Merits of this statement

[Grandiagod]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, in fact many more people (probably famous) have.

However, while writing an essay for English, this popped into my head.

Faith and logic can never exist together because they are mutually exclusive. If something is logical and factual, no faith is needed to believe in it, however, if something cannot be proven, faith is needed to believe it exists.

Is this true?

[tsugomaru]

Re: Merits of this statement

Oh! But faith can be tied with logic.

Have you ever had the feeling of doing something you know you don't want to do? It could be like bunjy jumping. You know it is safe because the bungie cord should be able to support your weight and bounce you back, but you have to have faith that it will. However, your mind says, "no".

And my science teacher always gives disclaimers on having faith in some of his lectures. He cannot explain everything all at once and sometimes, we have to believe this law exists even if we don't know why in order to prove another law.

~Tsugomaru

[masterhickle]

Re: Merits of this statement

"Faith and logic can never exist together because they are mutually exclusive. If something is logical and factual, no faith is needed to believe in it, however, if something cannot be proven, faith is needed to believe it exists."

I can go both ways on this.

If something is logical and factual, there is no need for faith, because we have knowledge of the existence.

Though, if the existence of something is based on faith, people in general tend to try to prove the existence in a logical sense.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Merits of this statement

"Faith and logic can never exist together because they are mutually exclusive. If something is logical and factual, no faith is needed to believe in it, however, if something cannot be proven, faith is needed to believe it exists."

I can go both ways on this.

If something is logical and factual, there is no need for faith, because we have knowledge of the existence.

Though, if the existence of something is based on faith, people in general tend to try to prove the existence in a logical sense.

But for those who can't prove or figure it out by themselves have to trust you on the basis of faith.

~Tsugomaru

[masterhickle]

Re: Merits of this statement

But those who can't prove it or figure it out for themselves will usually invoke the help of others to try and put a logical explanation to the idea.

However, I won't deny, that the people will eventually give up on trying to figure it out after some time (there is a chance they will figure it out), and that will lead to a basis of faith with no logical reasoning to it.

[Silter]

Re: Merits of this statement

Well, it's an over-used example, but bear with me: the theory of gravity is still a theory. It's very hard to prove even the simplest things which we state as fact. Therefore we must have faith that our logic is sound.

[FoJaR]

Re: Merits of this statement

nah, i'd say faith and proof, but something can be logical and unproven, therefore requiring faith.

like when einstein said that light could bend around the sun because of the sun's gravity. obviously it couldnt be observed, or proven, because the sun's light interfered with any light that was coming from the other side of the sun. people had to take his theory on faith, at least it until four years later when einstein's logical theory was proven during a solar eclipse.

[chickendude]

Re: Merits of this statement

any form of logic requires basic axioms

no matter what system of logic you choose, you will always have to take something on faith

in that way, you must tie the two together

for example, in physics, Newton took on faith the existance of gravity as a force between masses. He then described this force through experimentation and logic.
Einstein took it a step further to prove/explain the existance of gravity through the curvature of space time, but you still have to take on faith that a massive object will bend spacetime.

In Euclidean Geometry, you have to take on faith that for every line there exists exactly one paralell line. It seems so obviously true, but you still can't show it to be true by logic, unless you assume something else.