Religion & Logic

[Desert Snake]

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

That is an individual perspective. The word ''logical'' here is a personal conclusion that one applies 'after the fact', as it were, when one decides that there is no deity.

It is just as 'logical' for me to say that there is good reason to assume a deity, when the word is used is used in that manner.

So, not quite sure what your point is; we are disagreeing with each other, yet my usage of ''logical'' is not incorrect.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is an individual perspective. The word ''logical'' here is a personal conclusion that one applies 'after the fact', as it were, when one decides that there is no deity.

As I said. It is logical to be an atheist in the absence of sufficient evidence for an alternative.

That is a personal perspective. It is also logical, far more often than not. I suppose someone might have had a metaphysical experience of some sort that leads him or her to another conclusion, but that does not make atheism any less logical for those who lack such an experience.

It is just as 'logical' for me to say that there is good reason to assume a deity, when the word is used is used in that manner.

Is it? Why so?

It seems to me that such can not possibly be the case unless, perhaps, you had some oddly ambiguous metaphysical experience. Even then it would be a stretch.

So, not quite sure what your point is; we are disagreeing with each other, yet my usage of ''logical'' is not incorrect.

We sure seem to be disagreeing.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

As should everyone, IMO.

 

[Typist]

What I was saying is that it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove either atheistic claims or theistic claims.

Bingo. Which raises a question more interesting than anything in the theist/atheist debate.

Now what?

 

[`mud]

One can't prove an absence with a presence.
One can't prove a presence with an absence.
That's what !
~
'mud

 

[MagickIsChaos]

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.

I think that the assumption that 'reality' exist is illogical becuase we cannot prove it and science is based off of this assumption.

I also would rather not assume something is true becuase someone told me that the Relgion is old and/or some prophet said it was true...... I think that the best beilieve for us are the ones we find out for ourselves...

For example my personal 'relgion' involves an explamation for magick becuase according to my experiences magick so to me any beilieve system that cannot explain magick is invalid until it can.

So in a nutshell: The best philosphies are the ones you find, the most accurate prophetic words came from your own mouth, and the best gods are the ones you have met.

 

[metis]

Bingo. Which raises a question more interesting than anything in the theist/atheist debate.

Now what?

Good question, if I understand your drift. Even if there were to be some objective evidence that a deity or deities might exist, where exactly does that leave us? It certainly by itself establishes no moral teachings or other guidelines.

All religions rely on faith, which pretty much means that there's no objective evidence behind them, but that doesn't mean that just because there's no such evidence that one's faith must be invalid. But if we rely on our faith, then we should at least have the knowledge that billions of others do the same, and that there simply is no way that we can establish that our faith is right and all others are wrong.

Therefore, to me, there are "many paths to God", not because all faiths must be correct but because it is virtually impossible to establish which is more correct.

 

[Typist]

Even if there were to be some objective evidence that a deity or deities might exist, where exactly does that leave us? It certainly by itself establishes no moral teachings or other guidelines.

Yes, and even if we could prove beyond all doubt that deities don't exist, that by itself does nothing to address the deep human needs which can rise to thousands of years of religion in every corner of the world.

There is overwhelming evidence that 1) such needs exist (even though their exact nature can be debated) and 2) those needs are very significant. So any commentary on this subject which doesn't make a good faith effort to address those needs is essentially bankrupt.

All religions rely on faith....

To be a bit more precise, all infinite scale metaphysical religious beliefs rely on faith. The practical advice on how to live as a human being can be tested in practice.

More to the point, experiences which are sometimes called "mystical" and sometimes associated with religion, need not rely on belief at all. If we go to the desert for 40 days and nights and have some experience, there is no requirement to then explain that experience.

As I see it, all religious beliefs are essentially (if unconsciously) a declaration that one lacks faith in the value of such experiences. They are an at least implied claim that the experience itself is not enough.

Take the Christian context for instance, just as an example selected at random. What if the experience of love is God? What if the huge towering facade of ideology is really little more than a place to hide from acts like serving the needy? What if the experience is the real deal, and the rest is just noise?

If what can be called religion is based on experience, and not explanations, there is no need for proof, or analysis, or debates, or conflict, or wars, or organizations, or church buildings, or money, or ranks and titles and authority and all the rest of it.

But if we rely on our faith, then we should at least have the knowledge that billions of others do the same, and that there simply is no way that we can establish that our faith is right and all others are wrong.

Therefore, to me, there are "many paths to God", not because all faiths must be correct but because it is virtually impossible to establish which is more correct.

If we're going to do beliefs, I agree that's the way to go about it. I sincerely believe that, and yet also sincerely believe I am right. I am human. I make no sense.

I think that's probably where much of religious faith comes from, the realization that we are too small and too dumb to ever wrap our minds around what's going on. If that's true, and one's mind demands an explanation anyway, faith would seem to be the best we can do.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

Logic is mysterious and confusing. Logically, if the moon is made of green cheese, then Allah is the daughter of Jesus' affair (given any conditional, if the antecedent is false then the conditional is true).

As I said. It is logical to be an atheist in the absence of sufficient evidence for an alternative.

That is a personal perspective. It is also logical, far more often than not.

Quick lesson in logic. It is utter nonsense to say that something is logical "more often than not" in the sense used above, and even more clearly nonsense to assert that it is logical to assert anything given absence of evidence. That doesn't make such conclusions unreasonable or unscientific, just not logical.

What are specific Catholic traits that we have?

An utter lack of the contributions to Western culture, science, mathematics, philosophy, etc., that Catholics had (and were basically alone in having) a few centuries ago.

To summarize, to be human is to be illogical.

Very true. Humans are prone to a number of cognitive biases and fine logic, probability, etc., counter-intuitive. However, logic, probability, and so forth are well-reasoned, supported, and superior methods for interpreting or understand problems than is throwing out logic to defend illogical conclusions (or really any alternative critical thinking).

 

[lovemuffin]

Logic is mysterious and confusing. Logically, if the moon is made of green cheese, then Allah is the daughter of Jesus' affair (given any conditional, if the antecedent is false then the conditional is true)

Seems like this might be a bit confusing. The "conditional" is the entire "if... then...", but not the consequent. I had to read it three times. So just in case anyone else has the same problem, legion isn't saying that "Allah is the daughter of Jesus' affair" is true because the antecedent "the moon is made of green cheese" is false, he's saying the entire conditional stands as logically valid.

 

[Jumi]

An utter lack of the contributions to Western culture, science, mathematics, philosophy, etc., that Catholics had (and were basically alone in having) a few centuries ago.

It's true that the Catholics had great influence. Even the protestants were a product of them.

But do we count things that RCC considered heresy or going against it as Catholic culture? Or things that predated it that were quietly reintroduced during the Renaissance after being "lost"?

Talking on the internet as we are now, are we all similarly products of atheist culture since Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds were atheist while helping create modern operating systems?

 

[LuisDantas]

Quick lesson in logic. It is utter nonsense to say that something is logical "more often than not" in the sense used above, and even more clearly nonsense to assert that it is logical to assert anything given absence of evidence. That doesn't make such conclusions unreasonable or unscientific, just not logical.

Are you sure you are not losing track of the implications of the concept of theism? It is indeed logical not to adopt it (i.e., to be an atheist) in the absence of convincing evidence for it.