Faith and Logic
If someone is a faithful religious follower can they also be a logical person? Does a logical person also need a certain amount of faith in the things that can't be proven? Are these two qualities in completely separate and incompatible spheres or not? Note: I have defined faith as the willingness to believe something that is impossible to prove or has been proven false. Feel free to amend that definition.
If someone attempts to use logic to prove the tenets of their religion, can they really be said to have faith?
If someone believes the claims of one fictional book, especially at the expense of observable facts, can they really be said to have logic?
Which quality is more important to you? Is it one, or the other, or both and if so, how have you found a way to balance both of them?
(I realize this debate may sound biased, because I don't have much a grasp of the perspective of faithful people. But I made this with the intent of learning, so please don't think this is meant to be antagonistic.)
|
2
points
It´s an interesting question so I will do my best to show you my point of view. Logic and faith can coexist. "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing." So faith does not necessarely require a God to believe in. For example I try to be logic, even though I still have faith in the human race (yeah I do). But the porpose of the question was really religion I think, so yes again. Not many people can be logic and believe in a non-existing being, still there are some wich use God as a personal way to be strong and live without fearing dead. Even though I am a non-believer I can see why most people use a God. Let´s say its just a way to fool themselfs into not being so afrais and have a guideline. The people who use God with this solely porpose usually can use logic in an apropriate way. Now if we´re gonna talk on the vast majority who doesn´t even know why they believe there´s a whole diferent deal. These people are not rational, they simple defend a being that they do not even usually know and are too mindless to question him. If we talk about christianity for example I can say you that about 93% of the people I know do not even read the bible (even though I´m atheist I read it) and do not care to understand why they defend a being that is a heartless genocide (read the bible). So faith and logic can be of use together but if its fate in any God that you are talking about I personally believe that 99% of the time is absolutely impossible. Why do you have faith in the human race though? Is it because of tendencies we, as a race, have exhibited in the past? If so, is this really faith, rather than a belief based on existing observable evidence? I believe that the human race will slowly progress towards equality, understanding, and acceptance...and I believe that because we have been doing that slowly but fairly consistently the past few centuries. There is no guarantee of it in the future but judging from our past trends, it is a reasonable bet. This could be phrased as having faith in humankind but because faith implies belief based on nothing, I try to avoid it. As for people who recognize their religion for what it is (an unprovable belief), and still choose to believe it, I guess I can agree they can possess both logic and faith but maybe in different spheres, as literally believing in something so unlikely and unprovable as God, Heaven/Hell, or the truth of the Bible, and any combination of the former, strikes me as unequivocally illogical. 1
point
I completely support your argument. I tend to use the word faith as a prove that to have faith is not necessarely the belief in something whitout a reason rather is believing in something based on evidences from the past. As you may realized it I do not use the word faith as in relegious terms. Yes you´re right, the human race will gradually continue to accept each other even if in a slow progression. Think on some religion as a way for people to do not panic. It´s sad to need to believe in something illogical but it has the same porpose that the nazi´s showers. When nazi´s saw that the jews were starting to reallizing that they were all going to die and started panicking, the nazis lied to the jews and told them that they were going to work. Even though most of the jews knew that they were going straight to dead they choose to believe in everithing else rather than they were going to die. Religion brings hope to the people. Even though I an atheist I can partially understand why people choose to believe in an illogical God. It´s almost a need to fell safe and to fool themselfs that necesseraly has to exist a allmighty being thats gives them morals. I hope my exemple isn´t taken in the wrong way but it is a way to show you my point. And basicly you´re right of course. If someone is a faithful religious follower can they also be a logical person? In general, "faith" in a religious context precludes the application of logic. So, they might be logical in other areas of their lives... but probably not in this one. If they had a logical reason for believing what they did you wouldn't call it religious "faith", you'd just call it a conclusion. Does a logical person also need a certain amount of faith in the things that can't be proven? You have to be careful what version of "faith" you're talking about. There are at least four different kinds that I can think of, of which you've only listed one in the opening of the post. and people tend to mix and match them without thinking about it. From something I've written on the subject before... 