The Creed: "We believe. Amen. Good point, made with astute and necessary bluntness.

I think it's impossible to live a life of pure reason. It's okay to have faith in things. Faith is a powerful tool.

I think it's impossible to live a life of pure reason. It's okay to have faith in things. Faith is a powerful tool. — DifferentiatingEgg

Well said! Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way!

Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg

That's one way to view it. Another is to convince others who do not have faith why they should. If I could present a reasonable argument that persuaded a person to eventually have faith, that's pretty useful if I think my own faith is right.

Faith is personal. Arguments are for others to join your outlook on life. Faith alone rarely convinces others to join your outlook and so you need argument beyond faith.

Faith if it is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" is necessary otherwise humanity could not reach the current stage of achievement in many fields of science, mathematics, philosophy, and spirituality. That is true since a person cannot be an expert in all fields so that is when the faith given the definition becomes important. Faith is also important at the personal level when we want to achieve something or become certain about things using reason. As I said: Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way!

Pretty simple syllogism, but the proselytizing on this platform by "believers" runs rampant in the constant defense of fallacious arguments. But know this... all of you who do require reason-based thought, have a severe lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg

Pitiful. Bad philosophy - not really philosophy at all - low rent psychology. I'll tag it as an example of religious bigotry because you claim to understand religious doctrine you don't know anything about. Beyond that, your characterization that religious proselytizing "runs rampant" here is ridiculous. Almost everything that gets posted about religion here is low-quality anti-religion polemics, although most of it is better than this.

This makes a lot of sense.

proselytizing on this platform by "believers" runs rampant in the constant defense of fallacious arguments. — DifferentiatingEgg

Can you point to examples? I do notice them from time to time, but I don't see them 'running rampant'.

Arguments are for others to join your outlook on life. — Philosophim

Pretty sure that's the exact definition of proselytizing...


See above.

See above. — DifferentiatingEgg

I know what "proselytizing" means. My comment was on your "runs rampant" claim.

Arguments are for others to join your outlook on life.
— Philosophim

Pretty sure that's the exact definition of proselytizing... — DifferentiatingEgg

Based on this definition, it's you who are proselytizing here.

Cut out arguments... sure... but arguments aren't for proselytizing others, they're for making reason-based decisions. Philosophim said "Arguments are for proselytizing."

Continued defense of illogical arguments because "people don't get it [because OPs poor logic]" is basically a bump, and a way of just re-preaching the same illogic.

Continued defense of illogical arguments because "people don't get it [because OPs poor logic]" is basically a bump, and a way of just re-preaching the same illogic. — DifferentiatingEgg

I didn’t defend any arguments, I only attacked yours. As I wrote…

you claim to understand religious doctrine you don't know anything about. — T Clark

Here is your chance to show us I’m wrong. Provide a summary of specific relevant religious doctrine. Prove you’re smarter than Thomas Aquinas.

I didn’t defend any arguments — T Clark

Never said you did, was clarifying that arguments aren't for proselytizing. I clarified that people here defend illogical positions because "OTHERS DONT UNDERSTAND" not because their own logic is flawed... that style of defense is hollow and just re-preaching hollowness.

Prove you’re smarter than Thomas Aquinas. — T Clark

You mean prove myself smarter than Aristotle's Prime Mover?
Do you want me to point out why arguments from presupposition that begs question are bad? I mean, at least make it a presupposition that doesn't beg any questions...

, at least make it a presupposition that doesn't beg any questions... — DifferentiatingEgg

The only presupposition I’ve made is that you don’t know enough about religious doctrine to make a meaningful statement about it.

The only presupposition I’ve made is that you don’t know enough about religious doctrine to make a meaningful statement about it. — T Clark

... you asked me to overcome Aquinas, not you. That was towards Aquinas. Hence why I responded to your quote "prove you're smarter than Aquinas" with that...

Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God. — DifferentiatingEgg

Even if true (I don't think it is), so what? As Daniel Dennett points out many (most?) people believe they ought to believe – "believe in belief" – in order to benefit socially or psychologically even when they "lack faith".

Without faith, we go nowhere, and without reason, we cannot find the way! — MoK

I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not.

Which "religious doctrine" is mentioned in the OP or is being discussed in this thread?

I agree with the spirit of your argument, with what you are trying to say. But I think you draw too stark a line inside the mind of the person who would believe in God, and who would also be a reasonable, reasoning, logical thinker.

If someone says they base their faith on the soundness of some logical syllogism, they aren't doing the faith thing, and they are probably working off a faulty syllogism as well. There's where I agree with you.

But that said, I don't agree the faithful person must not be using their reason when they assert they believe in God. We can't escape our reason. It's always there in every syntactically correct sentence. If I "know" God, I must employ the same epistemological processes as knowing math or empirical things.

The faithful person just has other experiences, other objects, which, like empirical objects, can't be proven to exist by logical syllogism.

I don't think anyone, in the history of philosophy, has ever proven any object must exist through any syllogism. This is the reason after 3000 years of our scientia, we still have to ask the first question about all of it - what exists?

Maybe Descartes was onto something when he realized "I am" can both be known as knowledge while it simultaneously was happening ontologically, while "I am thinking" was actually (ontologically) happening. So he did fashion a demonstration of sorts (not a syllogism) that proved the existence of an object as known. But unless you knowingly conduct his little demonstration for yourself, he hasn't proved the existence of anything besides himself to anyone besides himself.

We can't prove by logic that anything exists.

This is why I agree with the spirit of your post. I don't like Anselm's and Aquinas' and Descartes' or any arguments purporting to demonstrate the existence of God. They can be shown invalid and/or unsound.

But you said: "Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought."

Another translation of this sentence could be "You have to be crazy to believe God exists." Because I don't really know what "belief without reason-based thought" means.

As a non-sequitur, assume some man walked on water, pulled say, a guy named Peter, from drowning, to walk with him on the water, then he was destroyed on a cross to death, and buried, and then... rose from the dead and said to Peter, "I am God, trust me," - whether you or me believe any of that actually happened, for Peter, faith in God at that point is sort of reasonable, logical conclusion for a person having those experiences. Right? So to say "faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought" may not be logically necessary, and for Peter, is ontologically false (because what they hell else is he supposed to think while he is still wet from walking on the water with Jesus?) Maybe he was hallucinating the whole thing - that's a better empirical explanation - but you can continue to use reason to come to conclusions about an object like a man walking on water, or a God, or a hallucination, and so must Peter.

So the phrase "without reason-based thought" is a nit I would pick here. I see your point overall, but I wouldn't say it how you said it.

I think it's impossible to live a life of pure reason. It's okay to have faith in things. Faith is a powerful tool. — DifferentiatingEgg

Exactly, we aren't just robots with calculator minds. And we need to have faith in our senses to navigate crossing the street, and faith in our logic to navigate a conversation.

people believe they ought to believe — 180 Proof

Exactly, so believe... no need to try and to hide behind rationalism. That's my point, not everything needs to be. I firmly believe more than one mind can occupy a body... I dont give a fuck what others believe about that...

I firmly believe more than one mind can occupy a body... — DifferentiatingEgg

Why do you – what warrants your belief? And what difference to you/us does that (un/warranted?) belief make?

I don't like Anselm's and Aquinas' and Descartes' or any arguments purporting to demonstrate the existence of God. They can be shown invalid and/or unsound. — Fire Ologist

:up: :up:

And we need to have faith in our senses to navigate crossing the street, and faith in our logic to navigate a conversation.

In the context of this discussion and for precision's sake, we shouldn't use "we ... have faith in" where we don't have grounds to doubt makes more sense.

Which "religious doctrine" is mentioned in the OP or is being discussed in this thread? — 180 Proof

This one:

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought. — DifferentiatingEgg

... you asked me to overcome Aquinas, not you. That was towards Aquinas. Hence why I responded to your quote "prove you're smarter than Aquinas" with that... — DifferentiatingEgg

Now that we’ve clarified that, let’s go back to your original response.

Prove you’re smarter than Thomas Aquinas.
— T Clark

You mean prove myself smarter than Aristotle's Prime Mover?
Do you want me to point out why arguments from presupposition that begs question are bad? I mean, at least make it a presupposition that doesn't beg any questions... — DifferentiatingEgg

That’s not the question on the table. The issue being discussed is whether or not use of reason in arguments for God undermines the credibility of faith.

This isn’t a very fruitful discussion. I’ll give you the last word.

The only presupposition I’ve made is that you don’t know enough about religious doctrine to make a meaningful statement about it. — T Clark

What he expressed was Pauline doctrine.

we shouldn't use "we ... have faith in" where we don't have grounds to doubt makes more sense. — 180 Proof

Like it.

“We do have faith…” becomes
“We do not have grounds to doubt…”.
Puts a bit of a negative spin on it, but if it is more precise to you it still works for me.

This highlights the difference between using the word “belief” which aligns with “faith” and using the word “grounds” (or in the negative, “no grounds to doubt”) which aligns better with “knowledge.”

Again, big picture, you already made your point. But now, if we want to draw the distinction between “believing” and “knowing” a bit further, we have to refocus on the distinctions between the object believed in, versus the object known of; we can’t draw a distinction just between believing and knowing anymore since “have faith” has been supplanted by “do not have grounds…” (to doubt or otherwise).

Now religion (pure faith objects, fairies and gods) becomes theology, the rational and exposition of objects believed in (fairies gods) as if they were objects we had no grounds to doubt. Now reason is applied to faith objects.

But again, theology never leaps to philosophy/science. We can’t prove gods or fairies exist.

Unless we someday can make a tool to measure the difference between believing in God, and knowing what God is.

And again, whether any of these objects actually exist or can be doubted, or must be doubted, whether they be named “Gods” or “streets” or “cars”, whether they exist at all, the ontology of it, will never be proven at the end of syllogism. That’s my little contribution here. Arguments for God and arguments for that car that almost hit me crossing the street, ultimately are all useless as proof of anything ontologically.

