Are Faith and logic mutual exclusives?

[Wake Up]

Any logical argument is immediately overriden by a leap of faith.

Example - One man may say,
"I think the earth was founded by the big bang because of this......."
etc etc. However at any point the first man is giving his argument a second man may say,
"Yes but I believe God created the Earth"
"but teh evidence..." The first man replies
"Ive heard your evidence and I still believe"

The second man, the man of faith, is unmoved by any logical argument because his faith overrides it. He will not be moved by logic because logic does not figure in his argument, he is using a different system so to speak.

Therefore a logical argument to a question of faith is a futile excerise and to do so is missing the point.

However if a man of faith uses any ounce of logic in his argument then his faith falls down - faith and logic are mutual exclusives.


This is just a little theory of mine, feel free to pick apart/add to it.
If their is something in what I say then one conclusion could be that religion has its place in any form of government, because governments are based on logic and so the faith can sit side by side.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think most of us will agree with you comrade.

Faith is by it's nature illogical, so the two cannot mix.

-Alex

[Mirage]

Faith cannot be logical. Since we're not meaning a strong belief when we say faith, but rather belief without logical or physical evidence, it by very definition cannot be logical.
An interesting bit of the bible is 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; even it admits that those without faith are smarter.

[Peacekeeper]

Interesting point.

However, if these are the type of people you have been discussing the beginning of the universe with, I must apologize on behalf of the entire religious community! We aren't all ignorant logic-deniers like that.

For example, the Big Bang theory and Creationism are actually compatible.

I will explain:

No scientist will be able to tell you how this tiny sphere of all the matter in the soon-to-be universe came from. No scientist can tell you why it suddenly decided to explode.

As no theory has come forward to explain these things, they are an unknown.

Therefore, we can put forward a hypothesis as to where this matter came from.

Perhaps it was created by an all-powerful being? And then He caused, with his infinite power, to expand outward at an incredible speed, producing vast amounts of heat?

Of course, this has yet to be proven, but it is just as valid as any other hypothesis put forward to explain these issues.

[Mirage]

I do not have faith in the Big Bang (there is some evidence pointing towards it, so I do have some level of confidence in its existence), and I most certainly have no idea what created it. I personally like the idea that the universe existed forever, and that entropy, just like we now realize is true for relativity, is not relevant on a universal scale, but I realize that this explanation of many is very improbable to be entirely true. Creationism is, in contrast, a belief that does not have evidence for it, and explains something that we already understand (how humans came about, via evolution).
Remember that it's a question of whether faith is compatible with logic. Most Christians have faith in Creationism (believing in it 100% without regard to reason), whereas The Big Bang not only has evidence for it, but scientists do not unquestioningly believe in it all 100 percent.

[pusher robot]

A modicum of "faith" is required for any inferential logic. For example: I observe that the sun rose yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. I have no explanation for the rising of the sun. Yet I infer that the sun will rise tomorrow, and we call that "logical" despite my inability to prove or even explain the mechanism behind that behavior. I saw it happen before, I have faith that it will happen again even though I don't know why.

There are other things that are fundamentally unknowable and can only be accepted on faith, e.g., we are not living in a computer simulation, we have not spontaneously popped into existence a nanosecond ago, something exists beyond our universe, the world will not end tomorrow, etc.


Most Christians have faith in Creationism (believing in it 100% without regard to reason) {{citation needed}}

[Lost In Translation]

Well said, Mirage.

Personally, I have met people who are both of faith and logic. However, in all cases, it is faith that takes priority. Faith, in itself, does not require evidence. As long as there is a belief, faith will hold true. However, this leaves little space for lenience. Whereas logic is forever changing due to new discoveries, faith is unchanging, regardless of the circumstance.

However, this makes the whole idea of Faith vs. Logic especially interesting because person of faith would use logic to counter the person of logic. However, not only would the person of faith just be on the defensive, the would also attack the person of logic because logic, in situations where the topic of debate has no answer, is not definitive. Faith, however, provides an unwavering answer that does not have evidence to back it up, but is (to those who believe in faith) undoubtably the truth. Nevertheless, in the modern world where science is progressing fast, if there is no evidence to the matter, the entire thing is void. However, there are still those who like to stir up controversy by believing in possibly bogus beliefs. But, until there is solid proof that such things as faith are only for the sake of giving an answer to something of which there is no answer to are false, logic will only have a feeble grip on faith.

[Mirage]

There's evidence for the sun rising tomorrow, namely that it has risen the past one thousand days. There is not, however, any evidence or logic behind, for example, Creationism. Your second claim makes no sense at all; I don't have faith that we're not living in a computer simulation, I logically conclude that it is infinitesimally unlikely (and question what the hell the difference would be anyway), and therefore if asked, I would say that I do not believe that I am in a computer simulation. Before you go about arguing whether it is unlikely or not, the important thing is that we rationally come to a conclusion about it, rather than having faith and choosing one belief without evidence (and thus for no logical reason).
edit: addressed at pusher robot

[Peacekeeper]

Remember that it's a question of whether faith is compatible with logic. Most Christians have faith in Creationism (believing in it 100% without regard to reason), whereas The Big Bang not only has evidence for it, but scientists do not unquestioningly believe in it all 100 percent.

Are we talking about Creationism or Christians, here?

[pusher robot]

There's evidence for the sun rising tomorrow, namely that it has risen the past one thousand days.Unless you know more about it, that is not, strictly speaking, evidence. You don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, you assume it will. You have no actual basis to calculate the probability of the sun rising again tomorrow.

There is not, however, any evidence or logic behind, for example, Creationism.I'm not talking about that dogmatic kind of faith that ignores logical inferences.

Before you go about arguing whether it is unlikely or not, the important thing is that we rationally come to a conclusion about it, rather than having faith and choosing one belief without evidence (and thus for no logical reason).My point is that you can't rationally come to a conclusion about it, that's impossible. There is no possible way of testing the hypothesis. If you believe we are or are not, that is a matter of faith. The only logical position is to admit you can't know.

