Is logic ultimately constructed on faith?

[FlowerPUA]

I see it like this:

Michio Kaku has logic... i have faith in Michio Kaku

 

[Violator]

Joe, I think I have identified the real point of contention between yourself and I. We differ in our definitions of faith. Not to say yours is wrong or mine is right, merely that to me, to accept something without strong evidence or proof is to accept it on faith. You seem to be viewing faith as more of a final acceptance that seeks no more evidence or knowledge than what it already has. I say this because of your above post, I agree with everything accept your sentence, "Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness." I think I just have a much less precise definition of faith, where as when you use the word you mean a specific type of belief.

 

[JoeDawg]

Joe, I think I have identified the real point of contention between yourself and I. We differ in our definitions of faith. Not to say yours is wrong or mine is right, merely that to me, to accept something without strong evidence or proof is to accept it on faith.

I have no problem with that definition.

You seem to be viewing faith as more of a final acceptance that seeks no more evidence or knowledge than what it already has.

Seeking evidence to support something you have faith in, simply means you seek to remove the faith part from what you believe. That doesn't really change the nature of faith however.

I say this because of your above post, I agree with everything accept your sentence, "Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness." I think I just have a much less precise definition of faith, where as when you use the word you mean a specific type of belief.

Proof for induction simply doesn't exist as far as we know, or I have never seen it and I'm always happy to listen. The evidence for induction working is monstrous though, its why we accept it as valid, even without proof. Its part of our daily lives.

To equate that with faith, when the normal usage includes the supernatural is disingenuous is my opinion. There is no evidence for a creator, for instance, we simply don't know how or if the world started. What we do know is that most of the claims about a creator are clearly made up by those with an interest in doing so. Other claims, Muhammad ascending into heaven, Jesus walking on water, an eternal soul existing, etc... all are claims with little basis or no basis in fact.

Induction seems to work everyday, for everyone. We just can't prove it.

There are people who believe, based on evidence, that we didn't land on the moon. Even conspiracy nuts rely on evidence for their belief. Its not that you may not have, or want, evidence for your belief, its that you require none... if you have faith.