Life&#39;s Better With Ayoub™

Actually, Hawking doesn't refer to God as folks traditionally think of him/her but as a set of universal mathematical and physical principles on which the cosmos is based and operates. www.pbs.org has a nice little bit where they've transcribed an interview with him, clearing up the confusion and seeing Hawking denounced by some other scientists (and theologians) who are upset by the relative loose terminology used by Hawking and others of his ilk.

From:

ocicat-bengals.livejournal.com

Ta muchly for clearing that up although I'm not sure which ilk he is of.

From:

saare-snowqueen.livejournal.com

Whose to say how folk traditionally think of him/her/it - it seems to me there are as many concepts of God as there are people to think them - even if the churches would prefer we pay lip service to their definitions.

To me that faith and reason go hand in hand. It is when you mix in the churches, temples mosques whatevers that reason goes out the window. Faith to me is a personal covenant between God and the individual. All religious organizations are a form of politics - and we all know where that leads.

From:

Yes, by definition it does.

from the Random House Dictionary:

faith: belief that is not based on proof

from the Oxford New English Dictionary:

faith: 3.c.The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof. By Christian writers often identified with the preceding; but not exclusively confined to Christian use. Often viewed as the exercise of a special faculty in the soul of man, or as the result of supernatural illumination.

To demand proof of God from God is impertinent and a disavowal of one's faith (should one have faith). There are those, of course, who need faith, and there are those who study the human need to believe in a higher power whether one actually exists or not. That is, it may be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint to maintain a belief in God even if there is no God. Faith is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does require the suspension of logic and reason.

From:

I was hoping for this kind of answer! :D

And I agree...

From:

actually, the Random House definition does not preclude having both logic & reason AND faith...
They are not mutually exclusive.
If there is no answer available thru logic and reason, faith can be what fills in the gap...

Technically, a hypothesis is a belief that is not based on proof (that would be a conclusion) - so until and unless there is proof, belief in the veracity of a hypothesis would be based partially on faith.

(Not necessarily religious faith, but faith by the definition you posited.)

From:

Technically, a hypothesis is a belief that is not based on proof

I respectfully disagree, for a hypothesis is not a belief at all but a premise, a guess, if you will, to be tested through the collection and analysis of data from which some conclusion will be drawn. The hypothesis will either be supported or not, but it doesn't begin its existence as a belief. Those are theories, which are derived from the accumulation of many tested and supported hypotheses.

actually, the Random House definition does not preclude having both logic & reason AND faith...
They are not mutually exclusive.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Faith requiring proof is not faith at all. I believe we can agree on this. Proof, on the other hand, is the result of logically followed steps to a reasonable conclusion. If one has logic and reason, one does not require faith. *shrugs* It's easier to argue empiricism than rationalism.

From:

um, it looks as though you are trying to get into a semantics debate, and I'm not really so inclined right now, but you might want to re-examine what "mutually exclusive" means - because faith can co-exist along side reason and logic. Those who have faith are neither unreasonable or illogical. Nor does having reason or logic preclude faith.

Mutually exclusive is not the same thing as dependent.

Your last paragraph is rather a mess of illogical thought, actually. "A & B do not require C" is not the same as "if A & B exist C cannot exist."

Sorry, but you're a tad off here.

From:

*sighs* Your mis-statement of my statement is a wonderful illustration of why this medium is a poor arena for these debates. I did not, in fact, state that faith, logic, and reason could no co-exist, nor that they could not co-exist within the same person. I merely stated that if one had logic and reason, one did not require faith.

Further, the question posed was whether faith itself required the suspension of logic and reason, which I believe it does. Thus, to connect the three inextricably in my response was quite logical.

From:

kay.livejournal.com

Yes, to me it does. I believe faith is illogical.

From:

thermalsatsuma.livejournal.com

In a word, yes.

To elaborate slightly, it is possible for a belief system to be both internally logical and reasonable in its own terms - that's what keeps the theologians in business. However, there will always be something that demands an unreasonable and illogical belief for the system to function. A Christian may say that it logically follows that if Jesus was sacrificed for their sins, then they are forgiven, but if you don't also believe in an unknowable and unprovable God then that statement is meaningless in a wider context.

From:

mighty-rontor.livejournal.com

No. You can have faith and still have logic and reason. Having faith is nothing more than strongly committing to a reasonable hunch. It's driving on a sometimes foggy road.

From:

Yes. Of course it does. Any reasonable person would know that; it's only logical. Faith is the antithesis of both logic and reason.

From:

errrr...

Something to consider: perhaps you are reading in connotations that don't exist.

To whit -- a 'reasonable person' might form a hypothesis built on logic and reason such as "the sun has 'risen' every day thus far in my life - I have faith that it will 'rise' tomorrow just as it has every other day..." and yet, until such an event occurs, it is a matter of faith that it will. Technically, a cosmic event such as a supernova would keep that from happening... but the logic & reason lead to the faith in a future event.

Not to devolve into putting a point on it, but faith is most decidely NOT the antithesis of logic or reason. Blind religious faith might be, but I didn't note Ayoub including the first two words.

From:

You're right of course, it was my mistake. I should have recognized that he may have meant faith in the fact that he'd need to piss tomorrow. That's certainly logical, people need to piss. When someone uses the word faith, I always assume religion. I bow to your reason and apologize for my presumption.

From:

sarcasm duly noted... apparently you expected no opposition to your post... I'll withdraw from further attempts to discuss it rationally with you

From:

Opposition? Why would you think I was waving a red flag? I was having a conversation with Ayoub. I hadn't thought I'd entered a bulletin board. No offense meant, but I'm not accustomed to being corrected on my comments by strangers. I'll be careful in the future to only be whimsical with topics that can't be interpreted any way but the "right" way.

From:

Let me get this straight:

You posted a comment on a public post, in LiveJournal, and made an inflammatory statement that was supposed to be "whimsical" - and you thought that only Ayoub would/should reply to it, no one else was allowed to disagree with you or post to that effect, and if someone did that equates to 'correcting' you?

Just checking...

(oh, and no worries, I won't make the further mistake of trying to converse with you, since that is only interpreted as some sort of hostile action on your part - enjoy the internet!)

From:

Lemme get this straight. Any time I post a comment I'm subject to strangers pissing on it because they have nothing better to do? Inflammatory? To whom? What do you give a crap what I think? You have no clue who I am. What, are you ten?

Just checking.

From:

Any time I post a comment I'm subject to strangers pissing on it because they have nothing better to do?
Yep. That would be the internet! Welcome, you'll love it obviously!

What do you give a crap what I think?
Well at the moment, it's just starting to get kind of fun poking you with a stick. Which means I probably ought to stop. You are likely to get pissy (well, pissier) if I keep it up too much longer.

What, are you ten?
Yep. Ten! Which must be a bit intimidating given that you've shown the emotional maturity of a 5 year old... Sorry, I'll go pick on someone my own size.

From:

Lol. Ow, my eye. Oh no please, poke me more. That's the internet. Thanks for the lesson:)

From:

mighty-rontor.livejournal.com

I should also like to point out that some of the most important, influential and historically well known scientists - household names - were deeply religious people. During the renaissance, cathedrals were built as grand monuments to God using the most cutting edge technologies of the time.

People reflexively lump faith exclusively with religion and logic & reason exclusively with science, and this is wrong, wrong, wrong! When MacGyver was putting together the chocolate bar, paper clip empty soda bottle and the broken picture frame with the salt and Mercurochrome to open the special safe with the secret plans, you can bet your butt that he was thinking to himself, "boy, I hope this works!"

Think about the last time you cooked something or baked something. You have the recipe right there, you put it together like the cookbook says, and when the time comes, you pull it out of the oven and hope that you made it right. Logic and reason dictate that it should come out perfect, but there is no one on this Earth that who doesn't at least know someone that did it all right and it came out wrong.

So what happens? You make your food-thing and hope. You burned the shit out of it the first two times, but you've nailed how to do it, so from there on out, you have faith that it will come out right.

Having faith does not mean suspension of logic and reason. Why? Because I have every reason to think that my argument is logical and I have faith that you will understand what I just wrote, Q.E.F.D.B! (Quod Erat Fucking Demonstrandum, Baby!)

From:

:D

And your faith was well placed!

Would you say there's a difference between educated faith and blind faith?

From:

mighty-rontor.livejournal.com

Yeah, absolutely. With educated faith, you're taught what to expect and what not to expect. I think that blind faith is more visceral, primal or raw; sometimes more desperate. Either way though, they both have an element of hope that can't be removed from them. One can not have faith without hope.

From:

So it's only with blind faith that you have to suspend logic :)

From:

the-ravyn.livejournal.com

I think some of your readers are restricting the word "faith" to religious connotations. That in and of itself could possibly suspend logic and reason, but I digress...

There is faith in one's self to get the job done, which is based on one's knowledge of one's own capabilities.

There is faith in another keeping a promise, which is based on past experience with said person keeping previous promises.

Neither one of those above examples are putting a belief in something or someone "without proof", IMHO. They are based on experiences that remain within the arena of logic and reason.

Given the above, my answer to today's question is no.

From:

Faith in self is definitely a different kettle of fish...

I think that faith can be an educated guess... Sometimes logic has to be suspended to varying degrees, or nagging little voices ignored, but that's the beauty of faith :)

From:

delphaicdragon.livejournal.com

Not for me. But then, I have faith in different things.

But from what I've seen of the country lately? It sure seems like it does. :P

From:

dolorinterno.livejournal.com

well sometimes faith has no reason or logic.. so maybe!

From:

xjenavivex.livejournal.com

no

From:

fox-bard.livejournal.com

It all depends on what you have faith in, or on.

For example: I have faith in logic and reason. ^__~

From:

Maybe faith is the wrong word for that? ;)

Although, I can't think of a more fitting word... :D

From:

fox-bard.livejournal.com

I don't think it is the wrong word, per se.

The Merriam-Webster says that faith is an "allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY," and "a complete trust" - not necessarily connected to religious beliefs, although admittedly faith is the more common verbage used in reference to unquantifiable beliefs.

Faith is just a noun that implies belief in or for something - it doesn't mean that the belief is necessarily abstract, wrong, or against natural laws. It just means you strongly believe in something and are loyal in that belief.

Likewise, you can just as easily have faith that something won't work or is wrong. I have faith that Creationism is wrong, for example, because I believe in the proof offered by archaelogical evidence to the contrary.

From:

:D

It's the difference between faith in what you know from experience, and blind faith...

From:

uawildcatgrl.livejournal.com

No. I have tremendous faith...I'd also say I'm fairly logical and very reasonable.

;P

From:

:D

I have faith too, and I live for logic :D

From:

absolutely not...

faith is supposed to be what fills the gap between logic & reason, and the unexplained...

supposed to be anyways! :)

From:

Excellent answer!

From: