Is Faith logical?

[LaramieHirsch]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I guess this topic should be in the Philosophy forum ^___^

But going to the topic, my experience is that faith is crucial for logic. Logic is valid reasoning, and reasoning means dealing with valid premises. Now some premises cannot be proven for the mere fact that they are unprovable but must be accepted as reasonably true, or reasoning cannot even start. Can you prove that you will be alive tomorrow? No, but it can be reasonably assumed that you will be alive tomorrow so you can start planning using logic for tomorrow’s activities.

Faith is such a set of reasonably true premises, for the mere fact that if you start reasoning from the premises of faith, reasonable deductions, inductions, and arguments can be made from them. It is from faith that the Catholic Church built such doctrines as the goodness, the sanctity of human life and the dignity of man.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

Atheism, itself, has no logical arguments for its validity. It can only pick out perceived inconsistencies in theism. I would refer you to any of William Lane Craig’s countless debates with atheists in which he consistently proves that atheists cannot present any arguments for their own philosophy, whereas theism can. In fact, he demonstrates that most atheists’ arguments are emotional, not logical, whereas most arguments for theism are logical and not emotional. The exact opposite of the stereotype that is pushed.

Atheists do not have a monopoly on logic, though they’d like to think so. Their logic extends no further than ours. They simply refuse to extend logic beyond the scientifically verifiable. Thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas on down to folks like Craig and Peter Kreeft have shown beyond a doubt that Christianity is logical. Logic is not synonymous with the scientific method. It is a component of philosophy, an area in which most modern atheists are severely lacking. Sartre, Russell, Camus, Foucault, Nietzsche… these guys did a much better job of arguing for atheism than most of your modern day atheists.

p.s. many of Craig’s debates are available for free on YouTube, and he offers a lot of free material on his website, www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[grannymh]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

In my humble opinion, the logic of Catholicism should be a well-used tool of apologetics.

However, it is essential to know and understand the difference between the practical logic of Catholicism and the two questions in the OP –

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

The title of this thread --The significance of “the systematic and integrated nature of Catholic doctrine.” is a very good way to argue the logic of Catholicism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9072698#post9072698

If one is to reply to the two questions in this thread, then my suggestion is to first argue the reality of human nature. Once human nature is logically established as consisting of two principles, material and non-material, i.e., material anatomy and spiritual soul, then one can go logically to the source of the single nature of a person.

To do this with a non-theist who may not be familiar with Catholic terminology, one has to be willing to argue from her or his perspective.

 

[grannymh]

+JMJ+

I guess this topic should be in the Philosophy forum ^___^

In my humble opinion, the logic or philosophy of Catholicism should be a well-used tool of apologetics.

However, it is essential to know and understand the difference between the practical logic of Catholicism and the two questions in the OP –

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

The title of a thread --The significance of “the systematic and integrated nature of Catholic doctrine.” is a very good way to argue the logic of Catholicism.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=646754I

If one is to reply to the two questions in this thread, then my suggestion is to first argue the reality of human nature. Once human nature is logically established as consisting of two principles, material and non-material, i.e., material anatomy and spiritual soul, then one can go logically to the source of the single nature of a person.

To do this with a non-theist who may not be familiar with Catholic terminology, one has to be willing to argue from her or his perspective.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Perplexity]

Atheism, itself, has no logical arguments for its validity. It can only pick out perceived inconsistencies in theism. I would refer you to any of William Lane Craig’s countless debates with atheists in which he consistently proves that atheists cannot present any arguments for their own philosophy, whereas theism can. In fact, he demonstrates that most atheists’ arguments are emotional, not logical, whereas most arguments for theism are logical and not emotional. The exact opposite of the stereotype that is pushed.

Atheists do not have a monopoly on logic, though they’d like to think so. Their logic extends no further than ours. They simply refuse to extend logic beyond the scientifically verifiable. Thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas on down to folks like Craig and Peter Kreeft have shown beyond a doubt that Christianity is logical. Logic is not synonymous with the scientific method. It is a component of philosophy, an area in which most modern atheists are severely lacking. Sartre, Russell, Camus, Foucault, Nietzsche… these guys did a much better job of arguing for atheism than most of your modern day atheists.

p.s. many of Craig’s debates are available for free on YouTube, and he offers a lot of free material on his website, www.reasonablefaith.org

It seems to me Craig thinks atheism can be proved, even though he thinks he it is false:

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5817

youtube.com/watch?v=cpNYIbSJFPQ

There are many arguments for atheism, most notably the arguments from suffering and evil. But, you also have stuff like Divine Hiddenness. Regardless of whether these succeed, atheism has a number of arguments for its position.

