Can Faith and Logic Co-Exist?

[Imamom]

QUOTE

Sorry I don't understand. Can you please explain what you are saying.

Of course, my pleasure.

I understand what you said now. It was just the wording you used in your original that was confusing. Thanks. Actually I enjoyed the science classes I have taken in the past. Chemistry and Physics were my favorite...much better than the Biology classes...Suppose I like math to. However I think that the topic title is fine and I won't complain about it.

Thanks for your further explanation.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Imamom

[hmh]

Science and the Bible go hand-in-hand. If anything science is proving the bible to be scientifically factual. God knows what he's doing.

[JLW001]

Exactly, hmh. Real science does nothing but study God's creation and thereby prove His Word.

Logic is a useful tool to a scientist. It allows a scientist to go from theory to experiment to results to new theory. Scientists must stay within this loop or they run the risk of get wrong answers. However, logic must be looked at as a tool, it is not useful in and of itself.

Mathematics is the pure form of logic. Without the development of the tool of mathematics, science would be very stunted and difficult to practice. So when you think of logic, think of math. Then the difference between logic and science becomes obvious.

Edited March 25, 2005 by JLW001

[nebula]

We have to understand that science is not evil.

The problem is how and why it is used.

I love science because I love learning and discovering new things about the natural world in which we function.

The conflict with Christianity comes in how science is used as a means of man's sufficiency in himself. Sure, being made in the image of God, we ought to, like Him, be creative and do lots of neat stuff. It's when we start building ourselves a "Tower of Babel" that the line gets crossed.

But I wouldn't advise using this argument against non-believers. They can't see it that way and will just argue with you about what you said.

Science itself is a tool. It's how you weild it that's the real issue.

[hmh]

I love science. I just wish I wasn't such a dunce with math. Otherwise I would have been a meteorologist or geologist by now.

[jmwhalen]

To Scientific Atheist:

You write:

"Science like I said is the rational analysis of empirical data. In everyday English, science is how we find out what is true about the world, by observing things and doing experiments, and drawing rational (logical) conclusions from the evidence we gather.....Only science - observation and experiment - can do these things for us. It is by observing and testing......So logic takes premises and draws conclusions, but what science does is verify and falsify premises by observation and experiment. It does this by a method called "the scientific method".

Am I correct in summarizing your view as follows?: That is, that "science" is the only method that gives reliable information about the world. In other words "stick with science" because that tells me true things about the world". This view is called "scientism". The reason is that in your understanding, only physical things exist, and science is best adapted to probe the physical world. Am I correct?

Am I correct in stating the following?: Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.

Therefore, I have a question: Are you happy? Have you ever loved anyone?If you are, and if you have, how can you prove it? Happiness cannot be classified, studied, probed or analyzed empirically by the five senses using science. Love has no shape. Happiness, love are not physical, and since they are not, the senses cannot apprehend it. And if the senses cannot apprehend it, then science can't say anything about happiness or love. In other words, science can't say anything about happiness, love, liberty, freedom from pain, pleasure..... For example, you can't know from any physical test whether a person is in pain or in pleasure. There is no scientific test that can tell you that.

If you are happy, and have been in love, I await your proof of your happiness, your proof of being in love, "by a method called 'the scientific method'" that will "verify" this premise "by observation and experiment".

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Leonard]

SA is correct in his distinction between 'Science' and 'Logic'. Science is largely (but not entirely) dependent on logic, but it is not to be confused with logic.

For instance, an atheist can be a good scientist and give good reasons for his science, but be never so good a logician, an atheist would be hard pressed to give good reasons for his commitment to logic.

Descartes showed that in order to logically have 'firm' ideas, one had to posit a belief in a rational god, but that in order to logically hold a belief in a rational god, one had to posit a belief in 'firm' ideas. In Philosophy this is usually referred to as the Cartesian Circle. Thus an atheist can be a good logical thinker, but he can't really offer an explanation for just WHY he is one! It is a wonderful quandry, and one of the many tensions between the ideal, and the 'way things really are' that we humans live with every day.

[J.C.]

Acts1711, that was a well done and very informative post.

Thank you

[Guest Fluffy the Cactus]

Belief is always logical to the one who believes it.

???

[Bread_of_Life]

jmwhalen

That is, that "science" is the only method that gives reliable information about the world.

No. Science is impotent to give us information about the world and universe that are outside of its remit and capabilities. For example, Science cannot tell us whether or not God is operating in the world, or has done in the past. That isn't because science is bad, or because it's untrustworthy. It's because there is no way of scientifically testing such propositions, it is thus outside of the scientific remit.

However, within its remit, yes, I believe that science is the only sound and rational way to find out information about the world. Outside of its remit, there are other forms and areas of philosophy that can deal with truth finding, such as metaphysics, theology, epistemology etc.

The reason is that in your understanding, only physical things exist, and science is best adapted to probe the physical world.

It is clear to anyone who has ever thought about it for any ammount of time that not only physical things exist. In fact, Berkeley pointed out that the only things we can be SURE exist are non-physical, and that over physical things there is uncertainty.

There are several class of non-physical things that exist. Consciousness is a good example, because it clearly does exist. My consciousness is the only thing I can be philosophically absolutely sure exists. And it's non-physical. The physical keyboard I type on may not actually exist, the only thing I'm sure exists is the non-physical idea of a keyboard in my non-physical consciousness. As well as consciousness and ideas, physical laws must exist in some sense as part of the fabric of the universe - but there are not physical objects. You can't see or touch a physical law, or fundamental constant, but it must in some way "be".

So to sum up, science *cannot* be sufficient in our knowledge of things, because we can be certain that the non-physical exists, and anyone who's thought about it for any ammount of time will be similarly certain that physicality isn't all there is.

Are you happy?

Yes, and with less variance than a lot of other people (I also have quite solid emotional stability, in other words).

Have you ever loved anyone?

Yes.

If you are, and if you have, how can you prove it?

Firstly, I can't absolutely prove it to anyone other than myself. I know I am happy for certain, because I experience it, but of course you do not, and as you point out, there is no test that can convince you. You can only infer my happiness from my reaction, or infer my love from my behaviour. You cannot touch it, because ideas and emotions are non-physical objects. You have started from the false premise that I do not believe in these, when actually I am surer that these exists than I am of physical objects.

And if the senses cannot apprehend it

Apprehend? You're starting to sound dangerously like my favourite philosopher, David Hume

science can't say anything about happiness, love, liberty, freedom from pain, pleasure.....

It can try to talk about physical causes for these, but it cannot directly examine them, you're right.

Also, this reminds me, another strand of philosophy is ethics, your mention of liberty and freedom reminded me