Logic and Faith: Oil and Water?

[joserafael]

God exists. True or false?
Logic says he either exists or he doesn't.
You choose on faith.
Faith is half of your options. Your choice may be either right or wrong.

I'm no expert, but here's my take on logic... Logic is objectively true. How do you keep from contradicting yourself? Logic. Logic is a matter of contradiction, not choice. What are the natural laws of logic? I'd say true and false (unless we live in an illusion which is a whole different subject). Logic is what tells you that something cannot be x and "not x" at the same time. It cannot tell you which one is ultimately real. It's true that logic is limited. It sucks at telling you whether something is ultimately true or false. Something that's "logically true", isn't necessarily "ultimately true". But there's an objective basis for belief in logic, it's what keeps you from contradicting yourself, but it's not the ultimate authority on true or false.

Logic tells you that something either is or isn't. Faith is like your take on any one of these options. I guess you could say that faith is above logic because faith is a choice, logic are your options, true or false. Why may logic and faith be in opposition? "Logically true" may not be "ultimately real". Faith is your bet on reality, which may oppose logical arguments. And this goes both ways, whether you believe in something or you don't.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Cerealkiller

The experiment you described does nothing to prove logic. In fact, if anything, it undermines logic. The "sighted" children made a non-logical decision based on emotional preference for a sense. Logic would dictate that if you feel someting it is there, despite appearances to the contrary. Emotion says, I cannot feel it, I am scared, I won't move.



That is, however, beside the point.
"Actually logic is a universal construct, based upon natural rules."

What are these natural rules you speak of, and how can they be proven? There is no good reason to believe in the functions of logical thinking, that does not derive from the rules of logic. One cannot use the rules of an unproven system to prove the system; it would be akin to the old argument that the Bible is true, because it says it is true, and the Bible is true so what it says must be right.

Good day,



The three laws of thought are what I am referring to:



1. The law of identity - ergo "what ever is, is"

2. The law of contradiction -ergo "a thing cannot both be and not be"

3. The law of excluded middle - ergo "a thing must either be, or not be"



Aristotle founded the concept of logic, and has not been superceded in his work, only expanded upon.



The logic of the child precedes the fear (emotion). The child sees (perceives) a difference in depth, and realizes that to move forward would cause a fall. There is no emotion there. The emotion comes into play when the child is encouraged to move forward. Now a conflict is introduced into the child's thinking, and a series of emotions begin to cloud the logic. Also, the conflicting sensory signals add to this confusion of the logical process.



The first choice of the seeing child was logical "do not move forward". The second choice of the child was not logical "move forward because mom is encouraging the move forward". That was a choice based upon "faith" in mom. (trust is not logical, or at least has no initial base in logic, until bolstered by repetitive behaviors showing the one to be trusted can be trusted again).



The clear panel above the floor is an unknown to the child. Falling from a height is known. Logic dictates that the child not move until more is known about this mysterious addition to the equation. Faith in mom overrides this caution, or logical conclusion of not moving. The sighted child moves forward, on a "leap of faith", or intuition that mom is not going to allow harm to come to the child.



v/r



Q

[Cerealkiller]

The three laws you mention are some of the basic rules of logic, but they are not, nessecarily, natural law. As I said before, there is no way you can show these three laws to be true which does not appeal to logic.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Good day,



The three laws of thought are what I am referring to:



1. The law of identity - ergo "what ever is, is"

2. The law of contradiction -ergo "a thing cannot both be and not be"

3. The law of excluded middle - ergo "a thing must either be, or not be"



Aristotle founded the concept of logic, and has not been superceded in his work, only expanded upon.

Q

This is a whole philosophic can of worms, isn’t it, really beyond a forum of this kind to get anywhere near the bottom of and certainly beyond the expertise of this simpleton. However, you have suckered me into throwing in my two cents.