 

[Perplexity]

I take logic (deductive and inductive) just to be about correct inference. That is, about recognizing the logical relationships that actually hold between propositions, and inferring propositions from each other according to their actual logical relationships.

In that sense, I’d say of course faith can be logical. It’d just mean the correct thing to infer from a set of propositions believed to be true would be that you should have faith, or something like that.

If ‘logical’ refers to reasonableness, I’d say this gets tricky…Objectively, as an atheist, I want to say no, because God doesn’t exist. But, subjectively, I’d say yes. Given a theist’s background knowledge, it may be irrational for him to not have faith.

 

[meltzerboy]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions posed by an atheist:
1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

I think there are elements of logic in both the arguments for theism and atheism, but no strict logical argument exists to prove either belief. Likewise there are elements of logic one can apply for proving the absolute or partial truth of any one faith, but no application meets all the criteria of strict logic. And while people may theoretically admire logical thinking, in practice they seldom use logic as the only basis of their thought processes. Rather, they often use shortcuts in their cognitive information processing and come up with rational (not logical) conclusions which satisfy their preconceived hypotheses, world-view, and emotional and motivational needs, instead of adhering to all the formal rules of logic. The leap of faith itself goes beyond formal logic, and science, as well as religion, requires this leap.

 

[sw85]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

I don’t waste my time arguing with atheists anymore. The majority of the evangelical ones are ignorant, ill-read, recalcitrant snots. They don’t know the first thing about what we believe or why we believe it. The sorts that post at CAF are a little better than this, but not by much; among my personal friends, their atheism is very little more than the plaintive whine of an emotive brat. Most of them are apostates whose rationale for their apostasy boils down to “something bad happened to me once so GOD MUST NOT EXIST.” Because of course, if there’s anything that can be said to be true of Christianity, it’s that it’s totally an easy religion to follow, no suffering or sacrifice anywhere to be found in it!

A minority of them are not only ignorant, they’re actually proud of their ignorance. Check out PZ Meyers’ “courtier’s reply,” the substance of which is essentially “I don’t need to read a book cause I already know what’s in it is ****.”

I’ve had maybe 2-3 good conversations with atheists in my entire life. The rest of the time, it’s degenerated into lefty point-and-stutter feigned horror that someone in the universe isn’t a utilitarian, like them. Total waste of time, and bad for the soul, too; there is nothing quite so tragic as watching someone harden their heart to the truth.

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t waste my time arguing with atheists anymore. The majority of the evangelical ones are ignorant, ill-read, recalcitrant snots. They don’t know the first thing about what we believe or why we believe it. The sorts that post at CAF are a little better than this, but not by much; among my personal friends, their atheism is very little more than the plaintive whine of an emotive brat. Most of them are apostates whose rationale for their apostasy boils down to “something bad happened to me once so GOD MUST NOT EXIST.” Because of course, if there’s anything that can be said to be true of Christianity, it’s that it’s totally an easy religion to follow, no suffering or sacrifice anywhere to be found in it!

A minority of them are not only ignorant, they’re actually proud of their ignorance. Check out PZ Meyers’ “courtier’s reply,” the substance of which is essentially “I don’t need to read a book cause I already know what’s in it is ****.”

I’ve had maybe 2-3 good conversations with atheists in my entire life. The rest of the time, it’s degenerated into lefty point-and-stutter feigned horror that someone in the universe isn’t a utilitarian, like them. Total waste of time, and bad for the soul, too; there is nothing quite so tragic as watching someone harden their heart to the truth.

Ew.

 

[sw85]

Ew.

Right back atcha, big guy.

 

[Perplexity]

Right back atcha, big guy.

How could you say that to me? I’ve never called people snots, or brats, or any of the other names you slapped on most atheists. I think everyone should say ‘Ew’ to the attitude exemplified by your post. What, you’re frustrated? Sure, happens to us all. But, that’s no reason to behave like that.

 

[sw85]

How could you say that to me? I’ve never called people snots, or brats, or any of the other names you slapped on most atheists. I think everyone should say ‘Ew’ to the attitude exemplified by your post. What, you’re frustrated? Sure, happens to us all. But, that’s no reason to behave like that.

