Discussions of Faith: Rhyfelwyr and Pizzaguy

[Reenk Roink]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Atpg, a couple of comments on your comments, especially on your use of the word 'rational' and its various forms.

You say:

Faith is a judgment call that you will believe, unflinchingly, that which has been proven false or cannot be proven true using the scientific method. As such, it is an irrational thing to do, should it result in actions taken on this mortal realm

Here I take you to say that something is irrational if it either cannot be proven true using the scientific method or if it has been proven false.

(You later seem to espouse the opinion that it is "logic" that is the basis of rationality so I sense a bit of incoherence)

Ignoring what exactly you mean by 'scientific method' or 'prove' for a moment, is it correct to state that your position is one that states that the scientific method is the criteria for rationality? If so, please explicate your conception of the scientific method and then I will get back to you with my objections.

You say:

Morality does not flow from the supernatural; even in a discussion where people claim that religion causes morality, they must use rational arguments to justify why something is right or wrong. That means rationalism causes morality, not faith.

Your claim of morality not originating from the supernatural is simply false to anyone who believes in any sort of voluntarist ethics.

You then say that one must use "rational arguments" as a justification even for people who claim "religion causes morality" and I wonder how this is so. I could simply assert that supernatural being A said act X was good. You could construe this trivially to be a form of argument, but it would be trivial, as you could construe any statement as such.

Your last statement doesn't even seem to be coherent. Because someone uses rational arguments to promote a case for voluntarist ethics it means that the ethics are "caused" by "rationalism" and not voluntarism? Is this what you are saying?

religion is more like a Law which cannot be tested or proven. As such, it is not even allowed to be called a theory; it is an untestable, unprovable, unquestionable tenet which people either believe or disbelieve.

The fact of the matter is, that every foundation of "rationalism" that you have hinted at (the scientific method and logical inferences) are the same. They are unprovable.

The law of non contradiction is the basis for (traditional/classical) logic. Please prove the law of non-contradiction without reference to itself.

Please prove the assumptions that is needed for any natural science to proceed. Prove that the external world actually exists beyond our sense perception.

Or are these "unquestionable" axioms that need to be accepted before logic or the scientific method can proceed?

Lastly, please explain why something that is testable has any more epistemic merit than something that is not.

These are basic foundational questions against (what I perceive as) your view of rationalism.

But logic exists without faith, in fact, in spite of faith logic exists. And without logic, there can be no morality.

By "logic" I will take you to mean deductive inferences. Is this what you mean?

If so, I have already provided an example of an axiom of deductive logic that is accepted without proof - on 'faith' that is.

Thanks