Is religion logical

[arthra]

I am starting out on a general basis. Certainly one may argue about certain elements as to how logical they are but I am looking for whether it makes any sense for any kind of religious activity to exist. My beginning argument for it being logical is that religion is like tradition. A person fiinds something that works so it becomes something worth repeating. For instance the chant of "om" is believed to work as a way to enter into meditation.

If you've studied religion you likely know that there is a teaching involved in the various stories and parables in the various scriptures... The "logic" is in the various parables and stories.

 

[siti]

Deductively, we realize that society survives better when religious ethics are taken to be transcendental.

Intelligent agency may be deduced over chance, as the least improbable explanation

Where is the working to show that these "deductions" are anything more than unsatisfactorily reasoned opinions? If they are really deductions they should be based on unassailable axiomatic premises. What are these premises? And how do they lead to these conclusions as opposed to some alternative conclusion? If either or both of you can validate your claims by logical deduction then I might accept that religion is logical (in the sense that it is based on logically sound inference).

Otherwise, going back to the OP if this

A person fiinds something that works so it becomes something worth repeating.

is the basis for religion, then its foundation is utility not logic. I reckon a far better - but still not compelling - argument could made for that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am starting out on a general basis. Certainly one may argue about certain elements as to how logical they are but I am looking for whether it makes any sense for any kind of religious activity to exist.

My beginning argument for it being logical is that religion is like tradition. A person fiinds something that works so it becomes something worth repeating.

Fod instance the chant of "om" is believed to work as a way to enter into meditation.

All of the major world religions have a great deal to say about morality or ethics. These all encompass significant branches of higher education through law, psychology, and philosophy. Each field of study requires excellent skills in reasoning, logic, and communication to achieve success.

You have asked whether it makes sense for religious activity to exist. I believe so.

 

[ratiocinator]

Intelligent agency may be deduced over chance, as the least improbable explanation

So, you are saying that a super mega intelligence, capable of imagining a universe, with the ability to make one, and that then decides to do so, is somehow more probably than just the universe by itself?

Since the complexity of the universe is a subset of the complexity of the intelligence, the suggestion that the intelligence is more probable is absurd.

 

[sealchan]

I am starting out on a general basis. Certainly one may argue about certain elements as to how logical they are but I am looking for whether it makes any sense for any kind of religious activity to exist.

My beginning argument for it being logical is that religion is like tradition. A person fiinds something that works so it becomes something worth repeating.

Fod instance the chant of "om" is believed to work as a way to enter into meditation.

I would say there is an appreciation of rationality in religion but logic is a bit too technical a term. A religion as system of truth is constructed as a set of principles with varying rational basis but just as often an irrational, axiomatic basis. This basis claims facts in terms of specific experiential realities that just are and not deducted from some sort of principles of abstract thought.

Religions are also seen to be founded on trans-rational, mystical understandings of the deep mysteries of our collective experience. This is described in either mystical, paradoxical poetic language or through mythic, epic story.

Moral rationality, or what Jung might call a developed feeling function, is the emphasis in religion rather than a logical rationality supported by the thinking function.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, you are saying that a super mega intelligence, capable of imagining a universe, with the ability to make one, and that then decides to do so, is somehow more probably than just the universe by itself?

Since the complexity of the universe is a subset of the complexity of the intelligence, the suggestion that the intelligence is more probable is absurd.

By that rationale, it is also absurd to assume that the 4 royal flushes in a row were the result of cheating, since blind chance is a far 'simpler' explanation.

That's what made classical physics and Darwinism so appealing also, but reality, by necessity, does not obey Occam's preferences

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where is the working to show that these "deductions" are anything more than unsatisfactorily reasoned opinions? If they are really deductions they should be based on unassailable axiomatic premises. What are these premises? And how do they lead to these conclusions as opposed to some alternative conclusion? If either or both of you can validate your claims by logical deduction then I might accept that religion is logical (in the sense that it is based on logically sound inference).

Otherwise, going back to the OP if this is the basis for religion, then its foundation is utility not logic. I reckon a far better - but still not compelling - argument could made for that.

what premises and logic do you use to deduce that the gambler cheated, and was not dealt the 4 royal flushes in a row by chance?

 

[ratiocinator]

By that rationale, it is also absurd to assume that the 4 royal flushes in a row were the result of cheating, since blind chance is a far 'simpler' explanation.

You're missing the point. If you are arguing that the universe is improbable like 4 royal flushes in a row, then your proposed solution, an intelligence, is like a 1000 royal flushes in a row. So how do you explain that...?

 

[Cephus]

You're missing the point. If you are arguing that the universe is improbable like 4 royal flushes in a row, then your proposed solution, an intelligence, is like a 1000 royal flushes in a row. So how do you explain that...?

They don't, they just blindly believe.

 

[shmogie]

You're missing the point. If you are arguing that the universe is improbable like 4 royal flushes in a row, then your proposed solution, an intelligence, is like a 1000 royal flushes in a row. So how do you explain that...?

There are actual statistical models, created by statisticians, physicists, biochemists, and biologists who are objective, most atheists. These models show that the universe creating itself from nothing, arranging itself so that a perfect environment for carbon based life existed, then provided the chemicals perfectly adapted to create a living cell, properly programmed to read a genetic code created by natural processes before the cell existed, all random, all by chance, done totally blind, is about as likely as drawing a royal flush a million times in a row. Or about one chance in ten to the 70th power. So, it didn't happen by self creation and blind chance. These same people are trying to find a law that compels these things to exist, good luck to that they haven't and won't. So you are left with two options as far as I can see. 1) duh, I don;t know or 2) a specific design was implemented to create the universe and life within it. It was implemented by the ability to bring all this about, from nothing. The odds of this happening are 1 in 2, either it did, or didn't. Actually the odds for intelligent design and a creator expand exponentially as the odds for any other possibility gets higher. DNA and more specifically the reams and reams of information embedded in it, all perfectly arranged, is really the death knell of abiogenesis. Where did the information come from before there was an organism

 

[ratiocinator]

There are actual statistical models, created by statisticians, physicists, biochemists, and biologists who are objective, most atheists. These models show that the universe creating itself from nothing... all by chance, done totally blind, is about as likely as drawing a royal flush a million times in a row.

Anybody who claims they have calculated the probability of the universe creating itself from nothing is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It's a ridiculous claim.

Perhaps you could cite a source, so I can see what they actually said...?

Or about one chance in ten to the 70th power. So, it didn't happen by self creation and blind chance.

Interestingly, every time you shuffle a pack of cards, you create an arrangement with a probability of one in 8 times ten to 67th power....

So you are left with two options as far as I can see. 1) duh, I don;t know...

What is so terrible about not knowing - it's actually the only rational response in the absences of enough evidence or reasoning to draw a conclusion.

...or 2) a specific design was implemented to create the universe and life within it. It was implemented by the ability to bring all this about, from nothing. The odds of this happening are 1 in 2, either it did, or didn't.

But hang on! What about the probability that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? That must have a probability of 1 in 2 too - it either was or it wasn't. Oh, but wait! By the same 'logic' the universe creating itself from nothing must have a 1 in 2 probability as well...

Actually the odds for intelligent design and a creator expand exponentially as the odds for any other possibility gets higher...

But you've neglected the odds of this intelligence just happening to magic itself out of nothing and become so intelligent - learning how to create universes and all that stuff. It must be far more complicated than its creation, after all.

Well, you gave me a laugh, anyway...

 

[shunyadragon]

Thar's what some people think, others don't

True, but based on history it is a possibility.

 

[minorwork]

I am starting out on a general basis. Certainly one may argue about certain elements as to how logical they are but I am looking for whether it makes any sense for any kind of religious activity to exist.

My beginning argument for it being logical is that religion is like tradition. A person finds something that works so it becomes something worth repeating.

For instance, the chant of "om" is believed to work as a way to enter into meditation.

Might consider the function of religion. Religion functions to give its followers comfort and self-assurance in their innate superiority, but science (when properly understood) can only make one uncomfortable and doubtful about knowing anything for certain.

The self-esteem of certain knowledge is bolstered by religions' calls to faith while denigrating reason. Reason is harder than simple blind faith but the priestcraft consistently grants their followers dispensation of superiority over atheists and other religions. Religion is about comfort and self-assurance of innate superiority.

 

[j76]

I am starting out on a general basis. Certainly one may argue about certain elements as to how logical they are but I am looking for whether it makes any sense for any kind of religious activity to exist.

My beginning argument for it being logical is that religion is like tradition. A person fiinds something that works so it becomes something worth repeating.

Fod instance the chant of "om" is believed to work as a way to enter into meditation.

To make some inroads on your question, let us consider Method and the Resurrection Appearances in Christianity as an example:

Historians try to establish what “probably” happened in the past. An historian would never claim a miracle “probably happened,” because a miracle is the “most improbable” thing that could happen, by definition. Only an apologist would fallaciously try to establish the historicity of a miracle, because sound historical reasoning rules out the “miraculous explanation” a priori.

Take this example: The pre Pauline Corinthian Creed claims something like the idea that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas and the Twelve three days after Jesus died. This creed is very early and so the story may not be the result of legendary embellishment. So what happened? (a) Maybe the disciples were hallucinating out of grief. (b) Maybe Cephas and the twelve were inventing stories of the risen Jesus in hopes of lending divine clout to, and carrying on, Jesus’ ethical mandate of loving your neighbor and your enemy – an ethical cause they may have been willing to die for (like Socrates). Whatever the case, any reasonable secular explanation is historically preferable to a miraculous one.

In his debate with William Lane Craig, Bart Ehrman points out that even if we don’t accept a particular mundane explanation, it is still more probable than the miraculous explanation. In fact, for instance, in the case of an apparent miracle, even if we don’t know of any Aliens having cloaked ships and transporters that are doing “apparent” miracles on our planet (like in Star Trek: The Next Generation – Devil’s Due), this naturalistic explanation is still a more reasonable explanation than a secular historian claiming a miracle happened:

If anyone is interested, I explain this a little more fully in a blog post (along with the reader comments) here:

Palpatine's Way

 

[siti]

what premises and logic do you use to deduce that the gambler cheated, and was not dealt the 4 royal flushes in a row by chance?

So (as usual) it seems that you have no clear idea why you believe what you claim to have deduced. Your argument from analogy (which is never a deductive argument but at best an inductive - and therefore falsifiable - one) is fallacious in any case - obviously so - unless you are equating your Intelligent Designer with a dishonest gambler who isn't even - in your own assessment - intelligent enough to hide the fact that he cheated since you suggest that his interference in nature is so obvious that you need not even bother to present any evidence for it.

Ockham's Razor (like analogy) can never lead to a deduction, only an abduction (best guess). In fact, Ockham's Razor really says that we should not add more complexity to an explanation than is necessary to explain the facts. Your "Intelligent Designer" hypothesis is exactly like the "multiverse" hypothesis in that respect, both add enormous supernatural (and therefore unverifiable) ad hoc complexity to explain something that evolution (biological and cosmological) explains naturally and without adding any complexity above the complexity that is actually observed in nature. From this, we can abduce (not deduce) that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not necessary to explain the biological diversity we observe. Of course this is not proof that an Intelligent Designer does not exist. Butit definitely complies with Ockham's rule of thumb: Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate (plurality is never to posited without necessity).

The ball is in your court now to show that the ad hoc complexity of a deliberate and intelligent agent is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation of biological diversity.

 

[shmogie]

True, but based on history it is a possibility.

Anybody who claims they have calculated the probability of the universe creating itself from nothing is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It's a ridiculous claim.

Perhaps you could cite a source, so I can see what they actually said...?


Interestingly, every time you shuffle a pack of cards, you create an arrangement with a probability of one in 8 times ten to 67th power....


What is so terrible about not knowing - it's actually the only rational response in the absences of enough evidence or reasoning to draw a conclusion.


But hang on! What about the probability that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? That must have a probability of 1 in 2 too - it either was or it wasn't. Oh, but wait! By the same 'logic' the universe creating itself from nothing must have a 1 in 2 probability as well...


But you've neglected the odds of this intelligence just happening to magic itself out of nothing and become so intelligent - learning how to create universes and all that stuff. It must be far more complicated than its creation, after all.

Well, you gave me a laugh, anyway...[/QUOTE Sources, Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician, astronomer, atheist, Dr. Robert Jastrow, atheist

Anybody who claims they have calculated the probability of the universe creating itself from nothing is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It's a ridiculous claim.

Perhaps you could cite a source, so I can see what they actually said...?


Interestingly, every time you shuffle a pack of cards, you create an arrangement with a probability of one in 8 times ten to 67th power....


What is so terrible about not knowing - it's actually the only rational response in the absences of enough evidence or reasoning to draw a conclusion.


But hang on! What about the probability that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? That must have a probability of 1 in 2 too - it either was or it wasn't. Oh, but wait! By the same 'logic' the universe creating itself from nothing must have a 1 in 2 probability as well...


But you've neglected the odds of this intelligence just happening to magic itself out of nothing and become so intelligent - learning how to create universes and all that stuff. It must be far more complicated than its creation, after all.

Well, you gave me a laugh, anyway...

I am afraid the laugh is on you as it usually is with people who, out of ignorance, try and appear informed, allow me to inform you. I'll take your last observation, first. It is known, from slightly after the big bang, (millisecond or less) nothing is known before then (singularity) the events or conditions that would have had to occur, purely by chance, to bring the universe to it's current state. Each of these events or conditions can be singularly viewed as a probability, and can cumulatively be viewed as a completed chain and the probability of this chain being perfectly created as well. If you have taken a probability course, you know this. Now, the process requires the knowledge of the processes, the materials, their likelihood of occurring by chance. Science knows these in physics,cosmology, chemistry and biology, the odds can be figured. Now, to your comments re God and probability related to Him. This is where you slip from just ignorance, to wackiness. You are a product and resident of this universe. No one can know or will know what exists outside the universe. This is why it is said the universe came from a singularity that existed before the universe. Singularity is cosmology speak for "we don't know".God exists outside of the universe you know nothing about him but what he has revealed, so your probability cute question can be asked, but can never be answered. Science is abandoning the chance model more and more because.it is impossible,it's strongest advocates seem to be those who are poorly informed

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So (as usual) it seems that you have no clear idea why you believe what you claim to have deduced. Your argument from analogy (which is never a deductive argument but at best an inductive - and therefore falsifiable - one) is fallacious in any case - obviously so - unless you are equating your Intelligent Designer with a dishonest gambler who isn't even - in your own assessment - intelligent enough to hide the fact that he cheated since you suggest that his interference in nature is so obvious that you need not even bother to present any evidence for it.

The analogy is fallacious, because it utterly grants you a 100% fully functional random generator, fully capable of producing that particular result-. Something we simply don't have for the universe.

It also presents a scenario where any involvement by an intelligent agent is strictly guarded against. We know of no such inter-cosmological security force preventing intelligent design of universes.

So it's heavily biased towards chance, yet we still deduce intelligent agency.

Because cheating for money is the hypothetical motive that provides the superior power of explanation. For the rocks on the beach spelling 'HELP', the motive is self preservation.

For God, you tell me, what is the greatest motivation for anything, greater than money or life itself? and hence the greatest power of explanation in this case

The ball is in your court now to show that the ad hoc complexity of a deliberate and intelligent agent is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation of biological diversity.

