I think two issues are being debated here;
1. Is religion logical, (as in, the wisdom and claims of the religion conform, formally) and/or
2. Do religious acts/rules apply with common sense?
The example of the dairy and meat, for example, would fit no.2. category. "illogical acts" so to speak.
I think number 1 would be an example of validly inferring, and "following". For example, if some god says not to murder, then in a later passage, he gives an order to murder, then this wouldn't follow logically. The logic of the religion would be farcical.
Also, the theology "following logically" could mean meeting requirements formally, but could still be unsupported, such as Sideline's example, when he mentions that the belief in God itself, is
assumed.
A religon might not be formally fallacious, but it could be informally fallacious, and also, religion never offers credence to the premise, because it always has to be an assumed
absolute dogma.
Conclusion;
validity and
none validitycan be established formally, but not the religion's dogmas'
truth/credence, therefore religion can't be
sound, logically.
The "form" of an argument is not the only problem, because it will be a vacuous argument if it has no credence in the premise/s.
Example;
Joe saw God.
His life changed.
The religion could then provide a valid life-changing formula.
Th logic might follow, but the premise, "Joe saw God", is worthless,
logically. This means that a religion, to my knowledge, is never
conclusively sound.
Sorry for boring you with this post.
™ Version 4.2
