I started a thread on the resurrection a while back, and it has gone through a various number of topics. Presently we are discussing the ground upon which I claim that I was a former Christian by trying to define faith.
You can see this at:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...58#post1120558

A page back we were discussing how one evaluates the Christian miracle claims, and what role reason has in doing so.

So here's my question.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

Certainly most apologists on this site would say that blind faith without evidence or reasons is unjustified, and I agree.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?

Originally posted by Doubting John

A page back we were discussing how one evaluates the Christian miracle claims, and what role reason has in doing so.

So here's my question.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

They compliment one another with respect to all beliefs. The most firmly held and reasoned beliefs, such as the conviction that there are no one-sided triangles, have the most minimal aspect of faith. On the other side of the coin, firmly held beliefs for which the reasoning provides weak or negligible support have a higher degree of faith involved. Diminishing degrees of faith might also figure in if beliefs of the aforementioned types are not held firmly.

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

In one sense, any degree of skepticism is justified so long as the person exercising the skepticism is consistent.
Further, the rationale for various beliefs ought not involve fallacious reasoning and (inductively) should have a reasonable case toward the best explanation.

Certainly most apologists on this site would say that blind faith without evidence or reasons is unjustified, and I agree.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?

Assessing for contradiction, and testing alternate hypotheses against positions offered as the best explanation.

I won't say that Christianity is competely rational with respect to a naturalistic worldview. But I do think it can be coherent/non-hypocritical, such that it ought not to make critiques of other religions that can be used against itself.

I believe there is a place for reason, but it can only get you so far with some things. My view is that faith undergirds reason.
sm

We are fairly in agrement so far. But....

The relationship of faith to reason is sort of a catch-22 for me. I know that reason cannot figure it all out. Take for instance the existence of God. It’s undeniable that something now exists, without even trying to come to a common understanding of the nature of that which exists, be it spirit, matter, or a combination of both. That means there are basically two choices for us. Either something has always and forever existed, or something popped into existence out of absolutely nothing. Either horn you grab onto presents us with deep problems. On the one hand, how can we understand what it means for something, let’s say God, or the universe for that matter, has always existed without a beginning? Can anyone say they comprehend that? It’s almost absurd.

On the other hand, every attempt to understand how something, let’s say the universe as we know it, or even God for that matter, popped into existence out of absolutely nothing fails. Can anyone say they comprehend that? It’s almost absurd. In fact every scientific attempt I’ve read to describe how our universe began to exist always begins with something—from the “swerving atom” of ancient Greek philosopher Democritus, to Paul Davies’ “cosmic repulsion in a quantum vacuum,” to Stephen Hawking’s “quantum wave fluctuation.” These things are not nothing. According to Mark William Worthing in God Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Fortress Press, 1996): “For a true creation out of nothing there can be no scientific explanation. Any theory explaining how something has come from nothing must assume some preexisting laws or energy or quantum activity in order to have a credible theory. It could be claimed, naturally, that there was nothing and then suddenly there was, without apparent physical cause or ground, something. But this would be more a statement of philosophical or theological belief than a genuine scientific theory.” (p. 105).

So with regard to God’s existence reason cannot help us. It really can’t. So the bottom line is that I simply don’t know how we got here. But when pushed to make a choice between the options I must start with faith. St. Anselm taught us that our “faith seeks understanding.” We believe in order to understand. We must start somewhere, and the place to start is with faith, or as I like to say it, we begin with a set of presuppositions that we construct into a worldview, and seek to test them for consistency and to see whether they explain what we experience.

The catch-22 here—damned if I do, damned if I don’t—is that if I start with reason I get nowhere, but if I start with faith, and I must, the question becomes this: what if I start out by believing the wrong set of things? There are several belief systems to choose from along with many “in house” arguments between those who share the same world-view. But the curious thing to me is that every worldview has some major anomalies intrinsic to it. That is to say, I see some major problems with most every worldview position. But the curious thing to me is that people are usually born into their faith, whether Muslims and Jews in Palestine, Catholics in Mexico, Buddhists in Asia.

In addition to this, many of these worldviews are circular in nature, that is to say, the premises they believe support each other and vice versa. The question these thinkers must continually ponder is whether their arguments are viciously circular, or just circular. So the catch-22 is that beginning with reason gets us nowhere, but faith can get it wrong and lead us into wrong circular thinking.

Originally posted by Doubting John

So with regard to God’s existence reason cannot help us. It really can’t.

That doesn't follow, and I'll explain it as we go.

So the bottom line is that I simply don’t know how we got here. But when pushed to make a choice between the options I must start with faith.

Faith in what?

St. Anselm taught us that our “faith seeks understanding.” We believe in order to understand. We must start somewhere, and the place to start is with faith, or as I like to say it, we begin with a set of presuppositions that we construct into a worldview, and seek to test them for consistency and to see whether they explain what we experience.

And how is that not "reason"?

The catch-22 here—damned if I do, damned if I don’t—is that if I start with reason I get nowhere, but if I start with faith, and I must, the question becomes this: what if I start out by believing the wrong set of things?

If you reason correctly then you get either a consistent and incorrect view, or a consistent and partially correct view, or possibly a correct view outright.
So what's the problem?

There are several belief systems to choose from along with many “in house” arguments between those who share the same world-view. But the curious thing to me is that every worldview has some major anomalies intrinsic to it. That is to say, I see some major problems with most every worldview position. But the curious thing to me is that people are usually born into their faith, whether Muslims and Jews in Palestine, Catholics in Mexico, Buddhists in Asia.

Right, and the majority apparently don't bother to use reason to assess their own worldview, so I have to wonder why you'd bring it up in this context.

In addition to this, many of these worldviews are circular in nature, that is to say, the premises they believe support each other and vice versa. The question these thinkers must continually ponder is whether their arguments are viciously circular, or just circular. So the catch-22 is that beginning with reason gets us nowhere, but faith can get it wrong and lead us into wrong circular thinking.

I shared a thread with John Powell on circular reasoning that you might perhaps find illuminating on this issue. The vicious circle is not fallacious because of it's illustration of the property of identity, but because it is an enthymeme that under the surface offers the property of identity as a reason to believe that selfsame proposition.
If you can find a worldview that suffers that problem, then by all means point it out as a fallacy. Otherwise, don't worry about it.

Originally posted by Doubting John

So here's my question.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

I have faith that I am a reasonable person.

For me the relationship of faith and reason, though infinitely practical to me, is too subjective to be of much use to you.

I am a Christian now. Prior to my conversion I could never say with such certainty that I was a reasonable or even a rational person. I was so preoccupied with the emptiness of not knowing: is there a God, is there a Savior, is there a Satan, what happens when we die, what is the point of being born, living a life of quiet desperation/pain/despair as so many do, just to die. Period. Etc. etc. etc. - the usual 'angst' was in me magnified ten-fold. There was no meaning to existence, and the fact that there was no meaning made no logical sense to me. Why would I have such a yearning for 'something more' if nothing more existed?

I find incredible intellectual satisfaction in having all the questions that were driving me crazy answered so completely since I met Christ. NOW everything makes more sense. I have no fear of the unknown, but take joy in meeting uncertainty head-on, knowing my God delights in imparting truth to those who would seek it earnestly. My God IS truth, and He never changes.

Originally posted by Doubting John

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

It depends how you understand the terms.

People want to try to make faith and reason opposites, but that is clearly impossible.

After all, reason itself is intimately dependent on axioms that cannot be derived from reason. They simply must be assumed to be true.

Reason without axioms is worthless, and axioms must be assumed to be true, you must have "faith" (in the modern sense) to even start to use reason.

Reason cannot even get you as far as knowledge of an external world. You take its existence on "blind faith".

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

The same degree of skepticism that should be applied to any historical claim.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?

If the claims are contray to reason then there is a problem.

But miracles are not contray to reason, nor is the existence of God.

Jason

F

R

A

E

I

A

T

S

H

O

N

Originally posted by Minnesota

F

R

A

E

I

A

T

S

H

O

N

And I suppose that we'll have to accept that analysis on faith, since there is no reason given in support.

Originally posted by Minnesota

F

R

A

E

I

A

T

S

H

O

N

I wonder how Minn reasoned his way into believing that an external world exists and that he is not just talking to figments of his own imagination ?

Or perhaps he is simply insane and likes talking to figments of his own imagination.

Jason

Originally posted by Doubting John

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

Skepticism that does not rule out miracles and such a priori is justified.

So with regard to God’s existence reason cannot help us. It really can’t. So the bottom line is that I simply don’t know how we got here. But when pushed to make a choice between the options I must start with faith. St. Anselm taught us that our “faith seeks understanding.” We believe in order to understand. We must start somewhere, and the place to start is with faith, or as I like to say it, we begin with a set of presuppositions that we construct into a worldview, and seek to test them for consistency and to see whether they explain what we experience.

You almost sound like a Presuppostionalist here, but I'll let those who know that camp better than I discuss that.

Originally posted by Captain Ochre

And I suppose that we'll have to accept that analysis on faith, since there is no reason given in support.

Yes. And the sooner the better.

Originally posted by Jason

I wonder how Minn reasoned his way into believing that an external world exists and that he is not just talking to figments of his own imagination ?

There are some things in life that need neither faith nor reason to accept, and to suppose the external world is not one of them, as you do, is a bit simple minded.

Originally posted by Minnesota

Yes. And the sooner the better.





There are some things in life that need neither faith nor reason to accept, and to suppose the external world is not one of them, as you do, is a bit simple minded.

What a blowhard.

Originally posted by Minnesota

There are some things in life that need neither faith nor reason to accept, and to suppose the external world is not one of them, as you do, is a bit simple minded.

I'm not sure this even makes sense.

What in life don't you take on faith at some level ?

Clearly you simply assume the existence of the external world.

Or perhaps you are insane. It is kind of hard to tell at times.

Jason

Originally posted by Capt Ochre

Originally posted by Minn

Yes. And the sooner the better.

What a blowhard.

That's what I get for kidding with someone devoid of a sense of humor. Lesson learned.

I'm not sure this even makes sense.

It does, but I understand why you're having trouble with it. My suggestion is to let it pass and go on to something easier.

Hi, gang:

I think the Oxford English Dictionary can shed some light on this.

faith, n.

b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

1551 T. WILSON, The rule of reason, conteinyng the arte of logique 1551 (1580) 60b, An historicall faithe. As I doe beleve that Willyam Conquerour was kyng of Englande.

a1628 JOHN PRESTON, The breast-plate of faith and love
(1630) 15 Faith is..assenting to Truthes for the Authority of the Speaker.

1725 ISAAC WATTS, Logick: or the right use of reason in the enquiry after truth 1725 ii. §9 When we derive the Evidence of any Proposition from the Testimony of others, it is called the Evidence of Faith.