(September 16, 2020 at 8:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: Like your apriori assumptions that all faith is unreasonable? It’s clear you feel reason and faith are clearly two separate things. Why are they mutually exclusive? Why does your definition of faith not have a check and balance system? Why couldn’t reason be the very mechanism by which faith can correct itself, thus having a reasonable faith? The answer is found in your biases that religious faith has to be irrational to support your claims.
Language, at best, is a cipher.
You seem to imply there is some overlap between faith and reason, and that they can influence one another. I'm unconvinced there is. I think that they, in effect, each offer two disparate ways of explaining phenomena, e.g. during thunderstorms it is Zeus throwing lightning bolts as an explanation, compared to one that tries to levy facts about the phenomena (when there are thunderstorms, what conditions are required for thunder, weather patterns, etc.) and try to model that phenomena with whatever knowledge we have about it, which I think is an actual explanation.
Which camp do you think faith is in? (not necessarily the example I gave above).
I think faith and reason are incompatible. If someone applied reason to make correction to their faith, they wouldn't have faith to begin with. They might use the word 'faith' for explaining phenomena, when they actually used their ability to reason to explain their 'faith' first, mental compartmentalization notwithstanding.
At the end of the day, it's about which explanation works and makes us better in understanding reality and our surroundings. While some seem to think that faith is above all that. Again, what does faith do, which is reason (might) not do?
---
Why do you think there are so many god hypotheses abound in human history? They can't all be correct, especially for those that contradict each other.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman