Some thougts on religion while visiting China.

I like it.

 

Well, then the dictionary is wrong.

 

The definitions you supplied did not indicate they were opposites.

Faith can be a conclusion drawn or inferred from facts or premises.

I infer from the facts of the experiences of my life that God exists. I look at the experiential evidence of my life and of the things I observe in the world at large and infer the existence of God--drawing the conclusion that I should follow a certain code of conduct based on that evidence.

How is that contrary to reason? It isn't. It is reason in action resulting in faith.

 

I agree with this part. If X is missing from Y then it doesn't mean that X is contrary to Y.

Nope. Belief not based on evidence actually means belief that is not based on evidence.

Nope. Belief not based on evidence means to start with the conclusion and then fit it to experience. As it states, there is no evidence (fact) involved.

A priori belief doesn't employ reason. So it's neither contrary to nor concordant with reason.

 

Perfect answer.

 

There is even less evidence for the existence of any of the apostles than there is for Jesus.

Nearly all respectable scholars have rejected the old claims of eyewitness reporting with reference to the Bible.

And, most importantly, eyewitness testimony is now considered among the least reliable forms of evidence. Further, what you refer to as "reputable persons who interviewed those eye witnesses" is called HERESAY. Try using that in court.

All in all, if your argument were a court case, it would be thrown out before being heard. You have no case... And scholarly and scientific standards of evidence are much more severe than those accepted in a court. If it were possible, your case amounts to less than nothing.

 

I respectfully beg to differ.

I'm sorry, but that is the definition of reason.

But there is no proof. Therefore, you must have faith that gods or a god named God exist.

You may have great volumes of anecdotal evidence, but until that evidence can be tested under controlled conditions, you are still operating on faith. You may infer whatever you wish, but that does not change the fact that you believe in something without proof. Ergo, faith is the antithesis of reason.

Again, only if the dictionary is wrong--it could be, BTW, but I doubt it.

 

I admit that I definitely think pretty well of you, but, this is typical wandering hermeneutics.

Let's go back to the Bible.

Matthew 17:20

20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

I would argue that what Jesus means to say here is that any amount of faith is total faith. This implies that there is really only one kind of faith: total faith. This makes "total faith" a redundancy. faith IS total faith. There are no nuances. As such, you either have it or you don't. You either totally believe without question, are more sure of what you have faith in than you are in the likelihood that the sun will rise tomorrow, or you have none.

Really, this is the only way it can be. Faith is total certainty despite a 100% lack of any rational, empirical, or experiential claim on such certainty.

We humans are naturally curious and rational so obviously such faith is going to be hard to come by. If universal, it is the very picture of gullibility. If placed wrongly, it puts you in danger of being scammed. Caveat emptor. Doubt or you will lose your shirt. And it is this very un-naturalness of faith that Jesus praises, for if you achieve it, you did so at a great cost.

John 20:29
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Note that Jesus is being consistent between these passages. Faith is an all-or-nothing prospect and as such is nearly impossible to come by.

Now, I would argue, and have argued recently, that it is literally impossible to come by faith. Faith is an unachievable goal whose function is to belittle those who seek it because failure is inevitable.

Caveat emptor. Faith is not good.

 

OK, I don't want to debate semantics here, but another definition for antithesis would be opposite. Are you satisfied with the following statement then: "Faith is the opposite of reason."

Calling a boat the opposite of a car is wrong. About that you are correct--there is no correlation. But faith and reason are related in that both are means of arriving at a conclusion--albeit using radically different methodology, in fact opposite methodology. Ergo, faith and reason are opposite ways of arriving at a conclusion. Ergo, one is the antithesis of the other. But I don't want to get into a semantic debate.

But in this example, you have evidence that it is wrong--the fact that society will visit punishment on you.

That would be called a justification--drawing the wrong conclusion in spite of the evidence.

I'm sorry, but the phrase "to not employ" absolutely qualifies as antithesis. Not to put too fine a point on it, of course.

If rational thought existed in a vacuum, you may have a point, but we all know that is not the case.

Once again, semantics. One either draws conclusions from evidence (reasoning) or one does not (faith). I can't make it any simple than that.

 

Yes, I caught that too. LOL.

 

I'm sorry, but the precise definition of reasoning is the process of analyzing evidence. It is the precise opposite of faith. Ergo, it is the antithesis.

 

You've kind of just proved my point. Just sayin'

 

It is a false assumption to believe that people of faith do not use reason to arrive at the conclusions they draw about the existence and nature of God. It is ann insulting assumption, frankly.

 

To people without faith also lack a sense of humor?

 

Well, thanks--that's a nice thing to say. About wandering hermeneutics, ins't the persuit of truth often a varied path? What is your precise point?

I don't agree. The "mustard seed" is used to describe something very small that grows to the largest of bushes. It is not that it is fully developed within the seed, but that it is in an of itself the potential of the total. do not discount the effect of time and nourishment required to make that seed grow into the bush!

I do believe that is the case, but i also believe everyone--because of the nature of the human person--has that mustard seed. Some people simply don't allow it to grow because they fil to provide fertile ground.

This is just cynical.

 

i had to look the word up myself.

and learned something.

try it

and truth is what i be planting.

on the other hand, you are watering a weed

ie.... all have the good within; i agree

Meaning; dont need a religion to enable 'truth' as all can feel it without lying to themselves.

exactly. Some must fit what they are learning into the cracks of the belief.... as if their foundation is a rock, versus a good soil.

The good are capable of nurturing truth while the liars will not accept the water or life for the good seeds to grow

 

No, it is still not satisfactory. If faith does not employ reason then it need not be opposite reason.

I have no evidence that it is wrong. I take it on face value that it is.

Sure, I can use reason to decide whether it is wrong or not and when looking at the evidence during the course of my reasoning, I may actually find that it is not wrong. Perhaps there's an apple grower campaign going on that hands out free apples. Who knows.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. For reasons already stated

Indeed, this I can concur with. Things are never black and white. I'm merely attempting to convey that faith and reasoning each has valid applications that serve purposes different from each other.

To put it very simplistically, if faith is used for fleeing from a shadow in the dark then reason is used to figure out if it was worth fleeing from. If you figure out if it's worth fleeing from before fleeing then it may be too late for you already. If you flee without ever figuring out if it's worth fleeing from then you're wasting your time fleeing for nothing.

Two different concepts, each with their own purpose. Though often used simultaneuosly and without cognizant discretion, making the difference very subtle and indiscrete. But nonetheless different.

 

Was already part of my lexicon...thanks anyway.

 

then why inquiry about the path?


i have no problem with learning.


i am here for the give and take of such


you are learning how to live forever and what truth does to beliefs while i am learning how to deal with liars in an articulate way

 

Are you calling me a liar?

 

I did not mean it as an insult. But it is no assumption. It is a simple statement of fact: Reason and faith are exact opposites. One must either abandon reason or abandon faith.

 

Not sure I understand? Did you make a joke that I didn't laugh at?

 

your posts represent one.
perfectly!

 

It was irony.

 

Might you be so kind as to give me an example of a "lie" and how it fits that definition?