First, Aristotle may be alive and well, but a few things have happened in philosophy since he was making his peripatetic way around the ancient world and many more “logics” have been invented that at least supplement if not contradict these basic rules. The “excluded middle” for example didn’t appear to bother the Buddhists all that much – that’s where arguably philosophers like Nagarjuna set up shop. As well, the general drift of the Anglo-American tradition as well as much of modern philosophy is to see logic as language rather than as law, i.e., descriptive rather than proscriptive of reality.

The three laws you talk about can quite easily be seen as arising naturally from pressing necessities: is this food or not, is this a danger or not – there’s only one right answer. The world, however, presents more complicated challenges to our descriptors. Is this sub-atomic event a wave or a particle? Am I the same as yesterday or different? Is the reality of self individual or interdependent? Where does the self end and the world begin? Uber-fans of logic will of course say that all these questions are simply wrongly put, that the logic itself is perfectly fine, and thank you very much!

But again, this whole issue can explode in a thousand directions, all of which would quickly take me out of my depth. But I guess the question at hand is really how we use the language tools of logic in approaching ultimate reality (whatever that means, and everyone will have different ideas). IMO, there’s a tradition in the west – and I hope this doesn’t insult anyone – to use Aristotelian type logic in religious questions almost as a diversion, as a way to occupy those of an analytic or intellectual bent. A recent sojourn with Catholic apologists on one of their forums brought this home to me. (For future reference, here’s the apologetic method: 1. Cut off all the exits with the assumption that a very specific faith/belief precedes all discussion; 2. Meander through an entertaining series of sophisticated if sometimes sophistic argumentation, citing August Authority; 3. Just when your interlocutor is nodding off in pleasant slumber, bring down the hammer: Believe or die!)

Personally, I’d like to put in a plug for the general approach of William James, following his pragmatic rule: what makes no difference is no difference. It's a method open to all evidence, mental/spiritual/experiential as well as physical, while admitting the possible efficacy of all concepts, and not relying on some notion of eternal laws of logic, but evolving language/logic rules as adequate as possible to the complex nature of reality, and to our continual exploration.

[Paladin]

That sounds logical to me!

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

"Consider all knowledge to fall above or below a line of demarcation. Everything above this line is not necessary to the solution of mans abberations and general shortcomings and is inexactly known. Such a field of thought could be considered to embrace such things as metaphysics and mysticism. Below this line of demarcation could be considered to lie the finite universe. All things in the finite Universe whether known or as yet unknown can be sensed, experienced or measured."

Ron Hubbard.

I think Mr Hubbard quite accurately draws out the difference here between Logic and Faith, the main reason I consider Mr Hubbard to be incredibly misguided is that he goes on to say,

All factors necessary to the resolution of a science of the mind were found within the finite universe

I would personally argue that it is the information above the line which is most important, and that a "Science of the mind" is impossible to achieve without it.

I am no longer sure whether or not I am on topic here, sorry.

[Twinlove]

Hello InLove and all,

Logic, belief...faith, love...knowledge, knowing...the inner and outer. Where is the starting point and where is the end? Do we start out with preconcieved notions or do we recieve ideas and influences and then come to conclusions? Do we have more faith in one influence over another? I know people who blindly believe everything they hear, if it's on CNN then it must be true. Then there are others who use logic and conclude that it is not possible , when the most logical conclusion is that anything is possible with knowledge.

I suggest that we all use logic,faith,knowledge and belief to affirm what we already know within ourselves. We use outter knowledge to confirm the inner knowing. Can I walk on water? Yes I can, I just do not posses the knowledge, as of yet, of how to do this, yet I have an inner knowing that I can.

The last thing I would like to comment on is levels of love. I'm trying to figure out how faith and love can be worked into being the same. I think the word love is one of the most misinterpeted words that we use freely. When we were kids candy was the greatest love that we had, even winning out over family in most instances. Love of your spouse,job,car,kids,certain foods,church or a love in your faith....are these the type of humanistic labeled loves that we are talking about? I say that there is a higher love out there, a love that is on a level all by itself and has nothing to do with faith, and with me it is an inner knowing comfirmed by first hand knowledge.

