Religion is not logical

The agnostic is rightfully open-minded, and not resigned to a particular, unproveable view.
Do you mean to say that some people know God exists?

Unlike the religious thinker who starts from the existence of God (and any other religious dogma), the free-thinker is able to question everything - he has no particular starting point. He works inward, not outward, questioning whether we can know anything (and if we can, what). Instead of trying to justify a belief, he explores what can possibly be known.

The religious thinker is prescribed truths with which he then struggles; the free-thinker on the other hand roams freely amongst the endless possibilites.

I mean to say that it's logically possible that some people know God exists, and that many people do in fact claim such, and that any agnostic who claims 'nobody knows' is either telepathic, or making a claim based on insuffecient evidence. The best he can manage is '[i]I[/i] don't know'. 

When, then he’s a general skeptic. As far as I know, there’s no good way to come to the conclusion that any proposition is true, without first accepting that some other proposition is true, is there? If everything is in doubt, what is your standard for evaluation?
Also, I would submit that the type of person you describe above is mainly a mythology- we all live for a decade or so before we start critically thinking (and some a lot longer than that), and have many, many unexamined beliefs entrenched before we start doing so. There’s simply not enough time in the day to re-examine them all.

Theism and religion are two different things.

“Religion” is the honoring of and the living for “highest truth”.

Humanism is officially a religion, for example.
No god.

(original post in the wrong thread)

I accept it is logically possible that some people know God exists, but wouldn’t that also suggest it is also logically possible that some people know that God doesn’t exist?
Also, if the best one can manage is ‘I don’t know’ then perhaps that means you too are unable to say of me that I don’t know that ‘nobody knows’ (if you catch my drift?).

I appreciate what you’re saying and accept that such a wholly free thinker cannot exist as such, due to problems with standards of evaluation and circularity. I wasn’t trying to encourage total skepticism, but was claiming that someone who is free from religious beliefs is able to embark on a more productive philosophic journey due to not having to wasting time trying to reconcile their particular religious views with what (seemingly contradictory) conclusions they reach with reason. As you said, critical thinking invariably does not come until later, yet the scope of their criticism varies hugely - I think the quality and integrity of the criticism will be better and more enjoyable if one is also willing submit their religious beliefs to such criticism, thus remaining truer to the philosophic, rational spirit.

Standard23, I’m enjoying this talk quite a bit!

From the perspective of one who doesn't know for sure either way, yes. But of course, they can't both be [i]actually[/i] true- if there are some people who know God doesn't exist, then there is nobody who knows He does, and vica versa, taking knowledge in the usual way.  I don't think I get why you pointed this out, though. 

Ahh, I see. But I don’t agree. To say “I don’t know if God exists” is a statement you can make certainly, based on evidence that you posess in full (the limits of your own knowledge). You have agreed with me that it is logically possible that some people know God exists. This implies that it is logically possible that God does exist, knowledge taken in the usual way.
For you to say “Nobody knows if God exists”, you would either have to claim that such knowledge is impossible (which we have already agreed it is not), or you would have to have very detailed, personal information about the mental states and past experiences of every human being on Earth. You’re right- technically, I cannot be perfectly certain that you don’t have this knowledge- which is why I made the statement I did. Either you’re telepathic, or you’re basing the belief that nobody knows on insuffecient information.

Well...I agree with this to an extent, but could you say that about any set of beliefs?  Take out 'religious belief' from what you said above, and replace it with 'Capitalism', and wouldn't all the communists nod their head in agreement?  After all, communists must see contradictions and other errors in capitalism, so they must see people who are stuck embracing it as people in a sort of philosophical rut or stagnation.  It seems to me that what you're saying above only makes sense if we take it for granted that all religious belief is [i]false[/i], right? 

