Logic and faith

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. I'll take definitions 1, 2, & 3 all together. None of those definitions oppose trust or imply a lack of evidence, yet you are telling us that ("religious") faith is not trust and implies a lack of evidence.



You're confusing the burden of proof. Find me a definition that says faith is belief/trust without any evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Beliefs and trust are not generally formed without evidence (and in an earlier post to you I even posited the psychological impossibility of such a claim). When someone says they have a belief, it is assumed they have a reason for their belief. If faith were belief absent any evidence, then dictionaries would obviously include that latter part given its abnormality. The only reason believers have need of the extra (and redundant) clause about evidence is due to the irrationality of foreseen atheist allegations.

In any case, it is notable that the definition I gave did not include a clause about evidence. I wouldn't generally include such a clause, given its obviousness. Yet in a systematic theology text such as Berkhof's the more complete definition that anticipates polemics should not surprise anyone.

To reiterate, you all are resting your case on a definition that doesn't exist, namely that faith is belief in something without any evidence or reason.

Maybe you skipped over it, but I already gave you a definition. It's in the post of mine you quoted. It was one of several, so here it is again, from Webster...

":firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

So again, it's not as if we're pulling this definition out of thin air. It's common usage.
Also, in what dictionary are parts of definitions assumed? There's a world of difference between a firm belief in something and a firm belief in something based on evidence....and no definition of faith mentions evidence except to note the lack of it.

 

[Architeuthus]

This is an alternate (Catholic) definition, which notes a difference between what some call "faith" and "the Faith":

Faith: The objective, revealed truth believed in (fides quae) or the subjective, personal commitment to God (fides qua). Made possible through the help of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 3:16–18), faith is a free, reasonable, and total response through which we confess the truth about the divine self-disclosure definitively made in Christ (Jn 20:31; Rom 10:9), obediently commit ourselves (Rom 1:5; 16:26), and entrust our future to God (Rom 6:8; Heb 11:1). -- A Concise Dictionary of Theology, Paulist Press.

Here "reasonable" means "based on reason."

It is just ridiculous (and shows "bad faith") to discuss specifically Christian uses of the word "faith" by the way that the word is used non-technically outside the Christian community.

 

[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.

Indeed, 2nd-order and higher-order logics include some of the power of mathematics, and therefore you get similar incompleteness theorems.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is an alternate (Catholic) definition, which notes a difference between what some call "faith" and "the Faith":

Faith: The objective, revealed truth believed in (fides quae) or the subjective, personal commitment to God (fides qua). Made possible through the help of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 3:16–18), faith is a free, reasonable, and total response through which we confess the truth about the divine self-disclosure definitively made in Christ (Jn 20:31; Rom 10:9), obediently commit ourselves (Rom 1:5; 16:26), and entrust our future to God (Rom 6:8; Heb 11:1). -- A Concise Dictionary of Theology, Paulist Press.

Here "reasonable" means "based on reason."

It is just ridiculous (and shows "bad faith") to discuss specifically Christian uses of the word "faith" by the way that the word is used non-technically outside the Christian community.

If you don't mind me saying, you seem really defensive about it. Why? Do you personally look at the "non-christian" understanding of faith as something that's a poor excuse for belief?

I've spoken with multiple christians on here who agree with the common usage of faith and take pride in having it. They've said it's integral to their beliefs in the way that if god left evidence, if he left a slew of proof for christianity and his existence...then there would be no point to christianity. It would be easy to accept and believe...and they feel without the struggle of uncertainty there is no reward in their spirituality.

I think if a group of people (not just christians) has an understanding of a common term (any word...not just faith) that's different from the accepted common definition of that term...then those differences certainly warrant a discussion.

It may not be the most important topic in the world, but as far as topics go...I don't think I'd call it ridiculous.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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....

Now I think I just completely misunderstood your analogy.

 

[Wryetui]

Many Hindus believe that since they can "remember" their past lives, that is evidence that Hinduism is correct.

To me of course, it's not really any different from your claim that thousands of christians live in communion with Christ. Im sure they think they do...just as those Hindus think they remember past lives.

So why is the christian communion with Christ "evidence" and Hindu memory not?

Yeah, many hindus do that, an buddhists, and muslims, and jews, we all have the ability to be religious because the humankind is always religious, they have that condition since they are born, even atheists have that ability they just push it towards other things, but the thing is not about the ability itself, but towards Who is directed. Buddhism and hinduism are often directed to ourselves, buddhism has no interest in connecting with divinity but to cave into yourself until you reach perfection. This ability is the only correct in christianity because the judeo-christian God is the only revealed God, the rest are human inventions. Hinduism, for exampe, worhsips idols that are often demons, and since you only talk behind a computer an have no desire to experience those things by yourself because you will discover that your set of ideas are wrong, I will give you some books to read: http://www.klauskenneth.com/pages/books.html
This Klaus Kenneth experienced himself the major religions and he can tell you quite a lot about hinduism and what it's there. After all those years, he found the truth where it has always been, in christian orthodoxy.

