Logic vs. Faith

WiseSheep was talking about circular arguments in another thread here today. I started thinking on this subject after I read that. Now I'm Googling the subject, and coming up with some interesting reading.

The subject, obviously, is logic vs. faith.

We have the secular people on this particular topic arguing generally on the side of logic. We have several of the more spiritual/religious members arguing on the side of faith. And I've noticed that neither side can sway the other, not even a micron. We ARE arguing in circles. I don't think the two are compatible.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and that's why I started this thread, to discuss this particular paradigm.

The first article I have come across suggested some questions to me that I'd be interested to hear ideas on:

Logic versus religion. Thus is the concept that many people have fought and died for throughout humanity's existence. Some have fought and died for it, while far more have fought and died against it. Here is the result of my thoughts concerning the Bible and stories/miracles mentioned therein.

The rest of the article is here

***

So, I would like to see how the modern Christian explains these paradoxes. I thought that the writer made some very interesting points.

And, if possible, I would really like to hear something deeper than "god can suspend the rules of physics whenever he wishes." I believe the book says he also works in mysterious ways. I'd like to do a little brainstorming on what those ways might have been.

BUMP

I really am curious, not trying to be a facetious you-know-what or stir anybody up. This is a conundrum that has really got my attention lately, especially on BTS.

So, people, thoughts on Logic vs. Faith?

Well, I am not sure if I can add anything constructive but I will attempt to. I am a logical person and yet very spiritual.

I get a bit tired of reading the debates, it is circular and now I avoid certain discussions because it is a waste of time and energy.

I do, however read and try to consider each opinion, even if it is different to mine. The thing I find the most hilarious is the attacks on me for not being a true Christian. At first I was and then my stance was also criticised by athiests so now I think...logically that perhaps there is no middle ground. If you are a Christian and you interpret something one way, another Christian may interpret it differently...what a quandary!

And then, when you consider science and spirituality, it is generally 'medicated, debunked etc' and then you have scientist against scientist... perhaps human beings are typically ego orientated and the ego perpetuates every facet of intellectual thought/reasoning? The 'I am Right' factor...and 'I can prove it!'

Science and Faith both sit on equal footing, imo. Both are uncertain. Nothing is certain, nothing at all, Science can only guess how Earth came to be Earth. Science is evolving, our knowledge base is constantly expanding. For eg, people used to think the Earth was flat and then they discovered it was round... people forget this. There is no truth anywhere, nothing certain. For me, I have found a little place where I sit comfortably and I never stay fixed in one spot for too long.

I also feel that a lot of people are closed and so discussing anything becomes :bnghd:

My faith at times isn't logical, but nothing really is. Science doesn't have all the answers. We are all learning and so is science.

For eg, I am sitting in front of my pc writing this. I am not moving. And yet, the world is moving around and around and I am moving with it. That alone defies logic. Just consider the scientific quandaries...there are so many.

I can say, I don't believe in spirits...I can reject every spirit that pops in and says hi on the grounds that it is not logical. I can see it, but I can't touch it. I can't grab it, take it with me and show my friends. But, I can tell them... **** said this and wants you to do this **** or that **** is here and your dead grannie took it because of this ****
Your keys are here... your dead twin is buried here... etc
How do we explain mediums? It is psuedoscientific and that body of study has its place in science.

I base my faith on my heart and whatever experiences I have and logic has to take the back seat. Because my faith is not logical nor are a lot of my experiences.







[edit on 27-4-2007 by NJE777]

Very interesting answer, thanks for posting. I'm also very puzzled by the rejection that many branches of Christianity has for their fellows. it's one of the reasons I threw up my hands and quit -- they all "have the answer" but in many ways they contradict one another. I never could understand how so many followers of a religion that teaches love can speak with such hatred against specific segments of society.

Hi MajorMalfunction,

I think the whole dichotomy between faith and logic (or reason) is trying to compare two aspects of seeing the world that are, while different, not necessarily better than the other. I see religious faith, or spirituality as it were, as a way of understanding the meaning of human existence, in the same way that art, music, poetry, philosophy, and many other human endeavors have done. I'm sure many religious believers would purport to have their faith be more substantial than poetry, but I think if they understand those other means of expression and understanding at a deeper level, than one could realize that science, faith, and all the rest is striving toward self understanding.

