Logic and faith

[GrowingSmaller]

Some people argue you need faith in logic. It's said to be a primary assumption, you cant use logic to justify logic, that would be circular reasoning.

What about a computer, does that need faith in logic to operate? Also, "faith" what is it precisely? Is it said to be belief without evidence.

I think that the "faith-based" outlook may be flawed. Our subconsicous and unconscious mind are like computers running logical operations all the time. The very phenomenon of assuming an attitude of faith - or thinking "this is an axiom" etc implies a lot of pretty sophisticated presumptions - know them consciously or not.

So the claim of logic-faith is probably a falacy. Its like saying "I cant see my heath beating, therefore it doesnt exist".

Or "I need faith in this sentence, for it to actually be a sentence..."

Rather: the word "faith", "truth" and "sentence" must have meaning, for the claim 'the sentence "logic requires faith" ' to be true, or even considered rationally. Therefore theres a minimum of logic required for the faith-claim to be made in the first place.

The faith claim is like saying "this is not a sentence" or "I am not communicating" etc. Ok you can claim that, but you cant escape the heat-beat of truth.

The rest is not clever philosophy, its self deception.

In the Cartesian theatre, dont play the fool.

Thoughts?

 

[Architeuthus]

Some people argue you need faith in logic.

Certainly.

Also, "faith" what is it precisely? Is it said to be belief without evidence.

Said by whom? That's not the definition of faith.

"The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature." -- Louis Berkhof, "Systematic Theology"

 

[crbennett]

Faith and logic are independent forces. However, these disciplines are not mutually exclusive. Faith is larger than logic because logic is limited by our ability to understand, where faith takes us well beyond logic to a forgiving God and a merciful Savior.

For example, logic tells us that 2 + 2 = 4. We know this because we can take two stones and place with it two more stones and see easily that there are four stones. Through our ability to reason most people can understand this easily. Conversely, when we read in Revelations this passage, "I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth...”, logic will most likely fail us. That's because this is beyond our ability to reason and our experiences do not lend a comparison to help us understand. Still, we can accept it through faith. This willingness to accept that the God who created the universe is much bigger than us is essential to growing in our faith.

We learn to understand, by practicing faith, that God will provide understanding to us as God wishes, while also knowing that God will never abandon us. This approach to faith acknowledges that we live in a world where we depend on God and we accept that we are subservient to God. Until we can let go of this desire to validate our faith with logic, we are still struggling to gain equality with God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Said by whom? That's not the definition of faith.

In practice, religion often demands that you accept a body of doctrines as true, regardless of the evidence for or against it. In other words, it demands absolute certainty from adherents, even if that extreme level of certainty is not warranted by the evidence or there lack of.

"The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature." -- Louis Berkhof, "Systematic Theology"

The word 'faith' has multiple uses. Sometimes it simply refers to confidence, which may or may not be justified. That appears to be the way Berkhof is using the word in this excerpt. For the purposes of this discussion, it seems that the OP is most interested in 'faith' in the religious sense.

The evidence Berkhof alludes to can also be claimed as evidence for virtually every theology ever conceived. Moreover, the first line of argument (Scripture as the inspired word of God) appears to be circular, in that it already assumes the existence of God.

 

[Architeuthus]

In practice, religion often demands that you accept a body of doctrines as true, regardless of the evidence for or against it. In other words, it demands absolute certainty from adherents, even if that extreme level of certainty is not warranted by the evidence or there lack of.

I can't speak about other religions, but that's not the case in (orthodox) Christianity.

For the purposes of this discussion, it seems that the OP is most interested in 'faith' in the religious sense.

I was quoting from a book on systematic theology. That was the (Christian) religious sense of the word.

 

[The Cadet]

The problem brought up in the OP is essentially the problem of hard solipsism. It's an unfortunate reality that the laws of logic are not self-confirming - we cannot take them as given until we assume them as given. And at a certain level, we do in fact have to have faith. Even if we can put two stones with two stones and end up with four stones, how can we tell that the stones even exist? How do we know we're not brains in a vat?

