But the whole point of religion is having faith that one knows the will of God and is protected by this God as long as one does not do something that needs to be punished. Reason has nothing to do with it. — Athena

Faith is the basis of all religiousness, I agree. Yet, to relate oneself to God intellectually, such as presuming to know God's will, is directly and utterly opposed to faith. Why, you might ask? You already said it: "Reason has nothing to do with it." You know it - the powers of reason pertain exclusively to the intellect.

Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking is essential here. If what we believe is true is not the result of slow thinking, it has a high chance of being a false belief. — Athena

Mr. Kahneman sounds awefully Lockean. If I could speak with him, I would explain to him that not everything exists in the mind.

Looks like he may have known how to effectively use religion. No wonder he was successful. — praxis

And he is not the last person that knew how to effectively use religion to achieve success in the world.

You know, I might go so far as to argue: that to be successful in the world, it is best to avoid being religious, but to use religion to one's advantage whenever possible.

And Maoist China. — Apollodorus

Definitely Mao. He might be the greatest genocidal maniac to ever take a shit. I think he took shits.

You seem confused about faith and how it works.

Everyone must believe some things on faith, for if every belief has to be arrived at via reasoned reflection, then we will be on an infinite regress.

So faith is not the preserve of religions. Everyone has to have some faith beliefs.

But although to believe something on faith is not to have reasoned to it (though one might do that too, of course), reason has everything to do with it. For there can still be a reason to hold a belief even if one is not holding that belief for that reason. And so one can believe X on faith, and one's belief that X can be an item of knowledge. That is, it can be justified, for it can be a belief that you have reason to hold, even though you are unaware of that reason. (It is no requirement on justification that one must always be aware of what justifies one's belief - for that will set us off on the regress again).

Thus faith is - must be - a source of knowledge. Everyone must acknowledge that, or else sink in a quagmire of radical scepticism.

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. For what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. After all, to know a proposition is for the proposition to be justified - that is, for there to be a reason to believe it. And reasons to believe things are what our reason - our faculty - uncovers. Thus if X can be known by faith, it can be known by ratiocination too.

I say this as someone who is not religious and has no faith in God (I believe God exists, but on rational grounds).

Everything exists in relation to other things, though. — Olivier5

If there are no absolutes in existence, then that statement is correct. But I'm not so sure that there are no absolutes in existence. Even on this thread, I have been arguing that there is no absolute good, but even then, I am only saying that about the good in the moral sense in which humans use it. I don't know whether or not good exists absolutely in some other sense.

if every belief has to be arrived at via reasoned reflection, then we will be on an infinite regress. — Bartricks

what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. — Bartricks

“We cannot arrive at every belief via reasoned reflection but beliefs we have arrived at not by reasoned reflection (but by faith) can be arrived at by reasoned reflection”.

Maybe some reasoned reflection is due.

Yes, on your part. If you reasoned carefully you'd realize there's no contradiction there. I mean, even if you didn't reason very carefully - for there's fairly obviously no contradiction there. I can only think that perhaps English isn't your first language.

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. For what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. — Bartricks

I'll concede to everything you said about belief/faith in an intellectual sense, but I am talking about faith in the strict religious sense. And in that light, you don't have a clue my little puss-puss.

In the strict religious sense, Faith does not know shit, it does not understand shit, and it is completely content to wallow in absolute ignorance of shit. Faith stops at faith, unlike reason, which goes infinitely farther than faith. In fact, any and all acts of reason necessarily negate faith. Yes faith is negated by reason, do you understand what that means?

Let’s examine that.

if every belief has to be arrived at via reasoned reflection, then we will be on an infinite regress. — Bartricks

Which is to say “we cannot arrive at every belief via reasoned reflection”. Let the set of all beliefs be U, and the ones we arrived at by reflection R. Additionally let the set of beliefs you arrive at by faith be F.

1- Not all x in U are R.

But although to believe something on faith is not to have reasoned to it — Bartricks

Thus:

2- For all x if x is not R, and is U, then it is F. (In other words, if it’s an unreasoned belief it’s faith)

For what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. — Bartricks

3- For all x if x is F, it can also be R.

Combine 2 and 3 and you get: It is possible that all U are R. Which is a direct contradiction of the first premise.

Or to dumb it down a bit:

If every belief is either reasoned to, or believed on faith, and every faith can be reasoned to, then every belief can be reasoned to. Which contradicts your first statement.

Far and away the most disappointing thing about this reanimated thread is the absence of reference to the most compelling argument of relevance - The Euthyphro.

With so many straight-thinkers here, you'd think it would be top of the list.

