Read my signature.

It's a simple enough epistemological view. It makes a lot of sense because it's not posing one source of knowledge against another, instead it uses faith and skepticism as opposites. A faithful person believes what they know to be true, a skeptical person believes what they know to be false or at least insufficient. What do you think?

I agree totally.

Yay.

i agree, to an extent though........it is fair enough to justify sciences/philosophies reasoning as more "truthful" than faith-based reasoning, as the validty of such reasoning is stronger and more accurate.....science's validty is extremely accurate as science produces facts deductively.....faith/religion and philosophy show validity inductively, but faith/religion is more so "narrow minded" and is failry valid, but weaker.......that, as i would think, is the difference between faith and scientific reasoning....

No, you missed my point entirely. Reason is only as good as much faith you have in it. Faith, let me repeat, is not the opposite of reason. You may use authority, revelation, intuition, sense experience and reason to come to a conclusion about something, inductively or deductively, it doesn't matter. These things are only valuable if you have faith in them.

It depends which definition of faith you are using.

If you say that faith is just being certain of the facts then you`re right but if you think of it as any belief that has no proof then under that definition it can easily be called something other than reason.

true.......but then the question becomes, if faith is absolute (meaning that you must faith in your reasoning or "it" fails) then how can you reason "it" without faith? ........the answer is simple: objections, counter arguments, etc......now, from this you get the aspect of reasoning without faith (your faith).......so the final conclusion would hence depend on both faith in your own reasoning, and the faith of someone else's reasoning (which is not yours)..........

yet, despite each argument's validty, nothing is ever valid as a whole........so, is validty (and reasoning) solely faith-based?

I think you need to carefully separate the definitions of your faith in your ability to reason, and "faith" in its meaning as a religious/spiritual belief system.

Faith in your ability to reason is brought about by empirical results - it's worked before in the past so chances are it's working now. Faith as in a religious belief system is not.

faith in your ability to reason is not brought about by empiricism.....thatz like declaring reasoning as a posteri.......reasoning, anything to do with such, and even "faith" in the religious sense as well as faith within yourself, your reasoning, is solely dependent on a priori........

Religious faith is equally empyrical. You've never had a religious experience, just guessing.

oh, well then strike that.....nonetheless, reasoning and faith in your reasoning is fairly a-priori................and no, i've never had a religious experience, except for christmas

People have 'religious experiences' telling them to go and kill someone. For that reason alone I am not inclined to trust any story of a 'religious experience.' They do not seem to prove anything empirically.

the experience itself is empirical proof.

give an example rather than just saying so, i don't quite follow, but i think i have an idea

empirical means proven by experience. if you are religious and you have religious experiences, your beliefs have empirical value.

no, empiricism doesn't account for all experiences, such as self-realization is an a-prior sense...........empiricism accounts for any experience through the senses........so going to church would be empirical, but believing it doesn't necessarily half to be.........

A TRUE scientist in my opinion is always skeptical. Science is always evolving, searching for answers rather than starting out by saying we know them all. He will believe his answers to be not truth, but the best model of nature at the time- until new discoveries are made.

it's really weird how you just don't get things. Believing something is empirical if you have had experiences that back it up.

and i agree.......however, there does exist reasoning that can be justified as "empirically free"..............i mean, you can get into this whole debate of where all memories blah blah blah are nothing more than an extent of your senses.....but such an argument is borderline behavorism......i don't feel like get too far into it, but as i am a substance-dualist, i believe that there is a "mind" where reasoning a-priori does not necessarily depend on empiricism at all.........and stop attacking me damnit........all i know is what i have read, studied, and took for my philo degree.......from my standpoint, i do believe in the metaphysical and the "mind" has some connection to it......

You're pulling so far away from the point.