Talk:Faith and rationality

Untitled

Not sure what the point of this article is or what it's doing in an encyclopedia but I'll leave it in deference to Larry as founder of Wikipedia.

Natural Theology

The article states: "Natural theology holds that faith and rationality are compatible, so that evidence and reason ultimately lead to belief in the objects of faith." Evidence and reason ultimately leading to believe in the "objects" of faith is completely different from faith and rationality being compatible. Indeed, natural theology states that one need not have mere faith in, for example, the existence of God, but rather one can infer, through empirical observation of the natural world, that God exists. Again, this is absolutely not identical to the thesis that faith and rationality are compatible. Thus, this section needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.27.138 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

OK, I'm taking first swack at this. I'll make sure the current content remains available in the page history.--FeloniousMonk 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

generally good

great edits for the most part ... why was "faith as unparsimonious" deleted? Ungtss 13:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

also, regarding solipsism ... is it fair to describe these views as solipsism? solipsism holds that only the self exists and everything is a function of the mind -- but classical foundationalism holds that while many things cannot be proven, many other beliefs may be reasonably held by other means, including faith. shall we distinguish here? Ungtss 16:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The article now is starting to read like a litany of apologetics, not an encyclopedia article. "Faith as unparsimonious" was deleted because the rule of parsimony is not central to the rationalist objections to faith being rational and so is seldom made.

"A is A" and a solipsism is a solipsism. Identifying it as such is no more inappropriate than saying that rationality precludes the supernatural. It does not need to be attributed as a POV; the elench that it is self-evident is a matter deductive logic, not a POV. FeloniousMonk 17:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

the argument is not solipsism. "Solipsism is the metaphysical belief that only oneself exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states — all objects, people, etc, that one experiences are merely parts of one's own mind." Classical foundationalism does not hold that opinion. it holds the opinion that faith underlies all knowledge because reason depends on faith, so that we can know things other than the fact that we exist, despite the fact that we can't prove them. you are misdefining solipsism and misapplying it here. Ungtss 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

<<"Faith as unparsimonious" was deleted because the rule of parsimony is not central to the rationalist objections to faith being rational and so is seldom made.>>

i beg to differ. have a look at God of the gaps, Ockham's razor and religion for a start. Ungtss 17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition of faith

The definition of faith given in the article is very narrow and unsatisfactory. There are two general approaches to the notion of faith within religious thought: cognitive and non-cognitive.

• Cognitive: faith is sometimes regarded as being a kind of belief (either lacking the justification necessary for knowledge, or with an object that isn't understood), sometimes as being a cognitive state distinct from either belief or knowledge.
• Non-cognitive: faith is either a way of seeing the world or a way of living one's life. In both cases, the appeal is to faith as trust.

The relationship between faith and rationality is very different in each of these approaches to faith, so the distinctions are crucial. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

SS keeps reverting part of the summary from this:

"Faith is generally defined either as belief not grounded in evidence and reason or as belief in what cannot be understood, while rationality is belief grounded in logic and/or material evidence."

to this:

"Faith is generally defined as belief beyond or surpassing physical evidence or secular reasoning, while rationality is belief based on logic and/or material evidence."

