Religion and logic

[frozen_water]

This thread disintegrated into insults so fast...

 

[just me]

Um, no. It was an established scientific fact, just like the idea that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the Earth. Science used to believe that the body ran on humors, man could not fly, and the sound barrier could not be broken. Science has consistently gotten it wrong and revised itself. It's still going through this process every day.

However, the most important part about science isn't what it gets wrong, but what it doesn't know. The point to science is discovery. Assuming that we fully understand everything is counter to the scientific process. It's only been in the last couple hundred years that humanity has become aware of germs. It is preposterous to assume that there were no germs until we as humans discovered them. There is still a great deal about this universe that we do not understand and have not discovered. Just like the effects of germs, there is a great deal we are aware of, but have no idea how it works... like life. Science still can't define what causes it, only point at the systems that operate while it exists. Science can't create life. Does the fact that science doesn't understand it right now mean science can never discover this? Of course not.

The next frontier is the spiritual, and science has already begun researching these phenomena. And just like any early scientific movements, there are going to be a lot of crackpot theories (due to all the NTPs, hehe) that have to be proven wrong before the theories that have value can truly be focused on. Life, the human mind, and the spiritual connections between us, each other, the universe, and possibly the divine will be mapped out before science is finished. This is a simple fact of the nature of science. Science will never stop until all that is unknown is known. It can't. Human curiosity will never settle for less.

"Science has consistently gotten it wrong and revised itself." ...but for something to be wrong in science, it must be proven wrong. However, we can view new things as growth through learning. We have so many machines and so few people that know how to optimize their uses. Imaging for one use can be used for other uses. R&D is so important, yet expensive, and often so expensive it has to be placed aside.

The study of the brain and how the human mind works may very well lead us to a better understanding of things we now do not see or know about. Cut the funding and we all lose.

The spiritual has possibly been warning of tapping into our oil we have found, while the scientific has possibly not listened. We are about to learn more about oil and water than before, and science is working overtime on it as we speak/type. The more resources we remove from the earth, the more the earth will change. The earth is going to have to adapt, just as we will have to adapt. I hope the next frontier can be spiritual, as both the earth and the spiritual are crying aloud.

Hate to see this thread end. Good post, VH.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Do you believe that is true that I'm not being consistent or is that simply one truth of many?

Are you trying to argue for the sake of it or to get me frustrated, or is there some sort of actual point to this question?

That is sort of like saying that there is no wrong answer to a math problem because all the answers are using math to solve them. For example:

2+2=5

They got the 2+2 part right, but the answer was missed. Sometimes that is how it works. The steps maybe correct, but the answer is wrong. Likewise, the answer of '5' would be closer to being right than '6'. That is just how the truth sometimes is, some of the steps might be right, but the answer is wrong or likewise, they steps might be totally backwards, but they somehow got the right answer.

Nope, it's not like that. You got it backwards. In this argument, the steps of other religions might be "wrong" to you, but the answer is right. You're still thinking about it too concretely. Think about it this way: multiple streams from many different places may still feed into the same ocean.

I have noticed that a number of atheist tend not to know as much about science or philosophy, as they like to let on.

Anyone that believes anything strongly tends to like to think that they know much more about it than they do. Or at least, they'd like to seem that way.

The truth does not change, merely what we believe the truth is changes. That is a huge differences.

I don't disagree. However, fact is not always truth.

Sorry, but this is simply a fancy way of trying to get around the problem of the two contradictary world views. If the world really is a delusion, why are you wasting your time here? This discussion is merely a delusion and you should spend your time doing something else. Should you not? See what the problem with this view is? There is no reason to believe that this world is a delusion, is there? Second, the world can not be a delusion and not a delusion at the same time. The two are contradictary to one another and can't both be true. Three, everybody uses logic, to some degree or another. When you take a test in school, what is one of the tricks you can use to increase your chances of getting a right answer? You look over the answers and see what answers are obviously false, what ones can be true, and what ones are more likely true. This, in essence, is using logic. Finally, you talk about human perceptions and it comes right down to this... if everything is a delusion? How do you know what you know, is what you know? How do you know that the truth that the world is a delusion, is not, in itself, a delusion? It is a self defeating truth because it would say you can't know anything, at all, even that the truth is that there is no truth! Self defeating statements can't be logically true, can they?

"Self-defeating statements" can be logically brought about sometimes. Some things just don't have answers and do actually just run around in circles. And the world is only what your senses can perceive, right? So there really is no way to tell what is "real" and what is "delusion" except for what you can compare with other perceptions. What may seem real might not actually be real at all.
Furthermore, just because you can't really tell if it is real or a delusion doesn't mean you can't find meaning. Honestly, no one has any meaning in their life unless they find it, and no one has a purpose unless they create one for themselves.

I don't even know where the logic speel can from. Of course everyone uses logic.

Not at all, I look at the possible and work from there. As I pointed out above, if the world is a delusion, than how do you know that the world is a delusion? Can that be a delusion too? See the problem yet with such a system? It is, self defeating and can't hold up under it's own weight. That is what happens with extreme skepticism, everything comes apart. So if anything, my view is far from limited because it's not self defeating, but can logically substain itself.

The point is, you can't know if the world is a "delusion" or "real." And I don't know why the delusion would be a delusion. And no, I don't see the problem with the system. You're too caught up in "delusion" and "real" -- change your mindset to perception. I can only know what I can perceive, and you can only know what you can perceive; however, we can't know if something is real or a delusion. Questioning it really is kind of pointless. If you see that the world is only perception and that perception can change quite a bit from person to person, then you could see it as a delusion. If you see the world as perceptions that match across many individuals, then you could see it as a reality.
By limited, I mean you can only see from one angle and one stance. One group of people believes that the world is "real"; the other believes that the world is a "delusion." Obviously, if a large number of people can believe something, it usually has some sort of semblance of logic or sense to it. If you don't limit yourself, you may be able to understand the viewpoint of the opposite side. Neither can be proven as true or false; even in science, that would mean that both are candidates for "truth."

So you're saying that 2+2 can equal anything you want it to? Tell that one to your math professor and see how far it gets you, ok?

2+2 isn't contradictory to anything, so this doesn't jiv with your argument. This statement is actually rather pointless.

AS I said above, far from it because if anything, I am eleminating the impossible and looking out at the possible. In essence, I have a test before me and I am going though it and elemating the obviously wrong answers and looking closer at the answers that seem more right. This view is far more open because you are trying to make it sound as though, all the answers are right, when they are not. Likewise, my system is not self defeating because you are having to say that my view is 'wrong' and yours is 'right'. Yet, didn't you just get done saying that every path is true? Like I said, your system is self defeating and can't stand under it's own weight.

I never once claimed that I was "right" and you were "wrong." Don't put words in my mouth.
You have repeated yourself continually throughout this entire post. So far, I got that you don't think the world can be a delusion and that 2+2=5 apparently is the same thing as a contradiction, which it's not. However, you have not really gotten what I've been saying; you've been doing a lot of twisting. The world can be both "real" and "delusion" depending on what you define to be "real," and in either case, it would be impossible to tell which is correct, and thus both are plausible answers.
I also never said that "all answers are right." I have stated that all religions have fundamentally the same truth. That's quite a different thing. Don't lose sight of the focus of the debate.

Ummm no because in the Hindu system, it is though your own efforts that you finally can free yourself from the endless cycle of rebirth. In Christianity, is though the efforts of Christ, that your sins are forgiven. Like I said, two totally different views that both can't be true. It is logically impossible.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuum no, you're not actually taking anything I say into consideration. Please don't be comparable to a brick wall.
Even in Christianity, you have a doctrine that emphasizes a spiritual path. Although you must reach heaven through Christ, there is still an emphasis on spiritual enlightenment.

Ummm no, I have already shown this is simpy false. The goal of Hinduism is to rid yourself of the endless cycle of rebirth and enter nirvina. The goal of Christianity is to accept Christ as your personal savior and to live our life in accordance with Christ. The goal of Judism is to follow the Torah and live your life in accordance with the law. See the problem yet? These systems are all contradictary and can't all be true.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum no, you haven't shown anything. You stated difference, but you haven't managed to nullify my argument. All of them have the final goal of relief from suffering, whatever you want to call it -- Nirvana, heaven, etc. All of them do have a strong spiritual element. Do you deny this?

This is sort of like saying that you can get to the store that is north of you, by heading south? No. How about East? No. How about west? No. How about going straight down? No. What about straight up? No. What is the best, and fastest way to reach the store that is north of you? Like it or not, not every route will take you to the store and if you believe that is how it works, go for it and see how far that gets you.

....Yeah. Which is what I was saying. If I live in the South, and you live in the North, then I will have to go North and you will have to go South. We both will reach the store. If I believe in Christ, and you believe in Muhammad, then I will be Christian and you will be Muslim. In the end, we will both die, and if we are both strong in our faith then we will both be spiritually enlightened, and we will both believe that we will be reaching the end of suffering.
Now, you can't tell which is "true" unless you could die and come back and inform us. But in either case, they have the same essential goal; that is the same "truth."
Personally, I believe that those heavens could be the same place, and that no matter which religion you come from, you can find your way there. But that is just personal belief, and doesn't really need to be debate since it is mainly speculation.

As I showed above, your arugments are self defeating and don't work up in reality. I have showed my case is valid logically and factually. You can not get to the store that is north of you, by heading east, west, south, up, down, etc. You get there by heading north. Likewise, you do not find what religion is true and false by saying they are all true, you find it by exploring them and following their logic to the end. Not all of them can be true, so one must discover if one is true or if none are true because not all of them can be true. As for my sources, you can eaisly go and look up the 'law of non-contradiction' and see what it says. It's a very old rule that dates right back to the days of Aristotle and Plato, it's nothing new or made up and is an idea that has existed for centuries.

You seem very sure that you're proving me wrong, whereas I really just don't see that at all. Sorry, you're not really showing anything to anyone but yourself.
Your case still contains many discrepancies and rough edges. Your case is "valid," but not really all that convincing.
And why can't all of them be true? Because they are different? How do you prove which is true and which isn't? Is there one that is "logically" more true than the next? How do you prove this, or how do you know?
And no "you can easily look up law of non-contradiction." If you've ever written a scholarly paper, then you would know that a single source (that you didn't even use in your own argument -- only against mine, which wasn't even all that valid in context) just doesn't cut it. Law of contradiction is basically common sense. When I say sources, I mean ACTUAL sources.
But I'm not going to demand those, because that would be a pain. Either way, if the only source you believe you need is that one, then it becomes pretty plainly obvious that you have not done much serious debating.

AKA, I should start to agree with you? Is that what it means to be 'creative'? I'm sorry, I don't really care about being creative or not, I care what is true and if you think your arguments can hold water, I assue you that they wouldn't last a day in a university setting. Such ideas that 'all paths are true' do not work well in reality at all and are, self defeating.

By creative, I mean don't repeat 2+2 (which still isn't valid in context) thirteen times in one post. I mean look at different views, explore possibilities, and don't get caught up in concretes. There's more to the world than "right" and "wrong," "true" and "false." If there wasn't, then there would be no need for essay tests.
And actually, that would work very well in a university setting. I know; I've taken classes aimed at discussing topics like these.

Too bad that the law of non-contradiction does not say that pain and pleasure are opposite, people say that. Here is what the law of non-contradiction is.

I know what the law of non-contradiction is. Now, to shut you up about it:
"As is true of all axioms, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating. Since the early 20th century, certain logicians have proposed logics that denies the validity of the law."

The law applies to things that are COMPLETELY defined. Truth has many definitions. God has many definitions. Spirituality has many definitions. Even religion has various sides and layers and goals and definitions. It would be easy to apply it to apples and oranges; however, in the complexity of the current argument, you have to offer more than "the law of contradiction says it can't." First, you have to be able to prove they are directly contradictory, which has not yet been done. Stop leaning on that phrase and start creating arguments using it, rather than relying on it.

 

[Shai Gar]

Um, no. It was an established scientific fact, just like the idea that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the Earth. Science used to believe that the body ran on humors, man could not fly, and the sound barrier could not be broken. Science has consistently gotten it wrong and revised itself. It's still going through this process every day.

No. It was a scientific theory.
They might have thought it was a fact, but that doesn't mean that it was, in fact, a fact.

 

[jessvj]

I think we may have Jacked JessVJ first thread, or maybe this is exactly what he was looking for, who knows? Probably Jess.

Lol, it's fine, everyone is helping me to grasp an understanding of the complexity of the topic.

 

[jessvj]

Here's my opinion:

First off, standing in a Church makes you no more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.
There is so much more to religion than doctrine and figure heads. You can choose what you believe in, but be aware of why you believe it and, more importantly, what it means to you; whether or not God "exists" can't be proven, but you can't really say that something is pointless if it gives you real meaning.

