R
Rhubarb
Guest
Okay. Then I stick my by original responses. Logic is just a formal language that lets you control the syntax and semantics in a precise way.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Faith always precedes logic as a mental process.
Some things cannot be proven. Mathematical axioms, for example, are taken as true without requiring proof. We can have the same faith in God, because for those of us who do, the existence of God seems to us self evident and does not even require proof. Indeed, every proof for God suffers from the fact that it has to be reasoned through, and nobody has to accept any of the reasons because they are not self evident even though they are immensely plausible.
The atheist has a different kind of faith. His faith is in the axiom that nothing is knowable that is not grounded in physical reality. And since God is not grounded in physical reality, God is not knowable and in all probability does not exist. The problem with this fundamentalist axiom of scientism is that it is not provable either. That is, you cannot prove there is no reality in existence beyond that which could be discovered using the scientific method.
Some things cannot be proven. Mathematical axioms, for example, are taken as true without requiring proof. We can have the same faith in God, because for those of us who do, the existence of God seems to us self evident and does not even require proof. Indeed, every proof for God suffers from the fact that it has to be reasoned through, and nobody has to accept any of the reasons because they are not self evident even though they are immensely plausible.
The atheist has a different kind of faith. His faith is in the axiom that nothing is knowable that is not grounded in physical reality. And since God is not grounded in physical reality, God is not knowable and in all probability does not exist. The problem with this fundamentalist axiom of scientism is that it is not provable either. That is, you cannot prove there is no reality in existence beyond that which could be discovered using the scientific method.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Logic is a tool to find truth, to discern it, and True Faith is the Revealed Truth, God is the Author of both, to approach the truth by right logical reasoning, and to believe in the revealed Truth. Logic and proper reasoning show that Faith is reasonable, and should never be in conflict because they both proceed from God. True Faith is a supernatural gift and is not the result of reason or logic, but it should never conflict with it. By the use of proper logic it can be reasoned that God exists, but it is Faith that identified Him. God is the source of all truth, rational and revealed.
B
billcu1
Guest
Very good answer. Where exactly did you find this? I am thinking it was JP2 that said “Faith and Reason go hand in hand” The church teaches this though.
B
billcu1
Guest
So are you linking the philosophy of “Science” defined philosophically by “scientific method” as something needed to be an atheist? Before Science, were there atheists?
Bill
Y
ynotzap
Guest
St. Thomas Acquinas synthesized Faith with reason, to show faith is reasonable, like a glove and hand, or that reason is a pre-amble to faith. St. Paul to the Romans (Rom 1:20) states that “Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made” This is truth in Revelation.
St. Thomas Acquinas by the cosmological argument by the use of apostori argument (from effect to cause) provided five classical ways to argue, there are more, motion, order, grades of beings, necessity, and origin to prove God’s existence by reason. The Church uses scholastic metaphysics in some of her teachings eg. the Transubstantiation. The science of Being as Being is contained in the study of metaphysics, Logic is another study. This is truth in reasoning based what is observed in the material universe, objective reality. God is the source of all truth.
B
billcu1
Guest
Sounds like metaphysics, mysticism, and so on. Do you agree then with what was said up thread concerning “God is not grounded in the physical”? I’m not exactly sure what was meant there.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
God could not be “grounded” in the physical, He is it’s Creator. The physical can be used to approach the existence of God, but a science that is based on material reality alone, such as we find in "empirical " science is earth bound and will never transcend to the spiritual reality, which is the reality of God who is Pure Spirit. All knowledge and rational intelligence is spiritual in nature, not material. Can empirical science define thought, soul, knowledge, explain their nature?
E
ericc
Guest
Replace “truth” with “opinion”, and that would set a more agreeable position to start with. Indeed there are some that will NOT seek truth, they are very happy with their opinion and further research will only confuse and complicate their thinking.
and create chaos with their lives/livelihood and family. Some will only retain and target those data that reinforces their current set of beliefs and discard those dissonant ones. It is tough to search for truth without some measure of impartiality. Logical thinking can help to discern those to keep and those to discard though.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
We believe in all kinds of things on faith alone every single day. We cannot prove using just logic that the pyramids in Egypt exist. People who have never seen them only believe they exist through faith in the accounts of people who claim they have. Those people could be lying. Sure, there are photos, but they could be faked. There’s no purely logical way to prove their existence the way you could prove something in math. If those of us who aren’t there are to believe, we must believe without seeing.
B
billcu1
Guest
I think there does come a point when the maths “run out”. So much is proven and then someone comes along and adds significantly to the mathematical arsenal.
L
Lucretius
Guest
What do we mean by "logic?’ St. Thomas means something very different than what Russel means, so far in fact that they are two different subjects altogether.
Language is an artifact, which means that it can facilitate insights into concepts or cloud them. In this instance, calling what Aristotle calls logic and what is often taught today creates confusion.
If we mean what Aristotle meant by logic, then it is self-evidently true. To claim that it is not reveals the ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the person making the claim. To put it another way, if we understand the “platonic form” or understand the essence of logic, then we wouldn’t dumb enough to doubt it.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
Language is an artifact, which means that it can facilitate insights into concepts or cloud them. In this instance, calling what Aristotle calls logic and what is often taught today creates confusion.
If we mean what Aristotle meant by logic, then it is self-evidently true. To claim that it is not reveals the ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the person making the claim. To put it another way, if we understand the “platonic form” or understand the essence of logic, then we wouldn’t dumb enough to doubt it.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
- Status