-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion inferior to logic ?
- Thread starter zerogain
- Start date
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
This topic asks the question is religion inferior to logic. I have pointed out that science, casinos, politicians and pollsters, to name a few, all use statistical models, which are not based on logic. Throwing dice is not based on cause and affect, but on chance. In statistics, things happen in a black box which is designed to make it hard to reason. Reason needs to see to believe but how can you see in a black box? The magician places the rabbit in the sealed box, and it disappears. If the box was open, the whole time, you can see the trick and reason it away.
How do we classify statistics and the science that used it, to see if it is closer to a faith based religion or to logic? A black box approach does require more faith than does logic since logic is not blind folded. This will help us classify various branches of science, who use and often over use this illogical technique. If it is too close to faith and religion, we may need to defund these areas of science, unless hypocrisy rules the roost in atheism and science.
I remember doing a science and engineering project, where I was testing a new process that I had invented. I was using it to process contaminated water under emergency conditions. This was a very visible project with eyes watching from Federal and State Regulatory Agencies. Since this process was new, even though I understood the science and the engineering, and saw it all as logical, I was told I would be shadowed by a statistician, who would analyze the data and help me make predictions.
I invented it and I was in touch with the process logic and understood its cause and affect. I thought this shadow approach was a waste of time. I was not going to do it, so they assigned someone who would. The statistician was a nice guy and mathematician but he was in the dark in terms of the chemistry and engineering. He was asked to use his statistics to put the process into a black box, and with his math oracle to help him walk in the dark, for both himself and others who had concern. This was a friendly competition between logic, and the lack of logic; math oracle. My claim was, if you can see; reason, you do not need faith in a black box oracle. That oracle might be useful for the blind.
In the end, after processing and discharging several million gallons over several weeks, all went well. It was easy to see breakthrough, and replace the extractions canisters, like I had said. There had always been zero odds of anything going wrong. All was consistent with logic with a good correlation that could make future predictions. Why did I get shadowed with a second tier method for the blind?
Why does so much of science prefer to do science in the dark? In my case, the statistical shadowing had to do with the political fear of the unknown and appeasing that fear. If something had gone wrong, statistics could be used to average and fudge and provide an excuse to appease backlash. It was not about the needs of science or logic. The invention would not have formed in any black box. Why is science going backwards to the whims of the gods? Why not require the higher standards of logic and reason like in the glory days of science?
It also has to do with gaming the system. For example, many drugs reach market based on statistical testing only to be subject to law suits later. It provides a way to appear short term fear and game the system, until logic will have no more of that. Then lawyers come in. I am not a fan of oracle science, which creates dogma that will not see logic.
A logical model uses very defined data points. Statistics does not see reality this way. Data points, to statistics, are like fuzzy dice with margins of error. This is due to being blind or partially blind. It makes provisions for something wrong or exceptional to magically happen. Fuzzy dice data points also makes it harder to draw a single line between two points since there is a data volume, instead of data points. The data point volume has the advantage of allowing more angles for the line. Theories can end up with tenure, with any bad data absorbed within the margin of the fuzzy dice volume. This is more like politics which is also dependent on this same oracle.
In the case of the chemical process I had to be prefect, if this had been a statistical model there would have been a built in imperfection buffering. I can see how this is easier in terms of developing theory, but it lacks the sharper criteria of cause and affect. Why have we downgraded science with this religion of black boxes? We should expect more from science than the same math used by politicians and gambling casinos. They all induce dreams which feel good, but do not always end they way you dreamed it. Logic is cold and is like cold water to face, it can open your eyes; age of enlightenment.
All and all, statistics appear to be a type of religion based on living in the dark and needing an oracle to be able to see some partial light. It does not like logic, since the light of logic is too bright for eyes that are used to the dark. Consensus in science is lower tier than logical science. The former is based on collective opinion in the dim light, while the latter is self evident to all, since it shines brightly for all to deduce and infer.
How do we classify statistics and the science that used it, to see if it is closer to a faith based religion or to logic? A black box approach does require more faith than does logic since logic is not blind folded. This will help us classify various branches of science, who use and often over use this illogical technique. If it is too close to faith and religion, we may need to defund these areas of science, unless hypocrisy rules the roost in atheism and science.
I remember doing a science and engineering project, where I was testing a new process that I had invented. I was using it to process contaminated water under emergency conditions. This was a very visible project with eyes watching from Federal and State Regulatory Agencies. Since this process was new, even though I understood the science and the engineering, and saw it all as logical, I was told I would be shadowed by a statistician, who would analyze the data and help me make predictions.
