Why demand logic?

[PrayingMantis]

There's no logic in the fact that you are yourself, _in particular_. It is just like this. "Similarly", there is no logic in the fact of existence, that is, of reality being as opposed to not being.

Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical? Do you demand a great book, or movie, to be logical, for you to believe it, to "accept" it? To take you to new, exciting, places, or even change you deeply in rare cases? No. Sometimes the most amazing works of arts, the most moving masterpieces, are the ones least logical.

Music is not logical.

Logic is a game. Religion is a game. Very very different kinds of games. Saying that religion X is not logical (or less logical than religion Y, and for that "worse"), is like saying that the rules of chess do not apply well to football (or that chess rules work better with basketball than with football), and that *that* is the problem with football.

(This example is not even good enough, because chess and football are relatively similar in some senses. Maybe it's better to think about different games, such that in one game you can't even find the object of "winning". It's not difficult. Children play many games like this).

(Note also that the fact that religions/believers might use logic [or logic1, logic2, logic3 etc] for certain purposes, has nothing to do with my point here).

This post is directed both at "atheists" who criticize certain religions/believers for not being logical, and also at "believers" who use logic to justify their religious beliefs. All I'm saying is that you are confused.

[Darryl_P]

I agree. Logic can take a set of premises or axioms and turn them into other truths. It's a useful tool indeed for many a situation, but religion has a different purpose, part of which is laying down the axioms of life, so I must say you have a point.

[chezlaw]

Logic isn't a game. Its to do with what we mean, whether the set of things we mean are consistent and what is implied by what we mean.

If we say chess is logical, we mean that the rules are consistent - there is no position where a move is allowed and not allowed. We may also mean that the games of chess is complete - there is no position where the rules don't tell us how to proceed.

Saying that chess is a game means that it can be played and if it wasn't logical (as above) then it couldn't be played so it wouldn't be a game.

Same for religon. A religon is logical if its beliefs are consistent - it doesn't require two contradictory beliefs at the same time. By 'contradictory beliefs' I mean two beliefs that cannot be held at the same time.

Saying R is a religon means R is believable which means all the beliefs entailed by R are believable. If R requires belief in two contradictory beliefs then it it is not believable.

Chess isn't a game if it cant be played and R isn't a religon if it can't be believed. Both would be illogical purely because being played/believed is meant by claiming that they are a game/religon.

and so on... religon (unlike chess) doesn't stand-alone, it has to be consistent with our other beliefs and what they mean. If the meanings of our other beliefs conflict with our religon then something has to give if we are to be logical.

Formal logic appears like a game of chess because it has rules, but formal logic is just an abstract way of analysing what follows from what we mean.

chez

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Laurence J. Peter

Religions make specific factual claims that art, music, or a good movie do not. If religions didn't do this, there would be nothing to apply logic to.

Buddhism (the non nutcase variety) is an example of a religion that doesn't make specific factual claims, and is thus beyond the realm of logic.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
If we say chess is logical, we mean that the rules are consistent - there is no position where a move is allowed and not allowed. We may also mean that the games of chess is complete - there is no position where the rules don't tell us how to proceed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of what you say (particularly about consistency) might be true for chess and other games in particular, but I can imagine games where it won't be true. Saying that "games are logical", or "every game is logical", or even "games are self-consistent" as a generalization, does not make sense.

Imagine a game, where the rules of it are: "lets pretend we are in a dream". We can play it, it's a game. In what way does this game have to be logical, or logically-self-consistent for that matter? It can be consistent in the way a dream is consistent, which is very far from the idea of "logically consistent" you talk about.



[ QUOTE ]
Same for religon. A religon is logical if its beliefs are consistent - it doesn't require two contradictory beliefs at the same time. By 'contradictory beliefs' I mean two beliefs that cannot be held at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that some religions are logical, or could be logical. However - this certainly isn't some requirement for a religion! I can certainly think of many religions who require contradiciting beliefs at the same time. For instance: 3=1, while at the same time 3!=1. Such characteristics are common for many religions. Looking for "consistency" in a religion is exactly the kind of absurd I was talking about. Another very general example: in many religions, certain objects are ALSO other things (not symbolizing other things, but ARE other things). This is "dream-logic", not the "logic" you talk about. However, these religions _exist_. Therefore, you can't say that "non-logical" religions are not religions, pretty much as you can't say so about games.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying R is a religon means R is believable which means all the beliefs entailed by R are believable. If R requires belief in two contradictory beliefs then it it is not believable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not clear at all, for the previous reasons I've mentioned. There certainly are religions who require contradictory beliefs. In what sense they are "not believable?". People believe in them, they are _religions_.

[ QUOTE ]
and so on... religon (unlike chess) doesn't stand-alone, it has to be consistent with our other beliefs and what they mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite see what you mean by "stand-alone", by "our", and by "other belives". As a matter of fact, the actual reality in which we live (also the reality in this very forum), shows you that people can live in the very same world, at the same time, the SAME SOCIETY, and still believe in very different, sometimes contradictory things. How can that be if what you had just said is true? Obviously there is no consistenncy here, at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Formal logic appears like a game of chess because it has rules, but formal logic is just an abstract way of analysing what follows from what we mean.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know very well what is "formal logic". Religions (existing relgions! in which real people believe!) do not necessarily follow those formal logic's rule, and you won't be able to say anything about this fact, other then to "observe" it. Criticizing them on this basis is absolutely meaningless. That is my point.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Religions make specific factual claims

[/ QUOTE ]

Most "factual claims" made by relgions are very different, in their very essence, from "factual claims" made in science, for instance. Not understanding this, is a source of great confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Buddhism (the non nutcase variety) is an example of a religion that doesn't make specific factual claims, and is thus beyond the realm of logic

[/ QUOTE ]

Well (even considering my comment to your last paragraph) this is completely untrue, and shows complete lack of knowledge with anything that has to do with buddhism.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.

-Laurence J. Peter

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that my post was in any way "against logic" you didn't understand any of it.

Also, this is quite an idiotic quotation, to be honest. Some very ignorant people can be described as "100% logical".

Hiya PrayingMantis,

I don't get your point at all. So what? Some games have different rules, so have social science and religions. In fact it seems that even each religion addresses different rules?!

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya PrayingMantis,

I don't get your point at all. So what? Some games have different rules, so have social science and religions. In fact it seems that even each religion addresses different rules?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you have actually got my point perfectly, and I also agree with you about the "so what?".

However, I think that many people here seem to believe that criticizing a rule in game A, according to a rule in game B, is not absurd. I think it is, and I just wanted to point that out.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of what you say (particularly about consistency) might be true for chess and other games in particular, but I can imagine games where it won't be true. Saying that "games are logical", or "every game is logical", or even "games are self-consistent" as a generalization, does not make sense.

Imagine a game, where the rules of it are: "lets pretend we are in a dream". We can play it, it's a game. In what way does this game have to be logical, or logically-self-consistent for that matter? It can be consistent in the way a dream is consistent, which is very far from the idea of "logically consistent" you talk about.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its the same thing. You've just using a slightly different meaning of game. The point is that its the meaning of game that imposes constraints on what is a game.

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is that some religions are logical, or could be logical. However - this certainly isn't some requirement for a religion! I can certainly think of many religions who require contradiciting beliefs at the same time. For instance: 3=1, while at the same time 3!=1.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, but you can't believe two contradictory things at the same time (that's what I mean by contradictory beliefs) so the religon is unbelievable.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking for "consistency" in a religion is exactly the kind of absurd I was talking about. Another very general example: in many religions, certain objects are ALSO other things (not symbolizing other things, but ARE other things). This is "dream-logic", not the "logic" you talk about. However, these religions _exist_. Therefore, you can't say that "non-logical" religions are not religions, pretty much as you can't say so about games.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't say 'non-logical religons' are not religons, of course they are religons they're just not logical - faith is required (which in this case means not worrying about the bits you cant believe in the hope they will turn out to make sense later).

chez

[ QUOTE ]

I think that you have actually got my point perfectly, and I also agree with you about the "so what?".

However, I think that many people here seem to believe that criticizing a rule in game A, according to a rule in game B, is not absurd. I think it is, and I just wanted to point that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok!?? [time to sign off and go to sleep /images/graemlins/smile.gif ]

[PrayingMantis]

chez,

You are saying that in order for a religion to be "believable", it has to be consistent (in some sense, it doesn't matter now). But what is the sense in this a priori restriction for a religion? All the religions in the world are _existing_ religions, i.e, people believe in them, i.e, they are believable. So either you are saying they are ALL logical and consistent (and there's no sense in criticizing any of them), or you are saying that logic has nothing to do with them existing and being true/consistent by their own rules (and again, there's no sense in criticizing any of them).

(There is a strange, third option: you mean to say that some people believe in unbelievable things. But this is self-contradictory, of course).

What is the right one?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

However, I think that many people here seem to believe that criticizing a rule in game A, according to a rule in game B, is not absurd. I think it is, and I just wanted to point that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison to criticizing religion for its lack of logic. When both religion and science are used to explain characteristics of the world, they are playing the same game, to use your analogy. In this case, I think it is perfectly valid (and sensible) to reject the religious viewpoint because the scientific one has shown itself to work so well.

I do agree with your general statement that logical consistency is not the end-all, be-all of everything; I made a post here a while ago arguing that it's not at all clear that logical consistency is a necessary basis for morals/ethics, as many here seem to use as a basis for arguing against particular systems.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

You are saying that in order for a religion to be "believable", it has to be consistent (in some sense, it doesn't matter now). But what is the sense in this a priori restriction for a religion? All the religions in the world are _existing_ religions, i.e, people believe in them, i.e, they are believable. So either you are saying they are ALL logical and consistent (and there's no sense in criticizing any of them), or you are saying that logic has nothing to do with them existing and being true/consistent by their own rules (and again, there's no sense in criticizing any of them).

(There is a strange, third option: you mean to say that some people believe in unbelievable things. But this is self-contradictory, of course).

What is the right one?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about I put it this way:

No-one can believe something unbelievable.
No-one can play a game that has unplayable rules.

These are logical statements. Any game that requires you to play with unplayable rules is illogical.

Any religon that requires you to believe the unbelievable is illogical.

If people can believe '3=1' then they may be ok but I can't and so I find any religon that claims '3=1' to be illogical.

I go further and say that its impossible to believe '3=1' (because of the meanings of the terms involved) and so any religon that requires belief that '3=1' is illogical.

[ QUOTE ]
(There is a strange, third option: you mean to say that some people believe in unbelievable things. But this is self-contradictory, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is, its nonsense. People claim to do it, some have even claimed that logic is 'fallen' and if we believed this nonsense it would make sense. Pure gibberish (imo) but thats what some people claim.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
When both religion and science are used to explain characteristics of the world, they are playing the same game, to use your analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you describe here seems to be the same game, but when you observe it carefuly you might conclude that in fact these are two very different games.

Religion (in a general way), has a fixed set of basic explanations, this is a "given". They are not allowed to change those explanations, ever. They are only allowed to present reality differently. That's the rule. If you alter facts, nothing wrong is done. The object of the game: keep the explanation the same, while playing with and altering the facts.

However, the rules for science in this game are completely reversed: it is always allowed to change the explanations, but never allowed to present reality differently than "what it is". If you alter the facts, you are disqualified, i.e, you have lost in this game (many scientists have actually lost in this way). Object of the game: keep the facts as they are, while playing with and altering the explanation.

