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 45 by Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by 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)

Could you clarify what you mean by "faith/belief" people use those words to mean a lot of different things. Just to clarify. Thanks.

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

Again, depending on what you mean by those .. interrelated terms... Definitions, please. I can't really answer number 3, either.. because I'm not sure what the question is, exactly. We could be just a little off and run around in circles.. we don't want that.

This is one of the reasons I created this post. Different people view the word faith in various terms. Some non-theist amount the word faith to a "icky" word which automatically makes any statement irrational or illogical.

Others view faith synonymous with trust. (I am one of these people, BTW). Faith is the trust we have in a particular statement or idea based on some form of evidence. The breakdown for most people is what evidence is acceptable. To you it, evidence may only be what you can verify with your own eyes, reasoning or science. To another, acceptable evidence can be eyewitness testimony. Since we all choose what evidence is acceptable, we form opinions about what we can or cannot put our faith/trust in.

Trust becomes faith when we do not have adequate evidence to fully explain an event. Similar to what Tired of the Nonsense wrote about the Big Bang theory. There is some evidence to point to a singularity where the universe may have began, but not enough to proclaim this the outright truth. So we trust by faith, that the evidence is "good enough."

The question then becomes, is trusting something with "good enough" evidence logical?

With this answered, the followup question of if yes, or if no can be answered.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 44 by Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

The only way we can establish that spiritual claims are in any way different from things which are imaginary or make believe, is to test the interactions between the proposed spiritual claims and the physical world.

If spiritual beings such as angels and demons are real, they should interact with people in a matter consistent with what is claimed about them. Test the claim of a person being "possessed" against what we know about the human body. If we identify no physical evidence or reason for a persons physical or mental state, then we cannot dismiss the spiritual claim. Some wont accept it, reserving the right to continued tests. Others will accept the spiritual claim. There is nothing you can do about those who choose to accept a claim based on the supporting evidence provided. You may deem this evidence insufficient, while another person deems it acceptable.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by KingandPriest]

!

[center]Debates don't go far when key terms are ill-defined.[/center]

This is one of the reasons I created this post. Different people view the word faith in various terms. Some non-theist amount the word faith to a "icky" word which automatically makes any statement irrational or illogical.

As an atheist, I would have to defer to the definition of the person who wants to use the term "faith" in a conversation ( usually, the faithful ). It doesn't matter how I understand or use the word... It's up to the person using the term to define it clearly, and not someone else.

Others view faith synonymous with trust. (I am one of these people, BTW).

Ok, well that's the problem I am talking about.

You haven't got a very rigorous definition for your two key terms.
Even in this post, you are mixing up the meanings.

That's not going to get you very far.
We will be confused at to what you mean.

Ok, now.. remember that you are saying that for you, "trust" and "faith" are identical.
And that's where you trip up.

You don't ALWAYS use those two words to mean identical things.

Sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't, and that gets too confusing.

Sometimes you mean faith is having confidence that a proposition is true, and sometimes you mean faith is a method of knowing if a proposition is true.

Some people are very confident, yet are actually ignorant.
How does confidence imply knowledge?

You are using the same word ( faith, in this instance ) two different ways... without telling us that you do.. in any case, in a philosophical discussion, you should use one term per concept. Otherwise, we all get lost.

And we don't want to get lost.

So, I really would think it useful to use the word trust and here is why: "Trust" is not so religiously loaded and confusing as "faith". I might forget how you are using faith... so, I would prefer that you use "trust" if it just means the same. It would be the same to you, correct?

Faith is the trust we have in a particular statement or idea based on some form of evidence.

That is an unnecessarily confusing statement and here is why:

It means the same thing to say that faith is the trust that we have and trust is the faith that we have.

Could you please DROP one of these words?
As an atheist, I would prefer the use of "trust", if you mean confidence, or better yet, "confidence" if you mean "confidence".

If both trust and faith are identical , your statement above could be understood to mean this:
"
Faith is the trust we have in a particular statement or idea based on some form of evidence. "

and

"Trust is the faith we have in a particular statement or idea based on some form of evidence. "


Trust is the faith"

When you write "trust is the faith", it seems that you mean those two words are identical.

Then why not just use the word "trust" ( or even better yet, use "confidence" and leave all of that trust/faith confusion behind ) and get rid of some confusion. You could easily stay away from the more religiously loaded ( and therefore more confusing ) use of "faith" by one stoke of the pen ( ok, keyboard ) .

The breakdown for most people is what evidence is acceptable.

I would start off by what kind of evidence is acceptable in the most general of terms, and then try to apply that standard to a specific claim. If we don't know how to evaluate claims in a general way, we won't have a standard for evaluating all the specific claims that we are handed on a day to day basis.

There are lots of claims.

It's been claimed, for example, that: "Things go better with Coke".

What would be the correct way to test that Coke claim for truth?
How would faith or trust be a way to test that claim for truth?

And then, how do we apply THOSE methods to the claim:

"God exists".

To you it, evidence may only be what you can verify with your own eyes, reasoning or science. To another, acceptable evidence can be eyewitness testimony.

Let's say that the only available evidence is eye-witness testimony. Then checking out the TRUTH of that eye-witness testimony becomes crucial. If we can't know if the eye-witness testimony is true... how is that evidence acceptable? Now, we would have to depend on the truth of the eye-witness testimony. How could we test for the truth of those in general, so that we would know how to evaluate a specific claim.

Coming back to "Things go better with Coke", let's say that we had an eye-witness account of things really going better with Coke. How would we evaluate that eye-witness account, and how convincing could that eye-witness account be?

Do things actually "go better" with Coke?

Since we all choose what evidence is acceptable, we form opinions about what we can or cannot put our faith/trust in.

Then you write "faith/trust" like that.. it seems that you are saying that faith and trust are identical.

Some people put their faith in things they have not demonstrated are true. Some people MIGHT have faith that things go better with Coke.. but I would rather know the TRUTH of that proposition before just believing it IS true.

That makes me a Coke skeptic ( which I am .. I have no reason to think that things go better with Coke. )

Trust becomes faith when we do not have adequate evidence to fully explain an event.

So, now you seem to be saying that trust isn't quite identical to faith.

Could you please define those terms clearly?
I thought you said they were identical.

Now they might be "almost" identical, but not quite. Trust can become faith. Trust has to transform itself into faith. But trust isn't identical to faith. Trust had to change in order for it to become faith.

How do you form your trust in something. With or without evidence?
Or should I use the word faith here... or faith/trust?

The thing is.. I don't know what you mean precisely.
And I would like to argue about it.. but I can't.

Ill-defined terms are not at all useful in a philosophical discussion.

Similar to what Tired of the Nonsense wrote about the Big Bang theory. There is some evidence to point to a singularity where the universe may have began, but not enough to proclaim this the outright truth. So we trust by faith, that the evidence is "good enough."

"Trust by faith"

The way that you use the terms now, trust doesn't sound like it's identical to faith at all. Even TotN didn't use very precise language for a while. Thinking about thinking gets really confusing at times, so we have to be VERY careful.. we have to take things step by careful step.

I define trust as a confidence that a proposition is most likely true. But the way you are using the word faith, it seems to be a method.. an epistemic method.

You seem to be basing your trust by way of faith. "The way of faith".
How do you get to trust something?.... by way of faith.. at least, that's what you seem to be saying now. Trust is a confidence, and faith is the method that you use to gain the confidence.

Confidence and epistemic method are not identical concepts.
Could you clarify your two key terms?

If I change the word "trust" to " Confidence" and "faith to "epistemic method " you seem to be saying this:

So we have confidence ( have trust ) that a proposition is true by using the epistemic method called faith, that the evidence is "good enough."

So, now I have to ask you :

How does faith guarantee that some evidence is "good enough"?

The question then becomes, is trusting something with "good enough" evidence logical?

Apparently, your measure for what is "good enough" evidence is the epistemic method you call "faith".

So, if you have faith that the evidence is good enough.. you know that the evidence is good enough.

How does having faith that a proposition is true a good enough guarantee that it is a more likely true proposition than without the faith?