His latest edit summary was: "restore neutral and accurate intro". Could he (or anyone else) explain what's PoV or inaccurate about the version from which he's reverting? Could he have the courtesy of placing his reasons here? I wrote the previous explanatory comment over a month ago, and he's simply ignored it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he was trying to employ irony... Anyway, his definition is grossly inaccurate, and as such, I'll revert it on sight. FeloniousMonk 16:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This article needs to be cleaned up to meet Wiki's nPOV. <personal attack removed by FeloniousMonk> As it reads, it heavily favors rationality and (sometimes subtly) puts down faith.--Jason Gastrich 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this back up. I never launched a personal attack, though. <personal attack removed by KillerChihuahua> --Jason Gastrich 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you have. And I've reverted your attempt to hide the evidence. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jason, you need to stop [1]. Do not delete the comments of others from talk pages. FeloniousMonk 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I will stop, but I deleted the things above because they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Furthermore, they may tarnish someone's objectivity in the matter. You do want people to come and be objective, yes? --Jason Gastrich 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• First, there needs to be consistency in the verbiage to indicate rationality is opposed to religious faith. That's what this article seems to be about; which leads into my second point.
• It needs to be made known and discussed how even rationality assumes or believes certain things by faith. For instance, the person who rejects faith and embraces rationality doesn't test a chair before he/she sits on it. They believe it will keep them from falling. More examples such as these can be cited to show their faith in non-religious things.--Jason Gastrich 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Since this is a neutrality discussion, we need to put the neutrality discussion tag on the main page of this article. --Jason Gastrich 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This NPOV dispute is specious, completely without merit. Its motivation is transparent. The last person to substantially rework this article was neither I nor Markkbilbo, but Mel Etitis, who is an Oxford philosophy professor. I think we can trust his opinion and contributions to be fair, neutral and informed. The NPOV objection here reeks of sour grapes. FeloniousMonk 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not concern ourselves with smells and appeals to authority. Let's concern ourselves with the issue at hand. With all due respect to everyone involved (even the Philosophy professor), this entry can be improved.--Jason Gastrich 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one opinion. The motives for raising the NPOV issue are central to whether it is well-founded and objective, responsible editors will judge for themselves. FeloniousMonk 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That is also a misapplication of "appeal to authority." I suggest reading Appeal to authority. They have a very good example in the article concerning Linus Pauling who made claims outside his field. Appealing to him as an authority on the medicinal efficacy of vitamen C does amount to an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Appealing to expertise within a field is not an "appeal to authority" fallacy.Mark K. Bilbo 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for an NPOV tag as the article currently stands.--SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither do I. Is there anyone else here who does see the need? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look necessary here. Mark K. Bilbo 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, its a one-person crusade as it stands. I suggest WP:CON applies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response: Faith and rationality

I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.

Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte talk 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

misplacement of "only"

This sentence "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it only rejects any belief based on faith alone. " was not clear, because the "only" modified "rejects." It could have been reworded: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects only any belief based on faith alone. " but now it reads awkwardly. So I did my best fix. You could fix it to: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects any belief based only on faith. " If you like that. But "only rejects" would contrast "to reject" with other possibilities, such as "to refute" .

But, by the way, I think the section is a muddle anyway, because I do not see a clear discussion of belief based on faith and observation. The dichotomy that is implied is not sustainable. In a highly polarized world, one group claims to put faith ahead of rationalism, but ends up using rational arguments. The opponents might claim they are not accepting anything on faith, but they have faith in their senses and reasoning power. Anyway, the set of beliefs supported by faith alone is extremely small, because even those people who proudly proclaim their faith have documents (bible, Koran, or whatever) and often tales of miracles to back them up. Carrionluggage 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rationalism

"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching." This is not true, see the article on rationalism. Srnec 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

I've done a little cleanup, corrected some spelling errors. Still a lot to be done. Also, the title should be Faith and Reason. Rick Norwood 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Foundations of Rationality

First I'd like to say that I think the article is pretty good currently.

The section "Faith as underlying rationality" notes that even a die-hard rationalist has to rely on basic assumptions somewhere, denoted here as "properly basic." This is a theological term, however this problem has been thoroughly discussed secularly, and there are a lot of other (and perhaps more common) terms for this idea, e.g. "axioms", "fundamental assumptions", "metaphysics", etc. I think I would like to see some these other terms mentioned.

I also note that the apparent "undermining" of rationalism by underpinnings of faith is a very Western concern. Cf. Daoism which, among other things, seems to admit right from the start that we can't really be certain of anything, and that all classifications and conceptual distinctions placed upon our raw sensory input are artificial anyway. Daoism further suggests that while it might be good to be aware of this artificiality, on a day-to-day basis there's no need to worry too much about it. (This means we shouldn't take God too seriously either.) I find this philosophical position relevant because it is in some sense a distinct approach that avoids the conflict entirely. --Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Societal/Religious Context

Would it be appropriate to note somewhere that the staunch promotion of "faith" as a valid mode of belief is closely associated with those who hold religious convictions? This seems to me to be of major importance in understanding the history and dynamics of the debate. --Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of the posts above, which are very interesting, are unsigned. Please register with wikipedia and then sign your posts with four tildes. At that point, I would like to see you work on this article. I think you have a contribution to make. Rick Norwood 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me, forgot to sign, now remedied. Any comments on things you would like to me do with this article? --Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not specifically, but your comments suggest you have some good ideas. Rick Norwood 12:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the introduction define faith in terms of the absence of reason?

