Why do some insist that reason and faith are mutually exclusive while simultaneously pointing to creation itself as evidence of God's existence?

They are not exclusive but often when man tries to use logic, they use it to justify why there is no God, since mans own mind has trouble justifying their faith.

Also in faith, many things are not logical

Many use logic to justify Their God also!:cool:

they are not exclusive but often when man trys to use logic, they use it to justify why there is no God, since mans own mind has trouble justifying thier faith.

Also in faith, many things are not logical

Can you please explain how they reconcile using nature as evidence of intelligent design and one reason for their faith and simultaneously claiming that faith isn't based on reaching conclusions based on observation? This is the same mentality as in the torture for God is OK scenario. Totally paradoxical

Historically there has been found a place for both. The Catholic Church has posited reason as a proper basis for faith. Protestants have largely abandoned the idea that reason is a sufficient guide to faith, positing that faith is a gift from God, and not something that a person can arrive at through their own powers of reason.

The major difficulties with both these positions is that not everyone can reason well, but that ought not to prevent them from having faith, and, alternately, not everyone has enjoyed those funny internal feelings that they believe are the stirrings of the Spirit of God, yet their reason leads them to conclude that there is a God.

A mixture of faith and reason combined produces the best results. The absence of one or the other ought not to be considered a barrier to belief. To make the lack of one of these elements the litmus test for "genuine" faith, is to introduce a hurdle that has no scriptural foundation, but is, rather, founded on individual prejudices that are determined to keep others out of the circle of God's People. That kind of thinking is divisive, sectarian, and, sad to say, bigoted.



M:)RGANITE

Many use logic to justify THIER God also!:cool:


The main problem with logic is that it is not always logical. Logic proper is the province of the philosoper, and philosophy has no consensus as to any single road to determining the truth of anything.

If we accept the laws of physics as applied to aerodynamics, it is logical, scientifically logical, to determine that the bumblebee is incapable of flight. Yet, bumblebees do fly.

The main probleme with religious faith is that it leads people in different directions, and causes them then to think that their direction is correct, hence, logically, all others must be wrong. That is, of course, illogical because they assume that they know what is right in the first place.

If you are happy with your faith, then clap your hands, but do not clap your neighbor in irons because he disagrees.



M;)RGANITE

Historically there has been found a place for both. The Catholic Church has posited reason as a proper basis for faith. Protestants have largely abandoned the idea that reason is a sufficient guide to faith, positing that faith is a gift from God, and not something that a person can arrive at through their own powers of reason.

The major difficulties with both these positions is that not everyone can reason well, but that ought not to prevent them from having faith, and, alternately, not everyone has enjoyed those funny internal feelings that they believe are the stirrings of the Spirit of God, yet their reason leads them to conclude that there is a God.

A mixture of faith and reason combined produces the best results. The absence of one or the other ought not to be considered a barrier to belief. To make the lack of one of these elements the litmus test for "genuine" faith, is to introduce a hurdle that has no scriptural foundation, but is, rather, founded on individual prejudices that are determined to keep others out of the circle of God's People. That kind of thinking is divisive, sectarian, and, sad to say, bigoted.



M:)RGANITE

Very informative answer and I totally agree that we should refrain from setting up unscriptural requirements for salvation. Unfortunately it seems to be a widespread hobby founded on some type of psychological need. Perhaps the tendency to see everything in the either black or white colors instead of allowing areas for trhe gray.

BTW
What is your explanation on how someone can point to nature and say that it is evidence of a creator and then turn around and say that his faith isn't based on things seen? I know that it indicates a deficiency in being able to reason. What I'd like to know is how the person gets around this contradiction which he evidenly is somehow etting around. Do you have an idea?

BTW
What is your explanation on how someone can point to nature and say that it is evidence of a creator and then turn around and say that his faith isn't based on things seen? I know that it indicates a deficiency in being able to reason. What I'd like to know is how the person gets around this contradiction which he evidenly is somehow etting around. Do you have an idea?


