Is religion logical

[Twilight Hue]

What if one religion contradicts another? I believe Buddhism believes there should be no suffering but Christianity values suffering.

In Buddhism, it's an end of suffering through taming of ego. It's not really a belief per say as much as through provision, by which a person is first motivated and sits down on the cushion finding out for him/herself If it be the case.

Suffering continues of course, but the impact is diminished/extinguished through the taming of ego.

Christianity focuses primarily on the value of sacrifice, reconciliation, and redemption through suffering, and exemplified by Christ for others to follow.

It's a little hard to compare contradictory aspects apart from how suffering is percieved and approached when your talking about differing religions. Everyone is equally affected.

I suppose any contradictions would involve matters of complacency and redemption respectively.

Bit like taking it on the chin and saying either, "Ahhhh that felt really good..... "

or, "OW dagnabit!" "0)

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

OK - but your conclusion was that moral law should be taken as if it emanates from a transcendent source wasn't it? If 2 is the ideal (and I think this could be attacked logically but I will not bother to do that and instead take it as a given), and it is derived from a transcendent law-giver, would we not expect it to be the norm for all social animals? Do you suppose that when you are not looking, your dogs feel guilty about stealing the food from the other dog's bowl? I have four dogs - and I doubt this very much. I am the external law-giver as far as the dogs are concerned because I am, in effect, their alpha male. Ditto for humans for most of our history. But we have used our power of reason to elucidate general trends in naturally emerging morality. Why do you think it is often generally considered OK to kill a foreigner in war but not a citizen of your own country? Its mostly group-level social order that dictates morality and this arises naturally from the reality of human societies just as it arises naturally in a pack of domesticated wolves. Its not an absolute and immutable set of divine commandments - if it was we would indeed all have the exact same set. The "sanctity of life" (for example) for an intelligent species of social animal is not a moral absolute, its a sociological (ecological?) biological imperative. And I think, from a rational point of view, that notion has potentially far more persuasive moral power than the idea of an aloof and transcendent law-giver. But it does depend on humanity consisting of educated populations. So perhaps, for now, at least, your argument holds - "its wrong because God said so", probably still works better than "its wrong because that's what's best for us all" for most humans. But again, that makes the rational basis of religion utility rather than logic - doesn't it?

Lots of points. Let me start with the last point and work my way back to the top.
1) utility is logic.
2) "what's best for us all" and "God said so" are also logically the same.
God would only say what is best for us all, and what is best for us all would be what God says.
3) Most of what precedes that fails to appreciate the difference between absolute logic (logos) and free will.
It is the very process of logic, and thinking itself, that brings us closer to the immutable laws of nature.
We do all have access to the same perfect laws, but we choose to freely (or not) ponder them.
I believe this applies to all animals as well, and I certainly have known plenty of dogs (and especially cats) who have
more highly logical minds than a number of people - like those with severe 'autism' as opposed to border collies
who certainly NEVER even think of stealing even one bite of the flock of sheep. I would suggest exploring this
beautiful creature as it has a better logical mind than half of humanity.
4) As for war, well, it makes logical sense that one is on the side of those who one can communicate with in the
same language. That's why almost all wars occur along the fault lines of language, or in the few exceptions,
it is the dialect or even accent that becomes the feature of division. But wars mostly only occur because people
freely choose to ignore the logic of a population not exceeding the food supply. This is the same as the morals
against infidelity. Having endless children will lead to warfare. That is why the west did not have a repeat of ww2
because of smaller families - a result of better sexual morality. Do not make the mistake of assuming that
we live in a more sexually permissive society than previous centuries. It is often repressed sexual expression that
results in more children. The boys and girls who flirt the most when young, do not become pregnant because
of subconscious desire.
5) Logic itself is the transcendent law as it is the foundation of all Creation. But it all hangs on the notion
of free will. And often we are not free when we think we are. But we are always free to think further or not.
This is the absolute choice that we have to make; to react instinctively or to consider the logic of the actions
one is about to take. We do not have infinite time to consider all the logic of the universe but we normally have
more time than most bother with. Morals themselves are just fairly complex pieces of logic in the end.
If people spent more time considering why morals exist, rather than behaving as beasts and feeling
threatened by moral logic, the world would be a better place. The problem is that some try threaten others into
being moral, because they never really chose to try and understand the logic of morality - because they
learnt morals from threats. Often these morals come to us from times of war when there is not time to explain,
and the threat is the only reason they know how to use. But it is societies that have the most inherent logic to
their morality that survive wars the best. Even if that logic is not fully understood.

There is always more detail, of course.

 

[Pudding]

I believe I would say #1.

Thanks for answer.

I believe I had none in mind but would be willing to start a new post if you have a preference.

Okay, you mean you don't refer to any specific religion in your question. No, i don't have any preference for you to start a new thread.

I believe religion either follows the rules of logic or it doesn't.

Your statement doesn't answer the question.

Actually I believe it is the other way around. If I find something that works I repeat it making it a religion. For instance I find dancing works to relieve stress so I dance when I am under stress. People tend to limit religion to activities relating to a god but that kind of religion is just the best known form of religion.

