Logic vs Religion

[MoonWater]

It seems that some people do not understand the difference between Logic and Religion".

Logic is a set of rules introduced by Aristotle, used to establish the validity of an argument. It is essentially a tool used to determine whether or not the conclusion of an argument can be deduced from its premises (deductive reasoning). Logic, itself, makes no assertions or claims.

Religion, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs or claims, usually based upon some enlightened or "divine" words from a prophet or god. It is usually an organized movement maintained by a hierarchy of authority figures. Its dogma is usually considered beyond critique or refutation.

Religion proclaims truth, while Logic investigates it. Religion is about following your heart; Logic is about using your head. They have nothing in common.They have nothing to do with one another. Period.

Not always. My religion for example requires that I investigate that which I hold to be true.

There are times when following your heart is the way to go, and times when using your head is advisable. The trick is to know which body part to employ under which circumstances. Art and music, for example, are only two of many wonderful experiences that belong to the domain of the human heart. They do not admit of formal logical inquiry. They are simply to be taken in and enjoyed. In contrast, sales pitches, hypotheses, accusations, and recommendations are examples of things that do require rational thinking to determine a resolution or a proper course of action.

Why must it be one or the other? Why can't there be a middle ground?

What about religion? Does it fall under the domain of the mind or the heart? The tempting answer is to say "both". But I would advise caution before replying too hastily. Religion, like art and music, can indeed provide a certain amount of pleasure to the senses (euphoria to some). But religion is not an experience, itself. It is a set of propositions offered as "truth" or "the way" to live our lives. Determining the validity of these inspired propositions is clearly not a job for the ill equipped heart, though religions implore us to take this "blind leap". It is left to the intellect to scrutinize the validity of religious assertions and determine a verdict.

For my religion both mind and heart are required. My patron does not ask me to take a "blind leap". The path I follow is right for me but I do not claim it to be right for everyone nor do I claim it is the ultimate truth.

The quest for truth is not only noble, it is courageous. Atheist are willing to sacrifice the comforting belief in an afterlife of bliss in favour of a tidbit of truth. Yet so often we are scorned or pitied by the religious as narrow-minded, or too rational for our own good. I think it is interesting that our commitment to employ reason to uncover truth—no matter what may be revealed, pleasant or not—is itself a conscious rational decision. And it is this one all-important decision, the decision to use the mind to uncover the mysteries of our world, that accounts for the all the benefits in medicine, technology, for example, that we enjoy as a result. Religion, as history attests, is the arch enemy of science, free thinking, and open inquiry—of "logic". Reason and Religion are like oil and water.

You seem to be assuming that either one can be religious or one can be reasonable(if that is not what you meant I apologize and maybe you could tell me what you meant). Just because one is religious does not mean one must be unreasonable or illogical and just because someone is reasonable and logical doesn't mean they won't be religious. In fact we've seen what happens when logic is barred from religion. We get the extremists. I can't speak for others but I feel that religion must necessarily include reason and logic or it will get way out of hand. Now of course this might lead to the question of why bother with religion at all, why not just stick with logic and reason. This because alone logic and reason are cold. Logic and reason have no concept of right and wrong. This is a an argument that is logical can still be false if the premises are faulty. I'm not saying logic necessarily requires RELIGION but it does require something along those lines. It doesn't have to be religion or even require a belief in God or anything like that. I'm sure even the atheists here rely on more than just logic when making their decisions in terms of morality and ethics.

 

[andys]

MoonWater
(This is in reply to your previous reply to me. Since then, you have posted a subsequent reply, which I will read and possibly respond to later.)

Your reply to me is very telling; you say, "You think that the only reason people want to believe is because of the prospect of paradise when they reach the after-life?"

Notice you say "people want to believe". That's exactly my point. When one seeks an answer that one is predisposed to find, they'll usually find exactly that answer. That's no surprise. So it's just a question of "why" were they motivated to find that particular answer.

As I already indicated, when you consider the enticing perks that most religions sell, it's just a mater of which one did its job. Not the least of which is the promise of an afterlife of eternal bliss (which you claim would be "dull and pointless"—whew, you're a hard man to please). But there are so many other bribes to consider, like the unconditional love, understanding, and forgiveness one will receive from a supernatural father figure, who guides you through life and provides all your needs (dare I say "sugar daddy"). This, ultra parent, I expect, is particularly appealing to insecure people and victims from broken homes or teenagers whose parents don't love them or "understand" them.

