Logic, and Faith and Reason, can they coexist?

[Deacon_Joseph]

A friend of mine was thinking of taking a Logic course at his college. He was wondering if it coincides with the teachings of Faith and Reason of the Catholic Church. I would appreciate any opinions on this subject. Thanks.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

A friend of mine was thinking of taking a Logic course at his college. He was wondering if it coincides with the teachings of Faith and Reason of the Catholic Church. I would appreciate any opinions on this subject. Thanks.

It can sometimes be an interference, but that depends on the person–their interpretations, opinions, beliefs, personality, etc.

–I mean–sometimes it’s not Logic interfering with Faith and Reason; it’s Logic and Reason interfering with Faith–or Reason interfering with Logic and Faith.

See how strange Faith works? Some people think Faith is Logic *or *Reason; others think Reason and Logic have no place in Faith.

It’s just a big, confusing mess, depending on how someone perceives these terms. Defining them is like trying to define God… you cross a dangerous line.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[East_and_West]

A friend of mine was thinking of taking a Logic course at his college. He was wondering if it coincides with the teachings of Faith and Reason of the Catholic Church. I would appreciate any opinions on this subject. Thanks.

Not a problem at all. St. Thomas Aquinas used logic to demonstrate the existence of God.

 

[Leela]

A friend of mine was thinking of taking a Logic course at his college. He was wondering if it coincides with the teachings of Faith and Reason of the Catholic Church. I would appreciate any opinions on this subject. Thanks.

Hi Joseph,

As I understand the terms “reason” refers to good justification without any specific rules or standards for what good justification is, while “logic” refers to a specific set of rules for producing good justifications. “Faith” is the permission that religious people give one another to claim certainty of things that they don’t have good reasons to believe.

Best,
Leela

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Not a problem at all. St. Thomas Aquinas used logic to demonstrate the existence of God.

Exactly. People who reject God change the premise to suit themselves and then use logic to reject God. Logic itself is neutral.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Exactly. People who reject God change the premise to suit themselves and then use logic to reject God. Logic itself is neutral.

Just because people use logic to justify their faith, doesn’t mean that logic is correct or free of fallacities & problems; This is can be true for both sides, depending on the case.

Which argument by Aquinas are you exactly talking about? (So I would atleast know what to respond to)

 

[Fran65]

Speaking personally, and avoiding the sorts of word games that are not helpful Logic, reason and faith co-exist and are not contradictory in their pure form. By that I mean that the principles themselves are not contradictory. Faith *can *be supported by logic and reason; nor does faith dismiss logic and/or reason.

People however do enjoy arguing that they are mutually exclusive; especially those people who do not have faith and wish to point score for their own set of beliefs.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Btw, just to be clear. What definition of FAITH is the original poster using?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Speaking personally, and avoiding the sorts of word games that are not helpful Logic, reason and faith co-exist and are not contradictory in their pure form. By that I mean that the principles themselves are not contradictory. Faith *can *be supported by logic and reason; nor does faith dismiss logic and/or reason.

People however do enjoy arguing that they are mutually exclusive; especially those people who do not have faith and wish to point score for their own set of beliefs.

Very well said!

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Just because people use logic to justify their faith,** doesn’t mean that logic is correct or free of fallacities & problems**; This is can be true for both sides, depending on the case.

I think I know what your saying, but you didn’t word it correctly. “Logic” can’t be described as correct or incorrect. A logical argument, however, can. That is why logic, faith and reason can coexist.

 

[Leela]

Btw, just to be clear. What definition of FAITH is the original poster using?

Hi Robertsxxx,

Great question and a necessary one to move the conversation along. I already offered my understanding of the three terms in question…

“As I understand the terms “reason” refers to good justification without any specific rules or standards for what good justification is, while “logic” refers to a specific set of rules for producing good justifications. “Faith” is the permission that religious people give one another to claim certainty of things that they don’t have good reasons to believe.”

I’m interested to hear how others use these terms.