I tried to define faith in terms that would reflect the beliefs of the faithful: faith is belief influenced by authority, revelation, or inspiration. Two other editors evidently believe that faith should be defined in negative terms. The introduction currently reads:

"Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief grounded in reason or evidence. By contrast, faith is generally defined as belief not grounded solely in reason or evidence, but also in what cannot be known."

Certainly, this is a definition of faith that would appear totally alien to anyone who has faith -- they would say, rather, that by faith the truth can be known. Also, the claim that faith is generally defined in negative rather than positive terms is unsupported by any reference.

I'm going to restore a positive definition of faith, and ask that other writers remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on such subjects, and add a reference. Rick Norwood 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for your comments. I support your effort to find a more "positive" view of faith. However, I reverted yours because using Martin Luther as an authority on faith, is like using Copernicus as an authority on planetary motion. That is to say, both made their contributions, which were significant and ground-breaking, but after 300 or 400 years, their ideas are no longer taken as part of the current debate. Here's what I cut out:

Faith is grounded in authority, inspiration, or revelation. [ref] Martin Luther, Martin Luther, Selections from his Writings, edited by John Dillenberger, Anchor, 1958, ISBN 0385098766, ISBN-13 978-0385098762, page 23, "Faith, however, is something that God effects in us." [/ref]

I do try to stick to attributable statements; the lead, however, should be a summary of such statements. What remains, then, is to figure out what counts as neutral. So to your point, the way to do that is to include something that puts faith in more "positive" terms. When I inserted the word solely, it was so that "faith" could be defined in a positivist but neutral way....

But trying to do that for the purposes of the article is tricky, since the focus of this article is on the demarcation problem between faith and rationality. It seems very natural and constructive to define one in terms of the other. If we dont't define one in terms of the other, it becomes difficult to have any sort of discussion about how to distinguish one and the other.

I would propose we work on putting the contrast to reason in "positive" terms:

Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief grounded in reason or evidence. By contrast, faith is generally defined as belief not grounded solely in reason or evidence, but also .... [positive terms here]

--Otheus 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with your definition of faith is that it is not how faith is, in fact, defined in the context of the debate over faith and reason. Checking the old Webster's Seventh, which happens to be close at hand, it says, "1a: alliegence or duty to a person, b: fidelity to one's promises, 2a(1): firm belief and trust in and loyalty to God, (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

You have shifted the definition of faith from definition 2a to definition 2b, which decides the debate between faith and reason by definition, — Rick Norwood — continues after insertion below

I respond to this below... --Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

and you have repeatedly used reverting to have it stay that way. — Rick Norwood — continues after insertion below

Rick, on this point, you are confusing me with someone else. I reverted the edit that you reverted, which was mine. I am not working in tandem with anyone else here. Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Neutrality requires that faith be defined in the way the faithful define faith. — Rick Norwood — continues after insertion below

I'm specifically not addressing this comment, and to the best of my knowledge, neither does Wikipedia address it. --Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Martin Luther definition is a good one, because it is the definition used by millions of faithful Christians. I could easily produce a dozen more references, from a variety of faiths, all saying the same thing. Rick Norwood 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Rick, this is not an article on faith per se. Luther's depiction is also a fine one -- if you are a Christian, or at any rate, a theist -- but it's not a definition; it depicts faith as something which God creates, but not what it actually is. Webster's definitions do describe what faith is, but each definition in a different context. The context for this article is a philosophical and epistemological one; more specifically, it's about to what extent these branches of philosophy encroach or complement not only religious belief, but other forms of faith, such as whether or not to expect the Sun to rise tomorrow. After Luther, came 400 years of other highly acclaimed thinkers, such as Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, David Hume, Kierkegaard, most of whom believed firmly in a Creator, and all of whom wrote extensively and had a profound impact on the topic of faith and reason.

As such, Webster's definition 2b(1) is a starting point for a definition, but it is flawed since one does not require proof to behave rationally. This naturally begs the question: are faith and rationality distinct concepts, overlapping concepts, tangential concepts, or arbitrary concepts? That is the problem addressed by these 400+ years of philosophy. That is what this topic hopes to introduce to the reader.

Perhaps, as a believer, you are familiar with the works of famed Christian author Francis Schaeffer (if not, maybe one of his books will ring a bell. Francis wrote well on the topic at hand, and he is perhaps most famous for his attempt to resolve it. Schaeffer discusses is "evidentialism" and "presuppositionalism", concepts analogous to "rationality" and "faith". One of Schaeffer's "pupils", James Sire, wrote an excellent, approachable, clear book explaining (and promoting) Schaeffer's apologetic in an epistemological context. I point all this out to you in hopes you won't think this article is about "secularism versus religion" or "us versus them". It is far more subtle than that. I also strongly recommend you seek out one of their books from, for instance, your Church's library. --Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You err in your assumption that I am a believer. I am not in any way a religious person. I do have faith in reason. — Rick Norwood — continues after insertion below

Indeed I did err! Instead of making excuses for myself, I hope you will merely accept my apology.--Otheus 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a mathematician, and I understand the difference between presenting an argument fairly, and trying to settle an argument by definition, which is unfair. I've also read a good bit of philosophy, though perhaps not as much as you have. — Rick Norwood — continues after insertion below

Yeah, but as a mathematician, you've done a whole lot more defining and proving than I ever will. --Otheus 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And I know that the debate between faith and reason is a debate between the belief that revelation is correct and the belief that only reason and evidence lead to correct belief. You want to settle this argument at the outset by defining faith as "against reason" (which, clearly, makes the next part -- the three viewpoints listed -- irrelevant, since you have already ruled out the third viewpoint. My only interest here is in seeing a good, fair, referenced article. Rick Norwood 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right again. I did not want to settle the argument at the outset, but the text at the time did result in the implication that left no place for Natural Theology. I made these very subtle changes, and I would like your feedback on them. --Otheus 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest rewrite

I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. The new version is certainly an improvement. But it still gives a negative definition of faith as the absence of reason and evidence. Why do you object to a positive definition, faith as belief in revelation. As best I can tell, people who talk about "faith" in this sense usually mean a direct revelation by God to man, often using the authority of some "holy" book. Some claims personal inspiration, as in the case of many New Age beliefs. I thought my "revelation, inspiration, or authority" covered the ground fairly well. What do you object to in that formulation? Rick Norwood 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Additions to "Faith as underlying rationality" section

"This view holds that all chains of logical reasoning are either circular reasoning, and thus invalid or else they are rooted in a first principle, axiom, self-evident truth or statement of faith/dogma, all of which are, this view claims, things of the same type. Therefore, faith underlies all rationality. Rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory and reason. The foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by external evidence, without indulging in circular reasoning, since one must be rational already in order to consider evidence. The real difference, under this view, between someone who says they rely on faith and someone who says they rely solely upon evidence is simply the object of their faith, not whether they have faith in anything or not."

I'm just clarifying this. (Forgot to login) It didn't have a source before, so to require a clarifying edit to have a source when the original passage didn't have a source seems inconsistent to me. I might be able to dig up a source, but if the original can stand without one, this can stand without one. If the original cannot, it shouldn't be here either.

This passage is, I might add, dealing with first principles. What do you want the sources to do? Show that someone, somewhere actually holds or has held this view? If so, any random Wikipedia editor is just as valid a source as any source writer who tries to explain the idea. I, myself, could be a valid source if not for the fact that I'm already editing. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

StephenTBrooke (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)== Natural versus Supernatural ==

I must admit that I'm alittle surprised at the hijacking of this subject. It would seem that either each and every religion should be able to contribute sections to this article AND manipulate the definitions outside their "expertise" OR we must all realize that not much of this article is actually definition.

I should state for the record that I was raised christian and am now atheist. Make of it what you will, but from where I stand, this article shouldn't be about the details of any one religion. I also don't put much "faith" in the argument from special knowledge.

May I be allowed to advocate the following for the opening statement?

"Rationality is a framework to investigate the natural world, based upon the premises that (1) only the natural world exists, (2) that humanity has the capacity to understand it, and (3) that we can determine physical laws of the natural world.

Faith is an arbitrary framework to support supernatural claims based upon the premises that (1) both the natural and supernatural exist, (2) that we do not have the capacity to fully understand them unaided, and (3) that we may determine some natural laws, but that we must rely upon inspiration, authority or traditional knowledge in order [to] understand the supernatural."

I'm sorry, but I'm not citing anyone's work... at least not intentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTBrooke (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)