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.
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."
*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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:07 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 01:33 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:12 am (UTC)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.