After numerous discussions with various people - admittedly no one who was professionally a philosophy student - lawyers and science students; someone who had over seven years of post-secondary religious education; priests and nuns - I have come to the conclusion that Faith will always trump logic. Even if something is logically impossible, if someone believes in it, they will take it as true. One can believe in contradicting things - for example, the Christian gospels have Jesus' first appearance in contradicting places. Logically, if the places are not in accord, then the messages may be not in accord as well, so a basis in values is possibly wrong.
But Faith itself entails a choice in believing in something. One chooses to believe, that make that thing that they believe in true for themselves. The choice to believe that people with dark skin are less than those with lighter, the choice to believe that the universe is made out of little vibrating strings of energy, that parallel lines do not cross. In the end, all logic is based in faith, all reasoning stems from one belief that we choose to take. Logic without faith is useless, because there are no premesis.
So, my point is, there is no point in arguing faith with logic. That is why the majority of proselytizing of Christians to atheists - and vice versa - never work. So why argue it? The only arguements usually made are those that are logical, and those never work, because faith always holds first for a person over logic?
| violetgnu wrote: |
| So, my point is, there is no point in arguing faith with logic. That is why the majority of proselytizing of Christians to atheists - and vice versa - never work. So why argue it? The only arguements usually made are those that are logical, and those never work, because faith always holds first for a person over logic? |
Because not everyone holds to their beliefs by faith. Some use logic alone, in which case a logical argument will change their beliefs.
Besides, no one wants to believe that their beliefs might be illogical.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| In the end, all logic is based in faith, all reasoning stems from one belief that we choose to take. Logic without faith is useless, because there are no premesis. |
That, unfortunately, is false.
Not every belief will ultimately root to pure faith. Many times a belief, if traced back far enough, will end in a perfectly rational, pragmatic reason - that is, a logical reason. For example, if you ask someone why they believe they are not living in a dream, they might answer: "i just believe it" (faith).
But they might answer: "because if i were to assume that i were living in a dream, one of two things would happen:- If i actually were in a dream, nothing would change except that now i have the knowledge that i do not need to fear dying. Helpful maybe, but ultimately a dead end. i can't learn (you can't learn anything new in a dream), i can't grow... i can't 'do' anything because nothing would be real. i might as well curl up and wait for the dream to end.
- If i weren't actually in a dream, i would delude myself into thinking something is harmless when it is not, and die.
But if i assume that i am not living in a dream:- If i am living in a dream, i will be mistaken and my life will be pointless... but it would have been pointless if i knew i was in a dream anyway, so nothing is lost.
- If i am not living in a dream, then i will live a normal, productive life.
So i have no reason to assume i am living in a dream. No faith required. It's just a logical assumption."
Even the old "do i even exist?" can be answered logically, without an appeal to faith, using good old Descartes: "If i can ask that question, then i can think. If i can think, i must be."
Not everything comes back to faith.But what is a "logical assumption" but faith in a particular axiom?
In your particular argument of the dream question, the logical assumption, and therefore the faith, is that a life lived in a dream is useless/of no value.
In the Descartes statement, it is that non-existant things cannot think. Popeye doesn't exist, but he can think.
The two are the faith, the arguments are the logic.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| But what is a "logical assumption" but faith in a particular axiom? |
There is no way that can be correct, for several reasons.
First, the definition of "faith" is something held to without evidence or logic. If you have a logical reason, it can't be faith by definition.
Second, the very idea that everything we hold to is held to by faith is flawed. Observe:- Everything we know or believe, we hold to by faith.
- i believe that i am holding a particular idea by faith.
- If 1 is true, then i can know 2 as a true fact, so i do not hold it by faith.
- But if 3 is true, then i know something that i do not hold to by faith, which contradicts 1.
- Therefore, 1 cannot be true.
