-
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
- Thread starter guilo
- Start date
What is illogical about a higher power belief?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Sometimes nothing. Most of the illogical stuff comes in with the teachings and dogmas. Sometimes, though, jus the version of the deity can be illogical.
Do you mean organized religion? I agree with you. Why can't a person be christ like as Dr Wayne Dryer likes to admit and not have to call themselves a Christian?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Do you mean organized religion? I agree with you. Why can't a person be christ like as Dr Wayne Dryer likes to admit and not have to call themselves a Christian?
Yes, I'm mainly referring to organized religion.
GadFly
I'm flattered you think I have offered you insight into the mind of an atheist. I'd love to yap about this topic in a thread of its own. I think atheists are generally so misunderstood. A lot of people seem to think we have an agenda or a "belief". Or that we don't believe in morality! Very strange.
Now let me try to answer your questions which I'll put put in a Q&A form.
Q:1) About art and music, I said they do not admit of formal logical inquiry. They are simply to be taken in and enjoyed. You ask, "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... 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?"
A:1) I'm honestly not certain what you mean. Beethoven's ability to write music after he went stone deaf is remarkable. He would hear the notes in his head and then used a device attached to his piano which transferred the vibrations to his jaw. This allowed him to "hear" the sound. Remarkable.
Not sure where logic enters the picture, sorry.
Q:2) Regarding my statement "Reason and Religion are like oil and water", you reply, "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?"
A:2) Again, I am really not sure what you mean. It would be helpful if you could tell me what rules religion has, and if you can, what these rules have in common with science and mathematics. I have never encountered this claim in all my years as a student of Philosophy.
Q:3) "Here is where you fail to prove your theory of atheism. Even [with] a shred of evidence you would consider theism was true, if I understand you correctly.
A:3) Gadfly, atheism has NO theories, beliefs or anything like that. This isn't a "cop out" answer, we just don't have a platform or agenda. (I, personally have an agenda which is why I'm on this Forum.) As for evidence, I'd need a substantial amount before I granted theism a grain of credibility, but no less than a scientist requires before a Law or Theory is considered credible. That is not unreasonable. (Personally, the question of a god's existence bores me. The interesting question, I think, is what difference would it make if there were a god?)
Let me comment briefly on some closing remarks you made:
Q) "...you believe there [is] zero evidence for God's existence."
A) Well, there simply is no evidence. If there were, somebody would be getting a Nobel Prize or something!
Q) "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.
A) Not sure how you reached the conclusion "is evidence of self evident truth", but let me just reply that the rules of logic do not apply to math; each has its own distinct set of deductive rules. You may recall that Bertrand Russell failed in his attempt to reconcile math and logic. As for science, it uses induction primarily(which is non-logical), while some deduction is involved. 9And these rules were not"discoverred", they were developedby thinking peopleover time.
Q) "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.
A) Well, I'm all ears. I look forward to your proof(s)!
I'm flattered you think I have offered you insight into the mind of an atheist. I'd love to yap about this topic in a thread of its own. I think atheists are generally so misunderstood. A lot of people seem to think we have an agenda or a "belief". Or that we don't believe in morality! Very strange.
Now let me try to answer your questions which I'll put put in a Q&A form.
Q:1) About art and music, I said they do not admit of formal logical inquiry. They are simply to be taken in and enjoyed. You ask, "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... 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?"
A:1) I'm honestly not certain what you mean. Beethoven's ability to write music after he went stone deaf is remarkable. He would hear the notes in his head and then used a device attached to his piano which transferred the vibrations to his jaw. This allowed him to "hear" the sound. Remarkable.
Not sure where logic enters the picture, sorry.
Q:2) Regarding my statement "Reason and Religion are like oil and water", you reply, "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?"
A:2) Again, I am really not sure what you mean. It would be helpful if you could tell me what rules religion has, and if you can, what these rules have in common with science and mathematics. I have never encountered this claim in all my years as a student of Philosophy.
Q:3) "Here is where you fail to prove your theory of atheism. Even [with] a shred of evidence you would consider theism was true, if I understand you correctly.
