Does faith use logic?

[FutileRhetoric]

Generally speaking, doesn't a person of faith utilise logic to define entities and come to the conclusions that they call "faith."

For example, if someone has a religious experience, they would use logic to define it as so, correct? Experience = 'A'. Then wouldn't they rationalise their experience and say my experience was God and in effect, A=A. So, granted that their conclusion is illogical , did they still not use the application of logic to attain their 'knowledge'?

If so, it seems to me faith is a term for describing a bad use of logic.

If not, what is that make faith and logic distinct?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Generally speaking, doesn't a person of faith utilise logic to define entities and come to the conclusions that they call "faith."

For example, if someone has a religious experience, they would use logic to define it as so, correct? Experience = 'A'. Then wouldn't they rationalise their experience and say my experience was God and in effect, A=A. So, granted that their conclusion is illogical , did they still not use the application of logic to attain their 'knowledge'?

If so, it seems to me faith is a term for describing a bad use of logic.

If not, what is that make faith and logic distinct?

If we are talking about people using religious experiances as subjective evidence for a particular religious belief, then yes, they are effectively using invalid ('bad') logic:

1) When I pray I hear God talking to me in my head.
2) The likely explanation for this is God's actual existance.
3) Therefore, God exists.

The flaw is at (2): the likely explanation is not the truth of the belief statement, but rather one based in psychology. For example, a praying Catholic nun exhibits unusual patterns of brain activity that correlate very much with a meditating Buddhist. It is not so much that the nun's experiances come from God, but from her brain's ability at self-delusion.

Faith is, by definition, irrational: to have faith in a statement p is to this p is true dispite the absence of supporting, or existance of contradictory, evidence and/or justification. That is, faith is belief in the irrational.

I'll state now that I am well aware of my own theological beliefs; I am aware of the irrationality of my religious faith.

 

[elman]

Generally speaking, doesn't a person of faith utilise logic to define entities and come to the conclusions that they call "faith."

For example, if someone has a religious experience, they would use logic to define it as so, correct? Experience = 'A'. Then wouldn't they rationalise their experience and say my experience was God and in effect, A=A. So, granted that their conclusion is illogical , did they still not use the application of logic to attain their 'knowledge'?

If so, it seems to me faith is a term for describing a bad use of logic.

If not, what is that make faith and logic distinct?

Why is it granted that their conclusion is illogical? If you are not the one having the experience, how do you know their conclusion is illogical?

 

[elman]

If we are talking about people using religious experiances as subjective evidence for a particular religious belief, then yes, they are effectively using invalid ('bad') logic:

1) When I pray I hear God talking to me in my head.
2) The likely explanation for this is God's actual existance.
3) Therefore, God exists.

The flaw is at (2): the likely explanation is not the truth of the belief statement, but rather one based in psychology. For example, a praying Catholic nun exhibits unusual patterns of brain activity that correlate very much with a meditating Buddhist. It is not so much that the nun's experiances come from God, but from her brain's ability at self-delusion.

Faith is, by definition, irrational: to have faith in a statement p is to this p is true dispite the absence of supporting, or existance of contradictory, evidence and/or justification. That is, faith is belief in the irrational.

I'll state now that I am well aware of my own theological beliefs; I am aware of the irrationality of my religious faith.

I don't agree. Faith is believing something that cannot be proved. That does not mean the faith is irrational. It would be irrational I think to assume that what can be proven is the limit of reality. To believe that would be to accept it on faith, because that cannot be proven to be true.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't agree. Faith is believing something that cannot be proved.

Nothing outside of logical derivation can be proven. Taken to its logical conclusions, one must be a solipsist.

Compare:
"I believe in the theory of evolution because there is oodles of evidence for it; it is almost certainly correct."
"I believe in the existance of a chocolate teapot orbiting between Mars and Juptier, even though there is exactly zero evidence for it."

The former is a rational belief to have, but the latter is wholly irrational. I define faith to be any belief grounded in irrationality.

It would be irrational I think to assume that what can be proven is the limit of reality.

Agreed. There may in fact be a chocolate teapot between Mars and Jupiter.

To believe that would be to accept it on faith, because that cannot be proven to be true.

Einstein's field equations are 'just' a theory. Does a physicist take them on faith, or on the supporting evidence?

 

[FutileRhetoric]

If we are talking about people using religious experiances as subjective evidence for a particular religious belief, then yes, they are effectively using invalid ('bad') logic:

1) When I pray I hear God talking to me in my head.
2) The likely explanation for this is God's actual existance.
3) Therefore, God exists.

The flaw is at (2): the likely explanation is not the truth of the belief statement, but rather one based in psychology. For example, a praying Catholic nun exhibits unusual patterns of brain activity that correlate very much with a meditating Buddhist. It is not so much that the nun's experiances come from God, but from her brain's ability at self-delusion.

I think that's a viable answer. I hear the phrase 'self-delusion' from various skeptics at times, but I haven't seen anything about it really. Can you show me an article.

Why is it granted that their conclusion is illogical? If you are not the one having the experience, how do you know their conclusion is illogical?