Now, this, I totally agree with. Any person engaged in philosophy, who is religious, cannot help but think philosophically about their religion, especially since theism and such are controversial, minority views in the philosophical community. However, I think it’s possible for rational, engaged thinkers to evaluate their religious beliefs and come out still holding them. Of course, this is in part because I happen to think there is a true religion myself. But also, it just seems to me the case- while a minority, there are enough religious philosophers out there who seem credible enough that one can’t dismiss them as simply not having thought things through.

Standard 23 is wrong in saying that atheists refute theism on the grounds that god does not exist. That’s not what I’m saying, anyway. I refute him pragmatically, by saying that God has come into conflict with science, and will again in the future, because some dumb theists believe in a God that still exists. Science wins out because technological benefits are unlimited whereas a society can only get so efficient. A scientific explanation of a certain phenomena is more beneficial than a religious one.

I’m a bit lost as to why I brought it up too. I suppose it seems a shame that if either or neither (but not both!) were the true, it could never be successfully communicated to another, which goes back to the issue of not knowing what others know…one cannot state what others can’t know, nor, it seems, then, can one who knows enable another to know.

You’re right, and I don’t - some may may know whether he does or does not exist. My objection is to those who do not know, but claim to.

Indeed, much progress of a belief or ideology is aided by previous and opposing ideologies, often arising as a direct response. So in one respect they benefit; however, they suffer when the opposing set of beliefs dominates to the extent of being considered more and more as right(e.g. democracy) In these cases one would examine the beliefs and attempt to improve, refine or abandon. I think religious beliefs get further in being regarded as true, as reality itself, therefore becoming a special case where it is considered indispensable given its truth, so much so that it is not subject to revision.

Certainly would. But, as you would agree, I cannot assert that it is. My main concern however is the manner in which religious beliefs are tackled and reached. Someone who comes to rationalize their predetermined beliefs is merely allowing their reason to be a slave to such believes. To remain completely rational (which is supposed to be indifferent) one must let their reason dictate their beliefs.

[/quote]

I certainly think a religious thinker can rightfully continue with their beliefs after having examined them philosophically. Still I would like to stress the need, if one regards themselves rational, to not let their beliefs interfere with their conclusions - something which undoubtedly happens far more often than is admitted. Beliefs held in spite of reason must be acknowledged as faith.
I have now come to see that religious beliefs can be rational. My only wwish remains that, regardless of conclusions reached, one never fails to recognize that they may be in error. Both faith and reason are, of course, fallible - practitioners of both so should recognize them as such.

Not about stuff like this. What’s rock-solid evidence for me because mere anecdote when I try to convey it to you.

Those people are incorrect, but I think it’s mainly a small thing- people are forever claiming to know what they don’t really know, especially when it comes to controversial issues like religion, morality, and so on. I guess you just have to take it in stride that when someone uses the word ‘know’ outside of a philosophical context, they could really mean all kinds of things.

 Well, religion has a number of things going for it (or against it, depending) that make it a special case- For one thing, it's taught to the very young. For another, it's not just for experts- people who have no interest or capability in studying theology will still have a religion- and will stick by it rather strongly.  That's why I used the example of Capitalism. How many people are their out there who consider Communism to be synonymous with Evil, without really knowing a damned thing about either?  Now, even if we happen to be Capitalists ourselves, we have to seperate that element out when discussing the matter, and realize the discussion exists on a higher level. Do the sorts of anti-communists I mentioned in themselves make Capitalism bad?
That's how I see it with religion- we have many, many people that are religious without being critical thinkers, because of when and to whom religion is taught. But, those are the sorts of people we should have in mind when comparing religious perspectives to 'free-thinking' perspectives. 

Well, by definition. But we already agreed that we can’t do this about everything. So I think you have three main bodies of religious believers:

Those who can’t, or won’t, apply critical thinking to their religious beliefs.
Those who can, and simply haven’t gotten around to it yet, they are thinking about other things instead.
Those who have, and remain convinced that their religious beliefs are true.

