Faith or Facts

[Whoever]

I don't think it is right to say that we take logic on faith. What we take on faith is the fact that the universe obeys the laws of logic. As Aristotle reminds us in De Interpretatione, however, on this particular article of faith logic can tell us nothing, for it is an empiricial matter.

It's a shame that a discussion of the difference between facts and articles of faith, (if there is one), has turned into a religion vs. anti-religion discussion. A person can believe that every fact is to some degree a matter of faith without needing to have anything to do with religion, as many philosophers have demonstrated. As philosophers surely we should be dispassionately interested in the way things actually are, not worrying about whether what we discover on out intellectual travels will vindicate or annihilate our religious opinions.

The question arises, Is it a fact that every fact is an article of faith? If it is then it isn't, and if it isn't then it is. This suggest to me that there is at least one fact which is not an article of faith. Where it is, however, as Descartes discovered, is not so easy to say.

[NeitherExtreme]

Solace:

Originally Posted by Solace

Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I think that what we need to do is establish, when we speak about faith, to what is it applied. If we're talking about having faith in facts, then that is one matter for discussion. If we're talking about having faith in the divine and whether or not fact can or should apply, then it is another matter entirely. Neither faith nor fact are uni-application words...

In general I agree... And I think the position you just described demonstrates that "Faith or Facts" is a false dicotomy, because even facts require faith. So to me the real questions are "What do you put your faith in?", and "Are these sources worthy of that faith?". I would see the blanket-question "Should you have faith?" as a nonsense question, because the answer is: You already do! So "faith" itself isn't a problem, but misplaced faith can be. That's where it gets tricky.

Whoever:

Originally Posted by Whoever

I don't think it is right to say that we take logic on faith. What we take on faith is the fact that the universe obeys the laws of logic...

I think I understand what you're saying, but in the end I think I'd disagree because we can believe/create faulty logic and not realize it, and logical systems are rarely (if ever) complete and non-contradictory, so accepting any given logical idea is an act of faith. And anyway, skeptical logic itself has a lot to do with the counter-intuitive "everything is faith" conclusion I've come to. Said another way: Logic tells me that logic is taken by faith.

Originally Posted by Whoever

It's a shame that a discussion of the difference between facts and articles of faith, (if there is one), has turned into a religion vs. anti-religion discussion. A person can believe that every fact is to some degree a matter of faith without needing to have anything to do with religion, as many philosophers have demonstrated. As philosophers surely we should be dispassionately interested in the way things actually are, not worrying about whether what we discover on out intellectual travels will vindicate or annihilate our religious opinions.

So far I haven't discussed anything religious, though the original post actually started this out as a religion vs anit-religion discussion (which often turns into a pointless flame war). So actually, I think we're doing fairly well. For what it's worth, I haven't been attacking atheism... There's no way I could actually think that by demonstrating that (A) everything is taken on faith, that I would be proving (B) atheism is wrong. That would be silly.

Originally Posted by Whoever

The question arises, Is it a fact that every fact is an article of faith? If it is then it isn't, and if it isn't then it is. This suggest to me that there is at least one fact which is not an article of faith. Where it is, however, as Descartes discovered, is not so easy to say.

Ah, yes. We've reached a re-worded version of the "absolute truth" problem. Can it be absolutely true that there is not absolute truth? And here I am as the theist, arguing on the non-absolute side! Oh well...

All I can say about this current problem is that my experience leads me to understand that everything I believe is, at some level, taken on faith. And I do see the logical problem I'm left with when I realize this. But logic is only one piece of the puzzle, and besides... what's the alternative?

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Solace

Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I think that what we need to do is establish, when we speak about faith, to what is it applied. If we're talking about having faith in facts, then that is one matter for discussion. If we're talking about having faith in the divine and whether or not fact can or should apply, then it is another matter entirely. Neither faith nor fact are uni-application words, so we need to establish definitively how the two words apply in the context of this thread, or are we trying to cover all possible uses of the two words?

Hold on a minute, though. We justify facts via faith; we say 'this is a fact' on pure faith. If belief in the divine has precisely the same justification as belief in fact, then both belief in the divine and belief in a fact are equally appropriate.

Originally Posted by Whoever

I don't think it is right to say that we take logic on faith. What we take on faith is the fact that the universe obeys the laws of logic. As Aristotle reminds us in De Interpretatione, however, on this particular article of faith logic can tell us nothing, for it is an empiricial matter.

Of course we must take logic on faith. What else are we going to do - prove the validity of logic with logic?

Originally Posted by Whoever

The question arises, Is it a fact that every fact is an article of faith? If it is then it isn't, and if it isn't then it is. This suggest to me that there is at least one fact which is not an article of faith. Where it is, however, as Descartes discovered, is not so easy to say.

Every fact must be taken on faith; why assume that this statement excludes itself?

[Whoever]

Well, it's not an important point, but I still think the truths of logic are tautological and so need not be taken on faith. The faith problem only arises when we think that logic proves something outside the sytem of logic. If I state Aristotle's three laws and then proceed to calculate a result nothing has been taken on faith. If I say that my result concerns reality itself, however, then I am speaking from faith. I can make up any old rules for a logical system and need have no faith in them, anymore than I need have faith in the rules of Scrabble to play it.

But I see that the statement, 'It is a fact that all facts are articles of faith' need not be self-defeating, as I first suggested.

[Solace]

We justify facts via faith; we say 'this is a fact' on pure faith.

Yes, I understand. What I am trying to say, however, is that some people also try to justify their faith by saying it is based on facts. So if faith is justifed by facts, yet facts are justified by faith, aren't we in some kind of a loop?

[Whoever]

Originally Posted by Solace

Yes, I understand. What I am trying to say, however, is that some people also try to justify their faith by saying it is based on facts. So if faith is justifed by facts, yet facts are justified by faith, aren't we in some kind of a loop?

Good point. It's funny how we always seem to end up stuck with this kind of loop in philosophy whenever we get right down to basics. Perhaps this is another of Hofstedter's 'strange loops.'