User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 104

Thread: Faith vs. Logic

  1. #21
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    I would argue that logic deals with the intangible.
    It does. If it's tangible, it's logical. Just because we've not found the logic supporting it doesn't mean it's not logical. If it exists, there's logic. If it doesn't, belief in its existence is defined as faith.
    we fukin won boys

  2. #22
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    It does. If it's tangible, it's logical. Just because we've not found the logic supporting it doesn't mean it's not logical. If it exists, there's logic. If it doesn't, belief in its existence is defined as faith.
    Sense that make does not.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #23
    Procrastinating
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Just because we've not found the logic supporting it doesn't mean it's not logical.
    Sounds like a statement of "faith."

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy
    Just because we've not found the logic supporting it doesn't mean it's not logical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seanan View Post
    Sounds like a statement of "faith."
    I wouldn't think that it's a statement of faith or that it doesn't make sense (as said by nocturne w/o arguing as to why it didn't make sense --). I see it as there's the possibility of the logic existing but it's yet to be defined/proven. Someone is or may be trying to define it because they have the existing tools to do so. Or they create the tools, if possible, to do so. They make a claim and then they research to find the proof with those tools, even if others discount their claim as impossible because they don't understand yet. They may not succeed right away. Eventually, it's found. They provide the support behind their logic/argument to others. If they've given up and no one picks up after them, it just remains an unproven possibility with little or no support behind it.

    If you want to prove 'faith', you'd have to create the tools before defining it. Which is the problem with faith, being subjective. There is no objective existing tools nor were there pre-existing ones thousands of years ago. There's just a definition unsupported by objective logic. Not a problem for those who believe and just claim 'faith' as their reasoning.. I have a problem with people who thrust it onto others and with people who refuse to be open that they may be wrong (this goes both ways, even to atheists who refuse they may be wrong too. But I'd sooner rely on them--) because they aren't trying to be objective or critical of their 'faith'. It's usually just a given-- . I'd be open to the possibility that it could be proven if there were the tools and then the steps taken to prove it... but I doubt that will be done, or in our life time.

    If I've understood Nocaps, anyway. If not, carry on, peoples. Carry on.

  5. #25
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    23 posts moved from Athesia, a place where -- ah shit, you know what I'm talking about.

  6. #26
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    I think it's true that faith and logic are at odds. It will depend to some extent on how you define "faith," but in general, faith is needed when you can't otherwise prove something. That proof doesn't have to come by way of traditional scientific method, but the scientific method is a good way to preserve reliability, accuracy (validity) and reduce error. That method is rooted in logic (or skepticism, its cousin). If you were able to prove god's existence with reliability, would there be any need for faith in god? Or if you could prove that a certain military strategy would elicit favorable results, would you need faith in that strategy?

  7. #27
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Edahn it took longer to type that than it would have been to type the real thing.

    Why is everyone trying to negate my point?

    If it's real, it makes sense. That's what logic is. Making sense of what is real. If you don't understand that...


    Wow.
    we fukin won boys

  8. #28
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    I think it's true that faith and logic are at odds. It will depend to some extent on how you define "faith," but in general, faith is needed when you can't otherwise prove something. That proof doesn't have to come by way of traditional scientific method, but the scientific method is a good way to preserve reliability, accuracy (validity) and reduce error. That method is rooted in logic (or skepticism, its cousin). If you were able to prove god's existence with reliability, would there be any need for faith in god? Or if you could prove that a certain military strategy would elicit favorable results, would you need proof in that strategy?
    If it's proven, faith can't enter the scenario.

    And don't anyone try the "well you have faith in logic" crap. That's not faith.
    we fukin won boys

  9. #29
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    As far as I can tell, faith is inseparable from logic and vice versa. I've always felt that faith is just the confidence people put in something being true. People have to have some confidence in something in this world being true or they would go insane. People have to put faith in logic, which is simply the ability to reason from perceptions. But since people's perceptions can be wrong, people's logic can be wrong. Thankfully science and other systems of methodology correct for a lot of the error in human perceptions, but it is still possible to derive incorrect knowledge. Therefore people accept the knowledge derived from science and logic, on faith. Faith on the other hand, is derived from logic. People reasoned at one point there is a God, and since no one has been able to prove it isn't true, people can continue to accept that original logic on faith. To me, they just seem like two sides to the same coin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  10. #30
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    As far as I can tell, faith is inseparable from logic and vice versa. I've always felt that faith is just the confidence people put in something being true.
    This is what I was thinking. I was going to respond by saying that there is more than one definition of "faith." Night's definition of faith supports his theory, but it doesn't mean there aren't other definitions. Another valid definition of faith is simply confidence that something is true or reliable, in which case it's quite possible to have faith in anything, even logic. There are definitions of faith that have nothing to do with why or how it emerges.

    But I liked Nemo's post a lot because, for one thing, it illustrated the likelihood that every person's brain follows a universal pattern of logic (excepting people who have mental illnesses). People's minds do follow a universal pattern of logic, I think. I don't think a person can come to a conclusion that doesn't use the process of logic and deductive reasoning, as Nemo illustrated in his post.

    The way I see it, even feelings are logical, because all feelings arise from perception. In that sense, I suppose thought comes first, and then feeling. For example, if you are feeling pain in a certain situation, for example when your lover doesn't call you for a few days, it may be a reality check that says you need to reassess your perception of the situation. Perhaps what caused your initial pain is the belief that, just for example, going more than a day without calling you means s/he's losing interest. You could have innumerable reasons for believing this, past experiences, books you've read, stories you've heard. Depending on your perception, you can come to almost any conclusion, accurate or innacurate. I like Nocturne's definition of logic: "[Logic concerns] what does or does not follow from particular statements or propositions."

    If all beliefs arise through logic, then by Night's definition of faith, faith does not exist. Everything we have faith in, we arrive at through a process of logical reasoning and deduction.

    Nemo's post illustrated it beautifully. Anything can be true to a person if they can reason their way to that conclusion, even 4=5. The logic may have holes in it, it may be inaccurate, it may be based on false perceptions or false axioms, but it's still logic; maybe not the scientific process, but logic nonetheless. Even 4=5 can be true with the right logic. No person with a normal brain would think 4 equals 5 without having a reason for it, and as Nemo depicted there are infinite ways to reason one's way to that conclusion, all of which can be true.

    Thankfully science and other systems of methodology correct for a lot of the error in human perceptions, but it is still possible to derive incorrect knowledge.
    I think that's a good point.

    I see it as there's the possibility of the logic existing but it's yet to be defined/proven.
    Kind of like there's a possibility that god could exist but it's yet to be proven?
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] xNTP vs. xNTJ In Logic and Debate
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 09:33 PM
  2. Zizek on Lacan - Masculine vs Feminine Logic
    By Il Morto Che Parla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-01-2012, 08:46 PM
  3. Empiricism vs. Logic
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 02:22 AM
  4. MBTI Faith and the Ideal vs the Real
    By Kalach in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 08:35 PM
  5. Faith vs Faithfulness
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 07:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO