- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.
No they're not. Logic is about valid, testable, inferrence and demonstration using reasoning through probabilities. It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth. Formal logic is actually the basis for modern computer science. Faith is to believe without reason. You can't get too much polar opposite than that. Just where did you get that from Tradesim.Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.
I agree with this.
Because you can take it literally, as metaphor, or twist it around to make it mean anything you like. Like that silly comment about God standing on a disc, interpreted to mean that one of the authors of the bible knew the earth was a sphere.how can bible be manipulative tools?
0No they're not. Logic is about valid, testable, inferrence and demonstration using reasoning through probabilities. It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth. Formal logic is actually the basis for modern computer science. Faith is to believe without reason. You can't get too much polar opposite than that. Just where did you get that from Tradesim.
Aren't we talking about 'faith' in God. You are. This is a very narrow field and that is the topic. Not faith in logic or faith in Essendon getting into the finals, etc, etc. Also, logic is tested against other people through objective, rational analysis, where people can sometimes be persuaded to change their perspective, in any direction, and this is TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE, and part of the beauty of rhetoric. If your argument is better, it's accepted. Faith on the other hand, is absolutely dogmatic, and to have a different opinion has you burnt at the stake, amongst other interesting ways to go out, for not agreeing with the higher power.Logic cannot be tested without recourse to itself. Logic 101. Try establishing a test for logic that does not appeal to any of the first principles. Defining faith as "believe without reason" is anachronistic and limiting as there are more definitions of faith that that. I have faith in logic. By that I mean I have a complete conviction that logic works as a method of discovering truth. Even this has little meaning without further qualification, for instance which version of "truth": utilitarian, correspondence or coherence. I do not believe in logic without reason. But I also acknowledge that logic is limited by itself. If you wish to tightly define faith in the way you have, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, there is no reason to accept that "faith" can only (or even should) be defined as you propose so I maintain my statement that logic and faith are not polar opposites.
Jono, At this stage, I wont analyse your comments any further than this, because I think this is an important issue, and a very significant one to Christain people. Ask any of the brothers, or Catholic priests, who have been outed recently across the globe for mishandling their alter boys and girls, and parishoners wives.....the list goes on...There is nothing in evolutionary theory that explains why we would defile our children with unspeakable acts - does it happen with any other species - I don't think so!
Prove it to me.Kennas, To play the devil's advocate, why must "faith in God" (however God is defined) be a case of "believe without reason"?
'Believe without reason' is the standard definition of 'faith'. You could probably google it, or look it up the dictionary, and it will be there. So, I am not making that claim, it's a universally accepted definition of what faith is. Have you got another I could look at?Kennas,
Back to front...you are the one making the claim that faith in God must be "believe without reason". I am asking you why this has to be case.
Prove me your God.....Kennas,
I'm aware of the multiple dictionary definitions of faith. "Believe without reason" is one. I would like to know why you think there is a necessary link between "faith in god(s)" and "believe without reason". Surely you don't mean to imply that because you do not find reason to believe, ergo no-one can have reason to believe in whatever God they look to?
Also, the universe had to be made with physical laws to govern it, how else would it hold together the way it does?
Sometimes God speaks to me through His words in the bible, how can bible be manipulative tools?
Kennas,
The Bible was written by a number of guys, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the facts, eg they were there! The first manuscripts are dated around 70AD so about 40 years or so after Jesus lived, died and rose again. That would be like say, a 70 year old writing about something that happened when they were 30 - pretty reasonable I would have thought as far as history goes. Luke was a doctor, so in my mind an emininently capable person to write a solid biographical account, which his book is.
Also, while I agree totally that Bible passages can and are taken out of context, if you look at the Bible in its entirety, which is the way it is supposed to be read, then all passages make sense and fit within the big picture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?