Logic vs Religion

[GadFly]

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.

A different way to approach learning about religion is that learning might also be unlearning what you thought to be true.

 

[GadFly]

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.

I think people give logic too much credit. Logic, like everything else, is relative, and so is only relatively useful, and relatively accurate.
In the real world, relativity is an allusion and not really real. Your premise appears to be very weak and before reading the rest of this post, I have formed an opinion of it, which I promise to read shortly.

 

[RedRain]

A different way to approach learning about religion is that learning might also be unlearning what you thought to be true.

I definitely agree with that.

 

[andys]

Gadfly
Please so not be insulted by my reply. I have wrestled with how to phrase it delicately.
Perhaps it can be summed up by resorting to the tired cliche "Let's agree to disagree."

It seems apparent to me that you have read some philosophy or taken a course in it, so it is stimulating to argue with you. However, every sentence you write warrants a debate. I'll provide a typical example to give you a sense of what I mean.

"Man's logic based on experience of senses is the most unreliable logic of the universe and has consistently changing premises."

I don't know where to begin to correct this muddled remark. For example, logic isn't based on "experience of the senses" any more than are the rules of a board game. Nor are there varieties of logic, like varieties of soup. So there can not be alternative "logics" which are deemed more or less "unreliable". Logic, developed be Aristotle is a purely deductive system. That makes it immune to charges of "unreliability", since reliability is a function of empirically observable efficacy. Next, logic doesn't have premises. Only arguments have premises. If you meant "rules" instead of "premises" then you're still mistaken, because the rules are well established and don't change. Finally, you said "consistently changing premises", but I suspect you meant "constantly changing premises."

Whew. That was my (brief) response to only one sentence. It would take me a week to reply to the rest of the assertions in your post, even if I attempted to provide the most ultra succinct responses. Worse, I still haven't the foggiest clue what your argument is, not at all. I'm sorry, really.

I will reply to one question. You write: "I assumed your studies of years of philosophy were in college. You must be an independent scholar of philosophy. What I have related to you is well known to philosophy students throughout Western Civilization and has been for thousands of years. You surely don't believe I could have made all this up just to win an argument. Are you sure you have not encountered this claim all these years?

I completed my studies thirty years ago at a credited University and received my goofy hat and a rolled up piece of paper. I assure you that scarcely a word of what you have said is well known to any of the Philosophy students that I graduated with. Granted, most of your writing is unintelligible to me thus leaving "doubt" that if worded otherwise it might prove otherwise. I would like to leave you with the feeling that our exchange was of some benefit to you. It would gratify me greatly if you would at least acknowledge that the intricacies of Logic were most certainly developed after years of painstaking work, and not, as you insist, "discovered" like a shell on a beach snatched up by a hapless tourist.

 

[GadFly]

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.

I responded to Texan also but my response was not an argument. I interpreted her posting as a very personal grieving over the misuse of God and religion. She was saying that it is wonderful to be able to just accept things as things are. She seemed to tire of argument and stresses about belief and none belief. She obviously equated her acceptance of God as something she experienced and enjoyed. She in no way intended for her comments to be used in an argument against belief in God. We should be willing to allow her this freedom.

The rest of your argument is simply an attack on the Bible and the followers of the Bible religions. Why are you reluctant to respond to request for you to explain the epistemology that supported your challenge to God and disdain for the Absolute? With your previous study of philosophy, this should be an easy thing.

 

[andys]

Gadfly
You ask me: "Why are you reluctant to respond to request for you to explain the epistemology that supported your challenge to God and disdain for the Absolute?"

Again, I don't understand what you are saying. Is it my epistemological views you want? If so, I can ramble on about them, but they are nothing very interesting. As for my supposed "disdain for the Absolute", I haven't a clue what you mean. By "Absolute" do you means "absolutes" per se, like Platonic Forms, or are you redundantly referring to a god? (I hope it's the latter.)

I will say this now: I am not the slightest reluctant to respond to any intelligible question put to me. I am most passionate about my contempt for religion and whole-heartedly invite any debate related to it.

 

[Dunemeister]

For example, logic isn't based on "experience of the senses" any more than are the rules of a board game. Nor are there varieties of logic, like varieties of soup. So there can not be alternative "logics" which are deemed more or less "unreliable". Logic, developed be Aristotle is a purely deductive system. That makes it immune to charges of "unreliability", since reliability is a function of empirically observable efficacy. Next, logic doesn't have premises. Only arguments have premises. If you meant "rules" instead of "premises" then you're still mistaken, because the rules are well established and don't change. Finally, you said "consistently changing premises", but I suspect you meant "constantly changing premises."

