FAITH... WITH REASON

FAITH... WITH REASON Mar 3, 2017 17:40:35 GMT

Quote

Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 17:40:35 GMT

Mar 2, 2017 12:55:49 GMT Vegas said:

Mar 2, 2017 4:05:36 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

I think the general disconnect comes from the tendency that my fellow atheists have a tinted view of religion.
To them, "faith" is a religious word, and therefore... it must be stupid.

"It can't be reasonable, the religious are uneasonable."

But.. There is far more non-religious things one can put faith in.
And there are reasons for that faith.

Hell.. The one dictionary definition uses this sentence as its example:

"This restored his faith in the politician"

Well.... What did?

Obviously, it is a reference to something seen.. a bit of evidence.. that he could now base his faith on.

His faith had evidence.

THE END.

SPOILER: Click to show

And they all lived happily ever after.

My general position is that most all human being are unreasonable to some extent; I don't think religious believers are uniquely unreasonable, merely that religious belief is one of the most pervasive outcomes of irrationality.

I generally agree that people can have faith in anything, but my original point was that I think it's possible to have evidence/reason take you so far and be able to act on that without having anything additional. I'm just not sure what you think "faith" really adds to the evidence/reason. It would be nice if you could try to describe the different mentalities of the person who ONLY acts on reason/evidence and an assessment of risk/reward, VS the person who acts on reason/evidence plus faith. I'm wondering how you think the latter differs from the former.

I think from your politician example it's a case of using "faith" where "trust" or "confidence" would be synonyms. IE, "I previously had X level of confidence in the politician, Y happened and reduced my confidence, Z happened and restored it." I'm not sure if this more general kind of faith is the same that we've been discussing.