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?
|