What, is “the majority of the evangelical [atheists]” not sufficiently watered down enough? How many weasly, qualifying roadblocks does one have to throw into a sentence before it’ll appease your exaggerated sensibilities?

 

[Perplexity]

What, is “the majority of the evangelical [atheists]” not sufficiently watered down enough? How many weasly, qualifying roadblocks does one have to throw into a sentence before it’ll appease your exaggerated sensibilities?

You’re only making my point for me

 

[timotheos]

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

Is this first question internally consistent? “Logical” implies a procedure for examination based upon reason or rationality, and “believe” implies the holding of a premise you cannot prove. If you limit yourself to the use of reductionistic logic, you are not well suited for the examination of such things as belief, or other things unmeasurable, for that matter.

 

[Hokomai]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

It depends what you mean by ‘believe’. If you mean ‘believe in the absence of evidence’, then yes, it is illogical. Christianity is based on this: ‘blessed are those who have not seen, and believe’. The best I have seen from believers in CAF is that they agree beliefs should not directly contradict observation. I try to avoid belief, and to simply draw conclusions. This is very hard, and my speculation is that the tendency to believe (in all sorts of things) is hard-wired in our brains, and probably had some evolutionary advantage. One interesting speculation is that children need to believe what their elders tell them, as humans have such long infancies. This predisposes us to accept what authority figures say, and makes us susceptible to religious belief.

 

[timotheos]

This predisposes us to accept what authority figures say, and makes us susceptible to religious belief.

Maybe to a point, but not entirely. Christian religious belief is not limited to what is passed down by our authority figures. There are texts and documents that had very definite origins. They did not originate in times and locations remote from scrutiny but were very likely subject to the “truth” tests. Today, any one story may be questioned regarding validity (and indeed they are), but the entire tome of them?

You may think that the desire to believe was so strong that it allowed the authorship of numerous texts that contemporaries knew were lies. But the peoples of the time were not unsophisticated cavemen. I for one leave room for considering that some, maybe many, maybe nearly all, of the books of the Bible contain credible accounts. It is worth considering.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Wouldn’t that depend on what you’ve experienced and how? Logic is simply using the evidence you have to come to the best conclusion possible. There is no logical reason for me to believe in god. Despite years upon years of trying, reading, etc I was never able to. Its not a choice. I have never seen evidence of a god. I have never read anything convincing, I have never felt the presence of a god. For me to suddenly believe would be illogical.

For someone who has had strong religious experiences for which they could find no other reasonable explanation it would be logical for them to believe. Or at the very least logical for them to not rule it out. In fact, having religious experiences and insisting that you don’t believe would be illogical.

There have been several studies done showing that the brains of atheists and theists work differently and respond to stimuli differently. As someone who spent so much time trying it doesn’t surprise me.

Oh, and the people who are using this thread as an excuse to atheist bash need to take a good, hard look at their own behavior and attitudes.

 

[clmowry]

I recently participated in a thread on this forum about Hell. I ended up mostly picking out inconsistencies of atheist arguments…but doing so was more like pointing out the symptoms of something overarching and greater. The one thing that continued to arise was the idea that Christianity was not logical.

I let my end of the thread die, and told an atheist friend about the encounter. My atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.

So…

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

And we’ll see where this goes.

Yes and Yes.

God and Christianity are only “illogical” if one ASSUMES there is no God and the miraculous is immpossible.

Chuck

 

[Hokomai]

Maybe to a point, but not entirely. Christian religious belief is not limited to what is passed down by our authority figures. There are texts and documents that had very definite origins. They did not originate in times and locations remote from scrutiny but were very likely subject to the “truth” tests. Today, any one story may be questioned regarding validity (and indeed they are), but the entire tome of them?

You may think that the desire to believe was so strong that it allowed the authorship of numerous texts that contemporaries knew were lies. But the peoples of the time were not unsophisticated cavemen. I for one leave room for considering that some, maybe many, maybe nearly all, of the books of the Bible contain credible accounts. It is worth considering.

Well, I agree in large part with you here. I entirely accept that many of the Bible stories were recorded (orally or in writing) by people who believed them to be true in at east the sense they intended. But this was also true of the gnostic and other writings rejected by the compilers of the canon, and the rejection was accepted on the basis of authority. Catholicism also depends on authority for interpretation of not-obvious texts and the establishment of things like popes, bishops, priests, sacraments etc. This does not make those things wrong. But I also look for reasons why people believe (as indeed I once did myself).