Clearly, in view of the conspicuous absence of rational reasons to support belief in the existence of a supernatural being, the explanation for this belief must lie elsewhere. Human being's need for love and our fear of death, is a recipe made in heaven for religion to capitalize upon.

One final observation. I was encouraged by your remark, "Do you have any evidence to back this up?"
Evidence? Be very careful for what you wish for. Evidence is precisely what leads to the demise of religion and all of its antiquated dogmas. Better to seek that warm feeling that comes from within your heart. Once you truly demand evidence, Pandora's box is opened and it can never be shut.

 

[maro]

i always see people who ask :Is the existance of God logic or does it make sense? , but the question that always bothers me : IS the absence of God logic or makes sense ? , without God , can anything be meaningful ? can life be meaningful any more ?
i really tried hard to look through the eyes of those who deny God , but i couldn't .

People always ask for proof , and complain that they don't see the proof ...but the question is : is there anything that isn't proof for the existance of a superior being ...the problem is not in the lack of the proof...but in the eyes that can't see...it's not the road that's dim....it's the darkness of our souls that blocks us from the divine being...

 

[Wandered Off]

without God , can anything be meaningful ? can life be meaningful any more ?

It certainly can be. It's just up to you to provide the meaning. That's a good thing, unless you like having someone else do it for you. Other people are all too happy to try.

 

[MoonWater]

MoonWater
(This is in reply to your previous reply to me. Since then, you have posted a subsequent reply, which I will read and possibly respond to later.)

Your reply to me is very telling; you say, "You think that the only reason people want to believe is because of the prospect of paradise when they reach the after-life?"

Notice you say "people want to believe". That's exactly my point. When one seeks an answer that one is predisposed to find, they'll usually find exactly that answer. That's no surprise. So it's just a question of "why" were they motivated to find that particular answer.

perhaps that was poor wording on my part. I've met many people who believe, not because they want to, but simply because they do. Some experience in there life has caused them to interpret things in a way that they believe the religion of choice is the right one and it was not necessarily a conscious decision on their part brought about by a "desire" to believe. I myself don't believe because I "want to" I just do. It makes sense to me and feels right to me. In fact my life would probably be easier and less complicated if I didn't believe

As I already indicated, when you consider the enticing perks that most religions sell, it's just a mater of which one did its job. Not the least of which is the promise of an afterlife of eternal bliss

But the only "enticing perk" you mentioned was the prospect of a blissful after-life.

(which you claim would be "dull and pointless"—whew, you're a hard man to please).

you mean "hard woman"

But there are so many other bribes to consider, like the unconditional love, understanding, and forgiveness one will receive from a supernatural father figure, who guides you through life and provides all your needs (dare I say "sugar daddy"). This, ultra parent, I expect, is particularly appealing to insecure people and victims from broken homes or teenagers whose parents don't love them or "understand" them.

Then wouldn't most followers of religion come from broken homes or have a history of depression or any of the other things you mentioned? And besides religion isn't limited to believing in a "sugar daddy" as you put it and in fact the concept of an all-loving, etc. God is one that (as far as I know) appears only in the abrahamic traditions(though there might be others that I'm unaware of). These are not the only religions nor is this the only god concept out there. My patron Goddess is not "all loving, all forgiving, all powerful, etc. She is a wise spirit who teaches me and guides me. There are as many reasons people believe as there are well people. Sure there are benefits, why believe if doesn't bring any good to your life? And just because there are benefits doesn't mean people people believe because they were "bribed".

Clearly, in view of the conspicuous absence of rational reasons to support belief in the existence of a supernatural being, the explanation for this belief must lie elsewhere. Human being's need for love and our fear of death, is a recipe made in heaven for religion to capitalize upon.

You assume religion is here to capitalize on us. And just because you disagree with something or don't believe in something doesn't mean it's "irrational" .

One final observation. I was encouraged by your remark, "Do you have any evidence to back this up?"
Evidence? Be very careful for what you wish for. Evidence is precisely what leads to the demise of religion and all of its antiquated dogmas. Better to seek that warm feeling that comes from within your heart. Once you truly demand evidence, Pandora's box is opened and it can never be shut.

Can you name any one religion that has "fallen" because of "evidence"? I've heard other people present what they call evidence and in fact it doesn't support anything. So I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject.