You can, and ultimately must, show this to yourself, it is the same reason that a deliberate and intelligent agent is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for this forum software

It's limited capacity for dynamic adaptation, is not an explanation for that very capacity, , far less authoring entirely new software applications- far less still the operating systems underwriting them- that's an insurmountable logical paradox. The cold hard math has no philosophical preference re. chance v design, it simply requires design

 

[shmogie]

The analogy is fallacious, because it utterly grants you a 100% fully functional random generator, fully capable of producing that particular result-. Something we simply don't have for the universe.

It also presents a scenario where any involvement by an intelligent agent is strictly guarded against. We know of no such inter-cosmological security force preventing intelligent design of universes.

So it's heavily biased towards chance, yet we still deduce intelligent agency.

Because cheating for money is the hypothetical motive that provides the superior power of explanation. For the rocks on the beach spelling 'HELP', the motive is self preservation.

For God, you tell me, what is the greatest motivation for anything, greater than money or life itself? and hence the greatest power of explanation in this case





You can, and ultimately must, show this to yourself, it is the same reason that a deliberate and intelligent agent is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for this forum software

It's limited capacity for dynamic adaptation, is not an explanation for that very capacity, , far less authoring entirely new software applications- far less still the operating systems underwriting them- that's an insurmountable logical paradox. The cold hard math has no philosophical preference re. chance v design, it simply requires design

The analogy is fallacious, because it utterly grants you a 100% fully functional random generator, fully capable of producing that particular result-. Something we simply don't have for the universe.

It also presents a scenario where any involvement by an intelligent agent is strictly guarded against. We know of no such inter-cosmological security force preventing intelligent design of universes.

So it's heavily biased towards chance, yet we still deduce intelligent agency.

Because cheating for money is the hypothetical motive that provides the superior power of explanation. For the rocks on the beach spelling 'HELP', the motive is self preservation.

For God, you tell me, what is the greatest motivation for anything, greater than money or life itself? and hence the greatest power of explanation in this case





You can, and ultimately must, show this to yourself, it is the same reason that a deliberate and intelligent agent is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for this forum software

It's limited capacity for dynamic adaptation, is not an explanation for that very capacity, , far less authoring entirely new software applications- far less still the operating systems underwriting them- that's an insurmountable logical paradox. The cold hard math has no philosophical preference re. chance v design, it simply requires design

Not my conversation, put a point, in the theory of abiogenesis, Volumes of information (software) had to come about from non living chemicals, in the absolute perfect order for hundreds upon hundreds of information bits, for an organism that didn't exist. This huge program had to be coded in such a manner as to be perfectly compatible with the operating system of the organism that couldn't exist before the program was run. The chances that this was all accomplished in a perfect chance environment ? Go figure. This is EVIDENCE of intelligent design, or the impossible, take your pick

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not my conversation, put a point, in the theory of abiogenesis, Volumes of information (software) had to come about from non living chemicals, in the absolute perfect order for hundreds upon hundreds of information bits, for an organism that didn't exist. This huge program had to be coded in such a manner as to be perfectly compatible with the operating system of the organism that couldn't exist before the program was run. The chances that this was all accomplished in a perfect chance environment ? Go figure. This is EVIDENCE of intelligent design, or the impossible, take your pick

-everybody's conversation, and I have enough people disagreeing already!

That's exactly why some at the cutting edge of this science are following ID as a more productive line of investigation. Including one of the founders of the 'chemical evolution' theory

DNA is like software, but far far more complex- to paraphrase Bill Gates, and information systems controlling software, physics and life, cannot be authored by the same functions that are supported by them

We know better now from 21st C information systems, it simply doesn't work that way, everything was developed according to specific instructions, blueprints to follow- one can still argue, as they do for physics, that all these instructions were randomly generated by an infinite probability machine-(multiverse) ... okay.. but the instructions are needed either way to progress past this Victorian model of reality

 

[siti]

The analogy is fallacious

It is, and from the rest of your post you still have nothing else - just analogy - no logical deduction, no axioms, no premises at all, no necessary conclusions, just loose analogies.