Reason and Logic Rule

[thebesttrees]

Without sound logic and sound reason arriving at faith is an attempt in futility.  I discovered such a thing as faith when my son had to go under the knife in an emergency and I never got to see the man who operated on him. I had to put my faith in someone that I did not even know and here he was with my son's life in his hands!

I am here on this forum to learn how to apply reason and logic to arrive at faith.

[Mike Cl]

Without sound logic and sound reason arriving at faith is an attempt in futility.  I discovered such a thing as faith when my son had to go under the knife in an emergency and I never got to see the man who operated on him. I had to put my faith in someone that I did not even know and here he was with my son's life in his hands!

I am here on this forum to learn how to apply reason and logic to arrive at faith.

Welcome.  I hope you stay and maybe bring some logic to those, such as me, who like logic, but get lost in the formal rules of logic.  I like to think that I applied logic to the world of spirituality and and came out an atheist.  Interesting you came out the opposite. 

One of the things I remember about going in for two of my heart stints, was that I gave my total belief that the surgeon who was working on me was good and that he was doing his best.  And I had faith that the outcome would be positive.  I had little to no fear after that.  Even tho I was awake the entire time, (in a dulled way, since they do give you some drugs for that proceedure), I felt interest in what was going on rather than fear.  God never entered the picture for me.

[Solitary]

Without sound logic and sound reason arriving at faith is an attempt in futility.  I discovered such a thing as faith when my son had to go under the knife in an emergency and I never got to see the man who operated on him. I had to put my faith in someone that I did not even know and here he was with my son's life in his hands!

I am here on this forum to learn how to apply reason and logic to arrive at faith.

Welcome aboard thebesttrees! You had to put faith in the doctor, I put trust in my doctor when operating on my wife, son, and me several times. Faith assumes that trust has more power with God's intervention, but it isn't necessarily so as many studies have shown is no more than chance.  But if it helps you deal with things, I'm all for it, and I'm sure most atheists would agree. Logic dictates that a belief in God and having faith is pragmatic, but it doesn't prove it is a fact, in fact it proves it isn't when it doesn't work most of the time to change an outcome, even if it makes it easier to cope and make one feel better. Take care!

[thebesttrees]

Welcome.  I hope you stay and maybe bring some logic to those, such as me, who like logic, but get lost in the formal rules of logic.  I like to think that I applied logic to the world of spirituality and and came out an atheist.  Interesting you came out the opposite. 

One of the things I remember about going in for two of my heart stints, was that I gave my total belief that the surgeon who was working on me was good and that he was doing his best. And I had faith that the outcome would be positive.  I had little to no fear after that.  Even tho I was awake the entire time, (in a dulled way, since they do give you some drugs for that proceedure), I felt interest in what was going on rather than fear.  God never entered the picture for me.

Glad your surgeon did his job well so we can benefit from your wisdom now. Never mind God but you had faith in your surgeon and the desirable outcome, given some pre-surgery research that you hopefully had done.

[thebesttrees]

Welcome aboard thebesttrees! You had to put faith in the doctor, I put trust in my doctor when operating on my wife, son, and me several times. Faith assumes that trust has more power with God's intervention, but it isn't necessarily so as many studies have shown is no more than chance.  But if it helps you deal with things, I'm all for it, and I'm sure most atheists would agree. Logic dictates that a belief in God and having faith is pragmatic, but it doesn't prove it is a fact, in fact it proves it isn't when it doesn't work most of the time to change an outcome, even if it makes it easier to cope and make one feel better. Take care!

Thank you. Death does not scare me as birth should not scare the fetus as different as this world is from the world of the womb. So if the outcome of the surgery is death, so be it.

As for God, long time ago I studied the Euler's  Identity. I arrived at it through mathematical manipulation and deduction. Once there, I marveled at it and stood in awe. Do I understand it? Absolutely not! Do I accept it as true? I have to although I do not understand it a bit. It is simply there.

