2 ms·

FWIW, most evangelicals I know reject the notion that faith and reason ought to be in contradiction. I think you'll find that few well-respected Christian theo

FWIW, most evangelicals I know reject the notion that faith and reason ought to be in contradiction. I think you'll find that few well-respected Christian theologians or pastors would embrace such a contradiction either. AFAIK, a more orthodox understanding of faith this: It's a willingness to take the risk that a proposition is true, or that a person can be trusted, even in the absence of iron-clad proof. As one guy phrased it, it's "putting all your eggs in one basket". And FWIW, I've encountered numerous liberals, conservatives, athiests, and theists who hold self-inconsistent sets of beliefs.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
You are arguing against an ideological worldview. It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history that are (edit) religious or non-religious. Speaking of contradictory beliefs, how about Lenin? He was an atheist but also thought he was a man of destiny...and murdered a bunch of people through fanaticism. Of course nobody wants to claim him today - not a true believer. Everybody knows true believers wouldn't do that.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  > It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history with faith or non-faith. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. The first sentence seems to be an assertion about the relationship between reason and religious belief. But the second sentence seems to be about the non-relationship between holding a [non-]religious world-view and being a monster. Are those two sentences were meant to work together to make a larger point? If so, would you mind restating it so I can understand?
beaconstudios 10y ago
I think pretty much all humans hold self-inconsistent internal beliefs. We're not rational agents.
richmarr 10y ago
> ...most evangelicals I know... few well-respected Christian theologians or pastors... I've encountered... With respect this argument (as presented) is anecdotal and subjective. There's neither data nor analysis so it's not very pursuasive. > ...a more orthodox understanding of faith this... Careful there, you're conflating the two meanings of the word 'faith'. One is putting trust in something, the other is to follow the doctrines of a religion (or referring to a specific religion). They're related but distinct.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

You are arguing against an ideological worldview. It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history that are (edit) religious or non-religious. Speaking of contradictory beliefs, how about Lenin? He was an atheist but also thought he was a man of destiny...and murdered a bunch of people through fanaticism. Of course nobody wants to claim him today - not a true believer. Everybody knows true believers wouldn't do that.

DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
> It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history with faith or non-faith. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. The first sentence seems to be an assertion about the relationship between reason and religious belief. But the second sentence seems to be about the non-relationship between holding a [non-]religious world-view and being a monster. Are those two sentences were meant to work together to make a larger point? If so, would you mind restating it so I can understand?

beaconstudios 10y ago

I think pretty much all humans hold self-inconsistent internal beliefs. We're not rational agents.

richmarr 10y ago

> ...most evangelicals I know... few well-respected Christian theologians or pastors... I've encountered... With respect this argument (as presented) is anecdotal and subjective. There's neither data nor analysis so it's not very pursuasive. > ...a more orthodox understanding of faith this... Careful there, you're conflating the two meanings of the word 'faith'. One is putting trust in something, the other is to follow the doctrines of a religion (or referring to a specific religion). They're related but distinct.