Is Faith Compatible with Reason?

[the_bob_delusion]

Is faith compatible with science or reality?

Do you think you have to forego rational thinking to have faith?

Do you have faith based on reason?

If science contradicts scripture, which then do you accept?

Can you have faith and also accept science? e.g. Can you accept evolution if it goes against scripture?

When a Muslim tells you that Mohommad flew to heaven on a winged horse, is this based on reason/science?

[lakeland27]

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

 Is Faith Compatible with Reason?

Why yes, i believe it is.  and that isn't personal experience, more observation. but there is evidence of what i'm saying too.. think monastery. monks.. science astronomy medicine and military ideas (as well as some good liquor and cheese) poured out of these places between inquisitions and crusades. so there is or have been places where the two can co-exist.. today we have the salvation army employing largely secular staff (qualified) so, there you have a meeting of faith and reason i'd say.

---

You're missing the point. The question is not  can a person of faith be reasonable or be logical in other areas of their life. Ofcourse they can. But do a person of faith have to throw reason and logic out the door to maintain their religious beliefs. e.g. Can a religious person truly believe a cracker literally turns into the body of a 1st century Jew after saying some latin words over it and still call their  reason logical or is faith not compatible with reason.

---

 i think you'll find there are many who do not adhere to the expectation of signs and wonders. and they don't care about details .

[i-need-a-martini]

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

[lakeland27]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

yes but i'm not comparing theologians to scientists, i'm saying they once could work out of the same Monastery without conflict. they were able to wear both hats .. its only the revival in fundamentalism (in any church ) that's created the divide.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

Do they?

And who determines that what a Scientist claims to be proof is in fact correct?

Proof is subjective depending on the technology available at the time, current definitions and man's interpretation of the results.

Anyone remember that place called Pluto?

[izabsmiling]

Theistic evolutionism acknowledges both God and Science .

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

Do they?

And who determines that what a Scientist claims to be proof is in fact correct?

Proof is subjective depending on the technology available at the time, current definitions and man's interpretation of the results.

Anyone remember that place called Pluto?

---

But isn't that last line a good example? Scientists continued to search for proof and the truth and they found it.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

yes but i'm not comparing theologians to scientists, i'm saying they once could work out of the same Monastery without conflict. they were able to wear both hats .. its only the revival in fundamentalism (in any church ) that's created the divide.

---

Sure. And I agree.

Should point out that it used to be considered appropriate for a barber to be a dentist too. Until they realised they had a different persepctive on the job at hand.

[polksaladallie]

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

 Do you have faith based on reason?

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZaOKWi7tus

This is my reason.   The only person who could convert me. 

[izabsmiling]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

scientist seek to either prove or disprove their theory .

Possibilianism

by BIG THINK EDITORS

THE BIG IDEA FOR SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 2013

"I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible.  And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God -- an ordinary God of religion -- a consistent possibility?" Thus spoke Richard Feynman, in agreement with other notable scientific minds, including Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein.

In other words, if we cannot conclude that God exists, but we also cannot conclude that God does not. There are indeed multiple possibilities of what happens to consciousness when we die. That is the idea of possibilianism, an idea recently popularized by David Eagleman. We may go to heaven or we all may just be sims. Neither of these possibilities can be proven or disproven, so we cannot discount them 100 percent. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Can I just clarify. Are you saying, there's no incidence where the scripture contradicts our understand of estalished natural science?

I'm asking you where scripture contradicts science?

Or are you just saying, people can ignore certain part of the bible or interpret it completely differently to what it reads? As it's interpretation that's the problem? see below.

So those religious that don't accept evolution and think the universe is 6000yrs old because it goes against their interpretation of the scripture, are they idiots or do not have reason or logic?  They are not idiots - but they confuse the word 'day' as it's written in Genesis - 'day' in that context means period - most Bible scholars agree. What does it mean when someone says  "in my day we didn't have all this crime/television/insert your own wording here. Are they talking about one specific 24-hour period during their life? No!