[Plagueround]

Until one disproves the other...have at it.

[Wake Up]

I only used the big bang/creationism debate as en example. I realize their are flaws in both arguments.

In the case of the big bang a leap of faith must be made at some point. Maybe this is true for all logical arguments.
For example in the case of the sun rising, logic dictates that it will (because we know of the movements of the earth round the sun and are confident that nothing is happening to disrupt this. However a leap of faith must still be made as we do not no for certain what will happen in the morning.
Therefore could it be read that logic is a process of eliminating as much 'faith' as possible in the argument?

[Dean]

Any logical argument is immediately overriden by a leap of faith.

Example - One man may say,
"I think the earth was founded by the big bang because of this......."
etc etc. However at any point the first man is giving his argument a second man may say,
"Yes but I believe God created the Earth"
"but teh evidence..." The first man replies
"Ive heard your evidence and I still believe"

The second man, the man of faith, is unmoved by any logical argument because his faith overrides it. He will not be moved by logic because logic does not figure in his argument, he is using a different system so to speak.

Therefore a logical argument to a question of faith is a futile excerise and to do so is missing the point.

However if a man of faith uses any ounce of logic in his argument then his faith falls down - faith and logic are mutual exclusives.


This is just a little theory of mine, feel free to pick apart/add to it.
If their is something in what I say then one conclusion could be that religion has its place in any form of government, because governments are based on logic and so the faith can sit side by side.

No idea is completely sound. It requires faith to believe or think anything. Faith and logic are simply different aspects of the thought process, they don't go against each other.

People like to talk about faith as if it denied logic. But that itself is pure idiocy. First off, all ideas require logic to achieve the conclusion they reach. If you didn't have some logical chain of events, ideas or arguments for the aquisition of an idea, it would not exist. It may be totally ignorant and irrational, but that isn't the point. The point is that all conclusions peopel reach are the result of their own acquired belief structure, conditions, etc. - in other words, there is a reason.

Faith is simply the recognition that no idea is certain, and that you have to trust in certain things for your ideas. The attempt to separate religious belief from secular belief on the distinction of logic is chauvinist and insulting, as if to say that secularists are somehow devoid of stupidity or irrational thought simply because they don't hold a few specific supernaturalist beliefs. I totally refuse the attempt to take a real issue about a social belief and turn it into a demeaning attempt to belittle the entire mode of thought of someone. That is extremely elitist.

[eyedrop]

No idea is completely sound. It requires faith to believe or think anything. Faith and logic are simply different aspects of the thought process, they don't go against each other.

People like to talk about faith as if it denied logic. But that itself is pure idiocy. First off, all ideas require logic to achieve the conclusion they reach. If you didn't have some logical chain of events, ideas or arguments for the aquisition of an idea, it would not exist. It may be totally ignorant and irrational, but that isn't the point. The point is that all conclusions peopel reach are the result of their own acquired belief structure, conditions, etc. - in other words, there is a reason.

Faith is simply the recognition that no idea is certain, and that you have to trust in certain things for your ideas. The attempt to separate religious belief from secular belief on the distinction of logic is chauvinist and insulting, as if to say that secularists are somehow devoid of stupidity or irrational thought simply because they don't hold a few specific supernaturalist beliefs. I totally refuse the attempt to take a real issue about a social belief and turn it into a demeaning attempt to belittle the entire mode of thought of someone. That is extremely elitist.


Good point.

But there is still a distinction between supported faith and unsupported faith. There is always a degree of faith that is required to believe something and that degree varies.

Now we are acutally at a quite interesting point in history when the physisists know that their theories, of reality, are wrong. Their theories of the large and the small can't both be right. It's a bit different from before Einstein when we just believed that we just had some holes to fill in.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Perhaps it was created by an all-powerful being? And then He caused, with his infinite power, to expand outward at an incredible speed, producing vast amounts of heat?



And perhaps it was created by an advanced alien species, or giant tub of sentient and omniscient baked beans called Susan. The point is, we are utterly in the dark about questions like these at this stage in our history. It is entirely fruitless to speculate like this. We must wait until the evidence is in. :)

-Alex

[Lost In Translation]

And perhaps it was created by an advanced alien species, or giant tub of sentient and omniscient baked beans called Susan. The point is, we are utterly in the dark about questions like these at this stage in our history. It is entirely fruitless to speculate like this. We must wait until the evidence is in. :)

-Alex

Very true. However, what do we do during this wait for more evidence? Do we use ludicrous explanations which have no backing? Do we continuously argue who has the better explanation? Do we combine logic and faith together to create a method that can accomodate both parties? Such questions need to be asked until there is further evidence to suggest that logic is more feasible than faith.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

We should withold assent. It really is okay to admit that we don't know some things yet, you know. :)

There is no need to pretend that we can know before there is evidence, basically.

-Alex

[Mirage]

Unless you know more about it, that is not, strictly speaking, evidence. You don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, you assume it will. You have no actual basis to calculate the probability of the sun rising again tomorrow.

You "know" the sun will rise in that you're fairly confident (if you can only comprehend quantitative assertions, let's say above 99%), as it has always risen. You don't have a basis to calculate the probability, of course, because you know very little about the world (well, today, we do know quite a bit more, and know it is very unlikely for the sun not to rise between now and the time it supernovas).


I'm not talking about that dogmatic kind of faith that ignores logical inferences.
My point is that you can't rationally come to a conclusion about it, that's impossible. There is no possible way of testing the hypothesis. If you believe we are or are not, that is a matter of faith. The only logical position is to admit you can't know.

Again, we say we "know" something, but, logically, we know that we can never be completely certain about something. There are degrees of how certain we are based on how much evidence we have. We have no evidence to show that we are in a computer simulation, so there's really no rational reason to believe it. Of course, it's still quite possible, so a rational person doesn't "believe" that it is or is not the case, but rather is aware of the possibility. I thought we were talking about the "dogmatic faith that ignores logical inferences."