Third, there is no reason for an axiom to be held on faith. You may be under the assumption that just because a particular axiom cannot be proven within a system that it is an axiom for, then it must be held to by faith. That's not true. An axiom is selected because it has never been observed to be false, it is logically consistent (it doesn't create paradoxes), and it is required in order to define a system (it can't be proven by other axioms). It takes a lot to meet those standards, and axioms in (serious) thought are not chosen lightly. If an axiom meets all of those rigorous standards, then you surely cannot say there exists no evidence for it.
On top of that, just because an axiom cannot be proven true within the system that it is used does not imply that it cannot be proven true within another system. Conservation laws in physics, like the conservation of energy, cannot be proven using other physics axioms, but they can be proven using mathematics. Addition cannot be proven using other arithmetic axioms, but it can be proven using set theory (and other things).
You may say "but they are all just being used to prove each other - what proves the whole of them?" Nothing that i know of... but you're chasing a red herring. You want to argue that they are held to by faith. That means that they are held to without evidence. But as i have just shown... there is evidence. There may be no external evidence, and so no absolute proof, but something doesn't need to be absolutely proven to be evidenced... and thus not held by faith.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| In your particular argument of the dream question, the logical assumption, and therefore the faith, is that a life lived in a dream is useless/of no value. |
That assumption is not held to by faith. But even if it were, construct the same argument i did using the assumption that living in a dream has some value and you will get the same results. As long as you don't assume that living in a dream has equal or more value than living in reality, the argument will hold... and if you want to claim that, you will have to explain how that could be. i can eat until i explode in a dream... and still starve in reality - thus reality must have some more value than a dream.
See? No faith necessary.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| In the Descartes statement, it is that non-existant things cannot think. Popeye doesn't exist, but he can think. |
Actually, that last statement is false. If Popeye doesn't exist, he can't walk, talk, be tall... or think.
You cannot assert any true facts about something non-existent... except that it is non-existent. You will undoubtedly now say that i hold to that by faith. Not true. i hold to that because if you use any other axiom, you get logical inconsistencies, aka paradoxes (see the Ontological argument for God's existence, for example). Only claiming that non-existent things can't do anything... but non-exist... makes sense and does not give rise to impossibilities. | Indi wrote: |
- Everything we know or believe, we hold to by faith.
- i believe that i am holding a particular idea by faith.
- If 1 is true, then i can know 2 as a true fact, so i do not hold it by faith.
- But if 3 is true, then i know something that i do not hold to by faith, which contradicts 1.
- Therefore, 1 cannot be true.
|
I didn't say everything we know or believe is held to by faith, I said it was based in faith, meaning that at least the first statement is going to be one that has no previous basis in logic or reason, with is what both of our definitions of faith is.
Also I never said that everything we know is only faith, that's another argument entirely, I am saying that the starting point of logic is faith or belief in some principle that has no prexisting evidence or logic in its favour.
| Indi wrote: |
violetgnu wrote:
In your particular argument of the dream question, the logical assumption, and therefore the faith, is that a life lived in a dream is useless/of no value.
That assumption is not held to by faith.
|
But it's based on some assumption, somewhere, where you decide that a certain value is true, for example that reality is of more value than something that isn't real.
Assuming that reality must have some more value than a dream is dependent on the viewer sets as a value. Perhaps the viewer has the belief that aesthetic beauty is greater than physical needs, and that the dream world can offer more aethshetic freedom, and is therefore of greater value. Therefore the principle that the argument traces back to is one that you have to decide for yourself, because there is no logical argument preceding it.
Hmm. I think you are right about Popeye, though, the statement is neither true nor false, because it can lead to contradictions and impossibilities by some arguments.
In any case, my point was that all logic is based on some previous assumption, and faith is exactly that assumption. If you were to look at your previous assumption, and the logic behind that, you're eventually left with another assumption on which it is based.
Last edited by violetgnu on Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:03 am; edited 1 time in total | violetgnu wrote: |
| I didn't say everything we know or believe is held to by faith, I said it was based in faith, meaning that at least the first statement is going to be one that has no previous basis in logic or reason, with is what both of our definitions of faith is. |
Changes nothing:- Everything we know or believe is ultimately based on something we hold to by faith.
