Logic vs Religion

[Popeyesays]

People who counterpose religion and logic understand neither.

Read Plato or Thomas Aquinas, or Martin Luther.The raw logic is impeccdable. Logical process does not require./ Logic requires an assumption, the assumption does not require physical evidence.

Regards,
Scott

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

I agree with Scott.

And in addition, I will say this:

In the Baha'i view science and religion are NOT in contradiction, but rather dovetail very nicely!

Science may be said to explain the "how" of things, whereas religion explains "Who" and "why." They thus address different, largely non-overlapping domains, but come together nicely to form a complete whole!

The quickest way to get into trouble is to use either one without the other!: Science without religion is gross materialism (bigger and better nukes); religion without science is superstition (witch-burning).

And the Baha'i scriptures also say (sorry: I don't have the citation handy) that if a religious doctrine disagrees with established science, then that doctrine is simply wrong.

There is also this marvelous passage in the Baha’i scriptures:

“[E]ven in Europe it is admitted that religion is the opponent of science, and that science is the destroyer of the foundations of religion. While the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the founder of science and knowledge, it is full of goodwill for learned men; it is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge? God forbid! Nay, for God, knowledge is the most glorious gift of man and the most noble of human perfections. To oppose knowledge is ignorant, and he who detests knowledge and science is not a man, but rather an animal without intelligence. For knowledge is light, life, felicity, perfection, beauty and the means of approaching the Threshold of Unity. It is the honor and glory of the world of humanity, and the greatest bounty of God. Knowledge is identical with guidance, and ignorance is real error.

“Happy are those who spend their days in gaining knowledge, in discovering the secrets of nature, and in penetrating the subtleties of pure truth! Woe to those who are contented with ignorance, whose hearts are gladdened by thoughtless imitation, who have fallen into the lowest depths of ignorance and foolishness, and who have wasted their lives!”
—(Some Answered Questions, page 137)


Best,

Bruce

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Read Plato or Thomas Aquinas, or Martin Luther.The raw logic is impeccdable.

The gross ignorance and glaring irrelevance of this statement is remarkable.

Worse! Let's take a look at an example of Martin Luther's 'impeccable raw logic':

In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil **** ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them." source​

Next time, consider referencing people that you actually know something about.

 

[andys]

MoonWater
Well, no luck with the Quote feature, so I'll just number each quote (1-5) from your previous post.

1) "...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."

So you do not view the word "supernatural" differently from me. You understand its meaning perfectly, as "above/beyond nature". You simply deny god of this attribute in order to suit your position that "existence" is not consistent with being "supernatural". This viewpoint is easy for an atheist to grant, since the idea of a supernatural being lacks any evidence, to say the least. Nevertheless, the existence of your non-supernatural god is equally suspect, because you have not escaped the burden of proof.

2) "...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 [you're] making. It's also a logical fallacy. Your [you're] 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."

By no means does a generalization always constitute a fallacy. Indeed a generalization is what a scientific fact is all about. Made in haste, I grant, the fallacy is referred to as secundum quid (if I still remember my basic logic). Regardless, you misunderstood me. I did not say that if a person is religious it means they have no sense of reason. Here is exactly what I did say, "People who are otherwise rational human beings are curiously drawn to such transparent nonsense and reverently abandon their precious faculty of reason...". Notice the qualifier "otherwise"? So I am saying that in every other instance, religious people are (or appear to be) as rational as me (that's a compliment). But they abandon—as they must—this attribute in order to allow religion and its preposterous teachings to contaminate their otherwise normal-functioning brain. The unbelievable becomes believed.

3) "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..."

You'd do well in Philosophy 101. I plead guilty for wording my point rhetorically. (In case you're interested, this fallacy is referred to as "petitio principii", which is the same fallacy that exposed Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum" as invalid.) So, I'll restate my assertion in a less Zen-like fashion: How can one believe the ridiculous? That is what I am saying.

