Is faith consistent with reason?

[dunstable]

Religious faith and reason are uncorrelated. Imagine a 2-dimensional plot with religious faith on one axis and reason on the other.

 

I think the difficulty in discussing "faith" and "reason" is that there are so many definitions for these two terms.

 

When I started the thread, I was thinking of faith as a belief that is held without regard to evidence. I was thinking of reason as a rational basis for belief, rational in turn meaning based on evidence. And by evidence, I meant information that is publicly available and verifiable.

 

FnB states that "religious faith and reason are uncorrelated" and says to think of it as a 2-dimensional plot. I would go further and say that faith and reason are negatively correlated, because faith is strongest when it goes in the face of reason. Maybe the axes of the graph should not be faith (y-axis) and reason (x-axis) but strength of belief (y-axis) and weight of evidence (x-axis). A perfect positive correlation on the latter graph would represent belief based on reason, a perfect negative correlation would represent belief based on faith, and intermediate correlations would represent belief based on a mixture of reason and faith. Thanks FnB for the great idea of a graph as a way of clarifying thinking!

 

It follows from the above line of thought that faith is more likely than not to lead to wrong conclusions and undesirable or dangerous courses of action.

[NoIDidn't]

I think the difficulty in discussing "faith" and "reason" is that there are so many definitions for these two terms.

 

When I started the thread, I was thinking of faith as a belief that is held without regard to evidence. I was thinking of reason as a rational basis for belief, rational in turn meaning based on evidence. And by evidence, I meant information that is publicly available and verifiable.

 

FnB states that "religious faith and reason are uncorrelated" and says to think of it as a 2-dimensional plot. I would go further and say that faith and reason are negatively correlated, because faith is strongest when it goes in the face of reason. Maybe the axes of the graph should not be faith (y-axis) and reason (x-axis) but strength of belief (y-axis) and weight of evidence (x-axis). A perfect positive correlation on the latter graph would represent belief based on reason, a perfect negative correlation would represent belief based on faith, and intermediate correlations would represent belief based on a mixture of reason and faith. Thanks FnB for the great idea of a graph as a way of clarifying thinking!

 

It follows from the above line of thought that faith is more likely than not to lead to wrong conclusions and undesirable or dangerous courses of action.

 

While I don't agree with the conclusion at the bottom of the quote entirely, I do agree with the bolded.

 

It is at those most difficult times that we religious believers really do rely on faith more than reason. All those sayings about "night is darkest just before the dawn" or "believe half of what you see", apply then. You are so right that when the evidence points in the negative direction, faith tends to go in the positive direction (sometimes, not all the time). That's a great observation.

 

Regarding your final conclusion, I don't agree entirely because it depends on *who* is in the situation. If you are dealing with the generally uneducated but religious, yeah, I can agree a little more with you. But if the believers aren't likely to have faith and not doing anything constructive as well, the outcome doesn't have to end up dangerous, so to speak. But I do get your point.

[FleshNBones]

When I started the thread, I was thinking of faith as a belief that is held without regard to evidence. I was thinking of reason as a rational basis for belief, rational in turn meaning based on evidence. And by evidence, I meant information that is publicly available and verifiable.

Evidence you have never seen and have never touched. You place all of your faith into the people who collected it. You believe they have "mountains of evidence".

FnB states that "religious faith and reason are uncorrelated" and says to think of it as a 2-dimensional plot. I would go further and say that faith and reason are negatively correlated, because faith is strongest when it goes in the face of reason. Maybe the axes of the graph should not be faith (y-axis) and reason (x-axis) but strength of belief (y-axis) and weight of evidence (x-axis). A perfect positive correlation on the latter graph would represent belief based on reason, a perfect negative correlation would represent belief based on faith, and intermediate correlations would represent belief based on a mixture of reason and faith. Thanks FnB for the great idea of a graph as a way of clarifying thinking!

It would be a line if they were correlated.

 

Prejudice is something independent of faith, and irrational at the same time. It is usally based on emotions like fear and anger.

It follows from the above line of thought that faith is more likely than not to lead to wrong conclusions and undesirable or dangerous courses of action.

I suppose the logical course of action would be to segregate the faithful. Since their judgment is impaired, we wouldn't need their consent when it comes to treatment.

[FleshNBones]

Mr dunstable, I'll say it outright. You are trying to support your argument with a prejudice.

[dunstable]

Evidence you have never seen and have never touched. You place all of your faith into the people who collected it. You believe they have "mountains of evidence".

You seem to be saying that reasoned beliefs are a matter of faith because no one can personally read all the evidence. I disagree because one can read enough of the evidence to form a conclusion.

 

I suppose the logical course of action would be to segregate the faithful. Since their judgment is impaired, we wouldn't need their consent when it comes to treatment.

I think faith-based belief (in the sense I have defined it) is indeed associated with impaired judgment. Even the religious faithful act rationally in accordance with the weight of evidence on many matters -- but for some reason there is one area of their lives where they suspend rational thought. Suspension of rational thought can lead to tragic consequences as exemplified by the Neumanns in Wisconsin who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to treat her with anything other than prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kara_Neumann_case).