1. "Faith" as a description of confidence in extremely reliable data. For example, I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The reason I have faith in this is because I have massive amounts of data available to me that inform me that this will occur barring an incredibly unlikely occurrence... like the sun exploding overnight or the space fairies halting the Earth's rotation. The sun has risen all 11,000+ days of my life to date, right on schedule, and I have no reason to suspect that pattern will be disrupted in the next 14 hours or so. 2. "Faith" as a description of well earned trust. For example, you can have faith that a good friend or close acquaintance will deal honestly and fairly with you. This is based on your experience of and familiarity with this person and their personality and behavior. Your judgment of their character. Really, you are expressing confidence in your own ability to evaluate the trustworthiness of another person when you encounter and interact with them. 3. "Faith" as an expresssion of loyalty and commitment. Usually to an individual or ideal which you have good reason to hold as worthy of support, as in 'keeping the faith'. You have evaluated and judged this person or principle and have come to the conclusion that it is worthy of your loyalty and efforts to advance it, and faithfully stand by it. 4. "Faith" as a description of an insistence on believing in something without regard for or even in direct opposition to any related information or evidence. For example, to cite some extreme cases, you can have faith that there is a spaceship carrying Jesus riding along and hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet and if you commit suicide while it passes your soul will float up to zoom around with Jesus in outer space. Or, you can have faith that food and water are unnecessary for your survival, and humans can survive by being photosynthetic or something. People clinging to this type of faith can usually be identified by statements such as "It doesn't matter what you say you can't change my mind, I hold my position through faith and my faith is unshakable!" That last one is the type of faith we're generally talking about when someone declares they possess religious faith in something. The first two are the type of faith someone with a scientific mindset might be said to have. Side: Mutually exclusive in religious context
do you have faith in your logic? After all, logic is not infallible. Ironically, this site is where people pin logic against other logic. In two sides of a debate, where the sides are mutually exclusive (i.e. sky is blue or sky is not blue. cannot be both), and in general both sides are logical. So why do people maintain opinions? Because they believe their own logic more than that of another persons. belief in ones own argument, faith in its soundness, are all human elements added to logic. Pure logic does not exist in this world. Every belief has a margin of doubt. Descartes states that there is no way to know anything about the universe with absolute certainty, except the thinker exists. There is always, if nothing else, the possibility that life as you know it is an illusion (possibly constructed by a demon, but that is besides the point). I put my faith in logic and science, yet i must recognize that this is indeed faith. Side: Mutually exclusive in religious context
1
point
Faith and logic aren't exactly alternatives. Logic is a discipline applied to reality whereas faith is an attempt to understand beyond your reality. Knowing is the true alternative to faith, hence faith resembles more a blind stupor amidst hope. The faithful believe in what they don't understand, much like a christian getting a headrush in church and attributing the altered state to a christian diety. I've arrived at many spiritual principles using solely logic, so there's no need for faith. Logic is a tool, faith makes you a tool. If someone is a faithful religious follower can they also be a logical person? Every person is logical, whether they apply logic to all situations or not. Does a logical person also need a certain amount of faith in the things that can't be proven? This is individual, my belief is no, but I don't look down on others for their choices. Are these two qualities in completely separate and incompatible spheres or not? Yes If someone attempts to use logic to prove the tenets of their religion, can they really be said to have faith? No one can exercise logic to prove their religion; it, as opposed to spirituality, relies on emotion to operate. If someone believes the claims of one fictional book, especially at the expense of observable facts, can they really be said to have logic? Logic can't be taken away; again, people that defy logic are defying it because they have the capacity for logical discrimination. Which quality is more important to you? Is it one, or the other, or both and if so, how have you found a way to balance both of them? I've removed faith from my life. I've disproved religions (relying on faith to operate) to myself and others and I've witnessed phenomena disproving religions, I've proved the validity in spiritual teachings with logic (myself and others), and proved the existence of spiritual phenomena with logic (self/others). Humans are equipped with the capacity to discover every aspect of their existence with introspection, a bible won't give it to you (it'll make you afraid to step out of line), you give it to yourself. My examples are probably getting stale by now, but in the interest of promoting personal growth: 1) your conscience and intuition are psychic faculties (used logic), 2) christians used to burn witches, now that murder is illegal, they don't, christianity adheres to man's laws, not god's, it's an institution designed to appeal to people of every age. ([Why am I not surprised that they keep on coming out with new prophets, sects, and books that just happen to agree with every human aspect aside from spiritual unity?] used logic). Side: Mutually exclusive in religious context
