Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by: Apparelled

Not for Justification

  You should never *justify* an action or line of reasoning on the basis of faith alone. You can most surely grant an initial amount of faith as a foundation without any further information, however the belief in question will rapidly move into a new realm that requires real solid data, not just a hunch or desire to believe. If we choose to follow something important on the basis of belief alone, we are led down a very dangerous path of ignorance.
Apparelled says2014-02-26T22:53:35.700
You failed to answer the question correctly. As logic requires reasoning, and reasoning requires logic. It is possible to incorrectly justify something purely using only one of the the two. I am only stating that faith must also be placed into the equation as another vital aspect. Faith alone is not a proper justification, I agree.

I find it troubling how so many people view faith (not religious but the process) as detrimental and ignorant. When I see it as essential to human intellectual enlightenment and development.
TrustmeImlying says2014-02-27T14:16:23.850
I'm not sure I understand the question, maybe you could explain it better to me.

Justification is typically understood to mean a reason, fact, or proof of something.

So when you suggest that faith alone can give me proof, fact, or a reason to believe something, that's a terribly ignorant and dangerous line of thinking. While faith alone may give me the initial foundation to begin, without further evidence, I'm just blindly trusting after that point.

You're right that faith must be in the equation, but it's only at the beginning and should be removed as soon as possible so that we may KNOW something, not just believe it.

I agree that it's vital to human understanding, but again, I would suggest it's in the most initial phases of curiosity and acceptance that we should regard faith as important. When more information comes to light, we should disregard our faulted sense of trust and go with the evidence.
Apparelled says2014-02-28T17:16:40.287
To begin, I must point out that you cannot quote me as saying that "faith alone can provide proof", as I did not say nor intend such. Only that it is an aspect of justification that cannot be ignored. Regardless of the fact that it is not present within the wording of the definition of justification.
I find It just as troubling that so many people believe solely in logic and reasoning. Albeit they are amazing tools when rationalizing a topic, they are not exclusively such (as I will attempt to prove). I only intend that in a very small way, that faith is vital to justification. To outright reject and denounce an idea that is presented as being justified by faith, is to renounce your own justification as false. An idea that is presented solely on faith can most likely be proven as false, but that does not immediately conclude that it does not hold a small aspect of truth. And by denying that idea you could be denying yourself some aspect of truth, which is illogical. I will repost my theory on faith justification below.
Apparelled says2014-02-28T17:21:31.557
I begin by stating that scientific research requires faith, as there are a great many theories that are utilized in science. I am aware that these theories are mainly based on the extensive use of logic and reasoning, but is important to note have not been proven as absolutes. So when a theory is utilized in computing a scientific principle there is a very small aspect of that calculation that requires the calculator to utilize a faith based decision (as the theory is not an absolute). So science is not purely based upon reasoning and logic and in fact ,to a small degree, is subject to the parameter of faith. What science tries to do at this point is eliminate the faith portion of the equation by proving the theory. Which is highly logical I agree, but now we must view the concept of a theory eventually being proven as an absolute. Now some scientists view theories from an agnostic perspective (as in not ever being possible to prove) and others view them from a gnostic perspective (one day will be proven). Regardless of this, both views presently utilize faith as an aspect in their calculations. But allow me to delve even further and focus on the concept of an agnostic theory. If you do not believe that something can ever be proven, then you must accept that when utilizing any theory you will require faith as part of all future calculations. Which would mean that in order to form a justifiable conclusion you were required to use the principles of logic, reasoning and faith. Conversely if we look at the concept of a gnostic theory, then you are claiming that it is possible to achieve such knowledge. Also if you don't think that all theories can be proven then you must now revert to what I stated about views on agnostic theories. So if you believe that all theories can be proven, then you must also believe that it is possible for someone/something to (eventually) attain all knowledge of the universe. If an entity were to achieve all knowledge of the universe, they would be defined as omnipotent as they would be all knowing and subsequently all powerful. If you don't agree with that statement then I would say you are in fact agnostic on your views on theories; and if you do believe it is possible to become omnipotent then you admit that it is possible for a godlike entity to exist and therefore the fact is, that you have come to this conclusion long after a person that used a faith based decision as their model for justification. Making logic and reasoning in this particular case inferior to faith based justification. Although I am not trying to claim that a faith based decision is superior in all cases, and most likely only in this one case.