The atheist point of view is rot to me, because they had no experience, they just talk from what they read or hear, where the empirical have no place.

 

[Wryetui]

Can even one of them demonstrate that this experience is more than imagined?

Untestable.

Relgions do not require actual gods in order to exist. They cannot be all right.

The Bible is not history.

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

We are only evidence of us.

The universe is evidence of itself.

What is a "soul"?

Indeed. Terrible, untestable, unfalsifiable evidence, and faulty and fallacious arguments. Lots of it, though.

I do not deny your "truth", I take the neutral position; disbelief until convinced otherwise.

Why would I not want to be shown that there is more to human existence than this brief biological stint here on Earth?

Yet it exists, put your hands on the books and read them.

 

[paulm50]

Yet it exists, put your hands on the books and read them.

I think you missed his point.

Over the last 10,000s of years there has always been religions. From praying to kill some food for the fire to worshipping in the huge money making temples of today.

Along the way we've had people who worship the sun, trees, cows, rulers and men with good oratory. With it we've had sacrifice of children, money collections, power, genocide and genocide.

You can't all be right. You can all be wrong.

Because Man needs explanations and before we had modern science the explanation was always "Act of God" even for events we now know had nothing to do with and god and were down to nature or a bigger army or better tactics.

And the writers of the Original Hebrew Bible had no clue we came out of Africa, Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, Mammoths, or even kangaroos. And certainly no idea that an ending of the Ice Age flooded the Black Sea, their part of the world, and cause a large local flood.

2,000 years ago, this would of been an act of god. And so would this. Today we know, so no need for logic or faith, except in the power of our brains.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is an alternate (Catholic) definition, which notes a difference between what some call "faith" and "the Faith":

Faith: The objective, revealed truth believed in (fides quae) or the subjective, personal commitment to God (fides qua). Made possible through the help of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 3:16–18), faith is a free, reasonable, and total response through which we confess the truth about the divine self-disclosure definitively made in Christ (Jn 20:31; Rom 10:9), obediently commit ourselves (Rom 1:5; 16:26), and entrust our future to God (Rom 6:8; Heb 11:1). -- A Concise Dictionary of Theology, Paulist Press.

Here "reasonable" means "based on reason."

It is just ridiculous (and shows "bad faith") to discuss specifically Christian uses of the word "faith" by the way that the word is used non-technically outside the Christian community.

The word 'faith' is not owned by the Christian community. However you use it within that context is your business. It has no bearing on how it is used generally.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, many hindus do that, an buddhists, and muslims, and jews, we all have the ability to be religious because the humankind is always religious, they have that condition since they are born, even atheists have that ability they just push it towards other things, but the thing is not about the ability itself, but towards Who is directed. Buddhism and hinduism are often directed to ourselves, buddhism has no interest in connecting with divinity but to cave into yourself until you reach perfection. This ability is the only correct in christianity because the judeo-christian God is the only revealed God, the rest are human inventions. Hinduism, for exampe, worhsips idols that are often demons, and since you only talk behind a computer an have no desire to experience those things by yourself because you will discover that your set of ideas are wrong, I will give you some books to read: http://www.klauskenneth.com/pages/books.html
This Klaus Kenneth experienced himself the major religions and he can tell you quite a lot about hinduism and what it's there. After all those years, he found the truth where it has always been, in christian orthodoxy.

The atheist point of view is rot to me, because they had no experience, they just talk from what they read or hear, where the empirical have no place.

It's been really nice hearing your opinion...but the question was what's different between the two types of claims?

They may share an affinity to religion, but the beliefs are entirely different and mutually exclusive. You can't both be right, but you sure can both be wrong.

I had to weed through a lot of garbage to get to your position, but it sounds like the best you can come up with is "I'm right and they're wrong." That's the argument of a child...not a thinking adult.

The point here is that your claimed evidence is just as good evidence for a completely different set of religious beliefs. That is to say, it's not evidence at all.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Architeuthus]

I think if a group of people (not just christians) has an understanding of a common term (any word...not just faith) that's different from the accepted common definition of that term...

Well, Webster is, in my view, a very poor source for technical words (whether religious, scientific, or anything else). Specialised books like the ones I quoted are best for defining specialist words.

But let's look up Webster, shall we? It gives three possible definitions for faith in a religious context:

1. belief and trust in and loyalty to God
2. belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Hmmm. Not quite as you reported it. Honesty would be nice.

The word 'faith' is not owned by the Christian community. However you use it within that context is your business.

Indeed. But this whole side-discussion (including your contributions) has been specifically about Christian faith.

That's not how I conceive of the religious sense of the word.

From my own experience, it is also the case in Christianity. There are doctrines that must be believed, regardless of whether there is evidence for them or not, and even if there is evidence against them.

Many of the things you claim as evidence for Christianity are also claimed as evidence for other theologies.

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

We are focused on the religious sense of the word.

