Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Aupmanyav]

What was the catalyst that led to the change?

The catalyst in my case was total absence of any evidence for God or soul. That is why I became an atheist.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is religion inferior to logic ?

paarsurrey said:
Is "none"ism aka Atheism (with all its shades) inferior to logic, please?
Is "none" ism aka Atheism (with all its shades) superior to logic, reason, science, please?

Right?

I've said it again and again. I am a rationalist first and foremost. Logic has lead me to be an atheist, but if it lead me to be a theist then I would convert on the spot.

As such, both religion and atheism are inferior to logic, if by "inferior" we mean "subject to" like how a worker is the inferior of their manager.

I don't think this is controversial, though. Most people who believe in religion also believe that they have logical reasons for doing so.

" I've said it again and again. I am a rationalist first and foremost. Logic has lead me to be an atheist, but if it lead me to be a theist then I would convert on the spot. "

I am also such a person, my truthful religion is reasonable as far as reason could go reasonably, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is religion inferior to logic ?

paarsurrey said:
Is "none"ism aka Atheism (with all its shades) inferior to logic, please?
Is "none" ism aka Atheism (with all its shades) superior to logic, reason, science, please?

Right?

Religion is fundamentally divisive. That's not helping!​

Isn't non-belief in the truthful G-d really divisive, please, right??​

• #353

#84 icehorse:​

Humanity is facing enormous problems these days. Climate change will likely displace a BILLION people from their homes in the next few decades. We're running out of fresh water and topsoil. We're likely to face huge crop failures and food shortages.

We need to work together, if we're to survive.

Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. Sure, there are exceptions. But mostly religion is divisive. Either you're a Muslim, or you're not. Either you're a Christian or you're not. This "us vs. them" worldview is exactly what we DO NOT NEED at this critical juncture.

We need inclusive, critical thinking. We do not need divisive, magical thinking.

And while I'm at it, most identity politics these days shares a lot in common with religion. The most important / destructive way in which this is true is in the establishment and defense of DOGMA. We need new dogma like we need a hole in the head.

Back in the 60s and 70s we used to say "question authority". It's still good advice, but I'd amend it a bit and say:

"Question authority and question dogma". Unquote

paarsurrey said:
" Religion is fundamentally divisive, not inclusive. "
I don't agree with one here, the truthful religion is basically uniting, isn't it the non-belief in the truthful G-d that is divisive, please? Right?
Regards

ixxxxxxe said:#89

but religions do not agree with each other, right?

paarsurrey says: Don't all the shades of Atheism (including secular humanism) divisive among themselves, please, right??

ixxxxxxe said (in his signature): I'm a secular humanist, and I'll stand by that declaration.

paarsurrey says:
Will one stand with one's ism even when it is most unreasonable and wrong, please, right??

Regards

Is "none"ism aka Atheism (with all its shades) inferior to logic, please?

 

[Whateverist]

Is religion inferior to logic ?

Are we assuming that both serve the same function and asking which achieves it better? That would be a mistake. Logic merely allows you to formulate or recognize correlates of a proposition which must also be true so long as that original proposition is true. Logic doesn't assert anything and cannot tell you what is true without accepting the truth of that original proposition.

Religion on the other hand does assert somethings as true. One might argue the situation is analogous in that the truth of Christian theology is dependent on the assumptions one makes when reading the Bible. But much of the Bible seems more in the realm of mythos for the sake of addressing truths pertaining to human affairs, not empirical ones. Even Genesis is often understood poetically as God setting the stage for the creation he has made so as to tell his people who He is and how they are to live in relationship to Him and each other in order to thrive. There is nothing in Genesis which is remotely in competition with the origins of the cosmos considered scientifically or the evolution of life on earth including ourselves.

Religion is a variety of wisdom tradition that has evolved to pass on the collective understanding of how to live a good life and what to regard as sacred. There is no reason to think that such things can be spelled out explicitly in the manner of a scientific theory. As a written form it is closer to poetry. Logic on the other hand contains no wisdom and did not evolve for that purpose.

 

[Whateverist]

Yes religion is inferior to logic to the same degree fishing weights are inferior to typewriter paper. It just depends on what you’re trying to do.

 

[F1fan]

Yes religion is inferior to logic to the same degree fishing weights are inferior to typewriter paper. It just depends on what you’re trying to do.

Truth.

You are correct, religion is inferior to logic.

 

[F1fan]

Is religion inferior to logic ?

Are we assuming that both serve the same function and asking which achieves it better? That would be a mistake. Logic merely allows you to formulate or recognize correlates of a proposition which must also be true so long as that original proposition is true. Logic doesn't assert anything and cannot tell you what is true without accepting the truth of that original proposition.

Logic/reasoning is a method and process of rules that apply to language and thinking. These rules are narrow in that they emphasize true premises, meaning facts and data as a basis for thinking. Feelings are not relevant. These rules are not helpful to religion or religious belief as is explained in many discussions. Religion offers dogma, tradition, meaning, and other things to those who adopt a set of ideas, or who deliberately decide to apply them to the self's experience. Religions can offer some rules and methods, but this tends to be for rituals and behavior. the concepts typical in religions appeal to feelings and reward in some way, like social cohesion.

Religion on the other hand does assert somethings as true.

Many assert implausible and non-factual ideas as true, which leaves believers in the dilemma of accepting false ideas and suspending reason, or the contrary. It depends on the level of social pressure to adopt untrue ideas versus the self's independence. It's evident that human civilization has evolved in a way that allows many to adopt religious ideas and function, even into the 21st century.

One might argue the situation is analogous in that the truth of Christian theology is dependent on the assumptions one makes when reading the Bible. But much of the Bible seems more in the realm of mythos for the sake of addressing truths pertaining to human affairs, not empirical ones. Even Genesis is often understood poetically as God setting the stage for the creation he has made so as to tell his people who He is and how they are to live in relationship to Him and each other in order to thrive. There is nothing in Genesis which is remotely in competition with the origins of the cosmos considered scientifically or the evolution of life on earth including ourselves.

More liberal forms of Christianity will reject literalist interpretations of Genesis and accept evolution, while more conservative forms interpret Genesis literally and reject evolultion. There are many reasons why any individual might end up rejecting science, but it is a significant number of believers. There are good explanations how the Old Testament stories were formed and written, but with no originals it isn't certain. How modern people read the Bible and assign various meanings via a diversity of interpretations. Anything goes.

Religion is a variety of wisdom tradition that has evolved to pass on the collective understanding of how to live a good life and what to regard as sacred. There is no reason to think that such things can be spelled out explicitly in the manner of a scientific theory. As a written form it is closer to poetry. Logic on the other hand contains no wisdom and did not evolve for that purpose.

Are religions really that useful any more? How effective can we say religion is when many of the adherents are mean and insensitive people? Antisocial people get helped with religion, they need professional help to resolve their negative thoughts. Religion often encourages their negativity. In the 21st century religion seems more of a framework for identity and social cohesion (tribalism), and as the planet is more and more global is tribalism useful? How do we assess this? Reason. Logic. This is how we determine whether our attitudes and behaviors are helpul and beneficial or harmful.

More liberal forms of religion seem harmless, but the more conservtive religion is categorized the more of a threat it poses. So societies have to address these threats and deal with them with planned, reasoned action.

 

[Valjean]

Religion vs logic?
Religion is not a validity assessment mechanism. It is not maths. It may claim to be, but it's way out of its depth if it does so.
It may claim truth, but the truth is mythology and faith based, not based on facts, reason, and analysis.

Religion is a socio-political institution and psychotherapeutic modality. Logic is an epistemic modality.

 

[Whateverist]

Religion vs logic?
Religion is not a validity assessment mechanism. It is not maths. It may claim to be, but it's way out of its depth if it does so.
It may claim truth, but the truth is mythology and faith based, not based on facts, reason, and analysis.

Religion is a socio-political institution and psychotherapeutic modality. Logic is an epistemic modality.

No argument here. Religion doesn’t make explicit empirical claims but is way out of its league whenever it tries. And fundamentalist religionists aren’t shy about trying. Of course neither are fundamentalist atheists who assume that all that science and reason has or will reveal counts toward justifying their position toward the undefinable.

I think of religion as a field of mythic themes which implicitly impart meaning to what we experience and offer a way to grasp our place in the world.

 

[Valjean]

No argument here. Religion doesn’t make explicit empirical claims but is way out of its league whenever it tries. And fundamentalist religionists aren’t shy about trying. Of course neither are fundamentalist atheists who assume that all that science and reason has or will reveal counts toward justifying their position toward the undefinable.

What is a fundamentalist atheist?
I don't think there is any general, atheist position on science and reason. A lot of atheists are ordinary schmucks who just don't believe in God.
As for 'position', you've probably seen our position on that many times. We have no position. We lack a position.

I think of religion as a field of mythic themes which implicitly impart meaning to what we experience and offer a way to grasp our place in the world.

As long as religion doesn't make empirical claims it can't support, I'd expect little conflict with those who prefer evidence-based beliefs.
Alas, many religious feel sufficiently threatened by contradictory facts that they become extremely... exuberant in their defensiveness.

 

[Whateverist]

What is a fundamentalist atheist?
I don't think there is any general, atheist position on science and reason. A lot of atheists are ordinary schmucks who just don't believe in God.
As for 'position', you've probably seen our position on that many times. We have no position. We lack a position.

As long as religion doesn't make empirical claims it can't support, I'd expect little conflict with those who prefer evidence-based beliefs.
Alas, many religious feel sufficiently threatened by contradictory facts that they become extremely... exuberant in their defensiveness.

A fundy atheist is one who assumes he knows exactly what a god is and can demonstrate they do not exist just as a fundy believer assumes they know just who God is and what He wants them and you to do. Being a fundy is to be avoided.

 

[Whateverist]

Truth.

You are correct, religion is inferior to logic.

Need to reading comprehend better.

 

[F1fan]

No argument here. Religion doesn’t make explicit empirical claims but is way out of its league whenever it tries.

It doesn't, but it does? Maybe you mean religious shouldn't make explicit claims, but when it does it's way out of its league.

And fundamentalist religionists aren’t shy about trying.

I suggest most all religions have rather definitive claims of truth, and it is a matter of degree what they believe and how certain they are. It's apparent than more liberal sects attract liberal people, and that goes for moderates, conservatives, and extremists, like the KKK and ISIS. All these sects are catering to a clientele that wants what is being sold. The more conservatives, the more certain they tend to be even though they don;t have any better evidence than liberals who are more likley to treat religious ideas as symbolic rather than literal.

Of course neither are fundamentalist atheists who assume that all that science and reason has or will reveal counts toward justifying their position toward the undefinable.

If something is undefinable what other position does a rational mind have than uncertainty? Is it fundamentalist to fully understand that ideas like gods are not evidence or defined, and thus not justified for belief, or faith?

And if some idea can't be defined, what use is it? How is it different than being imaginary?

I think of religion as a field of mythic themes which implicitly impart meaning to what we experience and offer a way to grasp our place in the world.

What meaning would that be? Why don't the Hindus of India value the meaning of Christianity? Why don't the many Catholics around Boston value the meaning of Hinduism? Could it be religions have meaning just because they are part of a learned tradition that citizens adopt and assign value subconsciously? Could it be that it's not any particular religion that has speical meaning, but that any religion or sect just happens to be a tradition in a region and is passed on to the next generations? It's notable that the young in the USA are not as involved in their parents religious tradition as has been the case for centuries.

 

[F1fan]

A fundy atheist is one who assumes he knows exactly what a god is and can demonstrate they do not exist just as a fundy believer assumes they know just who God is and what He wants them and you to do. Being a fundy is to be avoided.

Can you cite anyone who holds this position? It's odd phrasing to claim that someone "knows what god is" and "can demonstrate they do not exist", as this suggests proving a negative. Unless a theist claims their god is in a box, and an atheist can look inside and see it's empty, your claim here doesn't hold water. Theists have been more and more vague about what they mean when they refer to their God, in my experience since 1996. They have learned that the less they describe about their god the less critical thinkers can assess and argue against. We see some believers don't even mention God, and instead refer to a "great mystery". Most all atheists will be aware that proving a negative is a logical fallacy. Now there are certain gods that believer will define well enough that it can be shown to be compelete false, and that is due to the definition by the believer, not anything an atheist claims to "know about gods". Most of what atheists deal with in these debates is the claims and evidence and arguments that believers present. It's evidence no one is dealing with facts about any gods, and instead theists present the tradition of belief they have adopted.

 

[Windwalker]

What is a fundamentalist atheist?

Same as a fundamentalist Christian. Same ways of thinking and believing, just with different beliefs. It's defined not by what someone believes, but by how they believe.

I don't think there is any general, atheist position on science and reason.

There's not a general position with Christians eithers. But just like with them, you have fundamentalist who are strongly opinionated about things these things. I suppose you could say that fundamentalist Christians don't define Christianity any more than fundamentalist Atheists define Atheism. That I can fully agree with.

Generally speaking, the fundamentalists seem to want to see the other group that is not their own group in black and white terms. Atheists are seen as all God-haters by fundamentalist Christians, and all Christians are seen as anti-rational, anti-science, anti-reason believers in nonsense by fundamentalist Atheists.

That is why people refer to them as fundamentalists. Only they have the real truth, and everyone else is just wrong. No such things as shades of understandings or diversity in understandings allowed. Truth is truth, and that's it. You're either on the side of truth, or you believe in lies.

A lot of atheists are ordinary schmucks who just don't believe in God.
As for 'position', you've probably seen our position on that many times. We have no position. We lack a position.

You speak for all atheists as a uniform group of soft-natural thinkers who merely lack beliefs in God? I think the picture you paint is rather idealistic, rather than realistic.

As long as religion doesn't make empirical claims it can't support, I'd expect little conflict with those who prefer evidence-based beliefs.
Alas, many religious feel sufficiently threatened by contradictory facts that they become extremely... exuberant in their defensiveness.

Fundamentalists wherever they exist, in religion or in atheism, are threatened by views and understandings that threaten their own. Again, it's not what one believes, but how one believes, how one holds those beliefs, that defines fundamentalism.

 

[Valjean]

Same as a fundamentalist Christian. Same ways of thinking and believing, just with different beliefs. It's defined not by what someone believes, but by how they believe.

But what do atheists believe? Christianity is a belief system. Atheism is a lack of belief. Most atheists believe nothing related to gods, and even strong atheists who believe there is no God do not think as Christians do, and have just one, definitive belief.
"Same way of thinking?" "...how they believe?"What does Christianity have to do with thinking? Christianity is faith-based, not reason-based. Atheism is pretty much the opposite. It's logic-based -- very different ways of thinking.

There's not a general position with Christians eithers. But just like with them, you have fundamentalist who are strongly opinionated about things these things. I suppose you could say that fundamentalist Christians don't define Christianity any more than fundamentalist Atheists define Atheism. That I can fully agree with.

But they can be defined, and they're whole different categories.

Generally speaking, the fundamentalists seem to want to see the other group that is not their own group in black and white terms. Atheists are seen as all God-haters by fundamentalist Christians, and all Christians are seen as anti-rational, anti-science, anti-reason believers in nonsense by fundamentalist Atheists.

Well, we're certainly not God-haters -- for obvious reasons, but Christianity is also not rational or reasonable. As I said above, it's faith-based, not a rational position arrived at by critical analysis of empirical facts.

That is why people refer to them as fundamentalists. Only they have the real truth, and everyone else is just wrong. No such things as shades of understandings or diversity in understandings allowed. Truth is truth, and that's it. You're either on the side of truth, or you believe in lies.

Where are these atheists who claim to have the truth? Are you sure you're not projecting? Do you feel threatened? How can a non-belief be claimed as a truth?
Your house is built on sand, and we have no house, despite your protestations.

You speak for all atheists as a uniform group of soft-natural thinkers who merely lack beliefs in God? I think the picture you paint is rather idealistic, rather than realistic.

It is definitive of the term "atheist." Yes, there exists a small percentage of strong atheists asserting a positive disbelief in God. These you can debate with. The logic of deferring belief in the unevidenced, though, seems pretty unassailable.

Fundamentalists wherever they exist, in religion or in atheism, are threatened by views and understandings that threaten their own. Again, it's not what one believes, but how one believes, how one holds those beliefs, that defines fundamentalism.

I think you're projecting, here. We have no position to be threatened, and our lack of belief is logically indisputable.
Few of us push these beliefs. We're not like the religious, whose ego-integrity is often embedded in a particular, and fragile, mythology, that must be vigorously defended.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or, in deference to Douglas Hofstadter, ...

MU!​

 

[Windwalker]

But what do atheists believe? Christianity is a belief system. Atheism is a lack of belief.

Yeah, whatever. Then why call it an "ism"? A lack of belief, in the sense that you wish to mean it, is simply a lack of awareness. The better term for that is just ignorance. Those who call themselves Atheists however, are not at all ignorant about the question of God. They quite explicitly know the question, and choose to acknowledge and respond to that question in stating they do not believe in that. "I am an atheist". That's a declarative statement about a belief.

That's different from implying a mere "absence" of a belief. But this discussion has been had countless times to no avail for those who wish to not own their own beliefs, because they are uncomfortable with the idea that is may sound religious.

As an atheist myself, I always knew my view was my belief. But I really don't wish to debate this point, as frankly there is no real debate. It's like arguing the evidence of fossil with those who don't want to acknowledge evolution.

 

[MikeDwight]

phi·los·o·phy
[fəˈläsəfē]

NOUN

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2. a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior:
   My professor incorrectly states religion and philosophy cannot mix when they did in Acts 17. Western Philosophy from the Athens philosophers met and proceeded and discussed with the Apostle who is an inducted philosopher.
   
   
   So powerful are these political forces at work that we are disturbed by the smallest idiocies be it Northern Ireland sectarianism to have a totally different society. No one has ever actually examined what President Eisenhower did he made a professional movei n office an act of office to become Presbyterian, and then equate it to the Jewish temple and the Muslim Mosque, in the rights of all American citizens and the rights of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A freedom we enjoy is the movies and vraious institutions available.
   

 

[Whateverist]

Yeah, whatever. Then why call it an "ism"? A lack of belief, in the sense that you wish to mean it, is simply a lack of awareness. The better term for that is just ignorance. Those who call themselves Atheists however, are not at all ignorant about the question of God. They quite explicitly know the question, and choose to acknowledge and respond to that question in stating they do not believe in that. "I am an atheist". That's a declarative statement about a belief.

That's different from implying a mere "absence" of a belief. But this discussion has been had countless times to no avail for those who wish to not own their own beliefs, because they are uncomfortable with the idea that is may sound religious.

As an atheist myself, I always knew my view was my belief. But I really don't wish to debate this point, as frankly there is no real debate. It's like arguing the evidence of fossil with those who don't want to acknowledge evolution.

I don’t believe in gods but I believe in things without scientific evidence or rational justification I expect everyone to accept. “Believe in” is different than “believe that”. I believe that every water molecule contains two hydrogen stones, that evolution describes the way life on earth became as it is and that the temperature where I live will be above 80 for the first this year on Saturday all for good reason. But I believe in my wife, my friends and my dog, meaning I trust them a good deal based on my experience of them. I may not know everything about them but I know enough to feel they relied upon. I also believe in the power of reflection, intuition and creative inspiration. I have justificatory support for those beliefs that are entirely idiosyncratic to my personal experience which is not reducible to a set of facts without loss or distortion. The knowledge I’ve acquired about such things is implicit not explicit. I assume that most believers hold God belief on that basis too though they may prefer to tell you about the historical miraculous basis for Christianity if they are not very nuanced in their thinking.