Is faith logical?

[KingandPriest]

Although I am still relatively new to this forum, I have posted an interacted with multiple theist and non-theist. The conversation typically breaks down when faith/belief is introduced. This prompted a question about which rules apply to faith and which rules apply to logic.

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational? (simple yes or no should suffice)

2. If yes, what rules of logic apply to faith/belief?

3. If no, can any 'rules of logic' apply to faith?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

If a limited amount of faith is reasonable, does this also mean only a limited amount of reason/logic applies to faith?

See post 5 where I clarified how rules apply to certain domains and do not apply to other domains.

Newton's laws of gravity were correct, but they were limited. Newton himself recognized that his understanding of gravity was limited, because it described how gravity worked, but not why. It took more than two centuries and the coming of Einstein to begin a real understanding of the why. And work on just how and why gravity works continues to this day. Because science builds on it's discoveries.

So reason and logic ARE NOT LIMITED. They build upon themselves. As opposed to religion, which declares an answer and ends the discussion.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

If a limited amount of faith is reasonable, does this also mean only a limited amount of reason/logic applies to faith?

See post 5 where I clarified how rules apply to certain domains and do not apply to other domains.

Newton's laws of gravity were correct, but they were limited. Newton himself recognized that his understanding of gravity was limited, because it described how gravity worked, but not why. It took more than two centuries and the coming of Einstein to begin a real understanding of the why. And work on just how and why gravity works continues to this day. Because science builds on it's discoveries.

So reason and logic ARE NOT LIMITED. They build upon themselves. As opposed to religion, which declares an answer and ends the discussion.

Still though, this example of the difference between Newton's and Einstein's mathematical description of gravity has NOTHING to do with logic.

It's not like Logical Formalism had to be changed because it was wrong when Newton was using it and it had to be corrected before Einstein could use it.

Logical Formalism wasn't the culprit here. This example does not represent a change in the rules of logic. It merely represents a change in the way physicists were describing gravity.

No rules of logic where harmed in the process.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Adding further comments to the point I made in post #12

If anything Newton and Einstein were using different premises, not different rules of logic.

Newton assumed that space and time were separate and absolute. He also assumed that gravity was an instantaneous force.

These were unprovable assumptions or premises that Newton was using.

When Einstein came along, Einstein dropped those premises and instead chose to accept a PROVEN PREMISE that everyone measures the same speed for the speed of light.

This then caused him to ultimately arrive at the logical conclusion that space and time cannot be absolute thus disqualifying the unproven premises that Newton had assumed to be true.

So this particular example shows a change in premises, not a change in the rules of logic or reasoning.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Adding further comments to the point I made in post #12

If anything Newton and Einstein were using different premises, not different rules of logic.

Newton assumed that space and time were separate and absolute. He also assumed that gravity was an instantaneous force.

These were unprovable assumptions or premises that Newton was using.

When Einstein came along, Einstein dropped those premises and instead chose to accept a PROVEN PREMISE that everyone measures the same speed for the speed of light.

This then caused him to ultimately arrive at the logical conclusion that space and time cannot be absolute thus disqualifying the unproven premises that Newton had assumed to be true.

So this particular example shows a change in premises, not a change in the rules of logic or reasoning.

I want to step in as the responses are quickly getting off topic. We are not debating whether Newton or Einstein used logic, or the correctness of the premises presented.

The question is about the rules of logic. Rules and laws exist in specific domains. The question is whether faith exists within the domain of logic?

I brought up Newtons laws of gravity to show the domain which they apply to. The laws of gravity apply on a macro level. When you shrink to a molecular level, these "rules" seem to no longer apply.

Is faith in a different domain? In the same way the laws of gravity do not apply to a molecular level, is faith and logic in two distinct domains?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

If a limited amount of faith is reasonable, does this also mean only a limited amount of reason/logic applies to faith?

See post 5 where I clarified how rules apply to certain domains and do not apply to other domains.

Newton's laws of gravity were correct, but they were limited. Newton himself recognized that his understanding of gravity was limited, because it described how gravity worked, but not why. It took more than two centuries and the coming of Einstein to begin a real understanding of the why. And work on just how and why gravity works continues to this day. Because science builds on it's discoveries.

So reason and logic ARE NOT LIMITED. They build upon themselves. As opposed to religion, which declares an answer and ends the discussion.

Still though, this example of the difference between Newton's and Einstein's mathematical description of gravity has NOTHING to do with logic.

It's not like Logical Formalism had to be changed because it was wrong when Newton was using it and it had to be corrected before Einstein could use it.

Logical Formalism wasn't the culprit here. This example does not represent a change in the rules of logic. It merely represents a change in the way physicists were describing gravity.

No rules of logic where harmed in the process.

Many of Einstein's most important discoveries were the result of what he termed "thought experiments." Ideas worked out in his mind entirely through observation, reason and logic. Much of Einstein's reputation is derived from just how consistently Einstein's "mind experiments" have proven to be accurate over the years. So, in fact Einstein's descriptions of relativity had everything to do with logic. It also helped that during the early years of his most famous scientific breakthroughs Einstein was married to a woman that was a better mathematician then he was. Because Einstein worked out his theories logically in his head, and was then faced with the daunting task of proving them mathematically. Einstein would eventually give the money from his Nobel prize to his then ex-wife Mileva.

[Divine Insight]

Is faith in a different domain? In the same way the laws of gravity do not apply to a molecular level, is faith and logic in two distinct domains?

To begin with I don't agree with your suggesting that gravity does not apply to a molecular level. It's just that gravity is so incredibly weak compared with the other forces at the level that it's impossible for us to measure the effects of gravity at that level.

Also, I'm not sure that just because a particular principle of physics doesn't apply in a particular situation that this would be the same as logic not applying. It seems to me that you are confusing logic with physics.

When speaking of faith, I think you would be much further ahead thinking in terms of embracing different unprovable premises.

Scientists can't "prove" their premise that our reality only consists of things that can be directly physically observed or measured. However, they can argue that if we can't observe, measure, or detect the existence of something they have no
compelling reason to consider it.

That certainly appears to be reasonable. Don't you think?

Placing your faith in things that have no observable, measurable, or detectable existence is a far harder sell. Especially if you are attempting to convince others to embrace your "Faith-based belief".

About the best you could offer, (as far as I can see) is to suggest that you have intuitive or emotional feelings about it. But beyond then you couldn't point to any observable, measurable, or detectable evidence.

