Faith is not merely intellectual. Faith involves the intellect, but it also involves the emotional and willful as well. To the extent that one intellectually understands a thing, emotionally trusts that thing, and willingly identifies with that thing, that one has faith in that thing. Faith is a hermeneutic that we employ in remarkably mundane ways far more often than might occur to some. The truth is that we really don't take the time to completely understand everything thing we do and everything we utilize. Reason is a part of faith, but don't think that you employ reason more often during than you employ faith. Take engineers for example. Engineers are constantly solving problems that we didn't know we had in ways that we don't understand. The same is true of medicine, law, agriculture, and well you get the point. The truth is that we do most of what we do on faith not reason.
Speak or yourself. I act by reason, not faith. BTW: It’s not faith that keeps bridges from falling, jetliners from crashing, and the rational man from murdering, its reason and it’s application to reality. Reason:abstraction, integration, conceptualization. Faith: blind belief, blind acceptance, blind obedience. Keep your faith, I’ll stick with reason.
Faith relies on force; reason relies on logic. Ayn Rand: Faith and force . . . are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny. https://courses.aynrand.org/works/faith-and-force-the-destroyers-of-the-modern-world/
You're doing a poor job of your "reasoning." “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University James Tour is talking about YOU, "Starjet." And now "Starjet," to my Ignore List you go, with your "reason" as you so condescendingly preach it. ciao http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com
Not even a good try, but you are predictable. I was warned twice I would be put on the wall of honor, your ignore list. Thanks.
If God doesn’t need a creator, why does Existence? And if God exists, just where did he exist before he created Existence? In the Void? Then it wouldn’t be the Void, it’d be Existence. Oh. One just has to take it on faith. God is beyond human comprehension. And there it is—the blind belief in the unknowable and unprovable—except, of course, through faith. And just where did science come into play? Nowhere? Exactly. Faith? That’s nowhere, man.
Hmmm? And what doesn’t follow—knowledge from reason, or knowledge from faith? Or good from knowledge or good from mercy?
One's knowledge is whatever that one is left to believe. Reason is the ontological sequence of ideas. Wisdom is the synthesis of multiple perspectives. Understanding is knowing what to do with what is known. Faith is a complex of understanding, trust and identity. Mercy is the forfeiture of recompense. Grace is unmerited favor. Good is what God is; evil is what God is not.
Damn. Now there’s some true non sequiturs: Belief is knowledge? Wisdom is Oxymoronic? Faith is identity? Goodness is mysticism? Hey, you want to believe, believe—it’s still a semi-free country, so feel semi-free. Ayn Rand:” Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics. For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity. Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing. Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . . “God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” Something from nothing? Now, there’s the “Non Sequitur” wisdom of faith and divinity.
Yes, knowledge is belief to those whose knowledge is contingent in its being. If you came to know what you know, your knowledge is contingent in its being. One of the first things one learns when one begins working with mechanical drawing is that one should never try to build anything from only one point of view. I can understand how another could interpret the various views as being contradictory even when the fact of the matter is that they are complimentary. The "God" I am left to believe actually exists is necessary in being. It is simple actuality; it has no potentiality. It is inviolate; it is holy. I am left to believe that such a God exists because of the contingent nature of matter and therefore space/time. I am left to believe that matter is contingent in its being. If contingent being exists, by definition, necessary being must exist. I cannot honestly and logically deny that contingent being exists; therefore, I cannot honestly and logically deny that necessary being exists. It is exactly the contingent nature of the natural that leaves me to believe in the supernatural.
You have to be Barnum’s great, great, great grandchild, for you truly believe a sucker is born every minute. Best premises.
As he approached the Gates he was noticed by St. Peter, who asked, ‘can I help you?’. The Philosopher replied, saying, I am here to check in, I figure my name is in that book in front of you since I made to standing before you.... my name was.... St. Peter open the great book in from of him, scans for the name, and says, oh I see. The correct gate for you is the third one down to the right, and the Gate keeper’s name is Annubus.
Engineers are absolutely NOT solving problems for no reason. They are creating commercially viable solutions. That's how their very existence is justified. That's the definition of what they do. The fact that YOU don't understand the methods is totally irrelevant. There is no reason for you to understand the methods engineers use in various fields. You don't have to understand nuclear physics for there to be engineers working on reactors. And, the fact that YOU (or I ) don't understand some method they use does NOT mean that they are accepting it on "faith". That's just plain ludicrous.
"Solving problems for no reason"? You got that from what I wrote? WOW I sincerely hope that you merely glanced at my post and shot off what you wanted to say before you glanced at my post because if that's what you got out of what I wrote WOW, just WOW. I'm starting to feel sorry for you. How old are you? Most of the people hare at PF are adults, so I assumed that you were of age. I'm getting the impression that you are among our young members here.
There are multiple versions of all of them, probably more than 4200, and they all disagree too. Kurps point is well made.
Science is the Gulf of Mexico from the Yucatan to Florida full of polyethylene pellets. Religion is intangible. As Merton said, "Faith is first a principle questioning and struggle before it is a principle of certitude and peace."
Contrasting science to religion Science is the art of defining and understanding realities. Religion is the denial of what science uncovers to protect God.
Then what did you mean by: "Take engineers for example. Engineers are constantly solving problems that we didn't know we had"
Engineers solve problems that we don't know that we had is way that we don't understand every day in areas like manufacturing, sanitation and construction. Indeed, most of the problems that engineers solve, we didn't know about, and they did it in ways that we don't understand.
