Logic and faith

[zippy2006]

Not having time to respond to all of that nonsense, I'll pull out this piece:

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.

Try to justify any of these three sentences.

When a little girl is told by her father that it is dangerous to play in the forest, she believes that it is dangerous. She doesn't know why, she doesn't have sight of the danger, but she does have faith. This faith is not the opposite of reason, it is reasonable. It goes hand in hand with acknowledging her father's superior knowledge and submitting to his will. To fail in this acknowledgement would be unreasonable and would lead to harm in the forest.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Although I don't hold the position, the idea is that logic needs roots, foundational premises to work from. In any syllogism the premises are of a different nature from the inferences and conclusions. Similarly, foundational premises are different from all other kinds of knowledge.

The question is this: how are these foundational premises secured? Faith is one option. Another option is a mode of reason altogether different from the common mode of reason (e.g. a priori, intuitional, inductive, etc.). In any case, such premises have been under attack since at least the modern period (and much earlier if you look to the ancient skeptics). An answer is necessary, and faith is actually a fair candidate.

 

[The Cadet]

Not having time to respond to all of that nonsense, I'll pull out this piece:



Try to justify any of these three sentences.

When a little girl is told by her father that it is dangerous to play in the forest, she believes that it is dangerous. She doesn't know why, she doesn't have sight of the danger, but she does have faith. This faith is not the opposite of reason, it is reasonable. It goes hand in hand with acknowledging her father's superior knowledge and submitting to his will. To fail in this acknowledgement would be unreasonable and would lead to harm in the forest.

Please define "faith".

 

[zippy2006]

Please define "faith".

I don't have a problem with the colloquial definitions, such as can be found in dictionaries. In general I don't have a problem with faith as lumberjohn expressed it in his first three sentences. If you want a more precise exposition, I would point you to St. Thomas' article on the act of faith. Keeping the context of that article in mind, to have faith or believe is "to think with assent."

 

[The Cadet]

I don't have a problem with the colloquial definitions, such as can be found in dictionaries. In general I don't have a problem with faith as lumberjohn expressed it in his first three sentences. If you want a more precise exposition, I would point you to St. Thomas' article on the act of faith. Keeping the context of that article in mind, to have faith or believe is "to think with assent."

That definition seems to be quite vague. It would imply that the faith I have in the sun coming up is the same as the faith you have in god. That's a bit of an issue, wouldn't you think?

 

[Architeuthus]

The Bible defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).

It says Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. More accurate translations would be Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (ESV) or Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen (NABRE). That's not a precise definition, of course ("greatly mistaken are they who think that an exact definition of faith is given here; for the Apostle does not speak here of the whole of what faith is, but selects that part of it which was suitable to his purpose" says Calvin in his commentary on the book).

However, the New Testament portrays faith as being based on evidence; particularly the evidence of miracles and the evidence of testimony by trusted people.

Faith is, in fact, the opposite of reason.

No it isn't; and your assertion contradicts 2,000 years of theology. Read Thomas Aquinas, for example.

According to Paul, faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.

Paul does not say that anywhere.

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.

That "trust" is actually pretty close to what Christian faith is. One cannot perceive with the senses the outcome of a (future) jump, but the evidence is compelling, and so the trust is justified.

 

[Architeuthus]

It would imply that the faith I have in the sun coming up is the same as the faith you have in god. That's a bit of an issue, wouldn't you think?

Not quite the same but, still, what's the issue?

 

[Architeuthus]

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

Well, that's what we Christians mean by faith.

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.

But there is in turn other evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Still, we seem to have gotten off-topic into another "let's bash Christianity" thread, so I think I'll leave.

 

[zippy2006]

That definition seems to be quite vague.

Which one? Thomas'?

It would imply that the faith I have in the sun coming up is the same as the faith you have in god. That's a bit of an issue, wouldn't you think?

They are analogous, as Architeuthus said, but what is the problem?

In general though, I would say that I have knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow (barring any catastrophic events). Physics and astronomy can draw such a conclusion with strong certitude.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, that's what we Christians mean by faith.



But there is in turn other evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Still, we seem to have gotten off-topic into another "let's bash Christianity" thread, so I think I'll leave.

I hope it wasn't something that I wrote. I certainly didn't mean to give the impression I was trying to bash christianity. Try to understand, if a group of people have a definition for a word that's exclusive to the way that group of people use it...those of us outside the group may have some difficulty in comprehending that definition.

It's certainly your right to not participate if you don't like the direction you think the discussion is headed. I do apologize though if I gave the impression that I was "bashing" christianity. It wasn't my intention.

I am curious though if anyone else here knows some common words that have a very different meaning to christians? Another word could be useful for comparison.

 

[zippy2006]

I am curious though if anyone else here knows some common words that have a very different meaning to christians? Another word could be useful for comparison.

Berkhof's definition seems to be perfectly applicable outside a religious context. Why wouldn't it be? All faith is based on evidence. In Christianity the evidence relates to God's revelation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Berkhof's definition seems to be perfectly applicable outside a religious context. Why wouldn't it be? All faith is based on evidence. In Christianity the evidence relates to God's revelation.

Well his definition specifically refers to

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."

Scripture.

When I say I have faith in anything...I'm not saying anything that relates to scripture. Moreover, I'm not saying that I have evidence...I'm referring to (generally speaking) a feeling of trust that isn't necessarily founded upon anything.