4) "Again your [you're] making a very broad generalization and again committing the same logical fallacy as mentioned above. "

Again, a generalization is not always a fallacy.

5) "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."

Here you have it backwards (perhaps you misunderstood me). Remember that the burden of proof (evidence) always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion? So the inability of religion—every religion, past and present—to provide evidence is its downfall. The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

 

[Storm]

Here you have it backwards (perhaps you misunderstood me). Remember that the burden of proof (evidence) always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion? So the inability of religion—every religion, past and present—to provide evidence is its downfall. The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

Uhm, no. You're the one making the assertion. The assertion is that evidence is the downfall of religion. She's just asking you to back it up.

 

[andys]

Michel07/MoonWater...etc.
I believe you miss the point when you say, "I would point out that Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mengel [Mendel]...were men of logic and belief in God. They are not [mutually] exclusive."
(My insertions in brackets.)

You may have read in my recent posts that I agree with you. Yes, a person can be as logical as Mr. Spock AND be as religious as the Pope. There is no mutual exclusivity involved between reason and faith, as long as these old foes are applied at different times to different things. One can have faith in one's god one minute, and logically scrutinize an invalid argument the next minute.

But—and this is a big "BUT" (Ok, I have a big but, ha ha)—in order to be religious, faith is required. Faith is the absence of reason, therefore, they can not both be applied at the same time. This is not a put-down of faith. I have faith that my heart will keep ticking tomorrow, and almost as much faith that my trip to San Fransisco this July (in my gorgeous two-seater) will be full of adventure. Logic can't help me in such speculations.

My big quarrel is that in the case of religion, the faithful consider such claims as "God created the world" to be actual knowledge. But such claims are expressed in the absence of adequate evidence, or in direct contradiction to the evidence. Have I made myself a bit more clear?

Michel07, regarding the religious conviction of historical figures during the course of the Inquisition (1227 to 1834) it is not surprising that so many happened to be Christian. You are quite mistaken about Albert Einstein being religious, however. Keep in mind, he is the first genius who ever uttered a word without fear of persecution from the Church and its butchers.

In the words of Albert Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Quoted from Jennifer Michael Hecht, "Doubt: A History, p. 447

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Faith is the absence of reason, therefore, ...

Talk about muddying the water ... :slap:

 

[andys]

Storm/Jay
Storm: I have already explained to MoonWater, the statement "Evidence is the downfall of religion". I'll put it another way which may be more intelligible to you.

"Evidence is the enemy, nemesis, burden, nightmare, threat, etc. of religion."

Please will you understand that I do not mean evidence that I (or anyone else) can provide is religion's downfall; I mean evidence that religion must provide is its downfall, since it is incapable of providing it, yet it must to maintain any credibility.

I am educated in Logic and am fully aware that the onus of proof belongs to the person making the assertion. My assertion is that religion cannot provide any proof or evidence for any of its assertions. Therefore evidence (i.e., proof) is its "downfall" (i.e., "failure that results in a loss of position or reputation." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...downfall&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)

Jay: If you require "the waters" to be clarified, don't be afraid to ask.

 

[Michel07]

Michel07/MoonWater...etc.
I believe you miss the point when you say, "I would point out that Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mengel [Mendel]...were men of logic and belief in God. They are not [mutually] exclusive."
(My insertions in brackets.)

You may have read in my recent posts that I agree you. Yes, a person can be as logical as Mr. Spock AND be as religious as the Pope. There is no mutual exclusivity involved between reason and faith, as long as these old foes are applied at different times to different things. One can have faith in one's god one minute, and logically scrutinize an invalid argument the next minute.

But—and this is a big "BUT" (Ok, I have a big but, ha ha)—in order to be religious, faith is required. Faith is the absence of reason, therefore, they can not both be applied at the same time. This is not a put-down of faith. I have faith that my heart will keep ticking tomorrow, and almost as much faith that my trip to San Fransisco this July (in my gorgeous two-seater) will be full of adventure. Logic can't help me in such speculations.