And by the way.. I do not have your explanation of how this epistemic method "faith" works. I've heard the term used maybe a thousand times. But I have not read any precise description of the method so that I could say... use it myself.

Could you describe this "faith" technique.. in general terms and then perhaps with an example that would be for OTHER than a religious concept?

With this answered, the followup question of if yes, or if no can be answered.

Ok, I can't follow that reasoning...
How do we establish that some piece of evidence is "good enough"?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 53 by Blastcat]

Ok, now.. remember that you are saying that for you, "trust" and "faith" are identical.
And that's where you trip up.

So I guess you never learned synonyms in school. Words can be similar and have the same connotations without being identical. When people use faith and trust as synonyms that does mean they are identical. If you demand the exact usage of the word every time language will be limited. That's why people use synonyms when they are trying to explain something. You asked me to explain what I mean when I use the word faith. I respond that it is the trust/confidence we place in a statement or idea based on some evidence. Later I use trust synonymously with faith because my definition pointed to their synonymous nature. If you don't believe my definition you can use:

Faith: 1Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/faith

Faith: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: or 2. belief that is not based on proof:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith?s=t

Notice the use of the word trust in both of these definitions.

[sf]

[Replying to post 41 by sf]

I presented the following post to Hawkins who so far has chosen to to answer it. It's a perfectly reasonable and relevant question it seems to me. Perhaps you would like to answer it.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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?

Sure. I don't think one can scientifically (especially through experimentation) differentiate between imaginary/make believe and spiritual claims.

[Zzyzx]

.

Sure. I don't think one can scientifically (especially through experimentation) differentiate between imaginary/make believe and spiritual claims.

How can one differentiate between them by ANY means (scientific or not)?

"Take my word for it (or his or this book)" isn't good enough.

Everything offered seem to depend on unverifiable / hypothetical "evidence".

The Randi Challenge (Google if unfamiliar) offered for decades one million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate anything spiritual / paranormal. No takers.

[sf]

Sure. I don't think one can scientifically (especially through experimentation) differentiate between imaginary/make believe and spiritual claims.

How can one differentiate between them by ANY means (scientific or not)?

"Take my word for it (or his or this book)" isn't good enough.

Everything offered seem to depend on unverifiable / hypothetical "evidence".

The same way we verify claims of events outside of Christianity that we were not there to witness: inference, which is "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." (Oxford Dictionaries)

We have evidence in the form of ancient writings that were assembled into what is now known as The Holy Bible. These writings claim certain events happened along with people's reaction to the events at the time. We can then reason whether these persons were crazy or believed that these events really happened based on their reaction. For example, Stephen preached a confrontational sermon (Acts 7) and at the end expected to be taken to Heaven to be with Jesus as they stoned him to death. He even asked [the] Lord to forgive them for stoning him to death!

"When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 7:54-60)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 41 by sf]

I presented the following post to Hawkins who so far has chosen to to answer it. It's a perfectly reasonable and relevant question it seems to me. Perhaps you would like to answer it.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
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?

Sure. I don't think one can scientifically (especially through experimentation) differentiate between imaginary/make believe and spiritual claims.

Presumably though you ARE able to differentiate between make believe and spiritual.

This story for example, which you , presumably, can identify as make believe.

There is an old man named Santa Claus who lives at the North Pole.
Santa lives there at a toy shop with his wife and many elves.
During the year the elves build toys.
Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads the toys into a sleigh.
Santa hitches the sleigh to a team of flying reindeer.
Santa then flies around the world from home to home.
Santa gets out with a sack full of toys and climbs down the chimney.
Santa leaves toys for the children of the house.
Santa climbs back up the chimney and flies to the next house.
Santa does this around the entire world in a single night.
Then Santa flies back to the North Pole to begin preparing for the next year.

This story, again presumably, you recognize as make believe based on the numerous ways it contradicts known reality and therefor believability. Young children often believe this story, but generally lose their belief as they grow up and become familiar with what is and is not plausible/possible.

And then there is this story.