The logical absolutes must be assumed, as they are the basis of any understanding of the world. However, as always, Ockham's Razor is a very useful tool here. We need to assume something. Assuming that the logical absolutes are true gives us a very basic, very useful framework to work off of. Assuming that god exists does not, as even once you assume that, you have to proceed to assume the logical absolutes, or assume quite a lot about god's character.

At the end of the day, though, I'm interested in what works, and going this far into the abstract seems rather pointless to me. You can assume that the logical absolutes aren't true, that reality is an illusion, and that science doesn't work. And then you'll almost certainly get killed the next time you try to cross the street.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can't speak about other religions, but that's not the case in (orthodox) Christianity.

From my own experience, it is also the case in Christianity. There are doctrines that must be believed, regardless of whether there is evidence for them or not, and even if there is evidence against them.

I was quoting from a book on systematic theology. That was the (Christian) religious sense of the word.

That's not how I conceive of the religious sense of the word. If you have good reasons to believe what you believe, then faith (in the religious sense) is totally unnecessary. Faith is needed only when the reasons are either inadequate or nonexistent.

 

[Architeuthus]

From my own experience, it is also the case in Christianity.

And your credentials as an expert on Christianity are what, exactly?

That's not how I conceive of the religious sense of the word.

We cannot possibly hold a discussion based on your personal feelings about how you want to conceive of words.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And your credentials as an expert on Christianity are what, exactly?

I was a Christian. I studied the tenets of Christianity, both in school and on my own. I have discussed the matter with Christians of various denominations and with people of other faiths. And I have a bachelors degree in philosophy, if you think that's relevant.

I didn't realise one needed to be an expert in world religions to comment.

We cannot possibly hold a discussion based on your personal feelings about how you want to conceive of words.

I never suggested that we should base it on my personal feelings.

 

[paulm50]

One can have faith in one's logic.

Faith in what a man tells me, that logic tells me is untrue? No way. Because logic tells me he's been fooled or is lying to me.

 

[crbennett]

Belief beyond human limitations logic means one has faith in something. Even if that 'something' is one's own limited logic.

One could conclude that belief in a devine creator is more logical than an oxymoronic approach of unexplained logic.

 

[True Scotsman]

Some people argue you need faith in logic. It's said to be a primary assumption, you cant use logic to justify logic, that would be circular reasoning.

Those people would be wrong. They would also be showing that they don't know what logic is. Logic rests on an axiomatic truth, the law of identity. A is A. A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. Logic also rests on the primacy of existence, that things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity. Logic is simple non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality. The laws of logic are not metaphysical but epistemological in nature. Logic is our only means of validating ideas and concepts, by means of identification and integration of facts. It does not need to be validated, because any argument against it would be instantly self refuting since it would employ the very process being denied validity.

Do we need to assume that existence exists? No we do not. We would have to exist in order to assume anything. Do we need to assume that existence exists independently of anyone's conscious activity? No we do not. This is directly observable and would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it. Do we need to assume that things are what they are, the law of identity? No we do not. This is directly observable and we would have to use the law of identity in any attempt to deny it so its truth is axiomatic.

If one examines the conceptual base of logic one will realize that the charge of circularity simply falls apart. But those who equate faith and reason don't do that. Their concrete bound anti-conceptual mentalities are not capable of it. Circularity applies only to conclusions drawn from antecedent principles, not to corollaries to axiomatic principles. Sorry faith equators, you don't have a leg to stand on. What does it say about their position that they must attack logic in this way. It says a whole lot and none of it is good.

I think that this attempt to equate reason with faith is a rationalization to cover up a hatred for reason and logic. Faith and reason are opposites based on opposing principles. Logic is based on A is A and the primacy of existence. Faith is based on A is not A and the primacy of consciousness.

 

[lumberjohn]

The Bible defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). In other words, it is being confident in things we hope to be true but cannot verify through our senses. It is affirming such things, though they cannot be deduced by reason. It is assigning a proposition more confidence than reason warrants. Faith is, in fact, the opposite of reason. They are mutually exclusive concepts, with no common ground. According to Paul, faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.