[Kronos]

You cannot have "faith" in anything which you were not previously convinced could exist. When someone asks "do you have faith in God", they are asking a nonsensical question. When someone asks "do you have faith that the car is parked outside", they are asking a reasonable question.

The difference between these two questions is that the former question cannot be demonstrated through behavior.....one cannot signify a case of "having faith in God" by doing anything. The latter question and answer is demonstrable- by answering "yes, I have faith that the car is parked outside", one is essentially saying "I am confirming that I find it likely that the object we call car is in that place at this time". By saying this, the person is doing a kind of communication...they are sharing information about an experience that is accessible to all parties who speak their language. This can only happen if, prior to answering the question, all parties involved had made a previous agreement about the nature of the object they call "car."

But with "God" this cannot be done. At best, the parties can only agree on prior definitions of terms, and upon being asked if they have faith that "God" exists, they can only answer "yes, I have faith that we previously agreed that this and that term meant this and that", but they cannot answer "yes, I have faith that God exists", because at this point "God" is not a conceptual object, but only a meaningful term which acquires its meaning through the behavior of "talking about the definition".

With the car, not only did they talk about it, but they also experienced it.....rather than just experiencing the "talking about it".

So to say "God exists" is really to say "we only agree that a certain term means a certain thing". What would follow would be a discussion about the existence of the characteristics attributed to the definition of "God", so on and so forth, reductio ad absurdem. The only real concepts which could be salvaged from such a conversation would be those pertaining to the bare essential features of the objects involved in the description. Such features would also be applicable to nature itself....and so there is no need for this new word "God".

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Faith and logic are not exclusive per se.

Here are some examples I feel can show this point.

one could say

"I have faith in God/Allah/Ganesha/Odin/Ra/Zeus."

This is illogical faith. There has never been any evidence to prove a gods existence and many things once attributed to divinity have since been explained using verifiable non-theistic means. The human race's knowledge has simply outgrown the 'Gods' theory just like it outgrew logical theories of old like corpusculecent physics or when earth, air, water and fire got dropped from the periodic table.

One could also say

"I have faith in my hazmat suit/aeroplane/coffee mug/prosthetic leg/condom."

This is logical faith. All these items can and have been tested rigourously. Helpfully there are also swathes of evidence both that they exist and that they serve a useful purpose they are object designed to fulfil a purpose and as such we have faith in them to function despite the fact we have not tested them ourselves. We will continue to place our faith in these things until there is an improvement made to one and then we shall palce our faith in the next generation of items.

The difference between logical and illogical faith is this.

When one places faith in something based on evidence, such as when flying on an aeroplane for the first time having faith that it won't crash. This is logical faith. This faith stems from simple maths, far fewer planes crash than people fly on them so obviously the odds are vastly in favour of any particular person never being involved in a plane crash.

When one places faith in something despite evidence such as a believing carrying a particular item (lucky charm or religious relic) makes them more fortunate. This is illogical faith. No object one can carry will effect the course of events around him in an uncommon and beneficial way simply by being carried. (If a rabbit's foot was lucky why the hell isn't it still part of a very lucky rabbit rabbit?)

[Dros]

For example, the Big Bang theory and Creationism are actually compatible.

:lol: No they aren't!


No scientist will be able to tell you how this tiny sphere of all the matter in the soon-to-be universe came from. No scientist can tell you why it suddenly decided to explode.

That's simply untrue. There are all kinds of cosmological theories that explain that event.


As no theory has come forward to explain these things, they are an unknown.

No theory has yet been proven. That does not mean that any explanation is equally valid.


Therefore, we can put forward a hypothesis as to where this matter came from.

Go for it.


Perhaps it was created by an all-powerful being? And then He caused, with his infinite power, to expand outward at an incredible speed, producing vast amounts of heat?

So where did "he" come from? Where did the matter come from? Out of what did "he" create it? What do the physical manifestations of "his" power look like? Where was "he" before the big bang, when space and time in this universe did not exist as they do now? Where is "He"? Why can't we see "Him"? What is the nature of this being (physically, mentally)?

This is not in the slightest a scientific theory. It has absolutely no scientific viability whatsoever. A hypothesis is a predicted explanation for a phenomenon or a predicted outcome of an experiment that is based on and grounded in past observations and scientific knowledge. There is absolutely NO basis for this so called "theory" in ANY past scientific observation or in any legitimate scientific theory.


Of course, this has yet to be proven, but it is just as valid as any other hypothesis put forward to explain these issues.

Untrue. The fact that there is not currently an excepted scientific consensus does not mean that any ridiculous non-explanation is equally valid as the actual scientific theories.

[Dros]

Is anyone going to answer me or are you all scared?!:lol::lol::lol:

[Grunt]

The Big Bang Theory and 'Creationism' are mutually exclusive.

The Big Bang Theory is a result of deductive logical reasoning
and evaluation of scientific facts.

'Creationism' (although its followers claim otherwise) is not
the result of deductive logical reasoning and is not
supported by any facts whatsoever.

'Creationism' is based on a collection of old jewish history-
books and so called 'spiritual books', whose origins are
unclearand dubious and who are (even when only history
is concerned) utterly unreliable.

This collection of books is generally called 'The Bible'.

'The Bible' is not scientific evidence.

When taking all the solid, consistent (with reality) and
coherrent Astrophysical theories in consideration -
the introduction of an allmighty, all-knowing creator-god
is far from necessary and violates the scientific principle
known as 'Occam's Razor' .

Scientific progress continues !

And with that progress - the unanswered questions become
fewer and fewer. So all the 'Creationists' have is a:
'God of the gaps'.

Organized theistic religion, in particular the Judaeo-mosaic
monotheism and its derivative religions: Christianity and Islam
have oppressed and terrorized and blinded people from their
beginning. Its all about power and money.

Organized religion intertwined with the capitalist system
of exploitation is the root of all evil.

