This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure what the point of this article is or what it's doing in an encyclopedia but I'll leave it in deference to Larry as founder of Wikipedia.
The article states: "Natural theology holds that faith and rationality are compatible, so that evidence and reason ultimately lead to belief in the objects of faith." Evidence and reason ultimately leading to believe in the "objects" of faith is completely different from faith and rationality being compatible. Indeed, natural theology states that one need not have mere faith in, for example, the existence of God, but rather one can infer, through empirical observation of the natural world, that God exists. Again, this is absolutely not identical to the thesis that faith and rationality are compatible. Thus, this section needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.27.138 ( talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm taking first swack at this. I'll make sure the current content remains available in the page history.-- FeloniousMonk 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
great edits for the most part ... why was "faith as unparsimonious" deleted? Ungtss 13:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
also, regarding solipsism ... is it fair to describe these views as solipsism? solipsism holds that only the self exists and everything is a function of the mind -- but classical foundationalism holds that while many things cannot be proven, many other beliefs may be reasonably held by other means, including faith. shall we distinguish here? Ungtss 16:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The definition of faith given in the article is very narrow and unsatisfactory. There are two general approaches to the notion of faith within religious thought: cognitive and non-cognitive.
The relationship between faith and rationality is very different in each of these approaches to faith, so the distinctions are crucial. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up to meet Wiki's nPOV. <personal attack removed by FeloniousMonk> As it reads, it heavily favors rationality and (sometimes subtly) puts down faith.-- Jason Gastrich 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no need for an NPOV tag as the article currently stands.-- SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither do I. Is there anyone else here who does see the need? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't look necessary here. Mark K. Bilbo 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.
Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte talk 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This sentence "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it only rejects any belief based on faith alone. " was not clear, because the "only" modified "rejects." It could have been reworded: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects only any belief based on faith alone. " but now it reads awkwardly. So I did my best fix. You could fix it to: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects any belief based only on faith. " If you like that. But "only rejects" would contrast "to reject" with other possibilities, such as "to refute" .
But, by the way, I think the section is a muddle anyway, because I do not see a clear discussion of belief based on faith and observation. The dichotomy that is implied is not sustainable. In a highly polarized world, one group claims to put faith ahead of rationalism, but ends up using rational arguments. The opponents might claim they are not accepting anything on faith, but they have faith in their senses and reasoning power. Anyway, the set of beliefs supported by faith alone is extremely small, because even those people who proudly proclaim their faith have documents (bible, Koran, or whatever) and often tales of miracles to back them up. Carrionluggage 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching." This is not true, see the article on rationalism. Srnec 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a little cleanup, corrected some spelling errors. Still a lot to be done. Also, the title should be Faith and Reason. Rick Norwood 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First I'd like to say that I think the article is pretty good currently.
The section "Faith as underlying rationality" notes that even a die-hard rationalist has to rely on basic assumptions somewhere, denoted here as "properly basic." This is a theological term, however this problem has been thoroughly discussed secularly, and there are a lot of other (and perhaps more common) terms for this idea, e.g. "axioms", "fundamental assumptions", "metaphysics", etc. I think I would like to see some these other terms mentioned.
I also note that the apparent "undermining" of rationalism by underpinnings of faith is a very Western concern. Cf. Daoism which, among other things, seems to admit right from the start that we can't really be certain of anything, and that all classifications and conceptual distinctions placed upon our raw sensory input are artificial anyway. Daoism further suggests that while it might be good to be aware of this artificiality, on a day-to-day basis there's no need to worry too much about it. (This means we shouldn't take God too seriously either.) I find this philosophical position relevant because it is in some sense a distinct approach that avoids the conflict entirely. -- Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to note somewhere that the staunch promotion of "faith" as a valid mode of belief is closely associated with those who hold religious convictions? This seems to me to be of major importance in understanding the history and dynamics of the debate. -- Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of the posts above, which are very interesting, are unsigned. Please register with wikipedia and then sign your posts with four tildes. At that point, I would like to see you work on this article. I think you have a contribution to make. Rick Norwood 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was me, forgot to sign, now remedied. Any comments on things you would like to me do with this article? -- Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Not specifically, but your comments suggest you have some good ideas. Rick Norwood 12:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to define faith in terms that would reflect the beliefs of the faithful: faith is belief influenced by authority, revelation, or inspiration. Two other editors evidently believe that faith should be defined in negative terms. The introduction currently reads:
"Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief grounded in reason or evidence. By contrast, faith is generally defined as belief not grounded solely in reason or evidence, but also in what cannot be known."
