Faith and Reason: Incompatible or ????

[Glenn101]

   Over on the Interpreter Dan Peterson has posted an article arguing that Faith is compatible with reason. He puts into a lot of thoughts that I have had swirling around in my head on the subject for some time, but much more concisely than I could have ever done.
   He first sets the stage with a quote of "unfaith" by Bertrand Russell who Dan labels as "the most vocal and famous atheist of the twentieth century." I would like to reproduce that entire quote as it essentially delineates how I would perforce have to view the state of humanity as an atheist.

Quote

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

After quoting William James on the affirmations) of faith, Dan declares that "I will argue that faith is rationally justifiable and also, as a subordinate and perhaps dispensable point, that faith is inescapable — for the simple and sufficient reason that decisions regarding ultimate questions must be made, and must necessarily be made under conditions of objective uncertainty."

One must read Dan's esssay in it's entirety to get the full gist his points, but I believe that he has surmised the essence of the matter correctly. There is insufficient evidence to declare that this existence "is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."

Likewise, there is insufficient objective evidence to ascertain that there is a God and that this existence is His creation. But, and this is my own thought, existence of the universe can just as well, at least, be attributed to a creator than to an accident. Aside from any spiritual experiences, that is good enough to affirm to me that faith is not an unreasonable proposition.

Glenn

Edited August 27, 2018 by Glenn101
spelling, as usual

[nuclearfuels]

See Berlinski on Darwinism.  

From probability alone, intelligent design is more likely. 

Needless to say, these data, which all but scream "descent from common ancestors," are highly problematic... and others who hold that the individual species were separately created without common biological ancestry. Transposons typically are several thousand DNA base pair letters long, but, since there are often some disagreements from species to species, let us be very conservative and say only 1000 base pair letters long. Then for two species to share even one transposon starting at the same spot, presumably only due to random mutations since creation, the probability (according to the creationist hypothesis) is one in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ or roughly one in 10⁶⁰⁰. For 16 such common transposons, the chances are one in 4¹⁶⁰⁰⁰ or roughly one in 10⁹⁶⁰⁰. What's more, as mentioned above, an individual species typically has at least several hundred thousand such transposons. Including even part of these in the reckoning would hugely multiply these odds.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/probability.php

https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/dna-the-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

................................There is insufficient evidence to declare that this existence "is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."

Likewise, there is insufficient objective evidence to ascertain that there is a God and that this existence is His creation. But, and this is my own thought, existence of the universe can just as well, at least, be attributed to a creator than to an accident. Aside from any spiritual experiences, that is good enough to affirm to me that faith is not an unreasonable proposition........................

Both these assertions beg the question, and leave the matter in stasis.  Both are arguments about things we cannot know objectively.  We can certainly create arguments on both sides -- just as any good science fiction writer can  -- but they are virtually always very speculative and unsatisfying.  We need actual evidence and logic (including math).  We need to find ways in which both propositions can be tested in a lab, or by astronomical instruments.

Lord Bertrand Russell carried on his attacks on religion (including Marxism-Leninism) for their irrational claims of an automatic or inevitable (supernatural) future.  When natural law is abrogated, all discussion becomes meaningless.  A Buddhist master can sit zazen about a koan for over 30 years and reach what he thinks of as "enlightenment," but assertion is not the same thing as fact.  Even statistical likelihood is not "truth."

We have a right to "faith," but it is not science.  It might find backing in science and logic, but it is just a choice which any one of us might make.  We need to be more humble about our choices.  Particularly when we attach ourselves to the Supernatural.  Why would any of us want to do that?  I'm glad that Joseph Smith rejected the Supernatural.  A natural universe makes more sense to me -- just as it does in the thinking of Lord Russell.

[SouthernMo]

Great post.

I think that we have a problem discussing this in English because the word “faith” is loaded with religious overtones. I can’t speak for all atheists out there, but it’s hard to imagine them disagreeing with the concept of what Dr. Peterson is saying.

Logicians need a word to describe the essence of faith, but which doesn’t carry the unintended baggage of religion.

[stemelbow]

I'm hesitant to state as James and Peterson do, that those who choose no God in the face of not knowing, are to be dashed to pieces in some sense.  I think in this debate he's right to argue that faith choices are unavoidable though.  I'm just not sure I agree that it must be used in applying to God.  