I’m not sure which of those we can condemn. The first seems likely, except that if someone is truly unable to examine things critically- they just don’t have the skill- they were bound to be convinced by the first thing that came along. We can’t criticize their skills in the philosophy game, they simply aren’t playing it. The other two members seem to be beyond reproach, as well.

I think you’re right that religious belief is more often held in spite of reason than other sorts of belief- scientific. I’m of the mind that this has more to do with the accessibility of religion, and not something inherently flawed in the enterprise.

So why teach it then and to them?

The same reason we teach them anything else.

I can’t believe you haven’t noticed, in your experience, that not everybody rises to the level of ‘critical thinker’.

the varieties of Buddhism within Buddhism are almost separate systems/schools of thought. Not all of them share those beliefs, and even less do so sincerely. The one commonality is Kamma, which itself varies in importance and sincerety of belief between the various subsets of Buddhism. One cannot talk about “buddhism” - one must talk about region specific or historically specific trends of Buddhism.

I’ve been away and missed a lot. Just a quick note. Uccisore, you’ve shown some good thoughts on this page. Thank you for that. Connections

Gee, lots of props to the Uccisore lately. I think I’m getting my Shpadoinkal back.

Hello Uccisore:
— First, a minor conflict on point 2: If this argument means to refute Christianity, and not just generic theism, it has to take into account that humans and God are not the only posited free-will having agents. There’s Satan, angels, demons, and so on to consider.
O- Job was afflicted by Satan, but only after God had granted Satan this freedom. The Freewill of Satan is naught before the Will of God.

— That said, I’m prepared to agree that at least some of the evil we see in the world is not caused directly by some intelligent, non-God agent.
O- That would render God’s omnipotence as questionable. Omni-potence, means that there can be no other potency: He has all the potency.

— I think the main conflict here is on point 3. There’s several assumptions at work here.
3A) All natural Evil can be prevented by an Omnipotent Being.
O- That is derived from the use of the words “omni” and “potent”. An omnipotent being cannot, by this definition, lack the potency to prevent all natural evil. In the Christian God, Heaven would be an impossibility if God could not eliminate all evil there.

— If this unarguable to you, consider that we’re not just talking about natural evil in itself, we’re talking about anything that free-will possessing mortals would consider to be natural evil.
O- A “natural evil” is a condition brought about which causes suffering to at least one subject, which is not the direct effect of the freewill of another subject. I may get diabetes from my mother, but not directly from the will of my mother. She cannot decide whether I get diabetes or not. This is given or negated by the interactions of nature.

— The mere fact that humans need to eat and sleep, can’t fly, and aren’t immortal could all be considered examples of natural evil (especially in a world wherein some of the more severe examples we see don’t exist). It’s possible that all finite beings will experience strife from their environment, just by virtue of the fact that all their wishes are not instantaneously gratified.
O- True. But in general very few, if any, call an evil not being able to fly. Natural evils are not reducible to unfulfilled wishes. What is evil is meanigless. What is considered out of order. It is not an evil to die peacefully in old age. It is an evil to die slowly and painfully due to cancer. It is not an evil to be born hungry. It is an evil that a mother’s tit has no milk to give. Certain conditions we can see are shared by all beings. Mortality, however, is the greatest natural evil and that is why it is the greatest gift offered by Jesus.

— 3B) There is no ‘higher good’ for which some level of natural evil is admissible- That there is a certain, survivable level of strife and anguish in the world may go to serve other purpose, that when understood, makes the state of the world excusable.
O- Your greatest insight. There is “evil”-- and God is the cause. The evil of this world is excused by the promise of Heaven. Is that simple. 3C is also right on the money. Alas, it takes a lot of faith for this to work.
But here is me playing Satan’s advocate:
If in Heaven, why not so on Earth. If Heaven is free of evil, why can’t the Earth be so?
An Apostle responds: “The world is our cross which we must bear. God must remind us of our frailty of this life that we may continue to hope for the next”.
The Advocate: So God knows how to move and excite his creation, his servant…with a whip! The Problem of Evil is the Problem with God’s mysterious ways…

Great job, Ucci! You really put a lot of thought into the defense of religion and the religious in general. I think that you have argued well, and that you have shown how religion and religious are not necessarily illogical. You are my hero!

tdfmissmatch

OK, ok, that’s enough of that. If you need a hero, I reccomend Plantinga and maybe Swinburne as places to start. Seriously, seriously, check em out.

Omar

Nevertheless, if we’re going to grant the free will defense for humans (admit that humans have free will to the extent that God is absolved responsibility for the things we do to each other), then I see no reason to include this other host of beings. It was a minor point, though.

 Omnipotence means whatever we want it to.  What's important is, does the idea of beings other than God having [i]some[/i] power damage what common believers, the Church fathers, and current Church leaders mean when they say 'God' and 'omnipotent'.  I would say it does not- well, maybe the Calvinists- but then, we know their answer to the Problem of Evil.  If your notion of omnipotence insists that nobody but God can do anything, then choose another word for what God is- no different than for those who's definition of omnipotence includes God being able to do the logically impossible. 

Well, possibility is limited by circumstance. Sure, God could have pretented all evil by, for example, not having created anything but Himself. I should have been more clear- what I mean is, I don’t think it’s necessary that God be able to prevent all natural evil in all circumstances, that is, there may be certain other aims He has in mind, which in order to achieve, make it impossible for him to prevent all natural evil.

I think I can wrap up the next to points in one comment here:

I’m supposing that that’s because of the state of the world. We don’t see not being able to fly as an evil, we don’t see the need to eat or sleep as an evil, because we have more pressing evils to consider. What I’m saying here is that if I listed me personal top 100 examples of natural evil, and God made them all go away, I could come up with another top 100 very quickly, once I adjusted to me new life. And so on, until I became God myself. I think that free, limited beings are always going to see there being something wrong with the universe.

If that was the only way people died, then yes, it would be considered an evil, I believe.

It takes a huge amount of faith to use this point to actually feel better when horribly evil things happen to you- but not so much faith to use this point as a rhetorical tool to defeat the problem of evil. That’s all I’m really after.

The first step would be, of course, to seperate what we’ve actually been told about Heaven by Scripture, from what we’ve assumed about Heaven due to our culture. What, at bare minimum, has been promised us? For example, is the idea that there will never be any natural evil in Heaven guarenteed, or is that something we’ve come up with after the fact, like the whole Nike-esque conception of angels and so on? It’s an area I know nearly nothing about. Other than a general impression that Heaven is “wicked-awesome” compared to Earth, I wouldn’t know what to say.

Hello Ussci:

— Nevertheless, if we’re going to grant the free will defense for humans (admit that humans have free will to the extent that God is absolved responsibility for the things we do to each other), then I see no reason to include this other host of beings. It was a minor point, though.
O- But that point now looms large. If Satan’s Freewill is nothing before the will of God then what hope is there for the will of a mere mortal? Freewill is free in relation to other human beings. In relation to God, freewill is an impossibility given the other accepted attributes of God. Freewill; what a loaded premise…

— Omnipotence means whatever we want it to.
O- Only by an abuse of language. The word is used at all because it does not mean whatever at all but a certain definition applies to it while other definitions do not.

— What’s important is, does the idea of beings other than God having some power damage what common believers, the Church fathers, and current Church leaders mean when they say ‘God’ and ‘omnipotent’. I would say it does not- well, maybe the Calvinists- but then, we know their answer to the Problem of Evil.
O- Funny that you mention Calvin, but Luther too had a similar take on the matter and both refered back to St Agustine for the basis of their theory. Certainly, the Bible itself is not so written as to avert this notion or theory. Other beings, such as ourselves, have certain powers. We may enjoy a freedom of will; but this freedom is not due to our own device but by the leniency of God. He can grant freewill and can as easily take it away. Can God change a man’s heart? Can God overcome one’s will or is our will more potent, or so potent, that not even God, the Creator of all, can hope to change or chain our will? If God exist, our freewill is but an illusion…

— If your notion of omnipotence insists that nobody but God can do anything, then choose another word for what God is- no different than for those who’s definition of omnipotence includes God being able to do the logically impossible.
O- You mean like the square circle? The unliftable Rock? Omnipotence, by definition, cannot create it’s own prision. This inability is not a limitation, but an expression of it’s definition. I can define omnipotence in two ways: Negatively and Positively. The Omnipotent cannot be bound. Cannot be circumscribed. Cannot depend on something else. Cannot create a situation in which it cannot do something.
The Omnipotent can trancend our views of the universe. Can violate imagined “Laws”. Can intervene. Can make 2 fishes, plus 2 other fishes, equal 5,000 fishes.
God cannot make a in the same way that he cannot make a square circle. The definition dictates the idea. The definition of Omnipotent cannot allow for the creation of an unliftable rock. It goes against logic, and the definition of Omnipotent. Same with Square circles.
Now, one may object to this and say that God is subject then to my idea of God. The attribute of Omnipotence, however, is idea. I have not witnessed omnipotence; nor, for that matter, God as He is in-Himself. It is solely by ideas that we frame what may be said, what may be expressed. It is not that God in-Himself, is subject to what I can conceive (my ideas on “good” or what can be meant by omni), but that what I can conceive and express are ideas on the ultimate unknown. He might trancend logic, math and geometry, which are visions we have on nature, but if He does, on that we are speechless. If God trancends my language, then He trancends my mind and is inconceivable. If God’s potency is limited and unlimited all at once, then I cannot speak. My words, my ideas, are units that express either/or scenarios. My language, is logical. What is illogical detroys our ability to conceive an idea of the unknown.

— Well, possibility is limited by circumstance.
O- But the Creator and sustaining force is beyond all circumstance. We are limited by circumstances. Of course, we’re not omnipotent. But if we were omnipotent then no circumstance could limit us. If there exists a circumstance that limits us in some way then we are subject to that circumstance which Lords over us. We are then said to have power, but cannot be, by definition, omnipotent.

— I don’t think it’s necessary that God be able to prevent all natural evil in all circumstances, that is, there may be certain other aims He has in mind, which in order to achieve, make it impossible for him to prevent all natural evil.
O- Playing the Devil’s advocate: “So the Problem persists. Why do the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper?”

• St Martyr: “Because the circumstances make it necessary, in such an occasion, that evil must exist.”
  DA: “So then God is a very good God but very incapable of eliminating evil, therefore He is not omnipotent.”
• St Martyr: “That is true only by your definition of “Omnipotent”, which I do not need to share.”
  DA: “Neither do you share my vocabulary and by consequence, my vision of God.”

— …if I listed me personal top 100 examples of natural evil, and God made them all go away, I could come up with another top 100 very quickly, once I adjusted to me new life. And so on, until I became God myself. I think that free, limited beings are always going to see there being something wrong with the universe."
O- Deep. Evil is a subjective idea. What is evil in our perspective is good in another’s…including God’s. But, let’s not fault limited beings just yet. God abhors sin and considers the devil “evil”, yet He is an unlimited Being. So, like Job I declare that even if I maintain the commands now given, other commands then pop up just as quickly, once God became adjusted to my compliance. God is free to always find faults in his creation, by the mere fact that he is creator and we the creation. So it must be since the only remedy would be that God could create God, which violates logic given our premises.
Could a happier situation be found for eternity?

I think Omar succecfully owned religion.

By the way thezeus18 I agree with you that religion (specifically christianity) is illogical.

“I think Omar succecfully owned religion.”

Just what do you mean by that?