Why demand logic?

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

[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