Can religion be logical?

[Aqualung]

There is no error in saying that believing in impossible events is illogical.

Yes, there is. Review the difference between causal impossibility and logical impossibility (ie, illogical) and then get back to me.

Do you believe Jesus walked on water? Is this belief base upon logic or upon faith?

I addressed this in an eariler post. In fact, I think I addressed it to you. EVERYTHING is based on faith. There is not one thing you can think of that you don't take on faith. Logically, what you believe is sound. But you must necessarily take the first proposition on faith and faith alone.

 

[Aqualung]

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.

Please review the difference between causal possibility and logical possiblity.

 

[logician]

Yes, there is. Review the difference between causal impossibility and logical impossibility (ie, illogical) and then get back to me.


I addressed this in an eariler post. In fact, I think I addressed it to you. EVERYTHING is based on faith. There is not one thing you can think of that you don't take on faith. Logically, what you believe is sound. But you must necessarily take the first proposition on faith and faith alone.

From the dictionary:

"Logic: reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions:"

Your quote:

"Logically, what you believe is sound"

Untrue, logically what one believes can quite unsound and not follow a logical path, nor be a result of sound judgement.

 

[logician]

What might "highly illogical from a historical perspective" mean, and what does this have to do with whether or not religion can be logical?

What is the point of this question? Xianinty makes historical claims based upon unsound judgement, such that a Jewish man would claim to be a god, a blasephemy amng Jews. There are many olther such incidences where the stories don't match what could have ben possible at the time, because early Xian writers were trying to foist a lie upon us, and not a very logical one.

 

[Aqualung]

"Logically, what you believe is sound"

Untrue, logically what one believes can quite unsound and not follow a logical path, nor be a result of sound judgement.

Well, yeah, it's technically possible to believe illogical things, but I highly doubt you do. Actually, I can't think of one illogical thing that anybody believes in... Causually impossible, perhaps, but logically? No, I don't think so.

What is the point of this question? Xianinty makes historical claims based upon unsound judgement, such that a Jewish man would claim to be a god, a blasephemy amng Jews. There are many olther such incidences where the stories don't match what could have ben possible at the time, because early Xian writers were trying to foist a lie upon us, and not a very logical one.

No, again, you arguing cause, not logic. You are claiming it is causally impossible, not logically. The question wasn't, "Can religion be causally true?" but "Can religion be logical?". Look at what you wrote. You use words like "possible at the time". This indicates causal possibility, not logical possibiltiy. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES, not causal ones.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

From the dictionary:

"Logic: reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions:"

Your quote:

"Logically, what you believe is sound"

Untrue, logically what one believes can quite unsound and not follow a logical path, nor be a result of sound judgement.

By your definition, it was "illogical" to consult the dictionary for the meaning of logic, as that was not sound judgment on your part.

Next time, please consult wikipedia as dictionaries do not always give sound definitions of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

I can't say what the posters original intentions were, but if you ask me "is theism logical" and I believe you are asking me "does theism follow the laws of demonstration, and argumentation formal logic."

The answer is no. Then again, neither does philosophy, history, political science, sociology, mechanical physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry does to some extent but not really. The list goes on, but I won't.

Point is, nobody follows formal logic, except logicians.

As for the question, are religions self-coherent, the answer tends to be yes, about as much as science is and usually a bit more.

Is it wise to consider the Bible literally true in the face of evidence of evolution and the age of the earth? No, but this question has nothing to do with a judgment logic but more one of esthetic.

You're just going to keep talking in circles until you start listening to what logic really is...

And if the question is, "is it reasonable to believe in Christianity" the answer is:

YES! Not because Christianity is true, not because it accounts for everything, but because people just as reasonable and intelligent and prudent as any atheist do believe in Christianity. Therefore, it is reasonable.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

And you know another thing that bothers me about logic is this:

If you read something that you already agree with, you say, "why it's perfectly logical."

If you read something you don't already agree with, you say, "Oh this author isn't being logical."

It's so rare to read something that persuades a person to believe something they don't already. Even when an article on philosophy or religion or even mechanical physics persuades a person, it is not because it is objectively more "logical." It is usually just artfully written, uses better wording, clearer language and vivid metaphors etc.

Most people associate logic with "what I already believe" or "makes sense to me."


The truth is, nobody is logical. This post does not follow the laws of formal logic. That doesn't mean it "doesn't make sense" or "isn't true," or "isn't coherent" or "isn't sensical." Really, to say "it's not logical" in the sense of formal logic, means nothing at all. It could mean the person is contradicting themselves or arguing by fallacy, but most of the time, no it's just a communication problem.

Just like this entire thread.

CV

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it wise to consider the Bible literally true in the face of evidence of evolution and the age of the earth? No, but this question has nothing to do with a judgment logic but more one of esthetic.

It is 'unwise' to consider the Flood narrative literally true because of 'esthetics'? ... simply because it is less appealing?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

It is 'unwise' to consider the Flood narrative literally true because of 'esthetics'? ... simply because it is less appealing?

I know what you mean. Do we believe the earth revolve around the sun because of esthetics?

The answer, according to philosophers of science, is yes. Or rather, many Philosophers of Science (PoS) believe that the same processes of evaluation go into deciding whether or not we like a painting as go into whether or not we think a theory is "true" or "best."

Remember that according to PoS nobody makes decisions based on "all the evidence." Such a situation simply cannot happen, because "facts" are theory-laden, that is a fact rarely exists without a theory behind it.

I am most likely speaking Greek to you. If you don't understand what I'm saying, please start looking people up in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness is a good place to start.

CV

 

[rojse]

Not everything requires belief. Belief is the believing in something with the absence of certainty. If you know something, you have proof that you can examine and can repeatedly test, and you would know with certainty what happens in some situations.

If I throw a ball into the air, it will come back down. It will always do so because of gravity, and I cannot throw it hard enough to reach escape velocity. If I purchase a rocket with enough power, I can secure a ball to it and launch it into space. I can also test this whenever I wish, providing I have enough money to do so. I can examine physical laws to explain this phenomena. I can see satellites in the air, their positions explainable through gravity.

However, with God, how do I test his existence? How can I be certain that he is real? The only proof that you can really offer is the Bible. Is a book of ink on paper proof enough for his existence?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

The only proof of God is your own personal experience. If you have none, then there is no proof of God. If you meet God, then that will be some evidence, though admittedly not as much as we could like.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only proof of God is your own personal experience.

What qualifies as "proof"?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

What qualifies as "proof"?

Oops, I meant that as a quote from her, as in the only "proof of God."

I don't believe there is any "proof" the earth goes around the sun, much less of God. So of course, there is only evidence... in this case, evidence of the shaky persuasion

CV

 

[logician]

"Point is, nobody follows formal logic, except logicians."

I can definitely say you don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Point is, nobody follows formal logic, except logicians." I can definitely say you don't.

Perhaps, by way of example, you can demonstrate where you have done so.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

"Point is, nobody follows formal logic, except logicians."

I can definitely say you don't.

No, I don't. Neither do you. Neither does any religion. Or science. And that's ok.

If you disagree with philosophers of science and I, or what I'm saying doesn't make sense to you, well that's another matter. And that's ok with me. Let me know if you have any questions.

CV

 

[!Fluffy!]

Can religion be logical? can you "choose" a religion and find the truth based on logic?

No.

(DISCLAIMER: Only if the "choice" you speak of is preceded by personal revelation, as with Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.)

 

[lew0049]

"Point is, nobody follows formal logic, except logicians."

I can definitely say you don't.

Interesting that you have so much confidence in your posts - others might think ignorance. So tell the logic in making something out of nothing?

 

[Aqualung]

Not everything requires belief. Belief is the believing in something with the absence of certainty.

Exactly. And you can never be certain.

If I throw a ball into the air, it will come back down.

How do you know there even is a ball? Sure, you can make the following proposition.

There is a ball
There is gravity.
Gravity causes objects to come down.
If I throw the ball up, gravity will cause it to come down.

This syllogism only works if you take for granted there is a ball and there is gravity. How can you be certain you aren't imagining the ball? Or imagining the people that confirm the ball's existence to you? Or imagining that it comes down because your world view is based on gravity and your mind conscious mind cannot handle a lack of gravity so the subconcious mind creates it? It's the same for religion.

There is a God.
God is loving.
Loving beings care about their children.
We are God's children.
Therefore, God cares about us.

Again, this syllogism only works if we take for granted that there is a God etc., yet it is exactly as logical as the preceeding syllogism, and based on exactly the same amount of faith (which overcomes uncertainty).

 

[Comprehend]

No no, I meant the BS part didn't mean bull ****. I, for some reason, get that alot.

Fiance tried to do philosophy and she felt it was too hard... She's sticking with her psychology and english majors instead. I know it isn't a joke degree.

oh. I misunderstood. sorry.