Reason or Faith?

Wait, faith in what, exactly? People put their faith in pretty ridiculous things.
For instance, faith the the basic goodness of humanity, or faith that a bunch of millionaire congressmen have their best interest at heart. Faith by its nature entails a mental suspension of reality. Might as well have a country where we're all given prescriptions of LSD if we're meant to live that way.

 

If you are defining faith as confidence, then you can't reason without it.

 

if faith isn't arrived at by reason, isn't that kind of random?
and by random, i mean unrelated to whatever may or may not actually exist, whatever that might happen to be.

 

reason it the fact of where we live. it is only by reason that we choose faith or don't.
even if we reason carelessly, it is still our reason, at the base of it, that chooses what it will.

 

They are not mutually exclusive. Everyone has faith that their reason has lead them t the correct conclusion.

 

Faith in reason, a posteriori; i.e. empiricism.

"It is proper for you to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."
"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
The Kalama Sutta; 4,10

 

We need to define faith. Martn Luther called it a "joyful bet", and that's pretty much the way I view it--without necessarily the "joyful" part. I think minimal faith is necessary to get through life. Nothing is certain, not even that. We could all be brains in a jar in some extraterrestrial alien's science lab, or computer simulations in a Matrix-style virtual reality. In fact, Prof. Nick Bostrom of Oxford thinks that's probably what we are, and they pay him good money. Santayanna argues that a minimal faith--what he calls "animal faith" is necessary for human functioning. This he defined as belief in material reality. I'm basically an existentialist in my approach to reality--regarding life as a high-stakes gamble. I prefer to make educated bets based on reason, available evidence, personal experience, and intuition. Belief contrary to the available evidence is too risky for me. I also tend to go by the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinarily great evidence. That separates me from most of the religious folks who claim to be guided by faith by pretty much ruling out miracles.

For example, I tend to believe that there was an historical Jesus, mainly because it's hard for me to understand why His followers would make up a Messiah who was executed like a common criminal if they could make up a more traditional figure who would lead the Jews to greatness. And because the vast majority of scholars who have studied the matter, have Ph.Ds after their names and publish in scholarly journals come to the same conclusion. But the miracle stories, including the virgin birth, the resurrection, raising the dead, and walking on water, I take with a grain of salt. It can be reasonable to bet one's life on these things if one knows what one is doing. I know lots of Twelve Steppers who've liberated themselves from addictions by taking a leap of faith, although I prefer hops. I personally don't think it's particularly virtuous to believe things without evidence, contra to John 20:26–29 and Kiekegaard. That's a prescription for credulity and getting stuck with unwanted swamp real estate. On the other hand, I think extreme logical positivist positions which require "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt are often impractical in navigating everyday reality. I think there's a big difference between doing science--uncovering facts that we all can rely on with confidence--and doing life, in which rigorous methods are not feasible. Most of the decisions that are majorly important to me fall into the latter category: where to live, what job to take, who to date or marry, who to vote for, etc.We can, of course, insist on proof for all of these things before taking action, but i think that would result in a pretty limited existence. I also think we need to be consistent in our approach. It wouldn't do to reject the claims of Christianity, for example, but to embrace Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.

I finds it interesting that this topic came up in the Politics forum. Usually, it comes up in discussions of religion. But I think it's appropriate here, as well. My political opinions couldn't stand the requirement of "proof"; I can't prove that Trump is a vile, unprincipled, narcissistic, cynical, evil, Putin lovin' womanizer, tax cheat, compulsive liar, and crime boss. But I think there's substantial evidence for me to reach those conclusions. "substantial evidence, enough to convince a reasonable person, even though some reasonable persons might not be convinced, is the standard I aim for in forming opinions, although sometimes even that is unattainable. The substantial evidence test is the one required by administrators in deciding how bridges are constructed or what exposure we have to toxic substances--instead it's a reasonable expert unstead of any old person. Essentially it's a judgement call, but I think it should be made on the basis of informed judgement, reason and available evidence.

There's another field of inquiry, history (especially ancient history, that I think lies within an intermediate range between the natural an social sciences,on the one hand, and everyday lay judgments, on the other hand. If we insist on "proof", our view of antiquity would be confined largely to the big wigs--kings and notables--who are immortalized on monuments and coins. That, of course, would lead to serious distortion. Even then, most histories even of emperors were written some time after their deaths. That would be true . for example<,of the histories of Roman emperors by Suetonius and Tacitus, who also mentioned Jesus. For Christianity, we have, understandably, mostly Christian sources for the earliest years. Certain skeptics on HF, for example, don't think such sources should be considered at all, because of their inherent bias. I think that approach rules out important sources of information, which if handled cautiously can be sources of useful information. One skeptic on Hip Forums doubts that Paul existed, but even so notable a Jesus mythicist as Richard Carrier is convinced his existence is "highly probable".. The Historicity of Paul the Apostle • Richard Carrier. Seven of the thirteen letters purporting to have been written by Paul seem to have been written by the same author with a consistent narrative and a consistent style claiming that distinction, and Paul's existence is attested not only by fellow Christians supporting him, like Luke in Acts, but also by detractors like the authors of the Pseudo-Clementine letters.

Many historians are willing to accept that their enterprise is necessarily one of interpretation rather than explanation.
historiography - The presentation of history
3. Historical Analysis and Interpretation | Public History Initiative
Historical Methodology Evidence & Interpretation | What is Historical Evidence? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
I think the substantial evidence rule works here, "reasonable persons" being those with training and academic credentials in the field of ancient history and command of ancient languages. It'sprobab;y the best we can do, other than holding out for proof which cannot rasonably be expected.

 

reason dos not exclude any possibility entirely.
it merely observes that some things happen a whole lot less often then others, and owes nothing to our telling each other what to pretend about them.

statistical determinism can frequently be observed, absolute certainty, on any rational basis, seldom if ever.

 

Reason and faith that those who control will have same. Bad bet,that.

 

Who will guide the lunatics and help their dreams be harmless? One who dreams well, the reasonable artist. A relational philosophy gives this direction.
I believe good advice to communities who suffer murder by lunatics is an abiding concern for lunatics and their illusions. These may have the neg.
illusion/confusion of making war. By faith, they will themselves die or be banished for this. An exception is the professional assassin who will by skill never
be known.

? Who stole the corona virus form the China lab and gave death to the world.... none of your reasonable business really. The profession psychopath
defies reason. Have some anxiety if you will. That was the point. To y'fuk with reason and faith. Lunatics can learn this and as a strategy. And strategies
are reasoned. Propaganda as illusion is reasoned also.

I be kind to those with faith in God who is goodness. Life is essentially kind.

 

As you imply... nothing exactly. We as farmers can share a faith though. In the seed, in the root.
In that there is philosophy that may pro-seed.

 

Reason .