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?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

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.

This begs the question, are the rules of logic "so incredibly weak compared with the other forces at the level" of faith, that it is impossible to measure faith with logic?

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.

If I were comparing logic to physics, you might be right, but I am not. I am comparing the rules of physics to the rules of logic. Both are a set of rules that apply to certain domains. The rules of physics only apply to the physical world around us. Physics cannot and does not attempt to explain emotions or human psyche. This is a different domain where the rules/laws of physics are irrelevant.

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?

Yes, that is reasonable. Science can only prove what can be physically measured or observed.

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".

I agree. This is why "faith without works is dead". (I'm sure you get the reference here). It is the works of miracles, prophecy and supernatural events that faith is built on. I can only speak of Christianity, but the bible does not charge disciples to convince others of what they believe, only to proclaim it. Once it is proclaimed, the bible says God will do the convincing. It is difficult and should be difficult for someone to be convinced to embrace another's faith claim. This is where God should step in, if this claim is true.

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.

This is part of the right you have. The thing with that right is there are benefits and consequences to every decision a person makes. When a person decides to get married, there are benefits and consequences to that decision. In a likewise manner, when a person chooses to reject the offer of salvation, they make the choice that the consequence is either small or "not likely" so they choose to embrace their own opinion. This is the blessing and curse that comes with free will. You choose and have to live with the decision.

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 do not. I prefer to refer to non-Christians as non-believers, but on this forum, that can get confusing. Instead most are comfortable with the title non-theist so I see it as a small concession on my part which doesn't diminish conversation.

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.

Agnosticism actually makes sense in my book. Atheism does not. To say you don't know, is one thing, but to claim God does not exist is another. Just because you don't "claim that this Faith-based belief represents any actual TRUTH" doesn't mean you should impose your views on others who do hold that their Faith-based belief represents any actual TRUTH. You can speak for yourself, but you can't deny a person their personal experience. What I have experienced you have not. Same is true vice versa. So I cannot discredit your experience with bad bible instructors. I can only offer my experience as a testimony and present what I have discovered to be true. You are not forced to accept what I hold as true. All I ask is that you consider. (You still have the right to not consider as well)

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.

I don't demand that my faith based beliefs represent the TRUTH. I only offer up explanations and allow you to decide. Should any statement I make drive you to ask additional questions, this communicates to me, either (1)the possibility that some of what I am saying could be true, or, (2)you enjoy having nonsensical untrue conversations. I doubt it is the latter based on the intellectual authority in which you develop your points.

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.

Is it impossible to KNOW something you should not be able to possibly know? I would argue against this thought. Instinct and intuition are based on "knowing" something without having any method of actually knowing it to be true. By instinct some animals know where to find the mating grounds of their species. By intuition, humans are able to "know" something dangerous will happen before it does. There are thousands of cases where a person had a "gut feeling" which could not be explained which prevented them from a catastrophe. They "knew" something was wrong without being able to possibly have any actual information, prior knowledge or reasoning.

Any woman who has had a natural child birth "knows" without being able to know when the baby is coming. I am not speaking of knowing after her water has broken, I am talking about the days and hours just before labor begins. If you watch there activity, these women will go into "nesting" mode without any evidence or symptoms that the baby is about to enter the birth canal. (Different for women with pre-scheduled c-sections)

If you reject to the possibility of knowing something that a person should not be able to know, due to a lack of information, then you would have to deny that instinct exists. What most believers argue is that there is an innate connection between the physical world we experience as reality, and the "intuitive feelings that there may very well be something more to reality than meets are detectors" that you so eloquently described. Based on study and experience of these intuitive feelings, one can differentiate actual vs theoretical. The actual is then called true, and the theoretical is called theoretical.

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.

This speaks more to the errors man makes after coming to terms with faith. The laws made by man in an attempt to align with faith creates religions and sometimes oppression. This confirms that man will create faulty systems of government outside of God. If you reject God, as you have a right to, you are automatically against His positions and directives. This is true even in a non-spiritual claim. If I reject or renounce my citizenship, I automatically become an enemy of the state. This doesn't mean my former country will actively come after me, but I relinquish my right to any of the benefits I had as a citizen.

