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

[Jistyr]

Originally Posted by guilo

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

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

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by Orontes

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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?

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by 3.14

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