You've misunderstood. Faith is bad logic according to the framework of logic. I've not said it is wrong.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Nothing outside of logical derivation can be proven. Taken to its logical conclusions, one must be a solipsist.

I don't want to take this very far off course, but can a solipsist logically prove to themself that they exist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't want to take this very far off course, but can a solipsist logically prove to themself that they exist?

Yes. Along with the laws of logic, one's own existance is the only thing one can actually know, in the true sense of the word.

To sum it up: "I think, therefore I am".

I cannot convince you of my existance as a concious entity, nor can you convince me of yours. However, from my point of view... and that's just it. I have a point of view to consider. The very fact that I am pondering my existance proves my existance: I am the thing doing the pondering, and so I must therefore de re necessarily exist.

I am by no means a philosopher, but I came to these conclusions before I knew there was a word for it: 'solipsism'.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Yes. Along with the laws of logic, one's own existance is the only thing one can actually know, in the true sense of the word.

To sum it up: "I think, therefore I am".

I cannot convince you of my existance as a concious entity, nor can you convince me of yours. However, from my point of view... and that's just it. I have a point of view to consider. The very fact that I am pondering my existance proves my existance: I am the thing doing the pondering, and so I must therefore de re necessarily exist.

I am by no means a philosopher, but I came to these conclusions before I knew there was a word for it: 'solipsism'.

The fact that you think is proof that there is something of substance, perhaps unknown, that exists, however, I don't believe it proves that "you" exist, only that there exists thoughts. Thinking only proves that "you" think, not that that which exists is corporeal or can said to be definitively the "I" in the Descartes statement.

btw, if I can't reply today I'll get back to this on the weekend.

 

[FishFace]

You've misunderstood. Faith is bad logic according to the framework of logic. I've not said it is wrong.

Faith is not bad logic, because you can justifiably believe something; you can believe without faith; even though you don't have a logical proof of that thing. For example, no empirical fact is really based in logic. There's no logic involved in my believing "there is a computer in front of me."
I could make the logical argument, "I see a computer, therefore there is a computer in front of me," but as all good logicians will tell you, a two line syllogism is probably invalid, since the corresponding three-liner is unsound. Hence even if I constructed a logical argument, I've still not got a logical justification.

But I still believe without requiring faith.

 

[elman]

Nothing outside of logical derivation can be proven. Taken to its logical conclusions, one must be a solipsist.

Compare:
"I believe in the theory of evolution because there is oodles of evidence for it; it is almost certainly correct."
"I believe in the existance of a chocolate teapot orbiting between Mars and Juptier, even though there is exactly zero evidence for it."

The former is a rational belief to have, but the latter is wholly irrational. I define faith to be any belief grounded in irrationality.


Agreed. There may in fact be a chocolate teapot between Mars and Jupiter.


Einstein's field equations are 'just' a theory. Does a physicist take them on faith, or on the supporting evidence?

Is there no evidence of prayer having ever worked for our benefit? If you experience prayer being successful, would that be no evidence? Can I have evidence of something that is not considered evidence by you? Does your opinion mean I in fact have no evidence? Is evidence only evidence when you can package it and present it to a third party?

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Faith is not bad logic, because you can justifiably believe something; you can believe without faith; even though you don't have a logical proof of that thing. For example, no empirical fact is really based in logic. There's no logic involved in my believing "there is a computer in front of me."
I could make the logical argument, "I see a computer, therefore there is a computer in front of me," but as all good logicians will tell you, a two line syllogism is probably invalid, since the corresponding three-liner is unsound. Hence even if I constructed a logical argument, I've still not got a logical justification.

But I still believe without requiring faith.

No, see here:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=justify


You see the computer, you acknowledge it is there and that is indeed a computer. That is logic -- there's no need to make an argument about your experience with the computer.

 

[elman]

You've misunderstood. Faith is bad logic according to the framework of logic. I've not said it is wrong.

Whose framwork of logic are you referring to? The one that experienced the evidence supporting the faith? Does experience fit into our framework of logic?

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Whose framwork of logic are you referring to? The one that experienced the evidence supporting the faith? Does experience fit into our framework of logic?

To no ones in particular. Yes, it does. In order for something to be logically sound it must be testable, reproducable and the results consistent. When logic is applied to to subjective experiences they can only prove that they are experiences and sometimes, the origin for them is identified (ie: sleep paralysis, metal disorder, etc), but many times it is not. That is my point of saying that faith is not necessarily wrong because it cannot be proven to be.

 

[elman]

To no ones in particular. Yes, it does. In order for something to be logically sound it must be testable, reproducable and the results consistent. When logic is applied to to subjective experiences they can only prove that they are experiences and sometimes, the origin for them is identified (ie: sleep paralysis, metal disorder, etc), but many times it is not. That is my point of saying that faith is not necessarily wrong because it cannot be proven to be.

True and it is not necessarily illogical because it cannot be proven either.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

It is in fact illogical because they are supported by evidence. Consider the claim on the opposite end of the curve: "The God gene (lol) proves humans have a predisposition to believing in the supernatural." This claim is equally illogical to the claim that subjective experiences are logical evidence for God. It should be noted that logic is used in both.

