Big Think

John Bomar Jr on January 24, 2008, 4:33 AM

Dr. Gomes rationale for the existence of God is the standard argument offered by religions people. If science can't explain or disprove god then he/she/it must exist. There are many alternatives to the lack of an explanation by science other than the existence of a supernatural being

John Bomar Jr on January 24, 2008, 9:33 AM

Dr. Gomes rationale for the existence of God is the standard argument offered by religions people. If science can’t explain or disprove god then he/she/it must exist. There are many alternatives to the lack of an explanation by science other than the existence of a supernatural being

John Zawacki on January 25, 2008, 6:55 PM

I am sorry for those who can not find joy in science, the discovery of this world!! Nature and the universe is much cooler, much more fun, and much more interesting then human beliefs or dicussions on those beliefs. There is so much more to learn about the universe, why waist time?

John Zawacki on January 25, 2008, 11:55 PM

I am sorry for those who can not find joy in science, the discovery of this world!! Nature and the universe is much cooler, much more fun, and much more interesting then human beliefs or dicussions on those beliefs. There is so much more to learn about the universe, why waist time?

Afaun Mandol on January 27, 2008, 8:27 AM

Faith and reason are compatible – we just don't know everything yet and we never will. I believe God created everything (the laws of physics and life) and then put it in motion. The more we explore in science the more intricate we find things to be. Just like looking at the inside of a computer, it did not happen randomly and certainly not instantly. Someone had to build every piece you see and it has evolved over a number of years. This couldn't be created 2000 years ago even though all the materials were available because we did not know how. Understanding how a computer works does not mean it was not developed by a whole team of people, similarly, understanding God's creation does not mean God did not create it.

Afaun Mandol on January 27, 2008, 1:27 PM

Faith and reason are compatible – we just don’t know everything yet and we never will. I believe God created everything (the laws of physics and life) and then put it in motion. The more we explore in science the more intricate we find things to be. Just like looking at the inside of a computer, it did not happen randomly and certainly not instantly. Someone had to build every piece you see and it has evolved over a number of years. This couldn’t be created 2000 years ago even though all the materials were available because we did not know how. Understanding how a computer works does not mean it was not developed by a whole team of people, similarly, understanding God’s creation does not mean God did not create it.

Amyellen Leib on January 30, 2008, 12:22 PM

I think that science comes close to finding the things you mention when it examines the issue of Dark Energy, the subtle (electromagnetic) body, the fractal/holographic universe and other scientific esoterica.

The mechanistic, standard matter model, I agree, does little to explain anything in an emotional and spiritual realm.

Amyellen Leib on January 30, 2008, 5:22 PM

I think that science comes close to finding the things you mention when it examines the issue of Dark Energy, the subtle (electromagnetic) body, the fractal/holographic universe and other scientific esoterica.

The mechanistic, standard matter model, I agree, does little to explain anything in an emotional and spiritual realm.

Gemma Dragaroja on February 1, 2008, 11:03 AM

Faith and reason are compatible and that's because the coincidences of our universe are so much unique that they must be explain with another kind of explanation, the faith.

Gemma Dragaroja on February 1, 2008, 4:03 PM

Faith and reason are compatible and that’s because the coincidences of our universe are so much unique that they must be explain with another kind of explanation, the faith.

Jen Something on February 4, 2008, 6:21 PM

Not at all.

Jen Something on February 4, 2008, 11:21 PM

Not at all.

Ray Smith on February 12, 2008, 5:40 AM

In order for me to choose where to place my religious faith (and there are obviously many choices), it seems to me that I am wise to insist that there should be at least a modicum of credible evidence to support that decision, otherwise the choice is arbitrary; I may as well just roll the dice. Thus far, I've not seen any credible evidence to support the claim that anything supernatural (i.e., anything that is above and beyond nature) exists at all, much less the claims about specific dieties. Stating this position in conversation often results in the response, "Well, that's what faith is all about, believing what can't be proven." So round and round we go.