Best,
Leela

 

[Robertsxxx]

Hi Robertsxxx,

Great question and a necessary one to move the conversation along. I already offered my understanding of the three terms in question…

“As I understand the terms “reason” refers to good justification without any specific rules or standards for what good justification is, while “logic” refers to a specific set of rules for producing good justifications. “Faith” is the permission that religious people give one another to claim certainty of things that they don’t have good reasons to believe.”

I’m interested to hear how others use these terms.

Best,
Leela

Yeah, but since you’re not the OP, it is hard to tell what they actually meant by it…

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Hi Robertsxxx,

Great question and a necessary one to move the conversation along. I already offered my understanding of the three terms in question…

"As I understand the terms “reason” refers to good justification without any specific rules or standards for what good justification is, while “logic” refers to a specific set of rules for producing good justifications. “Faith” is the permission that religious people give one another to claim certainty of things that they don’t have good reasons to believe."

I’m interested to hear how others use these terms.

Best,
Leela

“Faith” is not purely the realm of religious people. Many have faith in their senses alone - iow all that exists can be detected by our senses. This is the underlying premise for most existential atheists. The more intellectually honest people who reject religion are actually agnostic - admitting that some things may exist that can’t be known.

 

[Leela]

Hi Robert,

“Faith” is not purely the realm of religious people. Many have faith in their senses alone - iow all that exists can be detected by our senses.

How would you define “faith”?

I think that generally experience is understood by atheists in broader terms than sensory data (Hume’s empiricism). Certainly thoughts, emotions, and relations between sensory information are experienced. As to whether anything exists that is not experienced, pragmatists like myself are simply not interested in the question. We don’t affirm or deny it. It’s just one of those metaphysical questions that dissolve when you apply the pragmatic maxim that any difference must make a difference.

This is the underlying premise for most existential atheists. The more intellectually honest people who reject religion are actually agnostic - admitting that some things may exist that can’t be known.

First of all, I reject the idea of “rejecting religion” as if believing in religion or not is a choice that is somehow forced upon us by nature of being human. It isn’t, any more than being a Communist or not or being a Phillies fan or not is a forced choice. To be an atheist is simply to think that we do not have good reasons to believe in nonhuman intervention in improving human lives.

As for agnosticism in general, it is the belief that there are some things that cannot be known. To be agnostic about gods is to believe that one cannot know whether or not gods exist. I think that it is possible for a god to demonstrate its existence, so I am not agnostic about gods. I doubt that any exist, though I am open to new evidence and arguments on the subject.

Best,
Leela

 

[RobertLGarrett]

How would you define “faith”?

Belief in something without evidence/proof. As I said, this is something that religious and non-religious people are capable of. Everyone uses premises for logical arguments. Those premises are often a matter of faith. If there was solid evidence/proof that God does not exist, then I would say that an atheist was not using faith in their beliefs. There isn’t, so they do. Since a negative can’t be proved, both those who believe in a god and those who don’t are basing their premise of existence/non-existence on faith.

 

[Leela]

Belief in something without evidence/proof.

Hi Robert,

As for proof, I don’t know how we could ever claim to have it without a method for proving. Such a method itself would need to be proven to work, and we couldn’t expect the method to prove itself. So I think we can do away with the idea of proof. We are just left with faith as “belief without evidence” which I think we can also take to mean “belief without justification.”

I think we are on the same page as far as what Faith means, but what I don’t understand is how “belief without evidence” can be thought of as a virtue. How is that a good thing? Don’t we all want to be able to justify our beliefs? Isn’t faith then, just a conversation stopper to be used when our argumentative powers are exhausted? Doesn’t it just mean “I believe this but I am either unwilling or unable to try to convince you that this is worth believing”?

As I said, this is something that religious and non-religious people are capable of. Everyone uses premises for logical arguments. Those premises are often a matter of faith.

I don’t see how. If someone questioned the premises I was basing an argument on, I would try to justify the use of those premises. If I were unable to justify them to another’s satisfaction, that would be one thing. But faith is about not being able to justify our own beliefs to our OWN satisfaction.

Why would someone believe something that they don’t feel justified in believing?

If there was solid evidence/proof that God does not exist, then I would say that an atheist was not using faith in their beliefs…

We all have to act based on ambiguous evidence, but that doesn’t mean that we have to claim certainty about the truth of something without evidence. Faith is not needed to be unconvinced by the evidence for gods any more than faith is required to be unconvinced by the evidence for unicorns.

Best,
Leela

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Hi Robert,

As for proof, I don’t know how we could ever claim to have it without a method for proving. Such a method itself would need to be proven to work, and we couldn’t expect the method to prove itself. So I think we can do away with the idea of proof. We are just left with faith as “belief without evidence” which I think we can also take to mean “belief without justification.”

I think we are on the same page as far as what Faith means, but what I don’t understand is how “belief without evidence” can be thought of as a virtue. How is that a good thing? Don’t we all want to be able to justify our beliefs? Isn’t faith then, just a conversation stopper to be used when our argumentative powers are exhausted? Doesn’t it just mean “I believe this but I am either unwilling or unable to try to convince you that this is worth believing”?

I don’t see how. If someone questioned the premises I was basing an argument on, I would try to justify the use of those premises. If I were unable to justify them to another’s satisfaction, that would be one thing. But faith is about not being able to justify our own beliefs to our OWN satisfaction.

Why would someone believe something that they don’t feel justified in believing?

We all have to act based on ambiguous evidence, but that doesn’t mean that we have to claim certainty about the truth of something without evidence. Faith is not needed to be unconvinced by the evidence for gods any more than faith is required to be unconvinced by the evidence for unicorns.

Best,
Leela

Your comments are about “blind faith.” Beliefs are a combination of faith, logic and reason. IOW…I do have evidence that I base my beliefs on. However, it is probably evidence you would not accept. It is ambiguous - it is not concrete. I believe that some of my experiences were not explainable by chance. As you said, we all have to base our beliefs on the evidence we have. I stand by my statement that non-religious people also have faith out of necessity in order to hold the premises they hold.

Anyway, I will leave you all on that note. This kind of discourse bores me to tears.

 

[Leela]

Your comments are about “blind faith.”

Hi Robert,

Perhaps you can explain where I misunderstood you. You defined faith as believing without evidence. How is “blind faith” different from faith? To me, if you define faith as belief without evidence, then the word “blind” is redundant.

Beliefs are a combination of faith, logic and reason. IOW…I do have evidence that I base my beliefs on.

Of course you base your beliefs on evidence. But if so, why is faith needed?

However, it is probably evidence you would not accept. It is ambiguous - it is not concrete. I believe that some of my experiences were not explainable by chance.

I see beliefs as habits of action. You don’t need to worry about having justification for your beliefs that are acceptable to anyone else unless you want to convince them to join you in some project that is motivated by your belief.

I’d be interested in hearing about the experiences that led you to your beliefs. I have no problem with basing beliefs on experience. But again, if you have experience then what is the point of using the word “faith” (which you’ve defined as belief without evidence) in place of “justified belief”?

As you said, we all have to base our beliefs on the evidence we have. I stand by my statement that non-religious people also have faith out of necessity in order to hold the premises they hold.

Anyway, I will leave you all on that note. This kind of discourse bores me to tears.

Sorry to bore you. I hope you will reconsider and explain to me as a nonreligious person how I have faith and what it is I take on faith rather than based on evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[TheAtheist]

Logic is absolutely neutral to such concerns. It is after all, a method or a process.

One can derive consequences for belief or disbelief in deity/deities but it will be dependent upon what types of premises the person accepts in the first place.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Logic is absolutely neutral to such concerns. It is after all, a method or a process.

One can derive consequences for belief or disbelief in deity/deities but it will be dependent upon what types of premises the person accepts in the first place.

Well, I’m glad an atheist came in to agree with me. We are basically saying the same thing. Since I don’t care much for philosophical mumbo-jumbo, I generally stay out of this forum and will take better care to stay out.