Does faith use logic?

[FutileRhetoric]

*

 

[quatona]

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?

Faith and logic are distinct in that they are completely different categories and not conceptual antagonists.
Does singing use science?

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Faith and logic are distinct in that they are completely different categories and not conceptual antagonists.
Does singing use science?

Just saying they're different doesn't prove anything.Also, I think that's a false analogy. Singing and science are different but both use logic (science is based largely on logic) just as good logic and bad logic(faith) are based on logic.

 

[quatona]

Just saying they're different doesn't prove anything.

I didn´t mean to prove anything.

Also, I think that's a false analogy. Singing and science are different but both use logic (science is based largely on logic) just as good logic and bad logic(faith) are based on logic.

Except that the analogy wasn´t about singing/science vs. logic, but comparing singing/science to faith/logic, as another example for two concepts that aren´t antagonists and in which asking "does A use B" does not make much sense.
Sure, even people who have faith take advantage from logic (else they couldn´t even try to make an argument. Some fully accept logic as an axiom that may not be violated, others see no problem in simply claiming there´s a realm beyond logic (implying that their claims about this realm needn´t make sense).

 

[Stainless]

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?

Faith refers to sticking to the plan. The only logic involved is, "If I keep doing this, then I will gain that." That is a statement of faith (in an action). That is the only faith involved in religion.

The beliefs that brought about the faith in actions is another matter involving suspicions, doubts, hopes, instincts, and so on - NOT Faith.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Faith refers to sticking to the plan. The only logic involved is, "If I keep doing this, then I will gain that." That is a statement of faith (in an action). That is the only faith involved in religion.

I disagree. There are a great many faiths that do not require adherants to do certain actions, nor guarantee rewards if certain actions are taken.

 

[Stainless]

I disagree. There are a great many faiths that do not require adherants to do certain actions, nor guarantee rewards if certain actions are taken.

By "faiths", you mean "beliefs". I was talking about "religions". Religions specifically require behaviors.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Then we have different definitions of the word 'assume'. What you call an assumption I would call a belief.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

By "faiths", you mean "beliefs". I was talking about "religions". Religions specifically require behaviors.

Again, I disagree. This is just an exercise in semantics: I have a set of definitions for these words, and you have a different set.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

That's just because of our inherent epistomological limitations.

I can't give a construct a language in which to convey to you the proof of such a fundamental philosophical notion. It's related to Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

Why is it irrelevant?

Because it has no bearing on my point I don't know how to make this more clear.

If God is still doing the thinking then is it not possible that God is doing so, but also making you not exist?

No. That would breach logic.

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

One cannot use logic to derive a false conclusion from true premises. But that's irrelevant: the first premise was false, so the conclusion is untrustworthy (since the possibility remains that it may just so happen to be true).

Furthermore, the conclusion itself is undefined, and as such the premise cannot be used to logically derive it.
So the whole thing is an illogical mess: the premise is false, the conclusion is undefined, and the derivation does not exist!

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

No. As I explained above, the terms were either undefined ('God' remains undefined), or used incorrectly (half a wing is not useless).

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

I need you to elaborate on the phrase 'totally distinct from logic'. As far as I am aware, logic isn't something that one can be totally distinct from (in the same way that my wallet cannot be a faulty appendix).

 

[elman]

Then we have different definitions of the word 'assume'. What you call an assumption I would call a belief.

So would I.

 

[Revelation1217]

Of course faith uses logic.

Please see this thread:

http://christianforums.com/t6757915...en-it-comes-to-christianity.html#post42856773