Ray Smith on February 12, 2008, 10:40 AM

In order for me to choose where to place my religious faith (and there are obviously many choices), it seems to me that I am wise to insist that there should be at least a modicum of credible evidence to support that decision, otherwise the choice is arbitrary; I may as well just roll the dice. Thus far, I’ve not seen any credible evidence to support the claim that anything supernatural (i.e., anything that is above and beyond nature) exists at all, much less the claims about specific dieties. Stating this position in conversation often results in the response, “Well, that’s what faith is all about, believing what can’t be proven.” So round and round we go.

Fred Farrell on March 5, 2008, 10:03 PM

Peter Gomes, a Professor at Harvard? I think a dictionary may hep, explanations of all those emotions are in there. If you need explanations of the origins of those emotions – see: evolutionary biology/ psychology, philosophy of consciousness and more. Science is beautiful. Science gives us answers that can be questioned and reviewed, instead of one answer in one book that's protected by ancient taboos(in the case of christianity). I say we break the spell that religion needs in order to go on unquestioned. If they are right, what harm could there be in scientifically investigating their claims. Myself and other rational people would be delighted to convert if we were given some evidence of the supernatural phenomena that fills religious belief. Science is limited only by the ignorance of those whom avoid it's questions and continue to preach a blind faith in proofs with no evidence.

Fred Farrell on March 6, 2008, 3:03 AM

Peter Gomes, a Professor at Harvard? I think a dictionary may hep, explanations of all those emotions are in there. If you need explanations of the origins of those emotions – see: evolutionary biology/ psychology, philosophy of consciousness and more. Science is beautiful. Science gives us answers that can be questioned and reviewed, instead of one answer in one book that’s protected by ancient taboos(in the case of christianity). I say we break the spell that religion needs in order to go on unquestioned. If they are right, what harm could there be in scientifically investigating their claims. Myself and other rational people would be delighted to convert if we were given some evidence of the supernatural phenomena that fills religious belief. Science is limited only by the ignorance of those whom avoid it’s questions and continue to preach a blind faith in proofs with no evidence.

Jared Perlman on March 10, 2008, 5:51 PM

Reason and faith, compatible? I think not. Their very definitions are antitheses of one another. Reason depends on rational logic while faith demands that you accept it without proof. To use a double standard in life would not be the most intelligent move one could make. As to his comments on peace, joy, and happiness, there are perfectly normal ways to experience them. If your unfounded belief gives you some kind of joy, then I believe you should be entitled to it, but for that to be the only fulfillment in your life, that is just plain ridiculous. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want, as long as that does not infringe on anyone else's rights to believe what they want. I will live my secular life and enjoy those pleasures that the world has to offer and you will live your life devoted to a being that you have no reason to believe exists besides indoctrination. As to science having limits and religion going beyond them, untrue. Science is currently limited, but is continually expanding. What we can do now we couldn't dream of doing a hundred years ago. Religion on the other hand is capable of anything the human mind wishes, as long as it doesn't ask for any real results. So go ahead, live your life. I won't stop you as long as you don't stop me. The second you try to interfere with my life, you just gave up your own right to live the way you want.

Jared Perlman on March 10, 2008, 9:51 PM

Reason and faith, compatible? I think not. Their very definitions are antitheses of one another. Reason depends on rational logic while faith demands that you accept it without proof. To use a double standard in life would not be the most intelligent move one could make. As to his comments on peace, joy, and happiness, there are perfectly normal ways to experience them. If your unfounded belief gives you some kind of joy, then I believe you should be entitled to it, but for that to be the only fulfillment in your life, that is just plain ridiculous. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want, as long as that does not infringe on anyone else’s rights to believe what they want. I will live my secular life and enjoy those pleasures that the world has to offer and you will live your life devoted to a being that you have no reason to believe exists besides indoctrination. As to science having limits and religion going beyond them, untrue. Science is currently limited, but is continually expanding. What we can do now we couldn’t dream of doing a hundred years ago. Religion on the other hand is capable of anything the human mind wishes, as long as it doesn’t ask for any real results. So go ahead, live your life. I won’t stop you as long as you don’t stop me. The second you try to interfere with my life, you just gave up your own right to live the way you want.

