Reasoning faith

[Thomas]

It seems to me that the assumption that faith is exempt from critical reasoning is a false assumption, although it may well be one's experience ... if that is so, then that is unfortunate, but it is an individual experience, not necessarily the rule.

Aquinas' famous 'Five Proofs of God' are founded on an Aristotelian reasoning of empirical data — the result is highly indicative, but not, of course, conclusive.

What is sometimes overlooked, however, is that although inconclusive, the original hypothesis has not been refuted, so the 'proofs' withstand hard critical cross-examination. Both Aristotle and Aquinas were aware of the fact that the object of enquiry, an acting Divine Presence, lies beyond empirical proof (being beyond empirial measure) but the proofs themselves argue strongly in an inescapable direction ... the foundation of the science of ontology.

Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, albeit backed by a significant and seemingly inarguable body of supporting evidence. It's a technicality that we have never observed one species evolving into another under the conditions necessary to declare it a fact.
But two questions occur:
1 - why do some scientists hold a reserve with the regard to the embrace of all its implications?
2 - if questioned, how many of us are informed enough to assert that we have done more than simply accept this finding on faith?

The world turns on faith — as recent economic ripples in the US demonstrate, once man becomes uncertain, it is a crisis of faith that can bring about the collapse of system that was capable of withstanding the initial shock if all the players hold their nerve.

And I have experienced that shock, of certain asssumptions of faith being undone, but have rested on the knowledge that others I respect have survived it. And so far I have ... a 'set back' indeed, but if one chases the flaw to its root, it can be repaired.

Covering up the cracks in 'Blind Faith' leaves one skating on thin ice.

+++

So whilst the object of faith empirically and therefore inescapably lies beyond the reach of the pure reasoning capacity (else it would itself be a question of reason and not faith), what has been established is that a strong body of evidence points in the direction that faith should enquire ... the same operation of faith that drives science to look for black holes or a cure for a common ailment.

Informed faith points reason in the direction of an answer.

We would do ourselves, as a species, a great disservice if we ruled out faith founded on reason as a direction of endeavour — even moreso indeed, when sometimes the greatest scientific endeavours are founded on no more than a 'gut instinct' or a 'hunch', and again we would be unwise to write off the specifically religious instinct in man as the worthless residue of a superstitious and non-scientific phenomenology.

The 'trick' of course is to start at the begining. Work with what you can and do find reasonable and ask why others are prepared to reason that which you find unreasonable ... being mindful that one is not omniscient. As a Catholic and neophyte theologian I usually get asked the million dollar question, with the assumption that the answer will sit comfortably in mid-air because there's no foundation to rest the answer on.

+++

That you can't see it might not prove it is not there.

And the prior assumption that it's not there is often the foundation of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thomas

[wil]

Am I wrong to find this similar to the discussion regarding religion vs. cult?

ie it is a religion if you are a member. It is always the other guys that are cultish.

That one can stand on their holy ground and with their holy scriptures and prove how they've spent the time and effort intellectually and that they aren't simply taking things on faith. That there is no missing link. But then they look to the Buddhist, or the Hindu, or the Taoist, or the Theosophist, or the Christian, or the....or the.... and say yeah, but you've got some loopholes there, it just doesn't make sense like mine does.

ie are those that agree with you(the perverbial you, not you Thomas) the only ones that have reasoning faith?

[bob x]

It's a technicality that we have never observed one species evolving into another under the conditions necessary to declare it a fact

No, it's a falsehood. Speciation events have been observed dozens of times, both in the wild and artificially-induced.

[bob x]

Aquinas' famous 'Five Proofs of God' are founded on an Aristotelian reasoning of empirical data

This is also a falsehood. Aquinas does not argue from anything empirical, but rather the a priori assumption that infinite sequences cannot occur.

[wil]

Originally Posted by bob x

No, it's a falsehood. Speciation events have been observed dozens of times, both in the wild and artificially-induced.

I think we went over this before, but small changes in birds, or various breeds of dogs is not what he is referring to, but what we are looking for is the big change from one family of animals to another and how it gets from here to there. Don't get me wrong, I am not a creationist, simply not buying the big missing link holes in evolution lock, stock and barrel.