My big quarrel is that in the case of religion, the faithful consider such claims as "God created the world" to be actual knowledge. But such claims are expressed in the absence of adequate evidence, or in direct contradiction to the evidence. Have I made myself a bit more clear?

Michel07, regarding the religious conviction of historical figures during the course of the Inquisition (1227 to 1834) it is not surprising that so many happened to be Christian. You are quite mistaken about Albert Einstein being religious, however. Keep in mind, he is the first genius who ever uttered a word without fear of persecution from the Church and its butchers.

In the words of Albert Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Quoted from Jennifer Michael Hecht, "Doubt: A History, p. 447

Sorry but it is pretty common knowledge that Einstein leaned toward pantheism and had difficulty in the concept of a personal God but that did not make him an atheist as he also said" God did not shoot dice with the universe." Einstein was not a theologian though and his concept and your argument does not address the convictions of Newton , Mendel etc. some cosmologists and astronomers today.
It does boil down to interpretations of the burden of evidence for many . And what do you mean Eintein was the first to blah blah... that is utter nonsense.
It is scientists today who fear intellectual persecution from the fanatical element of atheists. What is your educational background because there are people like Owen Gingerich Pofessor Emeritus of the History of Science and Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Harvard U.who may not feel that they can prove it but who disagree with notions of atheism. And as far as faith is concerned you also need faith to believe that you are logical in the first place . You are asking me to accept your perception of your logic by faith as opposed to my beliefs. No argument there ,you lose hands down.And it isn't an arguement you could win in your lifetime. You may have faith in your "logig" but I certainly haven't and don't need to.

 

[Michel07]

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.

If you think religion simplifys everything just try to understand the mind of God.

' For my thoughts are not your thoughts nor are your ways my ways,
says the Lord.
As high as the heavens are above the earth,
so high are my ways above your ways
and my thoughts above your thoughts." Isaiah 55, 8-9

 

[Starfish]

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

Wow. My religion IS logical. So logical, it's sometimes maddening. But that's what I love about it.

 

[GadFly]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have enjoyed your response to this thread and have gained insight to how an atheist thinks. Does the fact Aristotle only introduced Western Civilization to the rules of logic mean anything to your thinking process. What Western Civilization believes is that Aristotle discovered the rules of logic. He did not invent these rules. Is that what you think also or are you saying Aristotle invented and introduced the rules?

In reference to music and art you say:They do not admit of formal logical inquiry. They are simply to be taken in and enjoyed. How does this belief relate to the fact that people who can not hear or see can write in musical script elaborate symphonies and other musical pieces from the logic of their minds without ever having heard these pieces. If what you say is true, how can this be possible? Does not this fact wash away all your following assertions that there is a difference between fact and feeling, logic and religion, and faith and science?

I agree 100% with you when you say: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.

But when you say: 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.
This statement contradicts the rules of logic in the same way your previous statement of not being able to transcribe into logic both music and art. It is just not so as the rules for religion are the same as the rules for science and math. Do you not see this?
the GadFly

 

[GadFly]

MoonWater
Well, no luck with the Quote feature, so I'll just number each quote (1-5) from your previous post.

1) "...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."

So you do not view the word "supernatural" differently from me. You understand its meaning perfectly, as "above/beyond nature". You simply deny god of this attribute in order to suit your position that "existence" is not consistent with being "supernatural". This viewpoint is easy for an atheist to grant, since the idea of a supernatural being lacks any evidence, to say the least. Nevertheless, the existence of your non-supernatural god is equally suspect, because you have not escaped the burden of proof.

2) "...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 [you're] making. It's also a logical fallacy. Your [you're] 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."

