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 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.

pseudo
adjective pseu·do \ˈsü-(ˌ)d�\

Simple Definition of pseudo
: not real or genuine

being apparently rather than actually as stated : sham, spurious
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudo

How much more clear can I possible make this? Subscribing to pseudoscience is subscribing to something which is not real or genuine. Proofs that pseudoscience attempts to use are spurious and often purposely skewed to achieve a desired result. Pseudoscience, like any religious belief, must be accepted on faith. Because the proof has been contrived.

[MadeNew]

[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?

Sure, The deductive reasoning that establishes the scientific method is founded on the faith that physical laws are unchanging. That the physical principles of yesterday will work today, and even tomorrow, that is ultimately founded on the faith that the universe is unchanging. Without it we wouldn't be able to define any physical properties, and there wouldn't be science.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

We have been discussing the difference between empirical evidence, and spiritual evidence. Here is an interesting story of a man who was at church singing hymns and feeling very spiritually moved, when he began to notice a warmth spreading across his chest. He believed it to be the power of the holy spirit spreading through him. His belief was that this was spiritual evidence for an event he longed for and which he fully embraced. At least at first.

Unfortunately that darned old empirical factual reality stepped up and ruined the moment. It turns out the warmth of the holy spirit spreading across his chest was the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 in his coat pocket catching fire. He ended up in the hospital.

It's an excellent example of someone reading something spiritual into a situation because it pleases them to do so. But then reality steps in.

http://babylonbee.com/news/passionate-b ... ng-flames/

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 232 by MadeNew]

[center]
Multiple Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Conflation, Part 2
Bogus claims, ignorance of the scientific method and language difficulties[/center]

Sure, The deductive reasoning that establishes the scientific method is founded on the faith that physical laws are unchanging.

Could you please give me a source for that astounding revelation?
I can observe that the universe seems to have a lot of REGULARITIES.. but that's not faith.. that's a mere observation.. now.. where does faith come into the picture?

And if your sources are from apologetic web sites.. yeah...that figures.
But if you would kindly demonstrate that FAITH has anything to do with science, from scientific sources.. it would be helpful.

Right now, your case rests on a slander of the scientific method.. a vague one at that.

That the physical principles of yesterday will work today, and even tomorrow, that is ultimately founded on the faith that the universe is unchanging.

I'm VERY skeptical that science works on the "faith" principle.. do you have sources for this astonishing statement?

From reputable scientific sources?
Because.. I think it would be easily found in APOLOGETIC sources.

I've heard this kind of "scientism" claim before.
Creationists and other kinds of apologists would really love to discredit modern science.. because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

So, they make up bogus claims.. hey.. at least some believers believe their claims.
Scientists use faith?

Prove it or drop it.

Without it we wouldn't be able to define any physical properties, and there wouldn't be science.

You seem to be playing around with the meaning of the word "faith".

Could you give us your definition for the word "faith" and how it is something that science relies on? You've made quite a few claims ... would you care to back any of them up? I've often heard this bogus "faith" accusation before.

I think that you are mistaking "faith" for "hypothesis".
In science ( as far as I know ) there is very little talk of FAITH as a method. Hypotheses, however, are very common. But they aren't the same thing as faith. however you define it.

Right now.. your argument rests on language difficulties, and completely unsupported claims.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 227 by Blastcat]

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

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

Hence the BBT relies upon the concept of inflation. There is no empirical evidence for inflation. Although it fits our mathematical models, there is no further support. It was a concept someone thought of and then it became an accepted belief. The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.

Without this claim of faith, the BBT cannot even be modeled or conceptualized.

As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang theory. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflationary theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang# ... in_physics

So some of the founders of the inflation theory think it actually doesn't work, which would result in an immediate destruction of the current widely accepted theory. The science of the BBT relies on the faith of many who accept inflation as true. They accept inflation as true with no empirical evidence.

Modern science relying on faith. In the case of the BBT, its not just a bit of faith but a large amount of 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.

pseudo
adjective pseu·do \ˈsü-(ˌ)d�\

Simple Definition of pseudo
: not real or genuine

being apparently rather than actually as stated : sham, spurious
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudo

How much more clear can I possible make this? Subscribing to pseudoscience is subscribing to something which is not real or genuine. Proofs that pseudoscience attempts to use are spurious and often purposely skewed to achieve a desired result. Pseudoscience, like any religious belief, must be accepted on faith. Because the proof has been contrived.

I believe you were comparing pseudoscience with faith, not the root word pseudo. As shown above what makes pseudoscience different from faith is the presentation of a claim as scientific or following the scientific method.

You claim pseudoscience like any religious belief must be accepted on faith. This is not true. There is often corroborating evidence to support what some may call pseudoscience. The evidence may not follow the scientific method, but the evidence may be genuine. Psychological evaluations do not follow the scientific method. These evaluations would fall short of fulfilling the scientific usage of the term empirical evidence. Yet, we no longer deem psychological evaluations as pseudoscience. In the recent past, this was considered pseudoscience but now because their is supporting evidence we accept the diagnosis of psychologist.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 232 by MadeNew]

[center]
Multiple Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Conflation, Part 2
Bogus claims, ignorance of the scientific method and language difficulties[/center]

Sure, The deductive reasoning that establishes the scientific method is founded on the faith that physical laws are unchanging.