[Solitary]

Knowledge from the gaps in our knowledge with God is still ignorance. Mathematics is a tool used like a hammer, and can be misused also, especially when you hit your thumb. Logic does not reveal the truth accept when the facts are known. This is a common misconception about logic. And using rationalization is even worse. So how do we know what the facts are? The world is about data that our minds receive from our senses through our bodies, and then creates the world we experience. But that world and it's true nature are unknown. If it is just data, then that is reality, and everything we think in our minds is not, no matter how much we think it is. I can live with the unknown, but I think it is lazy to replace the unknown with imaginary magical creatures thinking that answers for the unknown, when it is still ignorance of the actual reality we can't know or understand with our ignorance. Secularizing is fun, but it can't reveal the truth without knowing what the facts are. It's called circular reasoning, we seek the truth, which are the facts, while thinking the facts are the truth, or the truth that is unknown is the facts.

I am seeking the truth, so I think there is real magic, so I create an invisible  creature in my mind that has the answers for everything, and He is a fact then to me, sounds logical and reasonable until you realize your premise is not a fact, but a creation of your mind for an answer to the unknown and your ignorance. Speculation on the unknown is fun, but it is worthless without knowing what it actually is, accept to make us feel good, or even bad in some cases. Hang in there, it gets worse as you get older and you know more facts, and they present even more unknowns to deal with.  The more you know, the more you know you don't know. It sounds like a riddle, but it isn't.  It's more like me saying what I wrote is a lie, and if it is, then it is the truth. We just have to learn to live with paradoxes. I think my head just exploded.

[thebesttrees]

Knowledge from the gaps in our knowledge with God is still ignorance. Mathematics is a tool used like a hammer, and can be misused also, especially when you hit your thumb. Logic does not reveal the truth accept when the facts are known. This is a common misconception about logic. And using rationalization is even worse. So how do we know what the facts are? The world is about data that our minds receive from our senses through our bodies, and then creates the world we experience. But that world and it's true nature are unknown. If it is just data, then that is reality, and everything we think in our minds is not, no matter how much we think it is. I can live with the unknown, but I think it is lazy to replace the unknown with imaginary magical creatures thinking that answers for the unknown, when it is still ignorance of the actual reality we can't know or understand with our ignorance. Secularizing is fun, but it can't reveal the truth without knowing what the facts are. It's called circular reasoning, we seek the truth, which are the facts, while thinking the facts are the truth, or the truth that is unknown is the facts.

I am seeking the truth, so I think there is real magic, so I create an invisible  creature in my mind that has the answers for everything, and He is a fact then to me, sounds logical and reasonable until you realize your premise is not a fact, but a creation of your mind for an answer to the unknown and your ignorance. Speculation on the unknown is fun, but it is worthless without knowing what it actually is, accept to make us feel good, or even bad in some cases. Hang in there, it gets worse as you get older and you know more facts, and they present even more unknowns to deal with.  The more you know, the more you know you don't know. It sounds like a riddle, but it isn't.  It's more like me saying what I wrote is a lie, and if it is, then it is the truth. We just have to learn to live with paradoxes. I think my head just exploded.

I agree with everything you have said. How is that for exploding your head?! And check out Euler's Identity. It is not a trick or magic. it is real mathematics but alas it does not make sense. I gave time dilation a try and understood it but this cookie has been in my jar and an in that of many others and everyone's got his hand stuck trying to pull it out. Wikipedia it to see what  I mean. If you are into math, you will love its sheer beauty! Ah! That's the word I was looking for. No wonder it is called the most beautiful formula in all of mathematics!

[Mike Cl]

Glad your surgeon did his job well so we can benefit from your wisdom now. Never mind God but you had faith in your surgeon and the desirable outcome, given some pre-surgery research that you hopefully had done.

Thanks--I don't know that I have much 'wisdom' to impart.  I was referred to the last surgeon by my primary care dr., in whom I had complete trust (or faith, if you will, since on a personal level 'faith' simply means I have given up worrying about something because I have done all I can about it--just give up the worrying and know that all will be well)

[SGOS]

I don't have faith in doctors.  I make some assumptions about their knowledge and competence, but I know full well that that these assumptions can be in error.  I let them do their job and hope.   It's probably just semantics, but I don't have anything I would define as faith, and if I ever use the word it's more in the context of an exaggerated assumption.  I don't really mean it.

