• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can religion be logical?

adthelad

Member
Can't help smiling at this post:
And I know that you are wrong. If what you say is a fact and not a belief, you should be able to prove that I am wrong and you are right. I am pretty positive you cannot prove that you have lived previous lives and haven't died when your body did, therefore you believe this.
OK - I'll prove it to you, as long as you prove to me that you're a human first. :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Believing in absurdities is not logical from a scientific basis, maybe to the believer it SEEMS logical.
So the determining factor is whether science has, to date, proven something to be true. If something is not true, it's because science hasn't proven it, but when science proves it, it suddenly becomes true. That's amazing. Science has apparently made quite a number of things become true over the years, hasn't it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Believing in absurdities is not logical from a scientific basis, ...
What a remarkable muddle you've managed to produce. One might even call it "self-referential".
  • Since when did 'absurdity' become a scientific category?
  • Since when did science claim to be a judge of ontologies?
The very best one might be able to coerce from your proclamation, once appropriately emended, is that believing in logical absurdities is not logical.

Thanks for sharing ... :)
 

logician

Well-Known Member
What a remarkable muddle you've managed to produce. One might even call it "self-referential".
  • Since when did 'absurdity' become a scientific category?
  • Since when did science claim to be a judge of ontologies?
The very best one might be able to coerce from your proclamation, once appropriately emended, is that believing in logical absurdities is not logical.

Thanks for sharing ... :)

WHere did I say absurdities were scientific categories?

Since when is the scientific method not logical?

Thanks for sharing.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Believing in absurdities is not logical from a scientific basis,
Yeah, it is. I think you need to school yourself in what the word "logical" means before you continue with this debate.

Jay said:
The very best one might be able to coerce from your proclamation, once appropriately emended, is that believing in logical absurdities is not logical.
Logic is illogical apparantly.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Yeah, it is. I think you need to school yourself in what the word "logical" means before you continue with this debate.


Logic is illogical apparantly.


Really, I majored in math in college and took several course in logic, maybe you're the one who needs the schoolin.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
In your previous post. That you don't know or understand what you said is interesting.

.
It seems you main purpose on these forums is to insult people, do you have personal problems we need to know about? Then again, don't tell us.
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
It brought an interesting topic up (which could not be debated there....) Can religion be logical? can you "choose" a religion and find the truth based on logic? I think it can. To me, If I cant find logic, I dont think its true!

I believe a religion especially its central doctrines had better be logical. At least within its own self it should be able to be logically followed and reasoned out, even for someone who does not accept the creed of said religion. I'll use Islam as an example of this. To anyone, whether they accept it or no, can follow the logically presented steps to get from one premise of the religion to the other. I have never heard anyone say to me that they could not accept Islam because they couldn't understand it. Its usually rejected for other reasons.

(NOTE: That previous was not meant to p-tize for Islam. I simply used my own religion so as not to talk about someone else's)

Any religion proclaiming itself as true shouldn't have to be grappled with logically. One should not have trouble understanding the basics of any religion. All that said, just because a religion can be followed logically on its own merits doesn't necessarily become true.

I hope that made sense.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Really, I majored in math in college and took several course in logic, maybe you're the one who needs the schoolin.

As a former HR professional with experience hiring hundreds of people, including high-level executives...let me be the first to tell you education is a poor indicator of performance.

I just thought your should know.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Then you will realise the error of your previous posts and amend/edit them. Feel free to bump the thread once you ahve done that. :)

There is no error in saying that believing in impossible events is illogical. Do you believe Jesus walked on water? Is this belief base upon logic or upon faith?
Thus the difference between relgion and science - science insists you cannot walk on water (unassisted), based upon the physics of water and your bouyancy. Religion says these properties don't matter and Jesus walked upon water - illogical, but based upon their faith.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
.
It seems you main purpose on these forums is to insult people, ...
Oh, my! :D
Appeals to ad hominem are hardly sufficient to mask the fact that your arguments are weak and often confused. And, yes, when you write "Believing in absurdities is not logical from a scientific basis" you are, indeed, claiming 'absurdity' as a scientifically defined/definable category.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
As a former HR professional with experience hiring hundreds of people, including high-level executives...let me be the first to tell you education is a poor indicator of performance.

I just thought your should know.

I would be the first to agree, most everything about programming I learned on the job.
 

Chevalier Violet

Active Member
I think your question betrays a misunderstanding of what logic is. And also, a misunderstanding of what religion is.

Please see this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50928

Religion isn't inherently logical or illogical. Logic as I understand it is a way of connecting axioms. Logic rests entirely on its axioms. So for instance if my axiom is that unicorns exist, and others about how they behave, I can make an entirely logical house of cards around the behavior patterns of unicorns. It's perfectly logical, unfortunately, unicorns don't exist, so it's all meaningless.

Your question boils down to one of two things: are the axioms of religion correct... I don't know. Are religions logically tight? Yeah, I tend to think so (again, you seem to be thinking of Judeo-Christian religions, or written religions, not religion as a whole. Aka science is technically a religion, according to the dictionary definition, and most people think of it as "logical" even though philosophers of science, on the other hand, do not.)

I think another thing you might mean is "is theism the best theory for understanding the universe?" The answer is I don't really know. My guess at this moment in time (subject to change in wind direction) is yes. Note this answer has very little to do with logic.

CV
 

Chevalier Violet

Active Member
I think your question betrays a misunderstanding of what logic is. And also, a misunderstanding of what religion is.

Please see this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50928

Religion isn't inherently logical or illogical. Logic as I understand it is a way of connecting axioms. Logic rests entirely on its axioms. So for instance if my axiom is that unicorns exist, and others about how they behave, I can make an entirely logical house of cards around the behavior patterns of unicorns. It's perfectly logical, unfortunately, unicorns don't exist, so it's all meaningless.

Your question boils down to one of two things: are the axioms of religion correct... I don't know. Are religions logically tight? Yeah, I tend to think so (again, you seem to be thinking of Judeo-Christian religions, or written religions, not religion as a whole. Aka science is technically a religion, according to the dictionary definition, and most people think of it as "logical" even though philosophers of science, on the other hand, do not.)

I think another thing you might mean is "is theism the best theory for understanding the universe?" The answer is I don't really know. My guess at this moment in time (subject to change in wind direction) is yes. Note this answer has very little to do with logic per se.

CV
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
**MOD POST**

Avoid making personal attacks in this thread. If you cannot avoid making personal attacks, get out of this thread now.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
I submit that the gospels are highly illogical from a historical perspective, many of the events portrayed in the gospels could not have happened historically for a number of reasons, particularly the events surrounding the crucifiction.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I submit that the gospels are highly illogical from a historical perspective, many of the events portrayed in the gospels could not have happened historically for a number of reasons, particularly the events surrounding the crucifiction.
What might "highly illogical from a historical perspective" mean, and what does this have to do with whether or not religion can be logical?
 
Top