Formally Illogical Religions Etc

[David Sklansky]

Although I have previously agreed that the beliefs of speific religions, farfetched as they may be, cannot be logically disproved in a formal sense, I realize that this may not always be true.

A religion and/or its practitioners cannot hold all three of the following three beliefs without being inconsistent in a formal logical sense. But I think some religions, and certainly some people, do. Those three beliefs are:

1. God would never punish someone unfairly or unjustly.

2. God will punish someone who doesn't believe rather precisiely in the teachings of the religion in question. In other words he won't only punish atheists, he will also punish practioners of other religions even if they believe in him in a somewhat different way.

3. The teachings of the specific religion in question is not clearly obvious to be true even to those who are making a strong effort to find the truth.

It should be common sense that you cannot be logical and hold all three of the above beliefs at the same time. Yet some people do. And I think some religions force you to. (I'm guessing that many who hold all three of these beliefs do so because they thought about them seperately without realizing they can't all be simultaneously true. People do that regardeing lots of subjects. Especially politics.)

If there is any religion that truly teaches all three things, nothing more need to be said to show them wrong. No scientific or atheistic arguments are needed.

Now most religions get around this problem by rejecting one of the above precepts. One way is to claim that the evidence for the truth of your particular beliefs IS in fact strong enough so that people who don't accept it are somehow greedy, or lazy, or evil, or some other sin that God has a right to punish. But this is clearly ridiculous even if you again do not invoke science or atheism. One need only to point to the many pious learned men and woman who have studied many religions and do not choose the religion in question. No specific religion has persuaded more than about 20% of people like this. Clearly a just God could never punish these pious truth seekers just because they hapenned to be, through no fault of their own, incorrect about some specific teachings.

Another way around the original contradictory statements is to give up the belief that God will punish innacuracies in the specific beliefs about him (eg was Jesus his son, Mary was a virgin, humans evolved, etc. etc.). Keep in mind that it is not necessary to give up the belief that he will punish sin and wrongdoing, just incorrect theories about him. Of course if this is true, why the need for such specific religions? If God doesn' care whether you get it exactly right, why should you? Why not simply fuse all the religions that believe in one God and stop having wars about the details? Save your arguments for the atheists. My answer unfortunately, is that people are stupid and crave things to obsess over when they don't have more important things to think about.

Of course I would be remiss if I left out the third way to get out of the original contradiction. Make God a bad boy. Have him willing to punish you for not knowing the truth about him even if you tried hard to and honestly failed. Perhaps some religions do honestly believe that. Perfectly logically I might add.

[RYL]

I think GOD is used to explain the unexplainable and the infinite. Believing in GOD gives easy answers for a lot of tough questions. It simplifies explanations. At the same time it teaches you morals. At the same time it causes wars. But, as we know, with every good comes every bad. Why do we live? Why are we here? What will happen to me after I die? If you believe in GOD, all these questions are answered. So people, in essence, feel comfort in the fact that their questions are answered.

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I would be remiss if I left out the third way to get out of the original contradiction. Make God a bad boy. Have him willing to punish you for not knowing the truth about him even if you tried hard to and honestly failed. Perhaps some religions do honestly believe that. Perfectly logically I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm Catholic. It's quite interesting.

[PairTheBoard]

David Sklansky -
" people are stupid and crave things to obsess over when they don't have more important things to think about."

LOL

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

The Catholic Church has admitted to the possibility of "salvation" Outside the Church. It has also spoken of the sanctity and primacy of the Individual Conscience.

PairTheBoard

[reubenf]

I know someone who believes all three to be true. He is extremely good at logic puzzles and mathematics. He is both clever and can follow long, complicated logical arguments.

I know he has done a lot of hard thought about his religion in attempts to make it work for him logically. He has very strong beliefs about the definition of faith, and about free will and various other things, which did not come from the church but from his own invention so that he could make his religion work for him. So I am sure he already had realized the contradiction you mention when I brought it up to him many years ago.

He responded that maybe God is not bound by logic. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[lehighguy]

That's not what I learned in Sunday school. But then again my Sunday school was taught by people with court ordered community service.

