RE: Why 'Rational faith' Is An Oxymoron
May 24, 2009 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: May 24, 2009 at 4:57 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
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.
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
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
