Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the November 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil Based on the Prerequisites of Love & an Analysis of Timeless Being by Indignus Servus

dea9bb82-0846-43c2-bb9a-18e00196ce42.jpeg (193.35 KiB) Viewed 1386 times

The author claims that no one can escape faith-based reasoning. This suggests that both believers and non-believers rely equally on faith, either faith in God or faith in the reliability of human cognition.

What I think is that faith and reason are not equally foundational. Reason is a continuous process of trial, error, and refinement. Indeed, there are some assumptions that people cannot avoid, including believing in the validity of the outside world or the coherence of reasoning. However, these presumptions cannot simply be interpreted as a form of "faith" in the discussions and debates around religion. In the religious context, it is required to believe in claims that are hard to be proven. But the assumptions used in science or logic have been proven as true and valid through the use and practice of the results that humans have got based on those assumptions, deferring them from mere beliefs.

The author also makes the argument that a mind formed by inconsistent evolutionary processes cannot be entirely trusted with its own intelligence, or cognition. The idea that human reasoning evolved to solve survival-related problems rather than to discover ultimate truths lends validity to this idea. (A theory of evolutionary psychology)

Although the process may have been arbitrary, and reason may have emerged from a happenstance process, what I see is that the results and the track records through history have proven the credibility and utility of human cognition.

I agree that our knowledge is limited, but knowing and accepting that does not make us mere puppets who are simply faithful to science or logic. It encourages continual questioning, a practice that contrasts with the certainty often implied by faith-based reasoning.

What do you think? Does reliance on foundational assumptions, such as the validity of logic, constitute "faith"? Or is it a practical necessity that is quite different from theological faith?

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

I believe that reason cannot be alone as it forms part of the collective in the cognitive mind.

[Sushan]

I believe that reason cannot be alone as it forms part of the collective in the cognitive mind.

I agree that reason (logical thinking, analysis, and rationality) is not a standalone function but rather operates as part of a collective system in the cognitive mind, which includes emotions, intuition, memory, perception, and imagination. But the question is, where does faith come in this process? Or else, is any of the aforementioned parts of the system can be categorized under or named as faith?

[Fanisa Ndhabambi]

Yes, both stem from socialization and other influences from the outer world either formed by association or believing what others have thought. Reason cannot stand alone.

[Sushan]

Yes, both stem from socialization and other influences from the outer world either formed by association or believing what others have thought. Reason cannot stand alone.

Thank you for the response, and I suppose that you meant reason and I faith by the word 'both' in your response.

While I agree that both these have external influences and connections and cannot stand alone, I still find it difficult to understand what do the two have to with each other. Usually reason is associated with logical explanation, while faith is mostly associated with beliefs and teachings without proper grounds or logical explanations.