Is Faith logical?

[LaramieHirsch]

No I do not believe in a deity of some sort, but I do not rule out some form of deity as a possibility…

I am not a strong atheist in the sense that I do not believe with any large probability that there is no god…

That being said, I lean towards there being no god, mainly due to the problem of evil. Either there is, in my opinion…

…So the only god that I could realistically see existing is that of the deist formulation; a god that is separated from the universe.

Okay. Let us not get sidetracked from the original topic direction. Reasons for belief and all that…it is not what I am asking.

From what I gather from my foray into Logic discussions, it basically works like this. And I took this from wikipedia, for what it’s worth. It is the word: axiom. “An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths.”

With that in mind, let’s establish some axioms. Let’s agree on a few things. Such as how the sky is blue, the grass is green, snow is cold, and fire is hot.

In regards to this idea of creation, there surely must be some axiom where we can start from. So how about this one.

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.
(It’s a snail’s pace of a start, perhaps. But there’s no rush.)

Jmvizanko, Hokomai, and Blue Eyed Lady, can we agree on Axiom 1?

 

[meltzerboy]

But the leap of faith is not something necessarily in my opinion has the choice to make. I cannot make that “leap” because I see no reason to do so. And loving god versus believing he exists are two different things. I cannot love a god unless I know he exists, and even then, I would make the argument that you cannot love something you have no interaction with.

Of course, whether or not interaction with god is a different debate, but I see no reason to think it exists personally. I see prayer or “speaking” with god as nothing more than placebo, affirmation bias, and mind over matter. A shaman from some unheard of country’s direct experience with their god is no more real than anyone else’s with theirs.

Why don’t you see the leap of faith as a choice when the fact you see no reason to make that leap is your choice? True, Christianity speaks of the Holy Spirit that gives us the grace to choose G-d, but it is still up to us to accept or reject that grace. (I’m always on shaky ground when trying to explain Christian/Catholic theology.) For Judaism, your behavioral choices matter a great deal. You and I will be judged based on our choices in life as they affect others, apart from whether or not we believe in G-d. Of course, sometimes there are mitigating circumstances, in which one is not healthy enough psychologically to make informed choices, or when one’s situation is so constrained that the choices one decides upon are less than desirable. Such limitations are taken into account by G-d. Insofar as your interaction with G-d is concerned, it cannot be interpreted on the same visible level as your interaction with family, friends, and strangers. Just as our interaction right now is not the same as it would be in a face-to-face encounter but it is nonetheless an interaction. Yes, mutual human love may require some form of visual, auditory, or tactile contact; but human love for the divine is of a different magnitude, if not essence.

 

[clmowry]

I never called it brainwashing for the record.

Agreed, you didn’t use the word brainwashing, you just imply repeatedly that people believe in something that is obviously untrue simply because their parents said so.

But I do think you are wrong.

Ditto.

And the proof is in the geographic distribution of specific faiths. If people don’t just mostly end up believing what their parents taught them, then why are there geographic regions of the world that are this or that religion? And some of them are not theistic, such as Buddhism.

This isn’t a “proof” though it can certainly be used as evidence.

All people have that ability to percieve their Creator simply by observing His creation they have developed many different ideas about God on their own (many of which are quite similar.)

God “could” in theory have provided some sort of universal special revelation, but I’m not so sure how He would do that without forcing us to believe. It is because He cares for us as a person and doesn’t want to compel our love that He hasn’t done so.

Instead He chose to reveal Himself to us progressively culminating in the incarnation.

It takes a while for men to carry the message accoss cultrual boundries, but it seems to have progressed at an amazingly rapid pace to me.

Well if god punishes those that do not believe, yet you can reasonably not believe, then yes its still a problem.

Define “reasonably not believe”. I don’t believe that reserving the right to establish the burden of proof that God must provide is reasonable.