Adjectives that typically describe someone such as "logical" or "faithful" typically lack absoluteness. Therefore it is possible for a person to be described as both logical and faithful in the English language. However I must point out that faith itself is contrary to logic. Faith makes people believe in unsound premises, while logic demands reasoning and dropping a conclusion that is invalid. Side: Mutually exclusive in religious context
However I must point out that faith itself is contrary to logic. Faith makes people believe in unsound premises, while logic demands reasoning and dropping a conclusion that is invalid. Premise: Faith is contrary to logic. Faith makes people believe unsound premises. Here is a logical argument. All of which conforms to the rules of the form and function of syllogism. It is a valid argument. All Unicorns are mammals. All mammals are mortal. Therefore all Unicorns are mortal. Now, the only question that matters, which is not a matter of logic is this: Do we accept the premises of the argument? Logic does not tell us whether we should or should not accept the premises. To suggest that it does is to abuse the utility of logic. The only question that logic answers is this: Does the conclusion necessarily follow from the terms of the premises? If so it is valid, if not, it is invalid. There is no unsound premise in that faith based argument. Consequently it is not contrary to logic. We can rightfully argue that Unicorns are fictitious-critters. No one will dispute that. However, what we cannot argue is that all faith-based arguments are contrary to logic. Furthermore, the assertion that “faith is contrary to logic” can also be regarded as a Faith-based premise and thusly unsound, according to your post. Consider the following: All Faith is contrary to logic. All Logic is believable. Therefore all faith is contrary to believable. Side: Mutually exclusive in religious context
Do we accept the premises of the argument? Logic does not tell us whether we should or should not accept the premises. To suggest that it does is to abuse the utility of logic. The only question that logic answers is this: I said it tells us whether or not to drop a conclusion, not the premises. There is no unsound premise in that faith based argument. Consequently it is not contrary to logic. We can rightfully argue that Unicorns are fictitious-critters. No one will dispute that. However, what we cannot argue is that all faith-based arguments are contrary to logic. Furthermore, the assertion that “faith is contrary to logic” can also be regarded as a Faith-based premise and thusly unsound, according to your post. I would argue that it isn't a faith-based argument. A faith-based argument is one that accepts pieces of dogma unquestioningly. For example, a Christian argument would be along the lines of "assume Jesus is the son of god and work from there." All faith-based arguments make this commitment to dogma, which at the very least leads to arguments that aren't parsimonious. Side: Mutually exclusive in religious context
1
point
Is it logical to have faith in nothing? No. Faith is believing that a doctor is trying to cure you. Faith is believing the world isn't out to get you. Faith is believing love exist. etc. Logic will tell you the doctor is only after a paycheck. Logic will tell you the world is out to get you. Logic will tell you love doesn't exist. etc. Logic will tell you faith is the only thing that makes life tolerable. Side: Logically Faithful
Is faith really the only reason someone might believe those things? To me, those scenarios seem logical rather than faithful because they are forming a conclusion based on available evidence. The second set of scenarios describes paranoia and nihilism perhaps, but I am not sure they describe logic. I don't think I am getting your point through your examples so instead, let me ask how you define faith, and how you define logic? Side: Logically Faithful
3
points
0
points
If someone is a faithful religious follower can they also be a logical person? It depends on whether they have been instructed to value logic or not. Does a logical person also need a certain amount of faith in the things that can't be proven? I would agree that in general people need to believe (to some degree) that they aren't wasting all their effort. I think everything done in the world is done by that sort of faith. This is how I think of faith.......... faith=trusting action Are these two qualities in completely separate and incompatible spheres or not? I don't think so. Note: I have defined faith as the willingness to believe something that is impossible to prove or has been proven false. Feel free to amend that definition. What pops into my mind is that one word that needs to be reevaluated in your case is "prove." What do you think prove means? If someone attempts to use logic to prove the tenets of their religion, can they really be said to have faith? Well they have some faith in logic no? If someone believes the claims of one fictional book, especially at the expense of observable facts, can they really be said to have logic? Sure they can be said to have faulty logic like the rest of us. Which quality is more important to you? Is it one, or the other, or both and if so, how have you found a way to balance both of them? I would have to say that faith is, since if I didn't have faith I would attempt nothing. I don't see logic and faith on opposite sides to be balanced. Trust and doubt are though. I don't have much a grasp of the perspective of faithful people. They aren't completely certain but they are sure enough to act on what they have learned. I made this with the intent of learning, so please don't think this is meant to be antagonistic. That attitude is so rare, It smacks of the not looking down at other people one....I hope you get something out of the responses to help you develop it. :) Side: Logically Faithful