Could you please give me a source for that astounding revelation?
I can observe that the universe seems to have a lot of REGULARITIES.. but that's not faith.. that's a mere observation.. now.. where does faith come into the picture?

And if your sources are from apologetic web sites.. yeah...that figures.
But if you would kindly demonstrate that FAITH has anything to do with science, from scientific sources.. it would be helpful.

Right now, your case rests on a slander of the scientific method.. a vague one at that.

That the physical principles of yesterday will work today, and even tomorrow, that is ultimately founded on the faith that the universe is unchanging.

I'm VERY skeptical that science works on the "faith" principle.. do you have sources for this astonishing statement?

From reputable scientific sources?
Because.. I think it would be easily found in APOLOGETIC sources.

I've heard this kind of "scientism" claim before.
Creationists and other kinds of apologists would really love to discredit modern science.. because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

So, they make up bogus claims.. hey.. at least some believers believe their claims.
Scientists use faith?

Prove it or drop it.

Without it we wouldn't be able to define any physical properties, and there wouldn't be science.

You seem to be playing around with the meaning of the word "faith".

Could you give us your definition for the word "faith" and how it is something that science relies on? You've made quite a few claims ... would you care to back any of them up? I've often heard this bogus "faith" accusation before.

I think that you are mistaking "faith" for "hypothesis".
In science ( as far as I know ) there is very little talk of FAITH as a method. Hypotheses, however, are very common. But they aren't the same thing as faith. however you define it.

Right now.. your argument rests on language difficulties, and completely unsupported claims.

Lets assume you can think for yourself.

"Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true."

This kind of reasoning that establishes the scientific method must first just "assume" certain things to be true, like the universe is unchanging... We don't live in chaos! Thanks be to a faithful God, who cannot deny himself.. Our universe has order, and we can understand our universe if we have a faithful perspective of our universe. You can not get anywhere without it, science would be nonsensical and chaotic, if chaos was our assumed position. That is why faith is fundamental to life, we can just "assume" certain truths.

Knowledge starts with God.

Do you know where our english word "logic" is derived from?? It is derived from "the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order". Our word for "logic" is actually derived from "Logos", the Word of God.

"Logos is logical appeal, and the term logic is derived from it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

This wasn't just some mistake and our universe isn't just some mistake.

[Zzyzx]

.

This kind of reasoning that establishes the scientific method must first just "assume" certain things to be true, like the universe is unchanging...

Correction: Science (study of nature) does NOT make an assumption that 'the universe is unchanging'. Quite the opposite. Astronomers and astrophysicists describe an ever-changing universe – one that is expanding as best we can tell. Stars go out of existence, explode, implode, change in structure and position, etc.

Those who propose 'unchanging' are typically religionists.

We don't live in chaos!

There are many alternatives (a continuum) between 'unchanging' and 'chaos'.

Thanks be to a faithful God, who cannot deny himself..

Opinion noted – and of no significance in debate.

Our universe has order, and we can understand our universe if we have a faithful perspective of our universe.

Where did you (generic term) or we learn about 'order' in the universe? Would that be from religion or from science? The 'order' according to Bible stories has the Earth as center of the universe. Science has shown that to be in error.

You can not get anywhere without it, science would be nonsensical and chaotic, if chaos was our assumed position.

False dichotomy – God vs. chaos

The universe can and evidently does have some 'order' that we are presently capable of partially understanding. Religions attempt to inject their favorite gods rather than seeking understanding of natural processes.

That is why faith is fundamental to life, we can just "assume" certain truths.

Can we just assume that one of the thousands of proposed 'gods' is involved (perhaps after reading ancient stories and pondering the matter)?

Knowledge starts with God.

Opinion noted – lack of supporting evidence also noted.

[MadeNew]

It is no mistake Jesus is the cornerstone of the temple. Just like it wasn't mistake for the death of Jesus, its not a mistake that knowledge starts with God, that Logic is derived from God, that Faith starts with God, and that we all live faithfully in our universe in which we can even define physical laws. It wasn't a mistake that we can use our reasoning, faith, and logic, to define physical laws..

[Zzyzx]

.

You claim pseudoscience like any religious belief must be accepted on faith. This is not true. There is often corroborating evidence to support what some may call pseudoscience.

Kindly provide examples of the 'evidence' supporting pseudoscience.

The evidence may not follow the scientific method, but the evidence may be genuine.

The 'evidence' may also be bogus. How does one distinguish between genuine and bogus EXCEPT by testing the evidence for truth and accuracy?

Psychological evaluations do not follow the scientific method. These evaluations would fall short of fulfilling the scientific usage of the term empirical evidence. Yet, we no longer deem psychological evaluations as pseudoscience. In the recent past, this was considered pseudoscience but now because their is supporting evidence we accept the diagnosis of psychologist.

Those who are more than vaguely familiar with sciences are aware that a distinction is made between Natural Science and Social Science.

Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.
Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, and Earth science. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

Social science is a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a "social science". The main social sciences include economics, political science, human geography, demography, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, social science also includes some fields in the humanities[1] such as anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

Methodology employed differs significantly between Natural and Social sciences.