I cannot imagine a god that does actually care about what one believes if he leaves so much reason to doubt that he does, that most of the world does doubt that he does

It is simply not true that “most of the world does doubt.” Most of the world is actually quite close to the truth about God.

I can only imagine a god that cares only about who you are as a person.

Me too.

I would much rather be forced to believe by undeniable evidence and arguments, and still be free to do what I want otherwise, than be able to reasonably not think a god exists and be sent to hell for it, regardless of who I am.

But if you were “forced to believe” then you wouldn’t be free to do what you wanted “otherwise” would you?

There is nothing that says (at least within Catholicism) that you will be sent to hell because you “reasonably not think a god exists.”

I fully expect that there will be some “atheists” in Heaven just as there will be Catholics in Hell (though at that point, all the “atheists” will be Catholic ).

Chuck

 

[grannymh]

No I do not believe in a deity of some sort, but I do not rule out some form of deity as a possibility. Some might say that makes me an agnostic, but agnosticism is not a position relative to whether or not one believes in a god, and you can be an agnostic theist (which is what I would call any Christian that says you have to have faith that god exists, and you cannot know). You either have a belief in a god or you don’t, which either means you are a theist or you are an atheist. I fall into the latter camp, even though I am not a strong atheist in the sense that I do not believe with any large probability that there is no god.

That being said, I lean towards there being no god, mainly due to the problem of evil. Either there is, in my opinion a lazy, uncaring god, or a god that is either separated from the universe or unable to control it in any way. I don’t see why the former would exist; if an omnipotent being that created us to begin with had the power to save us from a lot of random and undeserved evil, say torturous diseases, I don’t see why it wouldn’t do something about it. So the only god that I could realistically see existing is that of the deist formulation; a god that is separated from the universe.

Why is it that people want to connect the problem of evil to God? I don’t see the logic of that.

 

[samiam1611]

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.

:yup:

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.

One question for the faithless. It is established you do not believe in the Christian God. However, do you believe in a Deity of some sort, who created the cosmos as we know it?
Perhaps this question was an interruption in where I was going, but I think it is an interesting question to ask at this point. Surely the atheists do not believe we came from nothingness.

Honest answers please. Again, I am exploring the use of Logic in these discussions.

I do not believe in a deity of any sort, but do not rule out there being some sort of force in the beginning. Some might call this force God. I do not, can not, believe there is a sentient being that is immaterial. Saying God is immaterial, and saying God can think (or act or feel or create with intention) is, to me, like saying gravity can think or act or feel. I think you would agree with me that the notion of a force - an immaterial thing such as gravity - being able to speak, or think or do, is illogical.

Yet, I do see apparent design in nature, and so I think deism has some merit. Yeah, I know, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I just said. I do not believe in deism but I can understand why people believe in a creator god. Creation of the universe is quite a puzzler Sometimes I call this unknown creator/cause Mother Nature (half jokingly) or just Nature.

I think it is unknowable, so I would not say “I believe we came from nothingness.” I just have no explanation for it. If I were to call theists illogical, it would not be on the basis of them believing in a creator.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Okay. Let us not get sidetracked from the original topic direction. Reasons for belief and all that…it is not what I am asking.

From what I gather from my foray into Logic discussions, it basically works like this. And I took this from wikipedia, for what it’s worth. It is the word: axiom. “An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths.”

With that in mind, let’s establish some axioms. Let’s agree on a few things. Such as how the sky is blue, the grass is green, snow is cold, and fire is hot.

In regards to this idea of creation, there surely must be some axiom where we can start from. So how about this one.

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.
(It’s a snail’s pace of a start, perhaps. But there’s no rush.)

Jmvizanko, Hokomai, and Blue Eyed Lady, can we agree on Axiom 1?

Accepted, with the understanding that this refers to the current state of biology and not to its potential origins.

For such, one might consult:

tgdaily.com/space-features/59309-stars-create-complex-organic-molecules

larouchepac.com/node/20038

A question in return: is God Omniscient?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Original poster (OP) here.

