Why demand logic?

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[ 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] ]

[PrayingMantis]

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?

[gumpzilla]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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.

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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?

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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