[Kronos]

And that's a wrap.

[Grunt]

And that's a wrap.
What is that supposed to mean ?

Please explain yourself !

[Kronos]

It means there is nothing more to say. It means you summed it up....and very well at that.

Haven't you ever heard the expression "that's a wrap?"

Jesus man, they say it on the news like every day.

[Grunt]

Thanks for clearing that up ! :)


It means there is nothing more to say. It means you summed it up....and very well at that.
Thanks. There is so much more to say - but I don't have the
time right now.



Haven't you ever heard the expression "that's a wrap?"

Jesus man, they say it on the news like every day.
Nope - not here. I am living in Sweden. Any news-man/woman
saying 'Thats a Wrap' or the Swedish equivalent - its
unthinkable...:lol:

[Killfacer]

i thought "thats a wrap" came from cinema. When they clack the blackboard thing the director shouts "thats a wrap".

I agree with you entirely but i dont think Occams razor is the best way to "prove" it.

[Dean]

The Big Bang Theory and 'Creationism' are mutually exclusive.

While I agree that the latter is bullshit, they certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

[Grunt]

I agree with you entirely but i dont think Occams razor is the best way to "prove" it.
Occams Razor is just a guideline, a scientific 'principle' - so 'it'
prooves nothing. It just can give you a hint which theory might be
the right one. :)

[Grunt]

While I agree that the latter is bullshit, they certainly aren't mutually exclusive.
No - not in theory. The Big Bang and 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster'
aren't mutually exclusive per se either. Nor is 'Russels Teacup' which
orbits the sun between Earth and Venus.

So - Yes. I may have been a little bit over-anxious and hasty.

So: A creator god and a Big Bang ? Why then the Big Bang in the
first place, when there is an almighty creator who can fix anything
by just snipping his fingers ?

Redundancy. And again we take Occams Razor as a guideline -
and see that we can explain quite a lot - without having to
introduce a 'God'.

Besides: The burden of proof lies with the one making the
positive assumption (i.e. the christains, creationists etc.).

And they have not produced a single shred of evidence yet.

[Killfacer]

thats the thing about it. It doesnt need evidence. Its just true. (to them, not me i think its a load of shit) Thats why its impossible to have a logical argument with a christian, at some point you have to make the leap of faith.

[Grunt]

thats the thing about it. It doesnt need evidence. Its just true. (to them, not me i think its a load of shit) Thats why its impossible to have a logical argument with a christian, at some point you have to make the leap of faith.
I am glad you added that you yourself think its a load of shit. :)

But why then this double standard: Science has to be based on
evidence and logical deduction - whereas those 'clowns' just
have to say 'its a matter of faith' ??

[Killfacer]

becuase, as the name of the thread suggests: Faith and Logic are mutual exclusives.
Faith needs no evidence and is something seperate to logic. It doesnt require logic, it doesnt require reason it simply requires a person to hold it. It is impossible for people of logic such as myself to ever understand faith, as i can never hold faith without evidence.

[Grunt]

It is impossible for people of logic such as myself
to ever understand faith, as i can never hold faith without evidence.
Me neither.

[Dean]

becuase, as the name of the thread suggests: Faith and Logic are mutual exclusives.
Faith needs no evidence and is something seperate to logic. It doesnt require logic, it doesnt require reason it simply requires a person to hold it. It is impossible for people of logic such as myself to ever understand faith, as i can never hold faith without evidence.

What a load of elitist bullshit.

[Bluetongue]

What a load of elitist bullshit.QFT.

How odd that a communist could claim to be devoid of faith!!! What evidence do you have that communism could or would work? What evidence did the Bolsheviks have? Logical expectations are a type of faith. What you are talking about is blind faith, which is rare.

I have faith in communism. Deal with it.

[Killfacer]

its not elitist bullshit, i just dont beleive anything without evidence. Makes sense if you ask me.

[MarxSchmarx]

its not elitist bullshit, i just dont beleive anything without evidence. Makes sense if you ask me.



Do you believe the statement "Not-P and P are both true" to be false? What evidence have you that "Not-P and P are both true" is false?

[Killfacer]

i think thats a stupid question although i do have to admit that calling myself a person of logic is a bit twattish

[Dean]

i think thats a stupid question although i do have to admit that calling myself a person of logic is a bit twattish

Especially when just about every fucking person of the world calls themselves logical and you attempt to create a simplistic pseudo-psychological dichotomy between the "logical" and "faithful" modes of though along the lines of religious affiliation.

Your post is nothing more than an unfounded, elitist jab at others just because they believe something silly and you have offended me, sir.

[Grunt]

What a load of elitist bullshit.
Why ? Please explain yourself !

[Grunt]

Especially when just about every fucking person of the world calls themselves logical and you attempt to create a simplistic pseudo-psychological dichotomy between the "logical" and "faithful" modes of though along the lines of religious affiliation.
Oh -Aha ! I have seen the light !! Lucky me ! :lol:

BTW: Your "simplistic pseudo-psychological dichotomy" interpretation
sounds pretty elitist to me....


But then again - you have shown me the light - :lol:: Faith without
evidence and reason can be called logical...

Nice, real nice !

BTW: Your post has offended me, sir.

[Dros]

How odd that a communist could claim to be devoid of faith!!!

Because real Communists have a scientific orientation grounded in materialism instead of a religious orientation grounded in idealism.


What evidence do you have that communism could or would work?

What do you mean?


What evidence did the Bolsheviks have?

They scientifically understood that the time for revolution in Russia was 1918. They then executed the revolution and constructed the world's first socialist state.


Logical expectations are a type of faith.

This kind of pomo argument boils down to little more than nothing.


What you are talking about is blind faith, which is rare.

Is there another kind of faith I don't know about?:lol:

The above is a rhetorical question.


I have faith in communism. Deal with it.

Another reason why you are not a Communist.