 

I don't agree with your tongue-in-cheek suggestion that we lock up all the faithful. Everyone has a right to their individual beliefs. However, where individual belief leads directly to harm to others (as in the Neumann case), sanctions may be appropriate.

[FleshNBones]

I think faith-based belief (in the sense I have defined it) is indeed associated with impaired judgment. Even the religious faithful act rationally in accordance with the weight of evidence on many matters -- but for some reason there is one area of their lives where they suspend rational thought. Suspension of rational thought can lead to tragic consequences as exemplified by the Neumanns in Wisconsin who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to treat her with anything other than prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kara_Neumann_case).

Prejudice is illogical no matter how you phrase it.

You have nothing to support you argument.

[dunstable]

Prejudice is illogical no matter how you phrase it.

You have nothing to support you argument.

To which one of my several arguments do you refer when you say it has nothing to support it? Why do you call me prejudiced? Prejudiced against what?

[FleshNBones]

To which one of my several arguments do you refer when you say it has nothing to support it? Why do you call me prejudiced? Prejudiced against what?

New Yorkers are sleazy people.

Only trashy people live in trailers.

 

Maybe you don't see it because prejudice against Christianity in particular is perfectly acceptable. But it is still illogical no matter how you phrase it.

[dunstable]

Maybe you don't see it because prejudice against Christianity in particular is perfectly acceptable. But it is still illogical no matter how you phrase it.

You didn't answer my question about which of my arguments lacked support in your opinion. You also did not answer why you think I am prejudiced. You did clarify that you think I am prejudiced against Christianity. Prejudice means holding a view without sufficient grounds or knowledge or an irrational attitude of hostility. I've tried to set out the reasons for my views - if you think they are lacking in knowledge or are irrational (therefore prejudiced), why don't you point out where? This is supposed to be a forum for discussion not exchange of insults!

[disgracian]

You're wasting your time, dunstable. FNB will just pick at you with vague accusations and ad homs and never back it up. It's all he does around here.

 

Cheers,

D.

[dunstable]

FNB will just pick at you with vague accusations and ad homs and never back it up. It's all he does around here.

I agree, D. I'm going to ignore any further posts from him that contain personal attacks.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

I think there is a correlation between faith and reason. But it's not linear, positive or negative. Using the previously mentioned 2-D axis where y (vertical) is faith and x (horizontal) is reason they're inversely correlated. The more fanatical in faith someone is the less reasonable they are. Most people, religuous or not, are balanced in both.

[dunstable]

I think there is a correlation between faith and reason. But it's not linear' date=' positive or negative. Using the previously mentioned 2-D axis where y (vertical) is faith and x (horizontal) is reason they're inversely correlated. The more fanatical in faith someone is the less reasonable they are. Most people, religuous or not, are balanced in both.[/quote']

I agree with that but I'd like to take it a step further. Since extreme faith ("fanatical in faith" as you put it) equates to extreme unreasonableness, this is not a good thing - it's what leads to fatwahs, jihads, religious-based terrorism, etc. But many religious people think the stronger the faith, the more virtuous the person. I think the paradox is resolved by realizing that the three major religions are not primarily about ethics but about obedience to doctrine.

[FleshNBones]

You didn't answer my question about which of my arguments lacked support in your opinion. You also did not answer why you think I am prejudiced. You did clarify that you think I am prejudiced against Christianity. Prejudice means holding a view without sufficient grounds or knowledge or an irrational attitude of hostility. I've tried to set out the reasons for my views - if you think they are lacking in knowledge or are irrational (therefore prejudiced), why don't you point out where? This is supposed to be a forum for discussion not exchange of insults!

I think my time would be better spent trying to convince racist black people that they are racist. You think that by defining it as religious-faith that you can somehow disassociate it from people. Religious-faith does not exist in a vacuum.

 

Religious-faith is not a disease. It defines them, and is very much a part of their identity. It defines people even more than skin color. When you are saying that religious-faith makes people irrational, you are calling a group of people irrational.

 

What you are putting out is a prejudice, and it is so acceptable that people are coming out of the woodwork in support, and there is so little opposition. I really don't care if you have that prejudice, but I don't accept calling it rational or even logical.

[dunstable]

When you are saying that religious-faith makes people irrational, you are calling a group of people irrational.

Perhaps you would tell me whether you think the Neumanns in Wisconsin, who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to treat her with anything other than prayer, were rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kara_Neumann_case)?

[nittygritty]

Perhaps you would tell me whether you think the Neumanns in Wisconsin, who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to treat her with anything other than prayer, were rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kara_Neumann_case)?

 

I think that's a good example of faith without reason.

 

What about the difference that having faith in the belief of recovery from a terminal illness versus not having faith in the belief of recovery? Two patients diagnosed with the same stage of terminal illness receive the same type of medical treatment. Both patients were diagnosed with having less than 5 years to live but one patient lives 15 more years and the other patient dies 6 months after diagnosis. Did faith in the belief of recovery result in different outcomes when the diagnosis was unreasonable?

[FleshNBones]

Perhaps you would tell me whether you think the Neumanns in Wisconsin, who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to treat her with anything other than prayer, were rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kara_Neumann_case)?

That case is so far removed from the norm that it isn't even funny. I bet most of the people in that hospital were Christian, and were recieving treatment.

 

I recognize religious fanatics for what they are, and that is fanatics. I don't need to defend them any more than the 911 hijackers. You may not see a difference between pope Benedict and Bin Laden, but I sure do. The pope is a man of intellect, and deep faith. I can't be certain if Bin Laden uses religion as a guise for his own ambitions, but there is no denying the damage he has done.

[dunstable]

That case is so far removed from the norm that it isn't even funny.

You say the Neumann case is far removed from the norm. Yes, it is, but what removes it from the norm was the Neumanns' extreme degree of faith. Essentially, they did nothing different to Abraham when he was prepared to sacrifice his son in obedience to religious doctrine. Was Abraham right and the Neumanns wrong? I think Abraham was wrong and the Neumanns were wrong. I think this substantiates my earlier point that reliance on faith can lead to wrong decisions and tragic consequences.

[dunstable]

What about the difference that having faith in the belief of recovery from a terminal illness versus not having faith in the belief of recovery? Two patients diagnosed with the same stage of terminal illness receive the same type of medical treatment. Both patients were diagnosed with having less than 5 years to live but one patient lives 15 more years and the other patient dies 6 months after diagnosis. Did faith in the belief of recovery result in different outcomes when the diagnosis was unreasonable?

Very interesting question. I think you are asking whether beliefs can have a physiological effect that produces healing. It sounds plausible to me but I don't know of any scientific studies. I know a lot of research has been done on the "placebo effect", which is not exactly the same phenomenon but closely related. A placebo is an intervention that has no direct physiological effect on the condition. A paper in the the New England Journal of Medicine in 2001 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/21/1594 reviewed a large number of earlier studies on the placebo effect. I find the NEJM article somewhat inconclusive -- it seems to show that there is NO powerful placebo effect but does not appear to rule out some minor benefits in certain circumstances. So this is an issue I feel I still do not fully understand. But I do feel that some illnesses are so deadly that no amount of positive thinking would help. I hope you are not suggesting that little Kara Neumann could have cured her condition had her beliefs been stronger? I did read somewhere that her parents believe she died because THEIR faith was not strong enough -- if this is true, they still don't get it that she died because she had a treatable condition and they didn't call the doctor!

 

You included the qualification "when the diagnosis was unreasonable" in your final sentence. But how do we know whether the diagnosis was unreasonable except with hindsight based on the outcome for the patient? There is maybe a danger of circular reasoning here?

[dunstable]

You may not see a difference between pope Benedict and Bin Laden, but I sure do. The pope is a man of intellect, and deep faith. I can't be certain if Bin Laden uses religion as a guise for his own ambitions, but there is no denying the damage he has done.

I have not passed any comment on Pope Benedict or Bin Laden. Why try to put words in my mouth? Though now you mention it, how do you know the Pope is not using religion as a guise for his own ambitions?

[wuggle]

The pope is a man of intellect, and deep faith. I can't be certain if Bin Laden uses religion as a guise for his own ambitions, but there is no denying the damage he has done.

 

Now who's being prejudiced.

 

Keep it on topic, faith and reason, not who's done more damage, a totally different discussion. This is stupid and will just end up getting the thread stopped.

[NoIDidn't]

You say the Neumann case is far removed from the norm. Yes, it is, but what removes it from the norm was the Neumanns' extreme degree of faith. Essentially, they did nothing different to Abraham when he was prepared to sacrifice his son in obedience to religious doctrine. Was Abraham right and the Neumanns wrong? I think Abraham was wrong and the Neumanns were wrong. I think this substantiates my earlier point that reliance on faith can lead to wrong decisions and tragic consequences.

 

The Neumann's didn't have extreme faith. They were extremely stubborn and ignorant of the things they could very well have done to help their daughter live with diabetes.

 

You have the story wrong about Abraham as well. He didn't have religious doctrine. If you take the story at face value (whether you believe it to be fact or myth), he was told by God not doctrine. Religious doctrine is what caused Muslims and Jews to stone people for adultery. Whether one believes the story or not, the difference is the mode of communication.

 

I would think, though, that reasonable, rational religious people would apply the lesson behind the story to their lives, not the actual actions in the story.

[FleshNBones]

You say the Neumann case is far removed from the norm. Yes, it is, but what removes it from the norm was the Neumanns' extreme degree of faith.

Do you think the Neumanns had more faith than Pope Benedict or Mother Theresa?

[disgracian]

They probably had more faith than Mother Theresa.

 

"Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true." - Mother Theresa

 

Cheers,

D.

[Enema]

This is slightly off-topic but is a very interesting video Christopher Hitchens did about Mother Teresa. Is 3 parts.