[Mike Cl]

I don't have faith in doctors.  I make some assumptions about their knowledge and competence, but I know full well that that these assumptions can be in error.  I let them do their job and hope.   It's probably just semantics, but I don't have anything I would define as faith, and if I ever use the word it's more in the context of an exaggerated assumption.  I don't really mean it.

I hear what you say.  I guess I'll just plead my use of faith as a special case in which I craft the meaning of that word for me only.  It is a single word that represents the process I go thu in situations such as this--usually medical.  I use it to control my natural fear.  And so I use it to transfer all the trust I can into the surgical team that is working on me.  Faith is blind--and so is the trust I bestow on that team--after I've done the work to give them that trust.  It is a fear control mechanism.  Maybe I should just use the work 'trust'--nothing divine about that.

[stromboli]

I have mucho experience with doctors from having 3 kids and a wife with MS who has, count em' 3 different doctors; not to mention my own. I like my doctor because every time I see him does a complete review of meds and a thorough exam.

We nearly lost our first child because the doctor was an idiot referred to us by the mother in law. Dumped him and later, her. Doctors are mixed bag, tbh.

[thebesttrees]

I hear what you say.  I guess I'll just plead my use of faith as a special case in which I craft the meaning of that word for me only.  It is a single word that represents the process I go thu in situations such as this--usually medical.  I use it to control my natural fear.  And so I use it to transfer all the trust I can into the surgical team that is working on me.  Faith is blind--and so is the trust I bestow on that team--after I've done the work to give them that trust.  It is a fear control mechanism.  Maybe I should just use the work 'trust'--nothing divine about that.

Faith (trust) is accepting the "possibility" without considering the "probability".

[TomFoolery]

In a way, you're right, faith is a word largely commandeered by the religious. I had an agnostic professor of a religious studies class I took in college who asserted that everyone believed in something. I initially disagreed, and he asked me if I drove to school that day, and if I had, when I applied pressure to my brake lines, did I have faith that my car would stop? I tried arguing over the semantics of the point he was trying to make, but he pointed out that I was just a person who preferred to put faith in things that could be demonstrated to be reliable. The key being that it was reliable, but not necessarily infallible.

Brakes on a car can fail. You expect that they won't though.

Just like doctors can botch surgeries. You put faith in a surgeon based on a reasonable presumption that he or she has attended schooling to learn that trade, and has the necessary experience to do it more successfully than you would say, the mechanic who works on your brakes.

[Mike Cl]

Faith (trust) is accepting the "possibility" without considering the "probability".

Maybe.  Faith when used in a religious way is blind acceptance without any facts to support that belief.  When I used it in a purely personal way, I was referring to a process that produced total acceptance of a situation--a situation that I had done all the prep for that I could do and was a way to control the fear that was present in me.  The more I think about it, the more I think trust or total trust, would work better, since it is not really blind.  I have examined the facts and have decided that this is what would be best for me; so let's do it!  So, no faith here, but total trust. 

[Mike Cl]

In a way, you're right, faith is a word largely commandeered by the religious. I had an agnostic professor of a religious studies class I took in college who asserted that everyone believed in something. I initially disagreed, and he asked me if I drove to school that day, and if I had, when I applied pressure to my brake lines, did I have faith that my car would stop? I tried arguing over the semantics of the point he was trying to make, but he pointed out that I was just a person who preferred to put faith in things that could be demonstrated to be reliable. The key being that it was reliable, but not necessarily infallible.

Brakes on a car can fail. You expect that they won't though.

Just like doctors can botch surgeries. You put faith in a surgeon based on a reasonable presumption that he or she has attended schooling to learn that trade, and has the necessary experience to do it more successfully than you would say, the mechanic who works on your brakes.

I think you were right when taking that course.  I would say you have an expectation that your brakes will work; but you know that brakes can and do fail.  So, if your brakes failed you may be surprised but not in disbelief.  I understand faith used in a religious sense, to be total and blind.  There does not need to be any demonstration of anything for a religious person to have faith.  The theist will tell me that I believe the sun will rise every day.  I assert that I don't believe that it will, but I expect that it will.  Why, because my expectation has been demonstrated to be so in the past.  Belief and faith do not need those demonstrations to be fed.  Of course, if I were taking that class, I'd use whatever word the prof wanted me to. :))