There seems to be a lot of confusion about the relationship of logic to faith, as if they are somehow inimical to each other. But, in fact, faith is accounted for in logic all the time. A thing that is taken on faith, in the language of logic, is simply called an “axiom.” It is something that which is assumed to be true without proof. It is taken on faith. Every logical argument starts with an axiom or set of axioms. Therefore, every logical construction, every belief about anything, is ultimately based on matters of faith.

When it comes down to it, there is always a reason, a “logic,” even to matters of faith. Nobody just believes something for absolutely no reason. A belief didn’t just spring whole in their mind from absolutely no source whatsoever. And, actually, if it did, that might still be a reason to believe it, I would think.

So, when someone says the believe something, or take it as a matter of faith, there should still be an answer to the question: “why?” Maybe the answer is that it is what they were taught by their parents and they trust their parents, maybe it is for some other reason, but there is always a reason. And reason is exactly what logic is about analyzing.

The way I personally approach it is this: for things that we cannot directly know, pick the explanation that works best. If something comes up that the explanation doesn’t work for, then come up with a new explanation. This is pretty much what science does. A scientist starts with giving a possibly wrong explanation for something that is “unexplainable.” This is called a “hypothesis.” Then the scientist tries to test that explanation. The more the explanation holds up, the more “true” it is considered.

So, faith is integral to logic, and even science. It is not the opposite. What logic is good for, though, is analyzing those assumptions. Are they truly axiomatic? Should they be? We should be very careful in choosing our axioms, and keeping them to a bare minimum. I’m working on narrowing my axioms down to a single, simple one if possible.

Another common misunderstanding is found in what we expect logic to provide or what we hope to gain by discussion. Many seem to think that we (people who are espousing the application of logic to spiritual belief) are looking for objective proof of the truth of what people say they believe. While such is helpful, and would certainly be decisive of a given matter, it’s not really what we should look to logic for. We don’t need abslute proof in something to believe it is true. If we sat around waiting for everything in the universe to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before doing anything, we’d never get out of bed in the morning.

We should be looking not so much for objective proof of what is believed, but the reasonableness of the belief. Does the belief make any sense? Does it fit with other beliefs (uphold an internal consistency?) Are their good reasons (including, possibly, objective evidence) to hold the belief as true, and what are they? These questions are easily confused with ones in search of an objective truth for certain claims, but there is a subtle, yet important, difference. Objective proof of the underlying claim cannot be provided, by definition. We are talking about spiritual beliefs, not facts.

Reasons behind a belief, though, those are not impossible to come up with, and should be well thought out and frequently reconsidered.