Kissmy Ass on March 13, 2008, 9:13 AM

Faith is a willingness to believe in things for which there is no supporting evidence (at best) and contradictory evidence (at worst).

Faith is not the same as belief. I don't have "faith" that all organisms on this planet are desended from a single common ancestor; I believe it. Evidence dictates the distinction between faith and reason.

Therefore, faith is incompatilbe with reason.

Kissmy Ass on March 13, 2008, 1:13 PM

Faith is a willingness to believe in things for which there is no supporting evidence (at best) and contradictory evidence (at worst).

Faith is not the same as belief. I don’t have “faith” that all organisms on this planet are desended from a single common ancestor; I believe it. Evidence dictates the distinction between faith and reason.

Therefore, faith is incompatilbe with reason.

Graham Orr on March 16, 2008, 6:26 AM

SPINOZA%u2019S AND EINSTEIN%u2019S GOD:
INCALCULABLE SIGNIFICANCE THROUGH CALCULATION

Something profound may exist when two brilliant people come to a similar philosophy given tremendously diverse mindsets and/or times. When we examine the philosophies of Baruch Spinoza, 17th Century philosopher and theologian, in contrast to 20th Century physicist and mathematician Albert Einstein, we note several major differences in the environments in which these two thinkers philosophized, while attempting to obtain a higher truth about the Universe and along the way provide a hopeful message for humanity. This diversity of mind and convergence of theory amplifies the weight of their ideas leaving us to do some serious consideration on their thoughts.

OF BARUCH SPINOZA
Spinoza studied in pre-industrial Europe, in the same time period of scientific revolutionary Sir Isaac Newton. The world was on the brink of scientific Enlightenment, starting to adopt the scientific method in lieu of traditional religious dictation. Spinoza%u2019s work reflects and perpetuates this intellectual fervor. However, inasmuch as there was a new interest in the sciences, religiosity was still a central social institution and charter in most peoples%u2019 lives. Because of this emphasis on religion, Spinoza%u2019s work in his Theological-Political Treatise was veiled to conform to traditional theological discussion, providing an exoteric interpretation of the Bible. In addition to the exoteric religious commentary, Spinoza cites personal conflict with religion, using Judaism as his main example, since the primary audience of the book would be Christians who might not take kindly to criticism of their own faith. These actions protected Spinoza from attack from the Church though they caused uproar in the Jewish community, ultimately leading to his writ of cherem from Judaism in 1656.
Beneath the politics, however, Spinoza%u2019s postulations were highly esoteric, calling for a massive divergence in how one perceived humanity and God. This can be perfectly exemplified in how Spinoza redefines the driving forces of human life in the treatise in the chapter %u201COf Divine Law%u201D. Spinoza establishes a palpable dichotomy in the %u201Cforces%u201D a typical human encounters in their life. The first force, Divine Law, is exoterically defined to be the will of God. However, if one assigns Nature as a manifestation of God in Divine Law, one can deduce from this statement that Divine Law is simply the unbreakable law of the universe. Therefore, Nature, or the Divine Law binds human action and potential.
In the chapter %u201COf Miracles%u201D in his treatise, Spinoza provides framework for the substitution of Nature for Divine Law. In response to a popular view on miracles and the domain of power between Nature and God, Spinoza says, %u201CThey consider that God is inactive all the while Nature pursues her normal course, and conversely that Nature%u2019s power and natural causes are suspended as long as God is acting%u2026They imagine God%u2019s power to be like the rule of some royal potentate, and Nature%u2019s power to be a kind of force and energy.%u201D (TPT 71) Spinoza later goes on to claim, %u201Cthe universal laws of Nature are merely God%u2019s decree.%u201D Here it can be suggested that Spinoza is fusing God and Nature, which may appear a bit pseudo-pantheistic and be discussed later.
The second force that Spinoza declares is human law. Spinoza tells the reader that human law, derived directly from religious teachings, exists %u201Cto safeguard life and the commonwealth%u201D. (TPT 49) This law, though enforced in the society to which it applies, is a construct of the society for self-preservation. The primary difference between the human law and the Divine Law, however, is that the latter simply cannot be broken since everything that can exist, exists within the bounds of the Divine Laws, which as stated before, Spinoza insinuates are simply the physical bounds of the Universe.
Human law can be broken, though it is punishable by the society should the violator be caught. The description of the human law, however, is left open enough for pious readers to assume that the Biblical derivation of the laws makes them sacred and therefore violation is reputable from the Divine. In such a case, fear of punishment and yearning for pleasure, as Biblically induced, keeps the traditional religious person moral. For the non-believer, one can extrapolate that commonwealth may positively affect the constituents of the community and therefore it is logical for everyone to follow human law, even if deemed from erroneous roots, because it provides a stable social framework.

