Logic and faith

[Architeuthus]

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

What we are not talking about is your unsupported claims regarding how you say we use the word.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What we are not talking about is your unsupported claims regarding how you say we use the word.

I never made any claims about how you use the word, except to note that there are many senses in which the word is used, and that we talking about 'faith' in the religious sense here.

 

[Architeuthus]

I never made any claims about how you use the word

Yes, you did -- repeatedly.

we talking about 'faith' in the religious sense here.

Well, yes, we are, which is why I gave an explicitly religious definition from a systematic theology book.

If you won't accept our right to use the word our way in religious contexts, then no sensible discussion is possible. Consequently, I'm putting you on "ignore."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, you did -- repeatedly.



Well, yes, we are, which is why I gave an explicitly religious definition from a systematic theology book.

See my previous response to that definition:

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.

If you won't accept our right to use the word our way in religious contexts, then no sensible discussion is possible. Consequently, I'm putting you on "ignore."

You can use the word however you want to. No one is stopping you. However, your usage of the word is not universal.

 

[paulm50]

Different definition

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

Buh-bye

And as many know, that faith can be misplaced.

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.

A computer's logic is fed into it by men. Or women. It doesn't think, it calculates faster than we do, but it has to be taught what and how to calculate. Just like a child, it can be "brainwashed".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

So if logic must be assumed, why do computers work? Must there notbe a "logical structure to reality" for a computer to work, just as there must be a mechanical structure to reality for a machine to work, or the existence of wind and waves for a boat to work?.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks for the responses so far...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

The way I imagine it is that logic is a physical process, so the potential for liogic must be embedded in reality. Just as "the apple is green" is true (corresponds), so logical statements have their correlates, in the very nature of existence. If this structure wasnt there, the computer program - using logic - would be jammed. The metaphysical ""signal" of the logic stream would hit a dead end, an impasse. Like trying to walk into a gale force wind blwing in the other direction, or trying to build life without carbon so to speak....

 

[paulm50]

The bible was written in a time of ignorance. Most of it comes from stories told and retold. Much of it told by different religions and different gods. At the time it was only faith that held people together.

People need explanations. Who are we, why are we here and why should I follow the leader? The bible was an attempt to fill the void.

Genesis is wrong. It completely misses out all that we now know to be true. The millions of species that had gone before 10,000 BC. The development from the Big Bang took billions of years, the hit and miss attempts of life on Earth. Even life in the America's, Australia, etc. Were all unknown. The tree of life shows clearly no god was creating life as the bible says. It was too hit and miss, too random and a lot down to the environment and occurrences from Outer Space. To argue a god sent the asteroids that have hit earth, is preposterous, they hit Earth on a regular basis.

To them a great flood was an act of god, not an act of nature. Noah only had to rescue the animals who knew of and needed. The Ark wasn't big enough to hold all the species we have on Earth today, let alone 1,000s of years ago.

But to an uneducated mind it made sense. And the people telling their tribe that they had connection to the being that delivered such catastrophes like drought, winds, floods, earthquakes, flames coming out of the ground. Or how to win a battle, if they only do as they're told. It made sense to follow them, and do as you're told.

And for 1,000s of years that's how it's been. Do as we tell you because we know what's best for you. And give us money. The common factor in all religions is pay up. The church has sold everything from pieces of the cross, to salvation. Today in America look at the preachers, their church and see the wealth.

Proclaiming to know and understand the thoughts of a man who owned little more than the shoes and clothes he wore. And little real power than his voice. Because it's in a book written and compiled by men who had all the power and wealth. Telling us to give them more, because their book commands it.

That needs more than faith to accept.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

And as many know, that faith can be misplaced.

I know that. But in that context that you used that was what faith meant.

 

[The Cadet]

So if logic must be assumed, why do computers work? Must there notbe a "logical structure to reality" for a computer to work, just as there must be a mechanical structure to reality for a machine to work, or the existence of wind and waves for a boat to work?.

How do you know the computer even exists? How do you know you're not a brain in a vat being fed this sensory information about a universe where the logical absolutes work, but in "reality", they don't?

Again, the problem essentially boils down to being unable to justify trust in our senses in any objective way. It's an obnoxiously deep philosophical problem with very, very little actual connection to the reality we find ourselves in, or at least the reality which I perceive myself to be in (I hate philosophy sometimes )

 

[Architeuthus]

So if logic must be assumed, why do computers work?

That's a quite similar question to the one I asked about 2 + 2 = 4. It's a very interesting question, and there are different answers out there.

In some way, the axioms of logic must be "true," but people disagree on the way.

 

[Architeuthus]

Genesis is wrong.

That kind of depends on what you think it's saying.

Today in America look at the preachers, their church and see the wealth.

That's the kind of bigoted comment we can do without. The average pastor in the USA earns between $30,000 and $45,000 per year, depending on who you ask, and on what you mean by "average." That's not exactly "wealth."

Because it's in a book written and compiled by men who had all the power and wealth.

Jesus and his disciples had power and wealth? Really? Have you actually read the New Testament?

 

[Wryetui]

Faith is beliving in Jesus Christ and what He did, what He promised, what He will do, believing the Bible as being the word of God, believing the prophets, believing the apostles, the Church and the Saints.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Faith is beliving in Jesus Christ and what He did, what He promised, what He will do, believing the Bible as being the word of God, believing the prophets, believing the apostles, the Church and the Saints.

On the basis of what evidence?

 

[The Cadet]

Faith is beliving in Jesus Christ and what He did, what He promised, what He will do, believing the Bible as being the word of God, believing the prophets, believing the apostles, the Church and the Saints.

That's not a definition, that's an example. That's like if I asked for a definition of cat, and someone told me "whiskers is a cat". That's nice, but it doesn't help me as much as you might think.

 

[Wryetui]

On the basis of what evidence?

In the evidence of the example of thousands of people who live in communion with Christ, in the evidence of the lives of the Saints, in the evidence of the life in the Church of Christ, in the evidence of history, in the evidence of the Bible, in the evidence of our existance, in the evidence of this universe, in the evidence of our souls...

There is no lack of evidence, just people who deny the truth and won't accept it because they prefer to live in a lie

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the evidence of the example of thousands of people who live in communion with Christ, in the evidence of the lives of the Saints, in the evidence of the life in the Church of Christ, in the evidence of history, in the evidence of the Bible, in the evidence of our existance, in the evidence of this universe, in the evidence of our souls...

There is no lack of evidence, just people who deny the truth and won't accept it because they prefer to live in a lie

Many of the things you claim as evidence for Christianity are also claimed as evidence for other theologies. So why should we accept it as evidence for Christianity and not some other religion?

 

[Wryetui]

That's just a vague affirmation, give me examples if you want me to answer them.

 

[KCfromNC]

How do you know the computer even exists? How do you know you're not a brain in a vat being fed this sensory information about a universe where the logical absolutes work, but in "reality", they don't?

Again, the problem essentially boils down to being unable to justify trust in our senses in any objective way.

They can be justified in lots of ways (consistency parsimony, etc). They just can't be justified in a particular way that philosophy has guessed it must be answered. Considering how well most fields do without philosophy's blessing, though, that's more an indication that philosophy doesn't have the correct tools to answer this (or any other) question.