Is religion inferior to logic ?

[wellwisher]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject. Any branch of knowledge that is taught , should always have strong routes , from a starting point to a conclusion . If this basic principle is not adhered to , then the practitioner becomes ill-informed , having an inadequate awareness of the facts.
Let us now be clear in our understanding of what is a fact compared to interpretation . A fact is something that is known or proved to be true , it is not something that is solely written on paper . A fact has supporting evidence such as observations , a fact can sometimes be an axiom , something that is self evidently true . If we ignore the facts and/or axioms then we are just being subjective as opposed objective. This information is then ill-informed information and can be misleading to a student ,allowing them false ideologies of a subject .

If a diety existed , then this diety would require the ability to think !

Therefore God = Wavefunction / Volume

Logic is 2-D thinking or based on cause and affect. Cause is like the X-axis and affect is the Y-axis. We draw rational drawings using logic on this 2-D grid. Religion uses a more symbolic thought system; right brain, that is 3-D and not just 2-D. God is a trinity. This adds the Z-axis for 3-D logic.

In other words, when we add God to the world view of materialism logic, cause and effect, we add a wild card; z-axis, that can become affect, cause and affect, and cause, affect and cause.

For example, in the Big Bang Theory, materialists 2-D logic is used to start the universe at the singularity; their original cause. But this falls short, since one may ask, where did the singularity come from. What was the affect, that initiated this materialistic cause and affect, that we call the BB. God; right brain, allows one to go beyond the limits of what we know, and opens the door to what can be known.

Science also tries to reach this 3-D or third axis, with an approximation called statistics. Statistics is similar to a god approach, in that odds, like the determinism of the trinity God, are all powerful and omnipresent; life can appear anywhere, and can even make the first cell appear without logic. It is the wild card of science used to add a pseudo z-axis, affects and causes.

The main difference between the God of religion and god of science, is the god of science is not very bright; rational He is more impulsive and sometimes lucky. He/she is the idiot savant brother/sister of the more deterministic God of 3-D. The God of determinism has a plan based on extended logic. The god of statistics has no plan. He falls like a drunk and where he lands, he sleeps, and something will appear. For science this becomes the 3-D axis.

The god of science is often summoned for fortune telling using math oracles. He is asked questions like how many people will develop side affects from the new medicine, or if I should bet on this hand in black jack, or what do the consensus think about the midterms?. But since he not extended rational 3-D, but more like 2.5-D, who knows what he/she will do. We wait for the math oracles to speak and with faith we add it to science. It is strange way to worship a god or do science. God comes to a focus so we can see him, but god is fuzzy and has no face. This is based on the mirror of atheism.

Say science had to upgrade to logic and extended logic and had to get rid of the gods of statistics, since this oracle approach is not based on logic; cause and affect. Blind testing can not see the data needed to reason in advance. Could science advance on its own, with logic, without its god? For example, say climate science had to be based exclusively on logic, without throwing any dice, is its theories strong enough? The answer to both question is no, since the god of chance carries much of science. Life science would dead in the water since the theory is too dependent.

Why does science use statistics, which is not based on cause and affect. and then proclaim science is based on logic, which is cause and affect? Does anyone see the irrationality?

 

[Curious George]

Example: I don't know when I will die but it is true I will die .

Example : I don't know the next lottery ball but it is true that number 1 will eventually be drawn based on 1 over time .

Except neither of these is what you said

 

[Windwalker]

Better as a placebo, as a crutch.

Haha. You know I've been having thoughts about placebos the last couple days. Funny that you brought that up. A placebo effect is what science calls something it can't explain, which is the mind/body connection. The mind has a fantastic, shall we call it "miraculous" way of being able to heal itself and the body though belief.

The fact that people are getting better, simply because they are believing the pill they took is advantageous for healing, even though it is nothing but a sugar pill, is solid evidence of this mind-body connection. Yet, some folks think that's not valid for some reason? That's ridiculous. They were healed by the mind alone.

Isn't that something worth understanding better? The answer is no, of course, if your interest is making pharmaceuticals to make a profit with!

So you are in fact right in a sense about religion being like a placebo. It engages the mind with positive beliefs, which is what leads to health and healing and transformation for both the body and the mind, and the spirit as well.

But a "crutch"? That's very different from a placebo. A crutch can become just a dependency to survive, a coping mechanism. And yes, absolutely, for many people religion can be a way of not taking responsibility, and being healed so to speak.

Religion becomes simply a coping mechanism. But then again, so is perpetual dependence on Western medicines, isn't it? A crutch? How many are taking anxiety pills everyday these days just to cope with living? Isn't that a crutch too?

BTW, I practice the martial arts form of Taijiquan (T'ai Chi). So I know more than well the bodymind connection and its transformative effects on health and wellbeing, physically, mentally, and spiritually. There is hard physical proof that it works. I'm decades younger in body and mind than I was. You can call that "just the mind", and I'd exclaim, you're damn right it is!!

 

[zerogain]

Well, I get that. But that is not all that is relevant to learning.

paarsurrey said: ↑
" that is self evidently true "
Yes, G-d is self Evident, please. Right? True?
Regards

I don't agree with one.
G-d is Evident/Manifest* and He needs no proof for that, He exists irrespective of the humans believe Him or not.
Evident/Manifest never ever needed any proofs, has an evident/manifest ever needed any proofs?

Regards
__________________
*57:4 ہُوَ الۡاَوَّلُ وَالۡاٰخِرُ وَالظَّاہِرُ وَالۡبَاطِنُ ۚ وَہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۴﴾
He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.
Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
*evident (adj.)
"plainly seen or perceived, manifest, obvious," late 14c., from Old French evident and directly from Latin evidentem (nominative evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious, apparent" from ex "out, out of, fully" (see ex-) + videntem (nominative videns), present participle of videre "to see" (from PIE root *weid- "to see").
evident | Etymology, origin and meaning of evident by etymonline
manifest (adj.)
late 14c., "clearly revealed to the eye or the understanding, open to view or comprehension," from Old French manifest "evident, palpable," (12c.), or directly from Latin manifestus "plainly apprehensible, clear, apparent, evident;" of offenses, "proved by direct evidence;" of offenders, "caught in the act," probably from manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand") + -festus, which apparently is identical to the second element of infest.
manifest | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

You can't understand reality unless you understand the first principles , what you have provided is just words that don't exist outside of the NRF .

 

[zerogain]

You think time is a function of consciousness? And that space is objectively real, in a way that time is not? Where does that leave the four dimensional spacetime manifold, and Special Relativity?

Space-time is a virtual reference frame that does not have physicality . Space-time isn't afffected by time=0

 

[zerogain]

Logic is 2-D thinking or based on cause and affect. Cause is like the X-axis and affect is the Y-axis. We draw rational drawings using logic on this 2-D grid. Religion uses a more symbolic thought system; right brain, that is 3-D and not just 2-D. God is a trinity. This adds the Z-axis for 3-D logic.

Where did you get such a notion ? Logic doesn't require dimensions , it is the rational of information .

In other words, when we add God to the world view of materialism logic, cause and effect, we add a wild card; z-axis, that can become affect, cause and affect, and cause, affect and cause.

For example, in the Big Bang Theory, materialists 2-D logic is used to start the universe at the singularity; their original cause. But this falls short, since one may ask, where did the singularity come from. What was the affect, that initiated this materialistic cause and affect, that we call the BB. God; right brain, allows one to go beyond the limits of what we know, and opens the door to what can be known.

The big bang isn't correct

Science also tries to reach this 3-D or third axis, with an approximation called statistics. Statistics is similar to a god approach, in that odds, like the determinism of the trinity God, are all powerful and omnipresent; life can appear anywhere, and can even make the first cell appear without logic. It is the wild card of science used to add a pseudo z-axis, affects and causes.

Science tries too hard .

The main difference between the God of religion and god of science, is the god of science is not very bright; rational He is more impulsive and sometimes lucky. He/she is the idiot savant brother/sister of the more deterministic God of 3-D. The God of determinism has a plan based on extended logic. The god of statistics has no plan. He falls like a drunk and where he lands, he sleeps, and something will appear. For science this becomes the 3-D axis.

Wave-function / volume is potentially infinite in wisdom , a science God would be the more superior form of information .

The god of science is often summoned for fortune telling using math oracles. He is asked questions like how many people will develop side affects from the new medicine, or if I should bet on this hand in black jack, or what do the consensus think about the midterms?. But since he not extended rational 3-D, but more like 2.5-D, who knows what he/she will do. We wait for the math oracles to speak and with faith we add it to science. It is strange way to worship a god or do science. God comes to a focus so we can see him, but god is fuzzy and has no face. This is based on the mirror of atheism.

Say science had to upgrade to logic and extended logic and had to get rid of the gods of statistics, since this oracle approach is not based on logic; cause and affect. Blind testing can not see the data needed to reason in advance. Could science advance on its own, with logic, without its god? For example, say climate science had to be based exclusively on logic, without throwing any dice, is its theories strong enough? The answer to both question is no, since the god of chance carries much of science. Life science would dead in the water since the theory is too dependent.

Why does science use statistics, which is not based on cause and affect. and then proclaim science is based on logic, which is cause and affect? Does anyone see the irrationality?

Logic is logic !

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You really don't believe when Jesus taught the Beatitudes he really was meaning that to be meek means you must let people walk all over you.

I believe that meekness means a poverty of spirit and is not blessed. It's a form of cowardice, a failure to assert oneself when that is ethical or constructive thing to do. I've offered Milton from Office Space as an iconic example of this - a mouse of a man that could barely speak aloud as others abused and exploited him.

And I believe that that understanding - the idea that those who don't assert themselves are praiseworthy - is why Constantine chose this religion to be his state religion. That interpretation is supported by other admonitions such as to be longsuffering and to turn the other cheek, for if you submit to your God-given lot in life, you will be rewarded and made an equal in heaven (pie in the sky). By now, the word meekness is understood as humility, because humility really is a virtue, but it is distinct from meekness. One can be courageous and assertive yet humble, but not also meek.

Consider turning the other cheek. That's also been retranslated to something respectable, but I believe it was meant literally because of the context, all of which basically says that if one stands down in the face of exploitation, he will be rewarded. What king or emperor wouldn't be happy to have his subjects taught that? Don't argue. Don't walk away when you're being punished. Don't try to negotiate a peace. Don't cover your face. Give him the other cheek, too. Why? Why not cut off your hand and give him that, too?

I don't have an opinion about whether Jesus said any of those things, but I suspect not. Who gives that advice to people he loves? Would you teach your children to be meek or offer another cheek to somebody striking them? No. That's what you teach serfs and peasants and slaves. Do you believe Napoleon here, that he really believes this? He's saying what I believe Constantine was thinking when he chose Christianity:

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

I just can't ignore all of this and go with what I think are revisionists regarding what Constantine understood those words to mean because it comports with a more beneficent Jesus. Jesus wouldn't sell you out, right? Well, I don't think he did either, which I why I don't think that the Sermon on the Mount were his words.

We agree then that Jesus was instead teaching good humanist values, or should I say, what humanism embraces is what Jesus taught?

Jesus' values (or the words attributed to him in the Gospels) depart from humanist values in at least a dozen places, like the stuff about finding women one is not married to sexually alluring being adultery, or admonitions to cut off body parts such as eyes, hands, and testicles. Jesus says, "Take therefore no thought for tomorrow: for tomorrow shall take thought of the things for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." That's pretty bad advice.

Jesus also said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." and "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall][be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Sorry, but that's immoral. Jesus failed to condemn slavery or homophobia, both ethical lapses. How about, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me," or "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

Here's a loathsome doctrine: "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." Seriously, why would anybody go to this resource for guidance unless he believed in its god? Why would any atheist say, "Yeah, there's moral guidance that I can use even if I don't consider Jesus divine."

Sorry, but Jesus flunks humanism 101.

To chime in here, as normal, I would say God is a focus for me, but not necessarily as some deity form. The reason for that is because what you set your mind upon, makes a big difference in the quality and energies of life that one cultivates. If I focus on the worries of the world, my personal struggles and whatnot, then I end up walking around looking at the ground, so to speak, rather that looking at the sky and that which is greater than all that. It gets you out of yourself, in other words. So it becomes a focus point, a symbol of something "higher", and that gives positive focus. There are other reasons as well, but that's a simplified way to put it.

I agree with this. I do something similar, but without gods. I don't want to turn nature into a person, or divert my attention to imagined persons outside of nature. One can have a spiritual connection to reality without personifying it. In fact, it seems that adding spirits outside of nature is the first step toward breaking the connection to nature and diverting one's attention to imagined agents in imagined realms - pretty much the opposite of what I call an authentic spiritual experience. Reconsider Jesus' "wisdom": "friendship with the world means enmity against God." His god is a distraction from where one's attention should be directed: reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How many are taking anxiety pills everyday these days just to cope with living? Isn't that a crutch too?
BTW, I practice the martial arts form of Taijiquan (T'ai Chi).

Well, not in India.
Nice.

The big bang isn't correct.

Yeah, not wholly correct. It was rather a 'hiss' than a 'bang', lasting a Planck epoch, 1 x 10^−43 seconds.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't understand reality unless you understand the first principles , what you have provided is just words that don't exist outside of the NRF .

So I don't understand reality, but then where do I exist and how can I answer you?

 

[zerogain]

So I don't understand reality, but then where do I exist and how can I answer you?

You exist in your provided body and the space that surrounds your body . Here is a picture of you :

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You exist in your provided body and the space that surrounds your body . Here is a picture of you :

View attachment 68300

Well, that is not what I see when I look in the mirror. So how come I can't see that and still live in the everyday world. I mean I can't even see how I really look. Now I am really confused??? Are you certain that I actually exist in reality? I mean when I look at other humans I don't see that either. So if I can't see what you see and that is real and reality, where do I live?

 

[zerogain]

Well, that is not what I see when I look in the mirror. So how come I can't see that and still live in the everyday world. I mean I can't even see how I really look. Now I am really confused??? Are you certain that I actually exist in reality? I mean when I look at other humans I don't see that either. So if I can't see what you see and that is real and reality, where do I live?

You live inside your body and what you see in a mirror is your very own quantum field that extends into space .

You exist because you were formed inside your occupied body . All that you are is words , try not to freak out , don't become too detached from your body , remind yourself to breethe .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A NRF starts to form in the fetal stage of reproduction of sentient beings , although until birth the NRF is limited . A NRF is dependent to a sentient being senses. The mind and universe experience could not occur without empiricism .

OK. I'd say that consciousness begins with birth. Fetuses cannot be conscious for the simple reason that there isn’t enough oxygen in utero. It appears that the fetus remains unconscious much like a medically induced coma to keep the brain’s requirements as low as possible. The fetus gets some of mom's inhaled oxygen, but she still needs enough of it to remain conscious and sustain metabolism in the face of a nutrient drain. The fetus gets the rest. When the baby is born and begins breathing on its own, oxygen is no longer a problem. The brain kicks into high gear. The baby becomes conscious and starts making eye contact after a few days.

Critical thinking is just another way of describing objective logic .

Valid reasoning is the central skill in critical thought. Taking evidence to sound conclusion and recognizing when others (or oneself) haven't because of logical fallacy is the principal function of critical thinking.

An axiom isn't a proposal , it is something that is self evidently true that we can mostly agree on such as , if we drop an object it falls to the ground .

That wouldn't be an axiom. That would be an induction derived from experience (observation) - a posteriori knowledge. And has been explained, that is only true under certain circumstances.

stardust did not create sentient beings .

If by stardust you mean nature, you are likely incorrect. Nothing else is known to exist that could be responsible. It appears that galaxies of solar systems arrange themselves, some (or all) of which can then evolve brains and consciousness. Sure, there might be (and likely is) more to reality than we know, but let's not guess like you're doing. You don't know that your claim is accurate.

Religion is the quintessence of knowledge and wisdom.

You must be using different definitions for both of those words that I do. As I define them, religion is neither. The religions contradict one another.

Man cannot progress or gain knowledge until he learns to acknowledge that axiomatic and fundamental fact - who his Maker is, and what is His will.

Most of our progress in the last several centuries came from putting religions and faith-based belief aside. People just stopped listening to other people telling them what God told them was his will. Keep it out of our governments and out of our science, and the human condition improves every time. Keep it out of the lives of unbelievers and their lives improve. The more religion in any life, the more it is adversely affected. The more religion in any society, the more oppressive it is.

Stardust and protoplasm did not create in man the undeniable spiritual dimension within his ontology.

There is no evidence that anything but nature exists to have fashioned brains and all of man's psychological states.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, not in India.

That's probably quite telling for a number of reasons. I'd like to think it's because meditation is a more common practice in India than it is here in the states. That certainly helps in the reduction of anxiety. But I honestly don't know how widespread that as a practice is in India.

The other factor would be just the type of society and culture it is here in the West compared to India. I think we are bred by our consumerist culture and constant inundation of information and controversies to be ungrounded generally speaking. One would think you're dealing with very different environments and histories.