These are two very different games. Of course the scientific game looks "better" to many of us, but this is a completely arbitrary point of view. From some theoretical "absolute" point of view, with no defined needs, there is no better game, only two different games. In other words, unless you have some predetermined idea about the nature of reality, you can't decide which game is better.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
If people can believe '3=1' then they may be ok but I can't and so I find any religon that claims '3=1' to be illogical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely, it might be completely illogical. But if they can believe in it, as you say, it's believeable, by definition. So there's no contradiction at all with your "logical statement" : "No-one can believe something unbelievable", and therefore, in what way does any logical criticism on religion can make any sense? also, you have just agreed that this particular religion is illogical to begin with, i.e, illogical religion exists, i.e, there IS a different game.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people can believe '3=1' then they may be ok but I can't and so I find any religon that claims '3=1' to be illogical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely, it might be completely illogical. But if they can believe in it, as you say, it's believeable, by definition. So there's no contradiction at all with your "logical statement" : "No-one can believe something unbelievable", and therefore, in what way does any logical criticism on religion can make any sense? also, you have just agreed that this particular religion is illogical to begin with, i.e, illogical religion exists, i.e, there IS a different game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said I don't believe anyone can believe '3=1' therefore I believe a religon that claims '3=1' is illogical. I could be wrong, maybe there are people who can believe '3=1' - what would that belief involve?

The existence of such a religon is not relevent to anything. People can say they believe it without actually believing it.

I can create a game that is unplayable, market it well and sell it to loads of people who might say they love it - but they sure aren't playing it.

Are we heading towards a conversation about cruet sets with no holes?

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I said I don't believe anyone can believe '3=1' therefore I believe a religon that claims '3=1' is illogical. I could be wrong, maybe there are people who can believe '3=1' - what would that belief involve?

[/ QUOTE ]

It might involve this:

3=1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity)

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of such a religon is not relevent to anything. People can say they believe it without actually believing it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean to say that there will be NO ONE in that religion that truely believes his own religion?

[ QUOTE ]
I can create a game that is unplayable, market it well and sell it to loads of people who might say they love it - but they sure aren't playing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this analogy, since it doesn't matter at all if it's playable or unplayable according to YOUR definitions. To keep the analogy, we are clearly talking about games that people (by the billions!) do play. You are saying it is unplayable, they are saying it is. What can you do about it?

People believed and still believe in the most crazy and illogical things imaginable. How can you say this is not possible?



[ QUOTE ]
Are we heading towards a conversation about cruet sets with no holes?


[/ QUOTE ]

You call it "cruet with no holes", for someone else (or even for yourself!) it might serve as a very useful tool for some different purpose, or just as an art work he loves. Who knows? What is the sense in criticizing completely different uses, i.e, games?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are attempting to make a logical argument for your position. Why?

Why not simply make several contradictory claims and look over the top of your glasses wisely and say ... "I won't allow you to demand logic from me."

Essentially, trying to exchange ideas about the world puts the demands of logic on you. You can think and believe anything you can imagine, but the moment you want to communicate something about it you will create some form of logic to do it. You will create rules of exchange.

Try it. Try to communicate but have no established relationship between the symbols you use and the idea you are trying to express, or the claim you are making, and try to do it without some actual 'rules' of language ( regardless of what it is actually expressing). Even simple thing like past vs future, expressing causation form a logic of expression.

It has nothing to do with theism or non-theism, some relational structure is forced on us by the nature of communication and the need to a consistant connection between a concept(and it's word) and the actual entity(event) we are describing with it. Simple example - The horse was here. For me to communicate that claim to you is depending on you having a set ( if slightly vague) concept of horse that is the same as mine, that you recognize "was" as referring to previous time and it's not some kind of new bee, and that 'here' is a flexible place is space, unlike 'empire state building'.

This is pretty sketchy naturally because those issues I've raised are the ones that occupy a good chunk of philosophy, but I hope it's enough to illustrate that your premise is wrong. Nobody is forcing logic on anyone.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean to say that there will be NO ONE in that religion that truely believes his own religion?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if the religon requires believing the unbelievable then it must be that no-one believes it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this analogy, since it doesn't matter at all if it's playable or unplayable according to YOUR definitions. To keep the analogy, we are clearly talking about games that people (by the billions!) do play. You are saying it is unplayable, they are saying it is. What can you do about it?


[/ QUOTE ]
They are playing a different game, one that is logical (playable).



[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we heading towards a conversation about cruet sets with no holes?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You call it "cruet with no holes", for someone else (or even for yourself!) it might serve as a very useful tool for some different purpose, or just as an art work he loves. Who knows? What is the sense in criticizing completely different uses, i.e, games?

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know how happy this makes me. However, if it has no holes it is not a cruet set, whatever you use it for and whatever you call it.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty sketchy naturally because those issues I've raised are the ones that occupy a good chunk of philosophy, but I hope it's enough to illustrate that your premise is wrong. Nobody is forcing logic on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you haven't illustrated that "my premise" is wrong, since all you have done is inventing some vague "premise" of your own and then "negating" it (in a pretty weak way too).

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with theism or non-theism, some relational structure is forced on us by the nature of communication and the need to a consistant connection between a concept(and it's word) and the actual entity(event) we are describing with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second, I'm pretty suprised that someone who seems quite confident in his ability for philosophical reasnoning, like yourself here, is describing the relation between "a concept(and it's word) and the actual entity(event)" as if it is some well known fact! quite ridiculous. What you are describing is of course nothing but an idea, "a thought", you have with regard to what is a word, and what is an "actual entity". I hope you know that this is just one (and quite arbitrary, uninteresting, old and even wrong from some perspectives) way to present the relation between "words" and "reality"? Otherwise it would lead me to suspect there's a lot more confusion in your private, "philosophical" world.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you demand a great book, or movie, to be logical, for you to believe it, to "accept" it? To take you to new, exciting, places, or even change you deeply in rare cases? No. Sometimes the most amazing works of arts, the most moving masterpieces, are the ones least logical. Music is not logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't demand anything, but the book, even if it is a set of nonsense poems totally depends on the logical structure of the language, if it didn't I wouldn't be able to recognize the one that is nonsense. Nonsense poetry depends heavily on logic, it teases us with how it almost makes sense. How does the writer know that I'll know there is no such thing as Bagnose? Well, he makes a logical assumption, and I know he has made that assumption and he knows I know ..hhmmm, it's like poker.

Music isn't logical? It's as logical as most experiences we have. The relationship between a specific mark on a page and the sound produces is constant not random. It also counts on the sound being produces sounding the same to the next person. I don't assume 'the sound of music' sounds to you like a herd of horses running by. There would be no common music if we each heard ( if we hear it at all) totally different things, or if it sounded totally different each time we heard it.

When we play the same tune in our head ( so we're not sharing it) what do we mean "same", that is a logical claim we are making when we recognize it, and we're not even talking to anyone.

Music may produce emotions, but that is only true if we believe in cause and effect. It makes no sense to think "that tune makes me sad" if we haven't bought into the logical idea that one event can cause another. We don't experience it as "sad-making" and "non-sadmaking" simultaneously, why not if there is no logic to the experience? We can experience sad and happy from the piece simultaneously but that is not the same concept as sad or not-sad.

I'll stop there, I've only touched on some logical aspects of music and stories, and likely not the most important. Escaping logic isn't easy.

luckyme

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
They are playing a different game, one that is logical (playable).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are in fact saying that all the things that people believe in are logical by definition. However, this is clearly not true, since if it was true, there was no meaning to logic.


[ QUOTE ]
However, if it has no holes it is not a cruet set, whatever you use it for and whatever you call it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it _is_ a cruet set. You said so yourself. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are in fact saying that all the things that people believe in are logical by definition. However, this is clearly not true, since if it was true, there was no meaning to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I said that. Anything someone believes is believable by definition. The things in themselves are not logical - they are just things.


[ QUOTE ]
But it _is_ a cruet set. You said so yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif no I didn't. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

chez

[PrayingMantis]

Again and again in your post you are using "logic" in an _extremely_ broad sense. You are using the word "logic" as a symbol of relation between things, any kind of things, and any kind of relation. However, this is widenning the meaning of the word so it could serve you to mean _anything_ you want it to mean. Unfortunately, this is not logic.

For instance, you insisist (for some strange reason) that music is logical. Well, it isn't, unless you define logical as "everything luckyme say is logical". There are some aspects in _thinking_ about music, or _notating_ music, that can be analysed in logical tools. However, saying that "music is logical" is meaningless. It's like saying "music is going to jump out of the window".

Also, some things you say about cause and effects are also nothing but speculations. There's nothing "logical" in cause and effect, and this is a very very old subject. There are great (western!) thinkers who refered to cause and effect as a possible illusion, for instance.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are in fact saying that all the things that people believe in are logical by definition. However, this is clearly not true, since if it was true, there was no meaning to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think I said that. Anything someone believes is believable by definition. The things in themselves are not logical - they are just things.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you did say so. Several times on this thread you have specifically said and implied that it is not possible to believe in illogical things (for instance - your analogy of believing in an illogical thing to playing an unplayable [unplayable=illogical, by your definition] game), therefore (I repeat myself) all the things that people believe in are logical by definition. However, this is clearly not true, since if it was true, there was no meaning to logic.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What you are describing is of course nothing but an idea, "a thought", you have with regard to what is a word, and what is an "actual entity". I hope you know that this is just one (and quite arbitrary, uninteresting, old and even wrong from some perspectives) way to present the relation between "words" and "reality"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't making claims about reality, I was discussing the nature of communication and how it forces us into some standards ( there can be different ones). My example ( the horse was here) used the everyday standard. I fully expect that you'll know what I was expressing with that phrase. If you don't, then you have nothing to fear about somebody demanding logic in an exchange, it likely isn't possible.

I never claimed anything about "the" connection between an entity ( if such a thing exists, and most are arbitrary) and how we communicate what it is we are referring to, just that in order to communicate there must be an 'agreed' structure of some kind. There are options in what that structure is.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religion does that itself. Most are cause/effect based. This happpened - therefore. or Because of X I must do Y. Those are logical statements, not just some emotional warmness. Why do they think those are useful statements if they have no consistant logic based meaning so that the person hearing that phrase ( just like the horse one) can be counted on to understand the claim. It's not me depending on logic to define some religion, the adherants themselves say, "He died .. therefore..". Who forced that on them?

luckyme, oh, and that horse is still here

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical?

[/ QUOTE ] Most religion does that itself. Most are cause/effect based. This happpened - therefore. or Because of X I must do Y. Those are logical statements, not just some emotional warmness. Why do they think those are useful statements if they have no consistant logic based meaning so that the person hearing that phrase ( just like the horse one) can be counted on to understand the claim. It's not me depending on logic to define some religion, the adherants themselves say, "He died .. therefore..". Who forced that on them?


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now we are talking. This paragraph is to the point.

Now let me ask you that: would it make sense in your opinion to criticize a religion, any religion, for having inconsistencies in the structure of its "arguments"? Or for having clear self-contradictory elements, or "logical leaps"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a game, where the rules of it are: "lets pretend we are in a dream". We can play it, it's a game. In what way does this game have to be logical, or logically-self-consistent for that matter? It can be consistent in the way a dream is consistent, which is very far from the idea of "logically consistent" you talk about.



