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]

Would you agree that the problem between Relativity and quantum mechanics is the fact that they are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations? It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

When Newton published his "Principia" in 1687 it was one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of science. The Principia predicted the movement of heavenly bodies with great accuracy. And still does today. And it all revolves around gravity. Newton however freely admitted that he didn't understand the nature of why gravity works, only it's effects on bodies at a distance.

We had to wait until 1916 when Einstein published his paper on general relativity dealing with the fundamental principles of gravity before we began to have a deeper understanding of gravity. A deeper and as yet still incomplete understanding of gravity. You are right, relativity and quantum mechanics approach the physical world from different angles. And both achieve positive results. A theory that would serve to bridge the gap is needed. Physicists refer to this bridge as the theory of everything.

Wikipedia
Theory of everything
A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1]:6 Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

People often seem to think that what we know today is the limits of what can be known. It took almost 230 years to get from the Principia to Relativity. Have a little patience. These are not easy questions. The video does a nice job of explaining where things currently stand. No one is supposing that we are anywhere near an end point that explains everything just yet. And by "be patient," I am not suggesting that the theory of everything will occur in our lifetimes.

Back to the video. The principle of superposition is remarkably similar to faith claims found in the bible about what is possible with God. The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously. Matt 19:26 "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible". Romans 4;17 "God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did." Here the bible is saying all states are possible simultaneously before God. As humans we can only observe one state at a time.

In a similar sense, God is constantly around us as long as we don't look to check. No matter how we move our scientific instruments, God always appears to change just as we try and outsmart him. As far as we know, electrons have no intelligence, but yet they continue to "outsmart" us and defy what we expect. This is still a mystery in physics, but many accept it as true and move on without further investigation because it has been a paradox that cannot be observed. Some physicists even describe it as the "observers paradox." Believers hold that God is the only one who can view superposition simultaneously. Before God, Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is why believers often make counter reality claims of faith. We believe God can and has changed the position of certain states.

Some are seeking scientific evidence of the other states as proof that God has changed an object from one position to another, even though we know we cannot as evidenced by The Double-Slit Experiment. Someone could say statements of faith are statements of superposition.

The "science" of discovering proof of evidence of God has always proven to be very much like the "science" of alchemy. Alchemist were once the best "scientists" of their day. Some of what they discovered would prove to be genuine in that it did serve to advance general knowledge. Much of it however involved what is considered pure pseudoscience today. Such as the ability to purify the body and soul with special elixirs, and the ability to change base metals such as lead into "noble" metals like gold. It was the product of imagination based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of chemistry and nuclear physics, and nothing more. Like alchemy, religion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the universe actually works. A misunderstanding that imagines things to be a certain way and proceeds from that point, rather than methodically seeking to understand how things are through observation and experimentation. And accepting what the evidence actually says, rather then imagining how things must be. The only thing that is important is what is true. The rest is useless hyperbole. You keep seeking to find a way to interject God into the equation. Because you have imagined God to exist and do not wish to give up on your assumption. And in fact the question is still filled with variables whose value is not known. They have to be discovered however, rather than assumed.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 211 by Tired of the Nonsense]

People often seem to think that what we know today is the limits of what can be known. It took almost 230 years to get from the Principia to Relativity. Have a little patience. These are not easy questions. The video does a nice job of explaining where things currently stand. No one is supposing that we are anywhere near an end point that explains everything just yet. And by "be patient," I am not suggesting that the theory of everything will occur in our lifetimes.

You espouse that one needs to be patient in the hopes for a theory of everything. You also admit that you do not believe this will occur in our lifetime.

By our understanding of human history, it took over 5,000 years before a person was able to conceive both general relativity and quantum mechanics. I bring this up, because you often ridicule how followers of Christ have been waiting 2000 years for His return. Is it reasonable to have more patience for a potential theory of everything as opposed to the return of Christ?

Is it possible that 2000 years from now, humanity will still be searching for a TOE. At that point, should the TOE receive the same vitriol as you espouse over the claims of Christians?

The "science" of discovering proof of evidence of God has always proven to be very much like the "science" of alchemy.