OF ALBERT EINSTEIN
Albert Einstein%u2019s philosophy comes from the context as a physicist and mathematician. Although his philosophy evolved throughout his life, as noted in Gerald Holton%u2019s essay Einstein%u2019s Third Paradise, his philosophy converged to a sense of spirituality based on his life-long study of physics. (ETP 3) His spiritual stance can be summarized from a quote, %u201CI believe in Spinoza%u2019s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concern Himself with the fate and doings of mankind.%u201D (ETP 6)
Much of Einstein%u2019s ambition in physics came from the aspiration to unify and generalize the natural forces. Einstein believed that the pursuit of understanding the physical universe would unveil much of the panhuman questions including the quest for purpose and origin. This is particularly evident in his theory of general relativity and work towards a unified field theory, which unfortunately was not completed before his death (and is still not completed). Still, however, Einstein witnessed the mathematical and physical harmony of the Cosmos through trends of generalization of the physical universe. Before his time, the fundamental forces of Nature consisted merely of gravity, electromagnetic, and elusive atomic forces. By the end of Einstein%u2019s life, all the %u201Cfundamental forces%u201D, with the exception of gravity, had been precisely described and related, converging a fractional universe into a nearly singular, harmonic Cosmos. (Cosmos 199) Though the unification was not complete at the end of Einstein%u2019s life, he did not see any rational for a dually driven universe. (MLY 92) This opinion was resonated with a strong sense of universal determinism %u2013 that a singular reality exists with continuous and a universally unbreakable law. This law, which by description is very similar to Spinoza%u2019s esoteric Divine law, may not be completely describable or understood by humanity at this time (or any time in the future) but limitation in human comprehension does not necessarily mean that a unification does not exist. Thus, pursuit of a unified theory should be conducted until the concept is proven incorrect.
It would be poor science to state, simply, that Einstein%u2019s technical ideas and opinions were spawned or inspired directly by Judaism. On the contrary, it may be the case that Judaism did play a vital role in how Einstein conceptualized the Universe, though being scientifically certain of this may be impossible. Given his circumstances and influences were not merely simple, it is difficult to say whether one was really the effect of the other or if Einstein just happened to converge to some personal philosophy that seemed to be closely related and progressive to Jewish thought. Because of this, I can make no definite claim as to the extent Judaism played a role in his work. Rather, however, I can assertively state that Judaism and a genuine sense of spirituality did play some role in seeking the larger truths of the universe.
In a compilation of many of Einstein%u2019s letters, Ideas and Opinions, Einstein notes a profound synthesis of reality and awe while pursuing a unification of the Cosmos. In a letter to the Liberal Ministers%u2019 Club of New York City in 1948, Einstein poses a question to a predominantly Christian audience regarding the true differences between science and religion. Titled %u201CReligion and Science: Irreconcilable?%u201D he addresses the bases to which religion and science is established and notes that each are an attempt to reach greater truth through different means. As he reverberates in his book, Out of my Later Years, science is merely an attempt to describe and predict our sense-experiences, while %u201Creligion is concerned with mankind%u2019s attitude with nature at large.%u201D (I&O 50) Therefore, from Einstein%u2019s perspective, both are necessary for humanity to obtain the grandiosity and quiescence of Nature, and perhaps God.
Based on the context and his rejection of traditional Jewish practice, however, Einstein may have used the word %u201Creligion%u201D superfluously with the intended definition conforming more to %u201Cspirituality%u201D. In a sense, it is not religion that is particularly in conflict with science but externalized religion and the dogmatic rejection of science that poses true hazard to those like Einstein. Although this is in conflict with the fact that Albert Einstein was an avid Zionist, my reasoning for Einstein%u2019s position is adequate: Though Albert Einstein struggled with the concept of externalized religion, he may have felt that Judaism taught or invigorated some core ideas or values that should be preserved in humanity. To keeps these things alive, one would need to preserve Judaism as a whole. This may be because these things could not be easily described or carried out without the whole, hence, the establishment of a sovereign, Jewish state. This, I believe, was a personal struggle Einstein grappled with. Like Spinoza, he set his personal opinions aside to make a situation he believed would provide social stability.

