Religion & Logic

[Rival]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Politesse]

Is mystery illogical? I don't think so; rather, I would see it as patently illogical to claim to know truths that we have every reason to believe are beyond our comprehension.

Scientific is another matter. I love science, and I am a scientist, but faith encompasses much more than the domain of science, which is the description of the material world. I would be wary of "faith" that makes demonstrably false claims about the material world, but describing the material world isn't (or shouldn't be) the primary goal of a life of faith.

"Rational" is a weird term that is defined differently according to the bias of the speaker, I try to avoid it. I think when people describe themselves as rational, they're usually trying to contrast themselves to the irrationality of their neighbor. I have little use for such posturing.

 

[Nietzsche]

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 understand your argument here. But..we really don't need religion to do that. The universe is just fine with throwing us curve-balls. Repeatedly.

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

And you are now inherently superior to all those who attempt to make their faith seem logical. I can respect this notion far more than someone trying to explain why it's rational to believe in a virgin birth, a moving mountain, 12 plagues, ect-ect-ect.

 

[metis]

I've been accused of believing in "materialism", which strikes me as a term that's an oxymoron. However, I will plead guilty to that as my orientation is science as that was my field of study and work (anthropologist, now retired), and the "mystical" for me is pretty much at the opposite end of the continuum.

Needless to say, religious faith has always been very difficult sledding for me (even here in Michigan), and I'm pretty much at the point of saying "Whatever happened, happened, and whatever cause It to happen I'll call 'God' and pretty much leave it at That".

 

[Politesse]

Oh, a fellow anthropologist!

Materialism, to me, is definitely a belief; it makes a claim about the nature of reality that requires a big assumption on the part of the believer. I disapprove of saddling other people with labels they themselves wouldn't claim, though. If you aren't inclined to argue the point of whether the "beyond" exists, I see no reason to hang a sign of materialism around your neck per se.

 

[`mud]

The Cosmos is vastly vast,
and life is stuff,
and we are wee little.
No need for logic there.
~
'mud

 

[metis]

Oh, a fellow anthropologist!

Materialism, to me, is definitely a belief; it makes a claim about the nature of reality that requires a big assumption on the part of the believer. I disapprove of saddling other people with labels they themselves wouldn't claim, though. If you aren't inclined to argue the point of whether the "beyond" exists, I see no reason to hang a sign of materialism around your neck per se.

Except I have no assumptions in this area, unless you're using the term in a different manner than what I'm dealing with. I have no particular religious beliefs (this is one reason why the "...ism" doesn't apply), although I do have some what I call "leanings".

Also, how are you using the term "beyond", as in beyond what?

BTW, which area did you more specialize in with your anthropology? I started out more in physical but then switched to cultural even before my undergrad work was finished.

 

[Politesse]

Except I have no assumptions in this area, unless you're using the term in a different manner than what I'm dealing with. I have no particular religious beliefs (this is one reason why the "...ism" doesn't apply), although I do have some what I call "leanings".

Well, that's why I wouldn't think of you as a materialist. A materialist, to me, is someone who believes that material truth is the only truth, that there is or could be no other standard.

Also, how are you using the term "beyond", as in beyond what?

The material, I suppose? Whatever one defines as the "stuff" of the spiritual experience.

BTW, which area did you more specialize in with your anthropology? I started out more in physical but then switched to cultural even before my undergrad work was finished.

I study religion. Started out in archaeology, got interested in contemporary ethnography in the same region, wound up somewhere in the middle with a healthy dose of sociology and linguistics via grad school. I reckon I'm still cooking, as it were. I teach for a living right now, but have my eyes set on a dissertation down the line.

 

[metis]

Well, that's why I wouldn't think of you as a materialist. A materialist, to me, is someone who believes that material truth is the only truth, that there is or could be no other standard.

Ya, I definitely don't go in that direction.

Whatever one defines as the "stuff" of the spiritual experience.

I've always had difficulty defining "spiritual", so I really can't say if I am or ain't. The one thing I do know is that I question pretty much everything a lot, sometimes to the point of driving myself nuts.

I study religion. Started out in archaeology, got interested in contemporary ethnography in the same region, wound up somewhere in the middle with a healthy dose of sociology and linguistics via grad school. I reckon I'm still cooking, as it were. I teach for a living right now, but have my eyes set on a dissertation down the line.

Ya, I taught anthro as well, in my case for roughly 30 years. Not bad for a guy that came out of a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about how we must not believe in "evilution", eh?

Good luck with your dissertation. I couldn't go that far because our son got diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and we had our hands full, let me tell ya. Now he's 42 and owns his own small company, but he still struggles with his inner-self at times.

 

[Skwim]

From what I recall, no one has said their faith is necessarily logical, just true.

To make Spirituality logical and scientific is to take the very essence away from it.

Perhaps, although the efforts I've seen have been to make it consistent with logic and science; seldom a successful undertaking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not 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.

How does it "remind us how little we know" to pretend we know things that you admit we have no rational way of knowing?

My Faith isn't supposed to answer questions about where we came from, where we're going or how to cure your psoriasis.

Your faith might not purport to answer these questions, but different people have different views. For some people, it does.

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.

I don't follow. What fills in the gap here?

- "there are many things I don't know."
- "therefore, _____________"
- "therefore, I'll adopt the specific beliefs and practices of Zoroastrianism."

I can't think of anything to bridge that gap.

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.

Then why do you believe? It's not like you can't have a sense of wonder without believing in Ahura Mazda. I manage to have a sense of wonder without believing in any gods at all.