Certainly, this is a definition of faith that would appear totally alien to anyone who has faith -- they would say, rather, that by faith the truth can be known. Also, the claim that faith is generally defined in negative rather than positive terms is unsupported by any reference.
I'm going to restore a positive definition of faith, and ask that other writers remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on such subjects, and add a reference. Rick Norwood 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. The new version is certainly an improvement. But it still gives a negative definition of faith as the absence of reason and evidence. Why do you object to a positive definition, faith as belief in revelation. As best I can tell, people who talk about "faith" in this sense usually mean a direct revelation by God to man, often using the authority of some "holy" book. Some claims personal inspiration, as in the case of many New Age beliefs. I thought my "revelation, inspiration, or authority" covered the ground fairly well. What do you object to in that formulation? Rick Norwood 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm just clarifying this. (Forgot to login) It didn't have a source before, so to require a clarifying edit to have a source when the original passage didn't have a source seems inconsistent to me. I might be able to dig up a source, but if the original can stand without one, this can stand without one. If the original cannot, it shouldn't be here either.
This passage is, I might add, dealing with first principles. What do you want the sources to do? Show that someone, somewhere actually holds or has held this view? If so, any random Wikipedia editor is just as valid a source as any source writer who tries to explain the idea. I, myself, could be a valid source if not for the fact that I'm already editing. -- Nerd42 ( talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm alittle surprised at the hijacking of this subject. It would seem that either each and every religion should be able to contribute sections to this article AND manipulate the definitions outside their "expertise" OR we must all realize that not much of this article is actually definition.
I should state for the record that I was raised christian and am now atheist. Make of it what you will, but from where I stand, this article shouldn't be about the details of any one religion. I also don't put much "faith" in the argument from special knowledge.
May I be allowed to advocate the following for the opening statement?
"Rationality is a framework to investigate the natural world, based upon the premises that (1) only the natural world exists, (2) that humanity has the capacity to understand it, and (3) that we can determine physical laws of the natural world.
Faith is an arbitrary framework to support supernatural claims based upon the premises that (1) both the natural and supernatural exist, (2) that we do not have the capacity to fully understand them unaided, and (3) that we may determine some natural laws, but that we must rely upon inspiration, authority or traditional knowledge in order to understand the natural and the supernatural."
I'm sorry, but I'm not citing anyone's work... at least not intentionally. Also, sorry, I'm new at this! StephenTBrooke ( talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is not specific to Catholicism - can we remove the reference to the Catholic Church in the intro and put it somewhere later in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.204.217 ( talk) 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The section "Biblical View" argues: "The word 'faith' as used in the Bible is very specifically defined, and very different from the modern English usage of the word, such that there is little difference between faith and rationality. Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.." The Bible uses the word 'faith' simply to refer to the things that we believe due to indirect evidence, as opposed to direct observation. There is therefore no conflict between biblical faith and rationality. [12]"
I basically don't see how this could be called "the biblical view" (Shouldnt it be Pauls view?) and the source [12] points to Jehovahs Witness literature; hardly an unbiased source. I don't think the use of "we" is accidental either.
I propose the section is re-titled "The WTBS view" or even better removed and or replaced by something from a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:878:200:1043:3D49:7EF2:37E4:C25E ( talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed recent addition of Islamic quotes along with excess block quotes from Catholicism and bible quotes. Seems the concepts can likely be presented or summarized without the excessive long quotes. Vsmith ( talk) 12:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Faith and rationality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this statement in the introduction may need support, and or clarification. I read quite a bit in topics of philosophy and have never heard of either faith or rationality refered to as an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Faith in Science and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Faith in Science until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure what the point of this article is or what it's doing in an encyclopedia but I'll leave it in deference to Larry as founder of Wikipedia.
