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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

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

That would depend on what that faith is in. Broadly speaking, the basic principle of believing or having faith in something is a logical conclusion of being aware of the elements that make such faith merited.

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

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

Asking "what rules of logic apply to faith" is like asking "At what temperature does temperature become temperature". Logic is itself the "rule" of reason. Asking what are the "rules of logic" is essentially nonsensical.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

A limited amount of faith might be reasonable when used in an attempt to answer a difficult question for which no other answer is obvious. On the other hand, stubbornly believing in something entirely on faith when far better empirical answers have become apparent is simply an exercise in willful self deception.

[Divine Insight]

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

It's really impossible to answer just yes or no because the terms Faith, Belief, and even Logical and Rational mean different things to different people.

I personally view "faith-based belief" as being rational as long as the person understands that the "faith" part of this basically means "wishful thinking".

As long as they understand this I think they can make arguments that it is logical and rational. But if they view "faith-based belief" as some sort of actual knowledge of truth, then I would say that they are deluding themselves.

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

The rules of logic should never need to change. What changes with logic are the unprovable premises that underlie it. If a person accepts the unprovable premise that there exists more than meets the eye in our reality, then obviously the conclusion that there exists more than we can observe or detect is going to be logical in that system.

On the other hand, if a person accepts the unprovable premise that the only things that exist are things we can actually observe and measure, then different conclusions are going to be made in that system of logic.

The rules of logic don't need to change. All that needs to change are the foundation unprovable premises. I can even give actual examples in mathematics if you are interested.

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

You can't change rules of logic and still call it "logic". What you can change are the unprovable premises you accept before you begin applying the rules of logic. From there the logical conclusions differ for different premises using the same rules.

As I stated above, I can give actual examples in mathematics if you are interested.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I would be interested in the mathematical examples.

The rules of logic should never need to change...

The rules of logic don't need to change...

I am not proposing that the rules need to change. Rules and laws are applicable to certain domains. The rules and laws of the US do not apply in China (outside of the consulate). The rules and laws of gravity do not apply on a molecular level. My question is if faith/belief does not fall under the "control" or purview of logic, can these rules apply?

The rule does not need to change for it to be non-applicable. Some rules or laws only apply to the applicable domain. For example:

Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

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

Is faith/belief one such concept where the rules of logic do not apply?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

If a limited amount of faith is reasonable, does this also mean only a limited amount of reason/logic applies to faith?

See post 5 where I clarified how rules apply to certain domains and do not apply to other domains.

[Divine Insight]

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

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

Asking "what rules of logic apply to faith" is like asking "At what temperature does temperature become temperature". Logic is itself the "rule" of reason. Asking what are the "rules of logic" is essentially nonsensical.

There seems to be a problem here, and this reverts back to what I said in my previous post that even "logic" means different things to different people.

But notice in the definition offered above, it states "a proper or reasonable way of thinking".

Well, who decides what's "proper"?

Actually we as humans have constructed a "Logical Formalism" that attempts to be as rigorous as mathematics. You can even take a college course on it and be tested to see if you understand the rules correctly.

This is typically considered to be "proper" logic.

The way that JW is using the term "logic" is far more abstract and ill-defined. He seems to be suggesting that just ANY type of reasoning qualifies as "logic", by abstract definition.

If we accept this then a person can say, "My logic is to accept anything I find as being emotionally appealing to be the truth".

That's certainly a valid RULE of reasoning.

But is it "logical" with respect to our system of Logical Formalism? No, that kind of reasoning would flunk out a college course on "logic".

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 (such as anything I find emotionally appealing is true) then in the most abstract sense of semantic you would call that "logic". But it's clearly not the same "logic" that is taught in colleges as "Logical Formalism". In that environment the former would be seen as totally illogical and breaking all the rules of Formal Logic.

This is why the first question of the OP cannot easily be answered with just yes or no. Because different people mean totally different things when they use the word "logic".

Some use it to mean accepted Logical Formalism whilst others use it to mean "Any arbitrary way I choose to reason".

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational?

'Pends on what one's a-puttin' their faith to. Without specifics we're lost as a cow at a square dance.

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

See above. Without specifics we're lost as a cow at a square dance.

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

See above. Without specifics we're lost as a cow at a square dance.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I would be interested in the mathematical examples.

I'll do this first and then maybe respond to your point about the restricted domain of Newtonian gravitation. I disagree that your example demonstrates different "rules" of logic. It's simply a different domain of applicability which is entirely different.

In any case, here's the example in mathematics.

In geometry we have something called Euclidean geometry, also called "Flat geometry". This geometry is based on an unprovable premise that parallel lines never meet. It's just an arbitrary premise that cannot be proved.

So this leads to all the rules of logic that produce everything we know to be true about Euclidean geometry. Such as the angles of all triangles add up to exactly 180 degrees. And the ratio between a circle's diameter and circumference will always be equal to Pi, and this is a constant.

However, it is possible to begin with a different premise. Supposed instead of accepting that parallel lines never meet we simply accept that they could meet. By changing this unprovable premise and applying the very SAME rules of logic we end up with a whole new geometry that is vastly different from Euclidean geometry. We call this geometry "Spherical Geometry". In this geometry the SAME RULES OF LOGIC lead us to conclude that the angels of triangles can add up to more than 180 degrees. Also the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle is not constant and won't always be equal to Pi.

So here we have a whole new geometry based on the very SAME RULES OF LOGIC as Euclidean geometry but leading us to totally different logical conclusions.

The logic is the same. The only thing that changed where the initial premises.

We can actually take this further and create yet another new geometry by changing the premises again and applying the SAME LOGIC. In this case we come up with what is called "Hyperbolic Geometry". And once again the same rules of logic lead to different conclusions. Not because the rules of logic were changed, but because unprovable premises had been changed.

So just by changing the premises you begin with you change your logical conclusions, even though you use the SAME RULES OF LOGIC every time.

In the case you gave of Newton's Gravity, that's just a limitation of Newton's description of gravity. It really has nothing at all to do with the rules of logic in general. There is nothing illogical about Newton's description of gravity. And no rules of logic needed to be changed when Einstein proposed a better description of gravity. That situation had nothing at all to do with changing any rules of logic.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I would be interested in the mathematical examples.

The rules of logic should never need to change...

The rules of logic don't need to change...

I am not proposing that the rules need to change. Rules and laws are applicable to certain domains. The rules and laws of the US do not apply in China (outside of the consulate). The rules and laws of gravity do not apply on a molecular level. My question is if faith/belief does not fall under the "control" or purview of logic, can these rules apply?

The rule does not need to change for it to be non-applicable. Some rules or laws only apply to the applicable domain. For example:

Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

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

Is faith/belief one such concept where the rules of logic do not apply?

I just wanted to clarify further. Your example of Newton's law of universal gravitation has nothing to do with the "Rules of Logic".

Newton's law of gravitation is not a system of logic. It's simply a mathematical description of how gravity works. It turns out that it wasn't perfectly accurate. So it needed to be readdressed by Albert Einstein who offered a whole new approach to viewing how gravity actually works.

However, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton both used precisely the same "Rules of Logic". And they were both right. Isaac Newton simply had a simpler case that wasn't fully compatible with how gravity behaves in extreme situations.

But there was no change in the Rules of Logic that were used by Newton and Einstein. They both applied the same rules of logic.