There is both some truth and some error in your statements, and your question seems to be biased against faith, as if it contains no fact nor logic. TRUTH: Critical and logical thinking is indeed different than the thinking of faith and belief. You are right in this assessment, but wrong in your subsequent conclusions. The difference however is not in that one side is perfect and the other flawed. The difference is in that faith includes an experience and a knowledge that standalone logic cannot factor in. I suggest you consider that those who have exercised their faith have an experience you simply have not found. None of us know all there is to know, and certainly you have learned things you've never known before. It should not be difficult to allow for the possibility that not only is God very real, a person can have a relationship with Him. And this experiential knowledge will certainly factor in this person's set of critical and logical thinking, in ways it won't for you. ERROR: One has a set of rules; the other has none and is geared to whatever the mind wants. This is not correct. True faith in Jesus Christ comes complete with both (1) a non-negotiable calling to the highest and most honest levels of integrity and (2) a deep appreciation and understanding of the benefits, joy and peace in submission to God's will and principles. Because some so-called "Christians" don't live with integrity doesn't change this. SUMMARY: To answer your question, people with faith present themselves as factual and logical, because they have factored in their rationale and critical thinking an experience that those who don't know God simply don't have nor can factor in. This does not make one better than the other, this simply introduces something that the other has not yet encountered. But you certainly can. Millions have. And Jesus Christ, the true God manifested in humanity, who died, was buried and rose again, offers something nothing or no one else can offer (including any critiques and logic from those who don't know Him). Acts 2 shows how the early church shared this Gospel with their generation of people who didn't know Him, and Acts 2:38 shows how to enter into God's kingdom. I hope you'll at least consider this. If you have any more questions, please comment, and I'll expand further.

Personally, as a person that is religious, I present my belief and faith as fact because IT has been proven to me and not just what my mind wants. How? Yes, there is a lot in religions that require just faith, but there are also many aspects that can be proven. (Moral code / guide that proves it protects us from negative consequences; Archeology that proves the places, dates, objects existed as our holy writings said they did; etc) For myself, and perhaps many, I like to think of it as a friend that I trust in. He has time and again shown himself to be reliable. It's my 'faith' in him and his past proven reliability that allows me to believe that he'll accomplish something that he promises he'll do for me in the future. So the only proof I have that he'll accomplish this act is the track record of reliability. Trust. That's how I feel about my religion. After studying it with critical and logical thinking, I believe and have faith regarding the things I can't see or tangibly prove because its track record is trustworthy. I tried to keep this as generic as possible. I hope you understand my explanation.

This is a tricky question. Here is how I answer it in describing MY belief and faith... I am a "born-again" Christian, meaning I've come to faith after a period of disbelief. A big reason I did not believe for a time was because I did not see logic or evidence to support what Christians said they believed. Without any evidence or logical basis for a belief (ANY belief, religious or otherwise), that belief is just wishful thinking. The statement "I believe because I believe" is nonsensical to me (as you can tell, I disagree strongly w/ David Hedrick's comment to another answer to this question). Lacking evidence or logical support, I would not believe as I do. However, there *is* evidence to support the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God, died, and three days later was resurrected. There are hundreds of eyewitness reports of Jesus being alive after his crucifixion. There are historical, non-biblical writings of Jesus' life and even of his miracles. There are millions (perhaps billions by now) of people who believe/have believed in God's power. There are those who have witnessed miracles. There is a logic and pattern to life that suggests intelligent design. There are people whose lives have been changed because they became Christians. There are those who I know to be Christians who I respect and admire because of how they handle themselves, sacrificially and w/ integrity. There are my own experiences w/ God and the way He has changed my life and my attitude. Having said all this, you should know this: I can't "prove" to you God exists. I do not believe there is 100% incontrovertible evidence of God. That creation *suggests* intelligent design is not *proof* of it. And ultimately, why I believe in God, why I have faith is not because it's been proven to me. The facts and the logic are the *foundation* of my faith, but they certain don't encompass all of it. If they did, I'd have to call it something else, because that wouldn't be "faith." I have seen enough evidence to suspect God exists, the God of the Christian bible. My experiences, my intuition, and yes, my FAITH takes me the rest of the way. This is the way the bible describes our relationship w/ God. To Thomas (sometimes referred to as "Doubting Thomas"), Jesus said this: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." To sum up, my faith IS *partially* based on facts and logic. But there is more to it (and to life) than that.

Because a fact is only a fact in the person speaking it. Everyone see's life differently. It is a fact to a believer that there is a God and that he loves them, and you. It's logical and makes since to the person behind the faith. Even a non believer thinks there thier belief is factual and logical. Always challenge your faith, in or not in God. But the Jesus freaks of the world, the ones that push it on you, is normally a new Christian that just found their truth. They are very excited that there is a God and that they don't have to carry the worlds guilt anymore. It's like being found on a desert island after 30 years. Now your non believer wont push thier belief as hard because there is never that time of joy of truth. They still have a little something deep inside that screams a different truth. If they didn't they could steal, kill, lie, be free to do what ever... There is true freedom in truth, in or not in God. So it's factual and logical that there is a God if you believe, and it's factual and logical that there is no God if you don't.

A common fallacy made by those wanting to look down on Christians and Christianity (my example of belief and faith to prove my point-LynnfromNM) as if they are somehow superior is to speak of faith as "blind" in the sense of lacking reasons for believing it. While Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, it doesn't mean there is a lack of reason or evidence. Just because faith doesn't mean physical proofs like Thomas was given, doesn't mean logic is taken from the picture. As Josh McDowell says, "Never has an individual been called upon to commit intellectual suicide in trusting Christ as Savior and Lord." Just read Acts 17:11, the Bible specifically calls "noble" those who question what the scriptures and apostles told them, because they did so "with all readiness of mind" and genuinely trying to find truth. Indeed the Bible specifically says that God's already given us enough evidence just in nature and our conscience, for as Romans 1:19-20 says, God has made clear the invisible things from the creation of the world. He has made it clear in creation and the consciences of men. As Louis Pasteur once said, "The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator." http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/ Archeology continues to back up the Bible, and affirm that this Book which so goes out of its way to give names, dates, locations, and genealogies, is so accurate as to suggest both divine inspiration and divine preservation. I would also suggest reading Josh McDowell's "More Then a Carpenter," a $5 paperback that has over 10 million copies in print worldwide. In it, McDowell goes into how empirical evidence can't prove historical documents or events, because we can't recreate the events. A different set of proofs is instead used by those who study ancient manuscripts, called internal evidence, external evidence, and bibliographical evidence. One determines that what we have is accurate to the originals (called autographs), one evaluates the character of the authors for trustworthiness, and another examines the witness of those besides the authors. When it comes to bibliographical proof, or manuscript authority, the New Testament alone has more proof then any other ancient work of literature in existence. The Iliad is 2nd in manuscript authority with 643 (648?-I've heard both numbers, perhaps it changed) manuscripts over a period of 1100 years, the New Testament has over 20,000 manuscripts from multiple continents in multiple languages from multiple sites over 1500 years and all but 16 of them agree word for word. External evidence would point out that the Jewish people were absolutely set against believing in Jesus, and that the apostles pointed to common knowledge about Him, if they spoke anything untrue they'd have been instantly discredited. They couldn't afford to slip up. Isaac Newton, Sir William Ramsay (widely considered the greatest historian in history, who called Luke the Gospel writer one of the greatest historians), Louis Pasteur, and Napoleon Bonaparte all strongly were persuaded by the evidence backing up the Bible. I strongly believe that those giving the Bible a fair chance to prove itself apart from their biased, preconceived notions will find the truth indeed, and the truth will set them free.

Because Logic as a philosopical discipline has been used to prove the existence of God throughout the ages. In fact, it still is. Almost all of the great philosophers have tackled the question. So, to answer your question, because belief in religion is often the result of a logical process. St. Thomas Aquinas is one good example: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/aquinas.html While his proofs of God can NOW easily be disputed (for instance, his first mover point is rendered false because it assumes a natural state of nonmotion...nonmotion only exists in comparison to a reference point), when he came up with these, science had not progressed to that point. There are other logical and philosophical reasonings that lead to the existence of Deity.