The problem with using logic and reason as the foundation of faith in God

[punkdbass]

Maybe you can help me. Though I am not sure it comes from logic, but I am having trouble believing in a personal God.

Like, I was talking to an orthodox friend about God. And how in the Tanakh God is revealed. He seems very apart of the world. He gives great signs of wonder. He sends prophets to help. Iv been thinking of how he lead Am Israel from Egypt with great streangth. He consumes Eliyahu's sacrifice in front of the false prophets. And yet now, at times he seems to be a bit silent.

I mean, he seems to answer prayers at times o. Even though they may not be exactly kosher. But still I feel a bit critical. Especially when reading the scripture. Is it possible they exagerated? Or did he leave us in the toy aisle by accident, and like lost children we have to wonder, lookingfor him in this giant store called life?

I think I can definitely help you!! for the longest time I struggled with the idea of a personal God, in fact I didn't believe in a personal God. It wasn't until recently that I've really strengthened my faith and have started embracing the idea of a personal God existing.

First of all, I would say read this post by Levite, which talks about how there can be a personal God with all the suffering and evil in the world, and then I would also recommend reading his posts in this thread as well -- for they both helped me a lot with the idea of a personal God.

As for the reading of scripture.. perhaps the following will help: I do not view the Bible as the 100% literal word of God, rather I think the Bible is more so the result of man's search for God than God's search for man. I think a lot of truth, and even divine will can be found within the Bible(as I will later explain how), but ultimately it was written by men, and thus contains the flaws of man. It is the foundation of Jewish Law, which is an extremely holy endeavor, regardless if you believe God is personal or if the Torah has divine origin or not.

Okay so here is the crucial advice that I want to give you. My main reason for believing in a personal God, or any sort of God at all, comes from the collective experiences of the Jewish people. The Torah, and any other sacred piece of Jewish literature, are basically the accounts of collective experiences that the entire Jewish people shared. A huge hobby of mine is reading and studying Torah and other Jewish books. Every single sentence in these books is tied to the experiences of an entire people. I think there is so much power in this, and that a lot of truth can be found within it as well. Israel is such a unique and powerful thing. Even when I struggled with the idea of a personal God(and I still do), I always told myself that I have faith in Israel - and that truth can be found within Israel's collective experiences. And I really do, I have very strong faith in Israel.

So anyways, for the past several thousand years, Israel has always thought of God as a conscious, personal being, and all of their experiences reflect that.. so if you study the Jewish people, and if their collective experiences interest you as much as they do for me, then I think you have a lot of reason to believe in a personal God.

Okay, but the purpose of my thread is that one must jump in and experience God for himself rather then rely on reason/logic for the pillars of his faith. The above point I gave, is more so a mixture of experience/reason, so I would like to add one more crucial piece of advice. I think one of the main purposes of religion is to help mediate God's presence. For the past several thousand years, the Jewish people have used the observance of mitzvot as the main method for mediating God's presence(which interesting enough is a communal thing). So my advice for you, which is similar to the advice Levite gave to me(he sent me a very good sermon he gave, if you want me to send it to you I can) is to jump in and start observing mitzvot. This is going to take quite some time.. but study Jewish Law/Torah and start observing as many mitzvot as possible. And then evaluate your experiences, and determine if something real and higher can be found within them.

So here's a quick summary of my advice for you:
1. You don't(and shouldnt IMO) believe that the Torah is the 100% literal word of God in order to believe in a personal God.
2. Have faith in Israel, and that truth can be found within its collective experiences.. afterall, every piece of sacred Jewish Literature is based upon the collective experiences of our people as a whole. There is a lot of power in this.
3. Jump in and start observing mitzvot. Evaluate your experiences with the mitzvot, and try to determine the nature of God's presence that is being mediated, or if you think anything is being mediated at all. Try to determine if something personal and conscious lies within these experiences.
4. And if after doing all of this you still can't find yourself believing in a personal God, but rather believe in an impersonal force that unites all things and is the power of salvation of mankind(as I once did) -- then you can at least think of God as being personal in the sense that he uniquely calls each and every one of us to a higher, more elevated state of living. (I figured this out from a matisyahu song lol) But definitely never give up with step's 2 and 3, for even if you don't believe in a personal God, observing Jewish Law is an extremely holy and meaningful endeavor.

I realize this is a lot of stuff, but this is what helped me.. best of luck Oh and one last point! If you believe in a first cause, or that God is the Creator, then I think you have to believe in a conscious, personal God.. simply because it would take consciousness to create everything that exists today.. wouldnt you agree? But don't let this be the foundation of your faith in a personal God(As some thiests do), simply because the moment someone convinces you the universe doesnt need a first cause, your faith will become pretty weak.

 

[Skwim]

The moment someone convinces you that your faith is illogical or unreasonable when compared to a different philosophy, the pillars/foundation of your faith will be removed and all will come crashing down.

I have been told by several theists, that you can't use logic or reason to arrive at God.. I think I finally understand what they mean. If the foundation of your faith is based on logic or reason, then the moment someone convinces you that there is a more logical or reasonable alternative to your beliefs, your "faith" will quickly crumble away. I'm not saying that God is illogical or unreasonable, but I think in order to have a strong theology, the foundation of your faith must be built on experience rather than logic and reason.

I'm proposing that all theists should root the foundation of their faith in experience. Both theists and atheists can sit and contemplate just how reasonable or logical God is -- but ultimately I think you need to jump in and give God a chance.. and then evaluate the experiences you have and determine for yourself if you think there is anything real or if a higher power can be found within them. And if so, then I think the foundation of your faith should be built upon such experiences, in order to have a strong theology.

You should most definitely use logic and reason to build your theology, to analyze, question, and develop your beliefs.. but I think in order to have a strong theology one must build its foundation upon experiences. Thoughts?

Your proposal is like advising people to live in caves because houses are susceptible to burning down. Shouldn't religions be based on whatever brings them into being? And if they can't weather the onslaught of logic perhaps they don't deserve to be revered.

 

[punkdbass]

Your proposal is like advising people to live in caves because houses are susceptible to burning down. Shouldn't religions be based on whatever brings them into being? And if they can't weather the onslaught of logic perhaps they don't deserve to be revered.

I'm just trying to help thiests strengthen their faith/theology, since that seems to be a thing most thiests want to do.

If basing the foundation of your faith upon experiences is equivalent to living in a cave, then I guess that's your opinion, but man am I glad I dont live in a cave. Perhaps the reason you think it's a stupid idea, is because then it leaves you less room to attack that person's beliefs(since you can't fully know their experiences), which seems to be something many skeptics have fun with.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree, in part at least. A certain amount of struggle is required in the path to God.

On the other hand, struggling too much is not helpful. Learning the difference between the positive and the negative struggle take experience and practice, but it is vital to any path of faith. It is that struggle, where we lay our own needs, wants and desires down and let go of them, that we grow to understand God.

I disagree that any struggle is required, because it indicates that you're striving to reach something that you don't already have.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, because believing in a God is just oh soo easy to do! Right.

If "belief" is the goal, then God isn't.

 

[Sunstone]

If "belief" is the goal, then God isn't.

In practice, belief in a god seems to be a largely effective means of insuring that one does not experience god. I strongly agree with Krishnamurti that the experience of god can only come about when all belief and all active disbelief have come to an end.

If you believe in a god, you will at best experience the petty little god your petty little imagination can conceive of. At worse, you won't even experience that.

Of course, I do not mean to imply that experiencing god should be anyone's goal, nor imply that it has any value.

 

[Sunstone]

A conclusion arrived at by logic and reason would appear to violate the definition of faith. It might better be termed knowledge.

Good point.

 

[james2ko]

The moment someone convinces you that your faith is illogical or unreasonable when compared to a different philosophy, the pillars/foundation of your faith will be removed and all will come crashing down.

1. I found it to be quite the opposite. When someone's faulty reasoning on a particular belief or doctrine is exposed, they either bow out or divert the discussion or tighten their grip on their refuted belief and repeat it over and over with no sound logic.

I have been told by several theists, that you can't use logic or reason to arrive at God..

2. God disagrees with them:

Isa 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

Isa 41:21 Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

Isa 43:26 Meet me in court! State your case and prove that you are right. (CEV)

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.​

If God encourages the practice of logic and reason in other matters, how much more would He encourage it to establish proof of His existence?

I think I finally understand what they mean. If the foundation of your faith is based on logic or reason, then the moment someone convinces you that there is a more logical or reasonable alternative to your beliefs, your "faith" will quickly crumble away. I'm not saying that God is illogical or unreasonable, but I think in order to have a strong theology, the foundation of your faith must be built on experience rather than logic and reason.

I'm proposing that all theists should root the foundation of their faith in experience. Both theists and atheists can sit and contemplate just how reasonable or logical God is -- but ultimately I think you need to jump in and give God a chance.. and then evaluate the experiences you have and determine for yourself if you think there is anything real or if a higher power can be found within them. And if so, then I think the foundation of your faith should be built upon such experiences, in order to have a strong theology.

You should most definitely use logic and reason to build your theology, to analyze, question, and develop your beliefs.. but I think in order to have a strong theology one must build its foundation upon experiences. Thoughts?

3. God encourages both:

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

What God is attempting to convey is by employing logic and reason coupled with an honest, objective biblical and scientific look at creation, "should" leave one without excuse, at the very least, of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Once a person arrives at the conclusion of the existence of an Intelligent Designer, He then must exercise faith by putting Him to the test:

Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.​

 

[punkdbass]

In practice, belief in a god seems to be a largely effective means of insuring that one does not experience god. I strongly agree with Krishnamurti that the experience of god can only come about when all belief and all active disbelief have come to an end.

If you believe in a god, you will at best experience the petty little god your petty little imagination can conceive of. At worse, you won't even experience that.

Of course, I do not mean to imply that experiencing god should be anyone's goal, nor imply that it has any value.

wow, good post.. I've never thought about it like that before. This reminds me a lot about what my dad was telling me the other day about the purpose of meditation in some eastern religions. He said that people today have such trouble living in the moment, because were always constantly thinking and worrying about other things. Part of the purpose of meditation is to calm your mind and erase ALL thoughts, so that you are living purely in the moment, one with the universe, which reminds me a lot of what you have described. If one can erase all thoughts and beliefs, then they will truly be living in the moment, one with the universe and God(if He exists). Good post.

 

[Skwim]

If basing the foundation of your faith upon experiences is equivalent to living in a cave, then I guess that's your opinion, but man am I glad I dont live in a cave.

Not equivalent but "like." (Similes are not a equivalences.)

You're the one who said all theists should root the foundation of their faith in experience.

"If the foundation of your faith is based on logic or reason, then the moment someone convinces you that there is a more logical or reasonable alternative to your beliefs, your "faith" will quickly crumble away. I'm not saying that God is illogical or unreasonable, but I think in order to have a strong theology, the foundation of your faith must be built on experience rather than logic and reason."
​

In effect you're saying that if your faith cannot stand up to reason and logic (your house cannot survive fire) then opt for personal experience (opt for a cave) on which to base your faith, where reason and logic (fire) have no effect.

Perhaps the reason you think it's a stupid idea, is because then it leaves you less room to attack that person's beliefs(since you can't fully know their experiences), which seems to be something many skeptics have fun with.

Not stupid, just poorly thought through. To dismiss the value of reason and logic is to open the door to all sorts of foolish, silly, and absurd notions (experiences are always filtered by our needs and expectations). And to sort through such trash one needs some kind of objective tool, because any subjective tool only leaves one with what a person wants/needs in their faith rather than any innate truth of a faith. And what better objective tools than reason and logic?

But hey, if a fools' paradise is where people need to reside in order to get through life, so be it.

 

[punkdbass]

In effect you're saying that if your faith cannot stand up to reason and logic (your house cannot survive fire) then opt for personal experience (opt for a cave) on which to base your faith, where reason and logic (fire) have no effect.

I disagree. I think I've said it about 3 or 4 times now, one must evaluate their experiences, and determine for themselves whether or not a higher power is present within them. How do we evaluate things? Using logic and reason.

Look I understand what your trying to get at, but your completely dodging the whole point of my thread. I realize I'm not the best at communicating my ideas, but the main point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't just sit and contemplate God with logic, reason, philosophy, etc, and let THAT be the foundation of our faith, rather we need to jump in and live life and then evaluate our experiences -- and use those for our foundation of faith in God, or lack there of.

If you are born into a religion, and trying to determine whether or not you believe in God, then you shouldnt just sit and contemplate God all day, rather you should jump in and give God a chance, live life and evaluate what's real: your experiences. And then use those for the foundation of faith in God or lack there of.

There are plenty of God "proofs"/arguments out there, and I think there is a serious danger as a Theist of using those as the foundation of your faith. Because the moment someone convinces you a more reasonable argument exists, your faith will crumble. For example: some theists use the argument of a first cause as the foundation of their faith.. but the moment someone convinces them that an eternal universe is more reasonable, then what does their faith become? I am proposing that theists should base the pillars of their faith upon experience, and I am in NO way advocating that one should not use logic or reason to evaluate such experiences, or to develop their faith.

You can contemplate God all day with logic and reason, but it really doesnt matter how reasonable your God-concept is, the bottom line is that if you havent experienced it, then it certainly wouldnt be too logical to believe in it.