[bob x]

But his CLAIM was that a change from one "species" to another "species" has not been observed, which is false. If he meant that an abrupt single leap from a species of one class to a species of a different class has never been observed: well of course such a thing has not been seen, because that would not be evolution, rather it would be miraculous creation, and miraculous creation is never observed. A long chain of species in which the species at the beginning are of one class while the species at the end are in the other, with no possible way of sharply delimiting the borderline between the classes, now that has been observed also.

[wil]

Originally Posted by bob x

But his CLAIM was that a change from one "species" to another "species" has not been observed, which is false. If he meant that an abrupt single leap from a species of one class to a species of a different class has never been observed: well of course such a thing has not been seen, because that would not be evolution, rather it would be miraculous creation, and miraculous creation is never observed. A long chain of species in which the species at the beginning are of one class while the species at the end are in the other, with no possible way of sharply delimiting the borderline between the classes, now that has been observed also.

WE should move this over to any of the evolution discussions. We aren't looking for any single leap, but if you can show us getting from elephant to horse or the formation of an eyeball...lets discuss it...without derailing this thread.

[Paladin]

I tend to agree with BobX, Aquinas' reasoning is wonderful except that at the conclusion he reasons there must be "a" being behind it all labeling this being "God" That last bit is the leap of faith.

[Paladin]

You know, on further thought, it occurs to me that this might be a good example of what Wilber labels the Pre/Trans fallacy. If reason itself can be trancended we could imagine a means of understanding beyond syllogism. That would mean of course that we would have to leave our ideas about Divine Being behind in favor of a greater understanding. The idea that there is not "A" being, but simply Being comes to mind.

[bob x]

WE should move this over to any of the evolution discussions

I didn't know there were creation/evolution threads here. I generally find them tedious: creationists don't know the biological evidence, and don't want to be bothered to look.

if you can show us getting from elephant to horse or the formation of an eyeball...

Sigh... of course there is no evolution from elephant to horse. Rather, both evolved from earlier elephants and horses which generally (with some back and forth) get smaller as you go back in time, and bit by bit do not possess the distinctive traits (earlier horses have more toes on their feet, and a less elongated snout; earlier elephants not being so large did not have such pillar-like legs, nor such elongated noses or front teeth) until we come back to early ungulates among which proto-horses and proto-elephants would appear pretty much indistinguishable to a non-specialist. Horse fossils we had plenty of even 130 years ago when the sequence of horses was made one of the classic examples of what evolutionary development looks like; and now we have many many more, with all kinds of minute gradations and interesting side-branches; elephant fossils are of course are fewer, because they have never been so populous.
The eye, likewise, is a CLASSIC example (from Darwin's original book, no less!) of readily-seen intermediate stages. We find everything from light-sensitive pigments used for energy capture rather than sensation (even in bacteria) through pigments gathered in eyespots to crudely detect light from dark (in some protozoa) through eyespots at the bottom of pits so as to react only to light from a particular direction (in the lowliest of flatworms) through eyes where the pits are covered with a translucent cover for protection which also refracts the light when bent, to eyes with lenses. We would like to see intermediate stages in more detail, of course: but the major developments were in late Precambrian and early Cambrian times, and such old periods are not richly preserved; and soft body-parts are very rarely preserved in fossils of any age.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I really enjoyed reading the OP, Thomas. I'm a great believer in reason.

It seems to me that reason, real reason, sits on a fragile perch. It is neither self born nor self contained, but rather a floating standard for measuring the veracity of prevailing hypotheses in the absence of absolute definitives. Reasoning is a process of extrapolating clues about the unknown from what is observable in the known. The standard for what is reasonable, in one sense, lies in the assumed reliability of the methods employed rather than the truth or untruth of the answer revealed. Reasoning can be seen to be an intellectual process of best guessing what can be assumed to be reliable based on knowledge and general principles to be sure, but it also has a lot to do with the interior vetting process whereby a person decides which methods and sources to trust. Trust is the main issue since absolutely everyone relies upon outside sources of information and informed opinion. I don't have the time to go dig up the ancient pots myself so I subscribe to a peer reviewed archeology journal. My "knowledge" of the current state of archeology, should I need to use it in some personal reasoning activity comes from that and other sources that I consider reliable. The subjective reasonableness of any position I take which relies on that information, as far as I'm concerned, is derived not from the truth or falsity of the facts, which I'll never actually know anyway, but from my evaluation of the source based on whatever it is that made me trust it.

