Does faith use logic?

[ArchaicTruth]

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?

I didn't have quite enough time to read this topic, but being a faithful person, yes my logic and faith are intertwined pretty tightly. They go hand in hand for me.

Also, this is kind of off topic, but you seem like someone who enjoys a good read, and I highly recommend the book Narcissus and Goldmund by Herman Hess. The book was originally written in German, so make sure you get a good translation. It deals with the collision of faith and the secular world in people, I.E. the workings and collisions of life/pleasure and the spirit/faith. I may not agree with the ultimate message, but it still is an excellent book. If you like it, or can't find it, try looking for the Steppenwolf, another excellent book by the same author on a similar subject.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have your faith system and you have some evidence for it, but it cannot be proved to be true.

Correct. No belief system can be proven true.

You are now arguing about the quality of the evidence, not the absolute non existence of the evidence.

No. I am explaining why the thing called evidence isn't, in fact, evidence. It's similar to the Creationist claim that 'Creation Science' is a science, when in fact it is not.

That there can be evidence when you don't know there is evidence

Well that's where it all gets a bit epistomological. Whether a statement p is evidenced or not depends on the individual: it may not be evidenced to me, but it may be evidenced to you (that is, you know of phenomena that evidence it, but I do not).
And therein lies the nature of debate: it's a semi-formal medium in which to present any evidence you believe you have aquired.
Arguably, evidence for x is any phenomena y that, if presented in a rational debate, would increase the likelyhood of x being true.

It is worth pointing out this is your assumption.

Not quite. There has been no study that demonstrates the efficacy of prayer. I am quite secure in standing by the null hypothesis.
http://www.slate.com/id/2139373
http://www.nytimes.com

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?

It doesn't. Somehow we got onto the topic of the efficacy of prayer. It is probably my fault.

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

It's a conclusion, not a statement of proven fact.

Ideal scenarios are not possible.

That is why they are called 'ideal'.

We cannot agree on each others experiences.

Indeed. Hence the term 'subjective evidence'.

But all evidence is not objective.

It is if my two criteria are fulfilled.

Most of it in fact is subjective.

Taking epistomology to its logical conclusions, all of it is subjective. Taking a less-than fesicious view, it depends on what we are trying to evidence. Common descent? Most evidence is objective. The voice in my head? Most is subjective.

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

You misunderstand. All evidence does, all it can do, is affect probabilities. We can never say with 100% certainity whether p is true, but we can get pretty damn close with sufficient evidence.

We're very sure that common descent is true because of the abundance of evidence. We're sure quantum mechanics is true because of the evidence.

Provided we're talking about the same thing, one can use logical arguments to arive at the most logical explanation. It is for this reason that subjective phenomena are non-commutative: it is not that there is a problem in our modelling, but in our being private thinkers.

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

I never said perfect clarity.

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

I haven't changed since it's all the same thing: evidence and probability are as epistomologically interwoven as energy and matter.

 

[elman]

I haven't changed since it's all the same thing: evidence and probability are as epistomologically interwoven as energy and matter.

No evidence is not the same as improbable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No evidence is not the same as improbable.

Correct. However, when you compare a hypothesis with no evidence with a hypothesis with some evidence, the latter is significantly more probable than the former. That's the whole point of evidence.

 

[elman]

Correct. However, when you compare a hypothesis with no evidence with a hypothesis with some evidence, the latter is significantly more probable than the former. That's the whole point of evidence.

Again with the no evidence. That is not the scenario. The reality is little evidence and much evidence and it is all based on subjective evaluation as to what evidence is best.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Again with the no evidence. That is not the scenario. The reality is little evidence and much evidence and it is all based on subjective evaluation as to what evidence is best.

Only insofar as the word itself can be subjectively redefined. You seem hell-bent against agreeing with my definition. Pray tell, what is your definition of the word?