I understand the comparison, and feel it is a fair comparison. Rather than spending time, resources and energy into trying to find proof of the evidence of God, we believers implore you to save time and just have faith. Why spend millions of dollars and years chasing evidence which cannot be found, because God does not want you to find it. Similar to the principle of superposition, as soon as we look for God, we can only see the state which is present in our physical dimension. To us, that state is invisible or immeasurable. No matter how we move our instruments or conduct different tests, we will not be able to see beyond the limitations of our physical plane.

Alchemist were once the best "scientists" of their day. Some of what they discovered would prove to be genuine in that it did serve to advance general knowledge. Much of it however involved what is considered pure pseudoscience today. Such as the ability to purify the body and soul with special elixirs, and the ability to change base metals such as lead into "noble" metals like gold. It was the product of imagination based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of chemistry and nuclear physics, and nothing more. Like alchemy, religion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the universe actually works. A misunderstanding that imagines things to be a certain way and proceeds from that point, rather than methodically seeking to understand how things are through observation and experimentation. And accepting what the evidence actually says, rather then imagining how things must be. The only thing that is important is what is true. The rest is useless hyperbole. You keep seeking to find a way to interject God into the equation. Because you have imagined God to exist and do not wish to give up on your assumption. And in fact the question is still filled with variables whose value is not known. They have to be discovered however, rather than assumed.

Yesterdays science is today's pseudoscience. Today's imaginary science will be the actual science of tomorrow. Today's pseudoscience will become the actual science of the future. This cycle has presented itself all throughout human history.

[Closingaccountreadgmailna]

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?

Faith is rational, for me. I know God is. I believe what Jesus said. I trust Him.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

You espouse that one needs to be patient in the hopes for a theory of everything. You also admit that you do not believe this will occur in our lifetime.

I didn't say that I didn't believe that a theory of everything wouldn't occur in our lifetimes. Only that it was useless to jump the gun by pointing out the gaps in human knowledge even as those gaps are currently in the process of being filled it. I certainly hope that a credible theory of everything is produced during my lifetime so that I can attempt to make some sense of it.

By our understanding of human history, it took over 5,000 years before a person was able to conceive both general relativity and quantum mechanics. I bring this up, because you often ridicule how followers of Christ have been waiting 2000 years for His return. Is it reasonable to have more patience for a potential theory of everything as opposed to the return of Christ?

For the majority of the 5000 years you mention people believed without question that the earth was the center of creation and everything went around the earth. They believed this because watching the sky makes this seem undeniably true. And so the concept of a God who created the universe for humans to be the center of was developed. And it made perfect sense.

It just doesn't happen to be true. Precise and detailed analysis of the universe has established that it is insanely more complicated than it appears to be by direct visual observation alone.

In the second century AD the astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus produced the classic standardized view of the universe with the earth at the center. Finding the Ptolemaic view of the universe to be in perfect accord with the church's religious assumptions, the Ptolemaic model was not only declared to be valid, it was declared to be canon.
And for more than a thousand years the science of astronomy stood at a standstill in the west by order of the church.

But others who were interested in astronomy noticed discrepancies which the Ptolemaic model failed to explain. In 1543 astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus published, on the event of his death (he was no fool), "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres," which placed the sun at the center of the universe. This was wrong too, but but it was at least movement in the right direction after more than a thousand years of infallible church doctrine on the nature of the universe. The church declared it heresy.

In 1616 Galileo attempted use the newly invented telescope to convince Pope Paul V that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Galileo's fame was at this point already too great to simply execute him. Instead Galileo was taken to the torture room, shown the various instruments of torture, and ordered to recant his claims. Which he did. He was then placed under house arrest at his villa for the remainder of his life.

From prehistoric times until about 500 years ago, we lived in abject ignorance of the universe around us. Even for most of those last 500 years, progress came very slowly.
And now we are living in an age where significant advancements are measured in months.