- i believe that i am holding a particular idea by faith.
- If 1 is true, then i can know 2 as a true fact that is not ultimately based on faith.
- But if 3 is true, it contradicts 1.
- Therefore, 1 cannot be true.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Also I never said that everything we know is only faith, that's another argument entirely, I am saying that the starting point of logic is faith or belief in some principle that has no prexisting evidence or logic in its favour. |
But that can't be true without creating the contradiction above.
It sounds like you assume that an assumption or a definition equals a leap of faith. But that's absurd. We don't believe an assumption is true... we assume it's true. Anyone who assumes X, then believes X, is - quite frankly - an idiot. Why would anyone rational do that? (Take an example. Assume that silicon tetrachloride is not corrosive. Now... do you believe that silicon tetrachloride is not corrosive? As in... are you willing to swim in it? Of course not! That would be idiotic.)
The situation is even worse for a definition. If someone defines X to be true... how can you possibly accuse them of having faith that X is true? That's just bizarre. (Again, take an example: Let's define one hour as 1/24 of the period of the Earth's rotation. Now, if i asked you if you believed by faith that 24 hours were in day, would you say that it is an item of faith? Or would you say: "There's no belief involved. It's that way because i defined it that way.")
| violetgnu wrote: |
But it's based on some assumption, somewhere, where you decide that a certain value is true, for example that reality is of more value than something that isn't real.
Assuming that reality must have some more value than a dream is dependent on the viewer sets as a value. Perhaps the viewer has the belief that aesthetic beauty is greater than physical needs, and that the dream world can offer more aethshetic freedom, and is therefore of greater value. Therefore the principle that the argument traces back to is one that you have to decide for yourself, because there is no logical argument preceding it. |
Mm, no. Your definition of value is arbitrary. You could say: "i define something blue to be more valuable than something green." That is arbitrary. Saying "prettiness (or to use your words, 'aesthetic beauty') is value" is arbitrary.
But there are non-arbitrary definitions of value. Anything real has more value than something in a dream. Why? Consider it. Which has more value: a hundred dollar bill in reality or in a dream? A sandwich in reality or in a dream (whether you're starving or not)? An idea in reality (where it could be used to alleviate the suffering of others, or at the very least, teach them something new) or in a dream? Which matters more: a disease in reality or the same disease in a dream? The cure in reality, or in a dream?
i can ignore your standard of value completely and still lead a full and happy life... but if you were to ignore that anything real has more value than something a dream, you would not live long. You can't survive on dream food.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Hmm. I think you are right about Popeye, though, the statement is neither true nor false, because it can lead to contradictions and impossibilities by some arguments. |
Actually, technically the statement is false. Every clear, non-ambiguous statement must be either true or false, not both or neither. Any positive claim about a non-existent object is false. But that's just semantics.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| In any case, my point was that all logic is based on some previous assumption, and faith is exactly that assumption. If you were to look at your previous assumption, and the logic behind that, you're eventually left with another assumption on which it is based. |
Yes, assumptions. Not faith. "i assume God exists" is an assumption that does not require faith. "i believe God exists" is a belief that must either rest on logic and evidence, or faith (and by your argument, it must ultimately rest on faith, once you dig through all the evidence and logic).
i assume God exists a lot, usually when discussing his ethics. i don't believe he exists.What I mean to say is that an assumption is faith, and that faith and assumptions are the same thing.
Also if you change statement 1, then statement 3 is is false, because statement 2 is now an assumption all on its own, meaning that its something that's been designated true as a matter of choice, which is my definition of having faith in a particular idea, and therefore statement 2 is ultimately based on faith. If you were to change statement 2 to read "I believe that I am holding a particular idea that is based in faith", then statement 2 is ultimately based in faith anyway, so there is no contridiction.