I personally would not hold it against you for having intuitive feelings about things. However, if you are going to attempt to convince me to embrace your specific emotions I see no reason to go there. If I were going to embrace emotions I would prefer to embrace my own.

~~~~~

Also, allow me to address this in terms of specific religions since you've posted this in Christianity and Apologetics.

Many Christian theists wrongly assume that anyone who doesn't buy into Christianity must be a hardcore atheist/secularist.

I am personally agnostic when it comes to the question of the true nature of reality. In fact, I have posted many times that I am probably an "Intellectual Atheist" and an "Emotional Mystic".

I personally have "intuitive feelings" that there may very well be something more to reality than meets are detectors. I certainly don't rule this out and I don't see where science rules it out either. '

So you could say that I have a "Faith-based belief" that there may very well be something more to reality than just the physical world we are currently experiencing.

However, I do not claim that this "Faith-based belief" represents any actual TRUTH. It may or may not. I don't claim to know.

This is quite different from the so-called "Faith-based Beliefs" of some theists who not only demand that their belief represents the TRUTH, but they also point to a very specific religion that they also claim represents TRUTH.

As far as I'm concerned, at that point they have moved far beyond the concept of "Faith" and instead are now experiencing extreme delusion of thinking that the KNOW something they can't possibly know.

It can hardly be called "faith" when they claim to KNOW that it's true.

And it's probably this "level" of so-called "faith" that non-believers object to.

Especially when the theists want to make laws based upon their faith-based dogmas. Then their so-called "faith" becomes intrusive to those who don't share their faith.

If a theist wants to believe in an undetectable God more power to them. But if they want to push their faith onto me politically via legislation, or even emotionally by accusing me of being a heathen sinner who hates their God because I don't embrace their faith, then their "faith" becomes extremely intrusive and problematic for me.

And in the case of Christianity and Islam this has historically been the case.

[Divine Insight]

Many of Einstein's most important discoveries were the result of what he termed "thought experiments." Ideas worked out in his mind entirely through observation, reason and logic. Much of Einstein's reputation is derived from just how consistently Einstein's "mind experiments" have proven to be accurate over the years. So, in fact Einstein's descriptions of relativity had everything to do with logic. It also helped that during the early years of his most famous scientific breakthroughs Einstein was married to a woman that was a better mathematician then he was. Because Einstein worked out his theories logically in his head, and was then faced with the daunting task of proving them mathematically. Einstein would eventually give the money from his Nobel prize to his then ex-wife Mileva.

I completely agree with everything you've said here.

Where did I ever say that Einstein didn't apply logic?

What I said was that there was no need to CHANGE THE RULES of logic between Newton and Einstein.

Can you give an example where Einstein changed the RULES of logic?

That would be news to me.

[ttruscott]

Although I am still relatively new to this forum, I have posted an interacted with multiple theist and non-theist. The conversation typically breaks down when faith/belief is introduced. This prompted a question about which rules apply to faith and which rules apply to logic.

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational? (simple yes or no should suffice)

Of course it is. What is irrational about hope? Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Not seen means unproven. If faith/hope is irrational then we must all admit we operate a lot of our lives irrationally by preparing for an unproven future. Whether we buy insurance for a bad unpredictable future or an investment bond for a a good unproven future most of what drives human society, going to work on the hope that we will get paid and that we will live to spend some of that pay, getting married, having children...everything important is based on an unproven future.

Secular faith in a secular unproven future is no less irrational than religious faith in a religious unproven future, a hope to be saved from the evil in us and to spend eternity without any evil in our reality at all. If it is irrational for one it is irrational for the other. If one is not irrational, neither are irrational. Hope is just hope, no great logical dilemma.

2. If yes, what rules of logic apply to faith/belief?

What logic? Humans hope in what has not yet been proven. Humans have the ability to hold our need for proof in abeyance while we work as if it were already proven which I do not call irrational because it is absolutely human and fills all of human life.

3. If no, can any 'rules of logic' apply to faith?

What is illogical is for secularists to demand that Christians prove their faith when that which is proven holds no more hope - how can you hope for what you already posses?

[KingandPriest]

Although I am still relatively new to this forum, I have posted an interacted with multiple theist and non-theist. The conversation typically breaks down when faith/belief is introduced. This prompted a question about which rules apply to faith and which rules apply to logic.

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational? (simple yes or no should suffice)

Of course it is. What is irrational about hope? Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Not seen means unproven. If faith/hope is irrational then we must all admit we operate a lot of our lives irrationally by preparing for an unproven future. Whether we buy insurance for a bad unpredictable future or an investment bond for a a good unproven future most of what drives human society, going to work on the hope that we will get paid and that we will live to spend some of that pay, getting married, having children...everything important is based on an unproven future.

Secular faith in a secular unproven future is no less irrational than religious faith in a religious unproven future, a hope to be saved from the evil in us and to spend eternity without any evil in our reality at all. If it is irrational for one it is irrational for the other. If one is not irrational, neither are irrational. Hope is just hope, no great logical dilemma.

2. If yes, what rules of logic apply to faith/belief?

What logic? Humans hope in what has not yet been proven. Humans have the ability to hold our need for proof in abeyance while we work as if it were already proven which I do not call irrational because it is absolutely human and fills all of human life.

3. If no, can any 'rules of logic' apply to faith?

What is illogical is for secularists to demand that Christians prove their faith when that which is proven holds no more hope - how can you hope for what you already posses?

Hello Ttruscott,

When you ask what logic in your response to question 2, it is the specific logic you believe applies to faith. Logic operates under certain rules and presuppositions. Do the rules of logic apply to faith as articulated in your response to #1.

Rules apply to certain domains. Does faith operate in the domain of logic?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Hello my dear friend DI!!

I would like to dispute your claim that faith is wishful thinking. Faith is based on trust. If I have faith that the sun is going to rise, is that wishful thinking? If I have faith that my husband loves me, Is that wishful thinking? Wishful thinking, IMO, is a wish, not based on anything substantial that has proven to be effective in a person's life. In my relationship with God, I have faith that He will do exactly what He claims to do, no wishful thinking involved because He has always proven this true.

I just thought I would throw that out there in the mix! Enjoy yourself this evening!