A couple of examples are in order. Assume I decide to conquer my fear of heights and go skydiving with a skydiving school. Before boarding the plane, I am required to take a class. There, I learn of all the precautions taken to insure the safety of the skydivers. I learn of their fifty year history in which no one has ever been injured. I learn of the extensive knowledge and expertise of their employees, including the people that will be packing my parachute and that will be by my side on the jump. If I decide to go through with my plan and jump from the plane, it would be a matter of trust rather than faith. I have acquired evidence that I am likely to land safely and used reason to come to a justified conclusion based upon that evidence.

But assume instead that I learn this is the first day the skydiving school has been in business. No one there has ever skydived before. None has even packed a parachute. They are, however, extremely enthusiastic and charismatic. I like them and am inspired by their enthusiasm. If I choose to go through with my plan under these circumstances, it could only be described as an act of faith. I have no good evidence or reasons to believe I will reach the ground safely, so my decision cannot be grounded in such things. It can only be understood as an emotional response – as an act of faith.

the evidentialist puts no stock in faith. He requires evidence before committing to a position, and this evidence must, if possible, be obtained from reliable sources. He then draws conclusions from this evidence, through a chain of inferences based upon the rules of logic and reason. The confidence he places in these conclusions is in direct proportion to the quality and quantity of the evidence. It is this paradigm that provides the foundation for the American legal system and the scientific community. The scientific method is really just a specialized application of evidentialism to the natural world.

Everyone uses an evidence-based paradigm in the course of their daily life, even devout Christians. We all trust our senses and our reasonable inferences from those senses. Likewise, we evaluate the reliability of information obtained from other sources and trust that information if it passes our internal “bull detector.” Rarely if ever do we base everyday decisions on things we merely hope to be true but run contrary to the available evidence. We do not, for instance, set off into a driving rainstorm in our best attire having “faith” the rain will stop once we step out the door.

For most Christians, however, their religion is different. In religious matters alone, they feel free to set aside evidentialism. They allow themselves to believe things for which there is no good evidence and for which no reasonable inferences can be drawn. Why is this? Psychology suggests it is because they are wedded to the beliefs of Christianity for purely emotional reasons, and recognize such beliefs simply cannot be supported by reason. These beliefs are typically learned, and incorporated into one’s identity, in childhood before one develops critical thinking skills. Accordingly, Christians must appeal to an alternate means of establishing knowledge, and that is faith.

Faith and reason are, therefore, inherently at odds within Christian theology. This conflict can be seen in the writings of Martin Luther, who called reason “the devil’s bride,” a “beautiful harlot,” and “God’s worst enemy.” According to Luther, “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding,” replacing any deductions obtained through reason with the “Word of God.” Tertullian embraced the irrationality he deemed essential to Christianity, stating that Jesus’ death and resurrection must be believed precisely because it was absurd and impossible.
Tertullian found reason irrelevant to belief, claiming that in light of the truth revealed by the Gospels, there was no further “need of research.” Many of today’s apologists likewise see reason and evidence as immaterial to Christian belief, as demonstrated by William Lane Craig’s “internal witness to the Holy Spirit,” or Alvin Plantinga’s “sensus divinitatus” and view of Christian belief as properly basic.

For faith to be valid, however, it is not enough that reason be inadequate. It is not enough to simply point out that reason has limits and cannot adequately explain everything. Faith must add value. It must reliably increase our understanding of the world above and beyond what reason can accomplish, providing explanations that are demonstrably better. And it must do so in a way that is objectively verifiable. We must be able to show that, at least in some circumstances, faith paints a more accurate picture than reason ever could. The role of reason is to allow us to reliably distinguish truth from falsity. Unless the Christian can demonstrate that faith can do the same, faith cannot serve as a basis for knowledge.

Religions are virtually all anti-empiricist, because they hold the real nature of the universe is hidden from us. While it might have made sense to look for alternatives to an empiricist worldview when these religions emerged, it makes sense no longer, as we can now explain just about everything in the universe empirically or at least reasonably believe that they can be explained empirically as our scientific knowledge improves. That is the message of science. Faith can never provide an adequate alternative since faith can be used to justify almost anything. If a given process yields thousands of mutually exclusive answers to the same question, that process must be fatally flawed.

 

[paulm50]

Belief beyond human limitations logic means one has faith in something. Even if that 'something' is one's own limited logic.

One could conclude that belief in a devine creator is more logical than an oxymoronic approach of unexplained logic.

Looking at the evidence of all the extinct animals, including branches of the human tree. It's illogical to say there was a divine creator. He got it wrong more than he got it right.

What is certain is the people writing The Old Testament, had no real clue of what happened 1,000s of years before them. Except to say natural disasters were acts of God.

And the people telling us they know what god wants. Usually end up asking for money.

 

[crbennett]

Looking at the evidence of all the extinct animals, including branches of the human tree. It's illogical to say there was a divine creator. He got it wrong more than he got it right.

What is certain is the people writing The Old Testament, had no real clue of what happened 1,000s of years before them. Except to say natural disasters were acts of God.

And the people telling us they know what god wants. Usually end up asking for money.

lol....

 

[GrimKingGrim]

One can have faith in one's logic.

Different definition

Just as I would have faith in my wife or my car starting up.

Buh-bye

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure the computer analogy works. It's not as if a computer reasons it's way through logic en route to a particular end. My understanding of computers is more akin to a enormous group of switches...when one is flipped it begins a sort of cascade of switches flipping on or off. Programming is essentially "setting the switches" to flip a certain way. Setting these switches is a logical process...but it isn't as if the computer "uses logic" in a manner like you and I do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Certainly.



Said by whom? That's not the definition of faith.

"The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature." -- Louis Berkhof, "Systematic Theology"

I'm also having trouble with Berkhof's definition of faith here.

Bear with me, but it reads to me like Berkhof is saying that "christian" faith is based on evidence...but then he goes on to say that the "evidence" is that scripture is the word of god. It appears to me that the "evidence" he's claiming that christian faith is based upon needs evidence itself. Certainly one can say that they believe scripture is the word of god because scripture claims to be the word of god...but what kind of evidence is that? It's hard for me to think anyone could go about their life accepting the value of such claims as truth...or even evidence.

Imagine for a moment that someone told you that Ana the Ist is always correct. You'd probably think that was silly and ask them why they think that Ana is always correct (essentially asking them for evidence of their claim).
If they replied to you that Ana is always correct...because Ana says he's always correct...my guess is you'd point out the roundness of such reasoning and dispute it as evidence of anything.

What exactly is the difference between my example and Berkhof's statement? Maybe there's some method for identifying the written word of a god that's part of the equation that you aren't sharing?

 

[The Cadet]

Those people would be wrong. They would also be showing that they don't know what logic is. Logic rests on an axiomatic truth, the law of identity. A is A. A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. Logic also rests on the primacy of existence, that things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity.

Great. Now prove it.

It does not need to be validated, because any argument against it would be instantly self refuting since it would employ the very process being denied validity.

That's a massive shifting of the burden of proof.

Look, you should look up the problem of hard solipsism, because as much as all of this is so much philosophical time-wasting, it is a real issue in philosophy. The logical absolutes have not and most likely cannot be demonstrated to be true. We cannot prove we are not in the matrix, or brains in vats, or any number of similar scenarios. We cannot demonstrate that anything beyond our own most basic existence is real. The logical absolutes are typically taken axiomatically, but that essentially means that they are taken without justification. It's important to keep this in mind when talking about this branch of philosophy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Bible defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). In other words, it is being confident in things we hope to be true but cannot verify through our senses. It is affirming such things, though they cannot be deduced by reason. It is assigning a proposition more confidence than reason warrants. Faith is, in fact, the opposite of reason. They are mutually exclusive concepts, with no common ground. According to Paul, faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.