 

[eXiled]

There is no logic in religion, which makes it all the more acceptable to people looking to God for answers. I get it. I really do. However, when people are searching for answers, desperate people, such as myself, we want unequivical proof of an existance, not a scripture or the always favorite, and increasingly laughable, take it on faith. We want answers when we're on our last rope. A scripture isn't going to save my life. I had faith when I was well, and even the first few months I was sick. Now, unanswered prayers have led me take where I stand on religion and now, I want logical proof as to why I'm damn near on my deathbed and God hasn't stepped in.

Also, God didn't save the life of a friend of mine that died today at such an early life. His family is devoutly religious and said God would heal him... sadly, he passed away today. Now, I'd never tell them my stance on religion because I don't want to tread there with a grieving family, but all logic points to the fact that prayer and God doesn't lead to healing and happiness.

I think I confused myself on this post... sorry for the rant. =**

 

[MoonWater]

There is no logic in religion, which makes it all the more acceptable to people looking to God for answers. I get it. I really do. However, when people are searching for answers, desperate people, such as myself, we want unequivical proof of an existance, not a scripture or the always favorite, and increasingly laughable, take it on faith. We want answers when we're on our last rope. A scripture isn't going to save my life. I had faith when I was well, and even the first few months I was sick. Now, unanswered prayers have led me take where I stand on religion and now, I want logical proof as to why I'm damn near on my deathbed and God hasn't stepped in.

Also, God didn't save the life of a friend of mine that died today at such an early life. His family is devoutly religious and said God would heal him... sadly, he passed away today. Now, I'd never tell them my stance on religion because I don't want to tread there with a grieving family, but all logic points to the fact that prayer and God doesn't lead to healing and happiness.

I think I confused myself on this post... sorry for the rant. =**

Your making the assumption that if God exists everything would/should be perfect or that he would/must fix all the problems of the world. This is not necessarily the case and in fact most likely isn't.

 

[andys]

MoonWater, oh, you're a female. I didn't bother to look at the male/female icon. So much for my inquisitive mind!

I am slipping behind your lengthy and detailed replies and you'll forgive me if I do not have the patience to respond in kind. (I don't even know how to create those nice little gray boxes containing quotations!)

Let me attempt to make my position more clear and touch on the important areas. I maintain that anyone who is religious is religious for a reason. I have offered an explanation for this curious phenomenon, namely, that religions notoriously offer very appealing incentives for embracing their doctrines. I have offered two examples 1) the promise of a life after death in paradise and 2) a personal relationship with a supreme being who offers comfort, love, and guidance all through life. Other seductive offerings include knowledge of the meaning of life, a sense of belonging in something wondrous, even a feeling of being special or better than others. The list could fill volumes.

Now, your position, is that belief is like spontaneous combustion—poof—it just happens. In your words, "I myself don't believe because I 'want to' I just do". Well, I myself, don't believe this for a second. Religious (adult) people, I presume, don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause, or Jack Frost, but they do believe in Angels with wings, life after death, supernatural god(s), and other things that are just as goofy. There HAS to be a reason. To believe in the unbelievable, requires a suspension of disbelief. There is not a tidbit of evidence to support any religion on earth. Just name a religion and I'll show you a Tooth Fairy leader with a congregation of believers (Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, are some of my favourites.) People who are otherwise rational human beings are curiously drawn to such transparent nonsense and reverently abandon their precious faculty of reason, almost in an act of surrender. Let me repeat this again: To believe in the unbelievable, requires a suspension of disbelief.

Why people are so drawn to religion is, no doubt, more complex than my simple explanation. It surely includes other factors, not the least of which include lack of education, gullibility, insecurity, the need to find a comfortable meaning of life, etc. It is a fascinating topic. I would not be surprised if more than one Doctoral Thesis has not been written on the subject.

Before I end, you ask me "Can you name any one religion that has 'fallen' because of 'evidence'"?
Here is an example of lack of education, at least in the area of Logic. The burden of proof (evidence) always rests upon the shoulders of the one who asserts a proposition. Not surprising, many believers are not familiar with Logic, and are often heard revealing their ignorance of it by uttering demands such as, "Alright, maybe I can't prove my religion is true, but you can't prove it is false!" How silly. I trust you do understand that one's claim that Santa Clause exists, demands evidence from the person making the claim, not evidence from others to refute it.

 

[andys]

To eXiled
Just wanted to express my sympathy for your loss. I hope you will find support from friends and family.
-Andy

 

[eXiled]

Your making the assumption that if God exists everything would/should be perfect or that he would/must fix all the problems of the world. This is not necessarily the case and in fact most likely isn't.