[NotReady]

Which religion are you talking about?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He responded that maybe God is not bound by logic


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what your friend said, and the following is not a response to Sklansky's post, but the content of the above is not necessarily contra logic, if qualified as follows:

He responded that maybe God is not bound by human logic.

My position is simply that God is the source of all logic, we can think logically because He made us in His image, but we are finite and so what may conform to absolute logic may not be logically comprehensible to us.

A simple example:

Daddy tells child to eat his vegetables. To the child this is illogical because carrots taste bad. So is Daddy illogical?

(edit for sp)

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I learned in Sunday school. But then again my Sunday school was taught by people with court ordered community service.

[/ QUOTE ]

Catholic theology loosened up considerably in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Modernist Theology may still not be taught in Sunday Schools but you can read it in books like, "On Being a Christian" by Hans Kung - a Catholic Theologian in good standing at the time of that book. It looks like the new Pope will not be emphasizing the Modernist theological perspective. But that doesn't mean it's not still available. There are plenty of Modernist Protestant thinkers as well.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Which religion are you talking about?"

As far as one that believes all three propositions? I don't know. Maybe Born Again people. You tell me. But what about what I say about the religions that don't believe all three?

[NotReady]

You said in the OP
[ QUOTE ]

Although I have previously agreed that the beliefs of speific religions, farfetched as they may be, cannot be logically disproved in a formal sense, I realize that this may not always be true.


[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you claim to have an argument that proves some specific religion is formally illogical.

Which religion and how is it illogical? I'm not going to defend all religions against an unsupported assertion that they're illogical. Some of them may well be. I don't believe what I believe can be shown to be illogical.

[David Sklansky]

I think you must be skimming my post. I had no specific religion in mind. My impression is that there are some that fit the criteria. And certainly some religious people that do. Meanwhile the second half of my post brought up stuff not related to formal logic that I'm curious what your comments would be about them.

[elysium]

hi mr. sklansky

glad to be back here on the forum after a several months long home improvement project. you should have seen me. i was ripping and tearing. i still have the stuff, mahn. came out nice.

so you're worried about death and thinking maybe about possibly signaling we of the forum from THE GREAT BEYOND. well, if that's what you're considering doing, what ever signal you decide to send, make it simple. that way we will know that it's you and not GOD. say 'hey!' like that or something. and try to sound happy. we want to believe at least that you schmoozed your way in. say 'hey, hey hey!'. we'll know it's you.

will having spent so much time on the study of poker perhaps be somewhat of a source of irritation to GOD? no. you're a shoe in for GOD'S plan. somehow mr. sklansky, you have an ability to elevate one's spirituality. some people actually go to great lengths to dispell the notion of a HIGHER POWER, life after death, etc. you though encourage it.

although hfap is certainly not a theological body of literature, you fail to cover your GOD tells and emerge as a strong suspect of being a man of GOD. clearly but yet still explicitly unexpressed, you don't disuade your readers from his or her theological persuits. and top may as well have been written by the three wise men; throp if you will. the three wise men of poker. but of theological freedom too. rebi poker. oz, rebi; by any other name.

no, you can't fool us mr. sklansky. you have evidence of the existence of GOD, and could never do anything other than share that evidence by every available means. not an easy task. now you know how noah felt. and yes, moses too.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
Daddy tells child to eat his vegetables. To the child this is illogical because carrots taste bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you have a grasp of what is meant by the word "logic". There is nothing illogical to the child about eating his vegetables.

[jack spade23]

Dave,
while i respect how you look at things in an objective way, I have to point out that most of the topics you bring up are aimed at attempting to disect religions. (not in a bad, anti-religious way, its hard to explain) Maybe I am reading your posts wrong, but i think you are putting too much thought into something that cannot be explained in human terms or images. It is possible, imo, that God or religion is beyond what we are capable of understanding, and that you cannot figure them totally out through reasoning. I dont know, its 4:44 in the morning and prom night was a bitch, ill probably think this post is stupid by tomorow.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


1. God would never punish someone unfairly or unjustly.

2. God will punish someone who doesn't believe rather precisiely in the teachings of the religion in question. In other words he won't only punish atheists, he will also punish practioners of other religions even if they believe in him in a somewhat different way.

3. The teachings of the specific religion in question is not clearly obvious to be true even to those who are making a strong effort to find the truth.

It should be common sense that you cannot be logical and hold all three of the above beliefs at the same time. Yet some people do. And I think some religions force you to. If there is any religion that truly teaches all three things, nothing more need to be said to show them wrong. No scientific or atheistic arguments are needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

You stated upfront that you could prove that some religions were illogical (in the formal sense). If you would please (in accordance to formal logic) define these terms in an unambiguous fashion, it would greatly help me in understanding your proof, since in your followup posts you make references to a certain "Born-again" group of people that I feel like would include me, so if your proof was indeed logical and inescapable, it would probably demolish my worldview.

What is "just" or "fair"? What is "punish"? What does believing in a "somewhat different way" mean?

What do "clearly obvious" or "making a strong effort to seek the truth" mean?

Since these terms have definitions that differ by the person, I request that you define the terms in a strict sense.

Additionally you state:

[ QUOTE ]

It should be common sense that you cannot be logical and hold all three of the above beliefs at the same time


[/ QUOTE ]

Since I seem to lack this "common sense", could you please demonstrate how the 3 qualities you stated above are logically inconsistant?

Thanks for the post DS.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

Daddy tells child to eat his vegetables. To the child this is illogical because carrots taste bad.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure you have a grasp of what is meant by the word "logic". There is nothing illogical to the child about eating his vegetables.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I may fill in a missing premise (and if i'm wrong Notready, feel free to correct me):

"Daddy tells child to eat his vegetables. To the child this is illogical because carrots taste bad..."

And (to the child) "things that taste bad shouldn't be eaten" (or something to that effect).

Thus to the child, who operates under:

1)Things that taste bad shouldn't be eaten
2)Carrots taste bad
3)Carrots shouldn't be eaten (from 1 and 2)

the statement "you should eat your carrots" is (to the child) illogical since it contradicts 3. Of course, according to 1 and 2 it is illogical.

But to the father premise 2 is false, so according to his logic, he rejects the conclusion of statement 3 and sees no logical inconsistency. Is this right notready?

Thus the analogy is preserved (though, like all analogies, are not perfectly representative). While we reason with the wisdom of human intellect sometimes we insert false premises that lead to what are (to us) logical contradictions. These false premises are not within the mind of God, so thus pose no logical threat to Him.

[Shakezula]

"Why not simply fuse all the religions that believe in one God and stop having wars about the details?"

That indeed would be a more ideal situation. But with all the cultural and historical importance that people attach to their individual beliefs, it would be difficult for people to let go of that personal identification that they feel so strongly. To be around others that believe the same is comforting and supportive, and it fosters a sense of being special and of being blessed, and even a sense of righteousness. An entire culture of people could be compared, in many ways, to an individual; and the need for feeling unique and "chosen" exists for a group as much as it does for any person. Attachments, the security of others, a sense of belonging, and a feeling of uniqueness---perhaps a culture could also have an ego; and the ego doesn't like to let go...

[Sephus]

more likely to the father premise 1 is false.

[NotReady]

I would like to make a general comment about one of the basic concepts in your post. You are making the charge that God is unfair or illogical if (fill in the blank). There is a fundamental problem with this approach.

Just as in the moral question, which I and others discussed in previous threads, there is the need for an ultimate standard of truth (justice, logic). That standard will be either God's or man's. When you charge God with unfairness you are saying your standard has the right to judge God. This is basically the same as saying God doesn't exist.

I presuppose that God is just, right, true, holy, good, fair, logical. But there are doctrines in the Bible which I believe to be true that I cannot show to be logical according to man's standards. So it comes down to a choice, man or God. I do not believe God requires us to believe the truly contradictory but He doesn't give us complete reasons for everything.

But in the Bible He is up front about this. The Bible says that the gospel is foolish to the unbeliever. It says we see in a mirror, dimly. It says God's thoughts are not our thoughts. This is part of the reason faith is required. I can never give you complete intellectual justifications for faith, otherwise it would not be faith.

I understand that it appears to an unbeliever that Christianity is illogical and that I'm irrational to accept it. On your terms, I am irrational. But I deny that your terms are the correct standard. Therefore, I am rational because I do not accept the edicts of finite man as the proper judge of absolute truth. It is perfectly logical to believe that God's logic may not be exhaustively comprehensible to the finite mind of man. It would actually be illogical to think so.

Human reason and logic are therefore proper tools with a proper function, a gift from God that is part of the definition of being created in His image. But they are not the proper standard for determing ultimate truth.

If you require that God fully justify Himself to you, His creature, before you will grant Him the privilege of being believed in by you, you will never accept Him. The Bible says the evidence is sufficient. Romans 1 says the natural man is without excuse. No human philosophy makes sense or explains reality.

At no point does God require you to believe that A is non-A. The appearance of illogic is due to the content of A and non-A. For instance, how can a fair God do X? But that is not the same as A and non-A, because both fair and X have to be defined, given content. A is not non-A is an abstract principle. It is valid, but the problem comes when applying it to the real world. So if God says He punishes sinners and He is a God of love that will appear contradictory to someone who doesn't believe anyone who has love can punish.

There is mystery for man. There always will be. We will never be omniscient, not in Heaven, not in eternity. We are created and finite. There is no mystery for God.

[Zygote]

There are many logical flaws in quite a few religions; especially the biblical ones. Here is another one for you:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent according to judeo-christian religions. In addition, all these religions agree that there is evil in the world. Also, these religions advocate that for a human to allow evil when he/she has the power, knowledge, and good will to stop it is wrong. If god is held to at least the same moral standard as humans, how can god allow evil?

I proposed this in another thread and here's the argument if you are interested.

discussion (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2055992&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus to the child, who operates under:

1)Things that taste bad shouldn't be eaten
2)Carrots taste bad
3)Carrots shouldn't be eaten (from 1 and 2)

the statement "you should eat your carrots" is (to the child) illogical since it contradicts 3. Of course, according to 1 and 2 it is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You should eat your carrots" is not in any way illogical to the child. What's illogical is that it holds true at the same time as 1) and 2) hold true. This is not a trivial point.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
What is "just" or "fair"? What is "punish"? What does believing in a "somewhat different way" mean?

What do "clearly obvious" or "making a strong effort to seek the truth" mean?

Since these terms have definitions that differ by the person, I request that you define the terms in a strict sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should be able to do all of this yourself.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
When you charge God with unfairness you are saying your standard has the right to judge God.

[/ QUOTE ]
The word "fairness" stands for a concept that includes, among other things, punishing only the blameworthy and not the innocent.

If that concept doesn't fit your God, you'll have to find a different word to describe Him. "Fair" is already taken.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
If you would please (in accordance to formal logic) define these terms in an unambiguous fashion, it would greatly help me in understanding your proof, since in your followup posts you make references to a certain "Born-again" group of people that I feel like would include me

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be able to figure out if that group includes you by figuring out what you believe, and if the logic follows.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If that concept doesn't fit your God, you'll have to find a different word to describe Him. "Fair" is already taken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whose concept?

Fair is fine. Now define blameworthy. And innocent.

[NotReady]

If the syllogism is logically correct, and it is, the conclusion is also.

The difficulty is with the truth of premise 1. But if it's true, and 2 is true, then 3 logically follows.

Disagreeing with the truth of a premise is not the same as showing a syllogism is illogical.

The analogy was simply to illustrate that something can be logical and false. Do you contest this?

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What is "just" or "fair"? What is "punish"? What does believing in a "somewhat different way" mean?

What do "clearly obvious" or "making a strong effort to seek the truth" mean?

Since these terms have definitions that differ by the person, I request that you define the terms in a strict sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be able to do all of this yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I do and you don't agree with them in my refutation of DS's post, then I will get accused of equivocation. In order to best avoid that (and to best understand the proof itself) it requires that there is an agreed upon definition of these terms, and who better to provide them than the person who is using them in his proof?

[udontknowmickey]

eh, or both, but the point remains that what is logical to the father may seem illogical to the child.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

There are many logical flaws in quite a few religions; especially the biblical ones. Here is another one for you:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent according to judeo-christian religions. In addition, all these religions agree that there is evil in the world. Also, these religions advocate that for a human to allow evil when he/she has the power, knowledge, and good will to stop it is wrong. If god is held to at least the same moral standard as humans, how can god allow evil?


[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a question more than a logical flaw. If you would care to give your premesis and the logic which should lead to a conclusion like "therefore the Judeo-Christian God does not exist" then it might be a logical flaw, but until you do this I don't understand your "logical flaw"

What's "evil"? What's "power" "knowledge" and "good-will"? What's "wrong"?

[Little Fishy]

[ QUOTE ]
why the need for such specific religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

different people learn in different ways and different people are better able to understand different religions and better able to follow them and grow closer to G-d. this idea however doesn't seem to be the real reason that we observe... maybe we like having things to fight about.

[ QUOTE ]
Why not simply fuse all the religions that believe in one God and stop having wars about the details? Save your arguments for the atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't the Unitarian-Universalists do this? the problem is if you tell people that as long as they accept a G-d and that everything else is up to them than they'll have no guidance, and then people can start justifying trully terrible things because their version of G-d says it's right... people do this anyway on both the personal as well as mass religious scales

I've posted this before but it's a read that I highly recomend... I disagree with signifigant portions of it, especialy the poor analysis of some of the gospel scripture and gross overlooking of other aspects of JC's teaching, but the Ideas are provocative and examples of the principles presented can be found all around us... In-Group vs Out-Group Morality (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html)

[David Sklansky]

"When you charge God with unfairness you are saying your standard has the right to judge God. This is basically the same as saying God doesn't exist."

Wrong. When I say most religious people believe God is fair, I mean by human standards. They believe that he won't make babies who die, burn in hell. You are basically saying that if he does, it is because of Godly reasons that we have no right to judge. But premise number one was not about what God considers fair. It was simply about what some human believe that can lead to a contradiction.

[reubenf]

You're confusing the word "logical". This is because it is often used to mean something other than "contradictory to logic".

My friend said maybe God is not bound by logic. You responded with an example of a child who believes eating carrots is illogical. This is a different use of the word "illogical" than when I say it is illogical to believe the three statements DS proposed. What you mean is it doesn't follow from the child's premises about reality.

The difference is the child believes that "you should eat carrots" is false. He doesn't believe it is contradictory to logic any more than he believes his premises are true. Now we will often say the child believes eating the carrots is illogical when we really mean he believes it is EITHER contradcitory to logic, OR his premises about reality are wrong. This is where the confusion comes in, because when I say it is illogical to believe DS's premises, I actually mean exactly that it is contradictory to logic. Just like if I said it is illogical for the child to believe both 1) and 2) and also "you should eat your carrots".

If you believe all three of DS's statements, then your belief is analogous to the child believing 1), 2) and "you should eat your carrots". If I pointed out your contradiction, I do hope you would respond with something other than "Maybe carrots are not bound by logic."

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say most religious people believe God is fair, I mean by human standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that it's wrong to judge God by human standards. Just as the will of a father may appear unreasonable to a child, so revelation from the omniscient God is bound to be above human logic.

I don't believe anthing about God or His Word is truly illogical, but I can't rationalize all of Scripture to comply with human reason. It would be illogical to expect God to be fully comprehensible to the human intellect.

I should also point out that no non-Christian world view can fully explain everything, either. I believe that they all make assumptions that render logic itself impossible,i.e., at some point they all become self-contradictory by their own definitions.

[NotReady]

I have to admit I can't make any sense out of your post.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I can't make any sense out of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

How hard did you try?

[sloth469]

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky -
" people are stupid and crave things to obsess over when they don't have more important things to think about."



[/ QUOTE ]

Thus I play poker.