Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I do think there are limits to logic.
-
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!
Religion & Logic
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
I do think there are limits to logic.
Crime and wars are considered a plague by almost everybody, whereas religion has been willingly embraced by billions of people over thousands of years. It would be logical to discard crime and wars if we could, it wouldn't be logical to discard anything that has served so many over such a long period of time.
The understandable but unproven assumption that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm god proposals address themselves to.
Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services to the needy in the United States, after the federal government.
That said, I totally agree with you there is still too much focus on religious ideology, and that the anti-gay thing is a form of mental illness.
I've participated extensively both on atheist forums and the Catholic web, and observed the following interesting phenomena.
Atheist ideologues almost always attempt to dismiss or rationalize away the Catholic Charities example, as it shifts focus away from those they would rather discuss, the religious looney fringe. Ok, this is not that surprising, no real news here.
What's more interesting, and this goes to your point, is that Catholics don't seem to want to discuss Catholic Charities either, at least in my experience of repeatedly trying to start that conversation.
To me, Catholic Charities is one of their better selling points, but Catholics so often prefer to stay focused on the internal battles among themselves. Well, at least on the net, which is admittedly probably not a representative sample of all Catholics.
Does this work? The mystery itself may not be logical, given that a mystery is a lack of information. However, our relationship with mystery can be very logical if that embrace succeeds in meeting fundamental human needs.
There is a widely shared assumption in both theism and atheism that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, establish a knowing, defeat the mystery.
However, despite thousands of years of earnest effort, there is no evidence that this procedure has worked in providing any answer from anybody which can survive a challenge. Thus, instead of challenging other people's answers, perhaps we should be challenging the answer seeking procedure itself?
What I enjoyed about the original post is that she seems to be embracing the mystery for itself, which seems insightful and wise. She tempers that embrace a bit with some beliefs, but imho, is headed in the right direction. We should consider that what we're looking for may not lie in answers, but in the mystery.
Here's a colorful example.
Imagine that you meet a cute guy or gal at the bus stop and they invite you home for lunch. A few hours later they are leading you by the hand in to their bedroom for the first time. What is it about this experience that may keep this moment a meaningful memory for the rest of your life? Your ignorance, the mystery.
Now imagine that you marry this guy or gal. Forty years later they are again leading you by the hand in to the bedroom. How long will you remember this event? Maybe until next Tuesday, if you are lucky.
What's the problem? Too much knowledge, not enough mystery.Yes, that's it, an excellent argument against both theism and atheism, and for agnosticism.
Now let's take it a step further. If one sees the power of mystery agnosticism can become not just a failure to know, but an earnest journey in to the mystery, which can be pursued with the same passion that some participate in religion or science. Agnosticism can be transformed from being merely a form of purgatory between theism and atheism, and in to a path in it's own right.
In theism and atheism, one could be said to be building a conceptual building. One pulls building materials from some chosen authority, and assembles them in to a towering structure which must then be defended.
Agnosticism can be seen to be the opposite process. Agnosticism can be a process of dismantling, board by board by board, whatever conceptual building stands in the way of a full appreciation of the mystery, the unknown.
The vast overwhelming majority of reality is nothing. A mind which is closer to empty is closer to aligning itself with reality.
Hey......is there a god or not ? That is the question in mind, well mine at this time.
Does it make any difference ? How many millions of kids will die this year ?
How large is your heaven ? How does your god save anyone from anything ?
Why does anyone pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and for what ?
Whether or not god is out there, it makes no difference,
I still have to wash my car, and sweep the leaves, and take a poop !
No difference ! I don't think I will worry much.
~
'mud
Does it make any difference ? How many millions of kids will die this year ?
How large is your heaven ? How does your god save anyone from anything ?
Why does anyone pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and for what ?
Whether or not god is out there, it makes no difference,
I still have to wash my car, and sweep the leaves, and take a poop !
No difference ! I don't think I will worry much.
~
'mud
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Also unwillingly embraced through forced conversions(like my ancestors) and repressing heretics and other religions and theological views. I don't want to go into bashing religion here though, but just want to say that it has not been all positive.
I think the proposal of gods' existence is more about fitting reality into a human understanding, making the world make sense. For me the world isn't about making sense. The world is more alien than anything and science is the instrument of trying to understand it's mystery.
Excuse my ignorance but what criteria do they use in giving aid? I'm not in the US and only Catholics I know are on this forum so I have no experience of such.
Some religious charities use aid for proselytizing and in "third world" countries demand conversion before handing out aid.
Glad we agree. Gay/anti-gay and racism are not a favorite subjects of mine and one that always brings whatever positive image someone builds of religion down for me.
I'm not sure what you mean by ideologues, but yes, it seems both atheists tend to focus on negative religions just as theists often try to bring up communism.
I think following the example of Jesus would be to focus on the charity and forgiveness, but people are not perfect and like political infighting. I don't know why, because that never interested me in the least.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Where and how did you acquire the credentials to define Spirituality for humanity?
I agree. Religion is too big to be either good or bad, a this or a that. I admit to some rhetorical excess in overselling the case for religion. It seems a more reasoned analysis would attempt to carefully identify the positive aspects of religion and keep those, while discarding the less constructive elements, which do indeed exist.
Yes, and to put it another way, an attempt to craft a positive relationship with reality, which at it's best is a rational process.
As example, we might examine the remarkable similarities between the Jehovah character and nature. Both are all powerful. Both are gloriously beautiful givers of life, and also ruthless killers of the innocent. Both are the largest of things, and the smallest of things. Whatever we might call it, what is our relationship with this situation?
Religion generally suggests we worship this situation, that is, embrace it enthusiastically with passion. That's a rational suggestion.
We'd prefer a sunny day, but here comes a rain storm. What is the most rational response? Ignore it? Shake our fist at the sky? Or run outside and glory in the awesome beauty and power of the rain? That is, what is a rational relationship to have with overwhelming power far beyond our control?
The problem for many is that religion typically personalizes this relationship via characters many people can relate to and this process is too um, artistic, for the sensibilities of more literal minded folk. Which is fine, because the characters can be discarded and the worship retained. The mistake some atheists make, imho, is to discard the worship along with the characters, thus tossing the baby out with the bath water.
And religion, at least at it's best (a standard often not met) is an instrument of embracing the mystery. Imho, the needs of the body require information about reality, but the deepest needs of the mind are better served by the mystery. Unfortunately imho, religion too often stomps all over the mystery with a huge pile of beliefs.
Atheists always ask this question, and my answer always is, who cares? If I'm hungry and you give me a bowl of food, you are doing what matters to me, you are serving my most pressing need.
Instead of looking for some way to criticize the Catholics (and Christians more generally) for being leaders in serving the needy, we could better debunk them by topping their efforts. The reason Christians are able to impose whatever criteria they may use in serving the needy is that you and I have discarded the needy and left them to rot on the streets.
Again, so what? The Christians are there, doing the job that needs to be done, the job we have neglected to do. Who is complaining about this? Not the needy, not the people receiving services they desperately need, but atheist ideologists.
This might be of interest:
Young U.S. Catholics overwhelmingly accepting of homosexuality | Pew Research Center
"Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged. Older age groups are less likely to favor acceptance. But even among Catholics ages 65 and older, 57% say that homosexuality should be accepted."
My point here is that religion in general, or even specific religions, are not a monolith. There is a great deal of discussion and debate within many or most religions regarding major issues of the day. Catholics are notorious for arguing among themselves about issues like abortion, gay rights, the role of women etc.
Agreed. Any time any of us including Jesus start making big assertions, we are opening the door to divisive social competitions.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Before I was open-minded enough to accept the possibility that I could be an atheist, this was perhaps one of the strongest arguments for me. Not evidence or arguments per se, just so much overwhelming certainty from so many people,crashing over me like a wave. It's not easy to say that billions of your fellow humans are not correct.
It's still hard to pin down exactly what changed that caused me to no longer accept this, but it may have been maps like this one of the US. There are similar map globally that show culturally-specific, regional differences. Billions in earnest belief suddenly become more of an anthropological study, as opposed to theological truth.
Plus, being human means you have to content with a very, very long list of these. Scroll to the bottom. . . count them if you want:
List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Between these two perspectives, "billions can't be wrong, so billions must be right" seems a little iffy of a conclusion. McDonald's serve billions to humans, it must mean that it's the heartiest food humans can eat?
This is a pretty good argument. As an atheist, I adore this line of reasoning. Church philanthropy is an excellent reason to be and stay a church member. But faith in God and religious philanthropy are two different arguments. I think Catholic reticence to use this line of reasoning as an argument is because it's a utilitarian argument.
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you measure a religion by these standards, you have to consider the outcomes of the church overall, not just cherry-pick the good bits. Bring it up, and Catholics would have to start answering these questions below. It's kind of a mess:
Does the Catholic Church do more harm than good? What standard of good are you using to measure this? How many $$ of donation = a unit of good? Do you consider current performance, or do you have to consider the church over history? Has the church ever done evil? Is it still doing evil? How do you measure the goodness vs. the evil?
Can a impoverished Buddist monk in a developing country share a bowl of rice with a starving child? Because the $$$ value of the donation is lower, is it less of a donation? Is $$$ the correct measurement of good? If we use standard to determine our best religion, wouldn't we have to pick the religion that has the most positive impact. How are you certain that Catholicism does the most good compared to all other religion. It's the richest? Wouldn't you have to compare the donation per capita? Are you sure that $$$ is the standard you want to use, before I start quoting the gospels?
The Catholic church is a source of $$$ to philanthropy. What is the overhead? If it keeps back a percentage towards commissioning a piece of stained glass for a cathedral in stead of giving to philanthropy, is that limit the church's goodness? This is tax free money in the US, so there's less of an excuse to use as much as possible to the church.
Anyway, you have to start addressing all the questions above if you bring up philanthropy. Plus, the internet and social media is starting to change things for the better. Self-described atheists still make up a very small part of the overall population in the US, but we finally have the possibility to meet and gather socially instead of living in isolation. Remember, since we reject regional cultural influences, we're going to be evenly peppered throughout the US. I have been to a Unitarian church in my area several times in the last year that has an Atheist weekly group. That's why I go. On Sunday, they take donations, and tell you ahead of time exactly which charitable donation this money goes to that week, and exactly what percentage is taken for overhead. I have united way donations taken from my paycheck, which only has about a 7% overhead. I'm starting to see opportunities fro voluntarism show up on Meetup.com as well, and I've been considering that for the summer.
We can do the good, and still excise the belief. It's no longer as hard as it used to be. And I think it will only get better.
Apologies to the original poster of the thread. Not looking for debate. . . yet, here I go.
Last edited:
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
[QUOTE="Typist, post: 4245695, member: 39068"
and this process is too um, artistic, for the sensibilities of more literal minded folk. Which is fine, because the characters can be discarded and the worship retained. The mistake some atheists make, imho, is to discard the worship along with the characters, thus tossing the baby out with the bath water.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the discussion, but you are assuming characteristics about an entire population. All atheists are literal minded? What are you talking about? How many atheists have you met?
And no, neglecting the poor is awful, but it is very disingenuous of you to assume that Atheists are creating roadblocks against helping the poor In the US, we make up some 3% of the population, and we have no voice in government (because in the US, claiming atheism is political suicide). Many atheists are also liberals who care deeply about the government role/response to poverty, and finding ways to end it, both domestically and around the world.
and this process is too um, artistic, for the sensibilities of more literal minded folk. Which is fine, because the characters can be discarded and the worship retained. The mistake some atheists make, imho, is to discard the worship along with the characters, thus tossing the baby out with the bath water.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the discussion, but you are assuming characteristics about an entire population. All atheists are literal minded? What are you talking about? How many atheists have you met?
And no, neglecting the poor is awful, but it is very disingenuous of you to assume that Atheists are creating roadblocks against helping the poor In the US, we make up some 3% of the population, and we have no voice in government (because in the US, claiming atheism is political suicide). Many atheists are also liberals who care deeply about the government role/response to poverty, and finding ways to end it, both domestically and around the world.
Thanks for an excellent quite thoughtful post Kuzcotopia.
To me, as a Fundamentalist Agnostic theological truth or fantasy is not really the issue. My point is only that religion, whatever it's metaphysical truth value may be, has succeeded in serving some important human needs of very many people over a very long period of time. Thus, while a particular belief may be irrational, the process as a whole is reasonably labeled quite rational.
Ha, ha, religion as junk food, too delicious of a rhetorical device to complain about.
I hear ya. But sometimes Catholics (raised one, left decades ago) can over think things, as we all can. I take a more practical street level view. Walking the walk is always going to be more persuasive than talking the talk.
More to the theological point I feel the walking of the walk, the actual experience, is the real message.
Walking of the walk provides no place to hide, we do it or we don't, which provides much needed clarity regarding what our relationship with our religion really is. Talking of the talk opens the door to a great deal of fantasy, he said, while earnestly typing 3 billion words a minute.
Measuring religion may be seen as pointless, if we accept the fact that religion exists in a highly durable manner, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Imho, obviously yes. Every time I see a multi-million dollar church building, I see it as a large billboard declaring to one and all that the church members don't really believe in love.
However I think the counter argument might be, expressed differently of course, that unless the church puts on an entertaining dog and pony show, it will attract few members, and thus have little money to share with the needy.