THE REDUCTION
Even though Spinoza apparently dichotomizes the forces into Divine and human in his treatise, this may have not been his personal philosophy. The evidence for this is how Spinoza describes the scope of the Divine and human laws. Human law, established and upheld by social institution and ultimately people exists to protect the people. (TPT 49) It is, however, bound by the laws of the physical realm and is therefore really constrained by the laws of Nature, or the Divine Law as Spinoza esoterically describes. The freewill that people think they have is not truly autonomy but a manifestation of natural necessity through supervenes of Nature. (Freud 39) (More discussion regarding supervenes will come later.) Therefore, human law is really just a particular and specialized expression of Divine law, as it just happens to play out through the course of the Universe. This means that inasmuch as humans value their Freudian ego and perceived biological superiority, humans along with all other things, living or not, are bound by the same common rules.
With this subtle suggestion comes grand philosophy. Religion and all social constructs, whether thought to be divine or not, is ultimately bound by Nature. This order of supervenes is supported by Spinoza as well as Albert Einstein, in one form or another. (Spinoza did not have the scientific knowledge at his time though if he knew the details of physics it is very likely that he would have written his proofs to include physical forms rather than only traditional logic as in his Ethics.) A typical Spinoza-Einstein thought experiment concerning the scope of humanity and all that exists may proceed as follows:

1. Social structures are bound by the necessity of its living constituents.
2. The living constituents are bound by their cellular requirements.
3. The cells are driven by their molecular chemistry.
4. The molecular chemistry is driven by atomic forces.
5. The atomic forces are bound by fundamental forces.
6. Fundamental forces are just a human compartmentalization of Nature.

Thus, if each statement scopes into the next (meaning that each latter statement is the bases for the former), social structures are bound by Nature. Understanding Nature and its manifestation through forces into the physical realm can teach humanity about itself since Nature is the bases for humanity. Spinoza%u2019s approach to achieving this understanding is %u201Ctop-down%u201D in that he used theology and social structure to synthesis a philosophy in which he could examine humanity through Nature. Einstein%u2019s approach is %u201Cground-up%u201D, attempting to synthesis a valid unification and understanding of the physics and possibly essence (if it exists) of Nature. From here, Einstein could understand and project the place of humanity from purely scientific bases rather than Spinoza%u2019s theological bases.

