• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Faith vs. Logic

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
I always feel a certain pang of sympathy for those who try to logically justify / disprove matters of faith.

It makes me wonder if they've an honest consideration of either.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
It all comes down to the probable versus what's possible.

I'm big into hope, (er... sometimes), and not so big into blind faith.

;)

Probable is a dilemma of perspective. Possibility is the physical execution of the probable - in this, both are linked.

Faith is unavoidably blind - to entertain a system of belief without empirical proof is to believe without falsifiable premise.

Yet, to summarily dismiss because we lack empiricism is to miss the point of scientific enquiry altogether.


Thus, faith is not a question of logic; faith is fundamentally alogical.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
;)

Probable is a dilemma of perspective. Possibility is the physical execution of the probable - in this, both are linked.

Faith is unavoidably blind - to entertain a system of belief without empirical proof is to believe without falsifiable premise.

Yet, to summarily dismiss because we lack empiricism is to miss the point of scientific enquiry altogether.


Thus, faith is not a question of logic; faith is fundamentally alogical.
Minus this statement, "Probable is a dilemma of perspective."

Yes, you are absolutely correct, and by that I mean, I agree with you, ;).
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Minus this statement, "Probable is a dilemma of perspective."

Yes, you are absolutely correct, and by that I mean, I agree with you, ;).

Despite our difference, we find unity. Perhaps as a result of it.


Probability as a dilemma of perspective - ;)
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Yes, you are absolutely correct, and by that I mean, I agree with you, ;).

I know. It's scary to think one could disagree with Night. Well, I suppose they can, but they'd be wrong. I think...it'd be scary to think he could be wrong. I kid you not--

:horor:
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Despite our difference, we find unity. Perhaps as a result of it.


Probability as a dilemma of perspective - ;)
Oy vey, a scientifically-inclined Buddhist.

And speaking of Eastern philosophies...

Lao Tzu was the man!!!

Taoism, I can dig it.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I know. It's scary to think one could disagree with Night. Well, I suppose they can, but they'd be wrong. I think...it'd be scary to think he could be wrong. I kid you not--
Yeah, he might be relatively, or even markedly, intelligent and physically attractive to boot, but he ain't no Einstein. (no offense Night)
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Yeah, he might be relatively, or even markedly, intelligent and physically attractive to boot, but he ain't no Einstein. (no offense Night)

He's his own brilliance, same shines within you! And Einstein thought out of the box, for sure. I think Night has no box. :D

I wish my dad was like him. Sigh.

EEP!

Errr. K..CC...this is my last post..disregard the other one telling you I wouldn't be me if I did post again.

Oiii .... well, I guess it might not be me... But what the hell! I can play with that set up.

Boo. I am not Sunny DD. I am Night.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
;)

Probable is a dilemma of perspective. Possibility is the physical execution of the probable - in this, both are linked.

Faith is unavoidably blind - to entertain a system of belief without empirical proof is to believe without falsifiable premise.

Yet, to summarily dismiss because we lack empiricism is to miss the point of scientific enquiry altogether.


Thus, faith is not a question of logic; faith is fundamentally alogical.

What about the theorems of logic? They aren't falsifiable, but neither are they fundamentally alogical. What does it mean to say that one has faith in the theorems of logic?

(oi, this is The Goof, btw--I'm in disguise)
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
What about the theorems of logic? They aren't falsifiable, but neither are they fundamentally alogical. What does it mean to say that one has faith in the theorems of logic?

(oi, this is The Goof, btw--I'm in disguise)

Brilliant!

I was going to PM you on INTPc, but was confident in your eventual "migration".


One cannot have "faith" in logic, as "faith" presupposes a lack of observable (data culled from empirical observation - as is the case with (I presume) your nod towards the theorems within logic - informal (linguistics); formal and symbolic (among others - even when dealing with the purely hypothetical (i.e., propositional calculus), we still ascribe to a pattern of event - a redundant, independently-verified data structure) variables as a substitution for the standard elements found within "logical" arenas (science; mathematics; etc.)).

"Faith" in logic is an obfuscation in terminology.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Yeah, he might be relatively, or even markedly, intelligent and physically attractive to boot, but he ain't no Einstein. (no offense Night)

I must've missed this remark before.

No offense taken, CC. (I do have to update my resume now, though...)


It doesn't surprise me that our expectations in thought differ; our thinking styles seem radically different.
 

nemo

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
445
Enneagram
<3
What about the theorems of logic? They aren't falsifiable, but neither are they fundamentally alogical. What does it mean to say that one has faith in the theorems of logic?

(oi, this is The Goof, btw--I'm in disguise)

(Ok I wrote this, and realized it was one massive tangent that didn't address your question at all. But I'm going to post it anyway. That's just how I am.)

This is an extremely interesting question in my perspective.

A lot of people don't realize how arbitrarily systems of logic can be defined. Technically, you just make up rules when you move P's and Q's around and put => in between them. But what's weird is that only a few seem to be meaningful. What makes them meaningful? That's a slippery question.

But it remains that if you come up with something like 4 = 5, you can prove anything. And I do mean anything.

E.g: 4 = 5.

Taking 3 from both sides gives 1 = 2.

CC and I are two.

However, 2 = 1. CC and I are one person.

Hence I am CC!

Another: Dinosaurs exist.

I define 1 "nemo" of time to be 80 million years.

4 = 5 => 0 = 1.

The present is 0 nemos away in time. Thus, it is 1 nemo away. Dinosaurs existed 80 million years ago. Hence, dinosaurs exist now.

Just a side note, but it's fun to see what batshit insane stuff you can prove with 4 = 5! It's interesting to think about how much logical consistency is inherent in human cognition -- e.g. syntactic rules of language seem to be largely universal. I wonder if that's indicative of some innate "logical system" that is some kind of prerequisite to the mind, and how much of it would be responsible for what we're capable of precieving, and if the "logical system" was different how it'd effect our perception of the world. Or if the universe just possesses the logic itself.

Also weirder -- truth values are typically thought of as either given a 0 (false) or 1 (true) status. However, you can come up with systems of logic where there's more than just 0 and 1 truth values -- as in 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... , n.

What's fascinating to me is that some of these 0, 1, 2 logic-systems also work. They're used in quantum mechanics quite a bit, the rules of which were established empirically.

There were two articles, "Is logic empirical" by Hilary Putnam and another (same title) by M. Dummett. I suggest you look them up if you have any interest in this.

But the question remains: why does logic work so well? In some ways, I think it is a bit "empirical", and we just choose the systems of logic that don't insult our conception of reality with "4 = 5" scenarios, and the ones that don't are the ones we are used to. Maybe these are hard-wired into our brains and are part of the reason language works etc. I dunno.

Getting way the f*** off track so I'll stop.

Note: stop medicating yourself with nyquil and bourbon.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Brilliant!

I was going to PM you on INTPc, but was confident in your eventual "migration".


One cannot have "faith" in logic, as "faith" presupposes a lack of observable (data culled from empirical observation - as is the case with (I presume) your nod towards the theorems within logic - informal (linguistics); formal and symbolic (among others - even when dealing with the purely hypothetical (i.e., propositional calculus), we still ascribe to a pattern of event - a redundant, independently-verified data structure) variables as a substitution for the standard elements found within "logical" arenas (science; mathematics; etc.)).

"Faith" in logic is an obfuscation in terminology.

Are you saying that we can only have 'faith' in those entities that are incapable of entering into logical relationships?
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Are you saying that we can only have 'faith' in those entities that are incapable of entering into logical relationships?

Well-worded, my friend ;)


My premise is that it isn't possible to mix faith and logic. To have "faith" in entities that are a/logical is secondary to the approach. One could conceivably have "faith" in anything if one decides to accumulate information without redundant, testable data. One could decide that anything is likewise "logical" if one can offer empirical data to support his theme - neither system presumes truth.

Both are systems of belief that rely on variant methods of observation and evidence gathering to arrive at a conclusion. Faith deals with the intangible; logic with the empirical.

Ultimately, they exist (frictionless) as classification structures that help us understand our world.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Just a side note, but it's fun to see what batshit insane stuff you can prove with 4 = 5! It's interesting to think about how much logical consistency is inherent in human cognition -- e.g. syntactic rules of language seem to be largely universal. I wonder if that's indicative of some innate "logical system" that is some kind of prerequisite to the mind, and how much of it would be responsible for what we're capable of precieving, and if the "logical system" was different how it'd effect our perception of the world. Or if the universe just possesses the logic itself.

Also weirder -- truth values are typically thought of as either given a 0 (false) or 1 (true) status. However, you can come up with systems of logic where there's more than just 0 and 1 truth values -- as in 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... , n.

What's fascinating to me is that some of these 0, 1, 2 logic-systems also work. They're used in quantum mechanics quite a bit, the rules of which were established empirically.

There were two articles, "Is logic empirical" by Hilary Putnam and another (same title) by M. Dummett. I suggest you look them up if you have any interest in this.

But the question remains: why does logic work so well? In some ways, I think it is a bit "empirical", and we just choose the systems of logic that don't insult our conception of reality with "4 = 5" scenarios, and the ones that don't are the ones we are used to. Maybe these are hard-wired into our brains and are part of the reason language works etc. I dunno.

Getting way the f*** off track so I'll stop.

Note: stop medicating yourself with nyquil and bourbon.

Multi-valent logics assume bivalence. If anything is intelligible, then bivalence is necessary (and, thus, so is the law of excluded middle).

If the mind were incapable of making a distinction between A and non-A, then the mind could not make a distinction between being and non-being.

will expand later, (hopefully)... at work... must go...
 

Seanan

Procrastinating
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
954
MBTI Type
INTJ
Faith deals with the intangible; logic with the empirical.

The reason why, the more logical one is, the more difficult faith becomes... its not for whimps or sissies. One long before I was born said that in order to have faith, you must become as a child. That's hard on the ego... especially for those deeming themselves "intelligent." Just my experience.... I had to face my own arrogance.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Night said:
Faith deals with the intangible; logic with the empirical.
I would argue that logic deals with the intangible. Logic is the study of formal languages, transformation rules, consistency, completeness, argument, validity, etc. It does not concern the study of tangible objects in the universe, such as air, water or stones, but what does or does not follow from particular statements or propositions, irrespective of the facts. (The semantic interpretation of a set of symbols of a language need not even concern truth and falsity, for example).
 
Top