Would you agree that it is illogical to believe in something you, yourself, have never experienced whatsoever? The foundation of my belief in gravity, is not because scientists tell me it exists, but because I experience it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It is not logic being used as the foundation for faith which is problematic; instead it is the creation of a foundation defeasible through the use of logic. If you wish to create a foundation of faith which cannot be falsified then ambiguously is the answer making both the terminology and the concepts underlying that terminology vague so as to resist cognition, else you must instead rely on the principle of fideism - faith through faith, regardless of rationality - yet by undertaking such a path you run the risk of moving from the non-rational to the irrational, which happens as soon as you use faith not merely in lieu of reason but to oppose reason.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Faith in God is no different from any weird belief in society: people believe because it appeals to things in them that are either healthy (like their hope for ultimate justice for the unfortunate) or unhealthy (like their need for self-aggrandizement and certainty for free).

Like belief in conspiracy theories or urban legends, there's a logical aspect to the belief in God that assures the believer that it's rational: it's based on observations or experiences that support the belief. The irrational aspect shows itself whenever the believer has to deal with disconfirming evidence. The cascade of ad hoc rationalizations and accusations of bias are usually the hallmarks of a nutty belief being shored up with elaborate defenses.

Even a belief that's not arrived at rationally can be defended with a lot of claims that at least appeal to rationality.

-Nato

 

[Koldo]

There are plenty of God "proofs"/arguments out there, and I think there is a serious danger as a Theist of using those as the foundation of your faith. Because the moment someone convinces you a more reasonable argument exists, your faith will crumble. For example: some theists use the argument of a first cause as the foundation of their faith.. but the moment someone convinces them that an eternal universe is more reasonable, then what does their faith become? I am proposing that theists should base the pillars of their faith upon experience, and I am in NO way advocating that one should not use logic or reason to evaluate such experiences, or to develop their faith.

Aren't you dismissing the possibility that someone may possibly offer you a different explanation/interpretation ( using logic and reason ) to the events that you experienced? Aren't those experiences, therefore, entitled to the same kind of problem that the belief based on philosophical arguments have?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I disagree that any struggle is required, because it indicates that you're striving to reach something that you don't already have.

Or maybe something you're trying to let go of. The primary goal of a religion is to learn to let go of things, and learning to do that is very hard, and sometimes seems impossible. I agree most of the time we are striving to reach things that we already have, or things we don't really need...but that doesn't mean it's not a struggle to figure that out.

 

[Student of X]

Well said.

 

[punkdbass]

Aren't you dismissing the possibility that someone may possibly offer you a different explanation/interpretation ( using logic and reason ) to the events that you experienced? Aren't those experiences, therefore, entitled to the same kind of problem that the belief based on philosophical arguments have?

No I am not dismissing that possibility.. and although they can certainly be entitled to a similar kind of problem that the belief based on philosophical arguments have -- there is still a distinct different.

There is a difference in experiencing something and simply thinking about it.. and I think there is a lot of value in that. If you have never experienced something, then no matter how logical the argument seems for it, wouldn't it be rather illogical to believe in it, if you yourself have never experienced it whatsoever?

 

[Thief]

No I am not dismissing that possibility.. and although they can certainly be entitled to a similar kind of problem that the belief based on philosophical arguments have -- there is still a distinct different.

There is a difference in experiencing something and simply thinking about it.. and I think there is a lot of value in that. If you have never experienced something, then no matter how logical the argument seems for it, wouldn't it be rather illogical to believe in it, if you yourself have never experienced it whatsoever?

This excludes anticipation.
I can think about where I'm going...how to get there....

I can then use logic to to be sure of some things.

I expect hierarchy.
I expect some judgment call.

6billion people will die in my lifetime.
I expect some level of chaos....as judgment takes hold.
Peace follows.

Haven't seen or experienced any of this.
Just think about it.

 

[Koldo]

No I am not dismissing that possibility.. and although they can certainly be entitled to a similar kind of problem that the belief based on philosophical arguments have -- there is still a distinct different.

There is a difference in experiencing something and simply thinking about it.. and I think there is a lot of value in that.

What difference does it make when it comes down to believing in God?

If you have never experienced something, then no matter how logical the argument seems for it, wouldn't it be rather illogical to believe in it, if you yourself have never experienced it whatsoever?

Not at all. Otherwise, it would be illogical for the average Joe to believe that Jupiter exists. It is not necessary to experience something for it to be logical to believe in it.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Not at all. Otherwise, it would be illogical for the average Joe to believe that Jupiter exists. It is not necessary to experience something for it to be logical to believe in it.

That's absolutely correct.

I always use the example of the colonial-era Europeans who refused to believe there were snow-capped mountains in Kenya. How preposterous is the notion of frozen mountaintops along the Equator?

But let's be fair. The existence of Mount Kilimanjaro can be independently verified. No one expects people to accept folkloric constructs or someone's lucid dream as evidence that such mountains exist.

-Nato