Do You Have a Thinking Problem?

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 6 of 17

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:47 PM

I honestly don't think that anyone here that replied to Simon's posts has actually read them.

"""
I'm not saying religions have to be wrong, I'm just saying if you apply logical thought, you generally get a very different answer.
"""

I'll repeat the important part:

in general
in general
in general
in general

Got it now?

So, much for your guys opinion that he's talking about absolutes.

Now go back and actually read the original posts before posting another reply.

Jebus, it's no wonder I tend to stay away from these discussions.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
It is not logical to put any trust in a third hand account written 60 years after the event as recorded by some very ignorant people 2000 years ago. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

If Jesus was a one-off, then it might be something worth debating but history is littered with countless people who performed miracles, inspired followers (to this day) and claimed to be divinely connected.

As much fun as it is to rewrite the Bible to fit with what we now know ("the flood skipped the Australian cave paintings because... um... God spared the aborginines as they hadn't heard the message..."), it is another classic example of facts being twisted to fit a theory rather than the theory fitting the facts (something science is often equally guilty of). Before we found out how old the Earth truly was, no preacher would argue that a "day" meant an unspecified period of time.

Perhaps a simpler question: how does religion make logical sense? From what basis can you argue in a purely logical manner that there must be a God?

I took a course called Magic in Ancient Greece and Rome. Quite interesting.

I mention this b/c it overlaped a Jebus's life as well as a guy called Alexander of Abonutichus (I believe that was the guy). Founded a cult around a snake god called Glycon.

Now the only reason why we know that this guy was a complete fraud is b/c of one guy. I forget his name, but this Alex guy tried to kill him before he got the word out. Didn't work.

So, if this guy was killed then we would think that this cult was actually valid. Because they performed "miracles".

For facts sake, it was only the first book of the bible that was written 40-60 years after the fact. The rest were written later and all were only attributed to the people they were named after (not actually written by them eg paul).

Another good question is, is it logical to think that a book is infallible when it is clearly rife with logical inconsistencies?

Should that discount the whole christian thing? At least how it is largely practiced in North America?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Now go back and actually read the original posts before posting another reply.

Jebus, it's no wonder I tend to stay away from these discussions.

There is no need to get snippety.

I never accused him of making absolute assertions in his example. But his example illustrates the absolutes in his conclusion. So yes, disassembling his example reflects flaws in his assumptions. But we'll never get anywhere arguing whether his example was misinterpreted. It's tangential and distracting. You want us to address his POINT. Let's move away from the example and address his POINT.

Tell me if his original point was misinterpreted:
that religion and logic are mutually exclusive. Do you think I've misinterpreted him on that?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIMONWHO

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:09 PM

For what it's worth, I haven't felt any anger or hostility directed at me personally and hope the reverse is true.

Anyway, they're making my point for me. As canttakesky wrote, you can have a valid logical belief in the universe and everything in it without the need for the existence of God. You don't need God in the act of creation, the existence of man, even for moral beliefs such as right and wrong. The universe still stands with just logic behind it.

However religion comes along and tries to substitute itself in. "Evolution? Rubbish. God did it all in 6 days. And all the evidence you see otherwise is faked/guided by God where days doesn't mean days" (kinda like Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan in that respect).

Simply stating "I believe it to be so" or "I have faith that it is" doesn't make such a position any more logical. Stating that "It is beyond logic" is invalid too. Logic doesn't mean common sense. Quantum physics is beyond common sense, that doesn't mean it isn't logical. You can argue that you believe in logic for everything where religion isn't concerned but can you tell me how that makes you any more logical than someone who is absolutely logical except for things told to him by Flimsy, the king of the Baggilolo tribe who lives in his little finger?

So, to get back to my point, logical thought is the natural enemy of religion because homo sapiens is an insatiably curious creature and has always asked questions like "Where did we come from? Why is there a big multicoloured arc in the sky when it rains? Why do other people speak different languages? Why was my child born with a disability? What is the value of pi? Why are ostriches so careless with their eggs?"

The Bible and other religious writings came up with answers to these questions. Human curiousity is sated. Then logical thought came along and pop, pop, pop, we suddenly had real answers. Logical answers. The right answers. Suddenly the Church has to back pedal. Granted, it has just recently affirmed that Gallileo was right about the whole Earth going round the Sun thing (they were upset because it contradicted the Bible but instead they just wrote off the relevant passages as "metaphor") and the word on the Vatican streets is that even evolution will be allowed, though under the Intelligent Design banner (I'm guessing "metaphor" again.)

I'm also a little annoyed that people seem upset I'm dismissing their religion. If you believe the Bible, you're dismissing Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and pretty much every other religion (and vice versa of course). Why the affront when someone dismisses one more religon than you?

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
By definitions of both alogical and illogical they are both described as the absence of logic, they're more or less the same thing worded differently.

And now we cut to the heart of our disagreement.

We have different definitions of logic and of the world. We're not going to change each other's minds. All I'm asking is to please respect other people's world views and not insult them by calling them illogical.

I suppose asking some people not to hurl insults is a lot to ask. But we gotta at least try.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CantTakeSky:
We have different definitions of logic and of the world.

I follow the definition of logic, I feel no need to change it to fit my beliefs, it appears you do.

Quote:
All I'm asking is to please respect other people's world views and not insult them by calling them illogical.

It would have helped here if you had read my original post:

Quote:
Faith is not logical, it is the very opposite, this is not a bad thing, and by your framing it as such you set off from a false stand point. From your assumption that saying faith is illogical is a denegation of faith you base your argument on a false foundation.

Like I said, you are framing the illogical nature of faith as a bad thing, not I. I can't speak for SimonWho, but I suspect he doesn't hold this position either. Faith is illogical, Emotions are illogical, but too say it is an insult to say emotions are illogical would be blatantly absurd.

People are illogical, more often than not in fact, guess I'm insulting the entire Human race now

.

Quote:
I suppose asking some people not to hurl insults is a lot to ask. But we gotta at least try.

I suppose asking people to consider that a fact isn't offensive is a lot to ask. It would be nice if they tried though

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Faith is illogical, Emotions are illogical, but too say it is an insult to say emotions are illogical would be blatantly absurd.

It is obvious we aren't getting anywhere, so no offense meant, this is my last post to you on the subject.

Some faith is illogical. Some faith is alogical. In my view, to say all faith is illogical is NOT a fact, and can be offensive.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:52 PM

Okay then, faith is not logical. Which I believe was the initial point you were arguing against anyway.

A debate of faith can be alogical, but faith itself cannot be. It's as simple as that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:09 PM

Although I have enjoyed our debate up to this point, I must respectfully bow out. I no longer feel that I will be able to keep my sense of offense out of the equation when making arguments. Allow me to briefly explain.

Logic is "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration - the science of the formal principles of reasoning" ( definition 1a(1), http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ). Logic, then, philosophically speaking, concerns the way that arguments are made, and not the actual content of those arguements. As I mentioned in one of my posts above, the actual truth value of propositions is not what the science of logic is concerned with--logic is concerned with the way arguements are put together. That being the case, I can apply the rules of logical reasoning (things like non-contradiction, excluded middle, or De Morgan's rule) to any set of propositions (regardless of their content), and as long as I work with those according to the rules of propositional, predicate, or modal logic, the results are "logical"--that is, they operate validly according to those rules. Hence, a syllogism like, "All humans are contigent beings; all contingent beings are responsible to God for their moral choices; therefore, all humans are responsible to God for their moral choices" is a logically valid argument: it doesn't break any rule of propositional logic, and the conclusion follows by necessity if the premises are true. The content of those propositions is irrelevant, because logic isn't concerned with the content as such, but about the ways that the propositions interact. Take for example the following: 1) All jabberwockies are flibberty-gibbets; 2) all flibberty-gibbets are whatcha-hoozits; 3) therefore, all jabberwockies are whatcha-hoozits. These propositions have litterally no content whatsoever--but they remain in a logically valid configuration (according to the strict philosophical definition of logic) and thus that syllogism is "logical" in spite of the fact that the actual content of the propositions is non-sense.