I would say I don't know that there is any better way to argue for the reasonability of faith as Peterson does.

Did you happen to catch the debate?  

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448000-3/is-faith-comptabile-reason

I haven't listened to it.  I just read Dan's opening remarks as you linked.  I'll find time to listen to the whole debate and hopefully comment more.

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both these assertions beg the question, and leave the matter in stasis.  Both are arguments about things we cannot know objectively.  We can certainly create arguments on both sides -- just as any good science fiction writer can  -- but they are virtually always very speculative and unsatisfying. 

I agree. Which leaves us all in the inevitable boat of faith - reason is in the eye of the beholder as "proof" is non-existent, and all evidence is subject to interpretation. 

[BonhoefferFan]

Finding no evidence to support belief is not necessarily unthinkable, but likewise, neither is examining the evidence and seeing something deeper.  The dichotomy between faith and reason is an unnecessary artificiality.  More often than not, I've found those who gravitate extremely towards either pole to be relatively uninformed of their opposite and the sneering and posturing is largely a front.  I find Richard Dawkins as odious as I do Franklin Graham. 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

   Over on the Interpreter Dan Peterson has posted an article arguing that Faith is compatible with reason. He puts into a lot of thoughts that I have had swirling around in my head on the subject for some time, but much more concisely than I could have ever done.
   He first sets the stage with a quote of "unfaith" by Bertrand Russell who Dan labels as "the most vocal and famous atheist of the twentieth century." I would like to reproduce that entire quote as it essentially delineates how I would perforce have to view the state of humanity as an atheist.

After quoting William James on the affirmations) of faith, Dan declares that "I will argue that faith is rationally justifiable and also, as a subordinate and perhaps dispensable point, that faith is inescapable — for the simple and sufficient reason that decisions regarding ultimate questions must be made, and must necessarily be made under conditions of objective uncertainty."

One must read Dan's esssay in it's entirety to get the full gist his points, but I believe that he has surmised the essence of the matter correctly. There is insufficient evidence to declare that this existence "is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."

Likewise, there is insufficient objective evidence to ascertain that there is a God and that this existence is His creation. But, and this is my own thought, existence of the universe can just as well, at least, be attributed to a creator than to an accident. Aside from any spiritual experiences, that is good enough to affirm to me that faith is not an unreasonable proposition.

Glenn

An excellent summary of James, and this is exactly why I am LDS today.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have a right to "faith," but it is not science.  It might find backing in science and logic, but it is just a choice which any one of us might make. 

I agree with that. If faith was science and testable most everyone would either be atheist or believers in God.I was only responding to the point that faith can be a rational choice.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BonhoefferFan said:

Finding no evidence to support belief is not necessarily unthinkable, but likewise, neither is examining the evidence and seeing something deeper.  The dichotomy between faith and reason is an unnecessary artificiality.  More often than not, I've found those who gravitate extremely towards either pole to be relatively uninformed of their opposite and the sneering and posturing is largely a front.  I find Richard Dawkins as odious as I do Franklin Graham. 

In fact James in discussing his "radical empiricism" classed ALL experience as possible "evidence" because he understood how content-laden any experience was- that there is no such thing as an "impartial" experience since everything we encounter becomes laden with meaning even if it is a subjective reaction.  Every experience participates in a complex web of meaning and  association which cannot be divorced from the "experience itself"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Some have seen experiences as "pointing" to discreet events in the world or specific "things" when in fact as James sees every experience as a complex web and not at all a "pointing" to anything discreet because there is no such thing as "discreet" within such a web.  In this sense he has some definite links with process philosophy and especially Whitehead, and for that matter, Phenomenology.

Quote from James

Quote

Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. (James 1912, Essay I)

So even separating "faith" from "reason", while sometimes a useful distinction, often creates more confusion than it remedies.  As always context is everything and every statement or situation must be analyzed within a context.

Seeing a giraffe for example, for the first time in a zoo, one might wonder why such a long neck is necessary.  One could "reason" all day about how it developed, or how such a long neck was useful and conclude that it was simply a useless mutation or freak of nature.  Yet when seeing a giraffe in its natural habitat, grazing from tree tops, the  purpose of the long neck might not even pop up as a question- the answer being so obvious.   The environment is just part of what a giraffe IS and a full description is inaccurate without  that perspective.

