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

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Jay

People who counterpose religion and logic understand neither.

Read Plato or Thomas Aquinas, or Martin Luther.The raw logic is impeccdable. Logical process does not require./ Logic requires an assumption, the assumption does not require physical evidence.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

I agree with Scott.

And in addition, I will say this:

In the Baha'i view science and religion are NOT in contradiction, but rather dovetail very nicely!

Science may be said to explain the "how" of things, whereas religion explains "Who" and "why." They thus address different, largely non-overlapping domains, but come together nicely to form a complete whole!

The quickest way to get into trouble is to use either one without the other!: Science without religion is gross materialism (bigger and better nukes); religion without science is superstition (witch-burning).

And the Baha'i scriptures also say (sorry: I don't have the citation handy) that if a religious doctrine disagrees with established science, then that doctrine is simply wrong.

There is also this marvelous passage in the Baha’i scriptures:

“[E]ven in Europe it is admitted that religion is the opponent of science, and that science is the destroyer of the foundations of religion. While the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the founder of science and knowledge, it is full of goodwill for learned men; it is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge? God forbid! Nay, for God, knowledge is the most glorious gift of man and the most noble of human perfections. To oppose knowledge is ignorant, and he who detests knowledge and science is not a man, but rather an animal without intelligence. For knowledge is light, life, felicity, perfection, beauty and the means of approaching the Threshold of Unity. It is the honor and glory of the world of humanity, and the greatest bounty of God. Knowledge is identical with guidance, and ignorance is real error.

“Happy are those who spend their days in gaining knowledge, in discovering the secrets of nature, and in penetrating the subtleties of pure truth! Woe to those who are contented with ignorance, whose hearts are gladdened by thoughtless imitation, who have fallen into the lowest depths of ignorance and foolishness, and who have wasted their lives!”
—(Some Answered Questions, page 137)


Best, :-)

Bruce

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Read Plato or Thomas Aquinas, or Martin Luther.The raw logic is impeccdable.

The gross ignorance and glaring irrelevance of this statement is remarkable.

Worse! Let's take a look at an example of Martin Luther's 'impeccable raw logic':

In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them." source

Next time, consider referencing people that you actually know something about.

[andys]

MoonWater
Well, no luck with the Quote feature, so I'll just number each quote (1-5) from your previous post.

1) "...I view 'supernatural' slightly different than you do. Supernatural basically means 'above nature' or 'beyond nature'. I personally do not see how anything could exist 'above nature'. In my mind if it exists it's natural. Thus if God exists he/she/it/them is natural not supernatural."

So you do not view the word "supernatural" differently from me. You understand its meaning perfectly, as "above/beyond nature". You simply deny god of this attribute in order to suit your position that "existence" is not consistent with being "supernatural". This viewpoint is easy for an atheist to grant, since the idea of a supernatural being lacks any evidence, to say the least. Nevertheless, the existence of your non-supernatural god is equally suspect, because you have not escaped the burden of proof.

2) "...so you think that just because a person is religious it means they have no sense of reason. That's a very broad (and very false) generalization your [you're] making. It's also a logical fallacy. Your [you're] assuming that what is true for some members of a group is true for every member of said group. Just because there are people who are religious who seem to lack reason doesn't mean every religious person has 'abandoned their precious faculty of reason' in favor of religion."

By no means does a generalization always constitute a fallacy. Indeed a generalization is what a scientific fact is all about. Made in haste, I grant, the fallacy is referred to as secundum quid (if I still remember my basic logic). Regardless, you misunderstood me. I did not say that if a person is religious it means they have no sense of reason. Here is exactly what I did say, "People who are otherwise rational human beings are curiously drawn to such transparent nonsense and reverently abandon their precious faculty of reason...". Notice the qualifier "otherwise"? So I am saying that in every other instance, religious people are (or appear to be) as rational as me (that's a compliment). But they abandon—as they must—this attribute in order to allow religion and its preposterous teachings to contaminate their otherwise normal-functioning brain. The unbelievable becomes believed.

3) "If it's unbelievable then people wouldn't be able to believe it. And if they believe in it how does it require suspension of disbelief? After all the person believes it, there wasn't any disbelief to begin with (unless of course one went from atheist to theist but even that wouldn't require a 'suspension' of disbelief... more like an "expulsion..."

You'd do well in Philosophy 101. I plead guilty for wording my point rhetorically. (In case you're interested, this fallacy is referred to as "petitio principii", which is the same fallacy that exposed Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum" as invalid.) So, I'll restate my assertion in a less Zen-like fashion: How can one believe the ridiculous? That is what I am saying.

4) "Again your [you're] making a very broad generalization and again committing the same logical fallacy as mentioned above. "

Again, a generalization is not always a fallacy.

5) "You made the claim that 'evidence is the fall of religion'. I merely asked you to support this statement by naming a religion that 'fell' because of presented evidence. Surely you can see that that is not the same as asking you to provide evidence that religion is wrong or God is non-existent."

Here you have it backwards (perhaps you misunderstood me). Remember that the burden of proof (evidence) always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion? So the inability of religion—every religion, past and present—to provide evidence is its downfall. The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by andys

Here you have it backwards (perhaps you misunderstood me). Remember that the burden of proof (evidence) always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion? So the inability of religion—every religion, past and present—to provide evidence is its downfall. The demand for evidence (even a shred) is the thorn in the side of religion, and this lack of evidence has always discredited religion and continues to expose it as vacuous.

Uhm, no. You're the one making the assertion. The assertion is that evidence is the downfall of religion. She's just asking you to back it up.

[andys]

Michel07/MoonWater...etc.
I believe you miss the point when you say, "I would point out that Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mengel [Mendel]...were men of logic and belief in God. They are not [mutually] exclusive."
(My insertions in brackets.)

You may have read in my recent posts that I agree with you. Yes, a person can be as logical as Mr. Spock AND be as religious as the Pope. There is no mutual exclusivity involved between reason and faith, as long as these old foes are applied at different times to different things. One can have faith in one's god one minute, and logically scrutinize an invalid argument the next minute.

But—and this is a big "BUT" (Ok, I have a big but, ha ha)—in order to be religious, faith is required. Faith is the absence of reason, therefore, they can not both be applied at the same time. This is not a put-down of faith. I have faith that my heart will keep ticking tomorrow, and almost as much faith that my trip to San Fransisco this July (in my gorgeous two-seater) will be full of adventure. Logic can't help me in such speculations.

My big quarrel is that in the case of religion, the faithful consider such claims as "God created the world" to be actual knowledge. But such claims are expressed in the absence of adequate evidence, or in direct contradiction to the evidence. Have I made myself a bit more clear?

Michel07, regarding the religious conviction of historical figures during the course of the Inquisition (1227 to 1834) it is not surprising that so many happened to be Christian. You are quite mistaken about Albert Einstein being religious, however. Keep in mind, he is the first genius who ever uttered a word without fear of persecution from the Church and its butchers.

In the words of Albert Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Quoted from Jennifer Michael Hecht, "Doubt: A History, p. 447

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by andys

Faith is the absence of reason, therefore, ...

Talk about muddying the water ...

[andys]

Storm/Jay
Storm: I have already explained to MoonWater, the statement "Evidence is the downfall of religion". I'll put it another way which may be more intelligible to you.

"Evidence is the enemy, nemesis, burden, nightmare, threat, etc. of religion."

Please will you understand that I do not mean evidence that I (or anyone else) can provide is religion's downfall; I mean evidence that religion must provide is its downfall, since it is incapable of providing it, yet it must to maintain any credibility.

I am educated in Logic and am fully aware that the onus of proof belongs to the person making the assertion. My assertion is that religion cannot provide any proof or evidence for any of its assertions. Therefore evidence (i.e., proof) is its "downfall" (i.e., "failure that results in a loss of position or reputation." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ition&ct=title)

Jay: If you require "the waters" to be clarified, don't be afraid to ask.

[Michel07]

Originally Posted by andys

Michel07/MoonWater...etc.
I believe you miss the point when you say, "I would point out that Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mengel [Mendel]...were men of logic and belief in God. They are not [mutually] exclusive."
(My insertions in brackets.)

You may have read in my recent posts that I agree you. Yes, a person can be as logical as Mr. Spock AND be as religious as the Pope. There is no mutual exclusivity involved between reason and faith, as long as these old foes are applied at different times to different things. One can have faith in one's god one minute, and logically scrutinize an invalid argument the next minute.

But—and this is a big "BUT" (Ok, I have a big but, ha ha)—in order to be religious, faith is required. Faith is the absence of reason, therefore, they can not both be applied at the same time. This is not a put-down of faith. I have faith that my heart will keep ticking tomorrow, and almost as much faith that my trip to San Fransisco this July (in my gorgeous two-seater) will be full of adventure. Logic can't help me in such speculations.

My big quarrel is that in the case of religion, the faithful consider such claims as "God created the world" to be actual knowledge. But such claims are expressed in the absence of adequate evidence, or in direct contradiction to the evidence. Have I made myself a bit more clear?

Michel07, regarding the religious conviction of historical figures during the course of the Inquisition (1227 to 1834) it is not surprising that so many happened to be Christian. You are quite mistaken about Albert Einstein being religious, however. Keep in mind, he is the first genius who ever uttered a word without fear of persecution from the Church and its butchers.

In the words of Albert Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Quoted from Jennifer Michael Hecht, "Doubt: A History, p. 447

Sorry but it is pretty common knowledge that Einstein leaned toward pantheism and had difficulty in the concept of a personal God but that did not make him an atheist as he also said" God did not shoot dice with the universe." Einstein was not a theologian though and his concept and your argument does not address the convictions of Newton , Mendel etc. some cosmologists and astronomers today.
It does boil down to interpretations of the burden of evidence for many . And what do you mean Eintein was the first to blah blah... that is utter nonsense.
It is scientists today who fear intellectual persecution from the fanatical element of atheists. What is your educational background because there are people like Owen Gingerich Pofessor Emeritus of the History of Science and Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Harvard U.who may not feel that they can prove it but who disagree with notions of atheism. And as far as faith is concerned you also need faith to believe that you are logical in the first place . You are asking me to accept your perception of your logic by faith as opposed to my beliefs. No argument there ,you lose hands down.And it isn't an arguement you could win in your lifetime. You may have faith in your "logig" but I certainly haven't and don't need to.