For me, not really. If Christians are willing to serve those that we have discarded, I say, more power to them. Credit given where credit is due. We can applaud Christians for doing what we decline to do, we don't need to wait until they are perfect to applaud.
The same technology empowers all competing points of view too.
This is a very interesting and relevant assertion, imho. I am unclear on my position here. To what degree does love depend upon belief? I like to declare one independent of the other myself, but suspect it's like far more complicated.
As example, your desire to give may arise in part from moral values relentlessly pounded in to western culture during 1,000 years (1,000 years!) of Catholic cultural dominance. We don't have to hold specific Christian beliefs ourselves to be inescapably influenced by such large cultural forces.
To me, as a Fundamentalist Agnostic
theological truth or fantasy is not really the issue. My point is only that religion, whatever it's metaphysical truth value may be, has succeeded in serving some important human needs of very many people over a very long period of time. Thus, while a particular belief may be irrational, the process as a whole is reasonably labeled quite rational.Ha, ha, religion as junk food, too delicious of a rhetorical device to complain about.
I hear ya. But sometimes Catholics (raised one, left decades ago) can over think things, as we all can. I take a more practical street level view. Walking the walk is always going to be more persuasive than talking the talk.
More to the theological point I feel the walking of the walk, the actual experience, is the real message.
Walking of the walk provides no place to hide, we do it or we don't, which provides much needed clarity regarding what our relationship with our religion really is. Talking of the talk opens the door to a great deal of fantasy, he said, while earnestly typing 3 billion words a minute.
Measuring religion may be seen as pointless, if we accept the fact that religion exists in a highly durable manner, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Imho, obviously yes. Every time I see a multi-million dollar church building, I see it as a large billboard declaring to one and all that the church members don't really believe in love.
However I think the counter argument might be, expressed differently of course, that unless the church puts on an entertaining dog and pony show, it will attract few members, and thus have little money to share with the needy.
For me, not really. If Christians are willing to serve those that we have discarded, I say, more power to them. Credit given where credit is due. We can applaud Christians for doing what we decline to do, we don't need to wait until they are perfect to applaud.
The same technology empowers all competing points of view too.
This is a very interesting and relevant assertion, imho. I am unclear on my position here. To what degree does love depend upon belief? I like to declare one independent of the other myself, but suspect it's like far more complicated.
As example, your desire to give may arise in part from moral values relentlessly pounded in to western culture during 1,000 years (1,000 years!) of Catholic cultural dominance. We don't have to hold specific Christian beliefs ourselves to be inescapably influenced by such large cultural forces.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Possibly. I know there are moral systems that predate Catholicism, but it's influence suggesting that people "be good" is undeniable.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Atheists and critics of religion are there to help with the more destructive elements.
The way I do it is simply accept it, it(reality) doesn't care for us. We just need to know what works and what does not and balance that with happiness of ourselves and as many others as possible.
I don't know if we should worship the situation. I think it's more about making it an enjoyable ride. If religion helps you do that and it isn't aimed at taking it away from others then I'm fine with it.
As cynical as it sounds I'd just dress for the weather.
Things that have practical consequences are not just there for artistic value. It's fine to get excited about art, playing music and reading a good book or any experience, but it's not all just fun and games.
Mostly agree with this, but mystery requires information too, otherwise it's a puzzle with no connection to anything of value.
Would you like to change your religion and abandon your mystery if some nice people used your starving self to get more members for their own? All you have to do is burn your old religions books, stop celebrating the old holidays and go to whatever it is where they worship once a week.
Indeed they do this not out of their altruism.
In my mostly secular country the government cares for the needy and there is no citizen sleeping outside, but even they are given free medical assistance etc. They are not required to submit to a belief system. Maybe in your country there is more room for cynicism.
They are doing less than they could, because they want something from these people. It makes that artistic mystery seem more like a business operation.
That's good, is there comparative data on other religious youth?, I think you should have posted that on the French ambassador thread if you've seen it?
I think most people realize that not everyone's the same at least on a forum like this.
Please note my deliberate and sincere use of the word "some".
Except that I never made any such assumption or declaration, and thus you are arguing against assertions of your own invention.
As I see it, we in western culture are largely children of the Catholics, and Catholics are children of the Jews. I don't know the history well enough to trace it back further than that.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
You should read some ancient Greek philosophy and compare how much of that is like modern western culture as compared to non-western ones. Greeks, Romans, Jews, Persians, the Germanic tribes all had plenty to do with "western culture" being the way it is.