I'm saying that all assumptions are arbitrary - there are some that more people will connect with (ex: that meat is a good food), and some that almost all humans will connect with (ex: that killing other humans is bad), but that they all have some basis in some belief that you've designated true. You could ignore my standard of value completely, and that would be fine. I'm saying that it works the same way with faith as in assumptions, that faith and assumptions are the same mechanism, that they are the same thing, applied to different ideas. I'm not saying that they must be reasonable to everyone - some people have faith in god(s), some don't, they don't seem reasonable to eachother, but to each individual person, it is defined to them as true.
Also what about the statement "This statement is false". That is neither true nor false.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Even if something is logically impossible, if someone believes in it, they will take it as true. |
When you talk about someone "take it as true", you are implicitly talking about belief and faith.You are right.. I don't even try to argue about if god exist or not... Everybody's own choice right?
| violetgnu wrote: |
| What I mean to say is that an assumption is faith, and that faith and assumptions are the same thing. |
But that's just not true. You don't need to believe something to assume it, and you don't need to assume something to believe it (for example, you could come to the belief by means of a logical argument). Faith is a category of belief (specifically, it is a belief without evidence or reason - that's the definition of faith). Therefore faith has nothing to do with assumptions.
We can actually appy it in context. You are making the assumption that assumptions are the same thing as faith. Alright, no problems so far... and no faith so far. So we take that assumption and analyze it, to see if it is a logical assumption. Still no faith. It turns out that the assumption does not stand up (because of the paragraph above, among other things - but specifically the paragraph above because it uses only the definitions of faith and assuption), so the assumption is rejected and new knowledge is generated: faith has nothing to do with assumptions. That knowledge was generated without any faith.
On the other hand, if i were to say that faith has nothing to do with assumptions, but i had no reasons or evidence to back that up, then i would be holding that belief by faith. But i can and did back it up.
Here's another example. You know the definitions of odd and even numbers and multiplication. If i tell you that i think the only way to get an odd number from multiplication is by multiplying an odd and an even number, that may be faith. You can't tell until you ask me why i think that. Once i use the definitions and some analytic logic to prove my claim, then you will know that i do not hold that belief without evidence. In fact, the only elements are definitions and pure logic... there's absolutely no room for faith at all.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Also if you change statement 1, then statement 3 is is false, because statement 2 is now an assumption all on its own, meaning that its something that's been designated true as a matter of choice, which is my definition of having faith in a particular idea, and therefore statement 2 is ultimately based on faith. If you were to change statement 2 to read "I believe that I am holding a particular idea that is based in faith", then statement 2 is ultimately based in faith anyway, so there is no contridiction. |
?
Statement 2 is not an assumption. It follows from statement 1. Statement 1 is of the form: "all X's are Y" ("All beliefs are ultimately based on faith") and statement 2 is of the form "therefore this specific X is Y" ("Therefore this specific belief (that all beliefs are ultimately based on faith) is ultimately based on faith").
But i generated 2 directly from 1 by pure logic - no faith required. So 2 is not based on faith, it is based on pure logic.
But if 2 is based on pure logic with no faith, then 1 cannot be true.
Paradox.
The only assumption in the entire argument is when i assumed that your claim is true... an assumption that the argument proves must be false.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| I'm saying that all assumptions are arbitrary - there are some that more people will connect with (ex: that meat is a good food), and some that almost all humans will connect with (ex: that killing other humans is bad), but that they all have some basis in some belief that you've designated true. You could ignore my standard of value completely, and that would be fine. I'm saying that it works the same way with faith as in assumptions, that faith and assumptions are the same mechanism, that they are the same thing, applied to different ideas. I'm not saying that they must be reasonable to everyone - some people have faith in god(s), some don't, they don't seem reasonable to eachother, but to each individual person, it is defined to them as true. |
Yes, all assumptions are arbitrary. But not all assumptions are equivalent. Some are correct and some are incorrect. To determine which, you can use a number of techniques. You can use pure logic. You can use empirical evidence. Or... you can use faith (the lack of either logic or evidence). What you are describing is only using faith.
It doesn't matter where an assumption comes from. You can just make one up out of the blue: "i assume cheese is a vegetable". So i don't understand your claim that assumptions are based on faith, or on some belief that you believe is true. Assumptions aren't based on anything. They're assumptions.
Once you have the assumption you can use some mechanism to test that assumption's truth. Yes, you could use beliefs held to by faith, or simply random opinions. But you don't have to. You could also use pure logic and definition to get the answer, like in the case of Descartes' argument for proving your own existence.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Also what about the statement "This statement is false". That is neither true nor false. |
It is also ambigious. The "This statement" part is self-referential, which means that in the context of the sentence it is incomplete. It doesn't mean anything until the statement is entirely complete, so within the context of the statement it doesn't mean anything. As i said: "Every clear, non-ambiguous statement must be either true or false, not both or neither." That statement is ambigious, so it can be both true and false depending on the context you choose to interpret it in (which in this case depends on which semantic iteration you happen to be on).What do you do when you believe in something without evidence or reason? You assume it. Assumptions are something that in the context of an argument is believed in as true. Outside of the argument, it might not be true, but within that argument, assumptions are believed to be true. Within the context of one persons life, "God exists" may be an assumption made by them, but within another "God doesn't exist" may be an equally valid assumption.
Also statement 2 is based on statement 1, which is ultimately based on faith. "Generated directly" is logically inferred from statement 1, which is the original assumption based on faith, therefore statement 2 is also ultimately based on the principle of statement 1, which is something believed. No contridiction.
"Assumptions aren't based on anything." Exactly, and the mechanism is the same for faith, it's something defined as true without being based on anything.
Using pure logic is impossible, because there are always some assumptions made. For example you may argue that Euclidean geometry is purely logical, but it's also based on assumptions: one of which is that parallel lines remain the same distance from each other infinitely. Within Euclidean geometry, one believes that parallel lines remain the same distance from eachother infinitely. (ie. One has faith in the fact that parallel lines are remain the same distance from each other).
You might argue that well, that makes sense, empirically, they do not appear to cross. Therefore the assumption is a logical assumption, which you argue has nothing to do with faith at all. There are two other systems of perfectly functional geometric systems, hyperbolic geometry and elliptical geometry, in which they do not.
There are no known errors in logic from either systems based on contradicting axioms.
If something as "logical" as parallel lines staying the same distance from each other infinitely can be defined in such contridicting ways, is not any assumption deemed "logical" only relative to the person who is perceiving the assumption? And what difference does such an assumption have from faith within a that certain context?
| violetgnu wrote: |
| What do you do when you believe in something without evidence or reason? You assume it. |
Wait. i gotta stop you there. You have it backwards.
You assume something first, then if you want to believe that assumption, you try to find evidence or reason for it. If you fail to find them, you resort to faith.
You don't believe first then assume. That's just bizarre. How did you come to the belief without an assumption? That just doesn't make sense.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Assumptions are something that in the context of an argument is believed in as true. Outside of the argument, it might not be true, but within that argument, assumptions are believed to be true. Within the context of one persons life, "God exists" may be an assumption made by them, but within another "God doesn't exist" may be an equally valid assumption. |
That is true, but misleading. You are stretching the meaning of the word "believe" to include "make-believe".
While it is true that in the context of an argument an assumption is "believed" to be true... that does not in any way imply that the assumption is really believed to be true. Proof by contradiction works by making an assumption that you believe to be false and showing it to be so. Yes, in the context of the argument you do "believe" the assumption true, but only in a make-believe, intellectual exercise kind of way. In reality, the assumption may not be believed at all. You could even define "assume" as "pretend to believe", i suppose... but pretending to believe is not believing. So if you were to claim that every assumption is believed, that would be untrue.
| violetgnu wrote: |
| Also statement 2 is based on statement 1, which is ultimately based on faith. "Generated directly" is logically inferred from statement 1, which is the original assumption based on faith, therefore statement 2 is also ultimately based on the principle of statement 1, which is something believed. No contridiction. |
Wait a minute. >.<
i've been operating under the assumption that your claim was an actual claim, not fake one. i have assumed that when you said that everything we know or believe is ultimately based on something we hold to by faith, you were basing that claim on reason, or evidence. Are you now claiming that you have no reason or evidence for that idea... that it, too, is simply a product of faith?
