Is the critical tension between Faith and Reason ultimately epistemological in its core?
543854
Well, faith can be derived through an authoritarian or a rational approach....although one understands that it starts out as one and moves to the other.  One can use reason to butress faith (as many religions do).  \n\nAgain, one must juggle the semantics of the question.  What does one mean by "reason"?  If one accepts that a person who reasons would use an empirical approach to gaining all knoweledge, then there is a conflict between the two terms based on epistemology.\n\nIn my opinion, the conflict between faith and reason lies entirely in the fact that faith requires a man to forgoe reason and rely on dogma.  This prevents a human being from using all of his/her senses to find out for themselves.  So, in short...the answer is yes, although with reservation as I also believe that reason is used with faith-based systems as well.
1056801
I have problems with "faith".  Faith is essentially asking you to believe something that defies logic, science, reason, experience.  This is the one hook that the church must have in order to keep the good believers believing.\n\nOtherwise, if people started thinking and questioning the dogma of their church and the very existence of God and the truth about Jesus, then they might stray away from the Church.\n\nWithout faith, then people may have to start thinking for themselves and develop their own spiritual path without being told what and how to do it.
4716
Logic, scientific thinking and the fact that religion causes more pain in the world (war, terrorism, violence) than anything else.\n\nFaith is one thing. Religion is another. Faith results in comfort and trust. Religion causes discomfort and mistrust.\n\nMy own quote on this - "Religion is a superstition of the masses!"
462850
Yes... I mean no....I mean, I don't know.  Questioning one's own belief system is essential to spiritual growth and evolution.  All the ones that answered "no" so quickly are the one's that, in my mind, need to get a reality check.  Don't be so sure!  Take a look around, there are more questions than answers and there are more opinions around the globe than we can count.  So, be okay to question your faith and the very existence of "god".  You may come back full circle, or you may not.  But at least you can say that you've looked outside the narrow little box that most people live in.\n\nI'm sure that if god exists and assuming that god gave you a logical mind to work with, god wouldn't mind if you questioned and explored those issues.  I haven't seen anybody struck down to a pillar of salt lately!  So free your mind, go exploring!
815436
Well, there are two cases to consider. The first is the one you spoke of, when they already believe theirs is the right choice. The second is the case of genuine curiosity, wanting to know what fundamental truths support which argument. In the first case, it could be to try to convert others or simply to reassure onesself that the justifications for other faiths are invalid (although this is from a biased perspective). In the second case, asking a question like this would hopefully bring out strong arguments from many sides. It's interesting to weigh these points against one another.
101382
If you mean faith as in religion then I guess the negative answers so far are pretty much on target. But even in purely scientific endeavours we are forced to have a certain kind of "faith." Ultimately we assume axioms - we cannot prove them.\n\nThe edge science has is that it can predict results, and those results can be reproduced. Even then, many choose not to believe in science or its method.
631971
St. Thomas Aquinas said: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule...if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as a dogma what scientific scrutiny show to be false.\n\nAQUINAS CAME UP WITH 5 PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:\n\nRead St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of Gods' existence in the Great Books of the Western World that can be found in the reference section of any descent library. In short God was not created. Here is an abbreviated version of what Aquinas wrote:\n\n1. Whatever is moved (subsequent mover) is moved by another. (One of Newton's laws of motion) But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other.\n\n2. CAUSE AND EFFECT OR EFFICIENT CAUSE: There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible... Now, to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everone gives the name of God.\n\n3. POSSIBILITY & NECESSITY OR TO BE OR NOT TO BE: ...if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiveing it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God!\n\n4. GRADATION TO BE FOUND IN THINGS: see reference\n\n5. GOVERNANCE OF THINGS: We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end NOT BY CHANCE BUT BY DESIGN. Now whetever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. [NOTE: This means that inanimate objects (earth, wind, fire etc.) in nature are directed by angels] Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.
885857
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
627471
I like to THINK that I am rational, at least sometimes ;-)\n\nQuestioning faith is essential, it's only by doing so that you can keep a track on what you believe and to ensure that it can stand up to scrutiny.  To quote Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool".  Later Feynman goes on to say how a scientist should be seen to be almost bending over backwards to be proven wrong, and in doing so their work will stand with a special type of integrity.  I think that this is the yardstick which Christians should use for their apologetics.\n\nSadly this standard is not lived up to (and I hold up my hands here as being as guilty as anyone) by some of the Christians on this forum.  \n\nEqually sadly, I get the impression that most of those with questions about Christianity aren't really interested in any answers, apart from those which confirm their prejudices.  Also it can get a bit wearing to have your intelligence and rationality questioned by someone who can't string a sentence together.
922123
Faithfreedom\n\ngoogle it
722668
It's not so much the religions as it is the politics of the religion. Having faith is just having a belief - it's the religious DOGMA (telling you how to live, etc.) thay causes the problems. Why everyone wants to think that everyone else should believe in their particular brand of faith is beyond me. Why can't we all just get along. Different strokes for different folks, is what I say.
797136
I like the spirit of your philosophy, but as to the exact wording, it seems backwards to me. Try this: We don't know how, but faith allows us to know that everything is going to work out, somehow. Faith is a way of knowing, we can not know everything, but we can understand almost everything if we know the subject matter. More and more facts are coming to light for us everyday that we live if we live in faith, with one small exception. Death always catches us flatfooted. Unless, we are very old and or very wise and courious, and ready to find out.
555940
Faith is not logical.
1135752
Bertrand Russell  and G.E Moore posed a similar issue many years ago when one of them suggested something like the following: Suppose you were created 5 minutes ago, complete with memories.  How would you prove what was real?\nThis has, of course, given way to many explanations and many theories of epistemology.  How do we know anything at all? Is it handed out by a great and powerful God or did matter just gel together and create mankind?\nI cannot pretend to be able to answer the question but I will suggest food for thought; in any human endeavor, we believe in something first and discover its efficacy later.  That is, we think we see something before our eyes, say as a child, and then we figure out how to reach out and grab it.  In this way, babies discover that they can reach their rattles and blankets and Mommy, but they cannot reach the window, the sky or the ceiling fan.  As adults, we learn to use the keyboard by pressing buttons and testing the results.  However if you wish to suggest that there might not be any keyboards in existence, I would give you a funny look and ask what you meant.\nHence I am suggesting that your question is turned upside down:  we do, in fact, each of us, believe that matter exists and has existed for some time.  While some believe in God as the prime cause, others believe in some sort of eternal material goo which somehow, and somewhat embarrassingly, developed a spiritual nature that ended up as mankind.  In both cases, what gives us comfort in our lives often leads us to our conclusions about beginnings rather than the reverse.\nLastly, when we are angry with the actions of others, we usually take it out on ourselves.  As Montaigne suggested, more blood has been spilled in the name of God than by any other cause.  Frankly, I don't see how we could blame God for that any more than we can blame him for not giving us the answers we demand.  I think His purpose might have been to teach us how ridiculous we are when we act in an immoral way, but judging by the present state of things, perhaps that isn't working all that well.  The state of the world today is better explained by the primoridial goo theory and the spirit of human beings? Maybe it's just a terminal case of a bad design flaw.  Of course it could just be bad personal behavior and unending greed, but lots of people would have trouble with an absolute morality.  By this time, maybe God does too!\nThink of this, the next time you get the urge to wonder about something: an atheist is, by definition, someone who denies the existence of something which doesn't exist.
518363
Having faith and just having knowledge.
780234
Your question cannot be answered.\n\nReason and faith are unrelated.  More, they are unrelatable.\n\nIt is a confusion of terms to consider the vernacular "belief", implying an awareness of facts which are subject to confirmation and disproof, with "belief" in the context of faith and religion, where the tenets are merely stated.\n\nEven within the technical arena, even within that most exacting of disciplines, mathematics, there remain elements that are the subject of belief without proof and without the possibility of proof (Kurt Godel).  \n\nFaith and reason are disjoint, and the tools of one are inadequate for a study or analysis of the other.  Therefore your question is improper, from a logical viewpoint, and the concept of a rational explanation of faith has no meaning.
686574
There is certainly some truth to what you say.  However, it is not the only reason.  If it were, there would be no converts to or from any religion.  The Bible defines faith as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."  By this definition, believing evolution or the Big Bang IS faith.  In fact, even sitting down in a chair without first testing to see if it can support your weight is faith.  There are two types of faith, however, blind faith, and faith based on reason.  I believe most people have blind faith, no matter what they believe in.  Believing in something despite evidence to the contrary is blind faith to the extreme.  Many people have that, too.  I believe a faith based on reason is what we should demand of ourselves and each other.  That is why I put my faith on the line.  I have told many others, "If you can convince me that what you believe is more logical than what I believe, I will change my beliefs."  It doesn't matter how small or large the belief.  I have changed many times because of this.  My belief that Jesus raised from the grave, however, has always proved to be more logical than any other argument.  I believe it always will be.  That's faith.