I invented it and I was in touch with the process logic and understood its cause and affect. I thought this shadow approach was a waste of time. I was not going to do it, so they assigned someone who would. The statistician was a nice guy and mathematician but he was in the dark in terms of the chemistry and engineering. He was asked to use his statistics to put the process into a black box, and with his math oracle to help him walk in the dark, for both himself and others who had concern. This was a friendly competition between logic, and the lack of logic; math oracle. My claim was, if you can see; reason, you do not need faith in a black box oracle. That oracle might be useful for the blind.
In the end, after processing and discharging several million gallons over several weeks, all went well. It was easy to see breakthrough, and replace the extractions canisters, like I had said. There had always been zero odds of anything going wrong. All was consistent with logic with a good correlation that could make future predictions. Why did I get shadowed with a second tier method for the blind?
Why does so much of science prefer to do science in the dark? In my case, the statistical shadowing had to do with the political fear of the unknown and appeasing that fear. If something had gone wrong, statistics could be used to average and fudge and provide an excuse to appease backlash. It was not about the needs of science or logic. The invention would not have formed in any black box. Why is science going backwards to the whims of the gods? Why not require the higher standards of logic and reason like in the glory days of science?
It also has to do with gaming the system. For example, many drugs reach market based on statistical testing only to be subject to law suits later. It provides a way to appear short term fear and game the system, until logic will have no more of that. Then lawyers come in. I am not a fan of oracle science, which creates dogma that will not see logic.
A logical model uses very defined data points. Statistics does not see reality this way. Data points, to statistics, are like fuzzy dice with margins of error. This is due to being blind or partially blind. It makes provisions for something wrong or exceptional to magically happen. Fuzzy dice data points also makes it harder to draw a single line between two points since there is a data volume, instead of data points. The data point volume has the advantage of allowing more angles for the line. Theories can end up with tenure, with any bad data absorbed within the margin of the fuzzy dice volume. This is more like politics which is also dependent on this same oracle.
In the case of the chemical process I had to be prefect, if this had been a statistical model there would have been a built in imperfection buffering. I can see how this is easier in terms of developing theory, but it lacks the sharper criteria of cause and affect. Why have we downgraded science with this religion of black boxes? We should expect more from science than the same math used by politicians and gambling casinos. They all induce dreams which feel good, but do not always end they way you dreamed it. Logic is cold and is like cold water to face, it can open your eyes; age of enlightenment.
All and all, statistics appear to be a type of religion based on living in the dark and needing an oracle to be able to see some partial light. It does not like logic, since the light of logic is too bright for eyes that are used to the dark. Consensus in science is lower tier than logical science. The former is based on collective opinion in the dim light, while the latter is self evident to all, since it shines brightly for all to deduce and infer.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
" that is self evidently true "
Yes, G-d is self Evident, please. Right? True?
Regards
Regards
" that is self evidently true "
Yes, G-d is self Evident, please. Right? True?
Regards
If a blind person denies the risen sun, he could be excused for being handicapped, similarly if the inner-blind persons deny the Evident One, they may be of the same type, please, right?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
First of all they use the term Atheism (and the likes) for themselves and every ism has a core book*/doctrines** they follow , while they don't have it, so reason is not with them even to start with, please, right?
Regards
______________
*book | Etymology, origin and meaning of book by etymonline
**doctrine | Etymology, origin and meaning of doctrine by etymonline
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
I suggest that depends on how religion is practiced or observed by those who observe them. Religion and logic should go together like protons, neutrons, and electrons - as a nucleus whole as opposed to being disconnected from that which is real or true as a whole. This includes logical fallacies of the secular bent mind. Intellectual honesty seems relevant.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Religion should say my first human position is the hypocrite.
As humans in the past my own human family murdered sacrificed all life on earth. Made new sin by and in man's presence the sin K hole. Gods rock flesh the tomb or entombed spirit gone out of mass removed too.
God and every other body sacrificed exodus as dust once existed. Ex O dust. My machine beginnings is dusts blew up my machine. As I reacted non existence of my machines beginnings.
Only men did this act. A small act. Not creations act.
Today as a religious man I know I'm not intelligent as a theist. Science isn't logic. It is in fact anti logic.
As first as a man I own nothing. I'm just a man.
Space zero law protects me.
O I gave it away to be destroyed as I + added a fake cross...I'm not mass. I removed it...it wasn't being removed by law as nothing.
I minused it.
So I said false cross + then minus cross changed to equals + = as I changed my add. I ended up with - instead.
By symbols - my logic told me I'm wrong.
As only human man chose to destroy what God owned.
God the only power he believed would make him Invisible in one moment. What nothing in a Thought meant.
Yet he wasn't the topic nothing or invisible. He said factually as a man I only own myself nothing else.
He was flesh blood and bones.
