In determining anything to be true do we use faith whatsoever?
Debate Rounds (3)
When we go about our lives we tend to think that using faith ever is "okay" or rational or acceptable. However you want to say it under NO circumstances ever using faith is the most rational reason in determining something to be true. Whether determining your own personal religious view or if you are deciding who to trust with a prized possession of yours faith is the most irrational way to make decisions or determining something to be true. Some things I want to get out of the way right out of the gate is things that faith includes in which I believe are objectively true and I hope you can agree with me on these statements.
1) Faith has no method.
2) Faith cannot settle differences between faith-heads. (AKA 2 people who believe something on faith).
3) Faith does not lead to new discoveries.
4) Faith cannot solve any problems.
5) Faith cannot explain anything.
6) Faith depends on mysteries.
7) Faith can and does lead to a denial of the evidence.
8) Faith is pretty much immune from debunking.
9) Faith is rooted in fear.
10) Faith is rooted in ignorance.
For my opening statement I will briefly touch upon some of the statements and I will elaborate on a few of the key ones in my opinion. The first one I will elaborate on is that faith having no method is irrational way to determine something to be true. A much better alternative to faith is the scientific method. An example of this is how we understand the theory of gravity and how we can relly on it more and more every day because the more we witness it occurring and get more data and evidence that it truly is happening the more rational it would be to determine that gravity is as close to absolute truth as anything can be. Now in this example lets switch out the scientific method and use faith instead of actually using data and results and observations lets throw it out the window basically and use that good old method of determining things to be true using faith. If we used faith in this situation we would have faith believe without observations and data. I would assume that my pencil would fall to the floor when I drop it. Now again if you use faith in this situation you would still be correct as far as my pencil falling to the floor once dropped but couldn't we all agree objectively that when I use the scientific method I would have a much better reason to saying that the pencil would fall because of my data and observations? There are many other methods of determining things to be true and false the scientific method isn't the only way to determine things to be true because not everything is testable however we can also use things like past experiences, common sense, intuition which are much more stable and solid reasons to believe something to be true or false. In my next 2 rounds I will elaborate more on the statements I just wanted to introduce my overall take of faith in this round and in the next coming rounds I will elaborate much more on the 10 statements I made on faith.
Or, we use faith in determining truth.
Webster defines faith as : "a strong belief or trust in someone or something".
What we have faith in is irrelevant to wether or not we need to us faith in determining truth.
The definition makes faith synonymous with trust. Faith is trusting in someone or something.
We alm have faith in people, tools, our senses, and ourselves. Without faith in those things, we couldn't arrive at anything cloaw to certainty. We must be able to trust ourselves, have faith in ourselves. We must be able to trust our theories and tools to detect things our senses cannot.
If we do not trust our senses or have faith in them, we would be left questioning every aspect of our lives and the world around us.
Do you beleive in the scientific theory? Do you trust it? Do you have faith in it? Of course everyone does. We need that faith to do science, and we need faith to do anything else.
"Webster defines faith as : "a strong belief or trust in someone or something".
You fail to mention that faith is based off trust without evidence when we debate faith you must acknowledge how faith is irrational. My entire point of this debate is that not only faith is irrational and also we never and never should use it in anything we ever try to determine is true.
"If we do not trust our senses or have faith in them, we would be left questioning every aspect of our lives and the world around us."
Ahh the good old brain in a vat idea works wonders here. If we cant trust our own senses and we have to be brought down in the way we think to stoop down to the level of faith which is trust without evidence data observations, we have no reason to believe that our own senses aren't rational if our intuition is irrational there is no point of arguing this if we are a brain in a vat then yes we may as well use faith however I believe my own intuition common sense is logical and also most importantly rational. There is no reason for anyone to be "suspicious" of our senses because if we were we would not be able to determine we are irrational. Faith is the excuse you use when you don't accept evidence facts data observations.
"Do you believe in the scientific theory? Do you trust it? Do you have faith in it? Of course everyone does. We need that faith to do science, and we need faith to do anything else."
yes I do believe in scientific theory and I would hope that you would also.No I don't trust it you know why because it is based on observations facts data tests. The difference from me and you is that you attempt to mask how irrational it is to use faith instead of taking things by their evidence. So no I don't trust scientific method, I know it to be true as of now because of results data observations and facts tests and rationality.
K10vvn has failed to prove that faith is rational and goes hand in hand with things that are objectively better to determine truth things like Common sense, Scientific method, Observations, Past experiences are rational ways to determine things to be false or true.
He also has failed to show an example of a circumstance in which faith can be used rationally. And also if he does point out an example please explain why we should use faith on anything instead of methods I provided above.
You are increasing the definition of faith provided to mean more then it does to make your argument. Faith defined merely as a belief or trust in anything. Wither or not evidence is included in that someone or something is irrelevant. Having faith in something or someone is merely trusting them or believing then.
Faith in not inherently irrational or rational. What u have faith in determines the irrationality or rationality. If you trust a spouse to be faithful, it can be either irrational or rational depending on the character of the person.
You bring up brain in a vat. Of course, without faith, without trust we are merely brains in a vat. Faith is what gives us the ability to move beyond that nonsense because we can have trust in ourselves. We can have faith in ourselves. That is completely rational.
