Why 'Rational faith' Is An Oxymoron

[Darwinian]

As I tried to show in the OP - if you actually DO have VALID rational reasons TO believe something then that IOW WOULD count as evidence of the truth of it.

No it wouldn't, it would just strengthen your faith that your assertion is correct based on previous experience.

It is still a rational stance to take as the only alternative is to have to personally validate every claim ever made to you.

The statement that I have faith in my daughter doing her homework is quite rational based on my previous experience with her.



You may say that my previous experience somehow counts as evidence but of course that would never stand up to scientific scrutiny and therefore cannot be counted as evidence. I must therefore rely on a belief that she is telling the truth, i.e. Faith.

However, if I were to state that I have faith that one of her friends had done her homework but have nothing to support my belief that that may be considered irrational. But rational faith is still not, in itself, an oxymoron.

[Edwardo Piet]

As I tried to show in the OP - if you actually DO have VALID rational reasons TO believe something then that IOW WOULD count as evidence of the truth of it.

No it wouldn't, it would just strengthen your faith that your assertion is correct based on previous experience.

IF the reasons ARE valid then that would mean they WOULD be correct so she must be telling the truth therefore they WOULD indeed be evidence of her trustworthiness (AT LEAST in THIS case), right?

It is still a rational stance to take as the only alternative is to have to personally validate every claim ever made to you.

I am being hypothetical here. IF the reasons ARE valid then they are rational (and you cannot possibly KNOW but IF they are) and it would IOW be evidence of her being truthful. IF the reasons AREN'T valid then they'd be irrational and they IOW would NOT be evidence of her being truthful. In the first case we have rationality and IOW evidence of her being truthful in the second case we have IRrationality and no evidence of her being truthful so IOW "faith".

Yes you cannot KNOW WHICH case it is. That's just speculation. But the point is in both cases - one is belief without evidence and irrational, the other is belief WITH evidence and rational.

The statement that I have faith in my daughter doing her homework is quite rational based on my previous experience with her.

Well 'having faith in' or 'trust' here is not the kind of faith I was talking about...because as you know I am talking of the definition of faith being BELIEF without evidence..

So whether or not you can 'know' that she is doing her homework or whether you 'think' or 'trust' that is rationally based is not concerned with what I am saying here...

What I AM saying is that there is one of two cases: 1. She IS doing her homework. 2. She ISN'T doing her homework.

IF she is doing her homework and your reasons ARE rational then your reasons for trusting her are VALID to that and hence IOW are EVIDENCE that she is doing it.

So that would be rational and the reasoning, because in that case valid - would IOW be evidence that she is doing her homework.

If she is NOT doing her homework then your reasons for trusting her must be INvalid and hence irrational and hence IOW they can't possibly remotely be evidence that she is doing it so hence you must be believing on "faith."

So that would be IRrational and the reasoning, because in that case INvalid - would IOW NOT be evidence that she is doing her homework so would also be Irrational.

Hence irrational faith - not rational faith.

You may say that my previous experience somehow counts as evidence but of course that would never stand up to scientific scrutiny and therefore cannot be counted as evidence. I must therefore rely on a belief that she is telling the truth, i.e. Faith.

Hypothetically speaking though. If she IS doing her homework and your reasoning and previous experience IS valid and reason to believe that she IS doing her homework, it's rational - and that IOW WOULD be evidence that she is (otherwise they wouldn't be valid reasons). So that would be rational and there would be evidence.

IF on the other hand she ISN'T doing her homework then your reasoning and previous experience ISN'T valid and reason to believe that she is doing her homework it's IRrational - and that IOW WOULDN'T be evidence that she is. So that would be IRational and faith.

Hence irrational faith. Not rational once again if it's faith.

However, if I were to state that I have faith that one of her friends had done her homework but have nothing to support my belief that that may be considered irrational.

If you have nothing to support your belief then IOW you don't have any rational, valid reasons to believe your friend. So in other words you don't have evidence so it's faith and obviously also irrational.

Yes - it would be irrational if you had nothing to support your belief...but if you have nothing to support a belief IOW that means you don't have evidence. So that="Faith." So not having support for a belief is irrational as you said and also =Faith. By what you just said.

But rational faith is still not, in itself, an oxymoron.

I think it IS for reasons stated above. Because belief in something when there's no evidence for it whatsoever= irrational. And that is what faith is - so that's why rational faith is an oxymoron.

EvF

[Darwinian]

This all boils down to your definition of faith and evidence.

I suppose I am being pedantic and basically I understand and agree with what you say but whenever anyone makes a definate statement I always try to examine it from every angle.

I have a friend who is always making statements like "There is NO God." And, of course that is like a red rag to a bull and I have to argue with him.

Anyway, my point here is that you can have faith in something, i.e. a belief that it is true, without having to have absolute evidence. This in itself is not irrational as long as the 'something' can be demonstrated to be true at a later date. i.e. I can always check up to see if she has indeed done her homework.

Basically I have faith that the evidence exists.

Told you I was being picky...

Also, when you write IOW I always think this..

[Edwardo Piet]

Well there either is evidence or there isn't. If there is then your belief isn't faith and it's rational. If there isn't then it IS faith and is also irrational (because it's irrational to believe in something without evidence).

You say you have faith that the evidence exists. But using the definition we are using here that means: You have belief without evidence that the evidence exists...well - you believe that the evidence exists...I wouldn't say that's belief without evidence in evidence...that's nonsensical - you don't need evidence for evidence itself!

TRUST in evidence maybe...BELIEF in it....but not FAITH in it! Belief without evidence in evidence is nonsensical because if you believe in evidence then you cannot have belief without evidence IN it because you DO believe in evidence lol...

Seems like a void there lol.

Oh? And YOU being picky? I don't mind lol! I kind of need a taste of my own medicine LOL.

EvF

[Darwinian]

I'm off for a little lie down now...

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol

EvF

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok, here's a very BASIC way to put it: Faith is belief without evidence - and that's irrational. So the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

It's also in my sig now for the time being at least.

EvF

[Darwinian]

---

No it isn't...

---

[Giff]

Ok, here's a very BASIC way to put it: Faith is belief without evidence - and that's irrational. So the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

Totally agree!

But some say that faith is nothing that can be proven that it should be seen in the same way you see a painting. That it can be interputated in many ways.

That statement is pretty much a way to try to hang on to a belief, to make up excuses and reasons for it's existence. When some religious people reason like that, is their religion dying. They may think that reinvent relgions will make it survive but instead does it causes people to think more which leads to atheism and such. Which is a good thing!

[Edwardo Piet]

---

No it isn't...

---

WHEN faith is defined as belief without evidence - then 'rational faith' MUST be an oxymoron because belief without evidence is irrational.

EvF