The article states: "Natural theology holds that faith and rationality are compatible, so that evidence and reason ultimately lead to belief in the objects of faith." Evidence and reason ultimately leading to believe in the "objects" of faith is completely different from faith and rationality being compatible. Indeed, natural theology states that one need not have mere faith in, for example, the existence of God, but rather one can infer, through empirical observation of the natural world, that God exists. Again, this is absolutely not identical to the thesis that faith and rationality are compatible. Thus, this section needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.27.138 ( talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm taking first swack at this. I'll make sure the current content remains available in the page history.-- FeloniousMonk 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
great edits for the most part ... why was "faith as unparsimonious" deleted? Ungtss 13:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
also, regarding solipsism ... is it fair to describe these views as solipsism? solipsism holds that only the self exists and everything is a function of the mind -- but classical foundationalism holds that while many things cannot be proven, many other beliefs may be reasonably held by other means, including faith. shall we distinguish here? Ungtss 16:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The definition of faith given in the article is very narrow and unsatisfactory. There are two general approaches to the notion of faith within religious thought: cognitive and non-cognitive.
The relationship between faith and rationality is very different in each of these approaches to faith, so the distinctions are crucial. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up to meet Wiki's nPOV. <personal attack removed by FeloniousMonk> As it reads, it heavily favors rationality and (sometimes subtly) puts down faith.-- Jason Gastrich 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no need for an NPOV tag as the article currently stands.-- SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither do I. Is there anyone else here who does see the need? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't look necessary here. Mark K. Bilbo 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.
Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte talk 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This sentence "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it only rejects any belief based on faith alone. " was not clear, because the "only" modified "rejects." It could have been reworded: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects only any belief based on faith alone. " but now it reads awkwardly. So I did my best fix. You could fix it to: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects any belief based only on faith. " If you like that. But "only rejects" would contrast "to reject" with other possibilities, such as "to refute" .
But, by the way, I think the section is a muddle anyway, because I do not see a clear discussion of belief based on faith and observation. The dichotomy that is implied is not sustainable. In a highly polarized world, one group claims to put faith ahead of rationalism, but ends up using rational arguments. The opponents might claim they are not accepting anything on faith, but they have faith in their senses and reasoning power. Anyway, the set of beliefs supported by faith alone is extremely small, because even those people who proudly proclaim their faith have documents (bible, Koran, or whatever) and often tales of miracles to back them up. Carrionluggage 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching." This is not true, see the article on rationalism. Srnec 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a little cleanup, corrected some spelling errors. Still a lot to be done. Also, the title should be Faith and Reason. Rick Norwood 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First I'd like to say that I think the article is pretty good currently.
The section "Faith as underlying rationality" notes that even a die-hard rationalist has to rely on basic assumptions somewhere, denoted here as "properly basic." This is a theological term, however this problem has been thoroughly discussed secularly, and there are a lot of other (and perhaps more common) terms for this idea, e.g. "axioms", "fundamental assumptions", "metaphysics", etc. I think I would like to see some these other terms mentioned.
I also note that the apparent "undermining" of rationalism by underpinnings of faith is a very Western concern. Cf. Daoism which, among other things, seems to admit right from the start that we can't really be certain of anything, and that all classifications and conceptual distinctions placed upon our raw sensory input are artificial anyway. Daoism further suggests that while it might be good to be aware of this artificiality, on a day-to-day basis there's no need to worry too much about it. (This means we shouldn't take God too seriously either.) I find this philosophical position relevant because it is in some sense a distinct approach that avoids the conflict entirely. -- Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to note somewhere that the staunch promotion of "faith" as a valid mode of belief is closely associated with those who hold religious convictions? This seems to me to be of major importance in understanding the history and dynamics of the debate. -- Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of the posts above, which are very interesting, are unsigned. Please register with wikipedia and then sign your posts with four tildes. At that point, I would like to see you work on this article. I think you have a contribution to make. Rick Norwood 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was me, forgot to sign, now remedied. Any comments on things you would like to me do with this article? -- Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Not specifically, but your comments suggest you have some good ideas. Rick Norwood 12:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to define faith in terms that would reflect the beliefs of the faithful: faith is belief influenced by authority, revelation, or inspiration. Two other editors evidently believe that faith should be defined in negative terms. The introduction currently reads:
"Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief grounded in reason or evidence. By contrast, faith is generally defined as belief not grounded solely in reason or evidence, but also in what cannot be known."
