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.
|