A:3) Gadfly, atheism has NO theories, beliefs or anything like that. This isn't a "cop out" answer, we just don't have a platform or agenda. (I, personally have an agenda which is why I'm on this Forum.) As for evidence, I'd need a substantial amount before I granted theism a grain of credibility, but no less than a scientist requires before a Law or Theory is considered credible. That is not unreasonable. (Personally, the question of a god's existence bores me. The interesting question, I think, is what difference would it make if there were a god?)
Let me comment briefly on some closing remarks you made:
Q) "...you believe there [is] zero evidence for God's existence."
A) Well, there simply is no evidence. If there were, somebody would be getting a Nobel Prize or something!
Q) "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.
A) Not sure how you reached the conclusion "is evidence of self evident truth", but let me just reply that the rules of logic do not apply to math; each has its own distinct set of deductive rules. You may recall that Bertrand Russell failed in his attempt to reconcile math and logic. As for science, it uses induction primarily(which is non-logical), while some deduction is involved. 9And these rules were not"discoverred", they were developedby thinking peopleover time.
Q) "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.
A) Well, I'm all ears. I look forward to your proof(s)!
Thank you for your fair and balanced response. You are correct and I agree that the first part of my presentation was difficult to follow. It does not represent well what I was trying to relate. The point that I was trying to say is that there is not a "logic vs. religion" issue for many theist or Christians. One of the big questions that has been asked of religious people is to prove that God exist and to answer the question, the person that asked the question expects logical proof. Of course the atheist doesn't believe there is evidence of the existence of a God. I agree that it is the burden of the theist to provide evidence, which stands the test of logic, to prove the existence of God.
Our view of logic is a Platonic view. We believe Aristotelian logic only discovered by the ancient Greeks; we disagree with your premise that logic and the rules of logic were developed by man. Just like the rules of science and physics were discover so is logic. I believe this is your position that man developed these rules independent of God. Some atheist admit, however, that the rules of logic where just here. That is what Christians have always believed too. However, there are multitudes of Christian that don't even know there are rules of logic and are not able to carry on a intellectual discussion with a person like yourself. There are multitudes of atheist that have the same shortage of understanding. When these two collide the result is great conflict and it is "logic vs religion" issue.
The difference between most atheist and Christians is that believe all men are born with the knowledge of God, logic, science, math, medicine, etc. These knowledges are like Plato's forms, which I assume you are familiar. These forms and laws are universal. Since the laws of science has not proven that the laws of physics and logic do not exist throughout the universe, we are safe to assume. If the rules of science did not work in space of the earth then it would be very dangerous to attempt space travel. We depend on these laws to not change. These laws do not change because they do not depend on man's development but are God's gift to the universe. One Christian on this thread stated that this was a proof of God's omnipotence with which I agree 100%.
From this epistemology, learning is simply remembering what you already knew about the forms or foreknowledge. Development of logic and science is remembering based on experience. The forms do not change and are eternal like God. God becomes the most basic premise for logic, science and religion. I will shorten my response to allow other to respond but I will return to this post, I promise.
GadFly
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
We need a foundational myth, a concept of the Ultimate Ground, to structure the way we think about the world. The need for myth is not eliminated by focusing all our attention on the science of the seen, by ignoring the needs of humanity which brought us to this point. "I don't know" may be a factual truth, but it is not the kind of truth that builds and maintains civilizations.
I never cease to be astonished at the unwillingness of intelligent people to follow the water to its source. Perhaps they are so enraptured by the beauty of the waterfall or the complexity of their own ideas and perceptions that the water eludes them--but this is just a supposition on my part and should not be construed as a conclusion. I really don’t really know why, but they just stand there. They apply logic to the seen, but for some reason refuse to apply it to the unseen, as though the rules of logic somehow change in the transition. The final explanation for the divine is, to them: “Thank you, Alex, I'll stick with Psychological Defense Mechanisms for $400.” Right or wrong, the answer doesn’t bring one closer to a foundational myth or reality’s Ultimate Ground.
I never cease to be astonished at the unwillingness of intelligent people to follow the water to its source. Perhaps they are so enraptured by the beauty of the waterfall or the complexity of their own ideas and perceptions that the water eludes them--but this is just a supposition on my part and should not be construed as a conclusion. I really don’t really know why, but they just stand there. They apply logic to the seen, but for some reason refuse to apply it to the unseen, as though the rules of logic somehow change in the transition. The final explanation for the divine is, to them: “Thank you, Alex, I'll stick with Psychological Defense Mechanisms for $400.” Right or wrong, the answer doesn’t bring one closer to a foundational myth or reality’s Ultimate Ground.
I like that quote "follow the water to it's source". It reminds me of when the AIDS scare came out back in the 80's and educated and intelligent people, millions of them in fact really believed it to be a strictly "gay" disease. We really need to learn to educate ourselves and not rely the news or even medical advice without doing a little research on the web or our local library.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Sure you don't want to rethink your answer? We agree.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
In other words, a structrual foundation requires that science give way to philosophy, while philosophy must surrender to the conclusions inherent in personal experience.
Thinking surrenders to wisdom, and wisdom is lost in enlightened and reflective worship.
Thinking surrenders to wisdom, and wisdom is lost in enlightened and reflective worship.
texan1
Active Member
Hopefully I'm not getting off track by butting in here, but it seems like these type of debates always turn into people trying to prove to each other whether or not there is a God. We might as well give that up! In reference to the original post......
In my opinion, "Religion" is something different from belief in God. I don't think it is so illogical, when viewing the beauty and wonder of the world for someone to draw the conclusion that there may be a higher power of some form. I am constantly questioning it.
But when it comes to Religion - that to me is different. I was raised in a Christian religion and from all I was taught and from everything I have read in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, it is very illogical in my opinion and contradicts itself many times. I would even go as far as to say that it is even ridiculous and cruel when looking at it from a female perspective. I feel that BOTH my heart and my logic were involved when I began to stray from what the Bible teaches.
For example, the experience of giving birth to my son was incredible. Feeling a new life growing inside of me and then having a natural childbirth was exhilerating and I would even say spiritual even though as I said I question the idea of God and religion. Afterwards I felt such awe for the female body, and amazement at how much love I was capable of when I became a parent. I could elaborate til the end of time but I'll refrain. Anyway, a woman I know once said to me that she felt like she was assisting God with a miracle when she was pregnant and I thought that was a beautiful thing to say. Could it be true?
Then BAM! You read the Bible and it says that women are worth less than men (this is a running theme throughout) and evil and the reason they suffer the pains of childbirth is to punish them for the actions of this character Eve in the garden of Eden. Is it logical to believe that God would create such beautiful, intelligent, capable women and then say that they must be silent and obedient and that he would call this amazing process of creating life, which he designed himself, as nothing more than a "punishment"?
And I think the way some people practice religion is illogical. It seems a little strange and illogical to me that there are men who say they believe in the Bible and the Christian religion, and yet they are kind and treat women with equal respect. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, couldn't it be considered illogical to think it's ok to believe in some parts of the Bible, but not all? Was he just kidding in the old testament or for some reason decided to become gentler and sent Jesus to give a better message? Know what I mean? Am I making any sense? In my heart, as a woman, I think it would be completely illogical to believe in a God who created me but thinks I have such little value. My heart and my logic tell me that I have so much love and so many talents to offer to my fellow man it would be ridiculous and very limiting to believe in this kind of religious doctrine.
Luckily, most mainstream Christians seem to ignore these parts of the Bible all together. I think their human compassion comes in to play. Know what I mean?
In reference to the original post......In my opinion, "Religion" is something different from belief in God. I don't think it is so illogical, when viewing the beauty and wonder of the world for someone to draw the conclusion that there may be a higher power of some form. I am constantly questioning it.
But when it comes to Religion - that to me is different. I was raised in a Christian religion and from all I was taught and from everything I have read in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, it is very illogical in my opinion and contradicts itself many times. I would even go as far as to say that it is even ridiculous and cruel when looking at it from a female perspective. I feel that BOTH my heart and my logic were involved when I began to stray from what the Bible teaches.
For example, the experience of giving birth to my son was incredible. Feeling a new life growing inside of me and then having a natural childbirth was exhilerating and I would even say spiritual even though as I said I question the idea of God and religion. Afterwards I felt such awe for the female body, and amazement at how much love I was capable of when I became a parent. I could elaborate til the end of time but I'll refrain. Anyway, a woman I know once said to me that she felt like she was assisting God with a miracle when she was pregnant and I thought that was a beautiful thing to say. Could it be true?
Then BAM! You read the Bible and it says that women are worth less than men (this is a running theme throughout) and evil and the reason they suffer the pains of childbirth is to punish them for the actions of this character Eve in the garden of Eden. Is it logical to believe that God would create such beautiful, intelligent, capable women and then say that they must be silent and obedient and that he would call this amazing process of creating life, which he designed himself, as nothing more than a "punishment"?
And I think the way some people practice religion is illogical. It seems a little strange and illogical to me that there are men who say they believe in the Bible and the Christian religion, and yet they are kind and treat women with equal respect. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, couldn't it be considered illogical to think it's ok to believe in some parts of the Bible, but not all? Was he just kidding in the old testament or for some reason decided to become gentler and sent Jesus to give a better message? Know what I mean? Am I making any sense? In my heart, as a woman, I think it would be completely illogical to believe in a God who created me but thinks I have such little value. My heart and my logic tell me that I have so much love and so many talents to offer to my fellow man it would be ridiculous and very limiting to believe in this kind of religious doctrine.
Luckily, most mainstream Christians seem to ignore these parts of the Bible all together. I think their human compassion comes in to play. Know what I mean?
lunamoth
Will to love
It's not a matter of ignoring some parts of the Bible, but understanding them in the context of the time and place they were written, by whom, for whom and for what purpose.
Much of the Bible was written in a culture where women held a much lower status than men. This is reflected in the scripture. The Bible was not written by God, but by people. It would be very nice indeed if our relationship with God could instantly heal us of all the cultural baggage and other things that weigh us down, get between us having respect and compassion for everyone else. But, that's not how it happens.
God is the one whom I meet in Christ. I can't see Christ ordering the slaughter of thousands, I can't see Christ degrading women, and I can't see Christ punishing people in a place of eternal torment. I read the Bible through this lens that says "God is love."
Hopefully I'm not getting off track by butting in here, but it seems like these type of debates always turn into people trying to prove to each other whether or not there is a God. We might as well give that up!
Luckily, most mainstream Christians seem to ignore these parts of the Bible all together. I think their human compassion comes in to play. Know what I mean?
There are men who know what you mean and completely agree with you. The Bible teaches that a man should cherish his wife. The Bible teaches a woman is a man's equal in every way except in giving birth and other humanly functions due to the sex factor of being male and female.
Whether it is good or bad, the Bible tells it like it was and is. If society at any time disrespected women, the Bible tells this. When King David committed adultery and murder, the Bible made no excuses for him. In the life of Christ is a perfect image of how men should treat women. I don't think I would want to live if my wife and I did not have the same respect for each other that Christ had for women and the family. Because she is the mother of my children, I respect her more than life itself. I realize what she has given me. I consider her superior to me because I would never have the happiness she provides without her. She is my reward for believing in God.
I believe in God and that he rewards me for this. It is late in life for me. At one time I wanted to convert the world to Jesus Christ. Now that is not my goal. I will never be successful if that is my goal but I have a new goal for old age. It is to demonstrate in some way that the mind of God can be shared. All God wants us to do is to believe God is. That will make all the difference in the world to a person. I trust God to enlighten persons that believe God is whether that person has my religion or not. I argue logic because I believe logic is a good thing and it brings rewards to people who follow it to God's throne.
the GadFly.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
"The doing of the will of God is nothing more or less than an exhibition of creature willingness to share the inner life with God--with the very God who has made such a creature life of inner meaning-value possible. Sharing is Godlike--divine." U. Book
Is there some kind of fix for long threads. They are so confuddled and intimidating to post in, for me at least. I tried reading through the whole thing. I got some of it. I started to feel the need to defend myself at some points of my read. I don't think I learn too much when I'm on the defensive though. I don't think anyone does, then again.