As far as that article is concerned, the author treats the miracle stories as literal events that ought to have a naturalistic explanation if in fact they occured literally. It's not clear to me that the authors of these stories, who would have simply recorded stories that were already hundreds if not thousands of years old, were trying to offer any kind of literal history or naturalistic explanation with these stories. It's unfortunate that many today read these stories in this way, especially the more fundamentalist strains of the three mid-east religions, but a good dose of biblical hermeneutics can help alleviate that misperception.

FYI, the author is way off base about claiming that the earth's gravity would cease to exist if the earth stopped rotating. The earth's gravity is caused by its warping of the fabric of space-time. It's magnetic field would perhaps be affected, but it's gravity would not cease.

In any case, it seems like you've been doing a lot of thinking about these issues. It's great to talk about this stuff as I myself am still thinking about these issues in a critical if exploratory manner.

I am another very firmly convinced spiritual person, and my school test scores allege I am of very high intelligence. It is certainly hard to reconcile the two, but I do. Logic has its value, and most people would do well to study such skills as critical thinking and logical reasoning. It is my view that nearly everyone has views that they are confident are logic-based, but which are not at all so. In the area of miraculous events, I have some experience. It is not necessary for me to look to biblical miracles to ponder whether impossible things do happen, for my own history has enough examples for me. It only took 39 years for me to be totally convinced, though the first such event was when I was 7. Others just don't believe it. That is fine. I can see why. But, when I have tried to explain some of my anomalous events using rational means, there are cases where I cannot. Normally others who I tell what happened offer ideas that I thought of long ago, and hardly ever do I hear a new theory. In the end, I finally am beyond 'faith', because that implies doubt. I don't feel doubt about the reality of spiritual phenomena. I don't have a clue what it is, or how it operates, but it is a reality in my life. I used to be bothered by the common reaction of others, which was to scoff. No longer. Worrying about that won't do a thing, and I could never hope to logically convince anyone what I have seen, because it makes no logical sense. It is literally impossible, but happened. Many others never see such things, so of course they don't buy it. No worries.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
In the area of miraculous events, I have some experience. It is not necessary for me to look to biblical miracles to ponder whether impossible things do happen, for my own history has enough examples for me. It only took 39 years for me to be totally convinced, though the first such event was when I was 7. Others just don't believe it. That is fine. I can see why. But, when I have tried to explain some of my anomalous events using rational means, there are cases where I cannot. Normally others who I tell what happened offer ideas that I thought of long ago, and hardly ever do I hear a new theory.

Have you heard this theory then? You along with thousands, millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions, billions? have had these anomalous events (I have) - so doesn't that make them common place??? and wouldn't that make them LESS miraculous - due to the frequency of 'miraculous' events, they just dont happen to one person all the time but to a lot of people all the time.

Most of these events have perfectly natural explanations and I'm willing to gamble that all the rest will have the same natural explanation (we might not have it yet) but then again I can see how an experience can tailor your behaviour (wouldn't be me if it weren't for my experiences)


G

Originally posted by shihuludMost of these events have perfectly natural explanations and I'm willing to gamble that all the rest will have the same natural explanation (we might not have it yet) but then again I can see how an experience can tailor your behaviour (wouldn't be me if it weren't for my experiences)


G

Clearly you have not had them.

On the subject of Faith v's Logic then its a short simple answer - faith trys to interpret the universe to you while logic tries to interpret the universe for everyone.

Well, I would tend to agree with that except for the folk who believe in proselytizing everyone else and won't accept that alternatives to their own religious ideology are just as valid.

I see the basic premise of "logic versus faith" in this thread to be misleading and limiting.

In this instance, it appears that logic is being defined as miraculous events that can be explained away scientifically. While faith is being defined as mystical experiences and religious interpretations that one cannot prove outside of one's own anectdotal evidence.

But logic, inductive and deductive reasoning also applies to the interpretation and understanding of mystical experiences

We once again go back to that heated issue of having to prove something physically. The heart of the matter is that there are aspects of reality that cannot be proven physically.

Like emotions for example. We all have them. But they cannot be extracted from us and measured in a laboratory. We can gauge the chemical reactions but the actual energy of emotion itself is beyond physical instrumentation.

So emotions are not physically proven but nonetheless we all accept them as truth. No one in ATS/BTS debates on the existence of emotions yet they cannot be measured in a laboratory.

A more accurate premise for this thread would be "scientific materialism versus mystical experience." Both can and do lead one to the truth. But to rely solely on one and not the other would limit the parameters of achieving insight, depending upon what aspect of learning one is pursuing.

Near-death experiences. Many have them and many have seen and/or heard things miles away when they were legally brain dead that they could not have possibly have known unless their consciousness did in fact leave their body.

Can that be proven scientifically? As in being able to extract a soul from a body and measure it in a laboratory?

No. Physical instrumentation is not capable of doing that.

But to those who have had NDE's, the experience and the validity of the information given and/or shown to them, is very much their PROOF.

Scientific Evidence For The Survival Of Consciousness After Death

Intuition and mystical experience can sometimes be misleading. But so can "scientific fact."

Both disciplines are evolving.

Science and mysticism both play an important role in learning and the progressive mystic and progressive scientist needs to take both into consideration so as to not limit oneself in research, and to avoid inaccurate conclusions.



[edit on 29-4-2007 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by shihuludMost of these events have perfectly natural explanations and I'm willing to gamble that all the rest will have the same natural explanation (we might not have it yet) but then again I can see how an experience can tailor your behaviour (wouldn't be me if it weren't for my experiences)


G

Clearly you have not had them.

Excuse me! How dare you assume that because I dont relate strange occurances to a deity that I haven't had one of these events.

Just because I cant explain my experience doesn't mean that some deity is responsible.

Typical religionite!!!

G

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by shihuludMost of these events have perfectly natural explanations and I'm willing to gamble that all the rest will have the same natural explanation (we might not have it yet) but then again I can see how an experience can tailor your behaviour (wouldn't be me if it weren't for my experiences)


G

Clearly you have not had them.

Excuse me! How dare you assume that because I dont relate strange occurances to a deity that I haven't had one of these events.

Just because I cant explain my experience doesn't mean that some deity is responsible.

Typical religionite!!!

G

Well, I have to chuckle at our common error. I am a member of no religion, and my fiance is an atheist. I also do not relate the scientifically and rationally inexplicable phenomena which I have been directly involved in to a deity, nor do I feel a deity must be responsible.
I apologize for not making my point clear. I meant that certain of my experiences, imo, have no natural explanation. Possibly they do, but from my understanding of the laws of physics and scientific theory, a couple of them cannot be explained rationally. Astral travel, precognition, and signs from deceased loved ones are three examples. If these events happened as I say they did, natural explanations cannot account for them. Others can explain them away easily as either lies, embellishments, illusions or psychological misperceptions. Those all mean events did not really unfool as I say they did, and as I cannot prove anything, I accept and can see why most people are unconvinced. Understanding others need trust I'm being honest and accurate in order to see my perspective, I expect a lot of skeptics.
So, I only intended to say that no natural explanations exist for certain of my past events. And it is not for lack of effort, or knowledge on my part.

Apologies sent from this end as well.

I totally understand where you are coming from, I too have a bit of trouble with what I know to be true and some of the experiences that I have had that contradict logic.

But that doesn't mean that there is NO logical explanation - we just might not understand it yet. I mean astral travel might have some logical explanation for it!!

G

Indeed. Just because science has no explanation yet, doesn't mean it's not a natural phenomenon that will be quantified some day. Who was it that said that an advanced enough technology will appear to be magical to a primitive society?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Who was it that said that an advanced enough technology will appear to be magical to a primitive society?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

~ Arthur C. Clarke ~

Source: Arthur C. Clarke Quotes