This is how I think of faith.......... faith=trusting actionI may have this wrong but by the later contexts in which you use the word 'faith', it seems to mean 'betting on a certain outcome of acceptable probability'. When people have faith they are not wasting their efforts, as you phrased it, are they not just recognizing evaluating other people with impressive accomplishments, and evaluating the likelihood of accomplishing their own goals by applying their efforts? What do you think prove means? Proof, in the scientific sense as I understand it, applies only to mathematical equations. Even the most well-supported theories cannot claim they have proof; they evidence that is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. I made this debate a long time ago and now I am no longer sure I would include a reasonable trust in established scientific theories to be considered faith. They aren't completely certain but they are sure enough to act on what they have learned. Many religious people I have spoken too are completely certain that what they believe in is reality. I do not know if this is the most common view, but it certainly isn't rare. Side: Logically Faithful
Proof, in the scientific sense as I understand it, applies only to mathematical equations. Would you mind posting a response to this debate: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ I am no longer sure I would include a reasonable trust in established scientific theories to be considered faith. I think to use the word faith in the broadest applicable sense possible is the way to go. I think some important religiously/secularly oriented discussions need to happen between religious people and those who think of themselves as secular minded. These two classes of people need to humbly pay attention to their commonality. They could both be wrong about something vitally important. It makes no difference to me whether someone identifies as religious or secular if they lay down their curiosity in favor of a possibly false certainty. Thank you for contrasting your perspective with mine. Side: Logically Faithful
I Affirm your statement that a Religious Person can also be a logical person, along with your statement that Faith is also required in fields of logic. I have a Friend who is rather religious, and although occasionally a pleasurable ass on the topics of religion, I convene with him on topics of science and sociology on a daily basis. He says that he basically believes the Binary coalition, that with a One there must be a Zero, so God Created Man, but God could be you and me or God could be some celestial being, and Man is always his creation. It kind of directly negates any opposition because its a system of label that gives the target God all the attributes and that he is free of time, so technically, Humanity could become all knowing and all good. The thing you have to acknowledge with it though is that youll never know who is who, and thats where the faith comes in. Now, To completely disregard someone as illogical as soon as they are part of any form of religion is absurd. Firstly, because the definition of Religion is basically whatever your beliefs are and do not have to be directly associated with any god or otherwise. Secondly because it more so labels you as a quick to think, biased, non-analytical ass for affirming yourself without any evidence. As for your second statement, There are quite a few fields labled as logical that rely quite a bit on faith. In fact, life as a whole is somewhat reliant on faith due to the question of whther or not reality is reality. We just assume it is because were to connected to the world we think we know and are having too much fun with it. Quantum Mechanics relies rather heavily on faith in virtual partical systems and associative properties between such. It is indeed that very faith that has resulted in discovery of new particles and systems and continues to do so even today. Going out on a limb has partnered with logic time and time again in the past, often times in relation to science. Faith can also mean that you hold a feeling of potential or truth in something that cannot directly be proven true, like many Quantum Mechanical systems and the God-Man Negation system I decribed above. Its something that should not be bickered over, but continually talked about to produce unions between people, rather than splitting them apart. Side: Both Faith And Logic often come together
To answer what I "think" you mean, yes, I (as a believer in GOD) believe logic and GOD must go together. But, in fact, it is impossible for me to give a definite answer to your question as you did not specifically define GOD, faith or belief. For example, if you ask do I believe GOD exists, I could say yes, I believe there is a concept that exists within organized religions that they themselves refer to as GOD. That statement is true, even if I am atheist, because it does not require that I believe the concept itself, only that I believe the concept exists. First, we must decide on the meaning of the individual words before we consider the sentence, or concept, as a whole. Side: Both Faith And Logic often come together
1
point
|