Perhaps a new thread, @Fooloso4? It's a short dialogue...

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. — Bartricks

Faith is a requirement in religion because followers need to be dependent on their authority figures (those who tell the followers what to believe).

Euthyphro is a perfect example of how reason destroys faith.

Indeed, wonderful, yes? Which is why it is pertinent.

Er, no. You can go left or right. And if you went left, then in principle you could have gone right. That does not imply that you can go right and left. Unless you're you.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Anyone else besides me find a contradiction in this? — tim wood

I think Bart is the only one who doesn’t. And most people are too tired to point it out.

I'll point out, again, that Bart thinks contradictions are possible - a square circle.

There's no point to attempting rational discussion with such a one.

Going by this metaphor, you’re also maintaining that one cannot always go left. And at the same time that every time one goes right they could have gone left. Since left and right are the only options, and it’s always possible to go left instead of right, then it’s possible to always go left. Which goes against the first premise that you cannot always go left.

It’s a very simple contradiction. I wouldn’t go so far as to talk to my food to confirm it but I think any sentient being would’ve seen it by now.

I never implied "go right and left" which in our case would mean to believe in something based on faith AND reason. That makes no sense. But leave it up to you to not understand a point made against your position regardless of the degree to which it is formalized and carefully articulated.

Perhaps a new thread, Fooloso4? It's a short dialogue... — Banno

Okay. I appreciate you asking.

There are obviously some here who are very much like Euthyphro. I am sure that they will stay true to form. What that means in the end will be given some attention.

There are obviously some here who are very much like Euthyphro. — Fooloso4

Glad the joke was noticed.

I mentioned that in my very first post here to Bartricks. It ended with this...



The problem of evil. The Euthyphro problem. Occam's razor.

The holy trinity.

Ah. that's no surprise, since you know things about philosophy.

but I am talking about faith in the strict religious sense. And in that light, you don't have a clue my little puss-puss. — Merkwurdichliebe

No matey, you're just confused. The word 'faith' has several different meanings. Delineate them.

VLADIMIR:
Well? What do we do?
ESTRAGON:
Don't let's do anything. It's safer.

Did you read anything I said? There's more than one way to know something. One can arrive at the belief in God via reasoned reflection - as I did. And so I know that God exists. For my belief is true and I have acquired it in a respectable manner.

But someone who has faith that God exists can also know that God exists. For the mere fact they did not arrive at it via reasoned reflection does not preclude their belief from being one they are justified in believing. It is sufficient for a belief to be justified that Reason approves of you having it.

And like I say, that's not special pleading as everyone must agree - on pain of radical scepticism - that we are justified in some of our beliefs without having to be aware of their justification. (Otherwise we are set off on a regress in which no belief can ever be justified as we would have to be justified in our belief in its justification and so on.

If there are no absolutes in existence, then that statement is correct. — Merkwurdichliebe

But trivial... Science or the economy are not absolute either by this definition, and neither is the coffee that I'm drinking right now. If nothing is absolute, if all is relative, why care for the absolute? It says nothing to say: "morality is not absolute" when nothing is absolute.

If God's the (only) reason that keeps you on the straight and narrow, then you'll have to answer one question, why? My best guess, from my own experience is, people usually adhere to rules, morality being one such set of rules, because either 1. it makes sense to them or 2. there's a rather brutal enforcer making sure everyone stays in line but it could be both. Notice though that if the reason why you're good and not bad is 1. it makes sense (to you), you're already committed to the position that it's not God that matters but you (you decide what's good/bad). If the reason is 2. there's a rather brutal enforcer, you don't think too highly of morality, right?

The Euthyphro problem. — creativesoul

This Euthyphro is commonly misrepresented; as its central question being "Is something pious because it is beloved by God or is it beloved by God because it is pious?" The actual question is "Is something pious because it is beloved of the gods, or is it beloved of the gods because it is pious?". What is forgotten is that the Greek gods were quite capable of disagreement, and that is the problem. That something should be pious because it is beloved of (a single omniscient) God and beloved of God because it is pious presents no contradiction, inconsistency or paradox.

??

There is, it seems, a need...

What is forgotten is that the Greek gods were quite capable of disagreement, and that is the problem. That something should be pious because it is beloved of (a single omniscient) God and beloved of God because it is pious presents no contradiction, inconsistency or paradox. — Janus

I think that's a good point which illustrates the fact that it's all a matter of perspective.

That's why on one view God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent without contradiction and on another he can't.

So, it's a matter of choosing which view to adopt which tends to be more a personal choice than a matter of logic or philosophy.