There is an apparent contradiction in accepting the created as evidence of a Creator (Argument from Design), and at the same time insisting that faith is not dependent on "things seen" to be effective. but the apparent contradiction is really only a matter of semantics.

Hume puts the following words in the mouth of Cleanthes:

“The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man.” [ Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part II]

In these words he expresses the heart of the Argument from Design. That it is reasonable to all is to be doubted. That it is reasonable to no one is also to be doubted. But it cannot be doubted that many find the reasoning of the argument convincing.

The better known, and most frequently quoted, example of AFD is by William Paley. Paley likened the universe to a watch, with many ordered parts working in harmony to further a particular end or purpose - hence it is often referred to as teleology. His argument runs that just as the complexity, order, and function of a watch bespeaks the handiwork of a creative intelligence, so the complexity, order, and purpose of the universe suggests that a creative mind has been at work, and that mind is the mind of God - who else?

If the universe contains design then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it. Although a few dispute this, speaking of nature, or evolution, as our designers, this appears to be a simple linguistic truth. Just as if something is carried then there must be a carrier, so if there is design there must be a designer.

What those who reject the argument dispute, then, is not whether the design in the universe implies that there is someone who designed it, but whether the order and complexity in the universe does constitute design.

What is, I believe, the more likely progression of events is that a person 'comes to' faith, and is then inclined to recognise nature's wonders as evidence for the existence of God. It is not the first cause of their faith, but it buttresses their faith once their faith has arrived. The path or paths by which we 'come to' faith is a subject requiring separate attention.

Meanwhile, back at the semantic: Paul's definition of faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" suggests the difference between what Christians know by faith, and what they know from their experiences. This difference is only problematic when they are challenged for concrete proof of what they know.

I look out of my window and I see Red Mountain. "Prove it," you demand. I can not prove it to you, but it is still there. I photograph it and send you the picture. "That doesn't prove anything," you say, you could live thousands of miles away from it. But it is still there. I know it because I can see it, and you don't believe I can see it because I can't prove it to you.

On the other hand, religious knowledge, that is, those things that the religious hold as eternal verities, including the existence of God, cannot be photographed. There are recorded instances of peole seeing God, but they are few and far between, and anyone waiting to see God before they will believe that he is, will wait a very long time.

Yet, "I know God lives!" thunders the preacher with no trace of uncertainty in his voice. "Amen," respond his congregation no less emphatically.

What is it that they 'know'? How do the 'know' it? They know by interpreting their spiritual experiences - which are of many varieties - in ways that confirm to them that God is real, and then a whole lot of theological appendages and appurtanences follow as an "all or nothing" faith package.

The doubter and the atheist can belittle this kind of 'knowing' and they often do. But it is nothing more than a mischievous sport between persons of faith and persons not of faith. Usually, persons not of faith initiate the confrontation by sneering that God is a myth, a fairy tale, a legend, a story concocted by a child's need for a powerful protector, etc. etc. etc. and then robustly demanding that the person of faith produce scientific proof for the existence of God.

The sensible thing to do is not to attempt to answer the unanswerable, but state one's belief, sympathise for the other's lack of spiritual experiences, and let cyberspace swallow them up again. Endless posts, questions, answers, time, money, and egos are spent trying to educate the uneducatable. Faith is something you must experience for yourself to know what it is, how it feels, and what it means.

Back to your question: A person having 'gotten' religious faith in a Creator-God is more likely to see God's hand in the wonders of Creation, because it is part of a package deal. If there is a God, then God dunnit! If there is not a God, then some other explanation must be sought.

Faith is not and does not claim to be perfect knowledge. But is is knowing, and that person who knows God lives, is in a cognitive position in advance of belief, especially when belief is held to mean 'assumed.' We must carefully unpack and define what our terms mean, and what they do not mean, when we engage in discourses of this nature, because the same word will not have the sanme meaning, force, or value for different people, especially those who are on opposite - warring - sides of the faith divide.




M:)RGANITE