Faith in logic

[acyckowski]

Here's a little brain-teaser for some of you. Others will get the answer faster than you can click back to the main menu.

It has come to my attention from some of the religion/atheism threads that it is impossible for a rational person to have faith; that faith is not logical.

Here are the definitions of faith from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :
faith /feɪθ/ [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
[Origin: 1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidés trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide]

I contend that faith as defined in #2 above is a necessary function for any system of abstract thought. To me, it appears categorically true that abstraction--as opposed to concrete reasoning--invariably rests on at least one premise which is both unprovable and incontrovertible. Were it otherwise, it would be a conclusion.

That premise, then, is a "belief that is not based on proof." Faith.

But, since I am told that it is not logical to have faith, I must be wrong. Since so many insist that logic is not a belief, but is in fact provably true, I issue you the challenge to demonstrate the fallacy of my thinking.

Challenge: Prove logic.

Points will be deducted for circular reasoning or breaking the rules of logical proof.

[nocturne]

Points will be deducted for circular reasoning or breaking the rules of logical proof.That is an impossible challenge to meet, since every logically valid argument is circular. There has never been a logical or mathematical proof which hasn't been circular, because a noncircular argument is an invalid argument. That does not mean that there are not genuine proofs, but only that you are not talking about "proof".

Instead, you are talking about justification or good reason, where circularity is considered a problem. However, this also means that logic and proof must not have anything to do with justification, since every logical proof is circular, and so your challenge cannot be met. That is your problem, and not necessarily anyone elses, certainly not mine.

The unjustifiability of logical axioms does not mean that they are invalid or false, it simply means that there can be no justification or good reason for supposing them. I do not expect there is, nor do I particularly care, and therefore hold logic open to criticism and even rejection. There is no sense in presupposing that logic, or or understanding of logic, is infallible, and that would be to miss the point entirely.

[acyckowski]

Which has been my point all along.

Don't be a spoilsport, let 'em give it a shot.

[blueback]

...it is impossible for a rational person to have faith; that faith is not logical.

It's not impossible for a person who is otherwise rational to have faith, it's just that faith itself isn't entirely logical.

faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I contend that faith as defined in #2 above is a necessary function for any system of abstract thought. To me, it appears categorically true that abstraction--as opposed to concrete reasoning--invariably rests on at least one premise which is both unprovable and incontrovertible. Were it otherwise, it would be a conclusion.

So you can't draw conclusions from abstract thought?

It seems to me that belief is simply being convinced something is true, so #2 means that you are convinced something is true without any proof, right? Now, IMHO, it seems like that is different from logic. Logic is what you do after you have things to think about, it doesn't say anything about where those things came from. You can exercise perfectly good logic on horribly bad information.

I'm not quite clear on your distinction between abstract thought and concrete reasoning. Are you talking about the difference between art and science?

But, since I am told that it is not logical to have faith, I must be wrong. Since so many insist that logic is not a belief, but is in fact provably true, I issue you the challenge to demonstrate the fallacy of my thinking.

Challenge: Prove logic.


You're right, it's not logical to have faith. Having faith means that you know you have reached a conclusion that isn't based on proof, which contradicts being logical. If you reach a conclusion logically that means you think that you do have proof; you might be wrong, but you er'ed innocently (or ignorantly). Having faith requires that you KNOW that you suspended the rules of logic for at least one step.

[Jakalwarrior]

"based on my current data this option is the most probable though I havent closed off any other options and am willing to change my stance at any time based on new information"

When we use the word "believe" or "belief" in the context of a theory or something unprovable, that is what we mean. If a person claims the unprovable to be fact, then they have stepped in to the realm of "faith" and need to whipe it off of their shoe.

[thod]

The unjustifiability of logical axioms does not mean that they are invalid or false, it simply means that there can be no justification or good reason for supposing them

The supposition of a set of axioms is not the problem. It is when the deductions that arise from those axioms are in conflict with other axioms in the set that problems arise. At this point we either reject logic or one or more of the axioms.

In theology we sometimes come across problems that defy logic. The premise that Jesus was divine and therefore immortal seems to contradict that he was also a man and therefore mortal. An example of a logical problem.

There is a set of axioms pertaining to objective reality that are assumed to be true. That when you drop a stone there really is stone, there is a you, and you actual do drop it. That it falls down, and not up has been observed trillions of times, we assume. Of course we are assuming that the universe does not orient itself to make it fall down each time. Although the case of falling stones has not been proven, the experiments provide a strong likelihood that the next stone dropped will also drop downwards. This is due to the axiom that identical conditions produce identical results. A single counter example would disprove it, yet never has one been observed.

So what we are really considering is not absolute truth but uncertainty based on observation which also uncertain. The more certain model is given credence. If a model bears no relationship to reality then random results would be expected. The validity of this technique is verified by the endless gadgets, buildings etc in the world. We can therefore conclude there is a strong relationship with what which consider to be true and that which is actually true.

If there exists many theories that equally explain an observation, one way to eliminate some is to find further observations in which the different theories would predict different results. If no such observations can be made, we go to the assumption that the one with the least assumptions is the most likely, but not necessarily true.

