• 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!

Logic vs Religion

Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Dunemeister said:
Just the very fact that we're interested in expressing the physical world in mathematical terms implies certain values. For instance, we think that the universe is comprehensible and that we have the right to comprehend it and manipulate it. The definition serves and expresses values like these and others.

Societies as old (or older) than Western ones, by the 19th century hadn't even begun to think of the world in such terms. Why? Because they had different values. They didn't see the world as something humans ought to "calculate" and "manipulate."
Click to expand...

Right here.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Do you understand the difference between a definition being value-laden and the motivation for discovering/supplying a definition being value-laden?
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Dunemeister said:
Societies as old (or older) than Western ones, by the 19th century hadn't even begun to think of the world in such terms. Why? Because they had different values. They didn't see the world as something humans ought to "calculate" and "manipulate."
Click to expand...

It would drag this thread off topic to discuss your notion here, but why don't you start a new thread on that point? It should be interesting.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Jay said:
Do you understand the difference between a definition being value-laden and the motivation for discovering/supplying a definition being value-laden?
Click to expand...

If you're talking to me, then I don't have an answer for you. I was simply trying to help the conversation along. Usually when someone makes a claim, it's good to address it directly, either by supporting it or refuting it. Sunstone's right, though, this is probably best left for another thread at this point.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Jay said:
No, you were trying to spar -- and failed miserably. And, yes, you should stop doing that.
Click to expand...

If by trying to spar, you mean point out that someone already made a claim that you were ignoring, and asking you to adress the claim to further the conversation, instead of just making a snide remark that doesn't help anyone, except possibly your ego, which apparently needs a lot of help, then, yes, that's what I was doing.

Of course, most people consider that conversing, but you're welcome to consider it whatever you want, since I know you will anyway.
 
guilo

guilo

Undercover Nudist
This goes to andy and all those wondering what I am meaning. I mean 'logic' in the sense of reason. I posted this question as I am searching for God myself. Thye thing bothering me, is that all the experiences I experience can be explained by natural causes, and does not necessarily involve supernatural causes. My question is why God can never be the sole explanation for anything happening in the universe, because that is my reason of doubt in any deity.
 
Dunemeister

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Why should the existence of other possible explanations make it impossible to settle on the explanation that God did something? Forensic scientists do this all the time. What caused event X? Several theories are propounded, but one theory incorporates more data without distorting it than the others do. So they settle on that theory, knowing it could turn out to be wrong.

We're in the same boat with religion. You have the same evidence as everyone else. You could (and many do) come to the conclusion that God exists based on an assessment of the evidence. Those who do realize that the evidence doesn't fully determine the matter, but the God hypothesis works best for them. They realize they could be wrong. But you could also be wrong if you decide the other way. So either way, there's a risk involved. No matter where you place your faith, you are going to incur serious risk.

May I also suggest that treating the matter purely intellectually will not get you very far. If you want to know the truth of a religion, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you want to explore the truth of a religion, I suggest you find someone you trust and admire who follows that religion, and allow that person to mentor you in the practices and beliefs of that religion. Allow it time to make its appeal to you on all levels: intellectual, emotional, spiritual, moral, whatever. For truth is not just a matter of the head, but a matter of the heart, conscience, and spirit, too.
 
R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
guilo said:
This goes to andy and all those wondering what I am meaning. I mean 'logic' in the sense of reason. I posted this question as I am searching for God myself. Thye thing bothering me, is that all the experiences I experience can be explained by natural causes, and does not necessarily involve supernatural causes. My question is why God can never be the sole explanation for anything happening in the universe, because that is my reason of doubt in any deity.
Click to expand...
Logic dictates that we recognize the difference between primary and secondary causations. Follow those experiences to their primary cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top