[cap4life]

This articles is absolute b.s. Faith and reason go together; they are not diametrically opposed. Perhaps the reason why geeks tend to be atheists is because they simply don't care that much about religion- they have other subjects to consider.

[ajkirwin]

Not meaning to start a theological debate here, as really, it's not the place, but how exactly do faith and reason go together?

[robg]

What annoys me is so-called scientists writing books where they cloak the discussion in pseudo-science. The scientific method requires hypothesis testing. When a scientist says faith involves delusion, they're really degrading science because anyone with "faith" knows it's not an objective reality to be tested. And so they reject science. To me, that explains the backlash against science. Scientists overstepping the bounds of their expertise damage the reputation of science itself.

That all said, reason should absolutely be used to examine faith. If your reason forces you to reject a faith, who's to say you must then reject all faith? Sure, you may decide to at any point. But it need not be the end of inquiry.

One fact that will always blow my mind for which I don't anticipate a fully rational explication: Right now we're all communicating across a tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. Yet we have the rational means (linguistic, mathematic, scientific) to ponder the depth and extent of our own existence. Call me a theist, but I don't see how that's possible based on strictly finite matter. An evolutionary biologist may spin a story, but it doesn't make it so. So too might an ancient book. Use reason to explore and understand the diversity of faith. In the process I can't see how you won't deepen your own understanding of both.

EDIT: If you disagree, say why you disagree even as I don't think I've said anything controversial here. I know some science. I know faith less. This thread is interesting to me exactly because of the seeming prevalence of atheist programmers for which I have no insight into why.

[crescendo]

Right now we're all communicating across a tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. Yet we have the rational means (linguistic, mathematic, scientific) to ponder the depth and extent of our own existence.

Maybe the ability to "ponder the depth and extent of our own existence" isn't really such a big deal after all. As humans we tend to exalt the things that separate us from other species on this planet without much analysis as to why those traits should be exalted. What if such "pondering" is just the brain's way of filling in idle time with junk to fool us that something is there, such as when it fills in areas of low resolution in our visual field to fool us into seeing a full picture?

The concepts of "ponder", "depth", and "existence" originate within the human brain, as does the very concept of "concept".

I'm not saying your statement is wrong, really. Just pointing out that you're making a big assumption that the act of pondering existence and the like are some kind of mystical thing.

[ajkirwin]

There are, of course, two definitions of the word 'Faith'. There is faith as in the biblical context, putting stock and basing your life upon a collected series of written works.

Or there is faith, related to a broader range of hopes and beliefs. For instance, I have faith in the resilience of our sciences. I have belief that Einstein was right and that, when we reach a fundamental understanding of the most basic forces of the universe, that general relativity will still hold sway.

But, on a more relevant note, I find Theology absolutely fascinating. Collectively, the vast majority of the planet on which we reside believe in something which is untestable, unknowable and incomprehensible.

They ascribe attribute and act in mannerisms of which, if directed at other areas of focus, are called dementia, yet somehow, when used with heavily weighted terms such as 'God', become somehow acceptable.

Anyway, that's all I will say on the matter, before pg gets on my case about being vastly and shockingly off-topic for here :]

[robg]

I find your first definition overly limiting. And your second too broad. Religious faith, for me, sits somewhere in-between.

As for practical applications, I find that particular versions of faith apply to its focus. The scientific faith I share with you but I don't expect an infinite march forward. Just because a question can be addressed with data doesn't mean the answer lies somewhere in there (see brain imaging and consciousness).

Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people. But I know I'll fail in many important ways. Some would call that "sin" and I was raised Jewish.

I have technological faith that Apple will soon produce an iPhone I have to have. But Google's search won't always find what you need to know. And I don't think technology can solve all of our problems.

[apu]

Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people.

I think most atheists feel something like this as well (we may not choose to call it "faith"). If this is all that "religious faith" means to you, then I would argue you're not particularly religious. Of course religion can be defined in various ways, but to call a belief system "religion" that has no concept of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator who has any sort of direct influence on peoples' lives so dilutes the meaning of that word that you're left with a tautology -- religion means whatever you feel about things that can't be explained by science.

[robg]

Meh, I'm not particularly concerned with how religious I am. I'm a theist - that I know. I don't feel the need to prove it to anyone or justify it. And that's where the problem of a tautology comes in.

Atheism just seems weird to me - a rejection without further effort. I think there's enough diversity of belief in theology, that one can learn alot without being nihilistic.

[yummyfajitas]

All reasoning requires some unprovable axioms. That's Godel's incompleteness theorem. A religious person can simply take the divinity of jesus (or whatever) as an axiom and use reason from that point onward.

[dmoney]

> All reasoning requires some unprovable axioms. That's Godel's incompleteness theorem.

No, that's just reasoning. Godel's theorem is about the limitations of what you can build upon those axioms.

I'm not sure those limitations even matter much. What use is being able to prove "this statement is unprovable"?

[aswanson]

But a non-believer can attack that axiom through historical record or the definition of divinity and point out how Jesus fell short (prophecies, etc). So if the axiom is falsifiable it is useless.

[ashu]

Or I could just assume that all objects fall upwards is an axiom and then try to reason my way around to explain gravity!