Gospel of Thomas 55 Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

Was this a parable about love?

Thanks to all and hope to be able to add and recieve more to this community in the future.

[Chela]

Logical thought is not objective because it is formulated by the subject (the mind). Math is objective though because it is the application of the principles of the universe (the object).

Faith is beyond thought. Intellectuals and materalists cannot accept faith because they do not understand it. Intellectuals believe that the intellect is the Self and materalists believe that the physical organism is the self, but, really, neither the intellect nor the physical organism constitute the entirety of the self.

This vast misunderstanding is how materalistis and intellectuals have taken faith and distorted into something that means blind belief. In reality, faith is not belief at all. Do you need to believe you are sitting at a computer? No, you just know, you have faith about that.

Those who blindly believe in God are short changing themselves and leaving themselves to wander under the Tower of Babel.

Belief transforms into faith through direct experinece.

Those who have the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains!

[Saponification]

I don't think faith is logical if someone has pure, unquestioning faith without having actively tested it. Not all religions are faith-based as such, they demand logic and reasoning from their followers.

[InLove]

Hi Saponification--welcome to CR .

I respect what you say. But for me, the evidence of things not seen lives within me. And that evidence is real to me. I ask lots of questions of that Spirit within me. The answers I receive from the Spirit are logical to me.

The answers I receive from religions don't always make sense.

What I say may not be what you say, but I still love to listen.

(That's an informal invitation to come again to ponder it all together. )

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Personally, I think that logic and faith have more in common that we are really comfortable believing. We accept the whole world on faith, including logic. I think that faith underpins our entire existence. It is through faith that we believe logic can yield results.

I just like this so much that I thought I would highlight it again.

Along with this one:

Perhaps the greatest act of faith would be one where a life is lived with a minimum number of beliefs.

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

To have faith, one must begin with logic. In order to believe in something, one must convince one's self with reasons why they believe. To use logic, one ultimately must have some form of faith. Because at some point, our knowledge limit will present itself, and we must move ahead into the unknown.

Example:

Imagine that you’re standing before a chasm that you have to cross. The chasm could be a river, valley, a lake, a canyon, or even a crater on the moon. There are two bridges that are parallel to one another and either one will take you where you want to go.



The first bridge looks very modern. It’s steel and very big. It doesn’t show any signs of aging. The second bridge is wooden and has signs of aging, but is not so dilapidated as to be un-crossable. Which bridge would you most likely choose? The steel bridge of course. Did you make your choice because you know absolutely, 100% without a doubt that the steel bridge will not fall under your weight? No. It is not impossible that the steel bridge will not fall under your weight, only improbable, based upon your current level of knowledge. Do you know, without a doubt, that the wooden bridge would fall under you weight? Again, the answer is no. Is it possible that no matter which bridge you would choose, it would fall? Yes. Is it possible that both bridges could fall at the same time while you are on one of them? Yes. Is it possible that the old bridge could support you while the steel bridge would fall? Yes.



So why did you choose the new bridge? Because although, the alternative possibilities exist, they are all significantly less probable than the possibility of the new bridge falling under your weight. Because you don't know the future, no matter what choice you make, it is a choice which requires faith. You chose your faith based upon probability. You took the path of "least resistance”.

Can't have one without the other...

v/r

Q

[InLove]

So I will not burn either.

Thanks, Q.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Unless absolutely necessary. (Just thought I would say that before you did, in case you were thinking of saying it.)

InPeace,
InLove

[THUNK]

Originally Posted by Twinlove

Hello InLove and all,

Can I walk on water? Yes I can, I just do not posses the knowledge, as of yet, of how to do this, yet I have an inner knowing that I can.

Perhaps you derive comfort from your 'inner knowings' that help you get through life with a smile.

Religious types are to my mind 'seekers of comfort'.

Is your enlightened 'inner knowing' bright enough to direct you to spend your spare time in selfless PRACTICAL help of others doing hard work (not easy cop - out praying), BUT HARD GRAFT? God would surely prefer that to hours of adulation?