EvC Forum: Must religion be logical?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Must religion be logical?

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

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

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 41 of 164 (338913)
08-10-2006 10:07 AM

Reply to: Message 12 by kalimero
08-09-2006 5:16 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...).

Well I certainly agree with that. What makes you think I don’t do that? Because I don’t find the scientific explanation for my feelings of the soul to be accurate? And I’ve found that many aspects of my religion are still compatible with the “new information. So, all-in-all, I’d say that my religion IS logical, even though I maintain that it doesn’t have to be because it is a religion, and they shouldn’t be held to logical scrutiny like science is because you can believe in whatever religion you want and just be being illogical, but wrt science it doesn’t work like that. Science must be logically sound to be true. Religion’s truth value is left unknown.

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.

You seem to use the word logic more generally than I do. I think of logic as a specific thing, not some general practice, but I can start using it your way if I must.

dictionary definition.

Anyways, you say:

quote:
you have to find out whats really going on, and you need logic for that

I’m saying that there’s more going on than what science and logic have concluded and you have to look past them find out whats really going on. I think there is a spiritual existence in us, with its own world that science cannot touch, because of science’s necessary limitations. I’m also saying that if you limit your beliefs to that which science and logic will allow, then you’ll be missing out on a whole aspect of whats really going on.

Now, if I believe science and logic’s limitations prevent them from accessing this spiritual existence, then how can you expect me to use science or logic to ”prove’ to you that it exists?

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).

Again, what makes you think I don’t do this? Because I believe in my soul?

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.

What about these things that cannot be proven? Don’t we have to take those things on faith? Or do you just disregard them altogether? Its not like my entire outlook on the world is based solely on faith . you seem to be arguing from the point that it is.

Don’t you think religion is a special case?

Why? whats so special about religion?

come on now.

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.

And if logic isn’t required then it doesn’t. So now what?

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

What is the 'it' refering to? Then what is a fallacy? The religion or the appeal?

LOL, le’me quote your link:

quote:
It {{appeal to authority}} is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is a logical fallacy because its method of inference is not rock-solid. On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion of the authority is likely to be true.

bold added.

Your quote seems to support my claims.

You don't test it. You just weigh it mentally and decide if you believe it or not.

weigh it against what?

Plausibility

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.

Nope, not for some things. And for some things logical support just isn’t possible. Of course you can’t go by anything you want, but I still don’t think logic is all you crack it up to be.

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.

Bullshit. Why don’t you use logic to back up that claim. I challenge you. At least I’ll have an example of what you want me to do.

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.

We’ve already been over how I believe in my soul due to this internal subjective ”evidence’, so I’m not just believing in random crap. The existence of my soul can be used as evidence, for myself, that god exists too. Like I’ve said, I’m not being totally illogical. I might be a little illogical though, like using an appeal to authority to justify some of my beliefs.

Also, you don't have to believe every prediction to be a part of the religion.

You have to believe in god dont you?

I don’t see how the existence of god is a prediction, but anyways, you pointing out one tenet that must be believed in does absolutely nothing to my claim that you don’t have to believe every prediction(tenet) to be a part of the religion. Care to try again or just accept my claim?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 12 by kalimero, posted 08-09-2006 5:16 PM		kalimero has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 42 by kalimero, posted 08-10-2006 1:29 PM	New Cat's Eye has replied
	Message 49 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-10-2006 8:03 PM	New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 43 of 164 (338994)
08-10-2006 3:47 PM

Reply to: Message 42 by kalimero
08-10-2006 1:29 PM

What makes you think I don’t do that?

You maintain your belief inspite of more convincing evidence (psycology, neurology...).

Wrong, I maintain my beliefs because I don’t find the evidence convincing or the evidence doesn’t discredit my belief.

Because I don’t find the scientific explanation for my feelings of the soul to be accurate?

No, because your 'feelings of the soul' are incompatible or at least unnecessery in order to explain (at least partialy) the phenomenum you are perceiving.

Wrong again. My feelings of the soul IS compatible with the scientific expanation, it is only omitted by science to maintain parsimony, also, the phenomenon I am perceiving necessitates something more than the scientific explanation, which does not automatically make it incompatible, its just not fully explained by science, IMO.

And I’ve found that many aspects of my religion are still compatible with the “new information.

Such as? are these important enough to disreguard all those aspects that aren't compatible?

Specifics aren’t necessary. All those aspects that aren’t compatible? There’s not a whole lot of stuff that I believe in that is incompatible with science, if any. I can think of a couple that might be, but they aren’t disproven by science, they are just not supported by it.

Catholic Scientist writes:

So, all-in-all, I’d say that my religion IS logical

those aspects that aren't compatible are exactly what I'm talking about when I say that faith is dangerous.

I don’t think my faith is as dangerous as you think it is. Some faith can be for sure, but I think the majority of it is not. You’re including faiths that aren’t logically supported with faiths that are logically opposed and calling them all dangerous. Its almost discriminatory.

I’m saying that there’s more going on than what science and logic have concluded and you have to look past them find out whats really going on. I think there is a spiritual existence in us, with its own world that science cannot touch, because of science’s necessary limitations. I’m also saying that if you limit your beliefs to that which science and logic will allow, then you’ll be missing out on a whole aspect of whats really going on.

Thats just an assertion - you have to proove that there is something outside science. I never said there was not anything outside science - I just need evidence for it (any kind of evidence).

Yeah, that’s what I’m asserting and there is no evidence. All I can say is that you should try to find it. If you don’t, then that’s fine, don’t believe me, hell, I may be crazy. But, don’t just hand wave it away because science has no evidence for it and needs to maintain parsimony. At least take a look, for no other reason than there is a logical science-minded person here telling you that there is something else out there, and I don’t follow it on blind faith alone. I don’t think this is enough evidence to warrant belief but it should be enough to at least consider it a possibility.

Again, what makes you think I don’t do this? Because I believe in my soul?

I dont have a problem with you believing in a soul - it that you do it on faith that bothers me. Now, if you were actually convinced by some sort of objective evidence that your soul actually exists - I would have no problem with that.

There is no objective evidence. Its all subjective. I don’t believe in it on faith alone, I have feelings and thoughts on why I think it exists.

Your quote seems to support my claims.

Not really - your arguement was:

Catholic Scientist writes:

This is in line with:

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

I’m not claiming its true, I’m just using the appeal to authority to make it easier to believe. I think the appeal can be used to support a claim, it just can’t be used to say the claim is true. That’s why its not a fallacy in the way I use it.

Catholic Scientist writes:

all the great minds throughout history

is specific enough to warrent 'a high enough probability of truth that it would be correct'. If that were true then the earth would be flat.

Except we can prove that the earth isn’t flat. We can’t prove that souls don’t exist. It’s a philosophical question, so we’re gonna have to rely on other people’s thoughts and not physical evidence.

Plausibility

Plausibility of what?

The plausibility of what you were referring to.

I really hate having to spell everything out for you in order to squeeze out a reply, but here you go:

Me writes:

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.

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.

weigh it against what?

Plausibility.

Plausibility of what?

The plausibility of the answer to the why question. If the answer is totally illogical or retarded then I won’t believe it but if it is plausible then I might. Like I typed, you just weigh it out mentally. It doesn't prove that your right and you can know for sure that your right but that doesn't mean you can believe that its true, does it?

Nope, not for some things. And for some things logical support just isn’t possible.

Like religion?

Yup.

Of course you can’t go by anything you want, but I still don’t think logic is all you crack it up to be.

Of course not - its just the foundation of rational thought.

You see, logic is an ambiguous word with many definitions. If your using it to mean the basis for rational though, then my religion is totally logical. But if we are typing about formal logic (which is what I generally refer to with the word ”logic’) then my religion can be made to look illogical, formally.

Whats the problem, if you take something on faith, which is defined by believing something without proof, them you have no reason to look for a different answer to that specific question.

False. One reason may be finding the truth to the question. Having faith in one of the answers does not mean that I stop looking. I’m always looking. This exemplifies one of your misunderstandings about what faith actually is.

Just like there is no reason for people who believe in the bible to look for another answer for the diversity of life - so they stopped where they are, never giving it another thought.

Wrong again. Lets forget about fundamentalists for the purpose of our discussion because there certainly are people who fit the category you’re describing but you’re still wrong. I believe in the Bible and I sought an answer for the diversity of life, found evolution, accept it and continue to believe in the Bible. I don’t find them mutually exlusive.

you pointing out one tenet that must be believed in does absolutely nothing to my claim that you don’t have to believe every prediction(tenet) to be a part of the religion.

My point is that you have to have at least one thing (usualy very
central to the religion) that you take on faith to be a part of a religion. Taking things that massive on faith is obviously illogical and so religion is illogical.

Again, your assuming that if you believe one aspect of a religion then you must believe all aspects but that is just not true.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 42 by kalimero, posted 08-10-2006 1:29 PM		kalimero has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2006 4:53 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 45 of 164 (339026)
08-10-2006 5:20 PM

Reply to: Message 44 by robinrohan
08-10-2006 4:53 PM

Something along those lines?

Sure and for the sake of argument, Yes.

ABE: wait a minute, don't turn this into an argument from incredulity.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
	Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2006 4:53 PM		robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2006 5:28 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 47 of 164 (339038)
08-10-2006 5:52 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by robinrohan
08-10-2006 5:28 PM

So perhaps this incorporeality came from an incorporeal Being.

Yeah, I'd call it God.

I don't think we're being illogical either. To say that because there is no scientific evidence for the soul then we must assume it doesn't exist seems more illogical to me, outside of the lab, that is. Its almost like putting faith in science, ya know?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2006 5:28 PM		robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2006 5:59 PM	New Cat's Eye has not replied
	Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-10-2006 8:27 PM	New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 51 of 164 (339161)
08-11-2006 9:53 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by DominionSeraph
08-10-2006 8:03 PM

What you're doing is weighing it against what (you think) you know about the universe to determine its plausibility.

What's wrong with that?

Hey, I jumped a 25' double on my dirt bike last weekend.

Do you believe me? How do you decide? Do we really have to collect evidence for everything before we believe it or can we just weigh it mentally?

You could weigh "it against what (you think) you know about the universe to determine its plausibility", no?

How was I being incoherent?

So, the question becomes: How much of what you think is true is crap?

Well I think the stuff that I think is true is true. For the stuff that I can't verify, that I have to weigh out mentally, I don't know how I can tell if it is crap or not other than just thinking about whether or not I think its possible. Any suggestions?

Change universes, and you change what is plausible.

I don't get the point of that line, we can't change universes.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 49 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-10-2006 8:03 PM		DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 54 by Woodsy, posted 09-24-2006 4:04 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 52 of 164 (339162)
08-11-2006 9:54 AM

Reply to: Message 50 by DominionSeraph
08-10-2006 8:27 PM

Are you saying that you always use: "Assertion X has no connection to reality. Therefore, X is true."

Nope, not even close.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 50 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-10-2006 8:27 PM		DominionSeraph has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 53 of 164 (347308)
09-07-2006 3:17 PM

bump for kalimero

Re: Message 43

I see you're logged in. Remember this thread? Has it been too long to reply? Just reply to message 43, if you will.

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 57 of 164 (352058)
09-25-2006 10:02 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by Woodsy
09-24-2006 4:04 PM

quote:
How about the "I don't know" position?

I don't like it. I want to know as much as possible. For the things that I cannot objectively determine, I'll just try to figure them out some other way, or talk to people and get a good model through our discussions/philosophical musings.

quote:
I suspect we would all believe a lot less "crap" if only it wasn't so hard to say "I don't know", and wait patiently for more information.

Clutch writes:

Engineer the future now. Damn tommorow, future now!
Throw the switches, prime the charge,
Yesterday's for mice and gods.

I'm impatient. I don't want to sit back and wait for more info. I want to have a real position, 'cause 'i don't know' is too lame for my comfort. I'd rather think about the possibilities and decide on what I believe than sit back and not know.

quote:
Personally, I suspect that this is the origion for much of religion.

yeah, probably.

quote:
In addition to "I don't know", the idea of degrees of confidence can be very useful.

Yes, when they can be quantified.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 54 by Woodsy, posted 09-24-2006 4:04 PM		Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 58 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 12:42 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 59 of 164 (352125)
09-25-2006 2:32 PM

Reply to: Message 58 by Woodsy
09-25-2006 12:42 PM

Let's try a little experiment (following Tolkein).

alright

"What do I have in my pockets?"

I don't know, what?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 58 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 12:42 PM		Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 60 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 2:49 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 61 of 164 (352153)
09-25-2006 2:56 PM

Reply to: Message 60 by Woodsy
09-25-2006 2:49 PM

Now, suppose I am slow in replying (I will answer soon, not teasing), and you are feeling impatient (as you might, according to your post), how might you carry on?

I'm not sure, maybe ask you to hurry up.

Can we just get to the point of the experiment without actually having to walk through it? I have stuff to do at work today.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 60 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 2:49 PM		Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 62 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 3:52 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 63 of 164 (352172)
09-25-2006 4:00 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by Woodsy
09-25-2006 3:52 PM

In any case, would you say you would be comfortable stating a "position" prior to checking?

About the contents of your pocket, no.

I'm confused with what this has to do with the thread, though.

In fact, I had a pen, a grocery bill, and a radiation dosimeter (I use it for my work).

Are you checking soil densities for construction?

I expect you would easily think of the first two, but not the last.

That's for sure!

Thank you very much for patiently humouring me in this.

You're welcome.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 62 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 3:52 PM		Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 64 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 4:45 PM		New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 65 of 164 (352196)
09-25-2006 4:56 PM

Reply to: Message 64 by Woodsy
09-25-2006 4:45 PM

one has to wait for the information to "really know".

Ya know, some christians believe that they have already gotten the information.

I don't know if you read the thread, but I was saying that the seemingness of the existnace of my soul has lead me to conclude that god exists and that reviewing the teachings of Jesus has lead me to believe that he was god, so I don't really feel that I'm just 'considering the possibilities', I think I believing the truth.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 64 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 4:45 PM		Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 67 by Woodsy, posted 09-25-2006 5:46 PM		New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 71 of 164 (374367)
01-04-2007 11:56 AM

Reply to: Message 68 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 8:15 PM

Religion is nonsense.

Heh, so, as nonsense, they don't have to be logical.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 68 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 8:15 PM		Casey Powell has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 87 of 164 (374514)
01-04-2007 5:10 PM

Reply to: Message 86 by jar
01-04-2007 5:07 PM

Re: more "so what?" assertions.

For me GOD is self evident. But that is just me.

Hmm, I wonder if his next post will have the word conditioning in it

This message is a reply to:
	Message 86 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 5:07 PM		jar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 90 by jar, posted 01-04-2007 5:26 PM		New Cat's Eye has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0