Why 'Rational faith' Is An Oxymoron

[Darwinian]

Depends what you mean by evidence..

[Edwardo Piet]

Something that is indication of the truth of a belief, if it ISN'T - it's not evidence. So to believe anyway without it would be to believe 'on faith'.

EvF

[Darwinian]

At last you agree with me

[Edwardo Piet]

No. Unless YOU'VE changed your mind.

Evidence=a rational reason to believe in the existence of something, a genuine indication of the truth of a belief. If it ISN'T genuine then it's not evidence so to believe anyway would be to believe 'on faith.'


Evidence BEING a rational reason to believe makes ABSENCE of evidence but just going ahead and believing ANYWAY... - an IRrational reason to believe. So belief without evidence is both believing 'on faith' AND irrational. So since "faith" IS belief without evidence (by the definition we're using) and that's IRrational - the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

EvF

[Darwinian]

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol? Wtf?

EvF

[Darwinian]

As Roy Walker would say..

"Say what you see.."

[Edwardo Piet]

Faith is either NO reason to believe, or a BAD reason to believe. And if you have reasons TO 'have faith' then if they're at all valid reasons, if they're NOT BAD reasons - then they'd have to equate to evidence of the truth of the belief; if they didn't they'd be BAD reasons (or 'irrational' or 'invalid'). So rational reasons to have faith BECAUSE they'd equate to evidence IF they're INDEED rational - that would cancel out the faith. Because you cannot have faith with evidence. So the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.

EvF

[Darwinian]

I am going to concede and say that for intent and purposes, you are correct.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok lol hehe.

I could go on forever LOL.

EvF