Logic vs Religion (Buddhism, pray, bible, faith, Christianity)

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by RedRain

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]

Originally Posted by PureX

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]

Originally Posted by GadFly

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]

Originally Posted by andys

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]

Originally Posted by andys

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by mball1297

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.

"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.