Please explain your definition for 'religion'.
If eating ice cream makes a person feel happy and relieve their stress, in someway it means eating ice cream works for them and they repeatedly eating ice cream from time to time. Do you call 'eating ice cream' their religion?

Then there is also many other activity which works for people and repeatedly practice from time to time by people:
combing hair
wearing cloth
using computer
drink water
study mathematic
driving car
eating chocolate
talking
sleeping
walking
...etc
Do you also call the activity above their religions?

I believe worth often has more to do with faith than logic. I believe it makes sense to do something worth while but it is not totally illogical to do something that seems like a waste of time.

Please define 'faith'.
Please explain why you believe worth often has more to do with faith than logic.

Something seems like a waste of time to a person could be something worthwhile to other people, that depends from people to people and case by case, maybe that is what you mean.

I believe a religion may be logical and work and still not worth while following. For instance an embezzler may find that taking money works and it is logical that he can do so but it is not an act I would be willing to follow.

You mean 'stealing money' is a religion...?

I believe it is not but it has provided food for thought, Thank you.

Your welcome, i still don't know what message you wish to convey from your op.

 

[siti]

utility is logic

No it isn't - utility is about what works, logic is about what 'makes the most sense' - they might, sometimes turn out to be the same, but often they are not. Take the right to own a firearm, for example. Logically, there can be no argument that suggests that giving people the right to own a firearm would make for a safer society. Practically, in some societies at least, it seems there is no option but to protect one's life and property by having a gun on hand. One could make the same argument about nuclear weapons - any weapons for that matter. And one could make the same argument for religion. Practically, it has proved a protection for society overall, but logically, there is no sound argument in its favour. If your argument is that we need a transcendent law-giver - that is a utilitarian argument not a logical one. And it is very, very far from proving that there actually is one. And even if there is one, how is this a logical argument for religion? If, as you suggest, the infallible 'logos' is accessible to everyone, what need do we have of religion? Surely what we need is liberation from dogma so that we can use our free will to explore the ultimate logic of "God's thoughts"?

 

[Muffled]

I think that there are logical aspects of theism, but the same could be said for atheism. For theism, the logic lies in our very existence, sentience, and especially one's intuition. For atheism, it can be argued that with inconclusive information, one should remain with the "default". But who's to say that theism isn't the default? It varies from person to person. Others are more spiritually inclined than others, possibly due to an evolutionary removal of spiritual capabilities due to things like GPS systems etc. Trust your intuition, that's logical.

I believe my intuition often fails me so it is not logical to trust something that fails.

I believe atheism is just as logical as theism from a theoretical point of view but theism is more logical from am evidential point of view. If I see cars on the road the person arguing there are no cars on the road is arguing from a position lacking evidence.

I believe the evidence is conclusive but that does not mean it is convincing.

 

[Muffled]

No it isn't - utility is about what works, logic is about what 'makes the most sense' - they might, sometimes turn out to be the same, but often they are not. Take the right to own a firearm, for example. Logically, there can be no argument that suggests that giving people the right to own a firearm would make for a safer society. Practically, in some societies at least, it seems there is no option but to protect one's life and property by having a gun on hand. One could make the same argument about nuclear weapons - any weapons for that matter. And one could make the same argument for religion. Practically, it has proved a protection for society overall, but logically, there is no sound argument in its favour. If your argument is that we need a transcendent law-giver - that is a utilitarian argument not a logical one. And it is very, very far from proving that there actually is one. And even if there is one, how is this a logical argument for religion? If, as you suggest, the infallible 'logos' is accessible to everyone, what need do we have of religion? Surely what we need is liberation from dogma so that we can use our free will to explore the ultimate logic of "God's thoughts"?

I believe you are correct. Utility may be logical if doing what works is a person's goal. I suppose it may be logical at times for people to do what doesn't work. For instance I preach the Gospel but most of the time that won't work but I am willing to do it for the times it does work.

I would think a utilitarian argument is a logical one but again it depends on what the goal is.

I believe having access means one must access and that performance is a religious one. Granted some things are automatic and don't require access but other things do. The former we call fruit and the latter gifts.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No it isn't - utility is about what works, logic is about what 'makes the most sense' - they might, sometimes turn out to be the same, but often they are not. Take the right to own a firearm, for example. Logically, there can be no argument that suggests that giving people the right to own a firearm would make for a safer society. Practically, in some societies at least, it seems there is no option but to protect one's life and property by having a gun on hand. One could make the same argument about nuclear weapons - any weapons for that matter. And one could make the same argument for religion. Practically, it has proved a protection for society overall, but logically, there is no sound argument in its favour. If your argument is that we need a transcendent law-giver - that is a utilitarian argument not a logical one. And it is very, very far from proving that there actually is one. And even if there is one, how is this a logical argument for religion? If, as you suggest, the infallible 'logos' is accessible to everyone, what need do we have of religion? Surely what we need is liberation from dogma so that we can use our free will to explore the ultimate logic of "God's thoughts"?

All I meant was that utility is one type of logic. A fairly clumsy type, yes.
Social Contract theory is better, but it requires advanced consciousness.

If you look at the Bible closely you will find numerous references in
agreement with the idea of being liberated from dogma.
The same is true in every type of philosophy.
But parrots will parrot 'it is wrong to be a parrot' nonetheless.