If you pay attention to the first claim made by Jesus when he started to preach, he proclaimed that the Kingdom (structure of government, not religion) was at hand. This kingdom offered people the right to become citizens and enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Those who were not yet citizens were described as "in darkness" and in need of instruction. The problem was some of the new "Christ citizens" decided they wanted to create additional laws, and thus we have had divisions in the church and a multitude of false doctrines which have been forced on people. As people gained literacy and could read the bible for themselves, they realized these added rules were not true, but the core message of becoming a citizen in the Kingdom of God was true.

All of that was definitely off from my original posts, but I thought it was important to share nonetheless. Please remember my main question in this post was:

Do the rules of logic apply to faith?

Are the rules of logic "so incredibly weak compared with the other forces at the level" of faith, that it is impossible to measure faith with logic?

[ttruscott]

[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.

There is certainly room within the language about faith for hope to grow in certainty as we process that hope and to grow in trust as we experience HIS dependable nature.
The English word faith seems simple but it is full of connections between its degrees: faith, hope, belief, trust...and faith as hope is extremely important in light of the fact it is written that "we are saved in the hope for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies:" Rom 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved;...since it is by faith we are saved and also saved in this hope then faith as hope, Heb 11:1, is an important idea....

but I am interested in the pejorative form of hope called 'wishful thinking.'

Merriam Webster
Full Definition of wishful thinking: the attribution of reality to what one wishes to be true or the tenuous justification of what one wants to believe does sound a lot like Simple Definition of hope: to want something to happen or be true and think that it could happen or be true...

These sound very similar indeed but if one is secular and the other is a gift of GOD then they are not quite interchangeable except to the secular materialist who rejects spiritual awareness.

Ephesians 2:8–9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. especially in light of Paul's remonstrance of those who think that their faith makes them superior: Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.

So by this I am ready to accept that though they are very similar, wishful thinking is the secular child version of hope, and faith is the Spiritual adult's version of hope, available from GOD. OR wishful thinking in the secular world is the same as their secular hopes in an unknown future but the GOD given hope in a Spiritual future is by its content and source a special hope called faith.

Maybe we could properly add to 1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me...and after our rebirth from secular to spiritual we put wishful thinking about our future behind us to dwell in the hope that is faith in the LORD.

[JehovahsWitness]

The way that JW is using the term "logic" is far more abstract and ill-defined.

If I am not mistaken I was the only person that actually provided a definition of the word logic. Not only did I do so but I questioned the form of the OP request based on that definition.

He seems to be suggesting that just ANY type of reasoning qualifies as "logic", by abstract definition.

I don't how you got any of that from anything I said. I made no such suggestion.

So in the most abstract sense JW is right. You could claim that if you have any form of 'reasoning' at all that is based on a RULE .

I did not suggest this at all, in fact I did not answer the question, I simply questioned the question. If the above is a point you have to make you are entirely welcomed to it but please leave me out of if.

JW

[Hawkins]

Science is only efficient in exploring what lies inside the 3D time-space we are in. Spiritual claims are almost exclusively (since ancient times) about "something doesn't lie in our realm".

Since science is never efficient as we can't go out of our realm to do experiments and observations, the only possible way humans can reach such a realm (if exists) is by faith to believe the accounts of witnessing.

To put it another way (and for the sake of arguing), if a truth is there choosing not to believe in anything simply means "one has no way to reach this truth at all". "Choosing to believe" means you still have the chances, it's not guaranteed though.


Is it possible for a truth exists outside our realm?
If it's possible then how can one reach it?

To try to rule out its possibility or try to disbelieve anything will never lead you to such a kind of truth! How logical/rational is that!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Science is only efficient in exploring what lies inside the 3D time-space we are in. Spiritual claims are almost exclusively (since ancient times) about "something doesn't lie in our realm".

Since science is never efficient as we can't go out of our realm to do experiments and observations, the only possible way humans can reach such a realm (if exists) is by faith to believe the accounts of witnessing.

To put it another way (and for the sake of arguing), if a truth is there choosing not to believe in anything simply means "one has no way to reach this truth at all". "Choosing to believe" means you still have the chances, it's not guaranteed though.


Is it possible for a truth exists outside our realm?
If it's possible then how can one reach it?

To try to rule out its possibility or try to disbelieve anything will never lead you to such a kind of truth! How logical/rational is that!

Science is about gathering empirical information through observation and experimentation, this is true. For science to gather empirical information, that which is being studied must be materially physical. Science is entirely incapable of studying those things which are imaginary or make believe. In fact these two terms describe pretty much the same condition. In what way can you establish that spiritual claims are in any way different from things which are imaginary or make believe?

[Divine Insight]

Physics cannot and does not attempt to explain emotions or human psyche. This is a different domain where the rules/laws of physics are irrelevant.

In today's world of modern science this is no longer true. Scientists are beginning to explain how emotions are indeed the result of physics. They can even attach electrodes to your brain and cause you to experience various emotions.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

In today's world of modern science this is no longer true. Scientists are beginning to explain how emotions are indeed the result of physics. They can even attach electrodes to your brain and cause you to experience various emotions.

Can you prove this was a result of physics and physics alone or a combination of sciences and theories?

I only ask, because I am not familiar with these methodologies and would love to educate myself.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

In today's world of modern science this is no longer true. Scientists are beginning to explain how emotions are indeed the result of physics. They can even attach electrodes to your brain and cause you to experience various emotions.

Can you prove this was a result of physics and physics alone or a combination of sciences and theories?

I only ask, because I am not familiar with these methodologies and would love to educate myself.

Well, even before detailed experiments were done using modern science it had already been recognized that your immediate physical environment has a profound affect on your mood and emotional sensations. This is especially noticeable concerning sexual emotions that are triggered by the mere presence of an attractive sexual partner.

The fact that physical stimuli is strongly linked to our emotions has always been observable to us. Modern science has only taken this further by showing that they can induce these same types of emotions within us even when our immediate environment does not contain the required stimuli.

So these modern scientific "discoveries" aren't really anything new. What seems to be "new" is the simple fact that mere electrical impulses can take the place of actual sensory input.

If you'd like a place to start I would suggest just searching on Google for "Electrical Brain Stimulation Research", or "Neural Stimulation Research". There must be thousands of resources on the Internet.

Just as a quickie here's a Wiki:

Electrical Brain Stimulation

Scroll down to the "Effects" section and you'll see emotional effects being listed:

Emotional: Anxiety, mirth, feeling of unreality, fear, happiness, anger, sadness, transient acute depression, hypomania, etc.

I don't see why I should need to "prove" what science has been doing quite openly for at least a few decades now.

[Divine Insight]

Science can only prove what can be physically measured or observed.

Is there anything that you can know or experience that you cannot measure or observe?

If not, then why shouldn't everything you experience fall into the realm of science?

If so, then can you please explain what it is that you can experience, measure, or observe that scientists can't?

Divine Insight wrote:
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".

I agree. This is why "faith without works is dead". (I'm sure you get the reference here). It is the works of miracles, prophecy and supernatural events that faith is built on. I can only speak of Christianity, but the bible does not charge disciples to convince others of what they believe, only to proclaim it. Once it is proclaimed, the bible says God will do the convincing. It is difficult and should be difficult for someone to be convinced to embrace another's faith claim. This is where God should step in, if this claim is true.

I agree. But we have no evidence that any God ever steps in. So this is a rather empty argument for this religion.