[Grunt]

Because real Communists have a scientific orientation grounded in materialism instead of a religious orientation grounded in idealism.
Yepp - I maybe a fresh newbie - but thats how I understand
Communism/Socialism too.

Thanks for that - Drosera ! :)




I have faith in communism. Deal with it.
Another reason why you are not a Communist.
I repeat: I dunno nothing. But to me communism/socialism
has nothing to do with faith.

Capitalism bears the seed of its own destruction in itself
and the coming of a new, communist/socialist society is
to me a historical and scientific certainty.

'Having faith in communism' ? Isn't that a contradiction in
itself ?

[Kronos]

Faith needs no evidence and is something seperate to logic. It doesnt require logic, it doesnt require reason it simply requires a person to hold it.

Sort of, but not quite. Faith requires a concept, and a concept is based in language. For a concept to be meaningful, it must abide by certain logical rules in language, which means, a statement about a concept that can only be held in "faith" as being "true" must conform to some amount of logic- it must "make sense" even though it isn't true. For example, the statement "God created the universe" is a sound statement with a proper anatomy. However, this doesn't mean that the statement is true. So in this case the object of faith- that "God created the universe"- is meaningful because it has a logical structure in language.

The point is that the faith is not justified, that is, the concepts contained in the statement cannot be verified through behavior. The only thing that has ever happened when people communicate such a concept in language is just that.....people uttering the sounds from their eating holes. There was no prior experience of the object of the concept before it was uttered, and therefore it is nothing more than hot air.

Justified faith is believing something to be true which has been true before.

"I have faith that the car is parked outside" is a statement based on faith, but faith in a normative experience. When people communicate such a concept in language they are expressing something meaningful...not just hot air.

Even metaphors can be meaningful without verifying real objects, such as "I love you." That statement is meaningful because it has a history of demonstrable behavior during the expression of the term. But "God", no, never, it means absolutely nothing, it is a completely empty term.

[Dean]

Oh -Aha ! I have seen the light !! Lucky me ! :lol:

BTW: Your "simplistic pseudo-psychological dichotomy" interpretation
sounds pretty elitist to me....


But then again - you have shown me the light - :lol:: Faith without
evidence and reason can be called logical...

Nice, real nice !

BTW: Your post has offended me, sir.

Right, so you distinguish between yourself and the "unwashed masses" by recognition of "logical thought patterns" and I'm the elitist for calling you out on it??

[Grunt]

Right, so you distinguish between yourself and the "unwashed masses" by recognition of "logical thought patterns" and I'm the elitist for calling you out on it??
I won't even respond to this silly attempt to wind me up.

Dream on.

[Demogorgon]

I am no fan of blind faith, but more sophisticated forms of faith are compatible with logic, indeed they require it.

There are certain rules to logic. One must reason in a certain way avoiding all fallacies in order to have a logically valid argument. I have seen religious people follow the rules, therefore it must be concluded that faith and logic are compatible.

On the other hand, some of the comments you get about religion here, do not even slightly follow the rules of logic. Most of the anti-theists here are not logical no matter how much they like to flatter themselves that they are. They are the last people I want lecturing others on what is logical and what isn't.

[Dean]

I won't even respond to this silly attempt to wind me up.

Dream on.

Interesting how all the comrades who agree that faith is more than just the lack of cognition have written longer, thoughtful posts about what they think. Whereas you have given no basis anywhere for your statements besides semantic assumption and logical inevitability.

Why don't you read my or Pusher Robot's first post in this thread if you would like to see a more rational approach? Or is it your modus operandi to post vitriol?

[Grunt]

Interesting how all the comrades who agree that faith is more than just the lack of cognition have written longer, thoughtful posts about what they think. Whereas you have given no basis anywhere for your statements besides semantic assumption and logical inevitability.
You think so ? Interesting. Obviously you missed some of my posts.



...see a more rational approach?
A more rational approach to what ? Faith ? :lol:



Or is it your modus operandi to post vitriol?
If need be, yes !

[Demogorgon]

To give a good and proper answer, I will explore the issue in more detail here. All of this I have argued before, but not necessarily in the same place. For most religious people, faith is not really an intellectual thing, but rather something they use to connect them with religion. People are religious for various social reasons and as most religions place an emphasis on faith, followers adopt that faith, often not letting it run very deep. I think people have a good ability to compartmentalise their various beliefs with religion tending to stand apart from the rest. For instance a lot, probably the vast majority, of religious people do not have a particularly deep understanding of their religion and hold a very simplistic version of it. However this belief does not affect any other part of their thought process so they can be as logical as you like in all other respects. All sorts of very intelligent people, particularly in the hard sciences will have unsophisticated religious beliefs but still be brilliantly logical. The reason for this is that they simply don't think about religion very much and don't apply it to anything else. It is their because they like it, not because it is a big part of their life.

You also get people however who have a very deep understanding of their religion and whose faith often goes much deeper than those of most people who are very logical indeed. You can see this most clearly with religious philosophers who come up with simply fantastic arguments for the existence of God that can take vast amounts of time to try and find the flaws in. To claim that they are not logical people would frankly make you ridiculous.

On one final note, anti-theists like to attack strawmen rather than mainstream religion, largely loony fundamentalism. That isn't logical in any way, but is not representative of normal religion. For what it is worth, it is an example of deliberate lack of logic, a common feature of Right Wing Authoritarianism. Basically it is not an example of deep faith at all, but rather very thin faith that the believer simply does not allow to be challenged. What I mean by this is that their faith will be empty as they have no understanding of what they believe in and have never considered counter-arguments. They effectively engage in what Orwell called thinkstop to prevent any doubts from entering their minds. Mind you that kind of behaviour is not restricted to religion by any means, it is probably even more common when it comes to political ideologies. You see it here sometimes, both amongst restricted members and regular members. Nonetheless it is, as I say, not terribly relevant to this thread because that kind of religious belief does not apply to most religion. The first two categories I described are the ones that matter.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

For most religious people, faith is not really an intellectual thing, but rather something they use to connect them with religion.


