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 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.

Wikipedia
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a term used to describe a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method.[Note 1][3] A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[5] because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[7] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[8] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[8] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among science teachers and newspaper editors

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[10] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[11] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience amounts to claims that have not been proven according to scientific methodology. Investigations, for example, which only accepts evidence which serves to support a particular claim or hypothesis is pseudoscience. It's PRETEND science. Firm belief in claims made through pseudo-scientific methods amounts to faith.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 221 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Wikipedia
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a term used to describe a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method.[/b} A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[5] because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[7] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[8] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[8] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among science teachers and newspaper editors

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[10] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[11] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience amounts to claims that have not been proven according to scientific methodology. Investigations, for example, which only accepts evidence which serves to support a particular claim or hypothesis is pseudoscience. It's PRETEND science. Firm belief in claims made through pseudo-scientific methods amounts to faith.

Most claim of faith are not presented as scientific. This is especially true of the bible. Furthermore, Christian claim of faith are not presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research. Claims like being born again are actually presented as inconsistent with logic and norms of scientific research.

With the exception of your final sentence, your post shows that pseudoscience is different from faith. There are some instances where similarities appear, but this is not the norm.

[Danmark]

Most claim of faith are not presented as scientific. This is especially true of the bible. Furthermore, Christian claim of faith are not presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research. Claims like being born again are actually presented as inconsistent with logic and norms of scientific research.

I agree. Faith claims are not scientific, especially those the Bible.

[MadeNew]

Most claim of faith are not presented as scientific. This is especially true of the bible. Furthermore, Christian claim of faith are not presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research. Claims like being born again are actually presented as inconsistent with logic and norms of scientific research.

I agree. Faith claims are not scientific, especially those the Bible.

Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it. Also, being "born again" is being born of the spirit, questioning the scientific explanation of being born again was even posed in the days of Jesus in which Jesus responded to. I believe it is John 3.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 224 by MadeNew]

Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it.

What an astounding statement.
Could you elaborate?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 224 by MadeNew]

Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it.

What an astounding statement.
Could you elaborate?

The statement is not astounding unless you are confusing modern science (19th century forward) with science as a whole.

Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations. Modern science is distinct in its approach and successful in its results: 'modern science' now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.

Science in its original sense is a word for a type of knowledge, rather than a specialized word for the pursuit of such knowledge. In particular it is one of the types of knowledge which people can communicate to each other and share. For example, knowledge about the working of natural things was gathered long before recorded history and led to the development of complex abstract thinking. This is shown by the construction of complex calendars, techniques for making poisonous plants edible, and buildings such as the pyramids. However no consistent conscientious distinction was made between knowledge of such things which are true in every community and other types of communal knowledge, such as mythologies and legal systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

We know based on historical records that some of these ancient civilizations credited their knowledge (type of science) with claims of faith, i.e "the gods gave it to us." Hence the claim science is founded on faith.

Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith. Today we use the word hypothesis instead of faith or believe. In some cases a scientific experiment begins with a modern scientists hypothesis and not an observation. Einsteins theory of relativity was a hypothetical theory that made some sense, but it had not been observed first. Instead the hypothesis and supporting mathematics led others to go and seek to observe and validate the hypothesis or belief. Science still uses claims of faith to fill in the gaps when a theory is not completely validated. The Big Bang theory relies on a statement of faith regarding the first moments after the big bang. It is assumed (believed by faith) that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. This has never been observed in the universe, nevertheless without this statement of faith the whole theory breaks down.

The science of the modern BBT is founded on a claim of faith.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 226 by KingandPriest]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Conflation [/center]

The statement is not astounding unless you are confusing modern science (19th century forward) with science as a whole.

Oh, you are talking about the PAST.
Yeah, people thought differently in the past.

When it comes to science, we know a lot more than we usta.

We know based on historical records that some of these ancient civilizations credited their knowledge (type of science) with claims of faith, i.e "the gods gave it to us." Hence the claim science is founded on faith.

Because some people made claims in the past.. the claims are true?
Are you saying that ancient science was as SOUND as modern science?

Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith.

Now, it's just a bit...

The science of the modern BBT is founded on a claim of faith.

Could you elaborate just a little more on how the BBT is founded on faith?


You're making a few mistakes here...

1. Not all scientific claims are true.
2. Science has progressed.
3. You conflate "faith" and " scientific hypothesis".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

[Hawkins]

Science is basically a humans speculation on something repeatable. Something must be repeatable for humans to repeatedly speculate its behavior to come to a conclusion about what it is.

So science method is only efficient in exploring something which can be repeatable. Science today however is worshiped by those brainwashed to think that it's omnipotent. That's why they keep saying something like the Bible is not scientific or lack of scientific evidence.


In the end, science can't even prove what you just did yesterday, because what occurred yesterday is not something which can be repeated for human examination, observation or speculation, not to speak an event or figure existed 2000 years ago.

What you did yesterday can be made known to others if someone (a human) write about it, and for others to believe with faith!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 228 by Hawkins]


[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
MORE vague criticisms, MORE vague definitions.[/center]

Science is basically a humans speculation on something repeatable. Something must be repeatable for humans to repeatedly speculate its behavior to come to a conclusion about what it is.

So science method is only efficient in exploring something which can be repeatable. Science today however is worshiped by those brainwashed to think that it's omnipotent.

Who is is that you imagine think that science is "omnipotent"?
Do you have any evidence for that stunning claim?

Are there any non believers in here who have written that?
If so.... I'd like a chat with them, because they would be VERY wrong about science.

That's why they keep saying something like the Bible is not scientific or lack of scientific evidence.

Could you elaborate a little on who you suspect these "THEY" you are referring to?

And are you implying that when someone is wrong about science that the Bible gets to be automatically true?

In the end, science can't even prove what you just did yesterday, because what occurred yesterday is not something which can be repeated for human examination, observation or speculation, not to speak an event or figure existed 2000 years ago.

Are you saying that science doesn't have mechanisms to figure out past events?

You might like to watch a show called "CSI". It's all about the past and science.
I wonder what TIME frame you think we can know about.. the FUTURE?

When DOES the "past" start.. a second ago, a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, 17 billions years?

What you did yesterday can be made known to others if someone (a human) write about it, and for others to believe with faith!

Are you saying that the ONLY way that we can know about some past event is if someone WRITES about it?

And by the way, as an outsider to your faith, I have NO idea what you mean by "believe with faith". Care to elaborate on that?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Science is basically a humans speculation on something repeatable. Something must be repeatable for humans to repeatedly speculate its behavior to come to a conclusion about what it is.

So science method is only efficient in exploring something which can be repeatable. Science today however is worshiped by those brainwashed to think that it's omnipotent. That's why they keep saying something like the Bible is not scientific or lack of scientific evidence.


In the end, science can't even prove what you just did yesterday, because what occurred yesterday is not something which can be repeated for human examination, observation or speculation, not to speak an event or figure existed 2000 years ago.

What you did yesterday can be made known to others if someone (a human) write about it, and for others to believe with faith!

Do you see no irony at all in the fact that you are sitting in front of a computer, conversing with numerous people from various parts of the world, all the while proclaiming that the science that makes what you are doing at this very moment possible is unsound and that scientists, after all, are really only speculating?