Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Must religion be logical?
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 1 of 164 (338621)
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


Here is the start of a debate that went a little of course:
Message 221
I debated here with Catholic Scientist but all are welcome to contribute.
The question that arose, IIRC (maybe CS can fill in the blanks), is: Does religion have to comply with formal logic? - OR - What is the difference between religion and any other ideology in terms of its demands on the person holding it?
IMO, we are pretty stuck in this debate, so a fresh idea would be more than welcome.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-09-2006 8:55 AM kalimero has not replied
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 08-09-2006 9:41 AM kalimero has not replied
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 08-09-2006 12:46 PM kalimero has not replied
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-09-2006 4:22 PM kalimero has replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-09-2006 5:33 PM kalimero has replied
 Message 68 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:15 PM kalimero has not replied
 Message 91 by Rob, posted 01-04-2007 11:02 PM kalimero has not replied
 Message 148 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-16-2007 2:54 PM kalimero has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 164 (338675)
08-09-2006 7:04 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 164 (338686)
08-09-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


Does religion have to comply with formal logic?
I don't know about "formal" logic, but I would think one would want it to be as logical as possible. One would want it to be consistent and it should have an explanation of such issues as the problem of human suffering.
In another sense, religion doesn't "have" to be anything in particular. Somebody could just make up something if they wanted to and call it their religion.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:50 PM kalimero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 08-09-2006 9:01 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 55 by Butcer, posted 09-25-2006 7:29 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 164 (338687)
08-09-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
08-09-2006 8:55 AM


Somebody could just make up something if they wanted to and call it their religion.
Like that guy Saul from Tarsus did you mean?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 08-09-2006 8:55 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 08-09-2006 9:14 AM Brian has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 164 (338691)
08-09-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
08-09-2006 9:01 AM


Even snake oil needs to be convincing
Robin of Rohan writes:
In another sense, religion doesn't "have" to be anything in particular. Somebody could just make up something if they wanted to and call it their religion.
Brian writes:
Like that guy Saul from Tarsus did you mean?
Scientology was extremely illogical to me, yet many of its adherants are quite well known.
I would think that in order to have a large following, the religion either needs a convincing orator, lots of smoke and mirrors, or numerous pretty women who have already joined.
Or maybe...just maybe a group of people who will accept you just as you are.
Of course, the local pub provides such an atmosphere, and requires only fair payment and never a lecture about necessary economics!
Some would argue that the very idea of a God beyond our capacity for understanding is itself illogical.
If religion were too neat and tidy, it would be human derived versus the alternative possibilities----which are the bedrock of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 08-09-2006 9:01 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 08-09-2006 9:32 AM Phat has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 164 (338697)
08-09-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
08-09-2006 9:14 AM


Re: Even snake oil needs to be convincing
would think that in order to have a large following, the religion either needs a convincing orator, lots of smoke and mirrors, or numerous pretty women who have already joined.
Apart from the chicks, Paul fits in really well here!
We only have Paul's word that anything happened on the Damascus road, and Israel was a ripe place to find a gullible audience. Just think, they had that guy withthe beard who said he would die and return very very soon to save them, but when that guy obviously lied, there was an opening for another charasmatic dude, Paul probably couldn't believe his luck.
If religion were too neat and tidy, it would be human derived versus the alternative possibilities----which are the bedrock of faith.
So, what you mean is the more absurd the religion the more chance of success?
However, you raise a good point because what fundies are trying to do, and this includes our resident fundies, is to actually make Christianity 'neat and tidy'. To do this they see the need to provide rational explanations for many biblical events, which is only succeeding in acheiving the opposite of that they think they are doing.
The attempts by many here to achieve what you say only succeeds in making their faith appear even more absurd.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 08-09-2006 9:14 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Legend, posted 08-09-2006 1:11 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 164 (338700)
08-09-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


The problem with logic..
All religions are logical.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:50 PM kalimero has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 164 (338717)
08-09-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


kalimero
Does religion have to comply with formal logic?
Well the basic thrust of logic is to have premises support their conclusion. However the conlusion cannot stand if one or more premises themselves are incorrect.
We start in religion with the assumption that there is a God but we base this on what? A feeling? a sense of order? a need for comfort? the trust in a person who told us so? etc.. etc..
With the notion of God in place {however vaguely} do we proceed from there to invetigate the world by reading others who also arrived at this conclusion? Does this color our perceptions of the further investigation?
Do we read ancient manuscripts to find evidence? If so, which one? the one we were first indoctrinated with? Does the first "holy" book we read thus take on significance in our lives such that reading a different "holy" book we must reject its findings because it does not line up with the first we came across?
So if this little piece of the spectrum of human inquiry is so vastly tenuous and vague is the solution to be found by applying logic to winnow out the bullshit or do we take the easy course and drop logic altogether?
Sorry if my answer was just more questions but the outcome in a lot of peoples mind does indeed seem to be this way. And we must remember that we only were dealing with basic logic concerning premises and conclusion and not rigourous logic or even conitive biases which are of even more subtle nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:50 PM kalimero has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 9 of 164 (338719)
08-09-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
08-09-2006 9:32 AM


Re: Even snake oil needs to be convincing
brian writes:
We only have Paul's word that anything happened on the Damascus road, and Israel was a ripe place to find a gullible audience. Just think, they had that guy withthe beard who said he would die and return very very soon to save them, but when that guy obviously lied, there was an opening for another charasmatic dude, Paul probably couldn't believe his luck.
actually, Paul's semi-mystical theology fitted very well within the Greco-Roman world too, as it reflected a lot of their myths and traditions (resurrection, sacrifice, woman as the cause of evil)
If only he wasn't preaching against homosexuality they'd have proclaimed him a living God!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 08-09-2006 9:32 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mjfloresta, posted 08-09-2006 2:21 PM Legend has not replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5994 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 10 of 164 (338728)
08-09-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Legend
08-09-2006 1:11 PM


Re: Even snake oil needs to be convincing
Paul actually was proclaimed a living God, along with Barnabas, at Lystra after healing a cripple:
Acts 14:11-12 "When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, 'the gods have come down to us in human form!'..Barnabas they called Zeus and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker"
In the next verse, the Chief Priest of Zeus even came to offer sacrifices to Paul
However, in respone to Brian's claim that Paul was just another charismatic dude looking for fame, consider the verses immediately following:
Acts 11-14 - "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting, ""men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and seas and everything in them...."
Verse 19 - "then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him from the city, thinking he was dead."
Is the the picture of a fame-seeker? A man who saw an opportunity to have fame and acclaim? of a man who made up a story of a miraculous event on the road to Damascus? Or is it the story of a man who was convinced that God had commissioned him to preach the gospel...a man willing to give the credit to God over himself - even when others consider him to be a god....a man willing to suffer indignities and even be stoned for the sake of the gospel...
Only the second picture is presented in Scripture...Only meaningless conjecture can come up with the former picture...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Legend, posted 08-09-2006 1:11 PM Legend has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 164 (338746)
08-09-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


What makes you think that something MUST be logical?
Because that is what allows me to explain it and make predictions about it. logic is what ties the over all expanation (theory/hypotheisis) with the actual evidence.
OK, now try applying that to a religion or philosophy. THere's not much evidence nor predictions to make.
So your reply to this is bringing up the bible. I say leave that out, we’re talking about religion in general, not a book. So, tell me why or how you think logic should be applied to religion.
you writes:
Humans are not logical, but should strive to be logical for the reasons writen above. but whet somebody says that being illogical is o.k. when there is a logical alternative, then thats like saying: "I dont want to know how this works I'm just glad (joyfull) it does" - which is just ignorant.
Poor metaphor.
The logical alternative to religion is atheism. I believe god exists before I pick a religion. I'm not saying I don't want to know how this works, I'm saying that the how isn't enough information. I want some answers to the why's, and religion can provide some, even is they don't follow logical rules. The belief in god is not a result of the religion, the religion is a result of the belief in god, for me at least. The religion doesn't have to be logical because that is not what it is for.
You could reply to this part too, again I don’t see why you think religion has to be held up to logic. Is it that you think everything must be logically sound? Don’t you think religion is a special case?
Also, there’s some replies due here:
I believe god exists before I pick a religion.
based on what?
The seemingness of the existance of my soul and an appeal to authority, et al.
Now, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that it can't justify a religious belief, does it? I mean, when I think about all the great minds throughout history that have questioned the existance of god and concluded that he does exist, it makes it easier for me to believe in him too, no matter that I'm using a logical fallacy and being a little illogical. Do you understand?
So how do you know that you are right if it isnt logical, how do you test your 'why' expanation?
You don't test it. You just weigh it mentally and decide if you believe it or not. The explanations are not an end-all-be-all. They are just suggestions or possibilities, nobody know for sure. But at least they're trying to help.
No but its the prediction a religion makes about the world, which have to be logical. Thats whats so dangerous about religion.
What predictions? Also, you don't have to believe every prediction to be a part of the religion. In my entire catholic upbringing, I don't think I was taught one testable prediction about the world, nothing I could apply logic too. Like, they talked about the 2nd comming of Jesus, but not like they were making a prediction about the world, and even if I consider it a prediction, there's no logic in it to test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:50 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kalimero, posted 08-09-2006 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 12 of 164 (338751)
08-09-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
08-09-2006 4:22 PM


So, tell me why or how you think logic should be applied to religion.
By considering wheather certain aspects of religion (creation, the soul, heaven/hell...) are still compatible with the "new" information we have gathered about the world (above the sky there is space, evolution...).
I believe god exists before I pick a religion... I want some answers to the why's, and religion can provide some, even is they don't follow logical rules.
I think this is the point - you cant just difine reality by your necessity - you have to find out whats really going on, and you need logic for that.
I don’t see why you think religion has to be held up to logic.
Religion makes very clear difinitions of reality and existance, you must have logic in it in order to be sure that 'what you see is actually what you get' or IOW that you are not fooling yourself (or at least less likely of fooling yourself).
Is it that you think everything must be logically sound?
Things should be logical in proportion to their importance - if you are just chating with someone casualy then you dont have to be very logical - but when it comes to matters like your outlook on the world, I think its extremely irresponsible to just take it on faith.
Don’t you think religion is a special case?
Why? whats so special about religion?
Now, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that it can't justify a religious belief, does it?
Well if logic is required in religion then yes, it does.
I mean, when I think about all the great minds throughout history that have questioned the existance of god and concluded that he does exist, it makes it easier for me to believe in him too, no matter that I'm using a logical fallacy and being a little illogical. Do you understand?
Again - if logic is required in religion then its a fallacy?
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
You don't test it. You just weigh it mentally and decide if you believe it or not.
weigh it against what?
The explanations are not an end-all-be-all. They are just suggestions or possibilities, nobody know for sure.
Of course nobody knows for sure, but that doesnt mean you can go by anything you want - you have to support it at least to the point where its logical.
But at least they're trying to help.
Its actually doing the opposite, by believing in religion just by faith you are taking away the best chance we have for actually solving the puzzle of existance, your own reasoning, your logic.
What predictions?
It predicts that there is a god, and that that god does certain things (according to whatever god you worship), with no evidence to support it and (according to you) no logic too.
Also, you don't have to believe every prediction to be a part of the religion.
You have to believe in god dont you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-09-2006 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-10-2006 10:07 AM kalimero has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 164 (338757)
08-09-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kalimero
08-08-2006 5:50 PM


Depends on whether you believe the books.
For example, the Christian religions all agree that only men should make coffee. Now that restriction might seem illogical at first glance. Why shouldn't a woman make coffee? Is there some logical reason (as there is for why women shouldn't do the laundry or cook or put the toilet paper on the roll) or is it simply some convention?
To understand this restriction we really have to look back in history, and what we find is that this particular restriction, this reservation of the right to make coffee, this absolute mandate that women MUST NOT make the coffee that there must have been some major reason.
After all, not only was the Commandment that women not make the coffee so strong and pervasive that Christians accept it as a basic part of their Canon but Jews adopted as their designation ...
HeBrews
Edited by jar, : fix code

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kalimero, posted 08-08-2006 5:50 PM kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Heathen, posted 08-09-2006 5:47 PM jar has not replied
 Message 15 by kalimero, posted 08-09-2006 5:47 PM jar has replied
 Message 19 by MangyTiger, posted 08-09-2006 6:03 PM jar has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 14 of 164 (338760)
08-09-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
08-09-2006 5:33 PM


Re: Depends on whether you believe the books.
heh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-09-2006 5:33 PM jar has not replied

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 15 of 164 (338761)
08-09-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
08-09-2006 5:33 PM


Re: Depends on whether you believe the books.
...there must have been some major reason.
Just beacause there was a logic behind it doesnt justify following it blindly forever.
In judaism you are not allowed to eat dairy and meat, it sounds illogical.... and it is illogical today.
I'm not sure about this, but I heard somewhere that the reason for this is that a long time ago people couldnt proporly clean the pots they cooked dairy products in, and so got food poisoning when they tried to cook meat in it (or something like that) - anyway the reason this tradition was founded was quite logical, but it isnt logical to continue it anymore, and the fact that people still continue to believe in this, blindly, just shows that they are not really thinking about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-09-2006 5:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 08-09-2006 5:51 PM kalimero has replied
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 09-25-2006 5:03 PM kalimero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024