Thus consider death. One model supposes an afterlife, which is turn supposes a God, that cares, that takes stock, a heaven and a hell etc. The other model supposes no afterlife and that requires nothing further. We apply Occam's razor and decide the later is the more likely, it has the fewer assumptions.

[qwerty]

I agree completely with thod on this.

Faith is in trusting what we observe repeatably. The argument lays in beginning at the start.
"I think, therefore I am"
There is a faith that I exist, for otherwise, if I don't then my thoughts do not matter.

If I do exist and I have faith that you exist and I have faith that the world exists, then I have faith that my observations about the world do not deceive me. If it is found that the world does not exist then I will need to change my beliefs.
So logic based on faith falls into belief revision. If I have the assumption that tweety is a bird and I have another assumption that tweety can fly, then I assume tweety can fly. After close review I deduce that tweety is a penguin and I learn that penguins can not fly I form a new logical belief:
All Birds that aren't penguins can fly, tweety is a penguin, therefore tweety can not fly.

As the famous argument that P =/= NP goes : "P problems can be solved in polynomial time, NP problems can not be solved in a determinable amount of time. Given X researchers trying to prove that P = NP have worked for Y years and not come to a solution, we concede solving this problem is non deterministic and hence there can be no solution in a determinable amount of time, so NP must not be P!"

So logic isn't based simply on faith at this point, it is based on the repeatable circumstances observed over hundreds of years. When we find new problems, we apply reason that we understand to hold true for other problems and consider the new problem false until proven true. When we find we are wrong, we adjust our knowledge and the cycle is restarted.

[acyckowski]

Thanks, guys, for all the thoughtful responses. I was afraid this one was going to die quickly after nocturne exposed my little trap.


So you can't draw conclusions from abstract thought?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that abstractions, as distinct from the concrete, have no substantive bases to test or measure. Thus, one or more postulates are formed, and the logical conclusions from each may be used to compare which postulate appears to be the most true.

It seems to me that belief is simply being convinced something is true, so #2 means that you are convinced something is true without any proof, right? Now, IMHO, it seems like that is different from logic.
Yes, but I'm saying that a premise (postulate, supposition, belief) is inherently unprovable, otherwise it would be a conclusion flowing from a previous premise. Therefore, a premise must be taken "on faith."

I'm not quite clear on your distinction between abstract thought and concrete reasoning. Are you talking about the difference between art and science?
In the sense of beauty vs. physiological measurements. Beauty can be recognized and understood, but cannot be measured. The "normal" proportions of facial structure can be measured and defined with statistical accuracy.
You're right, it's not logical to have faith. Having faith means that you know you have reached a conclusion that isn't based on proof, which contradicts being logical. If you reach a conclusion logically that means you think that you do have proof; you might be wrong, but you er'ed innocently (or ignorantly). Having faith requires that you KNOW that you suspended the rules of logic for at least one step.
I agree only if you have accepted a conclusion without proof, despite the existence of proof/disproof. Otherwise, my argument is that the very act of stating a premise is demonstrating faith, and the assumption that logic is valid is also a demonstration of faith.

Good arguments, folks, I think we're all saying the same things in different ways. Thod and qwerty, I agree with you guys, but I wasn't really going after physical sciences in this thread. That's why I drew a distinction between abstraction and concrete observations. If I stated as a premise that a dropped object accelerates towards the ground of 9.8 m/s^2, I can demonstrate this. To challenge my premise, the onus would be on others to contradict it.

In the case of an abstraction, like the ones going on in the religious threads, I argue that "logic" can't disprove God, because God is a premise which is non-demonstrable. I could say the same about Justice or Beauty. This not to say that conclusions cannot be reached, just that it is inappropriate to categorically assert that God is illogical without demonstrating why. I'm seeing a lot of people haughtily declare they "know" the answer who need to be flung from jakal's shoe.

Of course, none of you guys were my intended audience on this one. I'm still waiting for the "You can't prove it, so it must be false" crowd to show up.

[Monte314]

They won't show up if they know what's good for them. For, taking a play from your book, let p="you can't prove A", and let Q="A is false".

Anyone who claims that P--->Q is asserting (by contraposition) that:

Not(Q)--->Not(P), which would be to say, "If A is true, then A is provable".

But the incompleteness of formal logic is a well-known fact. This is a contradiction.

Therefore, the "You can't prove it, so it must be false" crowd is already refuted.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I always find it kinda sad and amusing when people who believe in a magic-man-in-the-sky try to cast doubt on logic/reason. Then they'll appeal (poorly) to logic/reason to try and prove their superstition.

Personally, I see logic as a tool. And I have 'faith' in it because it works. Over and over I've solved math/physics problems with logic, I've diagnosed electrical systems, diesel engines, hydraulics, etc. using logic. I wouldn't claim it's the end-all/be-all of thought or even an ideal that one should strive for (unless solving for a specific problem).

But it's damn effective at separating the wheat from the chaff.

