Reason as a Product of Faith
Created | Updated Sep 15, 2007
To take the term 'faith' in its common usage, I'll rely on the definition provided here by Olmy, an atheist user of the religion MBs. I believe it's pretty uncontroversial and readily acceptable;
<quote>The whole concept of 'faith' is to believe something without evidence (or even despite evidence).</quote>
As for reason, I am referring to the practical application of logic in its inductive form. The basis of scientific method, the movement from an extensive but finite number of observations to a general rule.
Many seem to criticise religion on the grounds it is based on faith. Theological beliefs are arrived at without dependence on evidence and reasoning. Yet what is the basis of our belief in reason itself? Why believe in it's accuracy, or its predictive capabilities? Can these beliefs be evidenced, or are they something we believe without evidence?
It seems non-sensical to challenge the power of inductive reasoning. We are so familiar with its usage in every aspect of our lives, and have been for the entirety of our lives, to the extent that we are largely unconscious of our implementation of it. And when we read books concerning the history of philosophy, or science, we see it being employed by the sharpest minds throughout history. Nonetheless, despite so many examples of its implementation, this is still a finite sample. From this sample we draw a general conclusion; inductive reason is a good guide to the nature of reality, it is usually accurate, and those occasions where it does not seem so could perhaps have been predicted better had we been aware of more variables. These conclusions, the ones that justify our usage of reason, are in fact the product of inductive reasoning itself.
We believe in inductive reasoning because this is the conclusion presented to us by inductive reasoning. We believe in God, because (through the Holy Scripture) of God. We wouldn't accept the second of those sentences, atheists would be clamouring to emphasise the circular logic being employed, we can't accept God on the basis of reason in this way, the choice is to either ditch that belief, or accept His existence on faith. But it is a direct parallel of the opening sentence of this paragraph. The ultimatum must be the same, disregard belief in inductive reason, or understand it is a belief accepted on the basis of faith. The former would seem impossible, and so we are left with the conclusion we all posses this faith, that is so integral to every aspect of our lives.
Ménalque
<quote>The whole concept of 'faith' is to believe something without evidence (or even despite evidence).</quote>
As for reason, I am referring to the practical application of logic in its inductive form. The basis of scientific method, the movement from an extensive but finite number of observations to a general rule.
Many seem to criticise religion on the grounds it is based on faith. Theological beliefs are arrived at without dependence on evidence and reasoning. Yet what is the basis of our belief in reason itself? Why believe in it's accuracy, or its predictive capabilities? Can these beliefs be evidenced, or are they something we believe without evidence?
It seems non-sensical to challenge the power of inductive reasoning. We are so familiar with its usage in every aspect of our lives, and have been for the entirety of our lives, to the extent that we are largely unconscious of our implementation of it. And when we read books concerning the history of philosophy, or science, we see it being employed by the sharpest minds throughout history. Nonetheless, despite so many examples of its implementation, this is still a finite sample. From this sample we draw a general conclusion; inductive reason is a good guide to the nature of reality, it is usually accurate, and those occasions where it does not seem so could perhaps have been predicted better had we been aware of more variables. These conclusions, the ones that justify our usage of reason, are in fact the product of inductive reasoning itself.
We believe in inductive reasoning because this is the conclusion presented to us by inductive reasoning. We believe in God, because (through the Holy Scripture) of God. We wouldn't accept the second of those sentences, atheists would be clamouring to emphasise the circular logic being employed, we can't accept God on the basis of reason in this way, the choice is to either ditch that belief, or accept His existence on faith. But it is a direct parallel of the opening sentence of this paragraph. The ultimatum must be the same, disregard belief in inductive reason, or understand it is a belief accepted on the basis of faith. The former would seem impossible, and so we are left with the conclusion we all posses this faith, that is so integral to every aspect of our lives.
Ménalque