am i here to learn or to win.. that is the question
My opinion, which I see as a more "logical" or reasonable opinion is not that my religion is correct and Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism is not correct, but that my religion is correct and other religions are correct too different degrees. I don't believe them to be correct in their beliefs as to the actual form of God or "heaven", but I do believe God has provided that those religions exist to lead people to live a loving and moral life. I suppose this belief goes hand and hand with my belief that you do not have to believe in my specific version of God to be saved only that you have to believe in what He stands for.
am i here to learn or to win.. that is the question
My opinion, which I see as a more "logical" or reasonable opinion is not that my religion is correct and Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism is not correct, but that my religion is correct and other religions are correct too different degrees. I don't believe them to be correct in their beliefs as to the actual form of God or "heaven", but I do believe God has provided that those religions exist to lead people to live a loving and moral life. I suppose this belief goes hand and hand with my belief that you do not have to believe in my specific version of God to be saved only that you have to believe in what He stands for.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think people give logic too much credit. Logic, like everything else, is relative, and so is only relatively useful, and relatively accurate. For example, we say this is logical: If A = B, and B = C, A must then also = C. But in absolute terms, A cannot equal B, or B would be A. A can only equal A, absolutely. A and B can only be considered equal if we disregard all the ways that A does not equal B. And this is illogical. Yet we use this kind of illogical logic all the time. The concept of equality is an absolute concept. Two things are either equal or they are not. To say that they are relatively equal is a contradiction of the term 'equal'. Yet in reality, no two things are ever absolutely equal, so that in reality, the concept of equality isn't applicable. Yet many things are relatively equal, meaning that relative to the scale we are choosing to apply, these two things are equal. And it's in this relative manner that we are able to apply absolute logic to the real world, to which absolutes don't apply.
But the result of allowing this relativity in the application of logic is that our conclusions, then, are based on relative criteria. And because our conclusions are based on relative criteria, different people can come up with different conclusions depending upon the criteria they apply to the SAME PROBLEM.
This is how a theist and an atheist can come to completely different conclusion, while both using the same 'logical methods'. The logic they're using is relative, and the criteria they're choosing are different.
But the result of allowing this relativity in the application of logic is that our conclusions, then, are based on relative criteria. And because our conclusions are based on relative criteria, different people can come up with different conclusions depending upon the criteria they apply to the SAME PROBLEM.
This is how a theist and an atheist can come to completely different conclusion, while both using the same 'logical methods'. The logic they're using is relative, and the criteria they're choosing are different.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Purex,
This is why we have two different mathematical expressions for "equal" and "absolutely equal".
Regards,
Scott
This is why we have two different mathematical expressions for "equal" and "absolutely equal".
Regards,
Scott
Texan
Wow. It would be a privilege to know you. You absolutely nailed it. Every word of your post was absolutely correct. Isn't the Bible just the most hideous, monstrous set of words ever set down on paper? I would be ashamed to even admit to anyone that I took it seriously, never mind finding it inspiring. As I have said many times, the best antidote to belief in the Bible is the Bible. It is a condemnation of all that is moral and good and human. Even as an atheist, I must agree with you that if there is anything in this godless universe that qualifies as a "miracle" surely it is giving birth to a beautiful innocent child. He or she is very fortunate to have such a wise and insightful mother.
Wow. It would be a privilege to know you. You absolutely nailed it. Every word of your post was absolutely correct. Isn't the Bible just the most hideous, monstrous set of words ever set down on paper? I would be ashamed to even admit to anyone that I took it seriously, never mind finding it inspiring. As I have said many times, the best antidote to belief in the Bible is the Bible. It is a condemnation of all that is moral and good and human. Even as an atheist, I must agree with you that if there is anything in this godless universe that qualifies as a "miracle" surely it is giving birth to a beautiful innocent child. He or she is very fortunate to have such a wise and insightful mother.