Doesn't that strike you as... just a little problematic? If you hold that belief without reason or evidence... is it not just dogma? In which case... how do you expect to have a rational discussion about it? Won't it just degenerate to "this is what i believe"... "yeah, well, i don't"... and that's it?
| violetgnu wrote: |
| "Assumptions aren't based on anything." Exactly, and the mechanism is the same for faith, it's something defined as true without being based on anything. |
Except that an assumption is not a belief. It is a pretension to belief for the purpose of intellectual exercise. Any similarity is superficial at best.
As a matter of fact, you are abusing the language when you make these comparisons. Assumptions are not based on anything because they are not beliefs. Beliefs that are not based on anything are items of faith. There is no relationship.
Honestly, relating assumptions and faith the way you're trying to do leads to all kinds of weirdness. Consider the following dialogue between an atheist and a theist - where the atheist, like you, believes that assumptions and beliefs are the same:
ATHEIST: If you are open-minded, i can convince you that God does not exist.
THEIST: I am open-minded, take your best shot.
ATHEIST: Alright, assume that God does not exist.
THEIST: Ok.
ATHEIST: Now you're an atheist.
THEIST: *blinks* Excuse me?
ATHEIST: Aren't you assuming that God does not exist?
THEIST: Yes, just like you asked me to.
ATHEIST: Then you believe that God does not exist. Therefore you're an atheist.
THEIST: What? i still believe that God exists!
ATHEIST: So you weren't assuming that God doesn't exist then.
THEIST: What? Yes i was! But that's just an assumption, not a belief.
ATHEIST: It's the same mechanism. You believe first, then you assume what you believe. Therefore, if you are making an assumption, you must have a belief. (Note: these are the arguments that you have presented so far.)
*The theist shakes his head and walks away, while the atheist goes away happy, on his way to prove that up is down and black is white*
| violetgnu wrote: |
Using pure logic is impossible, because there are always some assumptions made. For example you may argue that Euclidean geometry is purely logical, but it's also based on assumptions: one of which is that parallel lines remain the same distance from each other infinitely. Within Euclidean geometry, one believes that parallel lines remain the same distance from eachother infinitely. (ie. One has faith in the fact that parallel lines are remain the same distance from each other).
You might argue that well, that makes sense, empirically, they do not appear to cross. Therefore the assumption is a logical assumption, which you argue has nothing to do with faith at all. There are two other systems of perfectly functional geometric systems, hyperbolic geometry and elliptical geometry, in which they do not.
There are no known errors in logic from either systems based on contradicting axioms. |
i avoid pure math wherever possible, but i can spot some holes in your argument.
First, it is not an assumption in Euclidean geometry that parallel lines remain the same distance infinitely, it is an axiom. There is a world of difference. It is not assumed to be true, it is defined to be true. You don't need any reason, evidence or faith to believe it to be true, it is true because it is defined to be true. (Of course, if that definition resulted in paradoxes, it would be a bad axiom.)
Second, if changing the axioms changes the conclusions (for example, assume that changing to a non-Euclidean geometry now gives you the result that parallel lines do not maintain a constant distance), that still does not imply that any faith is involved. Imagine two big blocks, and one person is on one side of them and another is on the other side. The first person uses the axiom where all measurements are relative to him and the second uses the axiom where all measurements are relative to her. The first person says "the red block is closer", the second person says "the blue block is closer". Both statements are absolutely true within the context of the two different axioms. Where is faith in any of that? Surely you're not going to argue that either person has "faith" that all measurements are relative to them. Of course not, they have simply defined it that way.
Third, it is not true that assumptions are always made, and even if they were, that does not rule out pure logic being possible. Axioms ≠ assumptions. Axioms are defined to be true. Assumptions are assumed to be true. Axioms must always be true. Assumptions may be true or false.