When we trust something we sometimes refer to it as "authoritative". Trust establishes authority. We vest authority, in people, institutions, and ideas that we trust. They should speak for us, intellectualize for us, conclude for us, discover for us, keep the peace for us, lead us, and do all the other things we don't have the time or inclination to do, or that just simply can't be done by one person or generation. So, now, if we equate this trust I'm talking about with faith, the question of whether reason and faith are mutually exclusive becomes silly. Faith is an integral component of reason. But faith is also a substitute for personal effort. We have faith in things we don't want to actually go to the effort of verifying personally. We have faith in people who do things we don't want to do- like processing mountains of tedious research, or spending years and years on an expensive education. We have faith in institutions and brands, faith in political ideologies or Parties. We have faith in theories and doctrines, theologies and mythologies. We have faith in stuff we saw in movies or on T.V. when we were kids that just sort of blurred into our consciousness. All of that faith stands in for actual knowledge and experience that we lack. But we can't admit that by ourselves we might be inconsequential. We must have worth. We must own our place and our dignity. We must be up on things; be able to render an opinion on the news of the day. But we can't on our own. We're too lazy or we just don't have time. We need pre-packaged information and opinions from those we trust to do the work for us. We need them to buttress our sense of worth.

The emotional need to feel that one has value in the trans personal sense sets up the need for faith, which plays directly into the mechanics of the perception of established authority. That's where all the trouble starts, right there at the conjunction of emotion, faith, and authority. If anything starts to wobble and get out of whack the compensation factors look like the original branches on the trunk of the tree of psychological disorders.

Chris

[cyberpi]

There is a soul and there is flesh. Faith is in a soul which can see and can evoke change. Anything else is merely a blind hope... a blind faith. You can place trust in the computer, a machine, or the flesh, but it is nothing but hope. The computer, the machine, or the flesh will NOT trust you back. It will only obey if you make it obey. If or when you fully see the inside of the computer, machine, or flesh... is the hope or trust in it dead? There will be a day when the computer, machine, and flesh will fail.

Leaps of faith? The only leap of faith is when a soul asks you to leap and you choose to obey. Or you ask another soul to leap for you, and believe they will. Anything else is flesh training and blind hope.

Does a computer, machine, or flesh reason? Does a computer, machine, or flesh place faith in you? No, so why try to place faith or trust in it? The soul can evoke reasoning and the soul can evoke and make faith. Give the pearls to a soul. Any trust in the deterministic computer, machine, or flesh is blind faith... it is gambling. Blind, lonely, gambling. If the computer tells you to leap, will you leap? If the machine says jump will you obey it?

[Thomas]

Hi Chris —

And I thoroughly enjoyed your reply ... still thinking about it, in fact, lots to chew on.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

... That's where all the trouble starts, right there at the conjunction of emotion, faith, and authority ...

And some! A truer word was never spake ... spoke ... spoken ... spooked ... whatever, it's a great insight, and I shall make great use of it, if I may!

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi BobX

Originally Posted by bob x

This is also a falsehood. Aquinas does not argue from anything empirical, but rather the a priori assumption that infinite sequences cannot occur.

Think you've got it wrong there, BobX — all five are based on empirical observation, and the observation argues against the idea of infinite sequences. The 9th century Kalaam argument also argues against such a possibility.

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

These certainly do not prove the Christian God, nor do they prove God, but they are sound arguments, based on empirical data.

Thomas

[Paladin]

When we trust something we sometimes refer to it as "authoritative". Trust establishes authority. We vest authority, in people, institutions, and ideas that we trust. They should speak for us, intellectualize for us, conclude for us, discover for us, keep the peace for us, lead us, and do all the other things we don't have the time or inclination to do, or that just simply can't be done by one person or generation. So, now, if we equate this trust I'm talking about with faith, the question of whether reason and faith are mutually exclusive becomes silly. Faith is an integral component of reason.

I'm sorry Chris, but nothing in your argument leads me to think this is true