So too  with religion.  One cannot simply throw aside the story of  a 6 day creation as being "inaccurate" and therefore  relinquishing religion to the trash heap- that would be like seeing a giraffe in the zoo as a purposeless freak of the animal kingdom.  Understanding that the religious lessons  of the story of creation however includes the idea that we all  have a purpose in life and owe our very existence to a higher principle- just as seeing the giraffe in its natural habitat, when seen in a higher-level perspective, and new context- shows how ridiculous the simpler, out-of context-view really is.

So  James then shows us a higher order of what counts as "evidence", by including our full experience of the thing, including its meaning and relationships to other ideas, making the distinction between subjective and objective a distinction of perspective.

The irony itself is that is precisely what I am advocating in the distinction between "faith and reason"- that the distinction itself is a matter of perspective and one can hold both perspectives at once, or nearly at once at the same time.

Wittgenstein, in his genius made this point with a simple illustration of a rabbit AND a duck,  and yet  what a a profound one it was:

And all this  derives ultimately from Kant, who started it all with his "synthetic a priori"- I will quote my old professor and good friend Robert Solomon on this one.

Even the idea of a "house" must be synthesized from different perspectives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomon

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780742512412/From-Rationalism-to-Existentialism-The-Existentialists-and-Their-Nineteenth-Century-Backgrounds-2nd

And so the difference between objective and subjective is simply one of perspective and how we synthesize the  experiences, creating our own worlds from "matter unorganized" 

Gosh that sounds familiar...   Who else does that on a bit bigger scale?   Gee I wonder..... 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I agree with that. If faith was science and testable most everyone would either be atheist or believers in God.I was only responding to the point that faith can be a rational choice.

Glenn

It is not only a rational choice it is itself part of being "rational" in the first place.

Every experiment starts with a hypothesis and all hypotheses are based on faith

"Gee-  if I mix this with that, I WONDER if it will become xyz" .... or "cure cancer" or "make rocket fuel"

"The substance of things unseen and yet hoped for"

You get out of bed and hope  the shower doesn't come out cold water.... then get in the car and hope the key starts the thing, and then hope the traffic isn't too bad, perhaps plan an alternate route if it is....   Or hope it really doesn't sleet today...  while  on your way to the  lab to hope the experiment didn't explode. 

Every  "IF" in life is a matter of faith.....!

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Both these assertions beg the question, and leave the matter in stasis.  Both are arguments about things we cannot know objectively.  We can certainly create arguments on both sides -- just as any good science fiction writer can  -- but they are virtually always very speculative and unsatisfying.  We need actual evidence and logic (including math).  We need to find ways in which both propositions can be tested in a lab, or by astronomical instruments.

Exactly, and that was what James sought in his "radical empiricism"-  though 50 years before Russell and the boys invented positivism.  James saw this clearly and saw all aspects of experience as "evidence" including their relationships and meaning in context and eschewed the difference between "objective" and "subjective"

And now positivism is dead, phenomenology and neo-pragmatism lives and James is vindicated.

And yet we still argue these points here.   Sigh. 

I hope the word gets out soon....

Just for the record- this is  what  my avatar symbolizes-  cubism was about the concept of "synthesizing" and so I have chosen a synthesized human face ....

unfortunately my plastic  surgeon  wouldn't do it in reality....  

Edited August 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

   Over on the Interpreter Dan Peterson has posted an article arguing that Faith is compatible with reason. He puts into a lot of thoughts that I have had swirling around in my head on the subject for some time, but much more concisely than I could have ever done.
   He first sets the stage with a quote of "unfaith" by Bertrand Russell who Dan labels as "the most vocal and famous atheist of the twentieth century." I would like to reproduce that entire quote as it essentially delineates how I would perforce have to view the state of humanity as an atheist.

After quoting William James on the affirmations) of faith, Dan declares that "I will argue that faith is rationally justifiable and also, as a subordinate and perhaps dispensable point, that faith is inescapable — for the simple and sufficient reason that decisions regarding ultimate questions must be made, and must necessarily be made under conditions of objective uncertainty."

One must read Dan's esssay in it's entirety to get the full gist his points, but I believe that he has surmised the essence of the matter correctly. There is insufficient evidence to declare that this existence "is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."

Likewise, there is insufficient objective evidence to ascertain that there is a God and that this existence is His creation. But, and this is my own thought, existence of the universe can just as well, at least, be attributed to a creator than to an accident. Aside from any spiritual experiences, that is good enough to affirm to me that faith is not an unreasonable proposition.

Glenn

I probably won't read the article from Dan because his approach typically grades on me.  But I will comment on what you posted.  

This sounds a lot like the Terryl Givens articulated approach.  That there is sufficient evidence on either side of these issues that we should just choose faith.  I don't really agree that there is sufficient evidence on both sides of this issue.  From my vantage point the types of evidence are categorically different.  Evidence for God isn't objective scholarly evidence, but evidence for natural causes for the origin of the universe is science based and objective.  So these two kinds of evidence shouldn't be compared as its like comparing apples and oranges.  

Honestly, I don't have a problem with people having faith that contradicts scientific evidence, that is fine, science can't help us with all the answers of life and it doesn't really speak to the quality of how we experience our lives anyway.  But I think it would be wise for people to not make the categorical error when comparing the two types of evidence.  Thats my only issue here.  

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I probably won't read the article from Dan because his approach typically grades on me.  But I will comment on what you posted.  

This sounds a lot like the Terryl Givens articulated approach....

From my vantage point the types of evidence are categorically different.

And that is why you will not understand  it.  No category errors  involved.  The question is what "categories" even are  or if  they are relevant.  A little knowledge is  a dangerous thing.

And no, James  lived long before Terryl Givens was even born.  You  are putting  the cart before the horse.

Edited August 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And that is why you will not understand  it.  No category errors  involved.  The question is what "categories" even are  or if  they are relevant.  A little knowledge is  a dangerous thing.

And no, James  lived long before Terryl Givens was even born.  You  are putting  the cart before the horse.

In our last thread exchange you made a comment about scientific evidence being categorically different from subjective religious experience, and I replied back that I agree but that we both likely have different opinions on the boundaries for those two categories.  

As for whether these ideas originated with James or Givens or someone else that doesn’t matter to me.  If I am putting the cart before the horse, would you care to explain how?  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

I probably won't read the article from Dan because his approach typically grades grates? on me.  But I will comment on what you posted.

You really need to read the article before you respond. You really did not respond to my post either.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You really need to read the article before you respond. You really did not respond to my post either.

Glenn

Sorry, I must have missed the qualifying statement that said people had to read the article to respond.  Maybe you should check with the other thread participants to make sure they know it’s a requirement.  But I’m guessing if they agree with your thesis then it’s not a problem if they didn’t read the article, perhaps only those who have differing opinions are required to read it?  

 

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm hesitant to state as James and Peterson do, that those who choose no God in the face of not knowing, are to be dashed to pieces in some sense.  I think in this debate he's right to argue that faith choices are unavoidable though.  I'm just not sure I agree that it must be used in applying to God.  

I would say I don't know that there is any better way to argue for the reasonability of faith as Peterson does.

Did you happen to catch the debate?  

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448000-3/is-faith-comptabile-reason

I haven't listened to it.  I just read Dan's opening remarks as you linked.  I'll find time to listen to the whole debate and hopefully comment more.

I did not listen to the debate. I am hearing impaired and have a difficult time understanding the spoken word.

However, your response is interesting because I did not get from Peterson/James the idea that those who choose no God are to be "dashed to pieces in some sense." I will quote the quote from James by Peterson:

Quote

Science says things are; morality says some things are better than other things; and religion says essentially two things. First, she says that the best things are the more eternal things, the overlapping things, the things in the universe that throw the last stone, so to speak, and say the final word. … The second affirmation of religion is that we are better off even now if we believe her first affirmation to be true

James here just seems to be saying that a person is better off believing, which is reinforced by Dan's follow up or amplifying remark:

Quote

That second affirmation — “that we are better off even now if we believe” — is, I think, demonstrably true. Scores of studies show that religious faith or religious involvement correlates, on the whole, with superior physical, mental, and emotional health. That isn’t my topic for today, however, even though such considerations might be enough, in themselves, to demonstrate that faith is reasonable.

Dan later on quotes James again:

Quote

We see … that religion offers itself as a momentous option. We are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose [Page xii]by our non-belief, a certain vital good. Secondly, religion is a forced option, so far as that good goes. We cannot escape the issue by remaining sceptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve

Here, if I understand James correctly,  he is saying that religion contains much that is good that we will lose by our unbelief. I have not followed up to see what good things one will lose by our unbelief, if it be true, but lose little to nothing if it is found not to be true (i.e. upon one's death, if religion be untrue the dead person will never know). From an LDS perspective there is much more good to lose by unbelief because of the work for the dead, etc. if it be true.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind

Edited August 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I must have missed the qualifying statement that said people had to read the article to respond.  Maybe you should check with the other thread participants to make sure they know it’s a requirement.  But I’m guessing if they agree with your thesis then it’s not a problem if they didn’t read the article, perhaps only those who have differing opinions are required to read it?  

 

I suspect that what Dan wrote is primary to the discussion, not what Glenn wrote. That wouldnt seem to forbid replies without that prerequisite. But it might disqualify them. I havent read the article myself, so I dont feel qualified to comment. But I do feel permitted, however. Just as you should feel.

As it happens,, by pure coincidence, just tonight I watched Dan's presentation at FAIR back in 2015 (I think) on this same subject. I found that fascinating, and I recommend you read Dan's article, just as I  am about to do. I'm puzzled why you think Dan is grating, but that's off topic,so nevermind.

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I must have missed the qualifying statement that said people had to read the article to respond.  Maybe you should check with the other thread participants to make sure they know it’s a requirement.  But I’m guessing if they agree with your thesis then it’s not a problem if they didn’t read the article, perhaps only those who have differing opinions are required to read it?  

 

You missed it because I did not say it. My thoughts and conclusions were based upon the article. Responding as you did was from a much less informed perspective and missed the point that faith can be a rational choice. Your comments did not address that.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Not one of your greatest moments.

 

Because I chose to respond in kind, rather than what I typically do which is ignore the snippy comments and respond with kindness regardless.  Yes, you caught me responding in kind this time, guilty as charged, thanks for self righteously pilling on.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

In our last thread exchange you made a comment about scientific evidence being categorically different from subjective religious experience, and I replied back that I agree but that we both likely have different opinions on the boundaries for those two categories.  

As for whether these ideas originated with James or Givens or someone else that doesn’t matter to me.  If I am putting the cart before the horse, would you care to explain how?  

You have already said you don't care about the explanation so why would you  care about my answer?

My answer to the first question is found in my replies above.  I am tired of repeating things for you or you not reading the answers anyway.  It is tremendously rude to  ask questions and  not read the answers and keep repeating the same questions years on end.

There ARE no "boundaries" except the context.  One context is never like another.  One actually has to use reason instead of nice neat rules of logic.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You missed it because I did not say it. My thoughts and conclusions were based upon the article. Responding as you did was from a much less informed perspective and missed the point that faith can be a rational choice. Your comments did not address that.

Glenn

I think you missed what I said then, because I directly commented on this very point when i pointed out that Givens makes a similar argument and I affirmed that I don’t have a problem with people choosing faith over scientific arguments.  

I also made the point about how evidence for faith is categorically different than scientific evidence and how I think it’s essential to treat them differently.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You have already said you don't care about the explanation so why would you  care about my answer?

My answer to the first question is found in my replies above.  I am tired of repeating things for you or you not reading the answers anyway.  It is tremendously rude to  ask questions and  not read the answers and keep repeating the same questions years on end.

There ARE no "boundaries" except the context.  One context is never like another.  One actually has to use reason instead of nice neat rules of logic.

I care about the explanation and haven’t ever said otherwise, of course I care and I’ve been trying very hard to get a better understanding.  I said I don’t want to read an article by this author because I find his style grating.  

And btw, I think I’ve demonstrated a lot of patience over our many exchanges especially with what I would characterize as condescending remarks from you towards me.  I put up with these remarks because at the end of the day I think you have a sincere heart and probably don’t mean to be rude, but even my patience has its limits.  

You act like the communication breakdown is entirely on my side and I think that’s just arrogant.  I’m willing to own up to being part of the problem, but don’t start belittling and take some ownership on your end.  

As for the categories of scientific evidence and religious evidence, that was your point on the other thread.  I’m just using that same point in a slightly different context because I think it is applicable here.