Religion isn't inherently logical. However, religion is not practiced by only illogical members of society.
What makes people religious? Are logical folk more likely to shun religion than those who are more illogical? Or less prone to using logic as their guide?
I'd like to hear opinions and experiences concerning logic and religion.
What makes people religious? This could be so many things. I don't see a lot of people changing their religion than from what they were raised with. It happens, but usually because they marry into a family with stronger religious ties. Or they simply forgo practicing yet retain the general belief system they were born into.
Do logical folks shun religion more than illogical? I think they question more and they see the discrepancies in religion which causes more doubt. I'm making an assumption here and it's based on my experience but it's possible logical thinkers who do believe in a higher power will often pick and choose what to believe/what not to believe rather than follow a defined religion and the laws that go along specifically to each.
My brother, an INTP, turned to Christianity on his own will. The rest of our family are atheists. I always found a rational like him, who's major is in neuroscience, inexplicable to hold certitude grounds of a historic elaborate dogma...
I suppose faith and history is all that we have of our origin.
Our views are quite different with morality, I beg to withstand morals were made to test our boundaries, using our identities to discover a true explanation of our inclusive behaviour. He regards morals inherent universally and claims, "you cannot invent colour".
Would you mind expanding on what specifically contrasts between the three traditions? thanks.
That would get rather complicated, and unfortunately MacIntyre can be irritatingly dense in explaining such matters too.
Very long story short:
The Encyclopedists believe that absract logic is the legitimate source of thinking, and optimistically believe logic can solve humanity's major problems.
The Nietzscheans critique this notion and tend to protray reason and logic as power-ploys.
The Classical-Christian tradition believes in reason, but in reason that has wider implications than the narrow abstract kind proposed by the Encyclopedists. For one thing, their kind of reason is built upon the primacy of intuition and the intellect, and even accounts sensory data as well. In other words reason as embedded within the whole human person, rather than abstracted from the rest of human faculties.
To give one example of this difference, at least between two of the traditions: Descartes(Encyclopedist) noted that the senses sometimes deceive us, and because of such we cannot trust them. If you look upon a stick within a river, it will look crooked. Ralph McInerny(Classical-Christian) notes that yes indeed the stick does look crooked in the river, but take the stick out of the river and the deception ends - you clearly see now the stick is really straight.
This does mean going back and rethinking what you saw, and note that while your senses can be reliable they're not infallible. Truth may not be certain, but it's still real - and that's why rational dialogue is one important tool to help discern what is true and what is not, and we must be modest about our claims towards truth and be willing to acknowledge when we make errors. That's why having a human will directed towards seeking truth is more primary among Classical-Christians, wheras Encyclopedists seem to think that abstract logical certainty is the true key.
Another major issue of contention involved here is the notion of the Intellect or Nous, and whether it even exists or not. If you believe in a human intellect, then the concept of rationally proving God's existence makes sense. If you deny it exists, such excercises appear as mere sophistry and "special pleading" as Russell characterised the Five Ways of Aquinas.
I know certain people here, strong in their faith in their own particular ways, are defending the logical and truthful existence of their religion. But, I believe this is completely besides the point. I don't believe the intended point of religion was primarily to be a science, to explain the world. I believe the point of religion is to explain our relationship to the world, in the only language we can understand: metaphor.
Some are compelled to contradict what they see with their own eyes to uphold that metaphor. It's a matter of prioritizing facts vs a chosen understanding of their place in the universe. This is a choice that nonreligious people face regularly. Nobody ever only chooses facts.