5 ms·

Doesn't this seem obvious? I don't mean to be flippant, but central to religion is acceptance of ideas which are: 1) illogical; and, 2) infallible, and thus im

Doesn't this seem obvious? I don't mean to be flippant, but central to religion is acceptance of ideas which are: 1) illogical; and, 2) infallible, and thus impervious to any real analysis. Any belief system that requires faith for explanation is by definition at odds with analysis.

ars 14y ago
Not really. Not all religious are illogical. If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.) Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. If everything in your religion follows logically from the axioms it's not any more illogical than any school of thought. Gödel proved that a logically consistent school of thought based entirely only on the proven is impossible. Note: Not all religions are actually structured this way. Some really do require illogical belief. I'm just saying it's not an essential feature of religion.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  Name one major religion that is logical. It's not really about your personal existential questions, religions are organized social phenomena (probably biological adaptations one could say). Maths and logic is a consistent system and it can even prove its inconsistencies. Despite popular opinion, Godel's theorem does not provide mathematical foundation to illogical truths, nor does it state that any arbitrary argument cannot be decided. It's specific statements cannot be decided. In short, Maths don't make metaphysical claims, and please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions Amen to that! Or, whatever, you know what I mean.
  - ars 14y ago
    All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Most require that the creation happened as a act of will by a sentience. Not all though, some hold that it was created as reflex of sort. But all claim to know how it happened (and agnosticism holds that we don't know, and atheism holds that it created itself with an additional belief that we will eventually figure out how it happened). That belief will never go away, so if that's your criteria there is no point in continuing further. But religion is more than just that, there are all sorts of other things that religions require, and that's where my argument lies. Rites, rituals, prohibited practices, required practices, what is considered good, what is bad, what is neutral. Some religions don't require anything at all - just the core belief in a creator and that's it. The question is what is the source of these things - are they dictated by fiat, and believers just believe it without thinking about it? Or does every single ritual and belief require rigorous explanation and analysis before being accepted as necessary. And you got my argument about Gödel backward. I did not argue religion from Gödel, rather that everything also requires some belief without proof. (The interesting arguments about what if that belief was wrong are what differentiates science from religion.) But the need for the belief doesn't go away.
    - btilly 14y ago
      All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Buddhism is a counter-example. There are many strands of Buddhism, but in general they do not take a position on the creation of the universe, the existence of deities, or many other things that most Westerners would think are central to a religion. If all that you're really familiar with are variants on one religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam share holy books), it is easy to believe that all religions look the same with different texts. But in fact there is a much wider variety of religions in the world than that.
      - true_religion 14y ago
        Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, Norse, and Greco-Romans. It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent. If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?
- robenkleene 14y ago
  > If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.) This is the mistake of prescribing human-like wants and needs to something that's by-definition inhuman. Godlike power and intelligence would be akin to the difference between us and other animals. Do you think other animals go around theorizing what motivates humans? No, our wants and needs are unfathomable to an animal, just as a gods wants and needs would be unfathomable to us.
  - ars 14y ago
    Yah, that's quite true - and I would say the difference is even greater. But implied in the knowledge of the existence of the creator is that the creator was the one that gave us this knowledge. And since the creator did that, some other things can be assumed. If the creator never communicated with humans then we would not know about his existence, and then any sort of worship would make no sense. So if a religion claims to know anything at all about a creator it must also be that the creator has at least the desire to be known to his creations. i.e. this is just another way of stating the core axiom that all religions must have.
- joejohnson 14y ago
  Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. No, no, no. You are confused about what an axiom is; an axiom is truth that cannot be proven, but which is taken to be self-evident. Yes, you are correct that axioms in math cannot be proven; that is, by definition, what makes them axiomatic. An example is the identity axiom: x = x. This is obvious as to why we think this is true. This axiom is useful in proving more complex theorems. That's why mathematicians define such seemingly-obvious statements with axioms. What would a religious "axiom" be? I take it that you believe the existence of a creator to be an "axiom" for a given religious set. This is a false analogy. How is the existence of a creator self-evident? The burden of proof need not be on the doubters. If I make absurd claims (which conveniently are unverifiable), then they damn well better be self-evident.
  - ars 14y ago
    Something created existence (not just the matter of the universe - the concept of there being "something"). You can argue about the nature of this thing (is it sentient, does it desire interaction), but that something created existence is indeed self evident.
    - joejohnson 14y ago
      Something created existence... No. That is absolutely not self-evident. In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. What evidence do we have for this theory? Why assume it was something that created existence? Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Perhaps these laws will very neatly explain many characteristic of our universe. There are infinite other possible explanations. The religious idea that a creator was cause of our existence is unsupported by anything other than religious texts, and this idea is clearly not the sole possible explanation for the origins of the universe. So in short, no, the existence of a creator is not self-evident. If you use religion to answers such questions which are unanswered with our current knowledge of the universe, then you are being irrational, not analytical. Before we understood that our planet rotates around the sun, there were numerous supernatural explanations. At the time, it was thought to be unknowable. But a few hundred years later, we realize that: 1) the answer to this question is knowable, and 2) the answer now seems trivial, almost obvious. Modern theists, like modern rationalists, are likely to accept that ancient religious doctrine is silly and false. Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! That's ridiculous. Most modern theists reject these outdated theological ideas. They have reduced their belief structure to one god; atheists just go one further. It's the obvious next step in our civilizations movement out of antiquity and towards enlightenment. The modern religious person either ignores science and all of the evidence, or sits at the edge of our current universal knowledge and posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural. Fortunately, history will prove the religious wrong. Our current epistemological and ontological questions are no exception.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ars 14y ago

