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

[Student of X]

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.

Looking up and seeing Jupiter doesn't count as experiencing it in your book?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

I'm not a big fan of the idea of aschewing logic and reason in favour of subjective, personal experience in determining such an important aspect of your personal philosophy - but I appreciate and understand that you're in the difficult position of trying to reconcile faith and reason (a task that I personally believe can never really be done), and that you're approaching this issue with a view of ultimately trying to harmonize theist and atheist voices in this debate.

In other words I like what you're trying to do and I think it's very admirable, but I think trying to justify a belief based on experience rather than logic and/or reason is not a pathway to truth. Or, at least, not the best way.

 

[Koldo]

Looking up and seeing Jupiter doesn't count as experiencing it in your book?

Let me change it for Neptune then to avoid any further commotion.
Is it better now?

 

[Student of X]

Let me change it for Neptune then to avoid any further commotion.
Is it better now?

Remote viewing Neptune doesn't count as experiencing it in your book?

 

[Koldo]

Remote viewing Neptune doesn't count as experiencing it in your book?

Remote viewing such as "...the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means, in particular, extra-sensory perception (ESP) or "sensing with mind" [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing] ? No. Unless someone proves the average Joe can do it.

 

[crystalonyx]

All religions fail in the logic category, because that is not their basis. Religions that seek believers do not appeal to logic to get them, they appeal to emotion and use peer pressure and tradition as their fallbacks..

 

[strikeviperMKII]

All religions fail in the logic category, because that is not their basis. Religions that seek believers do not appeal to logic to get them, they appeal to emotion and use peer pressure and tradition as their fallbacks..

People do that. Even in science. Don't act like religion is the only thing that uses such tactics.

 

[crystalonyx]

People do that. Even in science. Don't act like religion is the only thing that uses such tactics.

I didn't say anythimng about science. Science too has been plagued by illogic and prejudice over the centuries, such as the assumption that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded, which was not based upon any real evidence, but based upon the assumption that dinosaur physioiogy was "inferior" to mammalian.

 

[punkdbass]

I'm not a big fan of the idea of aschewing logic and reason in favour of subjective, personal experience in determining such an important aspect of your personal philosophy - but I appreciate and understand that you're in the difficult position of trying to reconcile faith and reason (a task that I personally believe can never really be done), and that you're approaching this issue with a view of ultimately trying to harmonize theist and atheist voices in this debate.

In other words I like what you're trying to do and I think it's very admirable, but I think trying to justify a belief based on experience rather than logic and/or reason is not a pathway to truth. Or, at least, not the best way.

Thanks, I appreciate your post a lot. I still feel like you all are misunderstanding me though, for I am in no way advocating that one should not try to justify their beliefs with logic and reason. I think the foundation/pillars/very first building blocks of one's faith should be based upon experience -- that's what I am arguing. One should still evaluate such experiences with logic and reason, and use the rules of logic to build their faith, and I will argue that one is required to do so, in order to have a strong theology.

Think about it this way.. proofs use the rules of logic to connect different ideas/things together in an attempt to prove something. But if you examine any proof and its roots/building blocks, you can always trace the proof back to certain assumptions. All proofs contain assumptions by definition. And ultimately the "truth" of a proof is relative to the truth of its assumptions. these assumptions can be tested with logic and reason, but they arent something we can KNOW to be 100% true. Afterall, if we had the ability to KNOW things to be 100% true, then there would be no need for assumptions, and thus no need for proofs, by definition.

So what I am arguing, is that if one were to construct a logical proof for faith in God, that their experiences should be the roots/building blocks/assumptions of the proof, rather than relying on OTHER logical/philosophical arguments for God as the building blocks(assumptions) of one's faith. And that by doing so, their theology will be stronger.

 

[YmirGF]

Thanks, I appreciate your post a lot. I still feel like you all are misunderstanding me though, for I am in no way advocating that one should not try to justify their beliefs with logic and reason. I think the foundation/pillars/very first building blocks of one's faith should be based upon experience -- that's what I am arguing. One should still evaluate such experiences with logic and reason, and use the rules of logic to build their faith, and I will argue that one is required to do so, in order to have a strong theology.

I think this is one area that has been very helpful for me, being on RF. I have learned to put my thinking into far less absolute terms due to the inability to prove a given viewpoint. As a bit of an extremist, in this way, I encourage people to question my thinking, as that helps me distill my thoughts even further. Then again, I do not rely on faith to buttress my thinking.

Think about it this way.. proofs use the rules of logic to connect different ideas/things together in an attempt to prove something. But if you examine any proof and its roots/building blocks, you can always trace the proof back to certain assumptions. All proofs contain assumptions by definition. And ultimately the "truth" of a proof is relative to the truth of its assumptions. these assumptions can be tested with logic and reason, but they arent something we can KNOW to be 100% true. Afterall, if we had the ability to KNOW things to be 100% true, then there would be no need for assumptions, and thus no need for proofs, by definition.

Truth is relative to the information at hand. Change the information available and "truth" changes with it. All too often confirmation bias takes over however, excluding anything that does not fit with preconceived notions. It can take considerable effort to break through the bias of those preconceived notions.

So what I am arguing, is that if one were to construct a logical proof for faith in God, that their experiences should be the roots/building blocks/assumptions of the proof, rather than relying on OTHER logical/philosophical arguments for God as the building blocks(assumptions) of one's faith. And that by doing so, their theology will be stronger.

I have a rather lot of experience to build my belief systems on, so that isn't much of a problem there. The problem with experience is danger of letting ones imagination run away with the ramifications of said experiences. Yes, experience is essential, but one must endeavor to keep both feet on the ground, at all times. Theology, in those terms, is a work in progress and should, theoretically, always remain so and be clearly understood to be in a continual state of becoming. A theology that is engraved in stone will become little more than a tombstone.

Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[Thief]

I think this is one area that has been very helpful for me, being on RF. I have learned to put my thinking into far less absolute terms due to the inability to prove a given viewpoint. As a bit of an extremist, in this way, I encourage people to question my thinking, as that helps me distill my thoughts even further. Then again, I do not rely on faith to buttress my thinking.

Truth is relative to the information at hand. Change the information available and "truth" changes with it. All too often confirmation bias takes over however, excluding anything that does not fit with preconceived notions. It can take considerable effort to break through the bias of those preconceived notions.

I have a rather lot of experience to build my belief systems on, so that isn't much of a problem there. The problem with experience is danger of letting ones imagination run away with the ramifications of said experiences. Yes, experience is essential, but one must endeavor to keep both feet on the ground, at all times. Theology, in those terms, is a work in progress and should, theoretically, always remain so and be clearly understood to be in a continual state of becoming. A theology that is engraved in stone will become little more than a tombstone.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Let's run with that.....

Step one.
6billion copies of a chemical device that will expose a thinking ,feeling individual to this world.
The effort will end.

Step two.
Decision.... whether or not the end really is.... the end.

Step three.
Construct a sense of reality that is most likely.

It seems MOST likely we are here to learn all that we can before we die.
We are built that way.
The body can't actually do anything else.

If you decide there is life after death then it does follow....
There is hierarchy.
Continue construction with anticipation.
What do you really expect?

If you decide there is no life after death, then you don't really need a tombstone.
The practice was aimed at resurrection when the angels come to dig you up.

I for one, believe the resurrection is immediate and spiritual.
The tombstone is then a marker for an empty grave.
And the words are....
'He is not here....He has risen.'