What actually is faith, then, if not an intellectual thing? Is it emotional, or what? Either way, the point is, the word 'faith' is always chucked at us by the religious as a kind desperate last ditch qualifier for their religion; there is no justification for this.



I think people have a good ability to compartmentalise their various beliefs with religion tending to stand apart from the rest


Yep. To quote Sam Harris:

Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.


For instance a lot, probably the vast majority, of religious people do not have a particularly deep understanding of their religion and hold a very simplistic version of it.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?


You can see this most clearly with religious philosophers who come up with simply fantastic arguments for the existence of God that can take vast amounts of time to try and find the flaws in. To claim that they are not logical people would frankly make you ridiculous.

Who? Who are these brilliant apologists? Aquinas? Augustine? Aristotle? Kierkegaard? Leibniz? I have never encountered an apologist that a smart 12 year old couldn't refute given about half an hour.



On one final note, anti-theists like to attack strawmen rather than mainstream religion, largely loony fundamentalism.


Yawn, same old same old. You seem to like bashing us almost as much as you like excusing religion at every turn. Are we worse, in your mind?

-Alex

[Demogorgon]

Are we worse, in your mind?

Yes.

Anti-theism and religion are more or less philosophically identical in that they are both based on idealism and both are based on very suspect claims and require faith, albeit of different sorts.

Which is worse comes down to its effects on society. Mainstream religion does not seek to have too significant an impact on human freedom so it doesn't bother me too much. Anti-theism wants to significantly restrict the same, so it is worse in my mind.

[Killfacer]

i was simply attempting to point out that beleif in god doesnt require logic, in fairness to dean i did manage to sound like a twat whilst saying it. On the other hand i fail to see why it offended you, wasnt exactly a personel assault on your integrity. I can fully admit that logical people can have faith, yet i dont beleive that faith needs logic.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Anti-theism and religion are more or less philosophically identical in that they are both based on idealism and both are based on very suspect claims and require faith, albeit of different sorts.


What faith do we require?



Mainstream religion does not seek to have too significant an impact on human freedom so it doesn't bother me too much. Anti-theism wants to significantly restrict the same, so it is worse in my mind.


What in anti-theism runs counter to human freedom?

-Alex

[Demogorgon]

What faith do we require?

A faith in the power of ideas for one thing.


What in anti-theism runs counter to human freedom?

The desire to restrict both freedom of association and freedom of expression.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

A faith in the power of ideas for one thing.

I don't have 'faith' in the power of religion. No anti-theists, I wager, decide to just trust our ideas in the face of counter-evidence, which is what faith is.

You must at least grant that we try to properly account for our ideas. Religious faith is quite different from this - it is precisely the decision to stop bothering to be fully logical, and the decision, ultimately, to believe irrespective of logical argument.


The desire to restrict both freedom of association and freedom of expression.

We don't want to restrict those things. We simply think that religion should have no place in the public sphere - same as we wouldn't let fascists book the town hall.

-Alex

[Demogorgon]

I don't have 'faith' in the power of religion. No anti-theists, I wager, decide to just trust our ideas in the face of counter-evidence, which is what faith is.

You must at least grant that we try to properly account for our ideas. Religious faith is quite different from this - it is precisely the decision to stop bothering to be fully logical, and the decision, ultimately, to believe irrespective of logical argument.

And this is exactly what I am talking about. You simply ignore the better arguments for religion in favour of attacking strawmen. I can guarantee that against the best religious thinkers you would have no chance at all in debate. You will find too that they don't simply rely on faith either


We don't want to restrict those things. We simply think that religion should have no place in the public sphere - same as we wouldn't let fascists book the town hall.

-Alex

You don't want to restrict it, you simply want to restrict it?

[Kronos]

I could understand the ingenuity of a system of existence that was engineered so that it evolved into intelligent life, at which point it could experience the conflict between "knowledge" and "faith", and also the reason why the system would have been designed that way.

We could not conclude that God created a world that operated with the conflict of "knowledge" and "faith" simply for kicks, or because he didn't have the power to do it any other way, because either of those would be absurd.

"Faith" would have to have a mechanical function, and there would be no transcendence involved in existence. There would be one substance, in Spinoza's sense, and the extension (which is just one of the infinite possible attributes) of mind would exist as the material would.

"Faith" would be a radical irrational conceptual process...but by being so it would expand and empower the extension of mind. It would have absolutely no affect on the material (meaning and language does not "cause" empirical effects), but would morph out from the material reality causing an affect like the "zooming out" of a scope- by making ideas less and less adequate, insofar as they are about things that can only be known....rather than simply hoped or believed to be real. In other words, because the ideas are so radical and so likely to be untrue, they distort the sense of the real reality such that while the material proceeds through its causal relationships with itself, it produces less and less accuracy in the interpretation of itself, but also distances itself from material causality and enhances the idea....it immortalizes it in the logos. It secures the immortal soul in language, and if we proclaim as a linguist once declared -"there is nothing outside of text!"- we would indeed see ourselves as a kind of dual edged meme substance.

To be is to be perceived. (Berkeley)
The mind is not mortal, but something of it remains. (Spinoza)
The limits of your language are the limits of your life. (Wittgenstein)

Do you know what this means, people?

Can you think of something without picturing it in your head? Are you not watching yourself produce words, when you think to yourself, in your head?

What is the only thing you can say exists without your thinking about it?

Physical sensation....but even here the acknowledging of it must be through the medium of thinking about it...or it literally doesn't exist. If I numb a portion of my body and touch it, but cannot feel it, the physical sensation doesn't happen. Sure, my body might interpret the stimulus and an "internal" effect might occur, but I have no knowledge of it, and am technically disembodied from it.

Okay, that's absurd. Scratch that.

[Dean]

I could understand the ingenuity of a system of existence that was engineered so that it evolved into intelligent life, at which point it could experience the conflict between "knowledge" and "faith", and also the reason why the system would have been designed that way.

