Debate Proposal: Reasonable Faith Does not Exist

[Interest12345]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

[Paterfamilia]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

Sure.

[Paterfamilia]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

Change your mind?

[bruce culver]

I'm not a theist, but that sounds like a loser proposition.

I mean what about the faith we naturalists put in the scientific community? I mean I strongly believe in evolution, but that is largely based on faith I have in the scientific method and the scientific community. Without information obtained from the scientific community, I'd probably have no idea about evolution at all. I don't think my belief in it is 100% based on faith. It does appear to fit the all evidence that I do see, but still my belief is largely based in what I think is my reasonable faith in science and the scientific community.

[Nunovalente]

Faith is like a cheque book. Its when we put into effect, what we believe. We all exercise faith all the time. What matters is what we put our faith in.

A cheque book is only as good as the account it draws upon. The cheque itself has little monetary value. But it does have significant practical value. Because it is the means whereby the holder of said cheque can gain access to the account it is related to. If we believe we have funds in a relevant account, such belief does not cause such funds to be realised. They may exist. My believe may be genuine, reasonable, and based upon fact. But the funds are still in the account, belief does not cause realisation. Faith does. And faith is when we put into effect the belief. i.e. I use the cheque to gain access to the funds in the relevant account.

If I draw on an account, by faith, and get nothing as a result, the flaw is not with faith. It is not with the cheque. Its with the account. I either do not have legitimate access, or the funds do not exist. There is no fault with faith itself. What matters is what we put are faith in.

Reasonable faith? Do I have reason for drawing funds form this account utilising this cheque?

As a christian, yes. The christian draws on the historical facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus christ. Accounts of Salvation and redemption are available to be drawn upon, by faith in those accomplished facts. Belief is not enough. Just as belief about an account is not enough. Realisation requires the belief to be put into effect. By exercising faith in the facts.

On the other hand, all manner of claims can be made, upon with we can exercise faith. But what matters is, can they deliver? A cheque, no matter how genuine, cannot draw on an empty or bankrupt account.

[CausalCode]

I'm not a theist, but that sounds like a loser proposition.

I mean what about the faith we naturalists put in the scientific community? I mean I strongly believe in evolution, but that is largely based on faith I have in the scientific method and the scientific community. Without information obtained from the scientific community, I'd probably have no idea about evolution at all. I don't think my belief in it is 100% based on faith. It does appear to fit the all evidence that I do see, but still my belief is largely based in what I think is my reasonable faith in science and the scientific community.

Science is independent of belief.
You don't need to have faith in science for science to apply.

[shoyt]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

I would have reasonable faith in jumping out of an airplane just in case I had reason to believe I would likely not face a bad outcome.

Faith is not about belief but about a commitment to act one way or another. Faith is required the more some outcome has something at stake. Irrespective of our means, modes, and methods of believing things will turn out like we predict or hope they will, faith is calculated risk-taking. We are banking on our means, modes, and methods, not our beliefs themselves.

I would have reasonable faith if abduction were the only way I could infer God existed and I was naturally inclined to believe God existed, just as I would have reasonable faith if abduction were the only way I could infer God didn't exist and I was naturally inclined to disbelieve God existed. (See Goldman, Plantinga, Churchland, Dretske, Wright, Peacocke and others on Epistemic Entitlements, Reliablism, Properly Basic Belief, and epistemic warrant)

Abduction is the only critical epistemic motivation to believe or disbelieve there are deity; we cannot deduce deity from reality nor induce in an instrumental, pragmatic way that there are or are not deity. Belief and doubt of the existence of deity is from the sort of creature we are, the sort of circumstances we find ourselves in, and what explanation seems to make the most sense of our own experiences individually.

Theism and Atheism, as an epistemic entitlement, is warranted, reasonable.

Abduction is a reliable means of assessing what is true; Science being nearly all abductive in its means and modes and methods.

[GlennRMorton]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

I will introduce myself a bit more.I have an undergrad in physics.  I did one year of grad work in philosophy Then I went into Geophysics looking for all that hated oil we use in our cars.  During my time in philosophy, one of the first things I learned was that one must define his terms.  Exactly what do you mean by 'reasonable faith'?  I can think of many definitions of such a term. Is it that the faith follows the laws of logic? Is it that it matches observational science? Is it being reasonable in one's discussions, etc.  I am a geophysicist who is a theist. I have probably seen more geology than most on this thread. I won't claim to have expertise in philosophy like you guys, but and I do  believe that my faith is quite reasonable, from what I know of Physics to Geology.  When you define your idea of 'reasonable' I will take this challenge, but I am still on the approval leash for a bit.

[nswoll]

The whole debate will be arguing the definition of faith. Faith means belief without evidence. I don't have faith that my mom exists. I don't have faith that rain exists. I don't have faith that gravity exists.
Example:
I believe Jesus' mother was a virgin when he was born.
I believe Jesus' mother was NoT a virgin when he was born.

Theists would redefine faith to make it seem like you need faith to believe both options but that's nonsense. You only need faith to believe option 1.

[ChristIsKing]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

Everything is faith. The belief in the existence of external reality takes faith in the assumption that we are not lying down in a glass pod somewhere outside the of Matrix, with data plugs wired to our brains. The belief in the existence of minds external to our own takes faith in the assumption that other people are not biological robots programmed to fool us into believing that they are humans. So on, and so on...

Although those beliefs are ultimately unverifiable assumptions, they are more treasonable than unreasonable assumptions. In other words, they are reasonable faith.

[jayceeii]

I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.

This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?

The theologians have added not one whit to the revelations of the prophets, nor have they the wit to acknowledge the prophets as their only real basis for presuming to think about God. Craig has done better than most, but every argument of his falls easily before logic. One remedy remains, that the souls can grow and purify themselves, until they can see God. This must be why Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”