Religion & Logic

[Typist]

I won't dispute that Western Christianity (i.e. Catholicism and its Protestant offshoots) has had a profound influence on Western culture, but it's a continuation of a phenomenon that predates Christianity.

No argument there, agreed.

My point, (which is almost impossible to make in any environment dominated by the theist vs. atheist food fight) is only that Catholicism dominated western culture to an incredible degree for a very long time.

I'm not attempting to assert the Catholics are always right, or that they invented their perspectives, or give credit for anything other than it was primarily them who pounded these ideas in to the minds of the modern western world.

It's as if some insurance company ran ads on our TV all day every day for a thousand years. The product might suck, it might not even be their product, but they would still be very influential.

But, because I said the word "Catholic" in there somewhere this must somehow be found to be totally wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!

 

[Vishvavajra]

My point, (which is almost impossible to make in any environment dominated by the theist vs. atheist food fight) is only that Catholicism dominated western culture to an incredible degree for a very long time.

I'm not attempting to assert the Catholics are always right, or that they invented their perspectives, or give credit for anything other than it was primarily them who pounded these ideas in to the minds of the modern western world.

It's as if some insurance company ran ads on our TV all day every day for a thousand years. The product might suck, it might not even be their product, but they would still be very influential.

But, because I said the word "Catholic" in there somewhere this must somehow be found to be totally wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!

Well, you're not wrong. The thing people have to understand is that even Protestantism--although it changed a lot of superficial things--still retained the majority of Catholic doctrine at the heart of the religion. In other words, Protestantism is part of the Latin tradition, not a totally separate thing, and it carries a lot of that baggage with it. It has modified it, yes, but the basic atonement theories and ways of regarding sin and redemption are still fundamentally the same. In many ways Catholics and Protestants have more in common doctrinally than either do with the Orthodox churches.

What that means is that Christianity as most people in the West know it is entirely derived from the Catholic tradition at some point. And since Christianity has been the dominant religious culture, that means that Latin Christianity has been how people in the West are used to viewing religion as a concept for a very long time. I like to joke that most of the atheists in the US are Protestants, but in a sense it's true: they're deriving their concept of God and view of religion from that particular tradition, often up to the point of accepting its basic premises.

On the other hand, I disagree that it's something one can't possibly get out from under. Like any hidden set of assumptions, bringing it out into the light can do a great deal towards loosening its hold on one's mind. So yes, the Western Christian tradition has a hold on the discourse to a large extent, but not in a deterministic sense. It's more that it just happens to be people's default model.

 

[metis]

There's always has been and will be a mutual influence between culture and religion, and no religion remains static.

 

[Typist]

Good points Vish, you seem quite educated on such matters.

On the other hand, I disagree that it's something one can't possibly get out from under. Like any hidden set of assumptions, bringing it out into the light can do a great deal towards loosening its hold on one's mind.

I would agree the degree and power of the influence can surely be debated, and there is no one perfect answer. My sense is that when people leave a church or dismiss a set of beliefs they often think it's done, over, and it's probably more complicated than that.

In my case, I had no great difficulty in wandering off from Catholic doctrines, but here I am 50 years later still relentlessly interested in the same kind of subjects. I suspect a similar process is underway for many forum members. They may be posting daily about what a huge pile of crap religion is, but they're still here talking about religion every day, just like they perhaps used to within a church.

More broadly, it intrigues me that any ideology could so dominate a culture for 1,000 years. I don't think we can even grasp such a thing in today's highly diverse environment, where trends change every twenty minutes.

It seems sort of like the relationship we have with our parents. I suspect there is some part of that relationship we can never walk away from no matter how hard we might try, it's probably beyond choice to some degree.

 

[Whiterain]

Resurrection is an occurring phenomenon without resuscitation(?).

Reincarnation seems to be beyond comprehension in a means to explain it.

The body having a soul or current energy is outside of current ideals.

Dogma is what's wrong. Particularly in Catholicism, not enough Eastern disciplines like meditation and engaging the mind.

Any spiritual teacher or leader will teach you the fundamentals of engaging the third eye, the mind and learning from it.

The mind is an entirely different dimension, there's only an understanding of login there in an of itself.

You can do anything in the power of the mind. It is a temple.

101

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not quite sure where to put this thread but I figured a Moderator will move it if necessary.

I've met a lot of people who seemed overly concerned to make Religion (or Faith, or Spirituality, or whatever be your preferred word) logical. Also: Rational, scientific, up-to-date, the list goes on. Personally, I'm not concerned to make my Faith logical. If my Faith were supposed to be scientific and rational, I'd just become a Scientist. To make Spirituality logical and scientific is to take the very essence away from it. It is supposed to be mysterious, mythic, inspirational, maybe even a little strange, supernatural, poetic, even confusing - confusing to remind us of how little we know in such a vast universe.

I don't know how or why you are mixing ''Spiritually logical'' with ''scientific''. What is ''scientific'' supposed to mean in this context? Are my beliefs not logical unless I 'agree' with every scientific theory presented?

My Faith isn't supposed to answer questions about where we came from, where we're going or how to cure your psoriasis. It serves a completely different purpose. It fills me with a sense of the unknowable, the mysterious, the other. The Hebrews have a great words for this: qadosh. Literally other, to be set apart for a special purpose. We translate it holy. In other words, my Religion isn't here to give me knowledge or any such science, in an almost opposite way it's here to remind me of how much I don't know and allow me to appreciate that.

