If we were supposed to have faith then why do we have such a strong logical faculty?

Question

We make our decisions about the world based on evidence, whether those decisions be mundane or profound. We base our legal systems on strict guidelines designed to produce impartial evidence so we can make unbiased decisions. We can ascertain the presence of danger by logicly observing our immediate surrounds. We manoeuvre our lives to gain favourable conditions by thinking about our situations and acting apon them. In spite of all this why do we need to use faith, and not logic, to make a decision on our origins, afterlife, and morals arguably the most important decisions we will ever make? It just dosen`t make sense.

Answer 1

Darned good question! I think the answer is, that early on, after we'd invented religion, the priests (or whatever they were called then) decided to take control of it, and insisted that we should not question their wishes, which they called "God's Will", and told us it was impossible to understand "God's Will" and we just had to do as we were told and not question why things happened as they did. I suppose blind faith can be useful occasionally, when you're really "up against it" and don't fel that you can do anything to help yourself, but it's probably better for your mental health to honestly look the problem in the eye and try to get assistance if you can't fix it yourself.

Answer 2

This is a master piece from a well knowledgeable individual.
The reasons are that man is equipped with 2 half brains and each brain lobe controls our thoughts. One lobe, I do not know whether left or right lobe. But, one lobe is a site for our rational thoughts like logic , arithmetic etc. while the other lobe controls our emotions, beauty , music, sentiments and all those. Now just as some people are right handed, that represents a majority. So, are some left handed. The left handed people are fewer in any population.And, if you project this scenerio to life situations, there are more illogical people than those who think logically.
But strange enough, it is the illogical people, who are in the majority that kept humanity together. They obey and follow others sheepishly. They are the compliant majority. On the other hand, If nature has produced more logically compliant people, people that can reason logically, then, man would have long become extinct.
Man is born weak and fragile, we go through long infancy and childhood and unlike other animals that stagger to their feet and fend for themselves soon after birth, man needs parental care and protection to be able to survive to adulthood.Physiologically, we lack hides or thick skin, in fact we are appropriately refered to as naked ape. We are not equipped with fangs or poison to ward off predators or enemies. We needed to device some other means to survive as a specie. We had to devisecommunity based living mode as social animals. We used religion to bond ourselves and work as a team to face adversaries.
Advances in science and technology now gives us a veil to survive without those premodial bonding principle. Unfortunately, we still carry the bonding mechanism engraved in our genes, we did not shed it completely. The residue would still have to be with us for a long while, until evolution comes to play again to wipe or reduce the inclination. Fortunately, there are some that have less of the plague or curse in their genes. These are the scientists, the philosophers, the high achievers, the self actualizers, the peak in the Manslow hierachical pyramid. These are the few brave bold ones, that change the world and would control our destiny.Thats nature for you.

Answer 3

Yes, I agree with your statement, faith is not enough, for example, I may have faith that a country called Japan exists, but faith alone will not get me to that country, similarly having faith that there is a spiritual dimension will not get me to that place without taking up spiritual activities.

We certainly have different faculties of perception, faith and logic being two, faith without logic is often defined as sentimentality and logic without faith is often defined as mental speculation, especially when approaching absolute truth as opposed to relative truth.

If there is a mixture of faith and logic in the approach toward some of the biggest questions that are asked, then by trial and error or by a systematic scientific approach to spirituality, this will yield some astounding results, similer to an analogy of a jar of honey, to taste the sweetness of the honey, it is logical that I have to taste it first, rather then accept by faith that it is sweet because the label tells me so, when this type of approach is taken progressively regarding spirituality, then the divine nature, the spiritual body is awakened and spiritual pleasure is experienced to the point, that material or relative activities pale into insignificance.

To discuss further:-Sriman Sankarshan Das Adhikari ([e-mail])

Answer 4

this question reminds me of the struggle between science and religion, objective reality and subjective reality. nathaniel hawthorne often wrote about the 'unpardonable sin' which symbolized the determined mind to 'know' without matching it up with how one feels - that is the heart. faith doesn't have to necessarily be devoid of logic, in fact, i think it absolutely is logical. it's when it isn't that i think it can be 'blind' which is what i think you're referring to. faith isn't the more frail faculty of the mind in comparison to logic, like any ability, it has to be used, nurtured, and yes, tested by the uncertainties of life. if it survives, and is continues as a source of strength, wisdom and equanimity, then i think logic would then be well informed by it, as well in the meaning of life perhaps.

Answer 5

I think any reflective Christian will recognize a false dichotomy between "faith" and "reason". Faith can be understood as the extension of what follows after the thing in question is accepted as true (or at least more plausible than its negation). Once a thing is known, faith becomes a measure of one's personal integrity and commitment to the thing already settled in the knower's mind. You might use "confidence" and "faith" interchangeably in this sense, and for the purpose of this topic, that might well suit. But notice here, there is no conflict between faith and reason.

In this sense, faith is not force-fitting the facts to fit one's mold of the universe, all evidence to the contrary. Neither is it a fabrication of a claim to knowledge when one does not have reason to say he knows the thing in question.

Misnomers aside, what I suspect people mean when they say they can know something "by faith" is that the thing known has come to them by non-traditional means of knowing something. Alvin Plantinga offers some additional insight into this, and can give a far better treatment of this than I'm capable (See his writings on Reformed Epistemology in "Warranted Christian Belief"). It is possible that one can have veridical knowledge of something, an "inner witness" if you will, of the truthfulness of some proposition without being able to produce tangeable evidence for the thing known. He offers one compelling example of a man accused of murdering his wife: He comes home to find his wife stabbed to death with a knife... distraught, he runs to his deceased spouse, and handles her and the weapon. No one is present to validate his claim that he was not the murderer, and neither is there any evidence to implicate another suspect. This man has veridical knowledge of his innocence, though he is unable to produce evidence of that. But his failure to produce this evidence counts as no deficiency in his claim to know something -- namely that he did not murder his wife.

It's important to understand that left to these factors alone in a philosophical context, these conditions do not therefore constitute an argument offered from one person to the next in favor of the belief in question. It is a means to justify the thing known for the individual who has special access to that which gives him warrant to hold to his belief as true. But in any case, it hasn't been shown here that there is any a priori conflict between faith and reason.

Answer 6

Well the answer to that is that we are three part beings, body, soul and spirit. We live in the realm of the soul and much of what you say is the basis for living in that area. We also have a spiritual part to us that relates to God and that part is not logical and is not based on natural laws but on spiritual laws. The spiritual realm can only be accessed by faith. You can live entirely in the natural realm but you miss a whole dimension of life by not interacting with your Creator. We certainly need both.

Answer 7

I don't agree that we all use faith in matters of origins and morals. I use reason and the scientific method.

I do agree though that the average theist uses more critical thought in picking out a tomato than he does a deity.

Answer 8

The truth is we are not that logical in our decision making, we rely on facts, yes but also on habits, here say and gut feelings.
it's true that faith is attached to that part in our brain that represents illogical thinking, and we all need that part. so faith, God, angels are becoming outdated, but we find substitutes for them in many forms.

Answer 9

Faith is the only true logic.

Answer 10

it is given to us by God he didnt make us unable to think