Why demand logic?

[PrayingMantis]

There's no logic in the fact that you are yourself, _in particular_. It is just like this. "Similarly", there is no logic in the fact of existence, that is, of reality being as opposed to not being.

Why do you demand religion (any kind of it, for that matter) to be logical? 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.

Logic is a game. Religion is a game. Very very different kinds of games. Saying that religion X is not logical (or less logical than religion Y, and for that "worse"), is like saying that the rules of chess do not apply well to football (or that chess rules work better with basketball than with football), and that *that* is the problem with football.

(This example is not even good enough, because chess and football are relatively similar in some senses. Maybe it's better to think about different games, such that in one game you can't even find the object of "winning". It's not difficult. Children play many games like this).

(Note also that the fact that religions/believers might use logic [or logic1, logic2, logic3 etc] for certain purposes, has nothing to do with my point here).

This post is directed both at "atheists" who criticize certain religions/believers for not being logical, and also at "believers" who use logic to justify their religious beliefs. All I'm saying is that you are confused.

[Darryl_P]

I agree. Logic can take a set of premises or axioms and turn them into other truths. It's a useful tool indeed for many a situation, but religion has a different purpose, part of which is laying down the axioms of life, so I must say you have a point.

[chezlaw]

Logic isn't a game. Its to do with what we mean, whether the set of things we mean are consistent and what is implied by what we mean.

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.

Saying that chess is a game means that it can be played and if it wasn't logical (as above) then it couldn't be played so it wouldn't be a game.

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.

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.

Chess isn't a game if it cant be played and R isn't a religon if it can't be believed. Both would be illogical purely because being played/believed is meant by claiming that they are a game/religon.

and so on... religon (unlike chess) doesn't stand-alone, it has to be consistent with our other beliefs and what they mean. If the meanings of our other beliefs conflict with our religon then something has to give if we are to be logical.

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.

chez

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Laurence J. Peter

Religions make specific factual claims that art, music, or a good movie do not. If religions didn't do this, there would be nothing to apply logic to.

Buddhism (the non nutcase variety) is an example of a religion that doesn't make specific factual claims, and is thus beyond the realm of logic.

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Religions make specific factual claims

[/ QUOTE ]

Most "factual claims" made by relgions are very different, in their very essence, from "factual claims" made in science, for instance. Not understanding this, is a source of great confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Buddhism (the non nutcase variety) is an example of a religion that doesn't make specific factual claims, and is thus beyond the realm of logic

[/ QUOTE ]

Well (even considering my comment to your last paragraph) this is completely untrue, and shows complete lack of knowledge with anything that has to do with buddhism.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.

-Laurence J. Peter

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that my post was in any way "against logic" you didn't understand any of it.

Also, this is quite an idiotic quotation, to be honest. Some very ignorant people can be described as "100% logical".

Hiya PrayingMantis,

I don't get your point at all. So what? Some games have different rules, so have social science and religions. In fact it seems that even each religion addresses different rules?!

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya PrayingMantis,

I don't get your point at all. So what? Some games have different rules, so have social science and religions. In fact it seems that even each religion addresses different rules?!

[/ 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.