First time having this thought? 
1 Like
Isn’t faith in general in conflict with reason? Faith is believing without any supporting tangible evidence, while reason requires such.
No - as in the examples above - Faith can never be in conflict with reason.
Another example -
You get in an elevator - you have faith that the elevator will not crash and take you with it. You don’t know that, it is not a fact. But you have been in a lot of elevators, you may have heard stories of elevator crashes - but not often. It is reasonable to believe the elevator won’t crash and you get in.
That is an act of faith, that your accept as true and act accordingly.
Harder one - for some. You believe there is some higher being. This is not a fact, but there are good reasonable arguments both for and against theism, you chose to believe the arguments for theism and you believe it to be true and act accordingly.
I could just as easily have made the exact same case for atheism.
Now one in the other direction. I have faith that I can run a 6 min mile today. I know I can. I have never run anything better than a 7 min mile, and that was 30 years ago. The last time I tried I ran a 10 min mile. But I have faith I can do it. That is not an example of faith, it is in conflict with reason. You can say you believe it to be true and act accordingly, but that is just being willfully ignorant.
1 Like
I don’t think your elevator example is really a demonstration of faith. Because you have an actual reason to believe your elevator won’t crash. You have been in an elevator hundreds of times and know that a crash is unlikely. You have documented examples based on prior experience of all the times you have been in an elevator and nothing bad happened. You know that a chance of the cable snapping and you falling to your death is probably small. It’s possible, but unlikely. I wouldn’t ever say to myself “I have faith this elevator won’t kill me today”. I would simply expect it not to fail because it happens so rarely. To, me that’s more of an action based on prior experience and elevator failure statistics rather than a leap of faith.
The way I think of faith is when it is used to justify belief in something based on something with no tangible evidence or good reason to believe so. It’s particularly used when justifying the belief in the supernatural.
For example, if you are a Christian and believe that Mary had an immaculate conception, or a Muslim and believe that the Prophet Muhammad took a trip to heaven aboard a winged pony named Buraq, those would be acts of faith. They are entirely supernatural occurrences which don’t obey the natural laws of physics or biology. There is no evidence to believe in them other than the words of people who lived thousands of years ago or based off some personal experience an individual may have had with an “heavenly entity”.
Perhaps you and I just have different definitions of faith. I am not really interested in getting into a debate about religion, I just enjoy the friendly philosophical banter.
The assumption that an elevator will not crash is not faith. It is a conclusion based on statistical evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.
There is no case to be made for atheism. Atheism is not based on a belief. It is lack of belief without evidence.
agree - your argument above, along with LeeShore - is an argument of degree not of substance. Of course it takes little “faith” to enter the elevator, becuse the amount of “reasonablness” of the act is so great.
By contrast - virgin birth takes a much larger degree of faith, because there is much less reasonableness to it - but there are resonable arguments for these types of beliefs - mostly no-seeum and skeptical theism arguments.
Again these are not a change of substance - just degree
for lee - a belief that something does not exist, is still a belief .
For all us sea philosophers with an hour to kill – this is well done
I have faith that you’ll eventually see the error of your ways but I don’t believe you will.
1 Like
that’s reasonable !!
In the words of Ambrose Bierce in the Devil’s Dictionary:
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Ambrose Bierce was an American writer. “The Devil’s Dictionary was begun in a weekly paper in 1881, and was continued in a desultory way and at long intervals until 1906.”
“Apologize” and “Koran” are also favorites of mine.
1 Like
You’re conflating different definitions of the word “faith”. The way you used it here is not the same as faith in a religious sense.
was never meant to use it exclusively in a religious sense - one can have faith in many things
The way I presented it here - in relation to “flat earth” stuff - was to share a world view on the ways humans can belief something is “true” and act accordingly.
The point being - one can not believe in a flat earth - other than being ignorant or insane - because if you think you are believing it because of faith, that is in direct conflict with both fact and reason.
Guess the bigger point is, you just can’t decide to believe anything you want, and call it faith.
But you can if you have absolute beliefs that contradicts the laws of nature or written history. Flat Earther don’t call it faith. But they have absolute beliefs in their cause.
It is a religion. Have a sit down with one minus the judgement or the need to interrupt and correct with facts. You’ll see fanaticism without the violence.
So there is nothing in my views above that prohibit someone to believe something by faith that contradicts laws of nature or history. Yet in can not be in conflict with reason or fact.
Many struggle with the concept that there are reasonable arguments for many things that are outside the laws of nature. “Science” for lack of a better word, is often elevated to a religion by many, and therefore many have difficulty with a concept that some things may be possible that science does not explain.
This is just a form of human hubris - basically saying we humans have the ability to understand everything - and even if we don’t understand it now - we will at some point. The concept of skeptical theism basically addresses this.
Now what it does not allow you to do is contradict what is factual or reasoned natural law, with out valid arguments - and call it “faith”
So in the flat earth case it would go something like this:
“the earth is flat, because I chose to believe that by faith”
Yea but we have been up there in a space ship and have looked down and it is round - do you have an argument against that?
“yea - that is all fake - staged - a plot”
Yea but we also have telescopes that look at the other planets, and they are all round - why is ours the flat one? Do you have an argument against that ?
Yea - same plot - fake telescopes
Ok thanks you are an idiot or crazy
2 Likes
…and you could send a Flat Earthers to the moon to see Earth as a round glob. They will see a flat disk.
They are no different than the beliefs of other religions. It is what they believe. Look at Scientology. Do you believe they are really idiots or crazy.
Like I said before. Put down the Judgement stick and harsh criticism and just have a conversation with a Flat Earther. Listen. Learn. They are normal people with a belief system that contradicts your beliefs. If you can’t get past the "idiot and crazy’ line of reasoning and learn from it…no one will be disappointed.
Checks notes , Yes. Yes I do.
Calling Scientology a legitimate religion is a major stretch if you ask me.
I guess I understand your want for inclusiveness and interest in hearing a flat earther out, but to give it any regard or legitimate interest is foolish to me. This “religion” is egregious anti-intellectualism. I want no part of it.
they are very different things
I can give you all kinds of reasonble arguments for theism. There is no reasonable argument for “flat earth”
So - if I was in a social situation with a flat earther - I would of course be polite - and I am sure I would many things about them quiet nice. Then I would shake hands and say good by -
And think to myself as I was walking away F’in A that guy was an idiot or crazy.
2 Likes
I’d classify flat earthers as people who find comfort in fantasies, like the people who believe they can make up their own genders and that males can be “birthing persons” because they say so. Also people who wear animal costumes and hump each other at conventions.
Idiot or crazy - are technical terms here - as the sole remaining options !!
I could substitute ignorant or insane to be a touch more PC -