A couple of examples are in order. Assume I decide to conquer my fear of heights and go skydiving with a skydiving school. Before boarding the plane, I am required to take a class. There, I learn of all the precautions taken to insure the safety of the skydivers. I learn of their fifty year history in which no one has ever been injured. I learn of the extensive knowledge and expertise of their employees, including the people that will be packing my parachute and that will be by my side on the jump. If I decide to go through with my plan and jump from the plane, it would be a matter of trust rather than faith. I have acquired evidence that I am likely to land safely and used reason to come to a justified conclusion based upon that evidence.

But assume instead that I learn this is the first day the skydiving school has been in business. No one there has ever skydived before. None has even packed a parachute. They are, however, extremely enthusiastic and charismatic. I like them and am inspired by their enthusiasm. If I choose to go through with my plan under these circumstances, it could only be described as an act of faith. I have no good evidence or reasons to believe I will reach the ground safely, so my decision cannot be grounded in such things. It can only be understood as an emotional response – as an act of faith.

the evidentialist puts no stock in faith. He requires evidence before committing to a position, and this evidence must, if possible, be obtained from reliable sources. He then draws conclusions from this evidence, through a chain of inferences based upon the rules of logic and reason. The confidence he places in these conclusions is in direct proportion to the quality and quantity of the evidence. It is this paradigm that provides the foundation for the American legal system and the scientific community. The scientific method is really just a specialized application of evidentialism to the natural world.

Everyone uses an evidence-based paradigm in the course of their daily life, even devout Christians. We all trust our senses and our reasonable inferences from those senses. Likewise, we evaluate the reliability of information obtained from other sources and trust that information if it passes our internal “bull detector.” Rarely if ever do we base everyday decisions on things we merely hope to be true but run contrary to the available evidence. We do not, for instance, set off into a driving rainstorm in our best attire having “faith” the rain will stop once we step out the door.

For most Christians, however, their religion is different. In religious matters alone, they feel free to set aside evidentialism. They allow themselves to believe things for which there is no good evidence and for which no reasonable inferences can be drawn. Why is this? Psychology suggests it is because they are wedded to the beliefs of Christianity for purely emotional reasons, and recognize such beliefs simply cannot be supported by reason. These beliefs are typically learned, and incorporated into one’s identity, in childhood before one develops critical thinking skills. Accordingly, Christians must appeal to an alternate means of establishing knowledge, and that is faith.

Faith and reason are, therefore, inherently at odds within Christian theology. This conflict can be seen in the writings of Martin Luther, who called reason “the devil’s bride,” a “beautiful harlot,” and “God’s worst enemy.” According to Luther, “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding,” replacing any deductions obtained through reason with the “Word of God.” Tertullian embraced the irrationality he deemed essential to Christianity, stating that Jesus’ death and resurrection must be believed precisely because it was absurd and impossible.
Tertullian found reason irrelevant to belief, claiming that in light of the truth revealed by the Gospels, there was no further “need of research.” Many of today’s apologists likewise see reason and evidence as immaterial to Christian belief, as demonstrated by William Lane Craig’s “internal witness to the Holy Spirit,” or Alvin Plantinga’s “sensus divinitatus” and view of Christian belief as properly basic.

For faith to be valid, however, it is not enough that reason be inadequate. It is not enough to simply point out that reason has limits and cannot adequately explain everything. Faith must add value. It must reliably increase our understanding of the world above and beyond what reason can accomplish, providing explanations that are demonstrably better. And it must do so in a way that is objectively verifiable. We must be able to show that, at least in some circumstances, faith paints a more accurate picture than reason ever could. The role of reason is to allow us to reliably distinguish truth from falsity. Unless the Christian can demonstrate that faith can do the same, faith cannot serve as a basis for knowledge.

Religions are virtually all anti-empiricist, because they hold the real nature of the universe is hidden from us. While it might have made sense to look for alternatives to an empiricist worldview when these religions emerged, it makes sense no longer, as we can now explain just about everything in the universe empirically or at least reasonably believe that they can be explained empirically as our scientific knowledge improves. That is the message of science. Faith can never provide an adequate alternative since faith can be used to justify almost anything. If a given process yields thousands of mutually exclusive answers to the same question, that process must be fatally flawed.

Great post!