If I had evidence, why wouldn't I just say "I have reason to believe that....blah blah blah."? I would only use the term faith to describe situations where I have no evidence. If I'm going to conflate faith with an evidence based reason to believe something...why use the term "faith" at all? It's completely superfluous at that point.

 

[zippy2006]

Well his definition specifically refers to Scripture.

No, I don't think so. He is talking about Christian faith. Faith is based on evidence, and in Christianity that evidence is based on revelation. If he were talking about faith in general, then he wouldn't have mentioned Christianity. The evidence upon which faith is based is specified by each specific circumstance. In Christianity it is revelation. That doesn't make it anything other than faith.

Moreover, I'm not saying that I have evidence...I'm referring to (generally speaking) a feeling of trust that isn't necessarily founded upon anything.

Faith is based on a sufficient reason--call it "evidence" if you will. What you're describing is what is often referred to as "blind faith." Feelings of trust aren't generally baseless. They are based in the trustworthiness of a person or procedure and that trustworthiness has a basis.

If I had evidence, why wouldn't I just say "I have reason to believe that....blah blah blah."? I would only use the term faith to describe situations where I have no evidence. If I'm going to conflate faith with an evidence based reason to believe something...why use the term "faith" at all? It's completely superfluous at that point.

You can say you have reason to believe, because you do. Often we use the word "faith" when those reasons are obscure or aren't publicly available to others (such as the paradigm case of an authority who we trust). Certainly faith is something different from proof. We do not have faith in things that can be demonstrated in a strict sense, but neither do we have faith in things that have no basis whatsoever. Such a notion doesn't even seem to be psychologically tenable. This is perhaps one of the strangest things about atheistic claims of "blind faith." I think it is actually impossible to have truly blind faith. It is like accusing someone of drawing square circles.

 

[Davian]

Not having time to respond to all of that nonsense, I'll pull out this piece:

Try to justify any of these three sentences.

When a little girl is told by her father that it is dangerous to play in the forest, she believes that it is dangerous. She doesn't know why, she doesn't have sight of the danger, but she does have faith. This faith is not the opposite of reason, it is reasonable. It goes hand in hand with acknowledging her father's superior knowledge and submitting to his will. To fail in this acknowledgement would be unreasonable and would lead to harm in the forest.

Looking at this in evolutionary timescales, it was not long ago when, if little children went playing in the forest by themselves, they effectively took themselves out of the gene pool. Natural selection has bred credulousness into us, particularly at a young age. Those that failed to retain the elder's knowledge would starve. We are the descendants of the (more) credulous.

 

[zippy2006]

Looking at this in evolutionary timescales, it was not long ago when, if little children went playing in the forest by themselves, they effectively took themselves out of the gene pool. Natural selection has bred credulousness into us, particularly at a young age. Those that failed to retain the elder's knowledge would starve. We are the descendants of the (more) credulous.

1. When did playing in the forest equate to death? What's so different today?
2. How quickly do you think evolution works?
3. How did you get from the danger of playing in the forest to credulity? The logical conclusion is that humans would stop playing in forests, not that they would become generally credulous.
4. This thread went into the Principle of Credulity and the Principle of Testimony for a bit before it was locked. There are quite a few other reasons for children to listen to their parents than evolution.

Speaking of credulity, I think "Because evolution" gets tired after awhile.

 

[Davian]

1. When did playing in the forest equate to death?

When the children became victims of predators.

What's so different today?

Less forests. Fewer dangerous animals.

2. How quickly do you think evolution works?

Slowly. What's your hurry?

3. How did you get from the danger of playing in the forest to credulity?

Natural selection.

The logical conclusion is that humans would stop playing in forests, not that they would become generally credulous.

How did you reach that conclusion? Natural selection is not a magic tool that 'fixes' behaviour in a species.

4. This thread went into the Principle of Credulity and the Principle of Testimony for a bit before it was locked. There are quite a few other reasons for children to listen to their parents than evolution.

Sure, but the bottom line is, from an evolutionary perspective, if you do not live long enough to have babies, and raise to babies capable of producing the next generation, those other reasons are decoration.

Speaking of credulity, I think "Because evolution" gets tired after awhile.

"Because evolution" does not require that most of mainstream science and knowledge be wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When a little girl is told by her father that it is dangerous to play in the forest, she believes that it is dangerous. She doesn't know why, she doesn't have sight of the danger, but she does have faith. This faith is not the opposite of reason, it is reasonable. It goes hand in hand with acknowledging her father's superior knowledge and submitting to his will. To fail in this acknowledgement would be unreasonable and would lead to harm in the forest.

That's not the kind of 'faith' we are talking about. As I indicated earlier, 'faith' is sometimes used synonymously with 'confidence' or 'trust,' which may or may not be justified.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Berkhof's definition seems to be perfectly applicable outside a religious context. Why wouldn't it be? All faith is based on evidence. In Christianity the evidence relates to God's revelation.

If it's based on evidence, then faith is unnecessary.

 

[Architeuthus]

If it's based on evidence, then faith is unnecessary.

Only if you redefine "faith" differently from the way we Christians use it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Only if you redefine "faith" differently from the way we Christians use it.

Are we talking about how faith is actually practised in religion or how you use the word? Because those are not necessarily the same.