How do you explain faith in logic?

[billcu1]

Can faith be explained in logic? God is so because the Bible says so sounds to me like circular reasoning. What about “begging the question”? Faith needs no proof. But reason does. The church says. “Faith and logic go hand in hand”. What’s that mean?

 

[HelenRose]

How can you use logic to explain why the Brandenburg Concerto will move one person to tears and another person to yawns?

Music is logic and mathematics yet, that means nothing to a person who doesn’t experience the soul of music.

Faith is the music of minds and souls.

 

[HelenRose]

How can you explain the existence of logic? If there is no creator there is only chaos and blind chance. If there is only chaos and blind chance there can be no logic. If there is only blind chance there is no need for logic.

 

[billcu1]

How can you explain the existence of logic? If there is no creator there is only chaos and blind chance. If there is only chaos and blind chance there can be no logic. If there is only blind chance there is no need for logic.

Good point. I am thinking there’s different meanings to faith. The two words somethingness and nothingness are opposites. Chaos as you say and God and creation (something). But they have something in common. They both have “thingness”. As I said the Church says the two go hand in hand.

A single harmony would go on and on and bore someone too. They would lose interest. Constant “goodness” with nothing to “change” anything. Even for the better. So dissonance is allowed. Evil. For the betterment of all.

 

[petra22]

How can you explain the existence of logic? If there is no creator there is only chaos and blind chance. If there is only chaos and blind chance there can be no logic. If there is only blind chance there is no need for logic.

Great conversation… I really liked this answer…

 

[davidv]

Can faith be explained in logic? God is so because the Bible says so sounds to me like circular reasoning. What about “begging the question”? Faith needs no proof. But reason does. The church says. “Faith and logic go hand in hand”. What’s that mean?

JPII in Fides et Ratio:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

 

[Rhubarb]

How can you explain the existence of logic? If there is no creator there is only chaos and blind chance. If there is only chaos and blind chance there can be no logic. If there is only blind chance there is no need for logic.

Logic is a language. We stipulate the rules of logic. It arises out of formalizing sentences in our natural languages - and showing what follows if given certain sentences.

That being said, if you can explain faith in English (or any other natural language), then you can translate it into logic.

 

[minion]

Logic is a language. We stipulate the rules of logic. It arises out of formalizing sentences in our natural languages - and showing what follows if given certain sentences.

That being said, if you can explain faith in English (or any other natural language), then you can translate it into logic.

isn’t this self-contradictory? If we stipulate the rules of logic, why obey its rules, along with any meaning it denotes? Along with the very sentence “we stipulate the rules of logic?”

 

[Rhubarb]

isn’t this self-contradictory? If we stipulate the rules of logic, why obey its rules, along with any meaning it denotes? Along with the very sentence “we stipulate the rules of logic?”

Logic is about assigning meaning beforehand. To utilize logic, you lay out exactly what everything means and then use logic to examine the structure of sentences and arguments.

When you see an argument in logic, like…

A->B
A​

B

We can’t really do much of anything with it until we assign meanings to A and B. The connective in the first line, implication, is stipulated to make a sentence false if and only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. We’ve found that in our language of English, this maps fairly well into the ‘if-than’ statement.

The point of logic is to analyze sentences in a highly controlled manner, to limit ambiguity, and to look at relationships between concepts.

 

[petra22]

Logic is a language. We stipulate the rules of logic. It arises out of formalizing sentences in our natural languages - and showing what follows if given certain sentences.

That being said, if you can explain faith in English (or any other natural language), then you can translate it into logic.

this makes sense to me–logically…

 

[billcu1]

Logic is about assigning meaning beforehand. To utilize logic, you lay out exactly what everything means and then use logic to examine the structure of sentences and arguments.

When you see an argument in logic, like…

A->B
A​

B

We can’t really do much of anything with it until we assign meanings to A and B. The connective in the first line, implication, is stipulated to make a sentence false if and only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. We’ve found that in our language of English, this maps fairly well into the ‘if-than’ statement.

The point of logic is to analyze sentences in a highly controlled manner, to limit ambiguity, and to look at relationships between concepts.

But things are only as true as your postulates.

 

[billcu1]

davidv:
Oh Ok I see. That’s what I was looking for. Post #6

 

[HelenRose]

I am a real novice when it come to logic. My family and friends laugh at the thought of my being logical … but… I still try.

Before there can be is discussion at all, isn’t there a basic logic rule that states we need to start at a common agreement.

What common agreement can an atheist and a Catholic begin with?

Can we even begin to start with the idea that reality exists?

Can we agree that truth exists?

If we can’t even do that, a discussion about faith just becomes a word play.

 

[HelenRose]

I have tried to talk with someone who says something on the order of, “That is your truth. This is my truth.”

The conversation ends right there because if there is no such thing as truth, there is no reason to search for it.

 

[Rhubarb]

I am a real novice when it come to logic. My family and friends laugh at the thought of my being logical … but… I still try.

Before there can be is discussion at all, isn’t there a basic logic rule that states we need to start at a common agreement.

What common agreement can an atheist and a Catholic begin with?

Can we even begin to start with the idea that reality exists?

Can we agree that truth exists?

If we can’t even do that, a discussion about faith just becomes a word play.

To begin analyzing sentences, we need to start with premises. These are the common ground. They are also called assumptions. For instance…

1. If it’s raining, then the sidewalk will get wet.
2. It is raining.

---

C. The sidewalk is wet.

The conclusion of this simple argument is true just in case the stated premises 1 and 2 are true. Conclusions in logic always follow from stated premises. That’s why apologists try to find common ground to start with the show that a person’s beliefs lead to contradictions.

 

[Rhubarb]

But things are only as true as your postulates.

That’s right. A conclusion is guaranteed to be true in the same sense that the premises are true only when the premises are true and the argument is valid.

Validity involves the structure of the argument, which again, is stipulated through how we define connectives, like conjunction or disjunction. Or… I guess functions too. I’d have to think about that.

 

[billcu1]

I am a real novice when it come to logic. My family and friends laugh at the thought of my being logical … but… I still try.

Before there can be is discussion at all, isn’t there a basic logic rule that states we need to start at a common agreement.

What common agreement can an atheist and a Catholic begin with?

Can we even begin to start with the idea that reality exists?

Can we agree that truth exists?

If we can’t even do that, a discussion about faith just becomes a word play.

Indeed you are right. But I have heard from people who say they are atheists or Catholics say they’re atheists and from what I hear they don’t sound like atheists to me but they think they are. God is the most abstract and incomprehensible thing there is, and the most personal and close thing you can ever know.

 

[Rhubarb]

Wait. I think I misread the title. Are you wanting to explain faith using logic, or faith in a system of logic?

 

[billcu1]

Wait. I think I misread the title. Are you wanting to explain faith using logic, or faith in a system of logic?

lol Faith using Logic. Yes.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I have tried to talk with someone who says something on the order of, “That is your truth. This is my truth.”

The conversation ends right there because if there is no such thing as truth, there is no reason to search for it.

I’d ask him if it is true that “That is your truth. This is my truth.”