So my baby brother is proven Mr self idolator man. It's his religious practice.
Real.
My first mother you baby human theist scientist man hadn't invented by your theory. A baby whose baby life creates his man adult human.
Father mother origin human are in laws non arguable skeletal dusts. Its their proof you hadn't invented them.
Maybe in your sick mind you think mother is space.
I'm sister daughter mother in your life. In your brother father mind. You say you created my life a baby yet in fact a baby man created a baby adult man.
An adult man had sex as equal life the baby man brother man father man to my baby woman sister woman mother woman.
You own natural aware conscious life first. All thoughts first are only about humans survival. Not any theory.
As a theist supported by your religious dogma you lie.
Hypocrite meets hypocrite. No you are not logical.
Only natural human not A theist is logical.
As humans in the past my own human family murdered sacrificed all life on earth. Made new sin by and in man's presence the sin K hole. Gods rock flesh the tomb or entombed spirit gone out of mass removed too.
God and every other body sacrificed exodus as dust once existed. Ex O dust. My machine beginnings is dusts blew up my machine. As I reacted non existence of my machines beginnings.
Only men did this act. A small act. Not creations act.
Today as a religious man I know I'm not intelligent as a theist. Science isn't logic. It is in fact anti logic.
As first as a man I own nothing. I'm just a man.
Space zero law protects me.
O I gave it away to be destroyed as I + added a fake cross...I'm not mass. I removed it...it wasn't being removed by law as nothing.
I minused it.
So I said false cross + then minus cross changed to equals + = as I changed my add. I ended up with - instead.
By symbols - my logic told me I'm wrong.
As only human man chose to destroy what God owned.
God the only power he believed would make him Invisible in one moment. What nothing in a Thought meant.
Yet he wasn't the topic nothing or invisible. He said factually as a man I only own myself nothing else.
He was flesh blood and bones.
So my baby brother is proven Mr self idolator man. It's his religious practice.
Real.
My first mother you baby human theist scientist man hadn't invented by your theory. A baby whose baby life creates his man adult human.
Father mother origin human are in laws non arguable skeletal dusts. Its their proof you hadn't invented them.
Maybe in your sick mind you think mother is space.
I'm sister daughter mother in your life. In your brother father mind. You say you created my life a baby yet in fact a baby man created a baby adult man.
An adult man had sex as equal life the baby man brother man father man to my baby woman sister woman mother woman.
You own natural aware conscious life first. All thoughts first are only about humans survival. Not any theory.
As a theist supported by your religious dogma you lie.
Hypocrite meets hypocrite. No you are not logical.
Only natural human not A theist is logical.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Asking if religion is inferior to logic is like asking if art is inferior to math. Sometimes two things are just different and one is not inferior to the other.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is religion inferior to logic ?
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?
Regards
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?
Regards
Joshua Pryce
Member
Not entirely true, something written on paper can be factual, like statements and accounts of an incident. Which is what the bible is compromised of. Theres something called a biological story. There are eye witnesses, that tell stories. Of course everything would have to exist in harmony to be completely factual. People cannot tell lies in unison.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I agree with @zerogain. For something to be a fact, it must be something proven. And writing in a religious text is not proof. Writing can discuss facts, but writing by itself does not establish facts.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
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.
Is water inferior to rain?
Since the majority of atheists are known to embrace logic, reason, and science over belief in that which there is no objective evidence, these questions are a bit silly, no?
PureX
Veteran Member
Logic is just one tool of many that we all have available to us, and that we all use routinely to determine our philosophical positions in relation to our experience of being. Logic is a cognitive tool, while atheism is a philosophical position. They don't compare.
It would make more sense to compare tools, or to compare philosophical positions. Like comparing logic and faith, or atheism and theism.
Also, atheism is not "noneism" in that it is an ideology that contains beliefs and reasoning and bias the same as any other.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
This is a good point. Even "lacktheists" who define atheism as "the lack of belief in gods" believe that they lack a belief in gods and that they are therefore justified to self-identify as an atheist.
We saw that on display in the recent trend of threads claiming that "atheism doesn't exist" in one way or another, prompting many atheists to disagree.
PureX
Veteran Member
By the way, if we are comparing logic and faith, they are both very useful and both very often used cognitive tools. And they are often used in conjunction with each other. But they can be used independently to great and positive effect as well, depending on the circumstances to which they are being applied.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Why is anything superior or inferior to everything else? Are tulips superior to pears? Rivers to trees? Boats to houses?
Well, a water closet is superior to an outhouse.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, no, in another sense. Because a water closet is dependent on water supply. An outhouse is less prone to problems. It is the joke of pro and cons depending on the true context.
Last edited: