Are faith and reason mutually exclusive?

[Guest]

I see arguments all the time suggesting faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I can only conclude these people live in a strange alternate world. You have the religious crowd who rejects reason because it conflicts with their faith. You have the non-religious crowd who rejects faith because it conflicts with their reason. What I have always found strange is that each group is employing the very element they claim to hate. The religious who reject reason because it conflicts with their faith use reason to do so. The non-religious who reject faith because it conflicts with their reason are reasoning based on principles established by faith.

So, my question, are faith and reason mutually exclusive? I would argue, no. Not only do we incorporate both into our everyday lives, but we necessarily need both.

Note: I use faith to mean 'blind' faith within this post, and reason to mean the process of considering things with the aid of logic.

 

[handy]

Didn't our Lord tell us to love God with all our heart, and all our soul and all our mind. That seems to state that faith and reason go hand in hand.

Although, I don't think the religious are necessarily rejecting reason as they are rejecting some of the claims the so-called 'reasonable' are making.

 

[Guest]

Didn't our Lord tell us to love God with all our heart, and all our soul and all our mind. That seems to state that faith and reason go hand in hand.

Agreed!

Although, I don't think the religious are necessarily rejecting reason as they are rejecting some of the claims the so-called 'reasonable' are making.

You are quite correct. I should have qualified my statements. They should read "some of the..." And, even still, though they outwardly expression their rejection, the irony is the application of reason to reject such things.

Now, where is my arch-nemesis to me inform me that unqualified statements are not categorical in nature despite the obvious interpretation of my statements as such.

 

[follower of Christ]

Reason and logic are perfectly acceptable until they start to infringe on faith in God.

 

[Ret]

my question, are faith and reason mutually exclusive? I would argue, no. Not only do we incorporate both into our everyday lives, but we necessarily need both.

Note: I use faith to mean 'blind' faith within this post, and reason to mean the process of considering things with the aid of logic.

Within the meaning of contrasting 'blind' FAITH to REASON and LOGIC, I would agree with your conclusion! It is true that many people do not know and understand the difference between TRUE spiritual FAITH, and human REASON/LOGIC.

Much confusion, hate and anger results when 'blind' faith is claimed by those who do not understand, do not know there is a difference. This is why Jesus, on the cross prayed, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Even in this, His forgiving them did not stop them from crucifying the Son of God. Hopefully some of them repented as they were given to see and understand true FAITH!

 

[radorth]

I see arguments all the time suggesting faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I can only conclude these people live in a strange alternate world. You have the religious crowd who rejects reason because it conflicts with their faith. You have the non-religious crowd who rejects faith because it conflicts with their reason. What I have always found strange is that each group is employing the very element they claim to hate. The religious who reject reason because it conflicts with their faith use reason to do so. The non-religious who reject faith because it conflicts with their reason are reasoning based on principles established by faith.

So, my question, are faith and reason mutually exclusive? I would argue, no. Not only do we incorporate both into our everyday lives, but we necessarily need both.

Note: I use faith to mean 'blind' faith within this post, and reason to mean the process of considering things with the aid of logic.

Good points. No these are not incompatible, for all truth is reconcilable. Christians should be afraid of nothing. It is just that we see through a glass so darkly. We have recently been treated to the sight of scientists becoming more and more confused by the complexity of the universe, forced to admit there are other universes which may be created by human decisions. Far out, yes, but then the Christian mystics would not be in the least surprised to hear of universes right nest to ours. When Jesus simply disappeared on occasion, where did he go? I suspect he could move from one dimension to another at will, at least after the resurrection.

Believing scientists have no problem with anything which is proved. God created the "kinds" and these evolved into a zillion sub-species. He doubtless gave them the ability to adapt or they would all be extinct, and only the Christian reactionary would have a problem with that. This theory actually explains the problems Darwin himself pointed out- i.e. that for his classic theory to hold up, an infinite number of intermediates would be found. That never happened. in fact, they cannot find a convincing link between Neanderthal and modern humans, which is why they keep desperately searching for one.

I long ago learned I could use skeptics' own logic and hypocrisy to defeat their own arguments. That is because "logic" is in the mind of the beholder. One who is observant of their arguments will find they contradict each other over and over. It amuses me how they find fault with Christians, for it is a logical fallacy to blame the leader for the percieved faults of the led. Am I a patriot because I say I am? Of course not.

 

[sheshisown]

Minnesota~

How about using scripture that speaks of reason to see if your theory pans out?

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

Here, God Himself is calling His created humanity to come and reason this out. It therefore must be logical that;

1) The sins of humanity are evident to all, even though many say they do not sin, or are at least "washed clean" by their good deeds.

2) That all sin stains or marks the human being commiting them in such a way as to damage them personally... IE. Who desires to wear a bright red stain around all day on their clothing? Though God is likely speaking of the soul not clothes.

3) That the damage is doubly horrible because it is repeated with repeated sins. IE Scarlet at first and crimson after.

4) That the fact that there is a way to be clean of this damaging stain is also evident to all humanity.



Do you have any other scriptures that we could use to reasonably dicern a person "coming to faith" as a reasoning process?

The area where this reasoning breaks down completely is at the moment of conversion, when the human heart is created new. Suddenly thoughts, ideals, and desires, never before entertained become an integral part of the person. Suddenly the world is seen in a new light as well. Good and evil become divided and clear to view, though increasingly. No reasoning is required for this experience, only trust in God and His word.

bonnie

 

[radorth]

An excellent post bonnie

 

[radorth]

Some "reasons" to believe:

1. The NT parables are at least as great as Shakespeare's and contain more insight into the human condition than his. How did fidherman write these?

2. People with greater reasoning powers than most skeptics came to believe.

3. G.K. Chesterton said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting- it just hasn't been tried fro the most part. it sounds silly until you think about it. We've had New Testaments available to all for a mere 200 years, and in some places not at all.

4. The blood is the only means to justly save one and all. it is the one answer to our need for unconditinal love and God's demand for righteousness we don't have. It is, intellectually speaking, absolutely brilliant.

 

[sheshisown]

Marvelous reasons to find our faith securely placed in Christ alone... :D

Thanks Radorth...

bonnie

 

[Free]

There are numerous verses and passages showing that reason and faith go hand-in-hand, including the following:

Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Act 9:22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.

Act 10:36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all),
Act 10:37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed:
Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,
Act 10:40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
Act 10:41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.
Act 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;

 

[Silver Bullet]

The non-religious who reject faith because it conflicts with their reason are reasoning based on principles established by faith.

I would like to get involved in the discussion, but I need you to help me understand what principles I, as a 'non-religious', establish by blind faith and which I base my reasoning upon.

SB

 

[sheshisown]

Yousa!

Excellent resourses from the word Free! Thanks! i have copied and added these for future references. :D

bonnie

 

[Cornelius]

Allow me to then take the opposite view.

Does this follow reason?

Luk 6:38 give, and it shall be given unto you;

Does reason not say: Work, sell and you shall receive? Can you go to a reasonable man , say your bank manager ans say: "Sir, if you give to me, your will receive" LOL

Here is another one. How reasonable is this: Mat 16:25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.

 

[Guest]

I would like to get involved in the discussion, but I need you to help me understand what principles I, as a 'non-religious', establish by blind faith and which I base my reasoning upon.

Well, for starters, most raised within Western thought assume their own existence and first principles (e.g., law of non-contradiction, identity, and the excluded middle).

 

[sheshisown]

Hey Cornelius~

I think you have given us some great scriptures that require BOTH faith and reason... :D

This sermon is often referred to as the "Agenda of God’s Kingdom." It does not deal with salvation so much, but lays out for the follower of Christ and the possible follower how having Jesus as King translates into how we are to live every day.

The portion of scripture you gave us is partial, so if you don’t mind, I include it in context.

"Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

These are principles that exist in an unseen yet literal and even reasonable law laid out by God for mankind to follow. The law of sowing and reaping is the basis of these principals. Let's take them separately, then together.

First, we are to judge not.

Despite the way this passage is quoted by many of those who are not Christians (who seem to have memorized it faithfully), and even by many Christians, Jesus is not calling for a universal acceptance of any lifestyle or teaching by these words.

Jesus says in Luke 6:43-45 in this same message to know people by their fruits, and some sort of assessment is necessary for that. The Christian is called to unconditional love, but we are not called to unconditional approval. We love people who do things we do not approve of…
When Jesus next says~ “condemn not and you will not be condemned†~He is speaking against being judgmental, that is, judging motives and the inner person, which only God can know. :yes This brings us back to Jesus first purpose in principal teaching here… this is the same kind of mercy God has towards us.

Jesus never prohibits judgment. He simply says whatever you dish out to others, expect in return. The Lord’s ideal justice between men is not hypocritical, it does not call others to do what it cannot do. Whatever standard we set for others must be our standard as well.

Forgive and you will be forgiven is all part of the law of sowing and reaping. The Lord gives mercy while we act in mercy, but where we refuse to offer mercy, we will suffer the consequences we make for ourselves in seeking justice for another person who has wronged us, we receive the justice due us.
Giving and receiving is as real and reasonable part of the law of sowing and reaping as any other. Notice the Lord does not set this idea aside as a special issue to be dealt with. When we offer ourselves to others we receive back again, every time. I am certain brother Cornelius, you know the blessing of giving. :D

Even those without faith in God are aware that whatever diligence to study you give, you will receive knowledge in return. Whatever hard work you put into a job you will normally reap rewards of recognition and raises.

When we give to a charity, without seeking a reward… well then~ what ought we to receive who seek nothing in return?

If we give freely we will receive freely, if we give with STRINGS attached, there will be strings attached to what we receive. That is the credit system in a nutshell. :toofunny

None of this is unreasonable, nor teaches us to blindly follow what our Lord has said, in fact He is reasoning with us. He reveals that as we show mercy toward others, refuse to condemn the unknown intentions of others, approve and accept only what is good and discern what is not, give freely the forgiveness and care and goodness you need yourself. Grant these mercies and you will receive these mercies in return. BTW~ this law is active throughout the bible…

Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. Job 4:8

Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for [it is] time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you. Hosea 10:12

Only God can interrupt this law,,, according to His will, as He put it in place for all humanity.
Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil; and sweet wine, but shalt not drink wine. Micah 6:15

And again… He decides how to utilize this law or suspend it, as it belongs to Him.
Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? Luke 12:24

Perhaps we may not always receive these mercies from humanity… but from God certainly. Now here is where faith comes in, when this universal law is suspended~ yet as Christians we KNOW we will still reap. :yes

Let me know what you think gents.

bonnie

 

[Silver Bullet]

I would like to get involved in the discussion, but I need you to help me understand what principles I, as a 'non-religious', establish by blind faith and which I base my reasoning upon.

Well, for starters, most raised within Western thought assume their own existence and first principles (e.g., law of non-contradiction, identity, and the excluded middle).

1. We (the religious and non-religious crowds alike) all assume our existence because it is the only practical thing to do; virtually all of us can agree to this. It seems very reasonable, given our experiences, to make the basic assumption that we exist. It seems to me that those who can't must throw their possibly nonexistent arms up in the air and claim that nothing is knowable! It is perhaps one of the minute amounts of faith that is needed to prime all of our world views, without which, the notion of a world view itself would seem to be absurd.

2. I don't think that the first principles are articles of faith; they are self-evident terms of discourse that we all agree upon, without which discourse would seem to be absurd.

