Of Logic and Faith

Before I get on with today's musings, a tribute to you travel buffs out there. The picture is from the seaside in Florianopolis, Brazil. I was told that these very large and colorful houses along the ocean typically belong to rich Europeans and are used as vacation and retirement homes. Curiosly enough, the locals appear to admire rich foreigners and consider them a pretty decent date without nearly as much attention to physique, age parity and general looks as in America. I suppose, this is also true in many other countries as well where a good income still gets you respect. Of course, it's true in America too but the income considered good is perhaps a little higher and gets you even chance of admiration and scorn.

Today's topic is faith versus logic. Webster's defines logic as, "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning." I interpret that as making inferences and conclusions based upon formal reasoning and demonstrated facts.

Webster's defines faith as, "(1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust." I would claim that the two definitions are related in that one typically accepts one's religion based upon trust, typically without hard proof and demonstrated fact for the statements and claims that are made by that religion.

So my question then, is can faith and logic co-exist within the same human framework? Can a person be both logical and adhere to faith without intellectual conflict? I ask this question because I have seen this in action. In particular, I have friends who are extraordinarily logical, intelligent and well educated. However, in matters of faith (typically social matters, as opposed to say engineering or science), they suspend logic, at least when it opposes faith, and hold to precepts of their beliefs.

For example, a friend of mine stated that killing is wrong. Specifically, that all killing of children and innocents is so wrong that it should never ever occur. However, when questioned about a child killed in battle, in Iraq, for example, possibly as collateral damage to a military operation, that same friend said that the death of innocents was now acceptable. In my mind, a statement is either absolute or conditional, it cannot be both based on convenience to the argument or no logical conclusion can be drawn. I can certainly understand the temptation to change the rules as you go along to suit your argument but I had hoped that most of us left that bad habit in elementary school. As it turns out, my friend is living proof that adults still change the rules to suit their desires du jour. In fact, they do it all the time! However, adults are just a little craftier about it. In fact, some of them have gotten so crafty about changing the rules to suit their desires that even they are fooled into thinking that they are being logical.