Can it be Rational to have Faith?

[_MrStakhanovite]

(by the way Stak: I know, I read the article)

Stop lying.

[_just me]

You're a peach! *MWUAH*

[_Hoops]

What is rational faith? I don't know what that means.

One would assume that you at least had a working definition since you appeared to be arguing against it.

[_just me]

What is rational faith? I don't know what that means.

One would assume that you at least had a working definition since you appeared to be arguing against it.

You said their was some Christian meaning. I am unfamiliar with that.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Going on the first few pages that I read, coupled with Stak's summary it looks like this meshes well with Quine's concept that theory is always radically underdetermined. Both arguments seem to realize that humans have finite lifespans, finite resources, and limited compute cycles. Rationality for humans gets determined by these restrictions. We don't have enormous life spans and unlimited resources. So, to be rational is always going to involve cost/benefit analyses and estimates of the likelihood of possible counter evidence. This may be what Paul is getting at when he says that for now we see through a glass darkly, which is ultimately why the just will life by faith. Or, the more Jewish notion from Habakkuk that the just will be faithful also fits well with this. Unless I am misunderstanding something, I think this is a good way of looking at rationality and faith.

[_Tarski]

Basically, it’s rational to have faith if the possibility of counter evidence is very low.

I think it is more subtle than that.
I read it (quickly).

Note to Aristotle: She doesn't really finally get to her own theory until quite far into the paper. She first offers several initially plausible theories.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Note to Aristotle: She doesn't really finally get to her own theory until quite far into the paper. She first offers several initially plausible theories.

Figures. I read the first third, and I'm not going to have time to read more until late tomorrow.

[_honorentheos]

Stak -

Do you plan on sharing your thoughts?

Personally, I thought the conditions she stated earlier on are interesting, but problematic. I think they are worth quoting for discussion's sake as many may be interested but not read the link.

Specifically -

"We shall see that whether faith can be practically rational depends both on whether there are extrinsic costs associated with postponing the decision to have faith and the extent to which potential counter evidence would be conclusive."

Restating, with only slight restructuring -

Faith can be practically rational if there are extrinsic costs associated with postponing the decision to have faith.

-and-

Faith can be practically rational to the extent that potential counter evidence would be inconclusive.

And restating her definition of faith as "faith...involve(s) going beyond the evidence in some way." Or, as she said, it is odd to say one has faith in logical truths.

Lastly, we have to give a nod to Joseph Smith's truism that faith = action. At least, that's how I read her beginning on page 6 through 7.

So, why problematic?

Page 9 she dismisses the possibility that a person can "hope unto faith", or in other words act in a way where their actual actions imply a greater belief in something than their actual belief. And she does so on the grounds that people who profess faith tend to reject lying. My experience is somewhat limited perhaps, but in general I think pious fraud is more common than she acknowledges. It's actually taught in Mormonism. (i.e. - Packer's talk on testimony about a testimony being found in the bearing of it. Or, lie about knowing true things in order to come to know they are true.)

Second, against the proposition where p(X)=1, she dismisses the problem with this condition on the grounds that she is, "extremely doubtful that religious ethics would endorse the claim that the truly faithful ought to risk $1m for a mere penny if God exists, especially since they recognize that the evidence isn’t conclusive." Maybe I'm off, but I'd argue that submitting to martyrdom is just such a proposition if, and I think this is where I fault her most, X does not obtain. In effect, this seemed a bit like the reverse of the comedy routine about kissing Steve's butt for $1mil. but you have to leave town to get it and can't come back. I think many a skeptic would dismiss her right here on the grounds that they view life as the larger sum and the penny as all that is missed out on by choosing to live as a monk, as she later says.

Anyway, it's getting late so I'm going to stop for now but as I went through the paper I found myself questioning most of her conclusions and wondering at what point she'd show a strong rational preference for A&X if there is an equally rational possibility of A but ~X. I probably missed it, so if you have some time and could point out the critical juncture where I missed the turn I'd be much obliged.

Thanks for the interesting read, by the way.

[_bcspace]

Can it be Rational to have Faith?

Must be. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I haven't personally seen the earth from space, yet I sometimes sense the curvature of the earth and believe the earth is round and I believe the testimonies of those who have seen it.

I haven't been to the center of a star and made direct measurements and neither has anyone else, yet I believe the CNO fusion cycle it what's taking place there.

etc.

and argue that faith requires terminating the search for further evidence

This notion is not extant in the doctrines of the Church. Quite the opposite is true.

[_Some Schmo]

Can it be rational to believe in magic?