Actually, andys, it's you who are mistaken. There are umpteen varieties of logic. Aristotle was neither the beginning nor the end of it. For instance, many forms of logic have been developed in the 20th century. There is so-called pragmatic logic. It's still in its relative infancy, but university philosophy departments are paying it more and more mind. Then, there's relevance logic. In standard logic, the following argument is false if and only if the consequent is false:

A --> B

But that's weird. Take the sentence, "If my dad's a carpenter, then I'm a genius." That's in the form A --> B according to Russellian logic. And, according to that same logic, it's false if and only if I'm not a genius. Assuming I'm a genius, the sentence is true. But what does my father's trade have to do with my intellectual status? Precisely none. It's not relevant. So, say some logicians, there's something flawed about Russellian logic. And thus a new logic is formed. There are also other forms of logic whose basic premises are frequently called into question such as modal logic and quantified modal logic. Ugh. It makes your head spin. And this is only the logic that appears in the Western tradition. It gets even more varied when we take up other forms of logic from the Eastern traditions (which are not, as we Westerners tend to haughtily presume, "illogical").

So it's simply not true that there's one and only one kind of logic. New systems of logic have been developed because previous systems (such as Aristotle's) have been shown to have serious, even debilitating, limitations. So gadfly actually has a point.

 

[Orontes]

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.

A claim can be logical or illogical. You make a claim in a context. Jesus walked on water. That claim is in the context of the physical world we all know and experience, where a person walking on water is illogical. It's not just an argument that can be illogical, a statement can be too. Although, if you want to look at it another way, you could say that the argument that leads you to that premise is illogical, which then means the premise is illogical.

"1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference." This is the definition of "logical" from Dictionary.com.

Using this definition, "Jesus walking on water" is not a logical inference from our experiences in our daily life. Therefore it is an illogical premise.

Context and inference are distinct from a premise or a single statement. A premise is simply its verbiage/symbology and nothing more. To assign some larger context or inference is to err by interjecting the sentiment of the subject. To illustrate:

"A then B" contains no context or inference. It is simply the assertion. The same applies to "Jesus walked on water" or "Martians like disco". These statements may or may not be true, but logic is not concerned with truth. Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments. Validity has been explained. Argument entails premises and a conclusion, not simply a part thereof. Therefore, were one to object that the statement "Martians like disco" is illogical because Martians are actually mad for Wagner and have nothing to do with 20th Century musical norms or that the statement is illogical because Martians don't exist, the fellow has misunderstood the meaning of logic.

Regarding definitions: dictionaries are rarely the best tool for understanding concepts as they sacrifice rigor for brevity and succinctness. This definition: "1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference" has little value as the meaning turns on understanding the principles of logic. The principle of logic are not reducible to single statements.

Note: logical inference refers to induction (a type of logic concerned with probability). This again is dependant on argument, not single statements or premises.

 

[Orontes]

The below deserves reposting:

A claim can be logical or illogical. You make a claim in a context. Jesus walked on water. That claim is in the context of the physical world we all know and experience, where a person walking on water is illogical. It's not just an argument that can be illogical, a statement can be too. Although, if you want to look at it another way, you could say that the argument that leads you to that premise is illogical, which then means the premise is illogical.

Your confusing illogical with with wrong or false. Logic has no place in the realm of right and wrong for you can have an argument that is perfectly logical but is still wrong due to false or faulty premises. You can also have an argument that is completely illogical but contains Premises that are completely true. The only requirement for an argument to be logical is that the conclusion follow the premises. And what's more, Logic applies only to deductive arguments. When it comes to inductive arguments(which is the bulk of what we use when concerning religion and God) it is no longer a question of whether or not the argument is "logical" but of whether or not the argument is "strong". Premises are either true or false not logical or illogical.

"1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference." This is the definition of "logical" from Dictionary.com.

Using this definition, "Jesus walking on water" is not a logical inference from our experiences in our daily life. Therefore it is an illogical premise.

Your comparing apples and oranges.

Also from dictionary.com:
In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.(the encyclopedia entry concerning Premise)

Inferences and premises are in separate categories. If the phrase "jesus walking on water" is not part of an argument then one is free to determine whether or not it is or is not a logical inference. But the instant that phrase is placed in an argument it is no longer an inference but a premise and thus is either true or false, not logical or illogical. the only way the phrase could be considered an inference and stil be part of an argument would be if the phrase were the conclusion of an argument for indeed an argument's conclusion is also known as an inference. and then one could determine if it is logical or illogical in whether or not it follows from the premises of the argument. However in this instance the phrase itself is no longer a premise but a conclusion. Even if "jesus walking on water" were a false statement it can still be placed in a logical argument:

P1: Jesus was a holy man
P2: All holy men walk on water
----
Therefore, Jesus walked on water

This is a logical argument because if the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. However it is not a sound argument because P1 is debatable and P2 is false as we know of no holy men in this day and age who walk on water. Now to make the phrase a premise

P1: Only holy men walk on water
P2: Jesus walked on water
----
Therefore, Jesus is a holy man

Again this is a logical argument but it is not sound because P1: is false, not only do we not know of any holy men these days who walk on water but we do know of different insect species as well as at least one species of lizard who are capable of walking(or running) on water. Also P2 is at most debatable because it can neither be proven true or false.

Do you see the difference? At most an inference can be the conclusion to an argument but the instant a phrase becomes a premise it is no longer by definition an inference and thus trying to say it is or is not a logical inference is pointless because a faulty premise can still be used in a logical argument. The argument just won't be sound.

 

[Orontes]

Orontes
Wonders never cease! There is a person on this Forum who actually knows what Logic is. Congratulations Orontes! You're doing a splendid job trying to educate the others. Good luck!

Cheers.

 

[Jistyr]

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

Well now it depends on the religion, doesn't it?

 

[GadFly]

Context and inference are distinct from a premise or a single statement. A premise is simply its verbiage/symbology and nothing more. To assign some larger context or inference is to err by interjecting the sentiment of the subject. To illustrate:

"A then B" contains no context or inference. It is simply the assertion. The same applies to "Jesus walked on water" or "Martians like disco". These statements may or may not be true, but logic is not concerned with truth. Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments. Validity has been explained. Argument entails premises and a conclusion, not simply a part thereof. Therefore, were one to object that the statement "Martians like disco" is illogical because Martians are actually mad for Wagner and have nothing to do with 20th Century musical norms or that the statement is illogical because Martians don't exist, the fellow has misunderstood the meaning of logic.

Regarding definitions: dictionaries are rarely the best tool for understanding concepts as they sacrifice rigor for brevity and succinctness. This definition: "1.according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference" has little value as the meaning turns on understanding the principles of logic. The principle of logic are not reducible to single statements.

Note: logical inference refers to induction (a type of logic concerned with probability). This again is dependant on argument, not single statements or premises.

What is your opinion that rules of logic are discovered rather than learned? Your explanation of logic was very learned. I might have a few more question for you that I think can be explained logically, which I may have some learning gaps in these topics.One's logic needs to be checked out by persons who do not have a stake in the process of what is appropriate logic.

 

[3.14]

logic is mostly based on facts and religion on faith, since there is no facts in religion logic is impared , and since faith canno't be disproven logic is impared. you can't have both religion and logic in perfect harmony with eachother

 

[Storm]

logic is mostly based on facts and religion on faith, since there is no facts in religion logic is impared , and since faith canno't be disproven logic is impared. you can't have both religion and logic in perfect harmony with eachother

Muhammad was a man. There's a fact in religion.

 

[3.14]

can you be sure it wasn't a woman and the details have been rewriten

 

[Storm]

By that standard, there's no such thing as a fact at all.

 

[RedRain]

Something I would add here is that often it seems people get stuck on what they think or want the definition of certain terms to be. What is the point over arguing definitions? It is useful to know what most people see a term to mean, but when it comes down to it, if two people having a discussion know what they are referring to with certain terms, why would it matter if most people saw those terms to mean something entirely different.

Is it a battle to see who knows more about history? Wouldn't it be okay to let certain people use terms implying a somewhat inappropriate definition in order to further a learning process?

 

[sandandfoam]

can you be sure it wasn't a woman and the details have been rewriten

Follow that line of thinking to it's end and the only thing you can be sure of is that there is thought, you can't even be sure that it's your own thought.

 

[3.14]

there are no facts unless there is proof, like take weight you can measure it and you wil see how heavy you are then you have the fact that you are ...k

 

[3.14]

it takes faith to believe facts