Seems to me like you're talking about the distinct, conscious existence we experience versus the subconscious, less direct experience in which we act and think without logical arguments in our conscious mind for the actions / thoughts.

But that's a TOTALLY different argument. Certainly one worth exploring, but I think that you may be on to something. Maybe this is why people think of faith as nonsensical cognitions - we all have them, and to dismiss our less-controlled thoughts as "faith" is a good way of disassociating ourselves from the creative process, and to demean those who actively justify their beliefs as "uncontrolled."

But faith is something totally different, and I find it amazing that so - called anti-theists have ignored all the realistic definitions of the term in the stead of the dogmatic, christian sense. Faith means trust, as in an idea, which we all have. Dictionaries use this definition as a primary. SEcondary definitions refer to generalization of the term (trust that someone will fulfill a contract) to specifically religious senses. But they all stem from the same meaning, that is some form of trust in an idea, activity or person.



faith http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/F00/F0019200) Audio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html) /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
[Origin: 1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidés trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=confide)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

(also it seems like the latin root is in agreeance with my concept)

So for all those who say that faith is a narrow concept purely held by the religious: HAH!

[Killfacer]

are you not just arguing semantics there? People were clearly using faith in a different context to the one you suggested.

[pusher robot]

are you not just arguing semantics there? People were clearly using faith in a different context to the one you suggested.

It helps to be precise in stating one's propositions. Sloppy writing results in sloppy thinking (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm). Perhaps the original resolution would have been better stated, "are religious faith and logic mutual exclusives?"

[Dean]

It helps to be precise in stating one's propositions. Sloppy writing results in sloppy thinking (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm). Perhaps the original resolution would have been better stated, "are religious faith and logic mutual exclusives?"

Exactly. However, the term has been used in a very imamture way on this board, namely as a platform to attack religion.

Firstly, from the standpoint you bring up I would question the validity of the term at all. If it only has meaning in a mystical sense, which is completely without any distinct meaning outside of apologism, I would find any discussion on it useless.

Secondly, isn't the thesis based in sematics? If I say "are capitalists and proletarians mutually exlusive classes" doesn't my meaning have a direct consequence on the result? It is basically semantic, too: If a capitalist is an owner of the means, of course it is exclusive. If, howeve,r we refer to the ideological capitalists, then they are not exclusive. But the question relies primarily on semantics.

[Killfacer]

yes but im pretty sure that you knew what people were refering to, but in your what can only be called arrogance, you feigned stupidity in order to tell someone else they were wrong. Sloppy reading leads to sloppy resonses.

Apart from that i agree with you.

[Dean]

yes but im pretty sure that you knew what people were refering to, but in your what can only be called arrogance, you feigned stupidity in order to tell someone else they were wrong. Sloppy reading leads to sloppy resonses.

Apart from that i agree with you.

No, I legitimately believed that, and I think this is pretty common, people were referring to the method by which we choose to believe something based on limited knowledge and a heightened degree of trust, due to necessity or simple inference. If it were a "trap" it wouldn't be worth arguing for pages and getting frustrated when people fail to understand the more basic premises behind what I'm saying:

Firstly, from the standpoint you bring up I would question the validity of the term at all. If it only has meaning in a mystical sense, which is completely without any distinct meaning outside of apologism, I would find any discussion on it useless.

[Killfacer]

well clearly you didnt beleive that as it did exactly take you long to cotton on to the fact- "Exactly. However, the term has been used in a very imamture way on this board, namely as a platform to attack religion."

Either your playing dum or you are dum.

[Dean]

well clearly you didnt beleive that as it did exactly take you long to cotton on to the fact- "Exactly. However, the term has been used in a very imamture way on this board, namely as a platform to attack religion."

Either your playing dum or you are dum.

I'm tired of making thoughtful posts and pricks liek you think you're being clever by telling me that the sum of my own statements is that I'm dumb.

Well, I'm done with this trash.

[Killfacer]

im not attempting to say the sum of your posts are dum. As i said above, i agree with nearly everything your saying, but i find it hard to beleive that you didnt understand the context in which people were using the word "faith".

[Dean]

im not attempting to say the sum of your posts are dum. As i said above, i agree with nearly everything your saying, but i find it hard to beleive that you didnt understand the context in which people were using the word "faith".

I didn't and I still don't. Can you give a concise meanign for what they meant? Did you knwo what was meant?

As I pointed out, any meaning which is purely religious is either completely vacant or we simply haven't gone over it yet. But the OP and most posters seem to be sayign that a person who uses faith is wholly ignorant and illogical. What does that even mean, besides some simple elitist trash? If that's all it is, why am I being dense for pointing out A. that the only rational meaning of the term is hardly anti-logic and B. that they don't seem to have a coherent meaning at all?

[Kronos]

Seems to me like you're talking about the distinct, conscious existence we experience versus the subconscious, less direct experience in which we act and think without logical arguments in our conscious mind for the actions / thoughts.

I was really trying to think like God for a moment. I was trying to find a way to justify the absurdity of the conflict between knowledge and faith- I want to know why God would do it this way and what function the "faith" would have. At any rate, there would have to be a reason why God chose to "remain hidden" and introduce the necessity of "faith" in human reasoning. It is as if he were asking the individual to do the most absurd- ignore what he knows and has experienced, and instead contrive ideas in the mind. He would have had to make it so nobody could ever have direct knowledge of God. Why would he do that? I'm saying if God existed. Whatever the reason, the nature of "faith"- just simply believing something very strongly without requiring experience- would be an awkward and seemingly ill equipped characteristic of human reason.

God, if he existed, would have to know that we know that he knows this is absurd.

Of everything else in the world, we must be sure of. There is no room for "faith" in calculating the re-entry speed of a space shuttle. But of things even more important, like our religious and philosophical views, we have "faith" with the least amount of effort and not the slightest bit of concern for its accuracy.