By no means does a generalization always constitute a fallacy. Indeed a generalization is what a scientific fact is all about. Made in haste, I grant, the fallacy is referred to as secundum quid (if I still remember my basic logic). Regardless, you misunderstood me. I did not say that if a person is religious it means they have no sense of reason. Here is exactly what I did say, "People who are otherwise rational human beings are curiously drawn to such transparent nonsense and reverently abandon their precious faculty of reason...". Notice the qualifier "otherwise"? So I am saying that in every other instance, religious people are (or appear to be) as rational as me (that's a compliment). But they abandon—as they must—this attribute in order to allow religion and its preposterous teachings to contaminate their otherwise normal-functioning brain. The unbelievable becomes believed.

3) "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..."

You'd do well in Philosophy 101. I plead guilty for wording my point rhetorically. (In case you're interested, this fallacy is referred to as "petitio principii", which is the same fallacy that exposed Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum" as invalid.) So, I'll restate my assertion in a less Zen-like fashion: How can one believe the ridiculous? That is what I am saying.

4) "Again your [you're] making a very broad generalization and again committing the same logical fallacy as mentioned above. "

Again, a generalization is not always a fallacy.

5) "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."

Here you have it backwards (perhaps you misunderstood me). Remember that the burden of proof (evidence) always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion? So the inability of religion—every religion, past and present—to provide evidence is its downfall. The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

A very good piece of writing. I like it a lot. However, is this statement a weakness in your premises?

The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

Here is where you fail to prove your theory of atheism. Even a shred of evidence you would consider theism was true, if I understand you correctly. With a shred of evidence religion would not be exposed as vacuous. Some religions have not been exposed since their creation. Your belief is based on the fact that you believe there zero evidence for God's existence. You use a long string of logic to prove your point. We can trust logic just as we can trust real math and real science. As long as reasoning, science, and math do not violate the rules of logic which were discovered and not invented by man is evidence of self evident truth. Laws of physics are the same way. Laws of reasoning are the same way. All these rules constitute the truth no matter where the universe extends constituting a type of eternal omniscience. You seek a shred of evidence before you believe. I offer you a whole ontological universe of proof. I also offer you a whole universe of cosmological proof based on a sound ontological theory. You and I may be the only ones in this forum to have had Philosophy 101 but I really suspect we know a little more than 101. And I suspect we are surrounded by people who know more than we.
GadFly

 

[Storm]

Storm/Jay
Storm: I have already explained to MoonWater, the statement "Evidence is the downfall of religion". I'll put it another way which may be more intelligible to you.

"Evidence is the enemy, nemesis, burden, nightmare, threat, etc. of religion."

Please will you understand that I do not mean evidence that I (or anyone else) can provide is religion's downfall; I mean evidence that religion must provide is its downfall, since it is incapable of providing it, yet it must to maintain any credibility.

1) Why? Why must religion provide evidence?

2) That's actually not what you said:

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.

Please provide an example of a religion whose demise was evidence.

 

[Orontes]

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

Hello,

This question turns on a false dichotomy. Logic is formal. This means it is concerned with the relation between premises and a conclusion. The operative is validity. Validity is the judgment when a conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. Logic is not concerned with truth claims proper: only validity.

Religion entails truth claims. This could be the Shahada: "There is no God, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet". It could be the Shema: "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord". It could be a verse: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The truth or falsity of such is not a concern of logic.

Now, a given truth claim alone is simply an assertion. As such, it may be a premise in an argument. It may also be the conclusion to an argument. Neither a premise or a conclusion need be a true. They may be any statement, true or no. The same applies to arguments. To illustrate:

1) Rudolf is a reindeer
2) Rudolf can fly
3) Therefore, Rudolf is a flying reindeer.


A) Jesus walked on water
B) To walk on water is miraculous
C) Therefore, Jesus walking on water is miraculous

Both of the above are valid and thereby logical. The truth value or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the logic. Therefore to suggest some inherent tension between logic and religion is the fail to understand the nature of one or the other or both.

 

[Michel07]

Hello,

This question turns on a false dichotomy. Logic is formal. This means it is concerned with the relation between premises and a conclusion. The operative is validity. Validity is the judgment when a conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. Logic is not concerned with truth claims proper: only validity.

