What brought you to your current belief, faith or reason?

Question

Why do you believe in what you believe? What is the foundation of your belief; what it was built on, faith or reason? Since the two have completely different meanings, DO NOT state both. Faith OR reason.

Faith:

Is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on (and mostly opposed to) logic, reason, or empirical data, but based fundamentally on volition often associated with a transpersonal relationship with God, a higher power, a person, elements of nature, and/or a perception of the human race as a whole. Faith can be placed in a person, inanimate object, state of affairs, proposition or body of propositions such as a religious creed.

Reason;

An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Good judgment; sound sense. To determine or conclude by logical thinking.

Answer 1

Both, I used reason to make the decision that there is no god, and I have faith in my answer. It is just as strong as a christians who believes in god. I am just the opposite. BUT my decision was not made with faith... that is the dfference between us. Logic and reason are what made my decision.

Answer 2

Reason.

The fact that there is a Primal Source for all that exists is one of the most evident facts there is. So is the fact that this Primal Source generates this world with design/intelligence.

The concept of a Primal Source relies on an axiom that all of science relies upon: the Principle of Explanation. This principle simply states that all phenomena must have an explanation. Science is the endeavor of discovering those explanations. Molecules are explained by the dynamics of atoms. Eventually, there must be an explanation for the existence of matter and energy.

Without this principle, not only would there be no science, there would be no human endeavor whatsoever. In everything we do, we rely on the assumption that each thing has an explanation, thereby providing us with a consistent universe to deal with. Imagine the confusion if everything just appeared as though it had suddenly arrived out of nowhere.

The Primal Source, then, is nothing more than the ultimate explanation for all that exists, the end of the chain.

Answer 3

you do not trust to trust, idea and faith are in truth an similar aspect. I advise, there's a experience in which you've faith in issues because your colleges furnish you with solid reason, and that solid reason will be suggested as faith, yet in Christianity, faith is basically believe. I even trust that the solar will upward push the following day, and faith that I basically isn't burglarized in the course of the evening. I even trust that the plane i'm getting on will land me properly at my vacation spot. I actually have solid reason to trust this stuff, and that constitutes faith. So, i bypass to mattress, get on the plane, and set up my image voltaic panels. Now, i'd be incorrect and the plane would crash, i'd be burgled, or the solar would no longer arise, yet i imagine i'm in a more beneficial advantageous position to trust than no longer to in those situations, so I proceed in the absense of compelling arguments on the opposite. that is not any longer round, that is fairly linear, and its depending on the medical technique: statement, experimentation, repetition, hypotheses (faith), statement, experimentation, repetion, concept (faith), etc. I finish God exists through distinctive feature of evidences both purpose and subjective, and that i trust in accordance to historic previous and the reliability of witnesses. i imagine I actually have more beneficial life like grounds to trust than no longer to, yet i'd be incorrect. at the same time as do you admit you're incorrect and that the completed aspect will be properly worth a second look? i grow to be once the position you at the instantaneous are.

Answer 4

Faith, reason and how we interpret our experiences.

Say one has a cold and takes a Pentecostal approach to the charismatic gifts, say Healing for example, and prays to God to be delivered of the cold and goes in front of the church elders for prayer on the issue. Likely, God will not supernaturally deliver the prayee short of the cold running its course. How does one respond in light of their theology?

One may conclude that they did not have enough faith. This is common in Word of Faith circles. Doesn't it seem to place a lot of weight for healing on the prayee and not the one prayed to? Some call this "charismatic witchcraft."

What if one comes from a sacramental background? There is an emphasis on God's transcendence, here that influences how persons interpret their experiences. If one in this school of thought gets a cold, they may just let it run its course and not worry about it, to begin with. If one does pray to be delivered from a sickness and is not delivered, physically, they often have an easier time accepting the lack of physical healing because they know how to respect God’s mystery.

The person from the Word of Faith movement, where God's immanence is emphasized, brings that ideological piece to the table when praying to be delivered from a simple cold by concluding God is willing to heal them from it. When they are not healed, they conclude they did not have enough faith, not simply because their doctrine plants that idea in their reasoning, but because their faith and reason are so intertwined that they are left with little options. To conclude that God did not heal because they didn’t believe enough seems the most logical answer to them.

Not only does Pentecostal theology emphasize immanence, but it often interprets "involvement" to include the idea that God manipulates events, like getting a cold, so as to alter what would otherwise naturally occur, such as the cold running its course. The next most logical conclusion for the lack of healing would be to doubt that God is involved in our affairs because we confuse involvement with a supernatural form of intervention (manipulation) and because faith and reason are so intertwined. Everything must be explained, but with the religious doctrines remaining in tact. Because the doctrines cannot be altered, one has little room in which to reason. Faith and reason need to operate more independently than fundamentalism allows.

Whereas, the charismatic Catholic or Episcopalian believes God to be involved in his or her affairs as God sees fit, regardless of what happens because God is sovereign. They also reason that it is silly to pray for a cold, however if God doesn't supernaturally heal someone of Cancer they don't call it silly to pray for deliverance, they just accept it without doubting God or struggling to explain why God did not heal. The best part is that the charismatic Catholic or Episcopalian will not need to offer such trite one-liners as "God has a reason" or "it's all for the best." When you're in gut-wrenching agony, these things are inappropriate. These sayings proceed from a need to reason why God did not heal; the reason precedes acceptance of the experience. The charismatic Catholic or Episcopalian knows how to respect God’s mystery and respect the pain of human experience without offering trite maxims, because there is enough room in their religious worldview for acceptance without explanation. When faith and reason can operate independently, there is a lack of struggle fundamentalism does not know.

Though a lot of Christians let experience shape their theology, they already interpreted their experience due to their theology and how they handle their relationship between faith and reason.

Answer 5

I was brought up catholic but 20 years in the army made me into a very cynical agnostic. I've just seen too much in too many places to have any faith in anything except myself and my mates.

Answer 6

i grew up christian, but always felt that 1. it was ok to question god and the church. i found wicca and knew that was both who and what i believed. it is my faith, but it is also the foundation that i have based my life upon. i believe there is good and truth in all religons. but todate only wicca and the path of the goddess explains everything that i hold to be true. and even jesus could find a lot of truth and common sense it its teaching.

Answer 7

Reason.
I do not think the proof provided by any religion I have yet encountered is strong enough for me to conclude there are spirits, gods, or afterlives.

Answer 8

While my first inclination is to trust, I would not continue to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence. So in the end, reason always prevails.

Answer 9

Faith is the most thoroughly evil thing in the world.

Answer 10

All events led me to this point.