Why 'Rational faith' Is An Oxymoron

[Samson]

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

Very well put and understood......

This is my fault, I believe I was misinterpreting your breakdowns before...The one I quoted you on here, you went into a bit more detail on...Thank you for that....

The logic of faith I was speaking of would be to where something in the beginning gave "Reason" and a continued faith would be because of that beginning logic of reason and of course the faith someone put into it would be justified rationally in the end through evidence....

Thanks for your patience...... I may be a Chemist, but sometimes even typing it out on paper can get a bit hard......lolol.... Old age is kicking in.....

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol np. You understand where I'm coming from now then?

I'm wondering now then: IF faith is defined the way I said then - 'belief without evidence' - do you agree with my conclusion that because of this the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron then? Or do you simply understand my point of view but don't necessarily agree with it/

EvF

[Samson]

That is truly a hard one, because on one hand, I agree 100% with your definition...Why?? Because it makes since and is logical when broken down....

On the other hand, I see separations of circumstances that can take place merely on a "Beginning faith" that can be labeled irrational through your definition of faith, but when broken down, there was actually a logical reasoning behind the faith which took on more of a rational idea.......

I guess in other words, "A Grey Area" of Faith.......lol

[Edwardo Piet]

The rational reasoning is separate to the "faith" tho by MY definition. Because faith being defined SIMPLY AS 'belief without evidence' has nothing to do with reasoning. It is simply believing without evidence which is irrational.

If a belief is true and your reasons are valid then they're evidence - and that's rational.

If a belief ISN'T true then your reasons must be INvalid because you are believing despite the fact the belief isn't true - so the reasons can't be evidence, so you are believing 'on faith' - and that's IRrational.

Hence 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

EvF

[Samson]

If a belief ISN'T true then your reasons must be INvalid because you are believing despite the fact the belief isn't true - so the reasons can't be evidence, so you are believing 'on faith' - and that's IRrational.

I agree, now I have a question for this part..

To say it's true or not would require evidence, but before evidence can be made, there is a "beginning type reasonable/logical faith" that would carry a person in the direction of proving that type of faith in gathering evidence to support it....The beginning idea is what I have a problem with in defining it as irrational, for the simple reason of saying that at that point, this person is being irrational to some extent, when in actuality he/she is simply still researching to prove it....

Now if it's found out to be false, then yes, if they keep that faith even though it's been proven to be incorrect, that would truly be an irrational faith that a person is keeping with.....

[Edwardo Piet]

If a person is unsure of if his 'reasoning/faith' (as you put it) that is irrelevant to if faith can be rational or not in the sense that I am defining it...

Because the point is not whether his REASONING is rational or if he can really 'trust the evidence' if he can have 'faith in the evidence'...the point I am making is if FAITH ITSELF is rational or not...

And faith being defined simply as 'belief without evidence' is not rational. Because IF a belief DOESN'T have evidence then it IOW doesn't have valid reasons to believe. Because if there WERE valid reasons to believe then that would count as evidence (because that's what evidence IS - something that gives credence to the truth of a belief).

So no evidence=no valid reason=irrational. And since belief without evidence not only=irrational but also=faith because that's EXACTLY what faith IS; belief without evidence - the term 'rational faith' is therefore an oxymoron by THAT definition of faith that I am using.

EvF

[Samson]

I do agree with that definition and break down.

I believe you are speaking in whole of the defined term "Faith" being irrational without any type of pure 100% truth/evidence, (Or at least some type of logical evidence) where is I am looking at different circumstances after the fact or lack there of......

On a side note, I do believe that everyone has a little bit of "Unintentional Irrationality" (Faith) to them depending on the topic or situation at hand. I guess that's what I have been speaking of since the beginning of this conversation.

It's the point of, even though I agree 100% with your breakdown, I have that nasty word "Irrational" being put out there in terms that I myself and the rest of humanity is at one point or another in their life....Irrational.....AKA....(Human)..

I, as well as many others, do not like to think of themselves as being "Irrational", but yes the truth is, no one is perfect..........

[Edwardo Piet]

We are all irrational to SOME extent at all times I say, and I say to MORE of an extent at SOME times at least.

We are all ignorant about many many things. There is a lot more UNKNOWN than known, a lot more TO know than is already known. We may be 'higher apes' but we're still evolved apes - there is a lot of irrationality in all of us IMO. Even the smartest of us.

We can't always spot it, but if you're ignorant and irrational then it's harder to spot it!

Yes some of us (at least) can be more rational and knowledgeable. But there is of course irrationality and ignorance in all of us to some extent. It's not all black and white - in fact I'd say it's a vast spectrum of rationality/irrationality and ignorance/knowledgeableness.

But faith itself, defined as 'belief without evidence', as I have shown and you say you agree, by that definition - is irrational.

'Rational faith' is an oxymoron.

EvF

[Samson]

Yes I do agree......

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok

EvF