Telling you about my experience in the street, or walking on water, on an ontological level, is another conversation, than a conversation demonstrating how the logic between all the street happenings and all the god happenings is logical.

We always take something, some thing, an object, for granted. This taking for granted, is what I meant by “faith” when I said “I have to have faith in my senses.”

Something needs to hit us in the face before we might ever ask whether we believe or we know “something” or “face” or “hitting.”

If you have faith that your spouse will not cheat on you, does proper faith require that you not understand why they would not choose to cheat on you?

Argument, discourse, proof—these are all means of understanding. "Believe that you might understand." "Faith seeking understanding." Etc.

The assertion that faith precludes understanding, or attempting to understand, seems odd to me.

What he expressed was Pauline doctrine.

Certainly not according to most Christians through most of history. Consider: Faith and Reason or Philokalia.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

St. Paul thinks the existence and glory of God is manifest in the signs of creation:

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Minds and words intersect at more than just language and communication. As Quine puts it in Pursuit of Truth: "in psychology, one may or may not be a behavioralist, but in language one has no choice..." Words are made with individual letters and accents that tyrannize the rhyme and rhythm of their form and flow. Their meaning in a community of words is ultimately determined by several factors intrinsic to the word, its definition superficially changed by external factors. And every word has its own set of forces behind it that triggers a set of total receptors in the brain.

I had perceived this quite some time before I even started delving into Nietzsche, let alone Deleuze, whom details that every mind has a set of total forces in possession of it... one can reflect and ruminate upon something from a different set of "total receptors" (total forces) just as one can approach a problem from a new total set of receptors that make up a different perspective. Normally these changes are gradual, and a when another person finally notices and declares "you're a completely different person than you were when we first ...!"

Well, one can learn to do this at a much more rapid pace. One can master such a skill, just as they can master self-abnegation, as self-abnegation is the first step. It's not that you are identified with this other, but you don the mask of its forces. Especially after getting acquainted with Schizo Analysis and Rhizomatic Thought mastery is relatively simple.

The issue being discussed is whether or not use of reason in arguments for God undermines the credibility of faith. — T Clark

That’s right. He’s saying “positing a logical credibility to an argument for God undermines the credibility of faith for that same God.

I think arguments for the existence of God can only impress those who already believe in God, because they are not clear (and I think, ultimately fail).

Mind you, I believe in God. But I believe in reason too, and my reason tells me my reason cannot deliver existence in some other object. It’s like reverse ontological proof that my ideas are not the things they are ideas of, and anything that is reasonable in syllogism is, ontologically, my idea, not some other things, such as God.

If I know the earth revolves around the sun and can prove it, and if you previously believed the earth revolved but did not know how to prove it, now, with my great syllogism, what you believed is what you can prove. But I’ve not shown you that the earth exists, or revolving is actually happening.

People see that proof (about objects) as obviating the need for faith. But faith is faith in the existence or truth of things, whereas logic and reasoning is about how truly existing things relate to one another.

Not even Descartes, who proved at least one thing existed (himself to himself), not even he proved anything else existed.

The answer to this is not that Anselm’s proof is a logical perfection of God as syllogism - it is that we need faith no matter which object we pick up to fashion proofs about. Faith (will) is essential not only to finding God, but to following a reasonable argument, whatever objects that argument is about. We don’t prove things exist; we prove things about existing things we already chose to believe in, or as the more empirically bent put it, we already posit as an object of knowledge.

That’s not the question on the table. — T Clark

Fair enough, I see your point now that you're less ambiguous with it other than "prove you're smarter than." I'll ruminate over it and get back to you. But know what will likely come is a deeper nuance of my perspective that bridges with yours because that's currently already underway, but it will take time to express. It will likely be in the realm of something like why Nietzsche considers science a morality of resessentiment for most practitioners rather than people truly passionate about it.

“We do have faith…” becomes
“We do not have grounds to doubt…”.
Puts a bit of a negative spin on it, but if it is more precise to you it still works for me. — Fire Ologist

I almost never use the word faith. I have a "reasonable confidence" in things, not a faith. People try to use faith to describe things like crossing the road: faith that you will get to the other side. Catching a plane: faith that you will survive the flight, etc. Nonsense. These are examples of a reasonable confidence based on the real world knowledge. We can demonstrate that planes exists, we know there are pilots who are trained to fly; we know that most planes make it to their destinations. When it comes to god we don't really have this kind of knowledge. And faith is problematic since it can justify anything at all. The faith a Muslim has that Allah is the real God and Jesus a mere prophet is equal to the faith a Christian has that Jesus is god and Allah is false. I remember some racist Christian South Africans telling me that apartheid was god's will and they had this on faith. How do we determine the validity of one faith against another?

I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not. — 180 Proof

Nice.

It is traditionally held that Paul believed that faith is a gift from God. This scripture is interpreted as saying that:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -- Ephesians 2:8-9

I could lay out more sources to show this. Do you need that? It's pervasive in the Pauline texts. His own faith was by the grace of God. He believed that was true of everyone.