Which would conclude that faith is a valid form of justification at least in some form.
TrustmeImlying says2014-03-03T23:44:34.820
" To outright reject and denounce an idea that is presented as being justified by faith"
To justify something by faith is to imply that you have no evidence to support it, yet you firmly believe it, (enough to be considered fact in your mind). This is the most dangerous kind of thinking there can be. The most evil deeds that have been done have been done in the name of "good" with blind faith to justify their actions. I would be hard pressed to find someone who committed monstrous acts on the basis of logic and reason alone. This fails to stand to reason, however, as anyone but a sociopath has their morality come into play.



"I begin by stating that scientific research requires faith, as there are a great many theories that are utilized in science. I am aware that these theories are mainly based on the extensive use of logic and reasoning, but is important to note have not been proven as absolutes."

That's because absolutes require faith to believe, as there can be no reasonable or logical absolutes. In reality we don't require absolutes at all, only supporting evidence to support our claims, no faith required.


"So when a theory is utilized in computing a scientific principle there is a very small aspect of that calculation that requires the calculator to utilize a faith based decision (as the theory is not an absolute). "

Please state an example for me, if you don't mind!

"So science is not purely based upon reasoning and logic and in fact ,to a small degree, is subject to the parameter of faith."

Science doesn't require faith, when I mix vinegar and baking soda, I might ASSUME that the chemical reaction will occur. If you're considering this assumption to be faith, you'd be incorrect. It's an assumption based on past experiences and knowledge, not on a baseless claim of faith.

"Which is highly logical I agree, but now we must view the concept of a theory eventually being proven as an absolute."

Incorrect, there are never any absolutes in science. Even scientific fact can change the next day, it's just got such a staggering amount of supporting evidence we can reasonably operate under the notion that it won't.


"Which would mean that in order to form a justifiable conclusion you were required to use the principles of logic, reasoning and faith."

Incorrect, faith would not come into account.

"So if you believe that all theories can be proven, then you must also believe that it is possible for someone/something to (eventually) attain all knowledge of the universe.If an entity were to achieve all knowledge of the universe, they would be defined as omnipotent as they would be all knowing and subsequently all powerful."

That is a HUGE leap in logic. This is once again a very absolute statement. I, nor science, will ever work in absolutes. I do not know if all theories can be proven, nor do I know if there are theories that can never truly be solved. I don't think any scientist has ever cared or claimed either to be their stance.

We work with the evidence we have to solve the questions we don't know. Any further philosophical claims do not alter the reality of science, simply the creation of "what-ifs" that get us nowhere.





"If you don't agree with that statement then I would say you are in fact agnostic on your views on theories"
I am not, in fact.

"if you do believe it is possible to become omnipotent then you admit that it is possible for a godlike entity to exist"

I haven't claimed anything remotely close to that. You posing my argument from a distorted standpoint will not enjoy the freedom of a viable claim.

"and therefore the fact is, that you have come to this conclusion long after a person that used a faith based decision as their model for justification."

Incorrect once again, discounting the entirety of the statement.

"Making logic and reasoning in this particular case inferior to faith based justification."

Although you contradict yourself, faith based justification is almost an oxymoron, as it doesn't stand up to logic and reason, and is a dangerous mode of thinking to follow.

"Although I am not trying to claim that a faith based decision is superior in all cases, and most likely only in this one case."

It cannot be superior to abandon facts or evidence in light of baseless trust and confidence through hope.

"Which would conclude that faith is a valid form of justification at least in some form."

In no form can something be justified, which is to absolutely confirm it on level with fact, through faith, and only the foolish would do so.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.