THE SYNTHESIS
Up to this point, my writing has consisted of direct extrapolation of ideas from Albert Einstein%u2019s and Baruch Spinoza%u2019s works or a close analysis thereof. The analysis I have provided has been one of fair modesty in the light of academic objectivism, unless otherwise noted. From here on are merely uncharted waters and speculations as to where Spinoza and Einstein actually may be leading humanity, inspired by their works%u2026 or at least as predicted by them. Because of this, I regret to inform the reader that these are personal extrapolations and do not necessarily have true validity. While this form of work may not candor to the academically rigorous this type of thought-experiment is absolutely necessary to synthesize a new philosophy%u2026
Although Einstein and Spinoza may have reduced the human experience to a mere physical reality and social disillusion, they leave room for humanity to create a personal religion or spirituality. They recognized, however, that a serious problem might occur if many individuals became rogue philosophers. In such a case, there would be no common moral ground or basis for individuals to implement human law, unless nearly every philosopher understood the importance of human law%u2019s role in the commonwealth. Even so, individuals may not value commonwealth and stability and not work towards it, but possibly against it. In addition, allowing widespread practice of philosophy would create intellectual chaos and systematization of thought would be nearly impossible. So, for the time being, the great majority of humans should be appeased with religion that brings personal meaning and social stability. For these reasons, the greater populous should be involved in organized and systematized religion such as Judaism or Christianity. This will ensure human stability and happiness through a sense of a greater collective. Spinoza perpetuates these ends with his literary exotericism and Einstein perpetuates it with his highly-involved area of study and relentless Zionism.
Suppose a Divine philosophy does exist %u2013 one that has a definite truth and brings us closer to the unified field, Divine Law, Truth, God, or whatever one wishes to call It. In an already religiously dominated world, imagine what would happen if the general populous were presented with this theory and it came to be the accepted Truth. While the highly intellectual people may marvel at its beauty and wonder, taking solace in its simplicity and interconnectivity to the rest of the Cosmos, these intricacies may not be understood by the laypeople and desperation and anguish may come from this truth. Thus, if such a seemingly radical or non-tradition truth were conveyed to the people, the stability and happiness of humanity may be at stake even though a greater truth may be revealed. Sadly, however, spirituality and happiness may be discretely imbedded in this new philosophy.
While tackling the highly statistical nature of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Einstein once said, %u201CGod does not play dice.%u201D The true essence of this sentence, though, is one of infinite deterministic value: A singular Universe and means and reason as to why things occur%u2026does exist. Whether or not we can or wish to comprehend it, however, is a different story. While a statistical approach to something as elusive as quantum mechanics and describe what happens on the average the mathematical model does not describe the fundamental reason by which the event occurs. Here, in Einstein%u2019s and Spinoza%u2019s minds lies the ultimate boundary between science and faith %u2013 even if we were to make perfect models and relationships of the physical universe and arrive at our unified theory, there is still no explanation and cannot be a definite explanation as to why the whole thing even exists in the first place. This, in the eyes of the incalculably spiritual Einstein, is where God is.

Emily Harper on March 21, 2008, 3:37 PM

It might be so that the feelings for joy and happiness, etc have not been significantly proven by science, this is true. But since when in christianity does something have to be proven to hold its own?

Though we have made leaps and bounds in the field of science, we have not yet discovered the hows and whys of everything. Of course we have made much headway with the psychology behind emotions. Since God's world is so incredibly complicated, there are things that will always be out of our scientific reach, however that does not demerit the work that is being done or has already been done. Much like faith itself, just because you don't understand something does not mean that it has(n't) a divine correlation.

Emily Harper on March 21, 2008, 3:49 PM

Having faith is is not such a bad thing. Reason is just as important. I have faith that God somewhere along the beginning created this thing we call life and earth. I have the reason to understand, however, that the bible is not the fundamental structure of life's history. What kind of reasoner would you be to think that the entire scope of history and development can't go beyond our human capability of understanding? A three year old can understand that world was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago… so on and so forth. It takes lifetimes of scientists to answer questions about the physical world around us. Do you not think that God would have left something for us to ponder? Maybe God would have liked us to use the intellect he has given us to be able to solve the puzzle called science that will at some point bring us back to understanding where we really began. I think that this is how faith and reason are entirely compatible.

Emily Harper on March 21, 2008, 7:37 PM

It might be so that the feelings for joy and happiness, etc have not been significantly proven by science, this is true. But since when in christianity does something have to be proven to hold its own?

Though we have made leaps and bounds in the field of science, we have not yet discovered the hows and whys of everything. Of course we have made much headway with the psychology behind emotions. Since God’s world is so incredibly complicated, there are things that will always be out of our scientific reach, however that does not demerit the work that is being done or has already been done. Much like faith itself, just because you don’t understand something does not mean that it has(n’t) a divine correlation.