 

[elman]

Only insofar as the word itself can be subjectively redefined. You seem hell-bent against agreeing with my definition. Pray tell, what is your definition of the word?

What word? I am disagreeing with your assumtion of no evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What word?

'Evidence'.

I am disagreeing with your assumtion of no evidence.

And I am saying that it comes down to semantics: one can define evidence in one way or another, and this implies that their either is or is not evidence.

But rest assured that it is not an assumption. Indeed, present evidence, if you have it.

 

[stan1980]

Faith most certainly does not use logic. People think that because they believe something that is so hard to believe, that they'll get rewarded by god. That is illogical, pure and simple.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Faith most certainly does not use logic. People think that because they believe something that is so hard to believe, that they'll get rewarded by god. That is illogical, pure and simple.

I heartily disagree, and put myself forward as proof.

A god makes just as much sense (provided this is not a wide-spread religious god) as no god

I am willing to suffer in hell for the right reasons

My reasoning brings me understanding, thus bringing me closer to God, who is all understanding.

A reward from God would be nice, but I have one in mind for myself.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

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.

This appear to me, to lie on the assumption that God is incapable of doing the thinking for "you", in essence, assuming God doesn't exist.

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.


Fair doos.

I was not arguing that; I understand quite well that by "I" you could have meant just that.

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.

If "you" are thinking, then do you not consist of some substance? If you have no substance, you do not exist, correct?

You have not proven that these thoughts of "yours" are actually yours.

I didn't have quite enough time to read this topic, but being a faithful person, yes my logic and faith are intertwined pretty tightly. They go hand in hand for me.

Also, this is kind of off topic, but you seem like someone who enjoys a good read, and I highly recommend the book Narcissus and Goldmund by Herman Hess. The book was originally written in German, so make sure you get a good translation. It deals with the collision of faith and the secular world in people, I.E. the workings and collisions of life/pleasure and the spirit/faith. I may not agree with the ultimate message, but it still is an excellent book. If you like it, or can't find it, try looking for the Steppenwolf, another excellent book by the same author on a similar subject.

Thank you for the reccomendation;I will check it out on Amazon right away because I hardly have any books in my queve! Do you have a particular translation you suggest I start out with?

Faith most certainly does not use logic. People think that because they believe something that is so hard to believe, that they'll get rewarded by god. That is illogical, pure and simple.

Logic can be logical or illogical. Logical being defined as something that makes sense (ie: a cow is a cow) and illogical is defined as something that does not conform to the rules of logic such the non-contradiction. Logic is intrinsic to everything so even when a person says "God is omnipotent", they have used logic to define God, omnipotence, and then make a conclusion.

 

[elman]

'Evidence'.


And I am saying that it comes down to semantics: one can define evidence in one way or another, and this implies that their either is or is not evidence.

But rest assured that it is not an assumption. Indeed, present evidence, if you have it.

If sometime cannot be proven to be a fact but is a belief, would it then be an assumption?

 

[levi501]

Faith seems to be belief in something that can't be demonstrated to others.

Whether this faith is void of logic is another question.
Everyone has a reason for their faith, whether it be socialized lip service, confirmation bias or strong personal evidence.

The test I apply in determining whether it's void of logic is to ask myself if it's reasonable for a person to have that faith based on their reason.

For instance if God talked to someone quite clearly in their head, while that wouldnt be evidence to anyone else I may agree that if I experienced what they said they experienced then it's logical to have faith.

If their reason for faith is because trees are pretty, well then that's confirmation bias and falacious.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If sometime cannot be proven to be a fact but is a belief, would it then be an assumption?

No, because there is a (unfortunately subtle) difference between thinking something is true and assuming it's true. For example, I believe in common descent, but I don't assume it: I fully concede that it may be false.

And I think that relates to fundamentalists: they make the a priori assumption that they are right.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This appear to me, to lie on the assumption that God is incapable of doing the thinking for "you",

How so? Think of it this way: from my point of view, I am a thinking entity. I see the world (or a facimilie of the word), I hear it, I smell it, etc. I have thoughts in my head, etc. Whatever it is that sees, hears, smells, thinks, etc, is me. I am the thing doing the seeing. I am the thing doing the hearing. I have no idea what I am, but I know that I am.
But like I said, I can't prove to you my existance. I can prove to me my existance, and that's all that matter (as a solipsist, that is).

in essence, assuming God doesn't exist.

Assuming that an entity is incapable of something is by no means equivalent to assuming it doesn't exist. I can't fly, so does that mean I don't exist?

If "you" are thinking, then do you not consist of some substance? If you have no substance, you do not exist, correct?

Not necessarily.

You have not proven that these thoughts of "yours" are actually yours.

It is proof, but it is not for you. I am privy to the proof of my existance by virtue of me being me, and you aren't because you aren't me.

Logic can be logical or illogical. Logical being defined as something that makes sense (ie: a cow is a cow) and illogical is defined as something that does not conform to the rules of logic such the non-contradiction.

How can logic be used illogically? You can use specious logic, which is something that looks logical. But how can you have illogical logic?

Logic is intrinsic to everything so even when a person says "God is omnipotent", they have used logic to define God, omnipotence, and then make a conclusion.

I think a better example would be arguments that attempt to refute logic itself: they defeat themselves because, by setting up these arguments, they must use logic! Ah, vicious circles.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

How so? Think of it this way: from my point of view, I am a thinking entity. I see the world (or a facimilie of the word), I hear it, I smell it, etc. I have thoughts in my head, etc.

I'm following, according to you, it is you that experiences this.

Whatever it is that sees, hears, smells, thinks, etc, is me. I am the thing doing the seeing. I am the thing doing the hearing.

Sorry, but saying that something is true does not prove it.

I have no idea what I am, but I know that I am.

I agree with the former, but you have failed to prove the latter.

Assuming that an entity is incapable of something is by no means equivalent to assuming it doesn't exist. I can't fly, so does that mean I don't exist?

You apparently misunderstand what I mean by God. God is omnipotent and for you to assume that it cannot do something is negated by the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Not necessarily.

Elaborate please.

It is proof, but it is not for you. I am privy to the proof of my existance by virtue of me being me, and you aren't because you aren't me.

Yes, it is illogical proof to yourself. I too can prove to myself that I exist by using illogic.

How can logic be used illogically? You can use specious logic, which is something that looks logical. But how can you have illogical logic?

I misworded my statement. I meant that logic is used to make both logical and illogical statements. If someone who isn't insane makes the argument:
ARGUMENT FROM HALF A WING
(1) Half of a wing is useless!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

it is not a statement without logic. The person has their own definitions and concepts and has applied them to come to a conclusion. The conclusion is illogical, however logic was used from the beginning. The person used logic to assert that half a wing is useless; they have a reason for believing this. If they didn't then logic was not used. Finally the person makes a connection between the half wing and God. If the person has reasons, again, they used logic. I hope that clears it up a bit.

I think a better example would be arguments that attempt to refute logic itself: they defeat themselves because, by setting up these arguments, they must use logic! Ah, vicious circles.

Right, what of arguments that say that faith is an experience that is ineffable?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

mis-post, ignore

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm following, according to you, it is you that experiences this.

Correct.

Sorry, but saying that something is true does not prove it.
...

I agree with the former, but you have failed to prove the latter.

And that's entirely my point: I can't prove it to you. What I'm espousing can't be proved to you. Like I said, I am privy to the proof, but it's subjective nature belies it's transmission to you.

You apparently misunderstand what I mean by God. God is omnipotent and for you to assume that it cannot do something is negated by the assumption that God is omnipotent.

First, I was responding to a different point: you said "This appear to me, to lie on the assumption that God is incapable of doing the thinking for "you", in essence, assuming God doesn't exist" (emphasis added), and I was effectively pointing out that this was a non sequitur.

Second, I have been making the point that, while God could be doing the thinking for me, the fact remains that I am still experiancing thoughts. From whence they come is irrelevant.

Elaborate please.

No.

The onus is on you to demonstrate why something that exists must necessarily be composed on some arbitrary substance.
My stance is that of the null hypothesis, whilst yours is one of a positive claim.

Yes, it is illogical proof to yourself. I too can prove to myself that I exist by using illogic.

I have to say, this is not the most conducive statement to make. It hems on the ad hominem, even on the flaming.

I misworded my statement. I meant that logic is used to make both logical and illogical statements.

You didn't misword, because this is the same thing: this is the same as saying that maths can be used to derive scalar vectors.

If someone who isn't insane makes the argument:
ARGUMENT FROM HALF A WING
(1) Half of a wing is useless!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

it is not a statement without logic.

No. The transtition from (1) to (2) is illogical, and de dicto necessarily does not use logic.

The person has their own definitions and concepts and has applied them to come to a conclusion. The conclusion is illogical, however logic was used from the beginning.

No, it was not. I challenge you to logically derive (2) from (1).

The person used logic to assert that half a wing is useless;

No, they didn't. They used an a priori assumption to base this claim upon. Logic was most certainly not consulted.

They have a reason for believing this. If they didn't then logic was not used.

Not necessarily. One can have illogical reasons. For example, humans have an irrational phobia of darkness enclosures (closets, caves, etc), yet this has an entirely rational root cause.

Finally the person makes a connection between the half wing and God.

Perhaps, but the point is that it isn't a logical connection. It is one based on specious logic parroted by uneducated preaches espousing their misguided views on evolutionary theory.

Right, what of arguments that say that faith is an experience that is ineffable?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are experiances inerrant? In one sense, yes: they did happen. In another, no: subsequent recollection is very likely to distorted as a linear function of time.

 

[elman]

No, because there is a (unfortunately subtle) difference between thinking something is true and assuming it's true. For example, I believe in common descent, but I don't assume it: I fully concede that it may be false.

And I think that relates to fundamentalists: they make the a priori assumption that they are right.

When I assume something that means I admit I do not know for sure and don't have the facts to be able to say I know it. If I knew for sure, I would not have to assume. I assume the existence of God but cannot prove it.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Correct.


And that's entirely my point: I can't prove it to you. What I'm espousing can't be proved to you. Like I said, I am privy to the proof, but it's subjective nature belies it's transmission to you.

Then your point fails because you have not demonstrated that you can logically prove to yourself that you exist. I am simply trying to discern that logical argument, but you have not presented one, therefore, I cannot apply it to myself.

Second, I have been making the point that, while God could be doing the thinking for me, the fact remains that I am still experiancing thoughts.

From whence they come is irrelevant.[/quote]Why is it irrelevant? If God is still doing the thinking then is it not possible that God is doing so, but also making you not exist?

No.

The onus is on you to demonstrate why something that exists must necessarily be composed on some arbitrary substance.
My stance is that of the null hypothesis, whilst yours is one of a positive claim.

Obviously you missed out on the fact that I asked a question.

No. The transtition from (1) to (2) is illogical, and de dicto necessarily does not use logic.


No, it was not. I challenge you to logically derive (2) from (1).

Logic was used defined 1 and 2, that does not necessarily mean 2 logically follows 1.

Perhaps, but the point is that it isn't a logical connection. It is one based on specious logic parroted by uneducated preaches espousing their misguided views on evolutionary theory.

Agree now, the connection is illogical, but I still think logic was used to define the terms.

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are experiances inerrant? In one sense, yes: they did happen. In another, no: subsequent recollection is very likely to distorted as a linear function of time.

I'm asking if certain experiences that are said to be that of God are totally distinct from logic;they are ineffable.