Post Reply
Page 1 of 11  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View An "Appeal to Faith"
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:45PM #1
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





whatson2nd



Posts: 2,892







appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.


Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:46PM #2
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





ctcss



Posts: 559







Jun 22, 2012 -- 8:31AM, whatson2nd wrote:



appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.





Could you clarify your term more specifically here? Faith, as a term without any other qualifiers, is simply too nebulous. I think you may be trying to describe blind faith here. A reasoned faith, on the other hand, is obviously one that could be based on reason, logic, and evidence and is not necessarily irrational.



For instance, I may trust my mother to pick me up at school because (1) she has done it before when asked but I have no guarantee  that she will do so this time, but nonetheless I will wait for her to show up, (2) she has done other things before when I asked and there is no reason to doubt that she will not perform this request as well, thus I will wait for her to show up, (3) she is my mother and has proven herself many times over to be concerned for my welfare and has earned my trust despite a situation coming up that I have never experienced before, thus, since I asked her to pick me up I will wait for her to show up despite never having been in this situation before.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:47PM #3
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





davelaw40



Posts: 16,173







Jun 23, 2012 -- 12:22PM, ctcss wrote:




Jun 22, 2012 -- 8:31AM, whatson2nd wrote:



appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.




Could you clarify your term more specifically here? Faith, as a term without any other qualifiers, is simply too nebulous. I think you may be trying to describe blind faith here. A reasoned faith, on the other hand, is obviously one that could be based on reason, logic, and evidence and is not necessarily irrational.For instance, I may trust my mother to pick me up at school because (1) she has done it before when asked but I have no guarantee  that she will do so this time, but nonetheless I will wait for her to show up, (2) she has done other things before when I asked and there is no reason to doubt that she will not perform this request as well, thus I will wait for her to show up, (3) she is my mother and has proven herself many times over to be concerned for my welfare and has earned my trust despite a situation coming up that I have never experienced before, thus, since I asked her to pick me up I will wait for her to show up despite never having been in this situation before.



whats is discussing a particular Christian argument which is also sometimes framed in terms of the Holy Spirit-you don't understand because you don't have the Holy Spirit- its also closely related to appeal to supernatural revelation

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:48PM #4
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





SeraphimR



Posts: 5,395







Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:05AM, whatson2nd wrote:



begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?






Of course.  Compare religious South Korea to atheist North Korea.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:49PM #5
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





ctcss



Posts: 559







Jun 23, 2012 -- 12:39PM, davelaw40 wrote:




Jun 23, 2012 -- 12:22PM, ctcss wrote:




Jun 22, 2012 -- 8:31AM, whatson2nd wrote:



appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.






Could you clarify your term more specifically here? Faith, as a term without any other qualifiers, is simply too nebulous. I think you may be trying to describe blind faith here. A reasoned faith, on the other hand, is obviously one that could be based on reason, logic, and evidence and is not necessarily irrational.


For instance, I may trust my mother to pick me up at school because (1) she has done it before when asked but I have no guarantee  that she will do so this time, but nonetheless I will wait for her to show up, (2) she has done other things before when I asked and there is no reason to doubt that she will not perform this request as well, thus I will wait for her to show up, (3) she is my mother and has proven herself many times over to be concerned for my welfare and has earned my trust despite a situation coming up that I have never experienced before, thus, since I asked her to pick me up I will wait for her to show up despite never having been in this situation before.


whats is discussing a particular Christian argument which is also sometimes framed in terms of the Holy Spirit-you don't understand because you don't have the Holy Spirit- its also closely related to appeal to supernatural revelation


I am not disagreeing with your helpful explanation, but based on whats further description "Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.", I felt that was assuming too much.


In other words, someone (whats or someone else), was trying to define faith as a blind faith rather than something with a bit more thought applied to it. If the classical or traditional Christian argument has always meant to imply that faith is always a blind faith, then his post was accurately stated. If, on the other hand, he was adding those explanatory words on his own, then I felt that was assuming too much.


Is that particular classical Christian argument always based on assuming faith contains no reasoning, no evidence, no logic, and is essentially irrational thinking? If so, then I stand corrected.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:49PM #6
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





davelaw40



Posts: 16,173







Whats is arguing from the hard agnostic postion that all faith is blind.


Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:50PM #7
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





newsjunkie



Posts: 5,081








Jun 23, 2012 -- 1:09PM, ctcss wrote:




Jun 23, 2012 -- 12:39PM, davelaw40 wrote:




Jun 23, 2012 -- 12:22PM, ctcss wrote:




Jun 22, 2012 -- 8:31AM, whatson2nd wrote:



appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.






