Is religion logical

[shmogie]

My apologies, I took the "winds it every couple of days" as part of your analogy of God's work in relation to the universe. But if you meant he just wound it up once and then watched it go, then that's equivalent to a deistic view of creation. I'm wondering though how you can doubt the evolutionary origin of species and yet hold that God does not intervene, at least occasionally. Presumably you accept that different species have appeared on earth at different times.

First, species is a classification that I find a little difficult depending upon who is defining it. Type works better for me, i.e. chihuahua's and great danes are the same type, dogs. I believe all basic types were created by God, and through time many variations occurred in the specific types. Dogs were originally wolves, and by man in this case not the environment, many different variations occurred, but they are still the same type as the wolf. Yes, of course many types have become extinct, and new variations have arisen, but the evidence for one species or type morphing into another is tenuous to say the least. Where are the skeletons and fossils of those creatures who lived and died as link creatures ? They should be found everywhere, they are not. There don't seem to be any of them alive today, and you would think that there would be. When I was an evolutionist/atheist I fantasized about seeing a creature who had lived underwater, stepping on to land for the first time. Of course in my surfing trips to the beach I never saw it, and I don't think any human ever did. Shouldn't it still be happening ? I want to commend you for your polite civil tone in these exchanges. Sometimes folk get so exasperated by what others believe that they become sarcastic and uncivil. People with radically different belief structures can communicate with respect, thank you for doing so !

 

[siti]

First, species is a classification that I find a little difficult depending upon who is defining it. Type works better for me, i.e. chihuahua's and great danes are the same type, dogs. I believe all basic types were created by God, and through time many variations occurred in the specific types. Dogs were originally wolves, and by man in this case not the environment, many different variations occurred, but they are still the same type as the wolf. Yes, of course many types have become extinct, and new variations have arisen, but the evidence for one species or type morphing into another is tenuous to say the least. Where are the skeletons and fossils of those creatures who lived and died as link creatures ? They should be found everywhere, they are not. There don't seem to be any of them alive today, and you would think that there would be. When I was an evolutionist/atheist I fantasized about seeing a creature who had lived underwater, stepping on to land for the first time. Of course in my surfing trips to the beach I never saw it, and I don't think any human ever did. Shouldn't it still be happening ? I want to commend you for your polite civil tone in these exchanges. Sometimes folk get so exasperated by what others believe that they become sarcastic and uncivil. People with radically different belief structures can communicate with respect, thank you for doing so !

Thanks for the kind words - however, I have occasionally been given to outbursts of exasperation and sarcasm - especially about the denial of evolution - so I'm not sure I deserve it.

In this discussion though, I really want to try to understand how the emergence of all the different "types" could happen at different points in time if each type were specifically designed by God. And if they did indeed emerge as God's specific creations but at different times, how is this not divine intervention of the same watch-winding variety that Newton thought was necessary to keep the stars and planets in their proper places? (Not being rude - just pointing out that whilst we might not have a perfect scientific explanation of exactly how evolution proceeded at every step, we might be on slippery ground assuming divine machinations just because we lack certain knowledge).

Incidentally, all the different breeds of domestic dog are indeed considered to be one species, with taxonomical classification of either canis familiaris or canis lupus familiaris - canis lupus being the designation for the gray wolf which is (one of) the non-domesticated descendant of the species thought to be the common ancestor of both domestic dogs and wild wolves that exist today (though there is emerging evidence that the evolutionary lineage of the domestic dog is not that clear cut after all). In any case, when man and dog became best friends, in evolutionary terms, they each became a very significant, perhaps the most significant 'other' part (apart from their own species), of the others environment, the proximity of each contributing to the evolutionary success of the other. Their barking might annoy us when it wakes us up in the night, but its entirely possible IMO that the dog's acuity of hearing and territorial nature might have been the very thing that made the human environment secure enough to permit campfire philosophizing to begin. In evolutionary terms, it might even be truer, to some extent, to suggest that 'dog made man' then it is to suggest that 'God made man'. Again, not being rude or sarcastic, just pointing out the implications of an undeniable evolutionary relationship between dog and man that long predates any evidence of the human notion of an Almighty Creator.