Certainly, this is a definition of faith that would appear totally alien to anyone who has faith -- they would say, rather, that by faith the truth can be known. Also, the claim that faith is generally defined in negative rather than positive terms is unsupported by any reference.
I'm going to restore a positive definition of faith, and ask that other writers remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on such subjects, and add a reference. Rick Norwood 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. The new version is certainly an improvement. But it still gives a negative definition of faith as the absence of reason and evidence. Why do you object to a positive definition, faith as belief in revelation. As best I can tell, people who talk about "faith" in this sense usually mean a direct revelation by God to man, often using the authority of some "holy" book. Some claims personal inspiration, as in the case of many New Age beliefs. I thought my "revelation, inspiration, or authority" covered the ground fairly well. What do you object to in that formulation? Rick Norwood 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm just clarifying this. (Forgot to login) It didn't have a source before, so to require a clarifying edit to have a source when the original passage didn't have a source seems inconsistent to me. I might be able to dig up a source, but if the original can stand without one, this can stand without one. If the original cannot, it shouldn't be here either.
This passage is, I might add, dealing with first principles. What do you want the sources to do? Show that someone, somewhere actually holds or has held this view? If so, any random Wikipedia editor is just as valid a source as any source writer who tries to explain the idea. I, myself, could be a valid source if not for the fact that I'm already editing. -- Nerd42 ( talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm alittle surprised at the hijacking of this subject. It would seem that either each and every religion should be able to contribute sections to this article AND manipulate the definitions outside their "expertise" OR we must all realize that not much of this article is actually definition.
I should state for the record that I was raised christian and am now atheist. Make of it what you will, but from where I stand, this article shouldn't be about the details of any one religion. I also don't put much "faith" in the argument from special knowledge.
May I be allowed to advocate the following for the opening statement?
"Rationality is a framework to investigate the natural world, based upon the premises that (1) only the natural world exists, (2) that humanity has the capacity to understand it, and (3) that we can determine physical laws of the natural world.
Faith is an arbitrary framework to support supernatural claims based upon the premises that (1) both the natural and supernatural exist, (2) that we do not have the capacity to fully understand them unaided, and (3) that we may determine some natural laws, but that we must rely upon inspiration, authority or traditional knowledge in order to understand the natural and the supernatural."
I'm sorry, but I'm not citing anyone's work... at least not intentionally. Also, sorry, I'm new at this! StephenTBrooke ( talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is not specific to Catholicism - can we remove the reference to the Catholic Church in the intro and put it somewhere later in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.204.217 ( talk) 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The section "Biblical View" argues: "The word 'faith' as used in the Bible is very specifically defined, and very different from the modern English usage of the word, such that there is little difference between faith and rationality. Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.." The Bible uses the word 'faith' simply to refer to the things that we believe due to indirect evidence, as opposed to direct observation. There is therefore no conflict between biblical faith and rationality. [12]"
I basically don't see how this could be called "the biblical view" (Shouldnt it be Pauls view?) and the source [12] points to Jehovahs Witness literature; hardly an unbiased source. I don't think the use of "we" is accidental either.
I propose the section is re-titled "The WTBS view" or even better removed and or replaced by something from a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:878:200:1043:3D49:7EF2:37E4:C25E ( talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed recent addition of Islamic quotes along with excess block quotes from Catholicism and bible quotes. Seems the concepts can likely be presented or summarized without the excessive long quotes. Vsmith ( talk) 12:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Faith and rationality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this statement in the introduction may need support, and or clarification. I read quite a bit in topics of philosophy and have never heard of either faith or rationality refered to as an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Faith in Science and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Faith in Science until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)