If you think it's still logical then you should also consider the beliefs of any random person to be logical.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The fact that you think is proof that there is something of substance, perhaps unknown, that exists,

No. It is proof that I exist, but not that I am of some substance.Things get whiffy when you delve into the depths of reality. We know reality exists, but it is futile to ponder what the ultimate reality is.

however, I don't believe it proves that "you" exist, only that there exists thoughts.

And what am I but thoughts? I am the thing doing the thinking. If thoughts are being thunk, then I am whatever is doing the thunking.

Thinking only proves that "you" think, not that that which exists is corporeal or can said to be definitively the "I" in the Descartes statement.

I think you have misunderstood me quite spectacularily. I am not arguing for the existance of my body as modern biology teaches, merely my existance as a privately-thinking entity.

btw, if I can't reply today I'll get back to this on the weekend.

Fair doos.

 

[elman]

It is in fact illogical because they are supported by evidence. Consider the claim on the opposite end of the curve: "The God gene (lol) proves humans have a predisposition to believing in the supernatural." This claim is equally illogical to the claim that subjective experiences are logical evidence for God. It should be noted that logic is used in both.

If you think it's still logical then you should also consider the beliefs of any random person to be logical.

It may not be logical for me and still be logical for them since they had the experiences and I did not. You assume you can judge the logic of experiences you have not had. I assume you are incorrect about that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there no evidence of prayer having ever worked for our benefit?

Yes. However, such an effect has never been demonstrated to be the result of divine intervention. The placebo effect is a spectacular example of this.

If you experience prayer being successful, would that be no evidence?

That depends: what are you attempting to evidence?

It is worth pointing out that the success rate of prayer is identicle to what we would expect by random chance. That is, praying for someone's speedy recovery without their knowledge has no affect on their recovery time.

Can I have evidence of something that is not considered evidence by you?

Not in an ideal scenario, no. If:
1) we agree on the thing you are trying to be evidenced (that is, we're not talking about different things), and
2) we agree on what set of facts you are presenting as evidence (that is, we're both looking at the same known phenomena),
Then what 'counts' as evidence is objectively established. A 'good' argument is of the form:

a) A clear definition of the hypothesised phenomenon
b) A clear list of some known phenomena
c) A clear description of how (b) increase the likelyhood of the phenomenon in (a) being real/true.

Notice the emphasis on clarity

Does your opinion mean I in fact have no evidence? Is evidence only evidence when you can package it and present it to a third party?

A phenomenon x is evidence of a proposed phenomenon y if and only if it increases the likelyhood of y being real/true.

For example, Common Descent proposes that all life evolved from a single organisms ~3.5 billion years ago. The fossil record is evidence for this because it clearly shows how such a protracted evolutionary process could have occured, and thus increases the likelyhood of the theory of Common Descent being true.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Is there no evidence of prayer having ever worked for our benefit?

Yes. However, such an effect has never been demonstrated to be the result of divine intervention. The placebo effect is a spectacular example of this.

You have your faith system and you have some evidence for it, but it cannot be proved to be true. You are now arguing about the quality of the evidence, not the absolute non existence of the evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
If you experience prayer being successful, would that be no evidence?

That depends: what are you attempting to evidence?

That there can be evidence when you don't know there is evidence and therefore a statment there is zero evidence simply because you don't know about it would be incorrect.

It is worth pointing out that the success rate of prayer is identicle to what we would expect by random chance.

It is worth pointing out this is your assumption. This cannot be proven and even if it could what does that have to do with me using my own experiences as evidence for my faith?

That is, praying for someone's speedy recovery without their knowledge has no affect on their recovery time.

You cannot prove this to be true because it is not subject to being proven one way or the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Can I have evidence of something that is not considered evidence by you?

Not in an ideal scenario, no. If:
1) we agree on the thing you are trying to be evidenced (that is, we're not talking about different things), and
2) we agree on what set of facts you are presenting as evidence (that is, we're both looking at the same known phenomena),

Ideal scenarios are not possible. We cannot agree on each others experiences.

Then what 'counts' as evidence is objectively established. A 'good' argument is of the form:

But all evidence is not objective. Most of it in fact is subjective.

a) A clear definition of the hypothesised phenomenon
b) A clear list of some known phenomena
c) A clear description of how (b) increase the likelyhood of the phenomenon in (a) being real/true.

So we get into the odds and probabilities--not total zero evidence.

Notice the emphasis on clarity

It is not possible for us to have perfect clarity of someone else's experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Does your opinion mean I in fact have no evidence? Is evidence only evidence when you can package it and present it to a third party?

A phenomenon x is evidence of a proposed phenomenon y if and only if it increases the likelyhood of y being real/true.

Again you have changed from no evidence to probablities and likelyhoods.

For example, Common Descent proposes that all life evolved from a single organisms ~3.5 billion years ago. The fossil record is evidence for this because it clearly shows how such a protracted evolutionary process could have occured, and thus increases the likelyhood of the theory of Common Descent being true.

Yes somethings have evidence that backs them up to some extent and other things has no physical evidence to support them. Some evidence is subjective and all evidence is subject to subjective interpretation and evaluation.