 

[ratiocinator]

There are a series of fundamental laws to follow in applying logic, that have been known since ancient Greece. There is a process using these rules to determine what is logical. Logic has been corrupted to mean " if I don't like it, or if I disagree, it isn't logical". Applying these laws to Christianity ALWAYS proves it to be logical.

I know what logic is but you have yet to actually demonstrate its applicability to Christianity. How have you applied these laws to Christianity?

 

[shmogie]

Thanks for the kind words - however, I have occasionally been given to outbursts of exasperation and sarcasm - especially about the denial of evolution - so I'm not sure I deserve it.

In this discussion though, I really want to try to understand how the emergence of all the different "types" could happen at different points in time if each type were specifically designed by God. And if they did indeed emerge as God's specific creations but at different times, how is this not divine intervention of the same watch-winding variety that Newton thought was necessary to keep the stars and planets in their proper places? (Not being rude - just pointing out that whilst we might not have a perfect scientific explanation of exactly how evolution proceeded at every step, we might be on slippery ground assuming divine machinations just because we lack certain knowledge).

Incidentally, all the different breeds of domestic dog are indeed considered to be one species, with taxonomical classification of either canis familiaris or canis lupus familiaris - canis lupus being the designation for the gray wolf which is (one of) the non-domesticated descendant of the species thought to be the common ancestor of both domestic dogs and wild wolves that exist today (though there is emerging evidence that the evolutionary lineage of the domestic dog is not that clear cut after all). In any case, when man and dog became best friends, in evolutionary terms, they each became a very significant, perhaps the most significant 'other' part (apart from their own species), of the others environment, the proximity of each contributing to the evolutionary success of the other. Their barking might annoy us when it wakes us up in the night, but its entirely possible IMO that the dog's acuity of hearing and territorial nature might have been the very thing that made the human environment secure enough to permit campfire philosophizing to begin. In evolutionary terms, it might even be truer, to some extent, to suggest that 'dog made man' then it is to suggest that 'God made man'. Again, not being rude or sarcastic, just pointing out the implications of an undeniable evolutionary relationship between dog and man that long predates any evidence of the human notion of an Almighty Creator.

Can dogs and and wolves interbreed and have unsterile offspring ? Yes. So they are the same type regardless of the arbitrary Latin species name given to them. Did types of creatures arise at different times ? I am not so sure. To view the domestication of dogs as an evolutionary process seems to me to be quite a stretch. As I understand the theory organisms are changed by chance mutations that fit them better to survive the environment. This continual adaption along with "survival of the fittest" which stabilizes the changes, leads to a string of organisms morphing from one animal or plant to another through all the classifications of life we use. I guess you could stretch the adaption for the dog to humans and vice versa as a symbiotic relationship that evolved

 

[siti]

Can dogs and and wolves interbreed and have unsterile offspring ? Yes. So they are the same type regardless of the arbitrary Latin species name given to them. Did types of creatures arise at different times ? I am not so sure. To view the domestication of dogs as an evolutionary process seems to me to be quite a stretch. As I understand the theory organisms are changed by chance mutations that fit them better to survive the environment. This continual adaption along with "survival of the fittest" which stabilizes the changes, leads to a string of organisms morphing from one animal or plant to another through all the classifications of life we use. I guess you could stretch the adaption for the dog to humans and vice versa as a symbiotic relationship that evolved

Every relationship between organisms of different species is symbiotic to a greater or lesser (positive or negative) degree. I know that's not the dictionary or textbook definition, but its an obvious fact if we observe what really happens in, say, our gardens. When I move around pulling out weeds and trimming branches I enter into a symbiotic process with every living thing connected to them - I might think I am controlling their environment (to some extent), but the weeds and trees are definitely influencing mine - and my decisions. We like to think that our ancestors took control of a few species of grass about 10-15 thousand years ago and changed the entire face of the globe as well as the course of human destiny - and this is true. But there is also no question that wheat, rice and corn have benefited enormously in evolutionary terms - so if we look at at it form their point of view - in evolutionary terms - who is 'exploiting' who? And you might think its silly to suggest that such an intelligent species as humans could be a exploited by mere 'herbs of the field' - and yet nothing has occupied humanities efforts more for the last 10,000 years than the effort to ensure the widest possible distribution and biological success of these few species of grass.

So what does all this have to do with the 'logic' of religion. The problem, as I see it, is that the standard conceptions of the Creator God that also deny evolution, also necessarily deny the truth of what I just said - how can you see the relationship between man and dog or, more importantly, man and wheat or corn, as part of a much larger evolutionary struggle if you deny the idea of evolution? And the danger is that we then take our role as God's premier earthly creation at face value, imagining that God has 'done all things well' so that there is no danger of that symbiotic relationship varying from mutualism to parasitism with disastrous consequences.

Religion, as far as I can see, gives us no genuine sense of the precariousness of our existence as a species. I wish it did - because such a religion could be a potent force for environmental responsibility - but as long as we have religions that guarantee a blissful hereafter based on faith in 'God given dominion' rather than genuinely responsible 'stewardship' - I don't really see religion as a 'logical' protector of our species' future.

 

[Equilibrium]

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.

If it works for you, and you're not harming anyone in the process (including yourself), it does not matter whether it is "logical" or not. Human beings, naturally, are not logical or rational. We may have "rational" explanations for the phenomenons around and within us, but we're by no means logical and rational beings. Our minds are very fallible, after all.

 

[Muffled]

If it works for you, and you're not harming anyone in the process (including yourself), it does not matter whether it is "logical" or not. Human beings, naturally, are not logical or rational. We may have "rational" explanations for the phenomenons around and within us, but we're by no means logical and rational beings. Our minds are very fallible, after all.

Welcome to RF.

I believe a little irrationality never hurt anyone. For instance I knock on wood to keep something I said that was bad from happening or to hope that something good will happen. I can't imagine it has any effect at all.

However I prefer my religion to be rational since it can intimately affect my life.

 

[Muffled]

You believe that the Bible is an authority on the subject. More precisely that you are an authority on what it means and it is an authority on God.
I see no reason to believe any of that. I consider the Bible an ancient docudrama created by primitive human beings. One that contains many illogical and unsupported claims. Basing your assertions on your interpretation of that doesn't give me any reason to accept your authority to speak for God.
Tom

I believe that makes sense. I don't believe it makes sense that people would make up stories and then present them as fact.

I believe the argument that something is old so it isn't as reliable has often been proven wrong. They put on their sandals the same way we do.

I would be willing to consider that on a piece by piece basis. If one is referring to the lack of logic in worshiping gods of wood and stone I certainly would agree.

I don't believe there is any way you could ascertain my authority. Only another person such as I would be able to confirm or deny it. I believe that my experience is not unique.

 

[Muffled]

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then this is only logical if you assume god is also perverse, unfair or uncaring (in some combination).

• An omnipotent, omniscient god would be responsible for everything including sin.
• An omnipotent god could remove sin in an instant.
• If sinning was a genuine choice for humans, there wouldn't be 100% failure rate and at least some of us wouldn't need a saviour.
• Substitute punishment is unjust.
• The criterion for being 'saved' and going to Paradise seems to be believing this bizarre tale without a shred of evidence or logical reasoning - which is perverse and unjust.

I don't know what you base this conclusion on. I know there is a saying that power corrupts but how would that work with a being that is perfectly good. I believe He can't be corrupted by power. Certainly you aren't going to say that knowing something causes it to happen are you?

I believe He plans to do just that but that will be detrimental to those who love sin. God loves those people also.

 

[Equilibrium]

Welcome to RF.

I believe a little irrationality never hurt anyone. For instance I knock on wood to keep something I said that was bad from happening or to hope that something good will happen. I can't imagine it has any effect at all.

However I prefer my religion to be rational since it can intimately affect my life.

Thank you.

And, I share the same sentiment as you about religion. I, too, prefer it to be rational, but it doesn't have to be anything that's backed up by hard scientific evidence. It's a matter of philosophy, experience/my subjective universe. I've thought long and hard, and came up with a solid argument, and a set of reasons as to why I've embarked on the path I have, and why it is the best one for me.

 

[shmogie]

Every relationship between organisms of different species is symbiotic to a greater or lesser (positive or negative) degree. I know that's not the dictionary or textbook definition, but its an obvious fact if we observe what really happens in, say, our gardens. When I move around pulling out weeds and trimming branches I enter into a symbiotic process with every living thing connected to them - I might think I am controlling their environment (to some extent), but the weeds and trees are definitely influencing mine - and my decisions. We like to think that our ancestors took control of a few species of grass about 10-15 thousand years ago and changed the entire face of the globe as well as the course of human destiny - and this is true. But there is also no question that wheat, rice and corn have benefited enormously in evolutionary terms - so if we look at at it form their point of view - in evolutionary terms - who is 'exploiting' who? And you might think its silly to suggest that such an intelligent species as humans could be a exploited by mere 'herbs of the field' - and yet nothing has occupied humanities efforts more for the last 10,000 years than the effort to ensure the widest possible distribution and biological success of these few species of grass.
You seem to attribute some mystical quality to living things, tgey don't tgink, thwey just are
So what does all this have to do with the 'logic' of religion. The problem, as I see it, is that the standard conceptions of the Creator God that also deny evolution, also necessarily deny the truth of what I just said - how can you see the relationship between man and dog or, more importantly, man and wheat or corn, as part of a much larger evolutionary struggle if you deny the idea of evolution? And the danger is that we then take our role as God's premier earthly creation at face value, imagining that God has 'done all things well' so that there is no danger of that symbiotic relationship varying from mutualism to parasitism with disastrous consequences.

Religion, as far as I can see, gives us no genuine sense of the precariousness of our existence as a species. I wish it did - because such a religion could be a potent force for environmental responsibility - but as long as we have religions that guarantee a blissful hereafter based on faith in 'God given dominion' rather than genuinely responsible 'stewardship' - I don't really see religion as a 'logical' protector of our species' future.

You seem to attribute a little reasoning ability and the ability to choose manipulate to other living things, They just are. One of the premiere premises of Christianity is that the reality we see is not what was originally intended by the Creator. Whether it be a viscious human murder, or climate change killing droves of animals, or poison gas attacks and military responses, this is a world totally out of balance. The ideas of humanism never come to fruition, it simply seems to get worse on all fronts, more species going extinct, more people starving, burning people alive in cages becomes a norm, drinking water contaminated by drugs, the list is endless. If this is the end product of evolution, it appears to have failed. The Bible itself speaks of "those who have destroyed the earth" in a most condemnatory manner. So called "pie in the sky" at some point in time does not absolve the Christian of being respectful and attentive to what God has created. In fact, the opposite is true. We Christians are fully aware of our human shortcomings and are prepared to own up to them and face them, or at least should be. "The earth is the Lords and all things in it". Thus, until He finally brings it all back into balance, we have a sacred responsibility to protect his greatest possession, Life where ever it exists. You and I, I think, can agree on that.

 

[Equilibrium]

You seem to...

What would you consider a balanced world?

 

[siti]

we have a sacred responsibility to protect his greatest possession, Life where ever it exists. You and I, I think, can agree on that.

Amen! And if that were what religion taught, I would defend it to my last breath.

PS - evolution always 'fails' in the end if you are looking at it from a particular species' point of view - however, overall evolution will triumph in the very 'sacred responsibility' we agree on - life will indeed be 'protected' - whether that life includes the human variety for very much longer is - at least partly - in our own hands.

 

[shmogie]

I know what logic is but you have yet to actually demonstrate its applicability to Christianity. How have you applied these laws to Christianity?

First, by the use of logic, you cannot prove something doesn't exist, for by using the rules of logic you acknowledge it does exist. The purpose of logic is to determine if something is true. However you just can't apply the rules to a generalized statement like, "is there a God", you must address the issue in a series of propositions, usually syllogisms like this very simple one, Nothing cannot create anything ( is that true ?) if yes, The universe was created ( is that true ?) if yes, then logic declares therefore " nothing could not have created the universe" The laws include the law of identity, is A=A ? Something is what it is. The law of the excluded middle, something is either true or false, it cannot be anything else The law of non- contradiction, something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. There are others. I do not have the time or inclination to go through all the propositions that prove Christianity logical. Much material is available for you to learn of them

 

[Pudding]

Is religion logical?

logical:
adjective
1 - Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.
1.1 - Characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
1.2 - (of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances.

Which one of definitions from above fit with your use for your question?

If you do not agree with the definitions above, please share your definition here.

Please specify which religion you're refering to in your question.

Also your question is "is religion logical", the religion is logical to all people or to some people? The religion is logical to whose perpective are you asking?

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.

You somehow give me an impression what you mean is that:
(1) If a person finds a specific religion works for him, as a result the religion becomes something worth repeating for him.
(2) Because the religion is something which worth repeating for him, therefor it is logical for him to follow the religion.
(3) Because the religion is logical for him to follow, therefor it makes sense for the religion and its religious activity to exist.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Depends upon tautology attributed to a givin religion.

If contradiction is present and cannot be reconciled, that religion is not logical.

 

[VioletVortex]

I think that there are logical aspects of theism, but the same could be said for atheism. For theism, the logic lies in our very existence, sentience, and especially one's intuition. For atheism, it can be argued that with inconclusive information, one should remain with the "default". But who's to say that theism isn't the default? It varies from person to person. Others are more spiritually inclined than others, possibly due to an evolutionary removal of spiritual capabilities due to things like GPS systems etc. Trust your intuition, that's logical.

 

[Muffled]

Is religion logical?

logical:
adjective
1 - Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.
1.1 - Characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
1.2 - (of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances.

Which one of definitions from above fit with your use for your question?

If you do not agree with the definitions above, please share your definition here.

Please specify which religion you're refering to in your question.

Also your question is "is religion logical", the religion is logical to all people or to some people? The religion is logical to whose perpective are you asking?

You somehow give me an impression what you mean is that:
(1) If a person finds a specific religion works for him, as a result the religion becomes something worth repeating for him.
(2) Because the religion is something which worth repeating for him, therefor it is logical for him to follow the religion.
(3) Because the religion is logical for him to follow, therefor it makes sense for the religion and its religious activity to exist.

Is that what you mean?

I believe I would say #1.

I believe I had none in mind but would be willing to start a new post if you have a preference.

I believe religion either follows the rules of logic or it doesn't.

Actually I believe it is the other way around. If I find something that works I repeat it making it a religion. For instance I find dancing works to relieve stress so I dance when I am under stress. People tend to limit religion to activities relating to a god but that kind of religion is just the best known form of religion.

I believe worth often has more to do with faith than logic. I believe it makes sense to do something worth while but it is not totally illogical to do something that seems like a waste of time.

I believe a religion may be logical and work and still not worth while following. For instance an embezzler may find that taking money works and it is logical that he can do so but it is not an act I would be willing to follow.

I believe it is not but it has provided food for thought, Thank you.

 

[Muffled]

Depends upon tautology attributed to a givin religion.

If contradiction is present and cannot be reconciled, that religion is not logical.

What if one religion contradicts another? I believe Buddhism believes there should be no suffering but Christianity values suffering.

 

[Muffled]

I know what logic is but you have yet to actually demonstrate its applicability to Christianity. How have you applied these laws to Christianity?

I will start a new post on the logic of Christianity because I believe it is too specific for this thread.