One problem seems to be divergent definitions of "logic" and "logical". As a philosopher, I've been using the strict philosophical definition of logic as given in the preceding paragraph. On the other hand, those arguing the other side seem to use a more vernacular definition of logic, something like "legitimate: based on known statements or events or conditions" ( http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=logical ). So I can see how, on this definition, religion could be considered illogical, depending upon one's sense of legitimacy, or what one believes to be "known statements or events or conditions". If, on your view, it is a "known statement" that God did not create the cosmos, and I come along and say that He did, then according to the vernacular definition I'm being illogical. If those arguing against me (and CTS) Adhere to this vernacular definition of "logical", then we need not argue any further, because we are not truly talking about the same thing--there's an ocean of difference between the vernacular and philosophical definitions, which our argument will not overcome. If that is the case, if we can agree that we're not actually discussing the same conception of logic, then I wish you well, and hope that we can be civil on these boards in the future. But there seems to be a grimmer option than a disagreement on the defintion of "logic".

The grimmer option is that the argument will persist, that someone will argue, that it is impossible to apply the rules of propositional, predicate, or modal logic if the content of the proposition is concerned with theology. If that is the case (and I have felt, at various times that it is), then I will be deeply insulted. Because I have studied long and hard on the subject of philosophy, and I believe that I have done well at it. I've earned high marks in school (nearly perfect marks, in point of fact) and have been acknowledged as competent enough to tutor students

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
For what it's worth, I haven't felt any anger or hostility directed at me personally and hope the reverse is true.

Good to know, and the reverse is true, for me anyway. I am not as sensitive to being called "illogical" as I am being called "not a scientist." THAT's my pet peeve.

Quote:
but can you tell me how that makes you any more logical than someone who is absolutely logical except for things told to him by Flimsy, the king of the Baggilolo tribe who lives in his little finger?

Well, let's talk about Flimsy. Bob believes in Flimsy. Bill believes in Jesus. And Chuck believes in Science. In all other respects, they use the same amount of logic to answer their questions. Who is more logical? I would answer no one is more logical than the other--but I'm guessing you would disagree. What do you mean by "more logical" anyway?

Let me give an example. Arithmetic is a tool for understanding certain concepts. But there are questions that arithmetic cannot answer. What happens when you add the angles of a triangle drawn on the surface of a balloon that is constantly deflating? So we have to go outside of arithmetic to calculus and trigonometry to answer that question. Now let's say Andy claims arithmetic can answer all problems. And John says no, I use plenty of arithmetic, but I supplement arithmetic with calculus. Does that make John less "arithmetic" than Andy? Arithmetic is not a religion, and while you can use arithmetic more than others, you can't be "more arithmetic" than others.

Let me ask you this, Simon. Do you think, like Citizen, that there is no difference between alogical and illogical?

Quote:
So, to get back to my point, logical thought is the natural enemy of religion because homo sapiens is an insatiably curious creature and has always asked questions ....
The Bible and other religious writings came up with answers to these questions.

Well, there we get back to some people use logic in their religious reasoning, and some people don't. Just because I accept faith-based answers to some questions does not mean I accept faith-based answers to ALL questions. I am a scientist, at heart and by training. I use scientific reasoning and empiricism to satisfy my insatiable curiosity. But I see a world bigger than what science can address (a non-physical world), and I use faith to supplement the answers that science can never solve.

Quote:
I'm also a little annoyed that people seem upset I'm dismissing their religion.

That's not why people are upset. I'm arguing not because you dismissed my religion (you don't even know what my religion is), but because you're dismissing the possibility of logic existing in religion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE