.
If we're going to discuss the nature of faith vs. reason, however, I don't think they are by definition opposites, as you seam to imply. A couple of examples:
1. A scientist comes to the conclusion that 1+1=2. Why? Because after testing it repeatedly, he comes to the conclusion that it will always be so. He believes there are constant universal laws, so 1+1 will always equal 2. But why does he believe this? Why couldn't 1+1=3 in 50 years? Has he tested every instance? No. He's simply seen enough evidence to be "reasonably certain" (in his mind) his belief that this universal law (or take gravity, or thermodynamics, or ...) is held constant. Truthfully, one of science's first leaps of faith is the belief that the universe's laws remain constant. It's simply having enough evidence that one is sure of the faith he puts in his conclusions. Many - if not all - of the things people call "logic" or "reason" or "science" are simply small leaps of faith based on enough evidence to convince that person the leap is justified. Philosophically speaking, how do we know our brains aren't just "Inception"-like fantasies that make everything "seem" sensible, when it's really just nonsense? It's an act of reason-justified "faith" to believe your reason is worth anything at all.
2. There are many recorded instances of men who went looking for evidence of faith, who weren't willing to make the giant leap of faith that says, "I believe it because the Bible says so." I agree, that's a heckuva leap. But through "trying" as I said above, or through careful examination, to use another phrase, they slowly closed the gap, filling it with enough evidence that the now smaller leap from reason to faith was one they felt confident in making. Perhaps the most popular example of this is the former atheist and journalist Lee Stroebel, who recorded his journey in the book "The Case for Christ."
Finally, by "trying" I simply meant careful investigation and earnest seeking. There IS natural, historical and verifiable evidence for the existence of Jesus, his death, and even his resurrection from the dead. There is evidence for the existence of God, but what evidence will be satisfactory for one man to move into the realm of faith compared to another man, varies. There IS a way of being "reasonably certain."
Too many, however, throw up the misleading emotional and mental defenses that prevent earnest investigation. They believe faith is the opposite of thinking. They insist the only proof is some ancient book of little value. They say there's no way to know something unless they can measure it in a test tube. Etc, Etc.
And again, my point from the beginning has been that not all truth can be found in a test tube. Now, I add the corollary that the non-test tube truths CAN be known, with "reasonable certainty," by those who will earnestly investigate.