40 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
40 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "the nature of faith"
|
|
weight: 1
|
|
---
|
|
<h1>the nature of faith</h1>
|
|
<h2>a thesis on the axiomatic foundation of knowledge</h2>
|
|
|
|
The words "logic" and "knowledge" are often connected in the minds of humans. In the sciences, logic is used religiously, in an attempt to obtain knowledge, in the same way that it is used in religions.
|
|
|
|
In truth, logic is unable to lead to complete, general knowledge inside of a system, which fully describes the Truth.
|
|
|
|
Every logical system, by definition, must exist within some constraints, to prevent it from collapsing onto itself, and these constraints must be considered true and fixed, without the need of proof, since otherwise the initial system should have to begin under new, different, unalterable truths.
|
|
|
|
Such truths, which can define a logical system on their own, are called *axioms*.
|
|
|
|
The need for axioms is simultaneously the strength and weakness of logic. On the one hand, through well defined axioms, one can fully comprehend the system under study, while on the other, axioms are a poison in the minds of humans, since humans will inevitably use them and will define them in systems where logic is unable to work.
|
|
|
|
One of these systems is reality.
|
|
|
|
It is undeniable that we now know more about the world we live in than our ancestors, but this knowledge is superficial.
|
|
|
|
The proof for that statement is simple. If someone asks an authoritative figure in physics a simple question such as "What is a magnet? How do magnets work?" they will receive many plausible answers, none of which will truly satisfy the responder, even if they satisfy the questioner. The responder knows that the provided answers are nothing but approximations of the truth, each varying in complexity, with some being closer to reality than others, but none of them being the actual truth of the matter.
|
|
|
|
At the same time there are a lot of zealously religious persons, that neither know the axiomatic system nor the knowledge base of the system, that stand for scientific truth, without understanding that in essence, they make a conscious choice to **believe** in its truth.
|
|
|
|
These people have, therefore, as an axiomatic system for their personal truth the words of scientists, not knowing that with this choice, they are similar to any other religious group that exists in our time.
|
|
|
|
To paraphrase a quote
|
|
>Are you not a hypocrite?
|
|
>
|
|
>Do you not trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals?
|
|
>
|
|
>All knowledge ultimately comes from that which is unprovable.
|
|
>
|
|
>Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?
|
|
|
|
Given then that one can never know the Truth *a priori*, and all axiomatic systems are unable to describe the entirety of reality, what can one do?
|
|
|
|
The only way that exists is faith, which is the principal decision one makes before even choosing an axiomatic system, and which occurs due to the fact that, before you can study the system, you need to belive that it is well defined and founded, and also that to some extent it is capable of representing the Truth.
|
|
|