[ QUOTE ]
Same for religon. A religon is logical if its beliefs are consistent - it doesn't require two contradictory beliefs at the same time. By 'contradictory beliefs' I mean two beliefs that cannot be held at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that some religions are logical, or could be logical. However - this certainly isn't some requirement for a religion! I can certainly think of many religions who require contradiciting beliefs at the same time. For instance: 3=1, while at the same time 3!=1. Such characteristics are common for many religions. Looking for "consistency" in a religion is exactly the kind of absurd I was talking about. Another very general example: in many religions, certain objects are ALSO other things (not symbolizing other things, but ARE other things). This is "dream-logic", not the "logic" you talk about. However, these religions _exist_. Therefore, you can't say that "non-logical" religions are not religions, pretty much as you can't say so about games.
I don't quite see what you mean by "stand-alone", by "our", and by "other belives". As a matter of fact, the actual reality in which we live (also the reality in this very forum), shows you that people can live in the very same world, at the same time, the SAME SOCIETY, and still believe in very different, sometimes contradictory things. How can that be if what you had just said is true? Obviously there is no consistenncy here, at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Formal logic appears like a game of chess because it has rules, but formal logic is just an abstract way of analysing what follows from what we mean.


[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Praying Mantis,
I think what people are criticizing, or at least what I criticize, is the honesty of religious followers. They do not own up to the type of game they are playing and say they are playing football with us when actually they are playing your "lets pretend we're dreaming" game.
Now you could tell me, "aha, thats because lying about the game is part of their game."
Maybe so. This could go on ad infinitum. I dont believe that most religious adherents ARE actually doing what you say they are. I believe they are simply lying about what they are doing--both to themselves and to me.
If somebody is hitting a golf ball and they tell you, "Hello, I'm playing tennis right now. I am on a tennis court." I have every right to tell them, no you are not. Let's talk about this tennis court and this game of tennis. perhaps we are just having a language issue. No...apparently you are simply lying. We share the same language and you are lying.

-g

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Praying Mantis,
I think what people are criticizing, or at least what I criticize, is the honesty of religious followers. They do not own up to the type of game they are playing and say they are playing football with us when actually they are playing your "lets pretend we're dreaming" game.
Now you could tell me, "aha, thats because lying about the game is part of their game."
Maybe so. This could go on ad infinitum. I dont believe that most religious adherents ARE actually doing what you say they are. I believe they are simply lying about what they are doing--both to themselves and to me.
If somebody is hitting a golf ball and they tell you, "Hello, I'm playing tennis right now. I am on a tennis court." I have every right to tell them, no you are not. Let's talk about this tennis court and this game of tennis. perhaps we are just having a language issue. No...apparently you are simply lying. We share the same language and you are lying.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with you, at least in some sense. I think that there's a lot of dishonesty going on on the "religious" side. However, the thing is, there's quite a lot of it on the "atheistic" side too, but it is a different kind of dishonesty. It's a dishonesty with regard to thinking that one is completely "free" from illogical behaviours, tendencies and beliefs, only because he is "atheist". From my expiriece, most "atheist" people simply develope their own individual (and/or social) "religions", which often are as crazy and arbitrary as any "normal" religion (and this is true also for very intelligent people) while at the same time criticizing "religious" people of being "illogical". It's not better than the "religious dishonesty", IMO.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are in fact saying that all the things that people believe in are logical by definition. However, this is clearly not true, since if it was true, there was no meaning to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think I said that. Anything someone believes is believable by definition. The things in themselves are not logical - they are just things.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you did say so. Several times on this thread you have specifically said and implied that it is not possible to believe in illogical things (for instance - your analogy of believing in an illogical thing to playing an unplayable [unplayable=illogical, by your definition] game), therefore (I repeat myself) all the things that people believe in are logical by definition. However, this is clearly not true, since if it was true, there was no meaning to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you've misunderstood me again and again. As its impossible to believe the unbelievable, a religon that demands you believe the unbelievable has a problem (its illogical is a standard name for the problem).

I assume you agree with that or are you saying its possible to believe the unbelievable.

The religon can still exist and people can believe it exists, they can even believe that most of it is true. They can also believe its all true provided they haven't realised all that it implies.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but I think you're reading more into the description of something as illogical than it implies.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This paragraph is to the point.

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, they all were, ;-) but by your response to them we are simply talking past each other on most of them. I could be clearer, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
would it make sense in your opinion to criticize a religion, any religion, for having inconsistencies in the structure of its "arguments"? Or for having clear self-contradictory elements, or "logical leaps"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm leary of the 'criticize' part, if they leave my rights alone I don't care if they believe UP and DOWN are equal and cause herpes. It's when it moves into the rest of the world and makes logical claims "IF Y..then Z" that the argument They are making ( not the religion directly) needs to be called to account. Logic is about a lot of things and one is the nature of "claims/arguments".

I'm trying to visualize a useful illogical discussion/debate/claim. I'll admit I can't.
If they make claim A : because X then Y. They have tacitly agreed to discuss in a cause-effect logically valid manner...in that they are expecting me to step into this logical structure and grant that such a claim is valid.
Let's say I agree with them that sure, if X then Y is logically sound. Next, they claim B: if W then U. But that treads on the logical toes of Claim A, based on the logical structure we've set in place. Surely I have to refute that in the same logical structure they forced on my when they used Claim A. If not, and they can shift the agreed logical structure we are using at each statement then we could just sit around and grunt and pass the pipe ( even that has implications of agreed meanings).

"logical leaps" they are welcome to them ( I suspect you mean leaps of faith) but they usually bring those into a logical exchange and want them to be treated as 'valid', yet if the disbelieving side did the same thing ( made some wild 'faith' statement) and wanted to use that as the premise for the next level of exchange, the theist side would be yelling about "where the H does that come from? how can you claim that? etc". Well, either we both can make logical leaps or we both can't, essentially. Does it have a meaning for one side to be logical?

THE point being that it's not a option. Logic of some form is forced on us by the nature of exchange. Even internally we depend heavily on the aspect of logic that is built from consistancy and induction( Hume was anal). We would chide ourselves for 'misreading' some situation even though we never had a formal logical thought about it. To 'misread', implies the situation can be analyzed in some coherent fashion, and that we 'should have known'. I toss at you, you duck..and are mildly frustrated when it turns out to be a fluffball.

So, a religion can be as illogical ( by whatever rules) as it requires internally, it just can't step outside that or it walks smack into some logical structure, even if noboby wants it to ( I know I don't).

luckyme, my track record suggests this won't help

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
a religon that demands you believe the unbelievable has a problem

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply don't understand what you mean by that. What do you mean by "has a problem"? what kind of a problem? I don't remember you were talking about "a problem" prior to that, so I don't quite follow.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you agree with that or are you saying its possible to believe the unbelievable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's you who are talking about beliveable vs. unbeliveable. I have no interest in the unbeliveable, since all of actual religions (and all the sets of strories/"arguments"/whatever, that comes with them) are 100% beliveable, since, obviously, people believe in them.

[ QUOTE ]
The religon can still exist and people can believe it exists, they can even believe that most of it is true. They can also believe its all true provided they haven't realised all that it implies.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "provided they haven't realised all that it implies."? You are saying that religious people will all leave their religion once they realize all that it "implies"? I must say that this sounds like a pure religious talk by itself. What should be "implied"? is there some specific date in which it will be "implied"? and by whom? This sounds very mysterious, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I've misunderstood you but I think you're reading more into the description of something as illogical than it implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not reading anything into the description of something as illogical! I'm not even interested in the question of whether X is illogical or not! That's the whole point of my original post.

[chezlaw]

Your latest post is strange to me. You asked about why we demand religon is logical. I'm trying to explain what it means to demand something is logical and hence why we might demand it.

If, as you say, all religions are 100% believable then I would not say any of then are illogical but unless you accept that its impossible to believe the unbelievable then I'm not sure how to communicate with you. Everything I'm claiming follows simply from there.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Logic of some form is forced on us by the nature of exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made an interesting post and I'll reply later on (too busy from now on), but I'd just like to make one point.

When you say "logic of some form" you are essentially emptying the word logic. Saying "logic of some form" is like saying "any kind of logic". However, "any kind of logic" is not logic, in the normal sense. It is simply not possible to speak about logic in terms of "some form of...". If you don't restrict your definitoin of logic in _some_ way, it's not logic anymore - since clearly _any kind_ of relations in the real or imaginary word will fit it now.

That's why I think that "Logic of some form is forced on us by the nature of exchange" is really a nice statement, but at the same time completely meaningless, unless in some obscure, almost religious way.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Your latest post is strange to me. You asked about why we demand religon is logical. I'm trying to explain what it means to demand something is logical and hence why we might demand it.

If, as you say, all religions are 100% believable then I would not say any of then are illogical but unless you accept that its impossible to believe the unbelievable then I'm not sure how to communicate with you. Everything I'm claiming follows simply from there.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I must admit I have probably lost you here... (or you have lost me).

I'll try again in a few hours, maybe it will become clearer. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

These are two very different games. Of course the scientific game looks "better" to many of us, but this is a completely arbitrary point of view. From some theoretical "absolute" point of view, with no defined needs, there is no better game, only two different games. In other words, unless you have some predetermined idea about the nature of reality, you can't decide which game is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement. However, the scientific method generally has predictive power, which the religious method generally lacks. For this reason, I think it is sensible to favor the scientific, and thus far from absurd (which was your claim) to be critical of the religious worldview when it tries to make statements about perceptible reality.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical? Do you demand a great book, or movie, to be logical, for you to believe it, to "accept" it? To take you to new, exciting, places, or even change you deeply in rare cases? No. Sometimes the most amazing works of arts, the most moving masterpieces, are the ones least logical.



[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of your post seems to me to turn on an equivocation. Do I demand that a book be logical in order for me to believe it? Absolutely, if by 'logical' you mean true. To be moved or deeply affected by a work of art or a great book is not the same thing as aspiring to hold one's beliefs rationally. I can appreciate Shakespeare without demanding that his plays be historically accurate. I can appreciate a work of art without demanding that it be realistic.

When it comes to forming beliefs, though, I don't see at all how these facts about appreciating works of art mitigate against our aspiring to hold our beliefs rationally. If I think that a particular belief is irrational, I am free to reject it on exactly those grounds. If Shakespeare has Cleopatra say, "Let's to billiards" I am free to enjoy the play nonetheless, while rejecting the belief that billiards was played in ancient Egypt if there is no evidence to support that belief.

[David Sklansky]

The reason I haven't joined this thread is that I have no idea what anybody is talking about. Even though I have read every post.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I haven't joined this thread is that I have no idea what anybody is talking about. Even though I have read every post.

[/ QUOTE ]
my bit be hi falootin stuff. It may be simplistic, it may be wrong but I'm sure you can understand it if you try.

chez

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]


Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical? Do you demand a great book, or movie, to be logical, for you to believe it, to "accept" it? To take you to new, exciting, places, or even change you deeply in rare cases? No. Sometimes the most amazing works of arts, the most moving masterpieces, are the ones least logical.

Music is not logical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me if I skip over the rest of the thread and return to the OP's premise.

Sorry, but YES, logic/order/structure is a BIG part of what makes classic works of art, literature, and music great. Every part of a great story serves a purpose and fits together, no random sub-threads just stuck in gratuitously or major plot themes left completely unconnected. The power of the best symphonies and poems is the combination of emotional content with a tightly ordered structure. There's a reason why the serial and atonal composers failed to displace Beethoven from concert halls.

[ QUOTE ]

Logic is a game. Religion is a game. Very very different kinds of games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can believe some people view logic that way. I don't. Logic, or mathematics, or the laws of nature, or whatever name you'd like to give it, is the set of rules by which all games in the universe, and the universe itself, are played.

At least we can each agree that the other is confused, no?

[BluffTHIS!]

I have a hard time believing that you really understand what logic is. You are making an assertion regarding the believers of one religion or philosophy criticizing the beliefs of another based on their own axioms. This is similar to asserting that a theorist of Euclid's geometry criticizes the theorems of a theorist of Riemann's geometry because they are not consonant with Euclidian axioms. This is not true. It would however be appropriate for the Riemann theorist to point out that a certain theorem proposed by a theorist of Euclidian geometry did not logically follow from Euclid's axioms.

Thus logic is merely a test for validity among differing theorems of a certain system, and makes no claims regarding the validity of the axioms. Also logic is also not a guide to metaphysics or aesthetics.

You need to get a better education regarding all these matters.

Ah yes. The last resort for those who can't defend their beliefs. And, your analogies are horrible. Music is enjoyable when it obeys some musical "logic" rather than haphazard notes slammed together in an awkward effort. If some group or individual makes a claim ("Jesus is the son of God", "You must have faith to be saved", etc.), then what else do we have at our disposals to evaluate this claim? The fact that it "sounds good" just like that song did, too? If this is your basis for faith, then I challenge you to fly in an airplane engineered by men who built it in a way that appealed to them aesthetically, but disregarded science and logic. C'mon, put your money where your mouth is.

[PrayingMantis]

There are some interesting replies here, of course including David's rather obscure one, however, I won't be able to respond to them during the next 12 (at least) hours (if it matters to anyone).

So I have chosen BluffTHIS! for one quick reply.


[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time believing that you really understand what logic is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you take a different perspective) I do understand what logic is.




[ QUOTE ]
You are making an assertion regarding the believers of one religion or philosophy criticizing the beliefs of another based on their own axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's suppose I do.

[ QUOTE ]
This is similar to asserting that a theorist of Euclid's geometry criticizes the theorems of a theorist of Riemann's geometry because they are not consonant with Euclidian axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK.



[ QUOTE ]
This is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

What is not true? It's quite funny that you critisize my "understanding of logic" while making such a vague claim yourself. Is it not true that "I am making an assertion regarding the believers of one religion or philosophy criticizing the beliefs of another based on their own axioms", or that "this is similar to asserting that a theorist of Euclid's geometry criticizes the theorems of a theorist of Riemann's geometry because they are not consonant with Euclidian axioms".?

[ QUOTE ]
It would however be appropriate for the Riemann theorist to point out that a certain theorem proposed by a theorist of Euclidian geometry did not logically follow from Euclid's axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it would be. I agree. What is your point?


[ QUOTE ]
Thus logic is merely a test for validity among differing theorems of a certain system, and makes no claims regarding the validity of the axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Also logic is also not a guide to metaphysics or aesthetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a strange and problematic statement. Had you phrased it differetnly, closer to what I said in my OP, I would agree. As such, I can't agree with that, since, for instance, the philosophical discepline of aesthetics (which is what "aesthetics" would mean) certainly has a lot to do with logic. However, this is not necessarily true for "beauty" itself.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to get a better education regarding all these matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have more than enough education in "all these matters". Of course, the mere fact that you have to finish your post with such a statement (and also, considering other parts of your post), tells me that you are having very hard time dealing with "all these matters" yourself.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes. The last resort for those who can't defend their beliefs. And, your analogies are horrible. Music is enjoyable when it obeys some musical "logic" rather than haphazard notes slammed together in an awkward effort. If some group or individual makes a claim ("Jesus is the son of God", "You must have faith to be saved", etc.), then what else do we have at our disposals to evaluate this claim? The fact that it "sounds good" just like that song did, too? If this is your basis for faith, then I challenge you to fly in an airplane engineered by men who built it in a way that appealed to them aesthetically, but disregarded science and logic. C'mon, put your money where your mouth is.

[/ QUOTE ]

??

What are you talking about? This post makes no sense at all. Also, I have no interest at all in defending anyone's beliefs. For all I care, all beliefs are complete gibberish.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your latest post is strange to me. You asked about why we demand religon is logical. I'm trying to explain what it means to demand something is logical and hence why we might demand it.

If, as you say, all religions are 100% believable then I would not say any of then are illogical but unless you accept that its impossible to believe the unbelievable then I'm not sure how to communicate with you. Everything I'm claiming follows simply from there.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I must admit I have probably lost you here... (or you have lost me).

I'll try again in a few hours, maybe it will become clearer. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Most likely we have lost each other. Hopefully we can sort it out later and provide some solace for DS.

BTW. I'm also bewildered as to the cause of the last few threads.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
There is a strange, third option: you mean to say that some people believe in unbelievable things. But this is self-contradictory, of course

[/ QUOTE ]
Mantis, you're just mangling language and meaning. I think you're deliberately trying to be thick

The point is that some people believe in things which AREN'T TRUE. Plenty of untrue things are believable to gullible or uneducated people. Your bs about this being 'self contradictory' is just [censored] with semantics

For example, some people believe:
- Homeopathy cures cancer
- Dice systems work (for David)
- Demons cause mental illness
- Allah will destroy all the infidels.
- The soul is in the blood, therefore, blood transfusions are evil.

How do fight harmful beliefs like these without logic? How do you determine which are true? Surely you can see why this matters.

The third option is the correct one, and it's not at all strange.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I haven't joined this thread is that I have no idea what anybody is talking about. Even though I have read every post.

[/ QUOTE ]

[IronUnkind]

Many of the posters (and the OP in particular) seem to have a great deal of difficulty articulating their ideas. This thread has the ingredients for interesting discussion, but right now everyone is misunderstanding one another.

There are some tantalizing bits in there, and I suppose the basic question is why must we measure the truthfulness of a proposition by its ability to conform to logic? I think this is an important problematization of the dialogues that have been taking place here, but I fear that most people will not take the question seriously. Or among those that do, clarity of expression will prove too challenging.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of your post seems to me to turn on an equivocation. Do I demand that a book be logical in order for me to believe it? Absolutely, if by 'logical' you mean true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the very thing he's questioning. I think.

[IronUnkind]

What's with all the underscores?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
There are great (western!) thinkers who refered to cause and effect as a possible illusion, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Including Hume and Russell. I've always been puzzled by the failure to understand that Hume, for instance, struck a blow at the foundations of science, as well as religion.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you demand a great book, or movie, to be logical, for you to believe it, to "accept" it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Logic is a tool used to differentiate the acceptable thoeries and arguments from the not.


[ QUOTE ]
No. Sometimes the most amazing works of arts, the most moving masterpieces, are the ones least logical.

Music is not logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean. Can you give examples and further explanation please.


[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic are the rules of the game of life. I dont see how logic is inherently a game?

[ QUOTE ]

Saying that religion X is not logical (or less logical than religion Y, and for that "worse"), is like saying that the rules of chess do not apply well to football (or that chess rules work better with basketball than with football), and that *that* is the problem with football.

(This example is not even good enough, because chess and football are relatively similar in some senses. Maybe it's better to think about different games, such that in one game you can't even find the object of "winning". It's not difficult. Children play many games like this).

(Note also that the fact that religions/believers might use logic [or logic1, logic2, logic3 etc] for certain purposes, has nothing to do with my point here).

This post is directed both at "atheists" who criticize certain religions/believers for not being logical, and also at "believers" who use logic to justify their religious beliefs. All I'm saying is that you are confused.


[/ QUOTE ]

based on your example and content you apparently dont understand what logic is. I highly suggest you investigate this topic a little more.

[imported_luckyme]

Here's my executive summary-

OP - "Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical?"

luckyme - I don't.. Unless it wants to communicate to outsiders, then it needs to communicate logically or just hum it's comments.

chezlaw ( from a different angle)-
- "No-one can believe something unbelievable.
No-one can play a game that has unplayable rules.
These are logical statements. Any game that requires you to play with unplayable rules is illogical."

If that doesn't capture the nub of the thread ( at the great risk of oversimplification) then we ARE lost.

luckyme

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you demand a great book, or movie, to be logical, for you to believe it, to "accept" it?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes. Logic is a tool used to differentiate the acceptable thoeries and arguments from the not.


[/ QUOTE ]

What does a great book or movie or a beautiful song, have to do with "differentiating the acceptable thoeries and arguments from the not"? (By the way, nice logical structure). You are clearly a bit confused here. Your reply doesn't seem to be with any connection what so ever to the question you are quoting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Sometimes the most amazing works of arts, the most moving masterpieces, are the ones least logical.

Music is not logical.

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean. Can you give examples and further explanation please.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this so difficult to understand? Making music, listening to music, enjoying music, has nothing to do with any logical process. It isn't about logic, it isn't logical. Music, as it is, is not logicl. It does not make sense to say something like "this music is illogical". On the other hand, physics, for instance, or particularly, theories in physics, are. Very simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Logic are the rules of the game of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like certain other posters on this thread, you seem to have a completely mystical idea about logic (while on the other hand criticizing MY understanding of it...). The sentence "Logic are the rules of the game of life" is some kind of an axiom, or "religious truth" you have just invented, which has nothing to do with logic itself. Presenting it as a fact is utterly ridiculous. It is not even true or false, it is just some random collection of words. It seems, again like others, as if you think "logic" can mean anything you want it to mean. Unfortunately, that's not logic, that's your confused idea of what logic is or should be.

[ QUOTE ]
based on your example and content you apparently dont understand what logic is. I highly suggest you investigate this topic a little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet again, not for the first time, I'm being criticized for my "understanding of logic" by someone who apparently has very foggy idea himself about logic, its meaning and uses. This thread is really a lot of fun. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the posters (and the OP in particular) seem to have a great deal of difficulty articulating their ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, English is not my first and best language, so there are certain relatively rare points where I'm feeling I could deliver my ideas better with a greater control of the language. However, this is a very minor thing, IMO, since most of my ideas here are articulated quite as I would like them to be articulated, whether it is in English or other language. In any case, some of these ideas are very confusing to some, as it seems from this thread (where I'm obvisouly being attacked both by "atheists" and "relgious" people. Which I like a lot, by the way, since it's a very good sign).

Also, complicated ideas, delicate ones, certainly ones you don't find on this forum often, if at all, are by their nature more difficult to articulate. I have no problem with rephrasing and rephrasing it, again and again, and trying to get as accurate as possible. This is not easy at all.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread has the ingredients for interesting discussion, but right now everyone is misunderstanding one another.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, and I also think that there are very good reasons for this mutual misunderstanding. It's not only about "badly articulated ideas".

[ QUOTE ]
There are some tantalizing bits in there, and I suppose the basic question is why must we measure the truthfulness of a proposition by its ability to conform to logic? I think this is an important problematization of the dialogues that have been taking place here, but I fear that most people will not take the question seriously. Or among those that do, clarity of expression will prove too challenging.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a nice articulation of the basic question that bothered me. I admit that along this thread I didn't present it as a "question", but more as a provocative argument with regard to the relation between logic and religion. If you are able to conclude that "clarity of expression will prove too challenging", it must be that _your_ clarity of expression is far superior to anybody else's here. I challenge you to take the specific question you have presented seriously (as you suggest), articulate your ideas and post them, instead of playing the role of someone who can-definitely-do-it-better-but-doesn't-think-the competetition-is-worthy, or something, which is a role for a loser.

PrayingMantis,

Your articulation seems to be getting better, if it ever was bad. However, I feel that your technique is somewhat "roundabout" and not worthy of the esteem you seem to have for your interlocutors. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

btw, I am not a native english speaker either, /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but YES, logic/order/structure is a BIG part of what makes classic works of art, literature, and music great. Every part of a great story serves a purpose and fits together, no random sub-threads just stuck in gratuitously or major plot themes left completely unconnected. The power of the best symphonies and poems is the combination of emotional content with a tightly ordered structure. There's a reason why the serial and atonal composers failed to displace Beethoven from concert halls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice points (although very debateable), but still, logic can never serve as criteria for judging whether a work of art is great or poor. Never. The fact that you find "logic" in works of arts you like and don't find it in works of arts you hate, is only an indication of how you are using the word "logic" in an extremely wide sense. Suppose X loves a movie that you hate. He thinks this movie is great, you think it is poor and boring. Can you use logic to prove him wrong? Of course not. Many intelligent people have very very different preferences when it comes to art. Sometimes contradicting preferences. The ansewr to the question "what is beautiful" changes according to time in history, place, etc. You can not say that about questions that logic deals with.



[ QUOTE ]
Logic, or mathematics, or the laws of nature, or whatever name you'd like to give it, is the set of rules by which all games in the universe, and the universe itself, are played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but like I have already said several times on this thread, this statement is nothing but a faith, a speculation, a belief, an idea. Presenting it as a fact is very strange. Also, it sounds like you are living in the 18th century or something.

[ QUOTE ]
At least we can each agree that the other is confused, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone is confused, no doubt about it.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Your articulation seems to be getting better, if it ever was bad. However, I feel that your technique is somewhat "roundabout" and not worthy of the esteem you seem to have for your interlocutors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please elaborate on this? I am genuinely interested to understand what you mean here with regard to my technique, since it could serve the exchange of ideas on this thread.

As a side note, some of the reasons for arguing the way I do, I believe, is simply a result of me (or "me"), being attacked severly time and again for my "misunderstanding of logic", by people who "defend" logic by using some very obscure arguments. So just to make it very clear, if someone feels I am "criticizing" logic, he/she really has no idea with regard to what I'm talking about. Logic serves me great for years, and I am a great "lover" of logic (as of religion too, or more precisely some meanings/aspects of "religion", and I'm saying that knowing that my intentions with regard to this might remain unclear).

[ QUOTE ]
Nice points (although very debateable), but still, logic can never serve as criteria for judging whether a work of art is great or poor. Never.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your analogy is flawed. Art does not make factual claims about the nature of reality. To the extent that religion does, it is subject to logic. This is where the two 'games' cross paths.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Art does not make factual claims about the nature of reality. To the extent that religion does, it is subject to logic. This is where the two 'games' cross paths.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

X does not treat religious claims as factual claims about the nature of reality, as opposed to the way he treats scientific claims. Can you tell me please what is wrong with X?

[ QUOTE ]
X does not treat religious claims as factual claims about the nature of reality, as opposed to the way he treats scientific claims. Can you tell me please what is wrong with X?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that was the case, there is very little wrong with X.

But show me a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Scientologist that doesn't make such claims.

Factual claim: The personality survives the death of the body
Factual claim: You will consciously experience an eternity in a horrible place if you do/don't do Y.
Factual claim: Humans were designed by an conscious entity.
Factual claim: The soul is in the blood
Factual claim: A super powerful being wrote instructions in a book that he expects people to follow.
etc

While there is nothing in particular wrong with X's approach, it's weak. Most people strive for some kind of internal consistency in their beliefs, especially when those beliefs are about the fundamental nature of life and existence. An open, inquiring mind seeks answers to these questions and uses every tool available to do so. Why not logic?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
X does not treat religious claims as factual claims about the nature of reality, as opposed to the way he treats scientific claims. Can you tell me please what is wrong with X?

[/ QUOTE ] f that was the case, there is very little wrong with X.

But show me a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Scientologist that doesn't make such claims.

Factual claim: The personality survives the death of the body
Factual claim: You will consciously experience an eternity in a horrible place if you do/don't do Y.
Factual claim: Humans were designed by an conscious entity.
Factual claim: The soul is in the blood
Factual claim: A super powerful being wrote instructions in a book that he expects people to follow.
etc


[/ QUOTE ]

Please pay very close attention to what you are doing. You are "quoting", say, "a christian", and preior to this you write "factual claim:", and by that you imagine that it is a factual claim, which is equal (in some relevant sense) to a scientific claim (as an example). So you are defining it as P, and you treat it as it is as P. This makes a lot of sense, but not more than NOT defining it as P (for instance, defining it as Q), and then simply NOT treating it as P, but as Q.

[ QUOTE ]
While there is nothing in particular wrong with X's approach, it's weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say it's weak, I say it's unbelievably strong. What does "weak" mean here? we are not talking about maximizing value in a poker hand. Calling something "weak" in this context like calling it an igloo.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people strive for some kind of internal consistency in their beliefs,

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, that is what many people do (I'm not sure about "most", though). All I'm saying is that those people are trying to play chess and backgammon at the same time, and do not realise why it isn't working for them as they would like it to.

And here is a paradox for you: the great majority of people received their religion simply because they were born into it. So if they find it too "inconsistent" for their taste, they might leave their relgion, but still, all of the other believers will keep believing, i.e, being religious.

How does this makes sense to you? Some people find "inconsistency" and automatically leave, some don't find it and don't leave. and that's the "religious picture" for hundreds and thousands of years. So what is this "inconsistency" that some "find" and supposedly "leave", and others don't? Certainly, it is something completely personal (according to this), because logical consistency per se isn't something that is found only by some, but can't be found by others. Unless you say that those who don't find it, can actually find it but are not interested in this "inconsistency" at all! Logic is not relevant for their game! and that is simply a different way to present my idea from the original post.

(Also think about someone who finds logical inconsistency in a scientific theory. It wouldn't make any sense to think that he should "leave", "abandon it", while all other scientists can keep believing in it without any consideration of his discovery. That is the exact reason why scientific theories are in constant change, while religious "theories" are not).

[ QUOTE ]
An open, inquiring mind seeks answers to these questions and uses every tool available to do so. Why not logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is what an inquiring mind seeks. I don't agree at all that an inquiring mind is not able to recognize that religious claims (any of them, for that matter) are essentially different in their very nature than those claimed by physics, for instance.

[sweetjazz]

Aha, so you have proven the last claim of the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that you are confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a tribe in Bora Bora that believes that Pi =3 or that kissing causes blindness. Who cares?
If there is a tribe in Montana that wants to pass a law using their religious beliefs as the reason - we're going to have to exchange ideas. It's that necessity to communicate using some common principles that brings the 'logic' issues into play, it's not some innate desire on my part that they BE logical inside their religion.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree at all that an inquiring mind is not able to recognize that religious claims (any of them, for that matter) are essentially different in their very nature than those claimed by physics, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fellow stops me on the street. He says,"the ebola virus isn't evolving, trust me, I know this, we don’t need any research programs."

Should I trust him? Should I ask for proof? By your scenario, why would I? Or even HOW could I? Remember, we don’t know his ‘reasons’ for making it and if he’s coming from a non-logical space then why should/would we demand logic.

You’re confusing the claim with the reasons for the claim. Regardless of his reasons, his claim is “the ebola virus isn’t evolving”.

What would be your next move?
What if he supports passing a law banning ebola research based on his claim ( which we still don’t know his reasons for )? By your worldview, we’d not be allowed to demand logical proof of his claim because his claim may be based on non-logical approaches.
So, I , prayingmantis would ……

Luckyme,
If I thought I was wrong, I’d change my mind

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a tribe in Bora Bora that believes that Pi =3 or that kissing causes blindness. Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see your point here. Who cares about the multiverse hypotheses in physics? What does "caring" has to do with asking questions about logic and religious systems?



[ QUOTE ]
If there is a tribe in Bora Bora that believes that Pi =3 or that kissing causes blindness. Who cares?
If there is a tribe in Montana that wants to pass a law using their religious beliefs as the reason - we're going to have to exchange ideas. It's that necessity to communicate using some common principles that brings the 'logic' issues into play, it's not some innate desire on my part that they BE logical inside their religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you do agree, at the end of this paragraph, that there isn't some innate desire on your part that they be logical inside their religion. This is great. We're getting closer.

Now to the specific example, I still don't quite see the relevancy of it to the basic issue here. Well, you have something to settle, you have to exchange ideas, negotiate maybe, great. At some point there will be a democratic decision, voting maybe, some laws will be changed or maybe not, so what? It might get to court, whatever.

At the bottom line, their belief won't change. Your logic has nothing to do with it, because you don't discuss it at all. So their religious laws won't change, only they might have to practice it a bit differently because they prefer living their lives as it is than going to jail. FWIW, Jewish people had to forget about many of the practices of Judaism because of tough circumstances, but kept their belief, and later on, sometimes centuries later, went back to practice things that were technically impossible earlier. All this has very little to with logic, unless, as you did few times already, you are using the word "logic" in some extremely wide sense, and by that emptying this word from any concrete meaning.

Now, Regarding the story with your fellow and the ebola, it's a nice story, but again, you seem to forget the context of things, the specific GAME. What is your friend's function in society? What are yours and his motives? Who is he? Who are you? Is he a scientist? A rabbi? An actor? A poker player? Some crazy dude who is keeping giant cobra snakes as pets?

When you say: "A fellow stops me on the street. He says,'the ebola virus isn't evolving, trust me, I know this, we don’t need any research programs.'", there's nothing to say or do with regard to it. It's happening in a vacuum. All your questions that follow this example are questions in a vacuum, that are pretty much meaningless. What should I do if some dude tells me ebola is not evolving and we should stop the research? What should I do if some very drunk homeless tells me the world is made out of little monkeys and therefore we should move to the moon? what should I do if the same dude tells me that photons are produced by atoms when electrons move from one orbital to another? I will do the same thing.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical?


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically you do agree, at the end of this paragraph, that there isn't some innate desire on your part that they be logical inside their religion. This is great. We're getting closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I have maintained that since my 1st post, I don’t see that we’re getting closer. As I’ve said, Your premise is false. We do NOT demand religion to BE logical.
It’s the exchange of ideas that brings out the logic issue. If the sides don’t talk to each other or impact each other, most people are pretty tolerant… ‘who cares’ does apply, it means “I don’t demand that you be logical in your religion , because I don’t care if you are or you aren’t. Fill yer boots.”.
“I do demand that you are logical in trying to exchange concepts, ideas, soup recipes with me, not because I think logic is such a wonderful tool ( I happen to think it is) but because I can’t see how we can exchange ideas without it ( group hugs?).

I think we're spinning our wheels here ( reminds me of the state that passed the Pi=3 law, which was not a logic based claim,so we'd have no way to dispute it, but would make wheel-spinning mighty tough :-)

good luck in your mission, luckyme

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I have maintained that since my 1st post, I don’t see that we’re getting closer. As I’ve said, Your premise is false. We do NOT demand religion to BE logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I don't exacatly know what you mean by We. It's getting pretty obvious that at least you and I (and probably others) don't demand it, but many people do, here and elsewhere, and keep arguing AGAINST religion in general, and specific religions in particular, by using logic. This is especially true for some who define themselves as atheists, and who keep criticizing religious claims, arguments, laws, ideas, myths, narratives, etc for not being logical, or being less logical than certain other claims made by other religions, or most absurd, criticizing them for being less logical than science. If you think that such people do not exist, then we are living in different worlds (and also in different internet boards, it seems).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Art does not make factual claims about the nature of reality. To the extent that religion does, it is subject to logic. This is where the two 'games' cross paths.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

X does not treat religious claims as factual claims about the nature of reality, as opposed to the way he treats scientific claims. Can you tell me please what is wrong with X?

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't come back to me, so I'll come back to you.

X in this case may be being logical but this is because he doesn't believe the religon is making factual claims about the universe. He avoids any attempt to believe the unbelievable even if the religon demands it (is making unbelievable claims about the universe).

but he could be wrong, if the religion is making unbelievable claims about the universe then the religon defeats itself and only people who misunderstand it can believe it to be true.

This can be extended to religions that are internally consistent (all the claims of the religon could be believed together) but conflict with other beliefs that people hold.

If you want to discuss this more then great but we have to start from an agreement that no-one can believe the unbelievable.

chez

[atrifix]

The question that you might want to answer is: why not logic?

Logic is quite useful in evaluating beliefs. It sets a certain standard, rationality, that we use as a level of acceptance. Similarly music, art, etc. have other standards of acceptance, although those tend to be aesthetic rather than logical. If someone chooses not to adhere to these standards, it doesn't make them wrong, just not very interesting.

The useful thing about logic is it guarantees conclusions (deductive logic, anyway) based on the premises. It's a useful method for getting true conclusions. Of course someone can say that they don't care whether or not our conclusion is true, or they don't care what method owe go about arriving at a true conclusion, but this seems pretty unacceptable for most people. Would you want your life to depend on Homer Simpson finding the right button to prevent a nuclear meltdown by means of "eenie-meenie-minie-moe"? One could argue that personal beliefs don't fall under the same category as protecting lives, but when these beliefs are widespread and involve a variety of metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical claims, we ought to consider them fairly seriously. Logic is the most useful tool that we have.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I don't exacatly know what you mean by We. It's getting pretty obvious that at least you and I (and probably others) don't demand it, but many people do, here and elsewhere, and keep arguing AGAINST religion in general, and specific religions in particular, by using logic. This is especially true for some who define themselves as atheists, and who keep criticizing religious claims, arguments, laws, ideas, myths, narratives, etc for not being logical, or being less logical than certain other claims made by other religions, or most absurd, criticizing them for being less logical than science. If you think that such people do not exist, then we are living in different worlds (and also in different internet boards, it seems).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I would hope that all atheists continue, even more vociferously, to criticise and attack religions. After all they are a minority whose freedom is being eroded by theists on the basis of equating religious beliefs with rationality, or worse, on the basis of putting themselves authoritatively above others by divine right (just a twist with as much irrationality). So, if the coreligionist, left me alone and didn't try to force passing of laws that have no rational moral justification, I am very happy to say nothing and not wake them up from their dreams, if not, then I see it as my mission to be as strong as I can in trying to prevent my liberties being eroded.

Furthermore, I think that by constant exposition to the rational, the penny may drop, for some, once in a while, and that would be for the betterment of humans. There is no doubt in my mind that being open and understanding the reality of the human condition, truth rather than The Truth, makes for a much more compassionate being, capable of true empathy with others.

[imported_luckyme]

It seems you’re arguing several cases at once, and treating them as one.
Or perhaps another view is that you have made too sweeping of a statement which makes it difficult to agree with you since parts that could be sectioned off are not valid.
[ QUOTE ]
many people …keep arguing AGAINST religion … by using logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems a valid method if one is opposed to religion, I certainly don’t want to listen to any non-logical arguments against religion. There’s no lack of logical arguments a person can produce against religion.

That is not the same situation as –
[ QUOTE ]
criticizing religious claims, arguments, laws, ideas, myths, narratives, etc for not being logical,

[/ QUOTE ]

A claim about what is true about our world ( masturbation causes you to go blind) has no way of being refuted other than a logical, scientific approach. The fact that my wife thinks we’re closer to LA than Portland because an angel told her that last night doesn’t mean I’m wasting my time getting out the maps and warming up the car, there may be hope. The source of the claim is irrelevant, if it’s a claim about physical issues rather than metaphysical then logic is the tool to try and battle it with. Sure, it may be a waste of time, but who knows, they accepted heliocentricity after a few hundred years, but by your method a lot of us would still be in danger of heresy charges.

I agree about myths, narratives etc. That only should arise if the religious side claims they ARE logical, in which case we’re playing on the same court by mutual agreement and it might be fun.

That is not the same situation as -
[ QUOTE ]
or most absurd, criticizing them for being less logical than science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see no major problem with that. Religious people can simply counter, “well, you’re less faith-leaped than I am” and stick out their tongue. I agree it’s a “what’s the point” situation, but it’s simply pointing out the obvious. A frustrating waste of time( other than most people believe they are logical and a lot of non-theists arrived at that state by a rational epiphany, so perhaps not a total waste).
[ QUOTE ]
If you think that such people do not exist, then we are living in different worlds

[/ QUOTE ]
We are. In the sense that I see a lot of the exchanges occurring in different settings, in some of which logical comments are valid or useful or essential or useless, you see them happening in One major setting.

I'm not expecting agreement but I hope that's clearer, luckyme

[PrayingMantis]

chez, sorry for not coming back, was a bit busy and there were a lot of replies.

In any case, I am still not sure I follow you. It's not about some disagreement, I simply don't quite see what you are getting at.


[ QUOTE ]
X in this case may be being logical but this is because he doesn't believe the religon is making factual claims about the universe. He avoids any attempt to believe the unbelievable even if the religon demands it (is making unbelievable claims about the universe)


[/ QUOTE ]

Please be very specific and give me an example for a religion that makes "unbelievable claims about the universe", and, as opposed, an example for a relgion that doesn't make "unbelievable claims about the universe".

Otherwise I don't see the meaning in speaking about relgious "believable claims" vs. religious "unbelievable claims". As for myself, I don't see any difference, or more precisely, I don't see the meaning of such a distinction, since clearly, unbelvievable religion won't have any believers, and therefore won't exist, i.e, they are not relevant to a discussion about religions.

[ QUOTE ]
but he could be wrong, if the religion is making unbelievable claims about the universe then the religon defeats itself and only people who misunderstand it can believe it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "religion defeats itslef"? Give me one example of a religion that has "defeated itself", according to your definition of it. You are getting very very close to saying that all relgious people do not understand their own religions. If this is what you are getting it, then we do have some deep disagreement.

[ QUOTE ]
This can be extended to religions that are internally consistent (all the claims of the religon could be believed together) but conflict with other beliefs that people hold.


[/ QUOTE ]

What can be extended? There is no one relgion that doesn't have some inconsistency in itslef, and also inconsistency with what you might call scientific claims about reality. I know, in person and not in person, very relgious people who are scientists (and I mean science as in "hardcore" mathematical science, not even liberal arts or social science), and even good and very respectable scientists by that. Where is the problem? Some of them clearly do not demand certain kinds of consistencies (call it logical consistencies) that you demand, with regard to different aspects of their life.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is quite useful in evaluating beliefs. It sets a certain standard, rationality, that we use as a level of acceptance. Similarly music, art, etc. have other standards of acceptance, although those tend to be aesthetic rather than logical. If someone chooses not to adhere to these standards, it doesn't make them wrong, just not very interesting.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand using the word "interesting" here at all. If someone chooses not to adhere to these logical standards you mention, would it make his beliefs less "interesting"? Less "interesting" for whom? How is "interesting" criteria for anything? I would even say that _not_ adhering to logical standards might actually make religious beliefs much MORE interesting than otherwise, since beliefs who adhere very closely to logical standards are not different than some scientific discipline, so what is interesting in them? They sound very boring.

Also, you are forgetting (like others here) that religion might have a set of objects and roles, that by their own definition have very little to do with logical standards. For instance, achieveing some mystical level of "realization", getting one with "god", or even "breaking out of the endless cycle of death and rebirth".

[ QUOTE ]
The useful thing about logic is it guarantees conclusions (deductive logic, anyway) based on the premises. It's a useful method for getting true conclusions. Of course someone can say that they don't care whether or not our conclusion is true, or they don't care what method owe go about arriving at a true conclusion, but this seems pretty unacceptable for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there are very different kinds of "usefulness's", very different kinds of "conclusions", very different kinds of goals. Pretty much none of the "relgious truths" were discovered through normal logical reasoning, i.e, premises, arguments, conclusion, etc. Of course, some realigions are full with these structures ("after the fact"), but basically these structures have very little relevancy to the "relgious truths" themselves (also, most of the logical reasoning within the religions was about interpreting reality in order to fit it to a certain dogma, axiom, idea, and not vice versa, as is the normal goal of logical process. Sorry for making such generalizations here, I don't really like it, but it's important to note ).

[ QUOTE ]
Would you want your life to depend on Homer Simpson finding the right button to prevent a nuclear meltdown by means of "eenie-meenie-minie-moe"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and I don't quite see your point.

[ QUOTE ]
One could argue that personal beliefs don't fall under the same category as protecting lives, but when these beliefs are widespread and involve a variety of metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical claims, we ought to consider them fairly seriously. Logic is the most useful tool that we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

That still doesn't mean that analysing religion using logic is fruitful in any sense, and also, it might mean that you are in fact missing a lot of much more important aspects religion has to "offer" (until of course, a certain relgion is threatening you, your freedoms or your life, but that's another story, which is also not about logic, but about some kind of real fight against specific people).

By the way I'm not religious at all (at least not according to a conventional sense of it, which is what matters here), so it's not like I'm trying to preach here or anything. I'm just trying to make a point, there isn't some specific religious idea that I'd like to defend here or anything, as some might suspect.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez, sorry for not coming back, was a bit busy and there were a lot of replies.

In any case, I am still not sure I follow you. It's not about some disagreement, I simply don't quite see what you are getting at.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X in this case may be being logical but this is because he doesn't believe the religon is making factual claims about the universe. He avoids any attempt to believe the unbelievable even if the religon demands it (is making unbelievable claims about the universe)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please be very specific and give me an example for a religion that makes "unbelievable claims about the universe", and, as opposed, an example for a relgion that doesn't make "unbelievable claims about the universe".

[/ QUOTE ]
being specific is irrelevent here (and probably unhelpful).

If you can grasp the idea that its impossible to believe an unbelievable belief then you can understand that a religion that demands unbelievable beliefs couldn't work in the way the religon intends (that's what I mean by self-defeating).

Unless you're denying that some beliefs (sets of beliefs) are unbelievable then I can't see what the problem is.

Once you've grasped the idea of what a self-defeating religon would be then that is what is meant (or one possible meaning) by saying a religion is illogical.

Then if someone says that believe a religion is illogical they mean they believe it demands unbelievable beliefs.

I believe that's clear

chez

[PrayingMantis]

lucyme, good post, you made some nice points. I agree with some and don't agree with others. Unfortunately I don't have too much time now to write another long reply, so I'll quicly adress one little thing, and hopefully will get to it sometime later today or tomorrow.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it may be a waste of time, but who knows, they accepted heliocentricity after a few hundred years, but by your method a lot of us would still be in danger of heresy charges.


[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I'm aware, geocentricity was not in any sense some religious thruth, delivered by god or a messenger or something, but a specific interpretation of things mentioned in the bible, strengthened, of course, by the Aristotelian approach to the universe, which was the one adopted by certain branches of Christianity. Of course it wasn't easy at all for this stong belief to change and expire, but IMO it is far from being an example for how logic changed a religious belief, for the simple fact that any christian could pretty much keep living his life exactly as he did before, whether the sun is in the middle of the system or the earh. For instance, the same goes for Jewish people too, who had to "adapt" themselves to the "new reality". In other words, geocentricity was simply the common (and old) idea about the universe, and not only a specific religious idea. That's why it was changeable, at the bottom line.

Had it was an example about how some scientific discovery caused some religion to fall apart, then I would agree. But it isn't the case at all, since this specific religion we are talking about, quite the same as it was, with pretty much the exact same set of beliefs, is still very very powerful and popular.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
being specific is irrelevent here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being specific is the only relevant thing. Religions are specific by their nature. There is no "non-specific religion". There is no meaning to speak about religion in theory, or about "unbelievable belief", as you seem to do.

