2007-10-23 05:27:40 · 12 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
inspired by : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsDMATTI8qXCiJru7EKgJOLd7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071023092111AA3zNoZ
2007-10-23 05:28:17 · update #1
Authentic faith comes with a receipt.
2007-10-23 05:31:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends, from an earlier answer (Jon M) to that question, authentic faith should be tested by rational thought. The problem is once you start believing or have faith in a thing it almost "demands" that you do not look at it objectively. It is also quite possible to be totally rational within a belief system but still filter outside information.
Edit:
I don't think that faith is any less valid if there is proof, as I have faith in my parents and I have a large body of proof that they exist.
2007-10-23 05:37:28 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a terrific question. You should have some diverse responses. Authentic faith, is a "knowing" deep within you that does not require proof. This is often refereed to in the spiritual and religious context, as opposed to the scientific. It is possible to believe in something scientific without proof. If this were not so - science would be dead. Many discoveries are the product of that "gut instinct" that led the discoverer to the find. We do almost all of our decision-making based on rational thought. It is my stance that untested faith, is no faith at all.
You may like to learn more about the study of Philosophy, both Eastern and Western.
2007-10-23 05:51:31 · answer #3 · answered by jana_westover 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What 'authentic faith' is, I have no idea. I'd guess it needs to be defined, which I will not. Its not a phrase that I use.
Rational thought is part of the process used while deciding if something can be taken on faith.
I don't rationalize how and why my wife loves me - I now take it on faith. Before we were married, we both thought through the whole thing quite a bit, and talked about it quite a bit. We spent a good deal of time and effort thinking rationally (at least we tried) about committing to each other.
Now I have faith that she is true to me, and loves me. There is evidence to support this, which helps.
2007-10-23 05:39:03 · answer #4 · answered by super Bobo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All rational human beings understand the adaptation - of the two occasion. the debate become never approximately that. It become approximately in spite of the fact that if or not irrational human beings would desire to be pushed over the side via the rhetoric. Why can't conservatives carry close the excellence? Is it lack of awareness or are they simply mendacity or is it a mixture of the two?
2016-11-09 07:11:09 · answer #5 · answered by ritzer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea is that if you have proof that something is true, then it doesn't really take any faith to believe it, does it? And the goal of rational thought is to prove something to be true or untrue through empirical means (as much as possible). I'd have to say the 2 are incompatible. The more you allow yourself to think rationally in order to gather concrete evidence of something's veracity, the more you are taking away any need to have for "faith."
Edit to the edit below: You have faith in their character--you cannot prove that they will always be kind to you, but you believe it to be so; you have proof of their existence because you see and talk to them. Still different.
2007-10-23 05:36:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my experience of being a Christian (which has been the last 10 years of my life), I have found that the two aren't mutually exclusive. God doesn't expect His followers to park our brains at the door! To me believing in God isn't just about faith - it is also a rational choice. He has proven Himself to me over and over again to be faithful. He has never lied to me or led me astray. Rational thought tells me that it only makes sense to trust Someone like that.
It also seems perfectly rational to me to believe that God exists. I do not see how our universe could possibly come into existence through chance or random change. It is too complex. It only seems rational to think that there must be a Being of great power and intelligence who designed everything we see in nature.
I dunno, I haven't found faith to be irrational for the most part. It makes sense to me!
2007-10-23 05:34:29 · answer #7 · answered by Blue Eyed Christian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Faith accepts a different sort of evidence. Evidence that builds faith can't be shared in opposition to the will of the receiving it. In other words, if you don't want it, it wont be forced on you.
2007-10-23 05:38:15 · answer #8 · answered by Mike B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The latter makes sense, and can actually bring about results and progress.
2007-10-23 05:30:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rational thought should tell you DNA did not evolve, however many people have faith it did.
2007-10-23 05:31:52 · answer #10 · answered by D2T 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