Why Arguing Religion is Pointless | Page 7 | INFJ Forum

Why Arguing Religion is Pointless

[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] And come to think of it, ideas really are like poop.

A person poops out ideas and a few things can happen.
1. the idea poop just sits there, like poop. It doesn't move on its own
2. you can grab that idea poop and smear it all over you
3. somebody else grabs that idea poop and smears it all over you (and probably their self)

That's kind of how it works. The proliferation is by people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogman6126
sprinkles said:
Ideas are derived from people. Kind of like poop.
Click to expand...

Well, anyway, Islam is more than an idea. As [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] said, "Islam is an ideology, a political and legal system, a 'religion,' a set of cultural directives."

Islam is an entire system and it's a violent and oppressive one.
 
Elegant Winter said:
Well, anyway, Islam is more than an idea. As [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] said, "Islam is an ideology, a political and legal system, a 'religion,' a set of cultural directives."

Islam is an entire system and it's a violent and oppressive one. Christianity used to be an entire system, but it has moved past that.
Click to expand...
This isn't about Islam, this is about religion.

Edit:
And even if it is about Islam, it is those things because people made it that way. Still.
 
dogman6126 said:
I would certainly agree with you that morality is separate from religion. However, logic is not logic. There are many different kinds of logics, and many are disputed and denied...much like religious positions. That which is taught is not necessarily correct. Consider non-classical systems of logic. These may be correct rather than the standard "true" OR "false" value systems.
At risk of sounding defensive (but am really only meaning to clarify), I was attempting to shoot down the point I quoted as it connected religion and morality in a way that doesn't hold. I feel that the author of that point agreed with that intention, but still felt that the statement "religion teaches morality" had such a dissatisfying consequent. I thought this was because he was looking more at the general response of religions folk rather than the fact of the statement "religion teaches morality".

The point that religion is separate from morality is what I was getting at. In the same way that a logic class can teach logic and one need not be in that logic class to be a logician, so to may one be outside of religion and be moral. Likewise, I certainly wouldn't claim that all logic classes teach logic correctly (and so are not teaching logic at all). Neither would I claim that all religions teach morality correctly (and so are not teaching morality at all). These are separate claims, and neither invalidates the other.

I do think that religion is the only option for some people to get even an inkling of the right direction of morality though. I think some people are either not able or not willing (for whatever reasons) to explore what is the moral thing to do in abstracto. Some people just don't know how to think like that, but it seems that that is how morality is. Religion is one possible alternative that can get through to people on a non purely abstract level. While not perfect, it is very successful in so many cases.

I too enjoy these discussions. Please don't take my direct way of speaking as harsh or wounded or unemotional or whatever other dispositional condition you wish to apply. Something philosophy classes have taught me is that in these discussions, speaking clearly and directly is crucial. I need to apologize for I am still learning exactly how to do that.



I'm not going to debate whether or not I missed her point. I know I have done that in the past on other forum threads or comments, but I'm trying to learn to be better. I see that such things are petty, but I only sometimes notice it. Bear with me, please, when I don't catch myself. I'm still learning.

That being said, don't ever hesitate to point out when you think I've missed the point. I'll let you in on a secret.
That is actually my biggest fear. That I am missing something. Something simple. I worry about this all the time in my philosophy classes as I read the texts or listen to the teachers. I have lived with this fear for the past three years (since I stated looking into philosophy). It makes me worry that I'm not smart enough for this because I just know that I'm missing something (I unconsciously assume it even though it may or may not be unfounded). I'm not sure if people can understand this feeling, but in psychology terms, its because I identify my philosophy ability as a major part of my identity. This fear questions whether or not that identity is me.
The only way I know to fight it (that I like) is to do the best I can, and recognize that "missing something" is a part of being a philosophy student. I'm still digesting what that truly means, so I am no where near good at this concept yet.



When people use it wrongly, logic turns into dogma, just as any other cult. I'm sure you could admit that.
Logic can give the illusion of truth when we loose touch of the assumptions we necessarily make. Logic can be applied to any set of assumptions, and it be successful. For example, I assume there exists glurgs. I also assume that if there are glurgs, then there are glumps. I assume I am looking at a glurg. Classical logic is effective in this set of assumptions. If A then B, A, therefore B. I just proved there are glumps here...given my assumptions. This is not irrational or illogical. It is in fact an interesting consequence of logic. I proved something that isn't true. The problem is assumptions necessarily don't have proofs in some cases. We can't prove that there is an external world governed by objective rules. We can't prove causal closure (given what we have now). We can't prove God. What makes the God assumption so different from the assumptions of science? Certainly not logic for logic will not see a difference between these assumptions. It will let us use whatever assumptions we feed it. It falls under what we, the people, consider reasonable. There is no proof for reasonable. Logic fails to give us certainty here, on pain of arbitrariness.

The part I bolded simply isn't true. One may have faith but be willing to question everything. Another may have faith in nothing and question nothing. These concepts are mutually exclusive. I would grant there is a psychological tendency for people to stop asking questions when they feel they have found answers, but this is a failing of people, not the rationality of religion. I am actively trying to build what I believe to be true. I don't know that I'll succeed, but I am being objective, and by you definition even. Perhaps more than you are willing to grant. You are restricting yourself to a strict view of what is considered "reasonable assumptions". I'm playing with whatever assumptions I can handle, and attempting to see the effectiveness of the different permutations. I do this, and yet I default at faith, because I choose to. Because otherwise, I'm not willing to grant the assumption that there is a valid default position at all, for the argument I proposed earlier in this thread. Religious belief isn't bound by the same set of approaches used by science. It is blatantly unfair to judge it by the approaches used in science. Lacking the criteria, there is no default position. If you have a counter point, then by all means put it forward. I would love to have an answer to my question if you have it.

That is my stance, do you find that irrational or close minded?
Click to expand...

Logic DOES see a big difference between the assumptions you make. Science, at the very least, admits when it is wrong and uses its own ignorance to use logic to find the truth. Faith sets aside logic and drives straight through reason, skipping self-criticism, and follows an assumption without question. What you are saying is that, basically, because logic can sometimes be used wrongly, logic as a means to an end must be condemned to the same category as faith. I find this to be a ridiculous conclusion. People use logic wrongly all of the time, including myself; that does not mean logic is as restrictive as faith, as was my original point to begin with. Your comparisons of logic toward criticism of Science does not automatically put science in the same goal-post as faith: that is essentially what you wish to do, am I correct? Science will always be looking for answers. Your second point automatically begins with a feeble clutching of straws; a person may indeed have faith and question everything, but what about the thing he has faith in? Does he question that? I think if a man were to question everything equally in life, he would find it very difficult to hand onto faith when logic has replaced its illogical pretences with rational ones.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
It is a religion but it is not religion.
Click to expand...

I feel like.. this is an acceptable place to end this discussion.

We disagree and that's that.
 
JJJA said:
Logic DOES see a big difference between the assumptions you make. Science, at the very least, admits when it is wrong and uses its own ignorance to use logic to find the truth. Faith sets aside logic and drives straight through reason, skipping self-criticism, and follows an assumption without question.
Click to expand...
But I don't suggest that religion is going for the same kind of truth that science is. The emphasis on spiritual faith is different than an emphasis on truthful knowledge. This creates a necessarily different system. You say faith sets aside logic, but I deny this. Some do sure, but theologians don't tend to be logicians...at least not since the medieval times. Just because the general religious public is bad at logic as compared to the general scientific public doesn't mean faith itself is illogical. Just that it hasn't been approached like we need it to be. It is still a non-answer as far as I've seen. Following an assumption without question also shouldn't be so alien to you. I tried to demonstrate with my examples that even science follows assumptions without question. It is just that the assumptions made in science are seemingly more well founded than those in religion, but again, I'm trying to argue that this is an illusion when we try to apply the "reasonableness" consideration used for scientific assumptions to religious assumptions. We actually don't know what assumptions in religion are reasonable or not for I argue we need a new system to make such a judgment. Or at least we need to establish that the scientific system still applies. You can't assume that anymore by my argument.

What you are saying is that, basically, because logic can sometimes be used wrongly, logic as a means to an end must be condemned to the game category as faith. I find this to be a ridiculous conclusion. People use logic wrongly all of the time, including myself; that does not mean logic is as restrictive as faith, as was my original point to begin with. Your comparisons of logic toward criticism of Science does not automatically put science in the same goal-post as faith: that is essentially what you wish to do, am I correct?
Click to expand...
Actually no, but I see why you thought that. I'm trying to suggest that science and religion are so necessarily separate, that judging one by the rules of the other is unfounded. The way of criticizing science can't be extended to the way of criticizing religion for this reason. This doesn't suggest that religion (specific or general) is correct. Only that claims for their irrationality, if grounded in rules from the sciences (things like explanatory power or provability), doesn't hold. The logic isn't what is restrictive.
I'm trying to demonstrate with my examples that the restrictions are placed on the "reasonable assumptions" claim. In science, reasonable assumptions are guided by scientific experience and intent. It is in our experience with science that it works to describe an external world. It works to talk about gravity. it works to talk about electrons and the like. But what does this mean? It works because it predicts other natures of reality? It works because we can test it? It is practical? That is an intention of science, not necessarily of religion. Religion isn't, in my opinion at least, an attempt to make predictions of the natural world (beyond the spiritually relevant claims, perhaps). For that reason at least, we can't expect it to predict or explain electrons (to give a single example).

Logic is a tool, yes? It applies beautifully to the sciences. But I still think religion is subject to it. Just as a scientist who does a wrong proof and has a wrong result, so too will there be religious people. The problem is science has better restrictions and systems for determining what is good and bad. Probability theory, the axiomitization of mathematics, the rules that makes a theory good....these are things that science has an advantage over religion on. But I'm arguing that we can't apply these rules. Religion may have similar rules waiting to be discovered, but they might not have been approached yet. Because this isn't a question religious people tend to explore. They have their spiritual answer. This is a philosophical question. It also isn't a failing of religious faith, but a failing of the approach to religious faith. People aren't looking for the same kind of answers when they turn to religion. Some do, sure, but they are mistaken to do so I think.


Science will always be looking for answers. Your second point automatically begins with a feeble clutching of straws; a person may indeed have faith and question everything, but what about the thing he has faith in? Does he question that? I think if a man were to question everything equally in life, he would find it very difficult to hand onto faith when logic has replaced its illogical pretences with rational ones.
Click to expand...

But what does it mean to question faith? I assume your getting at the faith in some God, so let's focus on that. I have faith in God (unspecified), so I follow X religious position (unspecified). You seem to suggest that I (or perhaps any theoretical religious, religious skeptic) am questioning X religious position, but not question the fundamental faith in God. What does this questioning look like? Do I ask is it reasonable to have faith in God? Do I ask is it necessarily to have faith in God? Do I ask is it probable, useful, practical, accurate, [insert other qualifier here] to have faith in God? It certainly isn't like questioning if there are electrons and photons. The sciences questioning would possibly deny the "useful" or "necessary" or "practical" qualifiers, but the religious questioning might not and still be logical. This is by the separation of religious belief from scientific knowledge by denying the necessity of proof. Remember the glurgs and glumps example. Logic can apply in weird cases and have logically consistent results.

Even more dramatically, what happens to our system of questioning if this question is necessarily unknowable (in the earlier described strict sense)? Science, by its "reasonableness" rules denies such considerations (by being unfalsifiable), but belief does not. This denial isn't derived as a logical necessity of questioning in general, but as a restriction to the scientific mode of questioning. The religious mode of questioning, by not being interested in proof only. So should we just walk away? I don't think so. Sure, you may not grant the assumption of the existence of God, but that is your own prerogative as far as I can see. The only argument I have puts forward that the assumption of God is indeterminately better or worse than no God. Lacking criteria, there is no "best" default position to the system as far as I see. This leaves a choice.
My point is you cannot then claim the God assumption to be irrational on pain of irrationality yourself. Think of it like you are a referee of a football game, and you call foul on a hail mary pass because they used their hands. Does it make sense to judge a football game by the rules of soccer?
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13723]Misadventure[/MENTION]

I wish you guys didn't feel like that.

I feel that I am greatly profiting by this discussion. JJJA and others are forcing me to more and more refine my argument :fencing:. I need that help as it is a new idea that I am still working out.

Whether or not the discussion is pointless depends on the end you wish to achieve....at least partially. Its all good, cause we don't have to take it personally if a road gone down lacked success :peace:


Edit: sorry, I'm in a weird mood all of a sudden. I just sent a really weighted message to one of my best friends...that may or may not make him think differently about me, and I don't know if I want him to or not.......ugh why do I keep talking about this stuff right now. I don't know what's wrong with me right now. sorry guys ill go now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elegant Winter
I don't think science equals religion, but personally i came to often disregard most of those usual articles/studies drawing to a sometimes random conclusion based on a failry inane premise were usually statistics show up, as if adding a % would somehow make you say WOOW that's a lot. "Scientific investigation" seems to hold a place as if your affirmation is set in stone for some.
I still remember an article were some people of a certain university replicated many of these so called scientific studies, with little to no replicability in the majority of them.

Also how relevant they are, i mean, sometimes they are ridiculous. Sometimes the whole premise for the study seems completely retarded which makes me think if they don't have anything better to do and think about...

When i say science though, what i'm refering to is those articles, and the application of what seems to be most of the time, the scientific method. This could range also to psychology, sociology often... Imo there's lazy and shitty journalism in between that too, also usual misconceptions of science.
I guess "hard sciences" don't come off as strongly with this, but then, there are different schools of thought in the same fields, but anyway, i'm not really qualified to talk about that.

Personally i don't buy neither religion, nor science completely. They are man made, bias come through what may be presented as the truth.


Maybe a bit off topic, but i discussed this with someone irl not that long ago.
 
Last edited:
dogman6126 said:
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13723]Misadventure[/MENTION]

I wish you guys didn't feel like that.

I feel that I am greatly profiting by this discussion. JJJA and others are forcing me to more and more refine my argument :fencing:. I need that help as it is a new idea that I am still working out.

Whether or not the discussion is pointless depends on the end you wish to achieve....at least partially. Its all good, cause we don't have to take it personally if a road gone down lacked success :peace:


Edit: sorry, I'm in a weird mood all of a sudden. I just sent a really weighted message to one of my best friends...that may or may not make him think differently about me, and I don't know if I want him to or not.......ugh why do I keep talking about this stuff right now. I don't know what's wrong with me right now. sorry guys ill go now.
Click to expand...

Well I'm turning 40 in a couple months and I can't help but feel like I've done this a lot.
 
Misadventure said:
Me too. Just turned 40. You get to a point where it's just an exhausting battle and no side wins or loses.
Click to expand...

It's so interesting to watch people try to explain the exact same things you would have said 10 or 20 years ago.
 
sprinkles said:
It's so interesting to watch people try to explain the exact same things you would have said 10 or 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

It is LOL! Well like that saying goes, "History repeats itself." It's very much alive and well in this forum. When they're our age, they'll get it, and then it's their turn to take over for us in saying it. :p
 
sprinkles said:
@Elegant Winter And come to think of it, ideas really are like poop.

A person poops out ideas and a few things can happen.
1. the idea poop just sits there, like poop. It doesn't move on its own
2. you can grab that idea poop and smear it all over you
3. somebody else grabs that idea poop and smears it all over you (and probably their self)

That's kind of how it works. The proliferation is by people.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back