Add to this, that religion in the West, Christianity, as been predominantly exoteric, with little to no interior work. That leaves people disconnected, imaging reality is all outside of themselves and themselves disconnected from it, hoping for a miracle to save them from that situation.

I think in India, religion includes the interiors much more effectively. Christianity has some catching up to do, even though historically they once did have that with the mystics.

I suspect though as India becomes more Westernized, our anxieties and neuroticism will soon infest it as well. It's kind of what happens when you disconnect from Reality that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You live inside your body and what you see in a mirror is your very own quantum field that extends into space .

You exist because you were formed inside your occupied body . All that you are is words , try not to freak out , don't become too detached from your body , remind yourself to breethe .

Don't worry. I already know a lot of that. I have been doing it for 25 years now. I know I don't exist, I am a story my brain produces.
So try not to freak out , don't become too detached from your body , remind yourself to breathe. That goes for both of us. Take care.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject. Any branch of knowledge that is taught , should always have strong routes , from a starting point to a conclusion . If this basic principle is not adhered to , then the practitioner becomes ill-informed , having an inadequate awareness of the facts.
Let us now be clear in our understanding of what is a fact compared to interpretation . A fact is something that is known or proved to be true , it is not something that is solely written on paper . A fact has supporting evidence such as observations , a fact can sometimes be an axiom , something that is self evidently true . If we ignore the facts and/or axioms then we are just being subjective as opposed objective. This information is then ill-informed information and can be misleading to a student ,allowing them false ideologies of a subject .

If a diety existed , then this diety would require the ability to think !

Therefore God = Wavefunction / Volume

I can't speak on religion generally. Logic comes from the Word of Yahweh. Wisdom, understanding and knowledge, we read in the Book of Proverbs, come from Yahweh and He has allowed us to navigate this life with precision and success so long as we adhere to the Word. Those religions that adhere closer to the Word of Yahweh, are more logical than those that do not. Proverbs 2:6 says: "For Yahweh giveth wisdom; Out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding". Anything that contradicts the Bible is not true. If you start violating the Law of Yahweh, you're going to have problems and you might not know why you are having those problems but Yahweh has revealed in His Word the source of those problems.

I posted a thread about Halloween on October 31st, explaining the origins of Halloween and how True Worshippers, who seek to please Yahweh, will avoid taking part in it. I don't think there was a single person who said they wouldn't keep Halloween. Yet, how many people would be quick to accuse Yahweh when things go wrong in their life? It baffles me. No, there is great wisdom in obeying Yahweh's Covenant Law.

 

[zerogain]

OK. I'd say that consciousness begins with birth. Fetuses cannot be conscious for the simple reason that there isn’t enough oxygen in utero. It appears that the fetus remains unconscious much like a medically induced coma to keep the brain’s requirements as low as possible. The fetus gets some of mom's inhaled oxygen, but she still needs enough of it to remain conscious and sustain metabolism in the face of a nutrient drain. The fetus gets the rest. When the baby is born and begins breathing on its own, oxygen is no longer a problem. The brain kicks into high gear. The baby becomes conscious and starts making eye contact after a few days.

I'll start the reply with this quoted piece ! In the Fetal stage an unbord child can feel ,also they hear some sounds , this is this first principle of forming a neurological reference frame . As I mentioned before , the inherent senses of humans are imperitive to forming a NRF .

 

[Windwalker]

All that you are is words , try not to freak out , don't become too detached from your body , remind yourself to breethe .

This is true. The ego is a mental and linguistic construct. What we think is reality, is reality to us. Put another way, reality is what we think it is. But who, or what really are we without that construct? Do we exist? I say yes. What do you say?

 

[zerogain]

There is no evidence that anything but nature exists to have fashioned brains and all of man's psychological states.

There is no evidence that sentient beings are a natural physical or chemical process ! Darwins theory of evolution has no axioms .

 

[zerogain]

This is true. The ego is a mental and linguistic construct. What we think is reality, is reality to us. Put another way, reality is what we think it is. But who, or what really are we without that construct? Do we exist? I say yes. What do you say?

Yes it is true , it is an axiom but I won't go into providing a lengthy explanation .

We exist has functioning wave-energy and we have the information stored to process the information in our NRF's .
Example : You could not calculate 1+1 unless you knew the answer was 2 from stored information in your NRF .