When I was a boy I had a picture book on astronomy which I loved. It was published in 1948, the year I was born. I still have it. It shows a picture of the surface of Mars with interconnecting canals. In 1877 Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli observed and produced drawings of Mars with what he termed "canali," or channels on the surface.
This produced a sensation, because canals, as the English speaking press interpreted canali, implied that Mars has intelligent life on it. H. G. Wells took this notion and ran with it, writing War of the Worlds in 1897. But subsequent observations of the planet Mars by other astronomers showed no sign of any "canali." Yet even as late as the year I was born the notion that Mars was covered with "canals" was still popular.

Today, sitting at my computer and making a few keystrokes, I can look at close up detailed photos of the surface of Mars. I can look at photos taken ON the surface of Mars by robots. That's how far we have come in just my lifetime. No canals are anywhere to be seen, although dry river beds are unmistakable.

The point is, religion has a long and unpleasant history of attempting to obstruct the advance of science. And succeeding. But time has moved on, and the authority of any one religious group has waned. Research is now free to follow the evidence where ever the evidence should lead. Religion now perceives science to not only be a threat to religious belief, but as a sort of device for the promotion of anti-religious concepts. Which science is not. Science is simply not concerned with contrived assumptions on reality one way or the other. Science is only concerned with discovering that which is true based on observation and experiment. The fact that science seems to consistently disprove religious claims is simply the process of following the evidence wherever it leads. Religious make believe is simply collateral damage.

We have some serious catching up to do, you see. All of which can be directly attributed to religious declarations and the power of religion to control thought and free investigation.

Is it possible that 2000 years from now, humanity will still be searching for a TOE. At that point, should the TOE receive the same vitriol as you espouse over the claims of Christians?

If, in another 2,000 years Jesus STILL hasn't returned, the answer is YES!

On the other hand, given the advancements that are currently being made, and the rapid progress our technological breakthroughs are currently producing, we have good reason to suppose that the holes in our knowledge will continue to be filled in. Because they are currently in the process of being filled it.

Meanwhile everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still quite reliably and undeniably DEAD.

I understand the comparison, and feel it is a fair comparison. Rather than spending time, resources and energy into trying to find proof of the evidence of God, we believers implore you to save time and just have faith. Why spend millions of dollars and years chasing evidence which cannot be found, because God does not want you to find it. Similar to the principle of superposition, as soon as we look for God, we can only see the state which is present in our physical dimension. To us, that state is invisible or immeasurable. No matter how we move our instruments or conduct different tests, we will not be able to see beyond the limitations of our physical plane.

This is the same sort of faith you believers had for all of those centuries when you declared the earth to be the center of the universe. For a thousand years most Christians lived in mud houses and were serfs to the nobles and clergy. Because the clergy had them convinced that this life is only something temporary to pass through on the way to glory. And so people lived in ignorance. Which is in fact the only thing tangible that religion actually has to offer. And is exactly the state that the religious are consistently attempting to drag the rest of us back into.

Yesterdays science is today's pseudoscience. Today's imaginary science will be the actual science of tomorrow. Today's pseudoscience will become the actual science of the future. This cycle has presented itself all throughout human history.

Einstein originally supposed that the universe was in a constant state, essentially unchanging. As new evidence was discovered it became apparent that his original view on the universe was wrong, and he not only accepted that, he worked with great enthusiasm to understand and reconcile the new information as it became available. His original opinion of the state of the universe wasn't pseudoscience, it was simply wrong.

Pseudoscience relies on incorporating philosophical and religious/supernatural assumptions into making unconfirmed and inevitably unsustainable claims, which is then presented as science. Pseudoscience does not follow scientific processes however. And is simply a tool to achieve predetermined conclusions.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 213 by rosary]

Faith is rational, for me. I know God is.

"Rational, for me. "

Are the rules concerning reason subjective, that is to say, individual?
Are there logic for me, logic for you, and logic for each and every one of us?

Or are there general rules to logic that apply to everyone using it?

I believe what Jesus said.

How does your belief in what Jesus said affect the logic of faith?

I trust Him.

Is logic affected by trust?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to rosary]

Faith is rational, for me. I know God is. I believe what Jesus said. I trust Him.

You will get kudos from those that trained you to provide this answer. If you ask yourself why it is that you believe what you believe, the answer will come back, "Because that is what I have been told to believe." But what does it have to do either with the actual facts, or what is true? Everyone of every belief was indoctrinated from their earliest memory to believe whatever it is that their parents believe, and have told them is true beyond all doubt. Some of these other beliefs must be wrong, at the very least. So what is "rational?"

Wikipedia has this to say about reason (rationality).

Wikipedia
Rationality
Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

You accept, on faith, that a corpse came back to life and then flew away. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about holding such a position based on nothing more than faith and your lifetime of training that it true beyond all question. Wikipedia defines faith:

Wikipedia
Faith
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing that is not seen.

Faith is NOT rational. Faith is often in fact in spite of reason.

And keep in mind that Jesus wrote nothing himself. The words you attribute unquestioningly to Jesus were in fact written decades after Jesus was dead by individuals who are largely unidentified. You have to accept what you believe to be the words of Jesus entirely on faith. And that sort of faith has nothing to do with reason. It has everything to do with conditioning.

[Closingaccountreadgmailna]

[Replying to post 213 by rosary]

Faith is rational, for me. I know God is.

"Rational, for me. "

Are the rules concerning reason subjective, that is to say, individual?
Are there logic for me, logic for you, and logic for each and every one of us?

Or are there general rules to logic that apply to everyone using it?

I believe what Jesus said.

How does your belief in what Jesus said affect the logic of faith?

I trust Him.

Is logic affected by trust?

[font=Times New Roman]Who do you think Jesus was?[/font]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to rosary]

Who do you think Jesus was?

If Jesus actually existed he was a traveling evangelist named Yeshua in the first century that was executed by the Romans for sedition.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 217 by rosary]

[font=Times New Roman]Who do you think Jesus was?[/font]

1. A religious figure.
2. The protagonist of lots of stories in the Gospels.
3. Someone whom lots of people believed in... and that many still do, by the billions, I'm told.

Thing is, I can't say for sure that Jesus was a real person. And I have even MORE trouble believing that "god" stuff about him.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

You espouse that one needs to be patient in the hopes for a theory of everything. You also admit that you do not believe this will occur in our lifetime.

I didn't say that I didn't believe that a theory of everything wouldn't occur in our lifetimes. Only that it was useless to jump the gun by pointing out the gaps in human knowledge even as those gaps are currently in the process of being filled it. I certainly hope that a credible theory of everything is produced during my lifetime so that I can attempt to make some sense of it.

By our understanding of human history, it took over 5,000 years before a person was able to conceive both general relativity and quantum mechanics. I bring this up, because you often ridicule how followers of Christ have been waiting 2000 years for His return. Is it reasonable to have more patience for a potential theory of everything as opposed to the return of Christ?

For the majority of the 5000 years you mention people believed without question that the earth was the center of creation and everything went around the earth. They believed this because watching the sky makes this seem undeniably true. And so the concept of a God who created the universe for humans to be the center of was developed. And it made perfect sense.

It just doesn't happen to be true. Precise and detailed analysis of the universe has established that it is insanely more complicated than it appears to be by direct visual observation alone.

In the second century AD the astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus produced the classic standardized view of the universe with the earth at the center. Finding the Ptolemaic view of the universe to be in perfect accord with the church's religious assumptions, the Ptolemaic model was not only declared to be valid, it was declared to be canon.
And for more than a thousand years the science of astronomy stood at a standstill in the west by order of the church.

But others who were interested in astronomy noticed discrepancies which the Ptolemaic model failed to explain. In 1543 astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus published, on the event of his death (he was no fool), "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres," which placed the sun at the center of the universe. This was wrong too, but but it was at least movement in the right direction after more than a thousand years of infallible church doctrine on the nature of the universe. The church declared it heresy.

In 1616 Galileo attempted use the newly invented telescope to convince Pope Paul V that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Galileo's fame was at this point already too great to simply execute him. Instead Galileo was taken to the torture room, shown the various instruments of torture, and ordered to recant his claims. Which he did. He was then placed under house arrest at his villa for the remainder of his life.

From prehistoric times until about 500 years ago, we lived in abject ignorance of the universe around us. Even for most of those last 500 years, progress came very slowly.
And now we are living in an age where significant advancements are measured in months.

When I was a boy I had a picture book on astronomy which I loved. It was published in 1948, the year I was born. I still have it. It shows a picture of the surface of Mars with interconnecting canals. In 1877 Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli observed and produced drawings of Mars with what he termed "canali," or channels on the surface.
This produced a sensation, because canals, as the English speaking press interpreted canali, implied that Mars has intelligent life on it. H. G. Wells took this notion and ran with it, writing War of the Worlds in 1897. But subsequent observations of the planet Mars by other astronomers showed no sign of any "canali." Yet even as late as the year I was born the notion that Mars was covered with "canals" was still popular.

Today, sitting at my computer and making a few keystrokes, I can look at close up detailed photos of the surface of Mars. I can look at photos taken ON the surface of Mars by robots. That's how far we have come in just my lifetime. No canals are anywhere to be seen, although dry river beds are unmistakable.

The point is, religion has a long and unpleasant history of attempting to obstruct the advance of science. And succeeding. But time has moved on, and the authority of any one religious group has waned. Research is now free to follow the evidence where ever the evidence should lead. Religion now perceives science to not only be a threat to religious belief, but as a sort of device for the promotion of anti-religious concepts. Which science is not. Science is simply not concerned with contrived assumptions on reality one way or the other. Science is only concerned with discovering that which is true based on observation and experiment. The fact that science seems to consistently disprove religious claims is simply the process of following the evidence wherever it leads. Religious make believe is simply collateral damage.

We have some serious catching up to do, you see. All of which can be directly attributed to religious declarations and the power of religion to control thought and free investigation.

Is it possible that 2000 years from now, humanity will still be searching for a TOE. At that point, should the TOE receive the same vitriol as you espouse over the claims of Christians?

If, in another 2,000 years Jesus STILL hasn't returned, the answer is YES!

On the other hand, given the advancements that are currently being made, and the rapid progress our technological breakthroughs are currently producing, we have good reason to suppose that the holes in our knowledge will continue to be filled in. Because they are currently in the process of being filled it.

Meanwhile everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still quite reliably and undeniably DEAD.

I understand the comparison, and feel it is a fair comparison. Rather than spending time, resources and energy into trying to find proof of the evidence of God, we believers implore you to save time and just have faith. Why spend millions of dollars and years chasing evidence which cannot be found, because God does not want you to find it. Similar to the principle of superposition, as soon as we look for God, we can only see the state which is present in our physical dimension. To us, that state is invisible or immeasurable. No matter how we move our instruments or conduct different tests, we will not be able to see beyond the limitations of our physical plane.

This is the same sort of faith you believers had for all of those centuries when you declared the earth to be the center of the universe. For a thousand years most Christians lived in mud houses and were serfs to the nobles and clergy. Because the clergy had them convinced that this life is only something temporary to pass through on the way to glory. And so people lived in ignorance. Which is in fact the only thing tangible that religion actually has to offer. And is exactly the state that the religious are consistently attempting to drag the rest of us back into.

Yesterdays science is today's pseudoscience. Today's imaginary science will be the actual science of tomorrow. Today's pseudoscience will become the actual science of the future. This cycle has presented itself all throughout human history.

Einstein originally supposed that the universe was in a constant state, essentially unchanging. As new evidence was discovered it became apparent that his original view on the universe was wrong, and he not only accepted that, he worked with great enthusiasm to understand and reconcile the new information as it became available. His original opinion of the state of the universe wasn't pseudoscience, it was simply wrong.

Pseudoscience relies on incorporating philosophical and religious/supernatural assumptions into making unconfirmed and inevitably unsustainable claims, which is then presented as science. Pseudoscience does not follow scientific processes however. And is simply a tool to achieve predetermined conclusions.

Even wit this elongated response, you have not shown pseudoscience to be synonymous with faith.

Instead you provide an answer to a question that was not asked.