Could you clarify your term more specifically here? Faith, as a term without any other qualifiers, is simply too nebulous. I think you may be trying to describe blind faith here. A reasoned faith, on the other hand, is obviously one that could be based on reason, logic, and evidence and is not necessarily irrational.


For instance, I may trust my mother to pick me up at school because (1) she has done it before when asked but I have no guarantee  that she will do so this time, but nonetheless I will wait for her to show up, (2) she has done other things before when I asked and there is no reason to doubt that she will not perform this request as well, thus I will wait for her to show up, (3) she is my mother and has proven herself many times over to be concerned for my welfare and has earned my trust despite a situation coming up that I have never experienced before, thus, since I asked her to pick me up I will wait for her to show up despite never having been in this situation before.




whats is discussing a particular Christian argument which is also sometimes framed in terms of the Holy Spirit-you don't understand because you don't have the Holy Spirit- its also closely related to appeal to supernatural revelation




I am not disagreeing with your helpful explanation, but based on whats further description "Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.", I felt that was assuming too much.


In other words, someone (whats or someone else), was trying to define faith as a blind faith rather than something with a bit more thought applied to it. If the classical or traditional Christian argument has always meant to imply that faith is always a blind faith, then his post was accurately stated. If, on the other hand, he was adding those explanatory words on his own, then I felt that was assuming too much.


Is that particular classical Christian argument always based on assuming faith contains no reasoning, no evidence, no logic, and is essentially irrational thinking? If so, then I stand corrected.





If the "appeal to faith" (i.e. without faith you'll never understand or learn) is used in response to an objection to particular religious beliefs such as in these examples:


"I don't see how a loving God could send one of his creations to eternal damnation";


"I don't see how a person could be born of a virgin";


"I don't see how an ark could be constructed to hold two of every species on Earth for 40 days and 40 nights";


"I don't see how a dead person could be brought back to life 3 days later";


and so on, the type of faith that was appealed to must be one that is one that contains no evidence, at least. Why? Because there is no evidence for those things. I would also say that using the argument is an example of irrational thinking because it's basically a glib response, not a well-formed argument. One could go on to provide some kind of rationalizations for why faith would be needed in order for the doubter to learn or understand, but if all that's said is, well, without faith you'll never be able to understand, I don't see any rational argument there. It sounds more like a put-down than a rational argument.


Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:50PM #8
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





ctcss



Posts: 559








Jun 23, 2012 -- 1:28PM, davelaw40 wrote:



Whats is arguing from the hard agnostic postion that all faith is blind.






Thanks. (Interesting, I hadn't heard of the term "hard agnostic" before. Thanks for that as well.)


Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 2:51PM #9
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707





ctcss



Posts: 559







Jun 23, 2012 -- 1:43PM, newsjunkie wrote:

If the "appeal to faith" (i.e. without faith you'll never understand or learn) is used in response to an objection to particular religious beliefs such as in these examples:




"I don't see how a loving God could send one of his creations to eternal damnation";




"I don't see how a person could be born of a virgin"; 




"I don't see how an ark could be constructed to hold two of every species on Earth for 40 days and 40 nights";




"I don't see how a dead person could be brought back to life 3 days later";




and so on, the type of faith that was appealed to must be one that is one that contains no evidence, at least. Why? Because there is no evidence for those things. I would also say that using the argument is an example of irrational thinking because it's basically a glib response, not a well-formed argument. One could go on to provide some kind of rationalizations for why faith would be needed in order for the doubter to learn or understand, but if all that's said is, well, without faith you'll never be able to understand, I don't see any rational argument there. It sounds more like a put-down than a rational argument.





A glib response sounds more like non-thinking or ungracious thinking than irrational thinking. So if the questioner pointed out that more useful, detailed, or clarifying information was needed for any paticular point or for the general class of points, and the response continued to be "you need to have faith" without explaining further how the person answering had logically arrived at their own position of faith, then you would be correct, the answer would be one given without reasoning backing it up.



And the kind of put-down that points out how lacking the questioner is, rather than helping them to see how they can gain some area of knowledge or experience that they don't currently have is obviously ungracious and less than helpful.



It sound like you are are pointing out the (sadly, all too common) occurrence of someone with blind faith recommending the same to another person. So I wish the "appeal to faith" was more aptly renamed "appeal to blind faith". As a Sunday School teacher who has always tried to help his students reason through things so that they might have the opportunity to more clearly understand them rather than just blindly accepting them, I find this (to me) imprecise use of the term "faith" to be rather lacking.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 3:02PM #10
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Hi All,


Re above posts, good discussion generated by and moved from the Logical Fallacies thread.


-Adelphe

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 11  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook