TRUTH VS FALLACY:
So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.
As always, you are assuming the conclusion in your premise, which is not an argument, but an assertion. It's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You start by conflating faith and belief with fallacy, and disregard the possibility of faith actually being faith in that which is true, without even defending this position. If truth is the correspondence between what is said or thought and what actually is, then there is no reason to assume that faith contradicts truth. If what I believe, whether I reach that conclusion through rigorous systematic logic, empirical verification, or faithful assent to Divine Revelation, is a correspondence with reality, then I have truth.
Most things in life that we believe, we actually accept by faith. That doesn't make them any less true, it just means that I am putting my trust in some one else to be speaking the truth. Examples of facts in life that I accept by faith:
1. George Washington existed. I have never done any historical investigation of my own into the existence or non-existence of this matter, so I have put my faith in the authorities that say that he did exist.
2. It is impossible to square a circle. I have never seen the arguments for against, but I believe it to be true based on what I have been told.
3. The center of a cell is the nucleus and contains DNA. Do you think I have ever done a scientific experiment in order to conclude that this is true? Absolutely not. But I have faith in the idea that the people who have done the proper experiments are speaking the truth.
Of course these are matters of human faith, and not the Divine gift of Faith that comes from God, but you see that we know many things even without rigorous demonstration.
* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against, or to where evidence is sufficient to give it substantial value.
Actually, truth is the correspondence of what a person says or thinks with reality. Or, as Aristotle says, saying what is, is, and what is not, is not. The Epicureans new that matter was composed of atoms well before there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. They possessed truth even without rigorous demonstration.
* Faith: The hoping of what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, as a logical fallacy, or simply impossible.
Wrong again. Faith is personal and relational matter. Like I know that my parents love me, without the possibility of rigorous demonstration, I still have good reason to believe they love me because I know them through the relationship they have with me. Similarly, I know that there is a God and that he loves me because of the personal impact he has on my life.
Further, I have other substantial reasons for believing in God. First, there are the logical proofs for the existence of God (not their caricatures).
Next, there is the testimony of martyrs, who were very wise, yet were willing to give up their lives for the truth.
Next, is the testimony of the saints, who were very wise, and worthy of trust, who experienced the reality of God in profound ways, and have shared that reality with us.
Next there are the probable arguments for the existence of God. All of these give us reason to believe beyond just wanting to believe.
Also, if it was absolutely logically impossible for God not to exist, or we knew atheism to be true, of course I would not believe in God. As it stands, the very opposite is true.
* Belief :
A: Religion - believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur (me as an example of a former Christian), or the denial of reality will likely occur in order for a belief to be held.
You must have been a fundamentalist protestant, because there is nothing in the Apostolic Faith that is invalid nor anything that contradicts reality.
B: Science, logic, and reason - Believing what what is true by the evidence to which supports it.
Human Reason is all of the powers of the human person that are used to determine truth, outside of Divine Faith.
Logic is actually not evidence based, but the formal structure of how the mind thinks in order to achieve valid conclusions.
The term science is so misapplied in modern society, that its ridiculous. Science is the study of anything in it's ultimate causes.
1. Philosophy = The Science that studies the ultimate causes of reality via human reason.
2. Theology = The Science of THE ultimate cause, God, via Divine Revelation
3. Natural Science = The study of the material and efficient causes of reality via human reason and observation.
4. Empirical Science = The science that studies material causes via empirical/sensory investigation.
5. Mathematics = The science of numbers
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Absolute substantiated fact = Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because nonexistence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Nonexistence can not be a literal noun!
What is your point?
A faith based belief = believing a GOD created existence without having to explain how one can preexist existence in order to create it.
Theist's don't believe that God preexisted existence. Rather, God is absolute sub sistent existence, the fullness of being. All created reality hardly being at all in comparison.
What has all the weight in relevance to reality?
* The one with all the evidence to support it.
If God exists, regardless of whether one can prove it (and I absolutely believe that you can prove it), he would be the fullness of relevance itself, and all others would be irrelevant.
Which one has intellectual integrity?
* The one with all the evidence to support it
Yes and no. I think that there are plenty of valid rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. That being said, if God were to directly reveal himself to some one, outside of empirically verifiability, and that person did not accept the reality of God, such a person would not have intellectual integrity.
* The one willing to self-scrutinize it's beliefs in favor of reaching for a definable and tangible truth based on the Scientific Method, logic, and reason to where the evidence dictates the value of the belief system in order to avoid being dictated or clung to logical fallacies.
Math is not based on the scientific method. Does this mean that Mathematicians have no intellectual integrity?
* The one that doesn't assume it's truth, or truth without evidence.
It does not take blind faith to believe in God. There are plenty of rational reasons. Further, there is the testimony of the saints and martyrs, as well as the effects that God has on our lives.
I will address your article in another post.