What I find interesting about this thread is how it compares to the last one I participated in.

 In the last thread, the discussion was about a justification of Hell.  Toward the end of that thread, there were many responses from atheists.  
 Yet, with this thread--which talks about Logic--I find that there is not as much atheist participation.

Moving on…

---

Before I get technical with the idea of using Logic (again, I’m an amateur in this type of discussion), I have a basic question for the atheists. Now, I realize that many many atheists do not come from a godless background. Many come from religious families or backgrounds, and so they are not ignorant to what a Christian is talking about. So for you faithless out there, realize that I know you are not ignorant. I would like to try an honest exploratory discussion here. My intent is not to convert, though that is always my hope.

One question for the faithless. It is established you do not believe in the Christian God. However, do you believe in a Deity of some sort, who created the cosmos as we know it?

It is hoped that a benign deity concerns itself with the welfare of mankind, but it is feared that no such entity so described appears to exist.

---

Perhaps this question was an interruption in where I was going, but I think it is an interesting question to ask at this point. Surely the atheists do not believe we came from nothingness.

Honest answers please. Again, I am exploring the use of Logic in these discussions.

 

[samiam1611]

Nature

 

[grannymh]

Okay. Let us not get sidetracked from the original topic direction. Reasons for belief and all that…it is not what I am asking.

From what I gather from my foray into Logic discussions, it basically works like this. And I took this from wikipedia, for what it’s worth. It is the word: axiom.** “An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths.”**

With that in mind, let’s establish some axioms. Let’s agree on a few things. Such as how the sky is blue, the grass is green, snow is cold, and fire is hot.

In regards to this idea of creation, there surely must be some axiom where we can start from. So how about this one.

Emphasis mine. I agree from another source.

Axioms should be used as the base or origin. This is why in a logical discussion they can be assumed to be true.

Axioms have a particular function as a base or origin for a discussion. The function is to serve as the basis for argument or inference. They can be used as self-evident.
(source: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, axiom and axiomatic)

To answer the question “Is Faith logical?”, one is looking at four axioms, which individually can be assumed to be true even though all four cannot be assumed to be true at the same time.

1. God exists,
2. God does not exist,
3. The possibility that God exists, and
4. The possibility that God does not exist.

The first three axioms have been expressed in various ways on CAF. As I recall, there were a lot of opinions and syllogisms, but not serious logic. Am not sure about the fourth one.

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.
(It’s a snail’s pace of a start, perhaps. But there’s no rush.)

Jmvizanko, Hokomai, and Blue Eyed Lady, can we agree on Axiom 1?

Caution. One needs to be mindful of the ban on evolution discussion. Please read sticky at the top of this forum, including both posts.
Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

The OP questions are very important in this decade. So far, I have not seen these questions answered sufficiently. However, my time is limited so I am sure I missed threads.

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

 

[jmvizanko]

Why don’t you see the leap of faith as a choice when the fact you see no reason to make that leap is your choice? True, Christianity speaks of the Holy Spirit that gives us the grace to choose G-d, but it is still up to us to accept or reject that grace.

I don’t think it is up to us. Either I see a reason to make the leap of faith or I don’t. There is no choice there.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think it is up to us. Either I see a reason to make the leap of faith or I don’t. There is no choice there.

May I point out that in real life there are actually three different options in regard to exercising one’s function of free will as taught by the Catholic Church – fight, flight or freeze. In the case of “Either I see a reason to make the leap of faith or I don’t. There is no choice there.” This could be either the choice of “flight” in that one is moving away from the leap of faith or it could be “freeze” in that there would be no further options to consider.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

May I point out that in real life there are actually three different options in regard to exercising one’s function of free will as taught by the Catholic Church – fight, flight or freeze. In the case of “Either I see a reason to make the leap of faith or I don’t. There is no choice there.” This could be either the choice of “flight” in that one is moving away from the leap of faith or it could be “freeze” in that there would be no further options to consider.