Emily Harper on March 21, 2008, 7:49 PM

Having faith is is not such a bad thing. Reason is just as important. I have faith that God somewhere along the beginning created this thing we call life and earth. I have the reason to understand, however, that the bible is not the fundamental structure of life’s history. What kind of reasoner would you be to think that the entire scope of history and development can’t go beyond our human capability of understanding? A three year old can understand that world was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago… so on and so forth. It takes lifetimes of scientists to answer questions about the physical world around us. Do you not think that God would have left something for us to ponder? Maybe God would have liked us to use the intellect he has given us to be able to solve the puzzle called science that will at some point bring us back to understanding where we really began. I think that this is how faith and reason are entirely compatible.

Randall Fields on March 29, 2008, 11:10 AM

Professor Gromes asks the wrong question. "Faith" and "reason" cannot be incompatible because each depends upon the other. The correct question should be: "Are dogma and reason incompatible?" One cannot hold all knowledge in his or her brain at all times, so "reason" must depend upon ideas taken as "given" (that is, we take them on "faith" that they are correct). Dogma, on the other hand, is dependant upon someone else's demand that one have a particular world view, and that this world view trump all reason that may be employed in interpreting our life situation. Dogma is the antithesis of faith and reason.

Randall Fields on March 29, 2008, 3:10 PM

Professor Gromes asks the wrong question. “Faith” and “reason” cannot be incompatible because each depends upon the other. The correct question should be: “Are dogma and reason incompatible?” One cannot hold all knowledge in his or her brain at all times, so “reason” must depend upon ideas taken as “given” (that is, we take them on “faith” that they are correct). Dogma, on the other hand, is dependant upon someone else’s demand that one have a particular world view, and that this world view trump all reason that may be employed in interpreting our life situation. Dogma is the antithesis of faith and reason.

Olav Kalgraf on April 24, 2008, 10:55 AM

'One cannot hold all knowledge in his or her brain at all times, so "reason" must depend upon ideas taken as "given" (that is, we take them on "faith" that they are correct).'

You are confusing various completely different usages of the word faith. "To take something on faith" is an expression that can mean something as harmless as "accept for the sake of argument/convenience(and possibly corrected later)".

In science(and really also in our daily lives) the underlying assumption is that if you take information "on faith" from a book, use it to solve a problem – you can test the solution against nature by way of experiement.

The corrective power of empiricism makes a mockery of attempts to equate religious faith with making short term convenient assumptions from an epistemological point of view.

The distinction you attempt to make between dogma and faith is a false one. The Dogma that Jesus will return and the faith in an invisible friend are clearly both the target of his question.

Olav Kalgraf on April 24, 2008, 2:55 PM

‘One cannot hold all knowledge in his or her brain at all times, so “reason” must depend upon ideas taken as “given” (that is, we take them on “faith” that they are correct).’

You are confusing various completely different usages of the word faith. “To take something on faith” is an expression that can mean something as harmless as “accept for the sake of argument/convenience(and possibly corrected later)”.

In science(and really also in our daily lives) the underlying assumption is that if you take information “on faith” from a book, use it to solve a problem – you can test the solution against nature by way of experiement.

The corrective power of empiricism makes a mockery of attempts to equate religious faith with making short term convenient assumptions from an epistemological point of view.

The distinction you attempt to make between dogma and faith is a false one. The Dogma that Jesus will return and the faith in an invisible friend are clearly both the target of his question.

Steven Sturdevant on December 29, 2008, 1:32 PM

The short answer is: Faith and Reason are incompatible.

veysel kaya on January 14, 2009, 1:39 AM

I think religion is not saying that the reality is far from your reason. For there is a difference between something`s existence and what it really is, we can understand that there is something beyondd this world but we cannot grasp that thing`s true essence.

james gaudiosi on January 26, 2009, 6:25 PM

Faith is the name for a measurement called
Probability.
Each statement of faith must have a probability number associated with it.
Reason is a tool used to do many things, but
when it comes to Faith, reason decides how
likely the assigned probability is to be true.