You say you believe in sciencetific theory. You have a belief in something. By definition, you are saying you have faith in scientific theory. Thank you for sharing your faith, your beliefs with us today.
You base it on observed data, which is provided by trust or faith in your eyes. Completly rational to trust your eyes.
You base it on historical data. Which is based on faith or trust in your memory or the people who came before you. Completly rational to trust your memory and people around us.
I think you provide all the examples I need.
We need that type of trust, that type of faith to know anything at all. We need trust or faith to do science. Trust or faith in our tools and instruments.
We need trust or faith in our money for economies to work. If I had no faith in money and its value, it would merely be cotton paper.
We need trust our faith in our government policies, or we would be crippled and forced to never progress into the future.
We need trust or faith in each other, otherwise, society would end.
K10vvn is correct in the title of the debate I did not mention if faith is irrational or rational so no I suppose he wouldn't have to prove that faith is rational, however if faith is irrational which I have demonstrated several times how it is irrational to use faith ever in your life. Since faith is irrational every person on this earth would be a irrational human being which if that is the case then we would have to throw out faith because of every person should objectively want to be as rational as possible and if not they should be in a asylum. I'm now going to elaborate on how I can demonstrate faith is being irrational and if k10vvn doesn't demonstrate how using faith is rational then according to him every human being should be in asylum seeking deep mental help because they are choosing to be irrational. Now lets layout some definitions of Irrational and rational courtesy of Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Full Definition of irrational
: not rational: as
a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
b : not governed by or according to reason
Full Definition of rational
a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
Now the exact definition of rational is "having reason or understanding". This meaning by definition essentially is saying no absolute rational person would ever use irrational conclusions or methods. And that would also mean by definition a person cant be rational unless they always use rational conclusions or methods. An example of this would be a young kid who is playing on the playground who runs around with his shoes untied and is asked by his parents please tie his shoes, he defies his parents and keeps playing. Now again back to the definition of rational meaning to never use irrational conclusions or methods this young boy by definition would be irrational because of his lack of reason and understanding of he putting himself in danger. Now that is just the definition side of it now obviously as a person I wouldn't say the kid is crazy and irrational just because of this, I would say he is just being a kid. This example is demonstrating how any use of irrational conclusions or reasoning leads to by definition being labeled as irrational no matter how miniscule the bad reasoning may be. So according to the definitions a person cant be a rational person using any irrational reasoning or actions or conclusions. So NO, k10vvn you aren't arguing using faith for rational knowledge you are arguing faith for irrational knowledge by definition. So now the "ball is in his court" k10vvn needs to demonstrate how faith can be used rationally by definition and even if he does do so he needs to demonstrate how faith should be considered rationally over things like Common sense, Scientific method, Observations, Past experiences which are objectively rational ways to determine things to be false or true.
"You say you believe in sciencetific theory. You have a belief in something. By definition, you are saying you have faith in scientific theory. Thank you for sharing your faith, your beliefs with us today.
You base it on observed data, which is provided by trust or faith in your eyes. Completely rational to trust your eyes.
You base it on historical data. Which is based on faith or trust in your memory or the people who came before you. Completely rational to trust your memory and people around us."
Yes k10vvn I do believe in scientific theory as I stated before... However no I don't believe it, I know it to be true I don't believe it is true I know it is true based on evidence which is rational. And there also is no reason why I should, I feel like k10vvn is the kind of person who believes even his senses can be wrong unless he has "faith" in them...Yet there is no reason to believe that they are wrong. And yes k10vvn I do believe it is rational to trust my eyes, however I do not "trust" my eyes... I don't even have "faith" in them because I have no reason to be worried about how rational my eyes are I know them to give my brain rational images.(when I say know here I mean as much as I can "know" anything to be true without going to deep into the problem of hard psholipsism)
Overall k10vvn has failed to show how "faith" is rational would would be required to use it to be by definition a rational person. He avoids the question because he knows he cant prove faith to be rational whatsoever. And even if he does he'd also have to give a situation in which using faith not only is more rational than any other way to determine something to be true, he'd also have to prove it to better in a given situation because if he cant show this it would always be objectively more to use things such as scientific method, common sense, observations, rational reasoning etc...
Either way I have enjoyed this debate and I respect k10vvn for taking time to debate me on this! Thanks for reading and hopefully voting on who you think won!
We can't separate ourselves from faith no matter how hard we try. The question is, how well is our faith grounded. Does our faith come from facts and evidence, or does our faith come from speculation?
I think jms just has a problem with the term "faith". He seems very comfortable with terms like "trust" or "believe". Faith, trust, and belief are all synonymous. They mean close enough to the same thing to be interchangeable in language.
I have faith. I have trust. I have beliefs. Those three sentences basically mean the same thing.
Just like, I am arguing. I am persuading. I am debating. Those three sentences all mean the same thing.
At several times, jms has used terms like trust and belief in how he determines truth. And he isn't alone. We all use trust and beliefs to determine truth. We must.
And faith is no different, then having a strong trust or belief in something or someone.
Look forward to the next debate Justin.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.