Would this then require that the leap of faith be categorized as “fight?”

 

[grannymh]

Why don’t you see the leap of faith as a choice when the fact you see no reason to make that leap is your choice? True, Christianity speaks of the Holy Spirit that gives us the grace to choose G-d, but it is still up to us to accept or reject that grace. (I’m always on shaky ground when trying to explain Christian/Catholic theology.) For Judaism, your behavioral choices matter a great deal. You and I will be judged based on our choices in life as they affect others, apart from whether or not we believe in G-d. Of course, sometimes there are mitigating circumstances, in which one is not healthy enough psychologically to make informed choices, or when one’s situation is so constrained that the choices one decides upon are less than desirable. Such limitations are taken into account by G-d. Insofar as your interaction with G-d is concerned, it cannot be interpreted on the same visible level as your interaction with family, friends, and strangers. Just as our interaction right now is not the same as it would be in a face-to-face encounter but it is nonetheless an interaction. Yes, mutual human love may require some form of visual, auditory, or tactile contact; but human love for the divine is of a different magnitude, if not essence.

Your explanation of mitigating circumstances is well done.

About your statement “You and I will be judged based on our choices in life as they affect others, apart from whether or not we believe in G-d.” This is so true, but for some reason, people have a hard time with this fact. This is why I often post “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” I see it as a logical basis for morality.

As I think about all this, the concept of the human person as being worthy of profound respect could be the axiom for the second OP question, “Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?” When conversing with non-theists, it is sometimes easier to start the discussion with human nature.

 

[jmvizanko]

May I point out that in real life there are actually three different options in regard to exercising one’s function of free will as taught by the Catholic Church – fight, flight or freeze. In the case of “Either I see a reason to make the leap of faith or I don’t. There is no choice there.” This could be either the choice of “flight” in that one is moving away from the leap of faith or it could be “freeze” in that there would be no further options to consider.

I’m not in “flight” away from the leap, I think the leap is illogical to begin with, so I have no choice but to not do it.

 

[jmvizanko]

Why is it that people want to connect the problem of evil to God? I don’t see the logic of that.

Because if there is an omnipotent being, he has the power to control and/or alter the universe to prevent evil. Now if he wants to let us be evil to each other in order to give us free will, I can maybe see how that’s justified. But what about random evils, like a child getting a painful and terminal disease? Why doesn’t he just prevent that from being an option?

 

[grannymh]

Would this then require that the leap of faith be categorized as “fight?”

I would not go so far as to use the word require; however, it is very possible to say that the leap of faith can be a dang fight. Paul ended up being knocked off his horse.

Once in a while, a CAF non-theist will let slip that there had been a back and forth struggle for years before their final decision. Being an agnostic can also be wrenching for some people. While I do not agree with atheistic worldviews, personally, I have a deep respect for those willing to meet the “leap of faith” head on. Catholicism keeps reminding me, especially during Lent, that Jesus never ceases searching for lost sheep. After all, Jesus hung bleeding on a cross in order to meet the good thief.
Luke 15: 1-7. & Luke 23: 33-43.

 

[jmvizanko]

Agreed, you didn’t use the word brainwashing, you just imply repeatedly that people believe in something that is obviously untrue simply because their parents said so.

At least a lot of people do, because of once again, the observation of highly religiously specific regions in the world. And I would never call it brainwashing, because brainwashing is “teaching” through malicious techniques, and I don’t believe religious people are doing anything like that when they teach their religion to their children.

This isn’t a “proof” though it can certainly be used as evidence.

All people have that ability to percieve their Creator simply by observing His creation they have developed many different ideas about God on their own (many of which are quite similar.)

God “could” in theory have provided some sort of universal special revelation, but I’m not so sure how He would do that without forcing us to believe. It is because He cares for us as a person and doesn’t want to compel our love that He hasn’t done so.

Instead He chose to reveal Himself to us progressively culminating in the incarnation.

It takes a while for men to carry the message accoss cultrual boundries, but it seems to have progressed at an amazingly rapid pace to me.

I don’t feel like I have lost free will because I can see the sun and am therefore forced to know that it exists. I just don’t understand why he would have to reveal himself to us in any sort of fashion other than bluntly making it clear to everyone that he does exist. But instead he makes it so that a reasonable people, and most people in the world, do not specifically believe he exists.

Define “reasonably not believe”. I don’t believe that reserving the right to establish the burden of proof that God must provide is reasonable.

“Reasonably not believe” means exactly that. It means that a person, such as myself, does not believe your god exists through their observations and thoughts regarding the arguments pertaining to such a god. I don’t believe in god because I find it illogical to do so. We can argue whether or not me finding it illogical is logical or not, but I think it is personally.

It is simply not true that “most of the world does doubt.” Most of the world is actually quite close to the truth about God.

No they aren’t, if it is your god that is true. They might believe in A god, but they don’t believe in yours. Which is a grave mistake relative to your religion, or is it considering your next statement…

There is nothing that says (at least within Catholicism) that you will be sent to hell because you “reasonably not think a god exists.”

I fully expect that there will be some “atheists” in Heaven just as there will be Catholics in Hell (though at that point, all the “atheists” will be Catholic ).

Well if atheists can make it into heaven then what is the value in taking the leap of faith in this life, ignoring the fact that one cannot choose to do so or not? If I live my life as a good person, yet I have no reason to believe, where is the harm? And what are you proposing when you say that at that point all the atheists will be Catholic? You get the chance to find a reason to believe after you die?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not in “flight” away from the leap, I think the leap is illogical to begin with, so I have no choice but to not do it.

I respect your reasoning regarding “flight”.

Please see if my position, as far as logic, makes sense. Logic should start with a reasonable axiom or a reasonable assumption as the basis. For me, it is enough that the basis is acceptable – it does not have to be totally believed. Next follows evidence and inferences and all kinds of statements with fancy logical-type names which should be debated. This is my personal opinion – I think it would be best to present evidence and possible inferences as a logical means for the leap of faith instead of the leap of faith itself. That way, the theist and non-theist can test the merits of the dialogue without a final commitment or no commitment to the “leap of faith”. I respect the intelligence and of each person regardless of their beliefs and thus, have learned more than I knew.

 

[clmowry]

Well if atheists can make it into heaven then what is the value in taking the leap of faith in this life, ignoring the fact that one cannot choose to do so or not?

They can, that doesn’t mean it is likely.
If I live my life as a good person, yet I have no reason to believe, where is the harm?

“No reason to believe” and “good person” being the operative words. It will be between you and God whether or not He agrees that you had no reason to believe and were a good person.
And what are you proposing when you say that at that point all the atheists will be Catholic?

All salvation comes through Christ’s Church. If you are saved you are by definition incorporated into the mystical body of Christ, and are therefore Catholic (whether you were a formal member of His Church here on Earth or not.)
You get the chance to find a reason to believe after you die?

No. Though God may, perhaps, offer someone that grace right before they die. This could be one of the possible methods for the salvation of the invincibly innocent.

In any casae we seem to be drifting way off topic.

So why is faith illogical again?

Chuck

 

[grannymh]

I don’t feel like I have lost free will because I can see the sun and am therefore forced to know that it exists.

There are a lot of things we do in life which do not involve free will.

I just don’t understand why he would have to reveal himself to us in any sort of fashion other than bluntly making it clear to everyone that he does exist. But instead he makes it so that a reasonable people, and most people in the world, do not specifically believe he exists.

Since I may never get the chance to demonstrate logically the possibility of God’s existence, I will briefly say that God does make Himself known in sync with human nature. That is the logical thing for God to do.