Ideally, that's my idea of what God should be. I get that it's not now, by the way. God should be like that, ideally. However, religion has nothing to do with logic.

 

[eXiled]

To eXiled
Just wanted to express my sympathy for your loss. I hope you will find support from friends and family.
-Andy

Thanks for the kind words. We weren't that close. He's the father of a friend of mine, but always went out of his way for me. A very well-respected man in this community. Once again the reason why I fail to see the significance in religion.

 

[yossarian22]

What is illogical about deism?
Or Pantheism?
(I dismiss them off hand, but that is just me. I still show them some respect)
Generalizations are great aren't they. How about I call atheists a bunch of idiotic hypocrites who have merely substituted what they have faith in?

 

[MoonWater]

MoonWater, oh, you're a female. I didn't bother to look at the male/female icon. So much for my inquisitive mind!

it's alright, I guess my avatar can be misleading

I am slipping behind your lengthy and detailed replies and you'll forgive me if I do not have the patience to respond in kind. (I don't even know how to create those nice little gray boxes containing quotations!)

That's okay I tend to get carried away sometimes. And you can get those gray boxes by clicking on the "quote" button that will be in the box of the person you wish to reply to. For example if you wish to quote my post you can go to the bottom of my post and there on the right hand side will be a button that says "quote" Just click on that and then scroll to the bottom of the respond box and type your reply. Hope that helps

Let me attempt to make my position more clear and touch on the important areas. I maintain that anyone who is religious is religious for a reason. I have offered an explanation for this curious phenomenon, namely, that religions notoriously offer very appealing incentives for embracing their doctrines. I have offered two examples 1) the promise of a life after death in paradise and 2) a personal relationship with a supreme being who offers comfort, love, and guidance all through life. Other seductive offerings include knowledge of the meaning of life, a sense of belonging in something wondrous, even a feeling of being special or better than others. The list could fill volumes.

I understand your position. I also understand that religion doesn't work for you. And that is perfectly okay. All I'm saying is that not everyone believes because they were "seduced" into believing. In fact my experience, both with myself and with other religious people is that it has nothing to do with "seduction". I know one of the creeds of Christianity is to resist temptation. Ever heard the lords prayer "and lead us not into temptation" is a line that appears roughly in the middle. I know this for a fact because I said it every Sunday morning for about 12 years growing up. Also the idea of a personal God is a relatively recent one. Most of the earlier religions didn't believe in a personal deity. And yes the idea of after-life is rather prevalent but the after-life in question isn't always sunshine and roses*points to Greek culture*

Now, your position, is that belief is like spontaneous combustion—poof—it just happens. In your words, "I myself don't believe because I 'want to' I just do".

I did not mean it in the sense of spontaneous combustion, not at all. I guess I didn't word myself clearly enough but what I meant was that experience is (I believe) what causes most people to believe. I don't mean "poof" I mean "over time". That perhaps one experience causes a person to explore down one particular path. Then through further experience find that this is the path for them and continue to follow it. That is the way it was with me.

Well, I myself, don't believe this for a second. Religious (adult) people, I presume, don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause, or Jack Frost, but they do believe in Angels with wings, life after death, supernatural god(s), and other things that are just as goofy.

Whether or not it's goofy is a matter of opinion. I personally don't believe in santa clause or anything like that... I also don't believe in angels with wings or a supernatural god(s). I don't even believe in the supernatural at all. Now how can I say this and still call myself religious? Because I view "supernatural" slightly different than you do. Supernatural basically means "above nature" or "beyond nature". I personally do not see how anything could exist "above nature". In my mind if it exists it's natural. Thus if God exists he/she/it/them is natural not supernatural.

There HAS to be a reason. To believe in the unbelievable, requires a suspension of disbelief. There is not a tidbit of evidence to support any religion on earth. Just name a religion and I'll show you a Tooth Fairy leader with a congregation of believers (Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, are some of my favourites.) People who are otherwise rational human beings are curiously drawn to such transparent nonsense and reverently abandon their precious faculty of reason, almost in an act of surrender.

so you think that just because a person is religious it means they have no sense of reason. That's a very broad(and very false) generalization your making. It's also a logical fallacy. Your assuming that what is true for some members of a group is true for every member of said group. Just because there are people who are religious who seem to lack reason doesn't mean every religious person has "abandoned their precious faculty of reason" in favor of religion.