This is part of the right you have. The thing with that right is there are benefits and consequences to every decision a person makes. When a person decides to get married, there are benefits and consequences to that decision. In a likewise manner, when a person chooses to reject the offer of salvation, they make the choice that the consequence is either small or "not likely" so they choose to embrace their own opinion. This is the blessing and curse that comes with free will. You choose and have to live with the decision.

Would you marry an invisible spouse that you can't see, hear, or touch and have no reason to believe exists?

You speak of an "offer of salvation" but before that can even make sense don't I first need to accept the "accusation of damnation by an invisible God"?

Why should anyone think they need "salvation" from an imaginary invisible God who is supposedly out to damn them?

Have you chosen to accept your "salvation" from the Boogieman? If not, why not?

Surely the Boogieman exists and is out to damn you. Remember it's YOUR CHOICE, if you fail to accept salvation from the Boogieman the Boogieman will damn you to eternal torture.

With all due respect KingandPriest, just because you've fallen for fables about a God who is out to condemn you to eternal damnation is no reason to expect that I should be so gullible.

Why would any decent God be out to damn me in the first place? That already doesn't make any sense.

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 do not. I prefer to refer to non-Christians as non-believers, but on this forum, that can get confusing. Instead most are comfortable with the title non-theist so I see it as a small concession on my part which doesn't diminish conversation.

Actually it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is on this specific issue. The Bible clearly states that those who don't believe in Jesus as the Only Begotten Son of God are damned already. There are also several other places in the Bible that it proclaims that those who refuse to believe in the God of the Bible are immoral heathens.

So the question becomes, "Do you actually believe what this religion has to say or not?"

If you don't believe that unbelievers are damned for their unbelief, and deservedly so, then you aren't going along with what the dogma of the religion itself has clearly proclaimed to be the case.

So personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant unless you want to go back and re-write the Bible.

Agnosticism actually makes sense in my book. Atheism does not. To say you don't know, is one thing, but to claim God does not exist is another.

Atheism does not proclaim to know that no God can exist. However some people who happen to be Atheists, ALSO happen to believe that they can know that no God can exist. But they are making that proclamation on their own. It's not part of Atheism. Atheism simply means that a person sees no reason to believe in any Gods and that dismissing them as nothing more than myths is perfectly reasonable. That's not the same as demanding that they can't or don't exist.

So I cannot discredit your experience with bad bible instructors. I can only offer my experience as a testimony and present what I have discovered to be true. You are not forced to accept what I hold as true. All I ask is that you consider. (You still have the right to not consider as well)

Had had no "Bible Instructors". I studied the Bible myself. Therefore my "Bible Instructors" where Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore if they failed to convince me then that's their failings not mine.

Why should I consider you "testimonies"? There is a huge problem with that. Because even if you were able to convince me that the Bible makes sense and is true that will require that you SURPASS Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in terms of being a better teacher/communicator. And that would already be an oxymoron.

So it makes no sense that you could succeed at something that Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have already failed at miserably.

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.

I don't demand that my faith based beliefs represent the TRUTH. I only offer up explanations and allow you to decide. Should any statement I make drive you to ask additional questions, this communicates to me, either (1)the possibility that some of what I am saying could be true, or, (2)you enjoy having nonsensical untrue conversations. I doubt it is the latter based on the intellectual authority in which you develop your points.

I don't recall being inspired to ask any additional questions about your explanations. Moreover if I did you left out a several other possibilities 3) I just wasn't clear on what you are trying to explain and request more clarity. 4) My questions are actually rhetorical in the hopes that you might see the absurdity of your own explanations.

And we're still back to the fact that even if you were to succeed in convincing me of the Biblical God, this would necessarily require that you have surpassed Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in being a superior teacher/communicator. Because thus far they weren't able to convince me via their own Holy Scriptures.

I can't imagine how you could get past this fundamental problem.

Is it impossible to KNOW something you should not be able to possibly know? I would argue against this thought. Instinct and intuition are based on "knowing" something without having any method of actually knowing it to be true. By instinct some animals know where to find the mating grounds of their species. By intuition, humans are able to "know" something dangerous will happen before it does. There are thousands of cases where a person had a "gut feeling" which could not be explained which prevented them from a catastrophe. They "knew" something was wrong without being able to possibly have any actual information, prior knowledge or reasoning.