Religion has existed for as long as people have been around. It grew hand-in-hand with civilization. People are hardwired to have beliefs in something, really. Although it may not be "logical," spirituality of many forms is universal and kind of important. Logic helps us understand the world; spirituality helps us accept it and become content and happy.

Spirituality is different from religion, of course. You can be religious and lack a strong sense of spirituality, but usually religion is a catalyst for it.

Either way, in the end, the wonderful thing about religion is that it speaks to the individual. You may be in the same religion as someone else and have a totally different sense of spirituality. And anyways, before you ask if God is illogical, maybe you should first ask what God is to you -- people seem to have it in their heads that God is some guy with a toga and white beard, but really, although the Bible states we were fashioned after God's image, that really doesn't give much clue to what God is. I see God as everything, and I believe that people connect with different aspects of the same entity, even across different religions. God could just be a perception for all we know, but that doesn't change the fact that "knowing God" creates strong senses of self-worth and contentedness in people.

So, yeah. That was a lot of rambling, actually. Recap: God and religion is what you make of it, and plenty of logical people have benefited from spiritual beliefs. That is perfectly alright, too.

That is the post I have been looking for as well as many other posts on here too, but I think if I live life simply, things will go well for me, I have had a pretty interesting life, from a young age I saw God as the designer of everything in the world, I followed my ministry with compassion, I even made a priest cry one time in church, saying that I wanted to grow up and be just like him, when I was confirmed I went to a convention in San Diego, where I was overwhelmed with tears when I attended adoration in a room filled with 2,000 people and 1 priest, with the body of Christ and immediately saw the thousands drop to their knees, and for some reason I closed my eyes and found myself on the floor with my body immensely weak and on my knees, I felt weightless and saw all the sin in my life forgiven. It was an immense experience. I saw God that day when the entire room wept together, strangers with strangers, fathers crying with their sons, and grown men shattered by the presence of the body of Christ. As for school, I was told by the church leaders that school will be blunt when it comes to reality, that I will be pressured to sin, as well that no one will know what happened that weekend, but only God and I. It has been one year since that experience and I feel that religion helps us to understand the dark, to give reason to why we exist, and to have us live along a moral code and to live life simply.

 

[jessvj]

The picture above is similar to being in the room with the 2,000 and 1 people, where the priest lifted the body and began to walk about an entire stadium, the convention was at Stubenville btw, which is held every year at San Diego State University.

 

[jessvj]

I feel like we've stolen this thread, even though everything here is on topic. Jess, there alot of good advice in here, but the decision is yours to make in the end.

Don't think that your too smart for anything, relgion or otherwise. At your age it's all a huge learning process, It was the same thing for me less then three years ago and it still holds true today.

I think I've made my decision, all it is now is how I'm going to address this to my family, they're a little bit old fashioned and won't take kindly to this, but my decision is to live life simply. I don't want to be classified as agnostic, as atheist, or as anything else, but just Jesse Ventura, a simple yet complex INFJ.

P.S. Yes, I am named after the former Governor of Minnesota/Wrestler.

 

[bamf]

I don't want to be classified as agnostic, as atheist, or as anything else, but just Jesse Ventura, a simple yet complex INFJ.

Good for you!

 

[jessvj]

Good for you!

Thanks!!

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Um, no. It was an established scientific fact, just like the idea that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the Earth...

Just an aside. Movement is relative so that it is entirely valid to plot/calculate celestial movement/orbits, using the Earth as a stationary reference point. Mind you, this makes the calculations about 1000x more complicated, but it is valid nevertheless.

For instance. If you stand up and turn around once - relatively speaking, you have used your feet to revolve the entire existing physical universe 360 degrees around you. I love that.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Religion and logic only fit together on an individual and internal level.

/argument

 

[NaeturVindur]

Religion and logic only fit together on an individual and internal level.

/argument

Indy and I are living proof here for your examination.

 

[denkster06]

we should all choose a religion and make bets

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Fine, but I get first dibs on Buddhism.

 

[jessvj]

Fine, but I get first dibs on Buddhism.

Me too

 

[bamf]

My money is on Confucianism.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

My money is on Confucianism.

Is that a religion? I thought it was more of a way-of-living sort of thing

 

[NaeturVindur]

Is that a religion? I thought it was more of a way-of-living sort of thing

As far as I understand them, they're equally religions. Religion is a hard thing to define, but they both use the same definition: a way of living to improve the soul.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

[quote=N