Also, again, "religion that defeats itself" is some vague phrase, that has nothing to do with religious reality. If you don't give me an example for a "religion that defeats itself", or for an "unbelieavable belief", I won't be able to see what you are getting at at all. It's not that I need examples to "understand" you better. I'm saying that without examples your specific reasoning is void of any sense, IMO.

Unfortunately again I won't be able to respond for quite a while now, but I hope this discussion will go on.

[PrayingMantis]

I agree that there is a problem with not criticizing religion. However I think that there is also a problem with criticizing religion.

Nice post anyway. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
being specific is irrelevent here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being specific is the only relevant thing. Religions are specific by their nature. There is no "non-specific religion". There is no meaning to speak about religion in theory, or about "unbelievable belief", as you seem to do.

Also, again, "religion that defeats itself" is some vague phrase, that has nothing to do with religious reality. If you don't give me an example for a "religion that defeats itself", or for an "unbelieavable belief", I won't be able to see what you are getting at at all. It's not that I need examples to "understand" you better. I'm saying that without examples your specific reasoning is void of any sense, IMO.

Unfortunately again I won't be able to respond for quite a while now, but I hope this discussion will go on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I'm not capable of being any clearer about this. It's so clear even DS will be able to understand it.

A self-defeating religon (or any belief system) is one that requires believing the unbelievable. No specifics are required to understand that, its not in the least bit vague.

As I said before if you dont accept the idea of unbelieveable beliefs (maybe your happier with the words unbelievable propositions) then I don't know how to communicate with you. I suppose you could argue that nothing is unbelievable, but the idea is surely straight-forward.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
A self-defeating religon (or any belief system) is one that requires believing the unbelievable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you give us one tiny example for this "self-defeating religion", I maintain that this is an empty creature you have defined, just a self-contradictory concept that has absolutely no relation to any meaningful discussion about actual relgions, actual people, actual thought processes, actual world.

If you'll insist on repeating your definitions without putting them in some relevant context, they will stay as they are now - arbitrary collection of words, "unthinkable thoughts". If you want to salvage them from this rather sad fate, try to put some life into them. Otherwise, this particular discussion has failed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A self-defeating religon (or any belief system) is one that requires believing the unbelievable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you give us one tiny example for this "self-defeating religion", I maintain that this is an empty creature you have defined, just a self-contradictory concept that has absolutely no relation to any meaningful discussion about actual relgions, actual people, actual thought processes, actual world.

If you'll insist on repeating your definitions without putting them in some relevant context, they will stay as they are now - arbitrary collection of words, "unthinkable thoughts". If you want to salvage them from this rather sad fate, try to put some life into them. Otherwise, this particular discussion has failed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This discussion has failed. I've made my point simply, I can do no more.

It really makes no difference to my pont whether any common or current religons are illogical.

I give up.


chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
It really makes no difference to my pont whether any common or current religons are illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I give up.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up too, but I hope we'll both succeed more in the future, in our mutual exchange of thoughts, if it will ever happen. Sometimes it is just doomed, in a way.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand using the word "interesting" here at all. If someone chooses not to adhere to these logical standards you mention, would it make his beliefs less "interesting"? Less "interesting" for whom? How is "interesting" criteria for anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Interesting" for the people discussing the issue. My point is merely that logic is an accepted standard for belief, in the same way that aesthetics is an accepted standard for art. Suppose someone (who saw no point in logic) said to you: "God round squares 101010. Therefore God exists (does not exist)." We wouldn't be able to say that they're wrong per se, but not many people would find that compelling.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you are forgetting (like others here) that religion might have a set of objects and roles, that by their own definition have very little to do with logical standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the very basics of life, communication, etc., have quite a bit to do with logical standards. There may be some things that are illogical, but they do not seem to form foundations for belief.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much none of the "relgious truths" were discovered through normal logical reasoning, i.e, premises, arguments, conclusion, etc. Of course, some realigions are full with these structures ("after the fact"), but basically these structures have very little relevancy to the "relgious truths" themselves (also, most of the logical reasoning within the religions was about interpreting reality in order to fit it to a certain dogma, axiom, idea, and not vice versa, as is the normal goal of logical process. Sorry for making such generalizations here, I don't really like it, but it's important to note ).

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be correct, but I'm not terribly concerned with the historical process of how people come to their conclusions. A physicist may simply plug numbers into equations and hope they work, and then later come back and try to give a physical explanation for them (this is how a large portion of science works in reality). We don't say that they're bad physicists, as long as they can come up with reasonable physical explanations of their findings afterwards.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you want your life to depend on Homer Simpson finding the right button to prevent a nuclear meltdown by means of "eenie-meenie-minie-moe"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and I don't quite see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that true conclusions reached by means of guesswork are seemingly bad. The explanation for a conclusion is often just as important as the conclusion itself.

[ QUOTE ]
it might mean that you are in fact missing a lot of much more important aspects religion has to "offer"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what religion has to offer that isn't logical. Even the old saw "God works in mysterious ways" has its logical basis in what people believe God to be. Presumably not many Christians would find the "God round squares 101010" argument very enlightening.

[ QUOTE ]

By the way I'm not religious at all (at least not according to a conventional sense of it, which is what matters here), so it's not like I'm trying to preach here or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this discussion more as a discourse in the usefulness of logic, rather than anything related to religion.

[atrifix]

One more thing. The reason we cannot say that a set of beliefs is "bad" is because "bad" is a relation statement. That is, something must be bad relative to some standard (usually truth or logic). We don't say "that Picasso is wrong", we say "that Picasso is ugly" (that is, bad relative to some aesthetic standard). Most (almost all) people choose to use logic/rationality as a standard for belief acceptance. My view is that they do this because it serves them quite well. That is, those who don't use logic are "naturally selected" out. This is debatable, but that's my opinion, at any rate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It really makes no difference to my pont whether any common or current religons are illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I give up.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up too, but I hope we'll both succeed more in the future, in our mutual exchange of thoughts, if it will ever happen. Sometimes it is just doomed, in a way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly I doubt it. Logic is abstract, real world examples are occasionaly useful but never needed.

As I'm mainly interested in logic and meaning I want to talk about the nature of religon, belief, meaning etc. not about the specifics of any religon

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly I doubt it. Logic is abstract, real world examples are occasionaly useful but never needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic that remains in the realms of pure abstraction is meaningless. There wouldn't be any physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, or for that matter _any kind of real science or technology_ if "real world examples" were irrelevant. Also, people would never get any better in poker, without the critical link between logic and actual expirience, "real world exmples". You are advocating some "method" of reasoning, without any relation to phenomena of any kind. It's called sitting at home with the windows closed.

[ QUOTE ]
As I'm mainly interested in logic and meaning I want to talk about the nature of religon, belief, meaning etc. not about the specifics of any religon

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite honestly, being interested in the nature of religion, without being interested in "the specifics of any religon" is like being interested in the nature of physics without being interested in "the specifics of any theory in physics", or being interested in the nature of philosophy without being interested in "the specifics of any school of thought".

Again, it is meaningless, to say the least. And I'm quite surprised that it is coming from someone who admits to be mainly interested in "meaning". Meaning is in the actual details, not in some formalized, theoretical, abstract and imagined version of things. Meaning is about deciphering signs, signs are something that you look for and search IN the world.

As it is, I don't understand what interest you find in religion at all, that you bother to respond here. There's nothing interesting about religion without the specifics: it's just an empty, deserted field.

Edit: didn't mean it to sound so harsh, it's really only some thoughts...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sadly I doubt it. Logic is abstract, real world examples are occasionaly useful but never needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic that remains in the realms of pure abstraction is meaningless. There wouldn't be any physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, or for that matter _any kind of real science or technology_ if "real world examples" were irrelevant. Also, people would never get any better in poker, without the critical link between logic and actual expirience, "real world exmples". You are advocating some "method" of reasoning, without any relation to phenomena of any kind. It's called sitting at home with the windows closed.

[ QUOTE ]
As I'm mainly interested in logic and meaning I want to talk about the nature of religon, belief, meaning etc. not about the specifics of any religon

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite honestly, being interested in religion, without being interested in "the specifics of any religon" is like being interested in physics without being interested in "the specifics of any theory in physics", or being interested in philosophy without being interested in "the specifics of any school of thought".

Again, it is meaningless, to say the least. And I'm quite surprised that it is coming from someone who admits to be mainly interested in "meaning". Meaning is in the actual details, not in some formalized, theoretical, abstract and imagined version of things. Meaning is about deciphering signs, signs are something that you look for and search IN the world.

As it is, I don't understand what interest you find in religion at all, that you bother to respond here. There's nothing interesting about religion without the specifics: it's just an empty, deserted field.

Edit: didn't mean it to sound so harsh, it's really only some thoughts...

[/ QUOTE ]
Not harsh just wrong.

I disagree with you about meaning. Now if your going to address the actual issue I raised which is that certain beliefs are mutually exclusive because of what they mean then we're in business.

If you're just going to assume that all meaning is is semiotics then you should say so up front and argue your case accordingly. We could have an interesting discussion.

but asking me for examples when our disagreement is clearly more fundemental doesn't make sense. What is it a sign of ... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if your going to address the actual issue I raised which is that certain beliefs are mutually exclusive because of what they mean then we're in business.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was doing through out our little discussion, time and again. My point was extremely simple, and it remains simple. Here it goes yet one more time.

Above, you say these words: "certain beliefs are mutually exclusive."

This is a factual claim, especially so in the context of this discussion. However, the structure "certain X are Y" has no relevant meaning for us without the existence of such X. And I repeat: Until you come up with at least ONE actual, certain, example for X that is Y, i.e, 2 beliefs that are mutually exclusive, there's nothing meaningful at all to say about your statement.

It is exactly like stating that certain elephants have green wings. They might have, they might not, it might be true, it might be false, it's possible, but I've never heard or seen such elephant. Does the structure of the sentence make sense? yes, of course, but who cares. It only proves that you can say it. Nothing more. There's no meaning in discussing it on the level of abstract logic, since you are refering to _certain_ things. "Certain beliefs", that exist only in abstract, without any relation to actual beliefs in the real world, are not "certain beliefs". They are just a creation of your own mind, a creation you seem to be fascinated with, for some unclear reason.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now if your going to address the actual issue I raised which is that certain beliefs are mutually exclusive because of what they mean then we're in business.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was doing through out our little discussion, time and again. My point was extremely simple, and it remains simple. Here it goes yet one more time.

Above, you say these words: "certain beliefs are mutually exclusive."

This is a factual claim, especially so in the context of this discussion. However, the structure "certain X are Y" has no relevant meaning for us without the existence of such X. And I repeat: Until you come up with at least ONE actual, certain, example for X that is Y, i.e, 2 beliefs that are mutually exclusive, there's nothing meaningful at all to say about your statement.

It is exactly like stating that certain elephants have green wings. They might have, they might not, it might be true, it might be false, it's possible, but I've never heard or seen such elephant. Does the structure of the sentence make sense? yes, of course, but who cares. It only proves that you can say it. Nothing more. There's no meaning in discussing it on the level of abstract logic, since you are refering to _certain_ things. "Certain beliefs", that exist only in abstract, without any relation to actual beliefs in the real world, are not "certain beliefs". They are just a creation of your own mind, a creation you seem to be fascinated with, for some unclear reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, all that required is that people belief some beliefs are mutually exclusive. Then they would beleive in the possibility (and understand the concept of) a self-defeating religon.

and now you definitely don't need an example.

Either its possible to believe some propositions cannot be believed
or its unbelievable that some propositions cannot be believed

There you go.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No, all that required is that people belief some beliefs are mutually exclusive. Then they would beleive in the possibility (and understand the concept of) a self-defeating religon.

and now you definitely don't need an example.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, very nice. Way to go for saying absolutely nothing, and also with too many words. Previously you have said that some certain beliefs are mutually exclusive, now you have somehow forgot the word "certain" and are saying that "all that required is that people belief some beliefs are mutually exclusive". And if people don't believe that? Well, hmmmm. It doesn't matter, since all you said is that it is "required". All that is required for me to become a little hairy spider is that my right leg will spontaneosly start dancing the cha-cha-cha. This is really great. True? False? How do you even verify it? Who knows and who cares. Let me write your next version for you. Here it goes: "it is clear that if some people believe that it is possible to believe that a belief regarding the possibility of some beliefs being mutually exculsive is possible, then surely the possibility of believing in the belief that someone can believe the possibility of self-defeating religion, is possible."

Now you don't need to write it yourself.

You are also correct about no example needed. What you are saying is crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with anything in particular, whether anything in particular exists or not, true or not, afkniouf394893h4 or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Either its possible to believe some propositions cannot be believed or its unbelievable that some propositions cannot be believed

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that this sentence, as simple as it is, is meaningful in any sense whatsever to any kind of discussion between human beings about logic and religion, or about anything at all, you are very high on drugs. Which is OK BTW.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chezlaw]

No, the simple fact you know what I mean means I have said something meaningful.

and as I suspect you knew that all along, I think you are wasting my time. No offense intended but if you need to apply a theory to something before you will accept its applicability then we aren't going to get anywhere.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense intended but if you need to apply a theory to something before you will accept its applicability

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that what you have said during this exchange qualifies as "a theory", then really there's no hope and we are indeed going nowhere (which is clear for quite a while now, but what the hell, it's fun).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense intended but if you need to apply a theory to something before you will accept its applicability

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that what you have said during this exchange qualifies as "a theory", then really there's no hope and we are indeed going nowhere (which is clear for quite a while now, but what the hell, it's fun).

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe fun, but as I think you know what I mean but keep trying to claim it is meaningless, I think you are just being silly.

That's a theory btw, not a very exciting one and maybe not worthy of the name but at least I've provided a real example for you.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe fun, but as I think you know what I mean but keep trying to claim it is meaningless, I think you are just being silly.

That's a theory btw, not a very exciting one and maybe not worthy of the name but at least I've provided a real example for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then, let's call what you have said on this thread "a theory".

Now, is that "theory" true? false? Not true and not false? Both? 2:1 chance it's true? 32:5 it's false? Is there any possible way to even think about a way to get to any answer with regard to this? Of course, now you'll say that all these questions are completely irrelevant to your "theory", which is "meaningful", since I got its "meaning", and that's all that matters for it to be "a theory".

Well, that's not a theory, I'm very sorry. It is just something you said.

Here's an example: "some clouds might turn into big books". That's my "thoery". You got its meaning? Great, so it's a "theory". Well, no.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe fun, but as I think you know what I mean but keep trying to claim it is meaningless, I think you are just being silly.

That's a theory btw, not a very exciting one and maybe not worthy of the name but at least I've provided a real example for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then, let's call what you have said on this thread "a theory".

Now, is that "theory" true? false? Not true and not false? Both? 2:1 chance it's true? 32:5 it's false? Is there any possible way to even think about a way to get to any answer with regard to this? Of course, now you'll say that all these questions are completely irrelevant to your "theory", which is "meaningful", since I got its "meaning", and that's all that matters for it to be "a theory".

Well, that's not a theory, I'm very sorry. It is just something you said.

Here's an example: "some clouds might turn into big books". That's my "thoery". You got its meaning? Great, so it's a "theory". Well, no.

[/ QUOTE ]
Getting closer but are we really going to have to discuss a huge chunk of philosophy before we can converse?

Meaning and truth are related. So if you understood my meaning there is a connection with truth. I really don't think we need to go into that to discuss religon in general or in particular.

Maybe you just have a problem with analytical philosophy.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting closer but are we really going to have to discuss a huge chunk of philosophy before we can converse?

Meaning and truth are related. So if you understood my meaning there is a connection with truth. I really don't think we need to go into that to discuss religon in general or in particular.

Maybe you just have a problem with analytical philosophy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have no problem at all with analytical philosophy. All this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And I'm happy to see that you don't insist anymore that the things you've said are a "theory", but only that they might be related to truth becaus they have "a meaning". Well, OK. Everything is related to truth in some way or another. My cat's gurgles are related to truth as well (no offence).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Getting closer but are we really going to have to discuss a huge chunk of philosophy before we can converse?

Meaning and truth are related. So if you understood my meaning there is a connection with truth. I really don't think we need to go into that to discuss religon in general or in particular.

Maybe you just have a problem with analytical philosophy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have no problem at all with analytical philosophy. All this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And I'm happy to see that you don't insist anymore that the things you've said are a "theory", but only that they might be related to truth becaus they have "a meaning". Well, OK. Everything is related to truth in some way or another. My cat's gurgles are related to truth as well (no offence).

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, so you understand what I'm saying and thereby what it means.

So if your interested go back, make an effort to understand what I said, thereby what I meant and thereby how it relates to religion in general. What I said applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, it also applies to any belief system - if that doesn't interest you then just don't bother.

Its all very simple so as long as you understand it you'll be fine. If you don't understand it, tell me which bit you don't understand. If you understand a bit and believe it is wrong then tell me why.

Thats how we communicate.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
What I said applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, it also applies to any belief system

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it applies to everything, therefore to nothing. It's a great achievement.

"If a=5 then a=5" also applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, and also to any belief system, chairs, boats and stars.

[ QUOTE ]
Its all very simple so as long as you understand it you'll be fine. If you don't understand it, tell me which bit you don't understand. If you understand a bit and believe it is wrong then tell me why.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken if you think there's a problem of misunderstanding here.

[DougShrapnel]

PrayingMantis. I am curious if you have engaged in conversataion so that you can remain silent?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I said applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, it also applies to any belief system

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it applies to everything, therefore to nothing. It's a great achievement.

"If a=5 then a=5" also applies to all religions, real and hypothetical, and also to any belief system, chairs, boats and stars.

[ QUOTE ]
Its all very simple so as long as you understand it you'll be fine. If you don't understand it, tell me which bit you don't understand. If you understand a bit and believe it is wrong then tell me why.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken if you think there's a problem of misunderstanding here.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't apply to everything. You know that.

and I don't think its a problem of understanding. I think you understand just fine but are being silly.

I'm done unless you actually address what I said.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you understand just fine but are being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I just be silly?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm done unless you actually address what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've addressed it for dozens of posts now. You just don't like the things I'm saying, which is perfectly fine.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you understand just fine but are being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I just be silly?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know but when you call a boat a belief system in the same way a religion is, you're being silly

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know but when you call a boat a belief system in the same way a religon is, you're being silly

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. That paragraph had a meaning. I intended it to have a meaning. You understood the meaning. It had to do with communication, and it was certainly related to truth.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know but when you call a boat a belief system in the same way a religon is, you're being silly

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. That paragraph had a meaning. I intended it to have a meaning. You understood the meaning. It had to do with communication, and it was certainly related to truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Nice 1. lets leave it there unless you want me to go through what I am saying line by line with you telling me which bit of each line you don't understand or why it is wrong.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice 1. lets leave it there unless you want me to go through what I am saying line by line with you telling me which bit of each line you don't understand or why it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said that any of what you said is wrong. It wasn't wrong, and wasn't not wrong. It just was. As such, there was no particular "bit" to understand, or not to understand. It was just there. Words. Meaning. Everything you ever wanted it to be, and nothing in particular.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice 1. lets leave it there unless you want me to go through what I am saying line by line with you telling me which bit of each line you don't understand or why it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said that any of what you said is wrong. It wasn't wrong, and wasn't not wrong. It just was. As such, there was no particular "bit" to understand, or not to understand. It was just there. Words. Meaning. Everything you ever wanted it to be, and nothing in particular.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ].
but you are wrong. It was about something in particular - religon.

it was not about other things like boats.

Hence it had meaning. You obviously understand what I meant by self-defeating religon. So you can understand what I would look for in a particular religion to decide if it was illogical or not.

There's more but that's so simple its hard to extend this when you keep wittering on about evidence instead of acknowledging that you know what I mean.


chez

[PrayingMantis]

You are going back to the same circles. I bother to reply because I initiated this thread, otherwise I would leave it long time ago.

[ QUOTE ]
but you are wrong. It was about something in particular - religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wasn't about something in particular, certainly not religion in particular. It was just a circular collection of words, with abstract "meaning".

[ QUOTE ]
it was not about other things like boats.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. It was about boats as it was about religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence it had meaning. You obviously understand what I meant by self-defeating religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I did. "Self defeating religion" is an empty creature of your imagination, that has no relation to anything in particular, here, there, or anywhere. It has to do with boats as much as it has to do with religion. Sorry to disappoint you again, but "self defeating relgion" is nada. I don't even agree or disagree with this "concept". it is the exact same concept as "3+a might equal z or not", as far as I'm concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
so you can understand what I would look for in a particular religion to decide if it was illogical or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you actually mean that you look for CERTAIN things in PARTICULAR RELIGIONS in order to DECIDE if A PARTICULAR RELIGION is illogical or not? Why in hell would you do that?

[ QUOTE ]
There's more but that's so simple its hard to extend this when you keep wittering on about evidence instead of acknowledging that you know what I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I "know" what you mean and what you mean means nothing to me without the specifics. Just nothing. Empty structures, that might be true, false, not true, not false, true and false, nothing at all, everything etc.

It is a very circular discussion. I keep it going because you keep posting here and I want this thread to hit 42342 posts. There's absolutely nothing else to say about this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so you actually mean that you look for CERTAIN things in PARTICULAR RELIGIONS in order to DECIDE if A PARTICULAR RELIGION is illogical or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you didn't understand before, now you've got it. So now when someone tells you a religon is illogical you know what they mean (or at least one possibility of what they might mean).

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so you actually mean that you look for CERTAIN things in PARTICULAR RELIGIONS in order to DECIDE if A PARTICULAR RELIGION is illogical or not?


[/ QUOTE ] So you didn't understand before, now you've got it. So now when someone tells you a religon is illogical you know what they mean (or at least one possibility of what they might mean).


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? what are you talking about? Did you just answer my "question" that you have quoted? OK, this is getting crazier by the moment. And what is this nonsense about "when someone tells me a religion is illogical I know what they mean"? LOL. You are out of your mind.

I'd love to keep it going and get to 51135 posts, but I go to sleep now. Yes, this is not america. You can keep posting and even replying to yourself if you like, it wouldn't change much anyway. Good luck.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so you actually mean that you look for CERTAIN things in PARTICULAR RELIGIONS in order to DECIDE if A PARTICULAR RELIGION is illogical or not?


[/ QUOTE ] So you didn't understand before, now you've got it. So now when someone tells you a religon is illogical you know what they mean (or at least one possibility of what they might mean).


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? what are you talking about? Did you just answer my "question" that you have quoted? OK, this is getting crazier by the moment. And what is this nonsense about "when someone tells me a religion is illogical I know what they mean"? LOL. You are out of your mind.

I'd love to keep it going and get to 51135 posts, but I go to sleep now. Yes, this is not america. You can keep posting and even replying to yourself if you like, it wouldn't change much anyway. Good luck.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I take it back, you wouldn't know what they mean but many of us would.

Goodnight from London.

chez