Not really. Not all religious are illogical. If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.) Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. If everything in your religion follows logically from the axioms it's not any more illogical than any school of thought. Gödel proved that a logically consistent school of thought based entirely only on the proven is impossible. Note: Not all religions are actually structured this way. Some really do require illogical belief. I'm just saying it's not an essential feature of religion.

zerostar07 14y ago
Name one major religion that is logical. It's not really about your personal existential questions, religions are organized social phenomena (probably biological adaptations one could say). Maths and logic is a consistent system and it can even prove its inconsistencies. Despite popular opinion, Godel's theorem does not provide mathematical foundation to illogical truths, nor does it state that any arbitrary argument cannot be decided. It's specific statements cannot be decided. In short, Maths don't make metaphysical claims, and please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions Amen to that! Or, whatever, you know what I mean.
- ars 14y ago
  All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Most require that the creation happened as a act of will by a sentience. Not all though, some hold that it was created as reflex of sort. But all claim to know how it happened (and agnosticism holds that we don't know, and atheism holds that it created itself with an additional belief that we will eventually figure out how it happened). That belief will never go away, so if that's your criteria there is no point in continuing further. But religion is more than just that, there are all sorts of other things that religions require, and that's where my argument lies. Rites, rituals, prohibited practices, required practices, what is considered good, what is bad, what is neutral. Some religions don't require anything at all - just the core belief in a creator and that's it. The question is what is the source of these things - are they dictated by fiat, and believers just believe it without thinking about it? Or does every single ritual and belief require rigorous explanation and analysis before being accepted as necessary. And you got my argument about Gödel backward. I did not argue religion from Gödel, rather that everything also requires some belief without proof. (The interesting arguments about what if that belief was wrong are what differentiates science from religion.) But the need for the belief doesn't go away.
  - btilly 14y ago
    All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Buddhism is a counter-example. There are many strands of Buddhism, but in general they do not take a position on the creation of the universe, the existence of deities, or many other things that most Westerners would think are central to a religion. If all that you're really familiar with are variants on one religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam share holy books), it is easy to believe that all religions look the same with different texts. But in fact there is a much wider variety of religions in the world than that.
    - true_religion 14y ago
      Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, Norse, and Greco-Romans. It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent. If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?
robenkleene 14y ago
> If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.) This is the mistake of prescribing human-like wants and needs to something that's by-definition inhuman. Godlike power and intelligence would be akin to the difference between us and other animals. Do you think other animals go around theorizing what motivates humans? No, our wants and needs are unfathomable to an animal, just as a gods wants and needs would be unfathomable to us.
- ars 14y ago
  Yah, that's quite true - and I would say the difference is even greater. But implied in the knowledge of the existence of the creator is that the creator was the one that gave us this knowledge. And since the creator did that, some other things can be assumed. If the creator never communicated with humans then we would not know about his existence, and then any sort of worship would make no sense. So if a religion claims to know anything at all about a creator it must also be that the creator has at least the desire to be known to his creations. i.e. this is just another way of stating the core axiom that all religions must have.
joejohnson 14y ago
Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. No, no, no. You are confused about what an axiom is; an axiom is truth that cannot be proven, but which is taken to be self-evident. Yes, you are correct that axioms in math cannot be proven; that is, by definition, what makes them axiomatic. An example is the identity axiom: x = x. This is obvious as to why we think this is true. This axiom is useful in proving more complex theorems. That's why mathematicians define such seemingly-obvious statements with axioms. What would a religious "axiom" be? I take it that you believe the existence of a creator to be an "axiom" for a given religious set. This is a false analogy. How is the existence of a creator self-evident? The burden of proof need not be on the doubters. If I make absurd claims (which conveniently are unverifiable), then they damn well better be self-evident.
- ars 14y ago
  Something created existence (not just the matter of the universe - the concept of there being "something"). You can argue about the nature of this thing (is it sentient, does it desire interaction), but that something created existence is indeed self evident.
  - joejohnson 14y ago
    Something created existence... No. That is absolutely not self-evident. In fact, if something created existence, that would require an entity that operates outside of our current understanding of physics. What evidence do we have for this theory? Why assume it was something that created existence? Maybe there are more laws of physics to be discovered. Perhaps these laws will very neatly explain many characteristic of our universe. There are infinite other possible explanations. The religious idea that a creator was cause of our existence is unsupported by anything other than religious texts, and this idea is clearly not the sole possible explanation for the origins of the universe. So in short, no, the existence of a creator is not self-evident. If you use religion to answers such questions which are unanswered with our current knowledge of the universe, then you are being irrational, not analytical. Before we understood that our planet rotates around the sun, there were numerous supernatural explanations. At the time, it was thought to be unknowable. But a few hundred years later, we realize that: 1) the answer to this question is knowable, and 2) the answer now seems trivial, almost obvious. Modern theists, like modern rationalists, are likely to accept that ancient religious doctrine is silly and false. Does a god pull the sun across the sky in his chariot each day? No! That's ridiculous. Most modern theists reject these outdated theological ideas. They have reduced their belief structure to one god; atheists just go one further. It's the obvious next step in our civilizations movement out of antiquity and towards enlightenment. The modern religious person either ignores science and all of the evidence, or sits at the edge of our current universal knowledge and posits that the limitations of our current scientific knowledge must be explained by the supernatural. Fortunately, history will prove the religious wrong. Our current epistemological and ontological questions are no exception.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]