God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
Mary and her fiance, Joseph, traveled to Bethlehem while Mary was heavily pregnant to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
God put a star in the sky to allow the Magi to find the baby and worship it.
In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God allowed Herod all of the other babies in the Bethlehem area in an attempt to kill Jesus.
As a man, named Jesus, claimed that no one could come to God but by believing in him.
Jesus performed many miracles including raising the dead.
But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion on the Friday before Passover.
His body was claimed by a man named Joseph of Arimathea.
Joseph of Arimathea took the body of Jesus to his newly constructed family crypt which was close at hand to the place where Jesus was crucified, and there the body was washed and prepared according to Jewish custom.
On Sunday morning the tomb was discovered to be empty.
The followers of Jesus afterwords claimed that they witnessed and spoke to Jesus, who had risen from the dead.
The followers of Jesus claimed that after about forth days of seeing, walking and talking with the risen Jesus he lifted bodily up off of the ground and flew up into the sky, disappearing into the clouds.

And this story you believe implicitly. Can you at least understand how a person who is outside of your belief system might look at both of these stories and see no obvious difference between either of them and utter make believe? The sort of make believe that most children have recognized and discarded by the time that they reach their teens?

So the question remains; what difference can you show exists between make believe and spiritual beliefs? Because they appear to be exactly the same. And if you cannot establish that there is a clear and obvious difference, what reason is there for anyone to suppose that you and others who hold similar beliefs are simply incapable of differentiating between make believe and spiritual beliefs?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 44 by Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

The only way we can establish that spiritual claims are in any way different from things which are imaginary or make believe, is to test the interactions between the proposed spiritual claims and the physical world.

If spiritual beings such as angels and demons are real, they should interact with people in a matter consistent with what is claimed about them. Test the claim of a person being "possessed" against what we know about the human body. If we identify no physical evidence or reason for a persons physical or mental state, then we cannot dismiss the spiritual claim. Some wont accept it, reserving the right to continued tests. Others will accept the spiritual claim. There is nothing you can do about those who choose to accept a claim based on the supporting evidence provided. You may deem this evidence insufficient, while another person deems it acceptable.

One of the things that is noticed to be consistent with demonic possession, is that the person being possessed must first have an implicit belief in the existence of demons. I have no belief in demons, and as a result I have managed to go blithely throughout life without ever once encountering any demons. I have absolutely no fear of devils or demons for the simple reason that I don't suppose that any exist. The same, I must say, is true for every other non believer that I know. We seem to have been rendered completely safe from devils and demons by our lack of belief in devils and demons. When I was young I was terrified of Frankenstein. But as I grew up I overcame my fear of foolish make believe nonsense. As a result as an adult I have no fear of foolish make believe nonsense. Foolish make believe nonsense must fear me, I have concluded. Because foolish make believe nonsense never occurs around me.

People often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers. When they get that promotion they have been praying for, or when their team wins the big game. Just as they prayed it would. And yet when a psycho comes into a classroom full of six year old's armed with a hand gun and an intent to shooting each one in the head at point blank range, or when a tornado causes a brick church wall to collapse on and kill worshipers in the very ACT of praying to God... in other words when faith comes face to face with physical reality, physical reality inevitably prevails. And God is nowhere to be found. A God who is not there for these individuals and who does not act at a moment of extreme physical peril is in no way different from a God who never existed to begin with.

In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, make believe does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/us/pi ... holds.html

In 2012, after shooting and killing his own mother, a mentally unstable man went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and methodically shot 20 six year olds and a teacher in the head. A Supreme Being would really have come in handy that day. Did God just sit there and watch the whole thing? Or was God distracted, too busy fulfilling the mundane prayers of others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hoo ... l_shooting

The point is, in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable but assumed to exist anyway God, will invariably act in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't actually there. In fact a God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! What exactly is the difference? This is as close to an empirical test for the actual existence of God as one might reasonably hope for. And in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.

Now let me make it clear. I do not blame God for what occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, in EXACTLY the same way that I hold no grudge against Santa for not coming to my house last Christmas. When my children were little I had to do all the work and let Santa take the credit. But I figured that someday my children would recognize that Santa was a myth and realize who were really behind it all. Because growing up physically also necessarily means growing up mentally. Hopefully.

[Tired of the Nonsense]