The problem with this is that intuition and gut feelings aren't always right. So how can you claim them as "knowledge" when they could be wrong even potentially more often than they are right. In fact, when you have an intuitive hunch or gut feeling about something and that hunch or gut feelings turns out to be wrong you most likely forget about it entirely as being unimportant.

If you actually kept records you'd most likely discover that your intuition and gut feelings don't actually fair any better than pure random chance.

In fact, they've actually done experiments on this very thing only to discover that people who thought they had great intuition and gut feelings really don't perform any better than someone else who's just guessing randomly.

Any woman who has had a natural child birth "knows" without being able to know when the baby is coming. I am not speaking of knowing after her water has broken, I am talking about the days and hours just before labor begins. If you watch there activity, these women will go into "nesting" mode without any evidence or symptoms that the baby is about to enter the birth canal. (Different for women with pre-scheduled c-sections)

This could easily be explained entirely via physical biology. After all, the baby is intimately still connected to the woman during this time. There's no need to bring in some imagined supernatural communication here.

If you reject to the possibility of knowing something that a person should not be able to know, due to a lack of information, then you would have to deny that instinct exists. What most believers argue is that there is an innate connection between the physical world we experience as reality, and the "intuitive feelings that there may very well be something more to reality than meets are detectors" that you so eloquently described. Based on study and experience of these intuitive feelings, one can differentiate actual vs theoretical. The actual is then called true, and the theoretical is called theoretical.

Your claim above would only be true if "instinct" was 100% accurate. But it's not.

This speaks more to the errors man makes after coming to terms with faith. The laws made by man in an attempt to align with faith creates religions and sometimes oppression. This confirms that man will create faulty systems of government outside of God. If you reject God, as you have a right to, you are automatically against His positions and directives. This is true even in a non-spiritual claim. If I reject or renounce my citizenship, I automatically become an enemy of the state. This doesn't mean my former country will actively come after me, but I relinquish my right to any of the benefits I had as a citizen.

I do renounce the immorality of the Biblical God. The God DESCRIBED in the Bible. Just as Christians renounce the immorality of the God DESCRIBED in the Qur'an.

This kind of argument serves no other purpose than to push a religious agenda and dogma.

If you pay attention to the first claim made by Jesus when he started to preach, he proclaimed that the Kingdom (structure of government, not religion) was at hand. This kingdom offered people the right to become citizens and enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Those who were not yet citizens were described as "in darkness" and in need of instruction. The problem was some of the new "Christ citizens" decided they wanted to create additional laws, and thus we have had divisions in the church and a multitude of false doctrines which have been forced on people. As people gained literacy and could read the bible for themselves, they realized these added rules were not true, but the core message of becoming a citizen in the Kingdom of God was true.

I have no desire to serve the "God of Jesus" becasue that would be Yahweh. The God I already see as being extremely immoral, just as the Christians see Allah as being immoral. Why would I want to become a citizen of a kingdom ruled by an immoral God?

All of that was definitely off from my original posts, but I thought it was important to share nonetheless. Please remember my main question in this post was:

KingandPriest wrote:
Do the rules of logic apply to faith?

Are the rules of logic "so incredibly weak compared with the other forces at the level" of faith, that it is impossible to measure faith with logic?

I agree, 99% of your post was basically "preaching".

And trying to convince me of what Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were unable to convince me of.

Although to even put it that way makes it appear as though Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are actual entities. It's actually the authors of the Bible who failed to convince me that their fictitious characters represent any supernatural God.

[sf]

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

No, at least not according to the Biblical definition:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, and expanded upon throughout the rest of chapter 11)

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

Possibly, as JehovahsWitness stated in another post:

Essentially "logic" is itself "a rule" or a principle.

LOGIC
Simple Definition of logic
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something