Let me repeat this again: To believe in the unbelievable, requires a suspension of disbelief.

If it's unbelievable then people wouldn't be able to believe it. And if they believe in it how does it require suspension of disbelief? After all the person believes it, there wasn't any disbelief to begin with(unless of course one went from atheist to theist but even that wouldn't require a "suspension" of disbelief... more like an "expulsion")

Why people are so drawn to religion is, no doubt, more complex than my simple explanation. It surely includes other factors, not the least of which include lack of education, gullibility, insecurity, the need to find a comfortable meaning of life, etc. It is a fascinating topic. I would not be surprised if more than one Doctoral Thesis has not been written on the subject.

Again your making a very broad generalization and again committing the same logical fallacy as mentioned above. You assume people believe because of "lack of education, gullibility, and insecurity. While this may be true for some it certainly isn't true for all. I can tell you that from first hand experience

Before I end, you ask me "Can you name any one religion that has 'fallen' because of 'evidence'"?
Here is an example of lack of education, at least in the area of Logic. The burden of proof (evidence) always rests upon the shoulders of the one who asserts a proposition. Not surprising, many believers are not familiar with Logic, and are often heard revealing their ignorance of it by uttering demands such as, "Alright, maybe I can't prove my religion is true, but you can't prove it is false!" How silly. I trust you do understand that one's claim that Santa Clause exists, demands evidence from the person making the claim, not evidence from others to refute it.

I am very much aware of this which is why I asked you to provide the evidence. I didn't ask you to prove or disprove religion or god. You made the claim that "evidence is the fall of religion". I merely asked you to support this statement by naming a religion that "fell" because of presented evidence. Surely you can see that that is not the same as asking you to provide evidence that religion is wrong or God is non-existent.


p.s. sorry it's so long.... looks like I got carried away again

 

[Michel07]

I would point out that Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mengel ( the father of modern genetics) to name only a few were men of logic and belief in God. They are not exclusive. People who say they are exclusive are only trusting their own logic which in itself is not a very good argument.

 

[Sola'lor]

Why do religion and logic not go hand-in-hand?

Why do humanity and logic not go hand-in-hand?

 

[Captain Civic]

Generalizations are great aren't they. How about I call atheists a bunch of idiotic hypocrites who have merely substituted what they have faith in?

You can't do that! Then you're singling out all atheists as dumb people! :foot:

 

[eXiled]

Generalizations are great aren't they. How about I call atheists a bunch of idiotic hypocrites who have merely substituted what they have faith in?

Hmmm... very christian of you calling people dumb. I realize you may be kidding, but in the off chance you're not... =)

People just think differently. Some like myself, need logic to be proof, that way there's some little shred of something that we can relate to and hold on to.

 

[guilo]

Well, I read through all the replies, and thank you to everybody contributing. Something MoonWater wrote though, captured my attention. She said that her life would be much less complicated if she did not have a religion. I get the feel of the complete opposite. The moment I start thinking of a world where religion is obsolete, all these questions of how, why, what the ___!, comes to mind, because there is no basis to it all. I once had a great physics teacher who explained it like this. The world as we know it is like an inflated balloon. All the air inside the balloon represents what we know to be true, or "the known knowledge". The balloon's surface area represents the questions that we ask about the knowledge we do not know. And all of space outside of the balloon, represents "the unknown knowledge". Whenever we answer some of the questions, in other words, some of the unknown knowledge becomes known knowledge, and the balloon inflates and the surface area increases, more of the balloon's surface area is contact with space, in other words, more questions arise about the knowledge outside. That just sums up what I'm struggling with. As I reason existence, I find lots of possible answers, but that only leads to more questions. If you have a religion though, there is no need to ask the questions, you merely accept a possible answer which somebody already formulated. That is the easy way out. In other words, to me, religion simplifies everything, and atheism or agnosticism complicates everything.

 

[PureX]

If you have a religion though, there is no need to ask the questions, you merely accept a possible answer which somebody already formulated. That is the easy way out. In other words, to me, religion simplifies everything, and atheism or agnosticism complicates everything.

This is not true of all religions, or all expressions of any given religion. Also, I see nothing wrong with taking some of our focus off our questions, and placing it elsewhere. Like on dealing with our suffering, etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why do religion and logic not go hand-in-hand?

People who counterpose religion and logic understand neither.