Why demand logic?
 

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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

-Laurence J. Peter

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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".

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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?!

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ]

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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?

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

[ 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?

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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

chez

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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"?

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

[ 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.

Re: Why demand logic?
 

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.