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.

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

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

If you're after praise for rejecting logic and reason, you won't be getting it from me.

 

[George-ananda]

I think religion has to be logical. But things like God, souls, angels, etc. violate no logic.

 

[nilsz]

I try to understand this perspective, but I find myself frustrated. I start to wonder if you subscribe to a different understanding of what it means to believe?

I appreciate wonder and mystery, though this does not lead me to religion. It rather leads to imagination that strives for plausibility, or else I call it fiction. I see no need for a fiction that claims to be true.

I am perhaps also intimidated. If you believe in something simply because you like the idea of it, would you as a surgeon prefer to think that the heart is in the middle of the body because that would seem more symmetrical and aesthetic? Fortunately, the wish thinking tends to stop when what you believe has apparent consequences. Although, not always...

Edit: ok, so actually the heart is in the middle of the body. I could have written liver I guess.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see where the op is coming from. I suppose one could say faith has a home with the illogical in how things are approached.
.
It serves it's purposes in a unique way in comparison to approaches that happen to be logical and direct.

 

[Jumi]

I am perhaps also intimidated. If you believe in something simply because you like the idea of it, would you as a surgeon prefer to think that the heart is in the middle of the body because that would seem more symmetrical and aesthetic? Fortunately, the wish thinking tends to stop when what you believe has apparent consequences. Although, not always...

I don't think this was what she was saying at all though, quite the contrary I read the OP as being very much in agreement with you.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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

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

IMO, views such as yours don't spark the urge to debate anything, at least not from this atheist. Have at it!

I think religion has to be logical. But things like God, souls, angels, etc. violate no logic.

This I could debate, for example. This individual is making stronger claims.

 

[Typist]

I think religion, just as you described it, is generally speaking essentially logical.

Consider art. A really good play or movie can communicate deep truths in a way that no piece of rhetoric ever can, even though the story is entirely fictional. As example, be sure to see the movie All That Jazz if you haven't already. It's a fun song and dance Broadway musical about death. No logical opinion piece can touch it. Religion excels at telling such stories.

Consider the evidence. Religion has appeared in every time and place in recorded human history, and is still thriving to this day. It involves billions of people over thousands of years. That's very strong evidence that religion is meeting some fundamental human need, not for everybody, but for huge numbers of people. It would be highly illogical to discard anything with such a track record.

Consider the human condition. All of us are deeply engaged in fantasy of various flavors. When some atheists proclaimed they have escaped this, when they assert their logical superiority, they are showing us their fantasy. Atheism is just another faith based ideology like all the others.

Personally, I'm deeply engaged in the fantasy that typing all this will accomplish something, despite all evidence to the contrary. I see the evidence that nothing is really being accomplished, I understand it, I agree with it, and then I ignore it and keep right on typing. Yep, a card carrying member of the human race!

Generally speaking, theists (the better ones anyway) are more realistic about the human condition than their atheist critics, who ironically are the idealistic dreamers. The better theists understand that human beings are primarily emotional creatures. We're like an M&M candy, a thin fragile layer of reason on the surface, hiding a much larger soft and squishy middle of emotion.

This is who we are, like it or not, understand it or not, admit it or not.

 

[Deidre]

The definition of logic is: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Having been into religion at one time, I'd have to say that I'm not sure I arrived there through logic. It might have seemed logical to me at the time, but a belief in something not verifiable, is what faith is all about. Not necessarily logic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

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.

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

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

You should accept both fact and opinion. Religion is opinion. But opinion leans on facts about decisions. An opinion is arrived at by choosing, and an opinion is about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Jumi]

Consider the evidence. Religion has appeared in every time and place in recorded human history, and is still thriving to this day. It involves billions of people over thousands of years. That's very strong evidence that religion is meeting some fundamental human need, not for everybody, but for huge numbers of people. It would be highly illogical to discard anything with such a track record.

So has crime, wars and other things. Yet we don't consider it illogical to discard them despite their track record.

Consider the human condition. All of us are deeply engaged in fantasy of various flavors. When some atheists proclaimed they have escaped this, when they assert their logical superiority, they are showing us their fantasy.

There's nothing to escape.

Atheism is just another faith based ideology like all the others.

People keep saying that, but I've yet to hear anything to convince me that atheism is an ideology. What is the content of atheist ideology and religion?

Personally, I'm deeply engaged in the fantasy that typing all this will accomplish something, despite all evidence to the contrary. I see the evidence that nothing is really being accomplished, I understand it, I agree with it, and then I ignore it and keep right on typing. Yep, a card carrying member of the human race!

Don't worry, we're all, mostly trying to understand things ourselves. If someone expands their horizons because of what we said, isn't that enough?

Generally speaking, theists (the better ones anyway) are more realistic about the human condition than their atheist critics, who ironically are the idealistic dreamers.

Realistic about what? I see evidence to the contrary every time I log in here or other forums or watch a debate somewhere. If religious people focused on real things like hunger, poverty etc instead of trying to stop two people from loving each other we'd all be better off. (don't mean to generalize every religious person is like this, thank the nogods for that!)

The better theists understand that human beings are primarily emotional creatures. We're like an M&M candy, a thin fragile layer of reason on the surface, hiding a much larger soft and squishy middle of emotion.

This is who we are, like it or not, understand it or not, admit it or not.

Maybe, but there are some of us who admit that they have emotions and then there are those who do not regardless of their opinion of theistic gods' and their existence.