Religion entails truth claims. This could be the Shahada: "There is no God, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet". It could be the Shema: "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord". It could be a verse: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The truth or falsity of such is not a concern of logic.

Now, a given truth claim alone is simply an assertion. As such, it may be a premise in an argument. It may also be the conclusion to an argument. Neither a premise or a conclusion need be a true. They may be any statement, true or no. The same applies to arguments. To illustrate:

1) Rudolf is a reindeer
2) Rudolf can fly
3) Therefore, Rudolf is a flying reindeer.


A) Jesus walked on water
B) To walk on water is miraculous
C) Therefore, Jesus walking on water is miraculous

Both of the above are valid and thereby logical. The truth value or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the logic. Therefore to suggest some inherent tension between logic and religion is the fail to understand the nature of one or the other or both.

Well done.

 

[MoonWater]

MoonWater
So you do not view the word "supernatural" differently from me. You understand its meaning perfectly, as "above/beyond nature". You simply deny god of this attribute in order to suit your position that "existence" is not consistent with being "supernatural". This viewpoint is easy for an atheist to grant, since the idea of a supernatural being lacks any evidence, to say the least. Nevertheless, the existence of your non-supernatural god is equally suspect, because you have not escaped the burden of proof.

I never said that I did. But I also have no intention of trying to prove God. First because I know it is impossible at our current stage of development. Second I don't claim that any God does indeed exist, only that I believe in them and I am very aware that I could be and most likely am wrong at least in terms of what I interpret the Gods to be like. In terms of whether or not there is any kind of God whatsoever I know I am just as likely to be wrong as I am to be right in believing that there is some kind of God in existence. If existence were consistent with being supernatural then everything in existence would be supernatural. The way I see it if there is a God(s) then he/she/it/them is a part of the universe and therefore a part of nature. If God is a part nature then God can't really be above nature now can he. Since he is not above nature he can't be supernatural. And there is a slight difference as you seem to think that if God does exist he is a supernatural being while I don't think anything can be supernatural and exist, at least not within this universe.

By no means does a generalization always constitute a fallacy. Indeed a generalization is what a scientific fact is all about. Made in haste, I grant, the fallacy is referred to as secundum quid (if I still remember my basic logic). Regardless, you misunderstood me. I did not say that if a person is religious it means they have no sense of reason. Here is exactly what I did say, "People who are otherwise rational human beings are curiously drawn to such transparent nonsense and reverently abandon their precious faculty of reason...". Notice the qualifier "otherwise"? So I am saying that in every other instance, religious people are (or appear to be) as rational as me (that's a compliment). But they abandon—as they must—this attribute in order to allow religion and its preposterous teachings to contaminate their otherwise normal-functioning brain. The unbelievable becomes believed.

So you think in order to be religious one must abandon reason.... that's basically what I thought you said. And it's still wrong. Logic and reason have nothing to do with right or wrong. An argument can be false and still be logical and reasonable(examples of such arguments have already been posted). Also the wording of your second to last sentence seems to suggest that you see religion as some sort mental disorder or a malfunction of the brain(wow you have a negative view of religion) but belief in God does not equate to a malfunctioning brain. In fact most of the advances we have in philosophy in science and medicine were founded by religious people. Do you claim that people like Galileo or Copernicus had "abandoned reason" because they were religious?

You'd do well in Philosophy 101. I plead guilty for wording my point rhetorically. (In case you're interested, this fallacy is referred to as "petitio principii", which is the same fallacy that exposed Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum" as invalid.) So, I'll restate my assertion in a less Zen-like fashion: How can one believe the ridiculous? That is what I am saying.

Whether or not it's ridiculous is a matter of opinion. Opinion does not constitute fact, or even evidence for that matter.

Again, a generalization is not always a fallacy.

"Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence."(wikipedia)
Provide evidence to back up your claim that religious people must abandon reason in order to believe. But you also have to be able to prove that people are unreasonable because of religion. Just because there are religious people who are unreasonable/illogical doesn't mean that religion is the cause of them being unreasonable/illogical

Here you have it backwards (perhaps you misunderstood me). Remember that the burden of proof (evidence) always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion? So the inability of religion—every religion, past and present—to provide evidence is its downfall. The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

Notice the bolded: You made the assertion that evidence is the downfall of religion. You made the assertion that providing evidence brings down religion. Since your making the assertions you should back them up. To say that religion must back up it's assertions while you dance around and avoid backing up the assertions you make is a double standard and as such would make you a hypocrite. The "burden of proof" rests on the shoulders of anyone who makes a positive assertion. This applies to the religious and non-religious alike as the religious are not the only ones capable of making positive assertions.

 

[Magic Man]

Hello,

This question turns on a false dichotomy. Logic is formal. This means it is concerned with the relation between premises and a conclusion. The operative is validity. Validity is the judgment when a conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. Logic is not concerned with truth claims proper: only validity.

Religion entails truth claims. This could be the Shahada: "There is no God, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet". It could be the Shema: "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord". It could be a verse: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The truth or falsity of such is not a concern of logic.

Now, a given truth claim alone is simply an assertion. As such, it may be a premise in an argument. It may also be the conclusion to an argument. Neither a premise or a conclusion need be a true. They may be any statement, true or no. The same applies to arguments. To illustrate:

1) Rudolf is a reindeer
2) Rudolf can fly
3) Therefore, Rudolf is a flying reindeer.


A) Jesus walked on water
B) To walk on water is miraculous
C) Therefore, Jesus walking on water is miraculous

Both of the above are valid and thereby logical. The truth value or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the logic. Therefore to suggest some inherent tension between logic and religion is the fail to understand the nature of one or the other or both.

The problem is getting to the premise through logic. Yes, going from A to B is logical, but how do you get to A? A person walking on water is not logical to begin with. It's like walking the first half of a marathon and then running the second half, and then saying that you ran the whole way. That's why they don't go together.

 

[Orontes]

Well done.

Cheers!

 

[Orontes]

Hello,

This question turns on a false dichotomy. Logic is formal. This means it is concerned with the relation between premises and a conclusion. The operative is validity. Validity is the judgment when a conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. Logic is not concerned with truth claims proper: only validity.

Religion entails truth claims. This could be the Shahada: "There is no God, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet". It could be the Shema: "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord". It could be a verse: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The truth or falsity of such is not a concern of logic.

Now, a given truth claim alone is simply an assertion. As such, it may be a premise in an argument. It may also be the conclusion to an argument. Neither a premise or a conclusion need be a true. They may be any statement, true or no. The same applies to arguments. To illustrate:

1) Rudolf is a reindeer
2) Rudolf can fly
3) Therefore, Rudolf is a flying reindeer.


A) Jesus walked on water
B) To walk on water is miraculous
C) Therefore, Jesus walking on water is miraculous

Both of the above are valid and thereby logical. The truth value or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the logic. Therefore to suggest some inherent tension between logic and religion is the fail to understand the nature of one or the other or both.

The problem is getting to the premise through logic. Yes, going from A to B is logical, but how do you get to A? A person walking on water is not logical to begin with. It's like walking the first half of a marathon and then running the second half, and then saying that you ran the whole way. That's why they don't go together.

There is no getting to the premise through logic. A premise is a statement preceding a conclusion. A premise alone is neither logical or illogical. It is a component of an argument. An argument is what constitutes the domain of logic. You have confused a part for the whole.

To charge a premise i.e. 'a person walking on water is illogical' is a non sequitur. One can challenge the truth value of the statement, but that is distinct from logic proper. As previously explained: logic is formal. The content is irrelevant to the force of logic. The second example's form is:

A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C.

One's discomfort with A, B or C does not speak to the validity and thereby the logic of the argument. The content of an argument can be filled with any number of premises or truth claims, religious or no.