Faith.

[MANICHAEAN]

Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?

[Pompey Bum]

Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?

For me, faith is inherently tautological. Faith is simply faith. The real question is what one has faith in: Church teaching; Biblical infallibility; Nicene Orthodoxy; monotheism; polytheism; a God of love and justice; a cosmic sorting out of justice at the end of time; Karma; Dharma; Sangha; Heaven; hell; the immortality of the soul; the inherent limitation or absolutism of empirical knowledge; the possibility of revealed knowledge; special gnosis; conventional knowledge; conventional ignorance; angels; leprechauns; fairies; ghosts; and many other things. It is in answering this question that the value and limits of reason and emotion come into play. I suspect that if people were honest with themselves, they would own to using a bit of both. Unfortunately that gets confounded by those who feel good about religion buying into doctrine that they haven't really thought through; and those who feel good about a lack of religion attacking those doctrine rather than examining the underlying issues.

To put it another way, it seems to me that people have long accepted happy meals without thinking that they never really would have ordered that coke if it hadn't been part of the package. And it's time, in my humble opinion, that people on all sides of the issue started thinking for themselves.

[Carousel]

Faith? The rejection of evidence.

[Ecurb]

Faith? The rejection of evidence.

Faith does not involve rejecting evidence. Instead, it involves belief in the absence of proof. Since everything any of us "believes" is in the absence of proof (since it is impossible to prove anything about the world with 100% certainty), we all rely on faith.

The "virtue" of faith in Christianity is akin to the courage of one's convictions. It is often tempting to sin -- even if we believe it is immoral to do so. This is true for the religious and agnostic alike (I suppose atheists would prefer "moral error" to "sin"). Faith (in the Christian sense) involves acting on one's convictions even when it is tempting not to do so, and is important for atheists and religious people alike.

[Carousel]

If faith accepted evidence then it wouldn’t require a leap of faith to believe.

[Ecurb]

Yes it would. When we see something happen, believing our own eyes requires a leap of faith. We might be delusional, or tricked. Everything we see might be an illusion. We might live in the Matrix.

Besides, it is we non-believers who "reject evidence" for the existence of God, including personal testimony, eye-witness accounts of miracles, etc. There is little "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Of course, there may be rational arguments supporting the non-existence of particular Gods (like whether pain or evil is compatible with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God), but that's a complicated issue.

[Carousel]

And who eye witnessed miracles, you personally?

[Ecurb]

I never witnessed any miracles personally, although I did see a UFO once. In any event, I wouldn't be a reliable witness, because I have a tendency to, shall we say, embellish the story. Mark Twain once said, "Show me a man who don't lie, and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." I concur.

I did see the Zapruder film once.

We occasionally convict criminals on the basis of eye witness testimony, despite the fact that no members of the jury witnessed the crime themselves. Eye witnesses are allowed to "give evidence", although the jury is not compelled to believe them. I might add that I have no personal knowledge about the circumference of the Earth, the orbits of the planets, or global warming. I simply read the testimony of those who have studied these things, and accept that their observations are probably accurate.

I saw a cougar once, while riding my bicycle through Oregon. My first thought was, "Cool! I finally saw a wild cougar." Then the cougar -- a big male -- glared at me instead of running away. "Hmm," I thought. "Maybe this isn't so great after all." I hope that if I see an angel, I will think, "Cool! I actually saw an angel!" However, we are told that the shepherds tending their flocks above Bethlehem were "sore afraid" when they saw the angel. I suppose I probably wouldn't show any more courage than they. Or perhaps I would think, "What have I been smoking?"

As a fan of literature, one of my favorite miracles (supposedly witnessed by a number of 13th century church-goers) occurred when Thomas Acquinas laid his treatise proving the heretical nature of Manicheanism on the altar of the Cathedral in Paris. The story is that he immediately rose 50 feet in the air, and floated out of the Cathedral. Now THERE'S a critique any writer would enjoy!

[MANICHAEAN]

I really must try a bit of levitation next time one of my short stories is critically reviewed.

[Pompey Bum]

Faith does not involve rejecting evidence. Instead, it involves belief in the absence of proof. Since everything any of us "believes" is in the absence of proof (since it is impossible to prove anything about the world with 100% certainty), we all rely on faith.

I think that is very well said. So to go back to Manichaean's original question, the things that I place my faith in depend on a mix of factors in varying proportions. I have plenty of faith, for example, that my wife loves me, although reason insists she could be faking it. I have faith in a silent God of love and justice (whose silence will end) although reason tells me there is no empirical evidence to that effect (except for the part about being silent). I have no faith in Biblical infallibility, Ecclesiastical infallibility, Papal infallibility, the epistemological absolutism of empirical knowledge, or literary canons (sorry Paulclem :) ). I don't believe that having faith in something necessarily makes it so (many a spouse has found his or her faith to have been in vain); and I certainly don't believe that something becomes so if only one believes enough. Things are as they are whether one believes or disbelieves--a truth that theist, atheist, and agnostic all acknowledge.

[Carousel]

Oxford Dictionary
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:
Webster Dictionary.
Firm belief, in firm belief in something for which there is no proof.


I refer to my initial post.
Faith? The rejection of evidence. If you want to be picky, substitute proof for evidence.

[Pompey Bum]

Oxford Dictionary
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:
Webster Dictionary.
Firm belief, in firm belief in something for which there is no proof.


I refer to my initial post.
Faith? The rejection of evidence. If you want to be picky, substitute proof for evidence.

My misspent youth should have taught me better than to get in the middle of a brawl, but ecurb did say that faith was "belief in the absence of proof," as your definition does (I assume faith is what was being defined--it's actually clipped off of the cut and paste); and there is a world of difference between proof and evidence. It's not being persnickety at all to draw a distinction. As far as your "initial post" goes ("Faith? The rejection of evidence"), it is an aphorism and (ironically) offers no evidence to support itself.

Rather than fall back on semantics, why don't you tell us your ideas?

[Carousel]

The title of the post is a single word ‘Faith’ followed by a question-- Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality? In answer to the question I was simply conveying the recognized meaning of the word which was confirmed as correct by the Oxford Dictionary (English) and the Webster’s Dictionary (American) i.e. A firm belief, in something for which there is no proof..
There is no evidence that there is a god, by saying there is no evidence there is isn’t a god is not proof there is one.

How is There is a world of difference between proof and evidence. The two words are inter- linked. Without evidence there is no proof, or to reverse the phrase. There is no proof without evidence.

I have plenty of faith, for example, that my wife loves me, although reason insists she could be faking it.

Sorry that’s not faith because it doesn’t rest on the absence of proof. In this age the proof that wedding vows mean almost nothing is all around you. In short you are confusing faith with wistful thinking. Don’t think that’s an insult, I am in the same position myself.

[Pompey Bum]

The title of the post is a single word ‘Faith’ followed by a question-- Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality? In answer to the question I was simply conveying the recognized meaning of the word which was confirmed as correct by the Oxford Dictionary (English) and the Webster’s Dictionary (American) i.e. A firm belief, in something for which there is no proof..

So it sounds like you, and I, and ecurb are all in agreement that faith is belief held in the absence of proof. So far so good.


There is no evidence that there is a god, by saying there is no evidence there is isn’t a god is not proof there is one.

I thought this was a discussion about whether "faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?" as you just finished saying. How did it turn into one about whether or not God exists? And [I]of course "saying there is no evidence there is isn’t a god is not proof there is one." Who ever said it was? Faith, as we all now agree, is belief in the absence of proof. That goes for faith in God as much as anything else.


How is There is a world of difference between proof and evidence.

Sure. Evidence is/are the available facts in support of a claim being true. Proof is the establishment, in part or full, through evidence, of that claim being true. The importance of the difference can hardly be overstated. If my mother-in-law were ax-murdered, for example, and I told the police that you did it, the presence of your fingerprints in her house would constitute evidence against you. It would not, however, establish proof of your guilt--just that you were there at some point in time.


The two words are inter- linked. Without evidence there is no proof, or to reverse the phrase. There is no proof without evidence.

No, I'm afraid not everything works like multiplication and addition (division and subtraction, for example). If there is proof, there must be evidence, but just because there is evidence there does not have to be proof. Be glad for that. Be very glad.

I have plenty of faith, for example, that my wife loves me, although reason insists she could be faking it.


Sorry that’s not faith because it doesn’t rest on the absence of proof.

Of course it does. True my wife seems extremely fond of me, but what evidence do I have that she isn't just putting an act? None whatsoever. Ecurb (and Hume and Hamlet) had it right: nothing can really be established without some degree of doubt.


In this age the proof that wedding vows mean almost nothing is all around you.

So the prevalence of infidelity in our times is "proof" that my wife is deceiving me about love? Consider what I said above and I am sure that you will see the error of that reasoning.


In short you are confusing faith with wistful thinking.

I'm pretty sure you meant wishful thinking, not wistful thinking. Wishful thinking means ordering one's beliefs in accordance with one's wishes rather than reason. It is a charge commonly leveled at theists by atheists--and frankly, I assume you are merely aping them. My analysis of my wife's love for me, however, fully accords with reason, indeed far more than your attempt at it does.

You are correct, however, that I often think wistfully about my wife. Ah me! If only I had been a better husband to her over the years! Ah yes, definitely a case of wistful thinking. :)


Don’t think that’s an insult, I am in the same position myself.

Thank you for not insulting my wife. I do hope things work out for you.

[YesNo]

Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?

They likely all work together. I was trying to find the reference to ideas that rationality without the emotional ability to empathize leads to irrationality. But I think it is true nonetheless.

[Carousel]

I think it would help if you defined in what area or subject is you have in mind. Faith is usually used in conjunction with a religious belief, whilst it can be used in other ways to do so can cause confusion and cloud the discussion.

For example. Pompey’s; use of the word faith to actually mean the word trust in his wife that their marriage will last.
So is faith the right word to use in this context? If we take the dictionary meaning of the word faith—A firm belief in something for which there is no proof, or the complete lack of any evidence to provide any proof, then faith isn’t the correct word to use in that context because there is ample evidence both for and against that marriages can last or fail.

If you had religion in mind when you asked the question then obviously the answer is
emotion and spirituality.

[Pompey Bum]

I think it would help if you defined in what area or subject is you have in mind. Faith is usually used in conjunction with a religious belief, whilst it can be used in other ways to do so can cause confusion and cloud the discussion.

For example. Pompey’s; use of the word faith to actually mean the word trust in his wife that their marriage will last.
So is faith the right word to use in this context? If we take the dictionary meaning of the word faith—A firm belief in something for which there is no proof, or the complete lack of any evidence to provide any proof, then faith isn’t the correct word to use in that context because there is ample evidence both for and against that marriages can last or fail.

Huh? When did I say a word about whether or not my marriage will last or fail? I asked whether I had proof that my wife really loved me and not just deceiving me by acting like she does. The answer, of course, is that I do not, although I take it on faith that she is being sincere. That example was to illustrate ecurb's point:


Since everything any of us "believes" is in the absence of proof (since it is impossible to prove anything about the world with 100% certainty), we all rely on faith.

I get the impression that you didn't follow that argument very well. If you had, I doubt you would still be playing semantic games with the word faith. It's irrelevant what kind of faith Manichaean was talking about when he started the thread. That wouldn't change it's meaning of the word and it wouldn't change ecurb's (and Hume's and Hamlet's) point about its inevitability in human affairs.

Look, I know--or I strongly suspect--that this is not the discussion you want to be having. You wan't to be debating whether or not god exists, presumably because you think you can win that argument. I think there is a thread about that here, and if that's what you want to do, go and do it. Speaking personally, I don't proselytize my faith (which is not a particularly orthodox one in any case), and I certainly don't feel compelled to justify it to you; as I don't ask you to justify the things you have faith in to me. If you are interested in what I believe, I'd be happy to tell you that as a friend. But please, let's not have yet another trite and boorish exchange of theist-atheist Internet chest-beating. I don't think that's what Manichaean had in mind for this thread, although we can ask him if he ever turns up.

Oh and just for the record, my marriage has lasted more than 20 years and is still smoking. :)

[Carousel]

Come on, I am not in any way discussing your marriage, why the hell should I? I know nothing about you or your wife and care even less. I was merely suggesting that the word you used i.e. faith when the word you were looking for is trust. Disagree with that if you want too, that’s your privilege but don’t pick an argument on your marriage when there’s absolutely no ground for doing so.

[Pompey Bum]

Oh dear. Well you may want to reread this thread and see if you can follow what was actually said a little better. All the best to you in any case! :)

[YALASH]

Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?


Basic purity
Mercy
Knowledge
No doubts
Logic
Emotions
Compassion
Spirituality
Certainty
Hope

Edited : mercy added

[MANICHAEAN]

Although I initiated this particular debate I have not really contributed much, as you two seemed to be having such a great time slugging it out.

Ok, so lets now rectify that with my own views on the question in hand i.e Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?

Like so many, I was raised in a particular faith, (or religion to be exact), based on that of family tradition. Later at a particular stage in my life I was very much into questioning everything, but still retained a belief in a creation concept based upon the cause / effect theory that surmises a definitive initial cause. To this was added a basic belief in certain human qualities essential to all of the main religions.

But then, for whatever reason inexplicable to logic, I experienced very strong “spiritual” emotions on different occasions. I remember them vividly: a church in Edgeware Road in London on Ash Wednesday, a deserted side chapel in Mexico City and a Jesuit church in Rome whilist standing in front of an extremely vivid crucifixion portrayal.

Now, whether judged irresponsible or not, I place an entire faith in emotion and spirituality.

[Pompey Bum]

Although I initiated this particular debate I have not really contributed much, as you two seemed to be having such a great time slugging it out.

Ok, so lets now rectify that with my own views on the question in hand i.e Is faith based on reason and logic, or emotion and spirituality?

Like so many, I was raised in a particular faith, (or religion to be exact), based on that of family tradition. Later at a particular stage in my life I was very much into questioning everything, but still retained a belief in a creation concept based upon the cause / effect theory that surmises a definitive initial cause. To this was added a basic belief in certain human qualities essential to all of the main religions.

But then, for whatever reason inexplicable to logic, I experienced very strong “spiritual” emotions on different occasions. I remember them vividly: a church in Edgeware Road in London on Ash Wednesday, a deserted side chapel in Mexico City and a Jesuit church in Rome whilist standing in front of an extremely vivid crucifixion portrayal.

Now, whether judged irresponsible or not, I place an entire faith in emotion and spirituality.

My wife (sorry Carousel! :) ), who is a Buddhist, had a similar experience at the Wild Goose Pagoda in Xi'an. Witnessing the uncontrolled flood of her tears, I was reminded of a description of revealed gnosis by Gregory the Great, which I had translated years before. It is my belief, however, that such experiences, if they are valid at all, are entirely gracious. I have never had the fully emotional experience that you describe, although I certainly feel my faith emotionally, even as I understand it rationally. That makes me the hated creature (to many theists and atheists) known as a faithful rationalist--what Edward Gibbon contemptuously called a "strange centaur." But I will be truthful about what I am. And even Jesus thought to bring along a Thomas, right? :)

Edit: Out of curiosity, why do you call yourself Manichaean? You don't seem very Manichaean to me.

[Pompey Bum]

Basic purity
Mercy
Knowledge
No doubts
Logic
Emotions
Compassion
Spirituality
Certainty
Hope

Edited : mercy added

That is a beautiful list. I especially appreciate your inclusion of compassion and mercy, which are often left out discussions of this kind. Thank you. But for me, doubt is inseparable from faith--the greater the doubt, the greater the faith. I impugn no one else's faith by saying that. In fact, I admire such faith as yours and Manichaean's. I await revelation; but I will not pretend.

[Ecurb]

G.K. Chesterton, the great Catholic apologist (and mystery writer), wrote, "“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” This is clearly true, because logic is a system of reasoning by which one merely restates one's premises (in different words).

Ultimate premises cannot be reduced to "reason and logic". However, neither is it necessary that "emotion (or) spirituality" form their foundations. The original distinction is, I think, a false dichotomy.

IN addition, logic and reason do (occasionally) trump common sense and normal human perception. For example, it seems obvious that time is a constant -- but most of us now accept that it is relative, because the evidence is not consistent with time being a constant (and logic is a system by which we can identify contradictions and non-contradictions).

Personal revelations and spiritual experiences constitute "evidence" -- but the evidence is clearly more persuasive to the person having the experience than to those he informs of his experience (although both are forms of "evidence").

[Pompey Bum]

Personal revelations and spiritual experiences constitute "evidence" -- but the evidence is clearly more persuasive to the person having the experience than to those he informs of his experience (although both are forms of "evidence").

That is true to if the claim is not fraudulent, but that may be difficult to ascertain. Or not: the presence of a man's semen in a rape victim (sorry to use such an upsetting example) is far more damning evidence than his insistence that he saw John the Baptist do it. Not all evidence is created equal.

By the way, earlier in the thread you alluded to having seen a UFO. There is nothing extraordinary about that, of course, as long you simply meant a flying object that you could not identify; but you never told us the whole story. If it's not too far off topic, what happened? No little green men behaving badly I hope? :)

[Ecurb]

The UFO I saw was fairly mundane (if that's not a contradiction). I was on the top of a mountain in southern Montana, just north of Yellowstone, with my brother, a couple of decades ago. We saw a big fireball moving slowly across the sky. We watched it for a minute or so -- we figured we'd read about a 747 that caught fire. The next day we read the newspaper, and the fireball had been spotted from "Nevada to Wyoming" by hundreds of people. Since we were in Montana, atop a 10,000 foot peak, and the fireball was moving north by northeast, we had a better view of it than anyone reported in the paper. According to the newspaper (probably the Red Lodge Daily, or some such) nobody knew what it was, or if they did, they hadn't made that knowledge public. This was in the days before the internet, and we disappeared into the wilderness on a backpacking venture for the next 4-5 days, so perhaps the explanation was in the next day's paper and we missed it. We (at least) never identified the fireball, although it was moving so slowly that it must have been huge (and distant) if it was a meteor or re-entering satellite.

[Pompey Bum]

Interesting. There are a lot of fireballs reported, apparently (I just did a search on them). Some are meteors and some are just crashing space junk. Apparently a big one went over Montana this year, which turned out to be a Russian spy satellite. (I suppose that's a kind spaceship, and as long as it crashed on earth, it could be described as mundane :) ). I saw something of the sort when I was a teenager (back in the Middle Bronze Age), but I'm pretty sure it was just a big meteor breaking up. Ah well, I guess I should have asked about this on the astronomy thread.