There is no incompatibility between faith and reason. A person can be perfectly rational and choose to believe something that has no proof. Scientists do it all the time, and in fact some of the things we accept today as perfectly rational started out as a belief that was unproven at the time. People of faith just need to realize that their beliefs are unproven but they choose to believe them anyway.
Isn't it funny how you adults are trying to prove that faith and reason aren't compatible. I shall just sit on the sidelines and grin. All I need is a couple sentences to blow you out of the water.
So, do you have faith in your reasoning that faith and reasoning are not compatible? And there is the million dollar question. By trying to prove that faith and reason are not compatible you are unwittingly proving that they are indeed compatible upon yourself! Don't feel bad, I am considered the smartest student in my class of 9th graders.
Reason is the process of using logicality to find evidence to support a belief. I think the more evidence you have to belief something the easier it should be to believe it. I think it is ridiculous to say the more i know about something the less i believe it.
There is a place in society for faith and reason to be compatible, as long as this so-called reasonable person is not blindly following the religion. Religion for the most part is not able to be explained with science, and a reasonable person can see that not everything can be fact in religion.
The reason that supports faith is found in the Cosmological, teleological, Moral, and ontology arguments. I change those who argue against me to read the Bible and objectively and compare. You will find that it only takes a little faith to believe the truth. Also a good book to read in the mist of your objective study is "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. You will find that it take A LOT more faith to be an Atheist then to be a Christian. The book uses the classical Apologetic way of thinking and I hope that it is of much use to you! God Bless
There is no contradiction between reason and grace. If, however, the question was phrased like this...Is the receptiveness to empirical evidence compatible with the acceptance of religious doctrine as literal fact?" then the answer would almost have to be...Certainly not.
One is a waking state, one is a dream state, one is literal, the other is spiritual, one is made of time and space, the other is made of meaning.
It is not meant to be easy to find balance between reason and grace. It is meant to be high achievement, only achieved by hard work, due diligence, and a humble heart.
One reason that I believe in a creator is that, to me, it is more logical to believe that a higher power of some kind created our perfectly balanced atmosphere and ideal living conditions we have here on our little planet, than to believe it was a random event. Life as we know it could not exist if certain aspects of the environment were different. Also, there is the fact that our bodies are made up of billions of cells, the most complex of all machines. I agree that it is impossible to prove empirically that a god exists, and it will likely never be possible. However, it is by reason that I decide that it is likely, from my perspective, that a higher power of some form created the universe.
It is by reason that I hold my philosophic belief, that man cannot know everything. To quote Socrates: "I know that I know nothing." So, I do have some measure of faith, which I consciously base on my personal reasons for it.
On topics not covered by faith they are compatible but on the serious issues we face faith and religion clash. Religion also tends to win this clashes among faithful people without in-depth thought on the subject. "God said no so the answer is no regardless what the science says." That thought process makes the two incompatible.
Once you have reason to believe in any particular thing, you can no long have faith in that thing. Its not that a single person can not use both, simply not at the same time or on the same proposition. For instance you are likely incapable of having faith (or even trusting) that 2+2=4, this is because you already know (based on reason) that this will always be the case. The moment you come to understand something faith becomes impossible. For those of you that still are not convinced (the honest one's at least since i can't do anything for the others), try considering which things you claim to have faith in and the "reason" you feel that it is necessary to claim faith instead of simply saying you know... You may have noticed to things, first that you only claim faith for that which you have no evidence (reason) and second that you evaluated your faith through reason.
In order to believe in a god one must abandon their reason. With reason you strive out to prove something exists with SOLID evidence, math, science, etc. Now to fully believe in a god you can't worry about something as trivial as existence. You have to abandon your reasoning, in a way its like taking "a leap" of faith.
What faith means is to surrender your logic and reason to an assumption and give in to your own gullibility. People kill people on faith, doing god's will. To think for yourself is to apply reason, where faith is the absence of free thought and free will. Oh yeah, God is imaginary.
Faith and reason are diametrically opposed. One requires no logic or proof, and the other requires logic, complex thinking (to a degree), and a building of arguments. There are no similarities between something that seeks no explanation and simply exists out of seemingly nowhere, and something that must follow a logical sequence in order to reach a conclusion.
You only need faith when your beliefs are "unreasonable". I think that people who rely on faith a lot are just falling back on human instincts. Those were necessary before we figured out logic and the scientific method. Perhaps we will evolve out of those old instincts. Time will tell!
Faith requires no reason. It states anything is true provided I believe it.
Anyone who claimed their faith is based on reason, is using faulty reasoning.
Reason requires independent proofs which justify the reasoning.
What people forget is, there are justifiable and unjustifiable faiths and reasons. Reason separates them from each other.
I made the decision very early that I would seek the truth, the answers that my church offered would have to be sacrificed if they conflicted with objective reality, as best I could ascertain it. I was no older than ten when I realized that there must be a "real" answer and no confidence or faith on my part could affect it, neither could the faith of millions.
I couldn't be guided by "faith" if that meant interpretations of ancient manuscripts AND "reason" if that meant empirical evidence and I couldn't even proceed in philosophical growth with out making the choice.
If you need to decide which has supremacy, then they cannot be compatible. Neither allows for another master, choose and serve.
With all due respect to those of faith, part of the definition of faith is suspension of disbelief and thinking things for no reason other than wanting to. It doesn't sync up with logical thinking very well. Those of faith may well be entirely correct and those like me may well be entirely wrong, but it's still at this time kind of one or the other.