The rationalist strives to avoid blind faith as much as possible, while the religious embrace it in copious amounts when operating in the sphere of their religion. What I mean by this latter comment is that the religious seem to generally employ reason and demand evidence as much as anybody else in all other spheres of their lives. It is generally only or mainly in the sphere of their religion and "faith" that reason and reasonable demands for evidence are so frequently jettisoned. (These comments are general in nature and don't apply to all Christians, and certainly not to you.)

I think that beyond the "primer" described above, which is required to begin the process of learning, reason and faith are indeed mutually exclusive, and define the key difference between the religious and the non-religious.



Best,
SB

PS. I am still working on a response to our other discussion . . .

 

[Drew]

Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.

Not a helpful nor a correct characterization of the content of faith. Perhaps some "religious" people have a "faith" like this, but certainly not the ones I hang with. The problem with taking this line is that it erroneously caricatures and generalizes.

 

[Guest]

We (the religious and non-religious crowds alike) all assume our existence because it is the only practical thing to do; virtually all of us can agree to this. It seems very reasonable, given our experiences, to make the basic assumption that we exist. It seems to me that those who can't must throw their possibly nonexistent arms up in the air and claim that nothing is knowable! It is perhaps one of the minute amounts of faith that is needed to prime all of our world views, without which, the notion of a world view itself would seem to be absurd.

It seems we agree the non-religious adheres to something on the grounds of blind faith, correct?

I don't think that the first principles are articles of faith; they are self-evident terms of discourse that we all agree upon, without which discourse would seem to be absurd.

Self-evident is a term of convenience. However, the convenience matters not because the statement makes two assumptions: (i) first principles are self-evident and (i) first principles are necessary for discourse. These assumptions are flawed because it does not take into consideration Eastern philosophical traditions. Many Eastern philosophies do not make use of the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle. Hence, the principles cannot be assumed as self-evident or necessary for discourse.

The rationalist strives to avoid blind faith as much as possible, while the religious embrace it in copious amounts when operating in the sphere of their religion. What I mean by this latter comment is that the religious seem to generally employ reason and demand evidence as much as anybody else in all other spheres of their lives. It is generally only or mainly in the sphere of their religion and "faith" that reason and reasonable demands for evidence are so frequently jettisoned. (These comments are general in nature and don't apply to all Christians, and certainly not to you.)

We agree about the goals of the rationalist and a good number of the religious.

I think that beyond the "primer" described above, which is required to begin the process of learning, reason and faith are indeed mutually exclusive, and define the key difference between the religious and the non-religious.

I disagree because such an explanation is too simple. It does not account for the complexity which exists.

 

[sheshisown]

Hello gents~

Silver Bullet wrote:

The rationalist strives to avoid blind faith as much as possible, while the religious embrace it in copious amounts when operating in the sphere of their religion. What I mean by this latter comment is that the religious seem to generally employ reason and demand evidence as much as anybody else in all other spheres of their lives. It is generally only or mainly in the sphere of their religion and "faith" that reason and reasonable demands for evidence are so frequently jettisoned. (These comments are general in nature and don't apply to all Christians, and certainly not to you.)

Minnesota commented:
We agree about the goals of the rationalist and a good number of the religious.

May I request more than mere discriptions and conclusions in your discussions? Certainly, if either of you gentlemen are going to confirm even a single one of your multiple conclusions regarding the "religious" you will at least need ONE premise. :crazy Or are you simply posting here to slander those who do not hold your obviously "superior position"? :bigfrown

IF as the thread OP directs... you desire to logically argue for these conclusions you have blatanly made ~ consider this. None of your conclusions can be considered valid, nor even given logical consideration~ without premises. If you refuse to provide evidence and reasons for support, as moderator I will have to remove your empty words. IF as you say, you are ready to reason, do so, or desist. :yes

BTW Silverbullet~ The fact that your comment seeks to defer its intended slander of the mental capacities of those who believe, away from the "few acceptible religious" and asserts your slanderous remarks into a "generalized catagory of the religious" simply reeks of bias ontop of the sad attempt at reason employed in your statement.

sheshisown (forum moderator)