Is 'faith' a justifiable response?

Question

I was looking up other questions on faith but they were all from the religious spiritual side of things. I am more interested in a logic based philisophical perspective for this question.

I have heard the response time and time again about religion and god; when people are aked why do they believe they respond with "because I have faith." Is faith a feasible logical answer to a question or is it too week from a philisophical stand point. Have there been any philosphers that have tackled the issue of faith (both for and against)?

Answer 1

I know that Blaise Pascal thought that it was prudent to have faith in God because, for him, the benefits outweigh the cost. That is, he thought that when we die, if we were to discover that our faith led us to "God", well ... then we would be with God, and we would have been right all along. But if we were to discover that our beliefs were bunk, by believing, we still would have nothing to lose in the long run.

I've heard criticisms of this argument: namely, that it's a practical argument rather than a scientific or philosophical one. On the other hand, I think he kind of has a point.

You might want to look up some psychological journals, too, because I think the findings of experiments done on "people of faith" are pretty interesting.

I'm not too sure about happy atheists and agnostics, or people who are ambivalent about faith, but I do know that generally, "faith" seems to be a source of great hope and strength for many people (ie., in times of sorrow, sickness, depression, etc.) vs., those who live without any spiritual hope. In other words, some argue that sometimes it's prudentially beneficial to have "faith".

I'll say this: be fair to yourself in your search. Talk to people with different views - ask a lot of questions - ask about their personal experiences and pay attention to your own. Also, read voraciously. Read books from different perspectives- and think about them.

Some general atheists I know of (not too familiar with their specific views, though ...)

-Einstein
-Nietzsche
-Russell
-Marx
-Sartre
-Freud

Some philosophers in favor of faith:

-Kierkegaard
-St. Augustine
-Pascal
-Schaeffer
-Descartes
-C.S. Lewis

Good luck

Answer 2

the comparable drained and previous arguments A) Evolution is a procedures greater substantiated than any faith. Society already sees the advantages and purposes of it. in case you do unlike what scientific approach properly-knownshows, turn off your workstation B) no one pronounced "atheists", which isn't the equivalent of scientists could know how precisely the worldwide is made merely for the reason which you "know" a deity creates it does not mean you comprehend jack crap approximately it. Any faith could make up a crap tale approximately introduction. not one single faith can fairly clarify to you the way the cosmos artwork. Genesis is as absurd as sizable Turtle introduction memories. So what's greater academically truthful? announcing you're undecided and that there is amassing info to piece it at the same time, or claiming arrogantly that your faith has the respond, depite info to the choice that that's authentic?

Answer 3

Many philosophers have tackled the existence of God....the existence of "faith" is a given. Its the reason for "faith" that they try to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau claimed that when we examine the existence of God we find nothing but contradictions; our hearts, however, are of more value than understanding, and these tell us the truths of natural religion, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In other words, our hearts...our feelings/intuition, our "faith".....
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive that which is unknowable by any other means. Jacobi categorized three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Sense, he claimed, has immediate perception of the material, reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them.
I have always found that "because I have faith" is not a suitable answer for me, but it is often the only answer you can reasonably expect. Where faith is concerned, its an instinctual response...one that people learn from infancy, and don't question. Sometimes, its even a bit fearful to examine why....so "faith" covers that fear.
Sometimes, its in the asking....if you are seeking to know why, then ask in a way that people have to think about in order to answer.

Answer 4

Every belief is made up of two things. Evidence and Faith.

Because no belief can ever be 100% correct, we use faith to fill the gap in logic - i.e. evidence/proof.

The majority of everyday belief is based on faith because of our limited experience.

An example. When someone tells us that the just bought a house, we take their answer to be true with absolutely no evidence we have faith that they are telling the truth. Only when we see it with our own eyes are we using logic.

Faith is a great example of showing the trusting side of the human being. Take newspapers and TV for instance. People genuinely believe the news from those mediums and never question it.

In my opinion, the humans ability to use faith over logic or evidence is scary. Everybody should have a healthy mistrust of things I think. It is called common sense. A rare commodity these days.

So in answer to your question. No, faith to a person who is motivated by truth will never be justified. I find that faith is a lazy person's way of having a belief and teh world is becoming lazier everyday.

Answer 5

Of course not.

Faith is the leap we take from the logical to the illogical. Faith happens the moment we take two conflicting thoughts into our being and believe them both.

Most philosophers have tackled the issue of faith in one way or another. Even Freddie's "God is dead" is an act of faith. You see belief that there is no supreme being (Goddess or God) requires the same act of faith as belief in that entity.

Answer 6

Faith is not a logical response. It makes no sense. It begs the question: Why? If you search for truth via logic, faith has no place. If you like mythology, old tales, and other absurd and unrealistic happenstances then jump of the faith bandwagon.

Answer 7

Faith IS a justifiable response as it is the foundation of our will. Our will can either be logical or illogical depending upon our choice. Our choices are governed on how we judge or percept 'life' But aggreed.... it is a word used way way too regularly and thwarted by people who dont really know what it means :)
Good Question Bloke!!!!

Answer 8

"Faith" is a proper answer to the ? "Why" does one believe in God. But it is the ONLY proper answer.
William of Ockham, the Franciscan famous for Ockham's Razor, famously said there is no theological argument for, nor scientific proof of, God's existence, and that belief in god must be based on absolute faith.
Reason only twists into knots what people take for "proof" of God. We try to use reason only because of the influence of Boethius who said, "In so far as is possible, join faith to reason." We did not do that before Boethius but took God absolutely on faith.
My own philosophy is to DISjoin faith from reason, rely on reason alone, and conlude there is no theological argument nor scientific proof to believe in god; I therefore with reason reject the idea of an existant God.
(Note: "existant" is the correct spelling for something which is an object contained within existence."

Answer 9

no becuase faith comes in many forms

blind faith is definetly a justifable response but only to the person who holds the faith

but just faith no sorry

faith based on historical events- yes
faith based on reason and logic- yes
faith based on life experience- sure

Answer 10

No that's why it's called "faith." Logic and scientific evidence be damned. World religions wouldn't exist for thousands of years if humans weren't able to grasp this thing called "faith."