Why demand logic?

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

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

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