Consistency would be nice too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Indeed. But this whole side-discussion has been specifically about Christian faith.

In which case the general usage still applies. Unless you think Christians are somehow exempt?

 

[Architeuthus]

In which case the general usage still applies.

Well, no, because the word is being used in a technical sense. As you yourself said several posts back.

That's not how I conceive of the religious sense of the word.

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

We are focused on the religious sense of the word.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, no, because the word is being used in a technical sense. As you yourself said several posts back.

Yes, the general religious sense of the word. The technical sense would be however you use the word within your religious community, which is usually specific to the doctrines you believe on faith. I think this thread has been completely derailed by confusion over what sense of the word is being used in each instance. We have 'faith' as a synonym of confidence or trust, 'faith' as an allusion to the Christian faith specifically, 'faith' as an attitude toward a particular set of beliefs, etc.

 

[Architeuthus]

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.

Well, let's try to put the pointless Christianity-bashing aside and get back to the OP.

The idea that logic requires an element of faith is indeed not new:

"There is a deeper sense still in which faith is necessary to mathematics and indeed to any activity in which reasoning plays a critical role. I am speaking of the need to accept the adequacy and unchanging nature of the rules of inference and to believe that the human mind is capable of comprehending and applying these rules. It is not clear that we could work on any other assumption, because if the rules of inference were to change from time to time, or if they were completely beyond our comprehension, we could have little hope of knowing anything. So the assumption is critical, but it is not demonstrably correct; it is an article of faith and can never be anything but." -- Raymond Nickerson, Mathematical Reasoning: Patterns, Problems, Conjectures, and Proofs, p. 254

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, let's try to put the pointless Christianity-bashing aside and get back to the OP.

What Christianity-bashing are you referring to? Are you ashamed of faith?

 

[Architeuthus]

What Christianity-bashing are you referring to?

Yours, among others. It's hostile, it's rude, it's off-topic, and it's just not very interesting.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yours, among others. It's hostile, it's rude, it's off-topic, and it's just not very interesting.

What could be hostile or rude in asking someone how they know what they claim to know on faith? Why does that strike you as uninteresting? Or worse still, as "Christianity-bashing"? If one's faith is based on good reasons, then surely it cannot be considered "Christianity-bashing" to ask one to share those reasons? Insofar as this discussion centres on the supposed epistemic virtues of faith, it's not an unreasonable line of inquiry.

 

[lumberjohn]

Hopefully, no one will mind if I avoid the snarky point by point rebuttals that seem to characterize many of these posts. Many definitions have been posted that distinguish faith from epistemologies based upon reason and evidence. Moreover, a simple internet search on “faith and reason” will generate pages of material that demonstrates these as two very different approaches to epistemology. Why would there be so much ink spilled over attempts to reconcile faith and reason if they simply represented the same thing?

A good discussion of the issue can be found at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/). Here is a relevant quote: “Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority. Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason.”

As I’ve previously noted, virtually every significant Christian apologist has allowed for an escape hatch when reasoned arguments fail. Zippy writes “Claiming that faith is the opposite of reason is completely different from claiming that Christianity can[not] be defended on the basis of reason and logic alone.” But these are not different at all. They are in fact alternative ways of saying the same thing.

Every human endeavor other than religion requires that positions be defended on the basis of reason, logic and evidence. This includes science, law, and every branch of academics other than theology. If you attempt to present an argument in a courtroom or academic journal that relies on anything other than these things, your argument will be quickly dismissed. That necessary component of Christian apologetics that is independent of reason, logic and evidence is what many, both Christians and non-Christians, have traditionally called faith. Faith is thus defined as an epistemology that excludes reason, just as darkness is defined as a condition that excludes light and cold is a condition that excludes heat. If that is not the opposite of reason, then what is it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, Webster is, in my view, a very poor source for technical words (whether religious, scientific, or anything else). Specialised books like the ones I quoted are best for defining

Well, Webster is, in my view, a very poor source for technical words (whether religious, scientific, or anything else). Specialised books like the ones I quoted are best for defining specialist words.

But let's look up Webster, shall we? It gives three possible definitions for faith in a religious context:

1. belief and trust in and loyalty to God
2. belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Hmmm. Not quite as you reported it. Honesty would be nice.



Indeed. But this whole side-discussion (including your contributions) has been specifically about Christian faith.







Consistency would be nice too.

specialist words.

But let's look up Webster, shall we? It gives three possible definitions for faith in a religious context:

1. belief and trust in and loyalty to God
2. belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Hmmm. Not quite as you reported it. Honesty would be nice.



Indeed. But this whole side-discussion (including your contributions) has been specifically about Christian faith.







Consistency would be nice too.

You know what? I apologize. Im posting from my cell phone and when I clicked on the Webster's site for the definition of faith, I got sent here....

http://i.word.com/idictionary/faith

As you can see the definition was copied from there. I don't know if that's Merriam Webster's mobile site, but I apologize for the confusion.