That nonsense aside, I should tell you in advance that I do not believe there is such a thing as a "sub-consciousness". I do not follow Freud in that theory and am more inclined toward Sartre's critiques of the "ego" and its nature, as Freud portrayed it.

Firstly there is nothing to signify the reality of the subconsciousness- it is addressed as a cognitive force that is compulsory and involuntary, yet it is given the same linguistic context as when it is talked about in language. People refer to emotive responses in human behavior as being the result of a subconscious desire or directive. This is impossible. One cannot attribute a sense of anger, for instance, to a subconscious motive or intention. Only in consciousness can we make our acts meaningful...and that meaning is generated through intentional acts.

The subconsciousness is only a metaphor of forces that psychologists use when they cannot address the real cause of an intentional act. Of course this is determined by the degree to which the analyst is convinced by the subject's dialog- the explanation for an obsessive behavior, for example, is reasonable if and only if the subject elaborates well enough about it in discourse. What this proves, rather than the origins or explanations for the obsessive behavior, is that the behavior and self-awareness of the subject is intentional; they are not acting involuntarily. There could never be a case of the behavior being justified as abnormal unless the subject unintentionally commits such behavior.

So a subconsciousness is not only a metaphysical construct, but a meaningless entity and/or agent in human reality...even it it were real.

Freud's thinking was thoroughly influenced by Schopenhauer and Kant, and Nietzsche. Much of his psychoanalytical theory is based around Kantian representationalism and a noumenal 'a prior' source of empirical facts. The "will", like the world, had to consist of both evident effects and noumenal effects. They supposed that the will at the surface was "consciousness", while the drives were composed of noumenal instincts. This is what he is describing with the "id" and other subdivisions he invents- the "ego" and "super-ego".


But faith is something totally different, and I find it amazing that so - called anti-theists have ignored all the realistic definitions of the term in the stead of the dogmatic, christian sense. Faith means trust, as in an idea, which we all have.

Yeah it is "justified faith" that is ordinary and usable in any event. But the nature of the term as religious people use it is devoid and does not indicate anything at all. To them, it means "saying that I think what I haven't thought much about is true."

Somebody recently quoted Sam Harris (was it?)...where he said something like (not verbatim):

a religious person will require just as much proof as anyone else that their spouse is cheating on them, or that yogurt gives you super powers....but they will require no faith at all to believe God exists.

Anyway ignore those prior drills in Hegelian metaphysics. I was trying to pioneer new possibilities for the absolute spirit by proposing that the logos in the mode of faith actually changes the state of reality....only much, much, much later....perhaps even in another dimension, I dunno.

[Dean]

I was really trying to think like God for a moment. I was trying to find a way to justify the absurdity of the conflict between knowledge and faith- I want to know why God would do it this way and what function the "faith" would have. At any rate, there would have to be a reason why God chose to "remain hidden" and introduce the necessity of "faith" in human reasoning. It is as if he were asking the individual to do the most absurd- ignore what he knows and has experienced, and instead contrive ideas in the mind. He would have had to make it so nobody could ever have direct knowledge of God. Why would he do that? I'm saying if God existed. Whatever the reason, the nature of "faith"- just simply believing something very strongly without requiring experience- would be an awkward and seemingly ill equipped characteristic of human reason.

God, if he existed, would have to know that we know that he knows this is absurd.

Of everything else in the world, we must be sure of. There is no room for "faith" in calculating the re-entry speed of a space shuttle. But of things even more important, like our religious and philosophical views, we have "faith" with the least amount of effort and not the slightest bit of concern for its accuracy.

That nonsense aside, I should tell you in advance that I do not believe there is such a thing as a "sub-consciousness". I do not follow Freud in that theory and am more inclined toward Sartre's critiques of the "ego" and its nature, as Freud portrayed it.

Firstly there is nothing to signify the reality of the subconsciousness- it is addressed as a cognitive force that is compulsory and involuntary, yet it is given the same linguistic context as when it is talked about in language. People refer to emotive responses in human behavior as being the result of a subconscious desire or directive. This is impossible. One cannot attribute a sense of anger, for instance, to a subconscious motive or intention. Only in consciousness can we make our acts meaningful...and that meaning is generated through intentional acts.

The subconsciousness is only a metaphor of forces that psychologists use when they cannot address the real cause of an intentional act. Of course this is determined by the degree to which the analyst is convinced by the subject's dialog- the explanation for an obsessive behavior, for example, is reasonable if and only if the subject elaborates well enough about it in discourse. What this proves, rather than the origins or explanations for the obsessive behavior, is that the behavior and self-awareness of the subject is intentional; they are not acting involuntarily. There could never be a case of the behavior being justified as abnormal unless the subject unintentionally commits such behavior.

So a subconsciousness is not only a metaphysical construct, but a meaningless entity and/or agent in human reality...even it it were real.

Freud's thinking was thoroughly influenced by Schopenhauer and Kant, and Nietzsche. Much of his psychoanalytical theory is based around Kantian representationalism and a noumenal 'a prior' source of empirical facts. The "will", like the world, had to consist of both evident effects and noumenal effects. They supposed that the will at the surface was "consciousness", while the drives were composed of noumenal instincts. This is what he is describing with the "id" and other subdivisions he invents- the "ego" and "super-ego".

You're attacking a very orthodox freudian position which is not only misrepresented, but very unpopular these days.

First off, nobody claims that there exists some region of the brain that is "subconscious." There are no lines drawn. Things which are unconscious are, basically, things that you aren't thinking about at the time but you have in your memory, directly accessible or not.

Your immediate response to any situation betrays your unconscious compulsions. All people have a myriad of mental activity which goes about before they have any distinct and coherent thoughts. This is why people respond quickly with anger &c.

I really don't understand people who argue against the concept of the unconscious. Are you saying that we don't have thoughts that we cannot aquire directly? Are you saying everything I know is conprised of my present thoughts? I suspect that you are arguing against something which is not applicable to the theories present in psychoanalysis in the first place.