That's why I'm going to agree with you

Lol

EvF

Great topic post EvF...

Another example would be UFO's...

People having some type of faith, without evidence. But then again, that "Evidence" truly lies in the mind/eyes of the believer.

I, of course, have never seen a UFO, and honestly cannot say that they have ever visited our planet at any time (BCE/CE). However, I "Can Believe" that somewhere out there is life on another planet. Intelligent or non.

Would you describe that as "Faith" and if so would it be an irrational faith?

IF the estimated probability that it is more likely than UNlikely that alien life lives out there somewhere is VALID because there IS life out there then that estimated probability would IOW equate to evidence. And that itself would be a rational belief and evidence-based.

If the estimated probability that it is more likely than UNlikely that alien life lives out there somewhere is INvalid because there ISN'T life out there then that estimated probability would NOT equate to evidence because it would be incorrect because there ISN'T life out there. So the reasoning, the estimated probability would be irrational because it would be INvalid and it would not equate to evidence so it would be faith-based.
So that itself would be an IRrational belief and faith-based - IOW you would be believing 'on faith'.

It is rational to believe in something with evidence. It is NOT rational to believe WITHOUT it - hence the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

EvF

I do agree with that to some extent. So I guess the question for you would be; would someone believing that Alien life (Intelligent or non) exists being more of a logical reasoning? Mostly because of our "Current" technology in showing just how truly small we are in comparison to our solar surroundings. And especially with what we know about what life needs to be in place or survive.

And if that would still be an irrational faith, instead of logically thinking from what we know today through our research, would the person putting their reasoning in that, we are not alone, be irrational for doing so???

IF alien life DOES exist then that logical thinking would be valid and IOW would be evidence. That would be rational and evidence-based.

If alien life DOESN'T exist then that logical thinking WOULDN'T be logical, it would be ILlogical, it wouldn't be valid, it wouldn't be evidence so therefore the belief would be 'on faith' rather than evidence-based.

That would be IRrational and 'on faith'.

So once again, faith would be irrational not rational. If the belief was rational then the belief would have some form of evidence supporting it - the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron...PROVIDING you define faith as MERELY 'belief without evidence'.

EvF

Again, I understand and agree with you to some extent. However, logical thinking would have to play some type of part in certain examples of "Faith", and I personally do not think that when any type true logic is involved that it is 100% irrational.

Keep in mind, I stated "Certain Examples".....

Would Abiogenesis (Origins of Life) be considered "irrational" to you? From the Evidence we have today, and what we already know to be true, this at least shows it to be a good model for more discoveries, but we still do not know it to be 100% true. However, because of logic and the pieces of evidence combined, I put my faith in it. I do not see that being "Irrational" ..... I guess you could say because of logic and evidence combined it would only be "half-irrational"....lolol

I believe the Big Bang to be true because of logic and Evidence combined, but again, the Origins for the scales we have put in place are not 100%, but I put my Faith in that they are because of "Logical Thinking"..... I do not see how that is completely irrational.

It applies to ANY belief. It's as simple as this: If a belief has evidence to support it then that's a valid reason to believe. If it doesn't then it isn't.

You see, regardless of if you think the person in question is logical or rational or not it all comes down to if their reasons are actually valid or not. If they ARE valid reasons then they are evidence because evidence is the only valid (and hence, rational) reason to believe in something. Because if it's a valid reason to believe then it would have to be evidence, otherwise you are believing irrationally and 'on faith.'

Since faith is without evidence and evidence is THE valid reason(s) to believe in something: faith=irrational so the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

Because we're not talking about whether a PERSON can be rational the way he or she 'thinks' when he or she believes 'on faith'...we are talking about whether FAITH ITSELF can be rational - and since faith by definition simply=belief without evidence, then it cannot be rational. Because belief without evidence is not rational AT LEAST in and of itself.

Samson Wrote:I believe the Big Bang to be true because of logic and Evidence combined, but again, the Origins for the scales we have put in place are not 100%, but I put my Faith in that they are because of "Logical Thinking"..... I do not see how that is completely irrational.

In this example it indeed ISN'T irrational. But that's because also - IT ISN'T FAITH! You could say it is maybe TRUST because you trust the evidence. But assuming that of course there IS 'logic and Evidence combined' as you say - to support the big bang...assuming that: You don't have faith!! Because if there's evidence, there can't be faith! By the definition I am and have been using.

EvF

I guess a better way for me to put it would be, it is only human to have irrational thoughts/faith/etc. Part of our current ways of logic and understanding up to this point in our history has been a mixture of irrationality and rational faith at some point or another. (Please know, I'm not using the term "Faith" in regards to Religion on my examples)...

True evidence has helped us get closer to the bottom line facts of something, but there are times when a logical faith was in place first that got us to the evidence that only sealed the deal in making it a fact. I do not believe that faith in the beginning to be a bad thing.........Just so as long as the truth was found in the end......

I'm not talking about USING evidence...I'm talking if there IS evidence...

If there IS evidence to support a belief whether we KNOW if there is or NOT...if there IS - then that is a rational reason to believe. And any valid reasons to believe that a belief IS actually TRUE - IOW ARE evidence.

If on the otherhand...there ISN'T evidence to support a belief....to believe anyway would be to believe 'on faith' therefore by the definition of faith that I am using. And to believe 'on faith' is therefore irrational because that means without evidence and without evidence must mean there IS NO evidence which means there is no valid reason to believe....because a valid reason to believe WOULD BE evidence.

EvF