[cal]

Reminds me of Godel's theorem - no system can prove the axioms on which it's based.

[Monte314]

I always find it kinda sad and amusing when people who believe in a magic-man-in-the-sky try to cast doubt on logic/reason. Then they'll appeal (poorly) to logic/reason to try and prove their superstition.

Personally, I see logic as a tool. And I have 'faith' in it because it works. Over and over I've solved math/physics problems with logic, I've diagnosed electrical systems, diesel engines, hydraulics, etc. using logic. I wouldn't claim it's the end-all/be-all of thought or even an ideal that one should strive for (unless solving for a specific problem).

But it's damn effective at separating the wheat from the chaff.

Because you are a man who knows tools, you know that every tool is designed for a certain set of tasks. You are also aware, I am sure, that when a tool is applied to a task outside of its design parameters, it can be expected to fail.

Godel (among others) has shown that formal systems (including predicate logic) have this same limitation; there are tasks which fall outside of its design parameters; in these areas, it can be expected to fail. So, while it's an excellent tool, it can't *always* separate the wheat from the chaff.

No one has to appeal to a man-in-the-sky to suggest that it is important to know and respect the limitations of your tools. In particular, it is essential for the thinker to know and respect the inherent, universally acknowledged, irremediable limitations of logic, one of our "tools"... whether there is a man-in-the-sky or not.

[Mechanical Messiah]

True enough, Monte.

I wouldn't claim that I can logically prove that Santa doesn't exist. But one can reason that it's pretty damn unlikely.

[Monte314]

True enough, Monte.

I wouldn't claim that I can logically prove that Santa doesn't exist. But one can reason that it's pretty damn unlikely.

Yeah. I got a lump of coal last Christmas. I'm good with the man-in-the-sky, but the man-at-the-pole let me down.

[Antisocialite]

Acyckowski,

I saw you mention something about faith in a code of ethics or particular rules. The difference between having faith in a god and having faith in a code of ethics, for example, is that typically one's confidence in accepted rules (and the like) is bolstered upon proof of how well they (the rules or code) function. Even now there is still no proof of any gods so the faith you speak of is actually two very different things. One is based on logic; the other isn't.

[blueback]

There is no such thing as faith based on logic. If you have logical support for a conclusion you don't have faith in it.

[Antisocialite]

There is no such thing as faith based on logic. If you have logical support for a conclusion you don't have faith in it.

You have to read the initial post. I did reference it.

[kubrickfan]

I would like to add, that chaoist have a firm belief in Chaos Theory. Despite being rooted in a logic based system they have a faith in a theory. It would also be poingant to point out that Chaos is also about defining systems particuarly those that revolve around random patterns, thus a faith in an order of the random. So i think that would sort of put Blueback a bit--back.

[blueback]

You have to read the initial post.

I was the third person to respond to the initial post.

I did reference it.

No, you referenced acyckowski.

The initial post claims that if your conclusion is fully supported except for one presupposition which is unsupported that you have faith in the conclusion. That is wrong. You only have faith in a conclusion if it is entirely unsupported. As soon as you have evidence or logic to reference, in any way, in support of your conclusion you don't have faith in it.

Faiths is belief WITHOUT support, not belief which is PARTIALLY without support. It's all or nothing. Either you have faith or you don't. If you have any support, you don't have faith.

Therefore, there is no such thing as faith based on logic.

[Antisocialite]

I was the third person to respond to the initial post.

No, you referenced acyckowski.

The initial post claims that if your conclusion is fully supported except for one presupposition which is unsupported that you have faith in the conclusion. That is wrong. You only have faith in a conclusion if it is entirely unsupported. As soon as you have evidence or logic to reference, in any way, in support of your conclusion you don't have faith in it.

Faiths is belief WITHOUT support, not belief which is PARTIALLY without support. It's all or nothing. Either you have faith or you don't. If you have any support, you don't have faith.

Therefore, there is no such thing as faith based on logic.

Acyckowski is the initial poster. And here's what he said which I referenced:

Here are the definitions of faith from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc...

[bricklayer]

It's not impossible for a person who is otherwise rational to have faith, it's just that faith itself isn't entirely logical.

Of course it's not logical. It's faith! How could you ever expect a God beyond our understanding to seem logical to us?

[blueback]

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc...

Are you trying to say that faith in a logically supported code of ethics is still faith? I would like to point out that the definition acyckowski used was #2. Also, that it would make no sense for a dictionary to list contradictory definitions. Therefore it makes sense to interpret all the definitions in accordance with all the other definitions. That means that while many of the definitions are more specific in context they must still obey #2.

Therefore, the code of ethics in this context would be one without any support so that it still falls under #2. If one truly expanded the word "faith" to include "any code of ethics," as a reading of #4 in isolation would suggest, the word would lose its meaning.

Words have specific uses. If you want to talk about a code of ethics which is supported just use the word believe, or trust, or whatever.





blueback added to this post, 1 minutes and 45 seconds later...

How could you ever expect a God beyond our understanding to seem logical to us?
I don't. I don't expect anything of anything "beyond my understanding."