Of course, I believe in Ahuramazda, but I won't ever turn to you and say I have proof that God exists, or that I know he created us, or that I know something everyone else doesn't, because I don't. If you want logical, sure, go Atheism, but I take God for granted. Some societies don't even have a word for God, because it's just assumed that he/it just is and there is no word to describe the vast presence and power, otherness and beauty of it.

Atheism isn't logical.

Sorry, but in my own twisted way, I don't want a logical faith.

Okay.

I wasn't looking for a debate on this, just sort of my two cents, as the Americans say, but feel free to comment.

I disagree with your equation of 'logical' to atheism. I also disagee with your statement on what religion should be, ie 'illogical''. I expect my religion to give me various answers, and be logical.

Have a nice day.

 

[LuisDantas]

In which sense would atheism be illogical?

 

[Typist]

In which sense would atheism be illogical?

Belief in a chosen authority which is unsupported by evidence.

Challenging such atheist beliefs is also illogical, given the lack of evidence that such challenges accomplish anything other than annoying atheists and creating unproductive controversy.

The challenging of outspoken atheism makes the same mistake as outspoken atheism in assuming that beliefs generated by emotion, and maintained by self flattering personal identities, can be edited by reason. Such challenging is itself most likely also fueled by emotion and self flattering personal identity, completing the irony.

To summarize, to be human is to be illogical.

 

[LuisDantas]

Belief in a chosen authority which is unsupported by evidence.

How is that atheism?

Challenging such atheist beliefs is also illogical, given the lack of evidence that such challenges accomplish anything other than annoying atheists and creating unproductive controversy.

The challenging of outspoken atheism makes the same mistake as outspoken atheism in assuming that beliefs generated by emotion, and maintained by self flattering personal identities, can be edited by reason. Such challenging is itself most likely also fueled by emotion and self flattering personal identity, completing the irony.

To summarize, to be human is to be illogical.

Sorry, but that is biased as heck.

 

[Typist]

How is that atheism?

Where is the proof that human reason, the chosen authority of atheists, is binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality? There is no such proof, but for many, that matters little to not at all.

Where is the proof that me saying this 100 times a day will accomplish anything? There is no such proof, but I keep typing it anyway.

We all be in the same little boat my friend.

Sorry, but that is biased as heck.

I plead no contest your honor.

 

[metis]

How does one go about proving "atheism"?

While I'm at it, how does one go about proving "theism"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Where is the proof that human reason, the chosen authority of atheists, is binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality? There is no such proof, but for many, that matters little to not at all.

Again, how is that atheism?

You must have read the wrong entry on a dictionary or something.

 

[LuisDantas]

How does one go about proving "atheism"?

While I'm at it, how does one go about proving "theism"?

It takes telepathy or a lie detector of some sort, I assume.

 

[metis]

It takes telepathy or a lie detector of some sort, I assume.

Na, those don't work either in either case as they could only possibly tell what a person believes, not what the reality may be.

 

[LuisDantas]

Na, those don't work either in either case as they could only possibly tell what a person believes, not what the reality may be.

Oh, you mean evidencing whether any of the two might be accurate to consensual reality?

I don't thin that is even hypothetically possible.

 

[metis]

Oh, you mean evidencing whether any of the two might be accurate to consensual reality?

I don't thin that is even hypothetically possible.

Sorta, but what's "consensual" often isn't reality (I think that's maybe what you were saying?). What I was saying is that it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove either atheistic claims or theistic claims.

 

[Desert Snake]

In which sense would atheism be illogical?

I'm not sure if you are referencing my statement that atheism isn't logical here; however, notice that I didn't state that atheism was illogical, I stated that atheism was not logical. Atheism is neither logical or illogical, it is not employing the methodologies necessary for a belief, or position, to be labeled 'logical', or, 'illogical'.

We do employ logic in determining our religious beliefs, etc., of course, however, conversely, if I state that my religion is logical, it is in the parameters of the stated beliefs; I would not say, therefore, that "theism is logical'', or 'theism is illogical''. /ie any type of theism/.

//Basically, when using a term like 'logical'; when we employ this term, there is a formula of reasoning that is expected to follow. ''Atheism'', does not match or meet this expectation. Atheistic belief can be applied to an argument employing logic, however it then needs other supporting formula, such as specific deity ideas, religions, etc.

 

[Whiterain]

In which sense would atheism be illogical?

I don't know, Zeus gave me a great idea for Zelda, but, I ain't no Chief of that.

4-player co-op in Hyrule, wise is such a foreign idea. Hell, in even Link to the Past graphics...

The four of us was walkin, we faced not a troop, a platoon of the enemy marching are way in swamp land. Just things they could have capitalized on.

4player coop in Zelda. That's what the Lord has given me!

Where will these goods go?

 

[psychoslice]

That IMO evidences that religion and belief have both been abused, not that they can't be made to work logically.

Yes abused is the word, this is why I have my own religion, I take from the smorgasbord of all religions, and only use that which resonates with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure if you are referencing my statement that atheism isn't logical here; however, notice that I didn't state that atheism was illogical, I stated that atheism was not logical. Atheism is neither logical or illogical, it is not employing the methodologies necessary for a belief, or position, to be labeled 'logical', or, 'illogical'.

I beg to differ. It is logical to assume no deity in the absence of adequate evidence for any.