• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Logical thinkers and religion

G

Ginkgo

Guest
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.

Organized religion provides a convenient way to find people who hold similar beliefs and congregate. The more cohesive a group of people, the more they tend to ensure their own survival.

The philosophies and concepts provided by many religions solve existential dilemmas, which mitigates feelings of being lost, empty, or meaningless. Many religious beliefs follow logic while others rely more upon sentiments and intuitions. If they weren't created in narratives of some logic, nobody could make sense of them. On the other hand, if religious ideas didn't hold any emotional content, they would lose appeal.

Any system of beliefs requires ingredients of faith and reason, at the bare minimum.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Alright then. I'll try to answer as best I can without resorting to writing extended tomes here. People of faith are called upon to use reason to help better understand what exactly they have faith in("faith seeking understanding" is the classical expression for such). Faith is not contrary to reason, but it does operate above and beyond reason. Reason after all is a faculty given to us by God, so to use it properly as a means of seeking truth is well within religious means. This is a very crude summary of the rational theist crowd.

The irrational theist OTOH tends to believe reason is more a hinderance than an aid to understanding and knowing God or divine truth. Whether or not reason is altogether rejected depends. A common view is that reason can tell you little if anything about matters of faith precisely because they are above and beyond reason. And of course there are those who simply despise reasoning altogether, aka Misology.

So which perspective is the correct one? I guess that depends on whom you ask. I tend towards the former perspective for the record.

However, this raises many further questions - particularly what on earth is reasoning to begin with - or as MacIntyre has termed it Whose Rationality? Whose Justice? According to his thesis, we have three main mutually exclusive traditions of rational thinking: the older Classical-Christian tradition, the Encyclopedists of the Enlightenment, and Nietzscheans. So those who claim that religion and reason are compatible or incompatible, they're usually arguing from different traditions which have different starting points.

And this is where things really get interesting or boring depending on one's perspective.
 

rhinosaur

Just a statistic
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,464
MBTI Type
INTP
Tradition, comforting feelings, a sense of belonging in a group, 'answers' to difficult and/or unanswerable questions. I myself am not religious, but I can understand how someone might find comfort there. Even logical thinkers have emotional needs, which religion is a common way of satisfying.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
So those who claim that religion and reason are compatible or incompatible, they're usually arguing from different traditions which have different starting points.

Probably the most famous demonstration of this was the debate between Copleston and Russell on God's existence. Both men were operating from different traditions of what actually constitutes rational thinking, thus this influences their approaches to the question of God's existence - and Copleston finally admitted it just lead them both into an impasse.
 
Last edited:

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I do shun a lot about religion, and don't care for anything to do with organized religion, or congregating with other people.. but I accept some mysteries about the general idea strictly on faith. It's just a choice. At a certain point, there's nothing to be known or analyzed (like the existence of God or gods, the nature of gods, etc.). I'm only critical about things that have more to do with humans than gods.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Te-dom here and vehemently reject religion for myself. It's fine for other people who want to believe, as long as they don't try to "save" others by influencing political decisions. Then, it pisses me off to no end when the religion governs what adults do in their own bedrooms and homes that hurts or harms no one.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is also a difference between focusing on working out the logic within a system, and questioning the underlying assumptions of a system. There are a great many systems of thought, religious, political, or philosophical that have a lot of internally logical connections based on a given set of assumptions. A logical thinker can master the system without questioning its foundational assumptions. Ideologies of all sorts are constructed with strong internal logic with unquestioned assumptions. This is what makes them so powerful because the person subscribing to it can reach a point of thinking that internal logic of a system itself validates the foundational assumptions. That is a false assumption - the most perfect system can be based on false premises and therefore not map to reality at all.

Great post. When I look at most religions, after you've cut through a lot of the 'tenets' 'principles' 'the story' there are inherent (sometimes even UNSAID) major assumptions you just HAVE TO believe. And to be honest, I've realized that for most people these "assumptions" fall under what Kant would have called the "synthetic a priori" -- its beyond experience. Its completely up to your personal understanding of reality that leads you to accept or reject these. It has almost nothing to do with "logic" at that point. I've also made peace that this is just fine. :)

Whose Rationality? Whose Justice? According to his thesis, we have three main mutually exclusive traditions of rational thinking: the older Classical-Christian tradition, the Encyclopedists of the Enlightenment, and Nietzscheans. So those who claim that religion and reason are compatible or incompatible, they're usually arguing from different traditions which have different starting points.

Would you mind expanding on what specifically contrasts between the three traditions? thanks.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Te-dom here and vehemently reject religion for myself. It's fine for other people who want to believe, as long as they don't try to "save" others by influencing political decisions. Then, it pisses me off to no end when the religion governs what adults do in their own bedrooms and homes that hurts or harms no one.

I agree with that, for sure. I'm pretty against any religious dogma aimed at the general public. Even if it's small things. Like some areas used to have "blue laws" in America, for example.. where people couldn't work on Sundays. That's complete bullshit. I'm not even sure how something like that was allowed. It's not justifiable by any reasoning except religious ones.

This goes without mentioning people who want to sanction more serious issues. It has no place in the public.

I'm not against any specific belief either. It's more of an irritation about people who like to meddle with others. Is their religion not good enough for their own selves or something? It's like some people can't be happy unless they drag everyone else into it.

/rant
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is also a difference between focusing on working out the logic within a system, and questioning the underlying assumptions of a system. There are a great many systems of thought, religious, political, or philosophical that have a lot of internally logical connections based on a given set of assumptions. A logical thinker can master the system without questioning its foundational assumptions. Ideologies of all sorts are constructed with strong internal logic with unquestioned assumptions. This is what makes them so powerful because the person subscribing to it can reach a point of thinking that internal logic of a system itself validates the foundational assumptions. That is a false assumption - the most perfect system can be based on false premises and therefore not map to reality at all. So much damage has been done with this thinking especially in the 20th century, but it is the way that a logical mind can believe just about anything.
This is a critical distinction. The assumption of factual/historical veracity comes to mind especially. How does one know whether the basic assumptions are valid? Logic has a role to play here as well, in analyzing the assumptions of faith. This is not to say that faith must be logical. Logic is just one of the tools that can and should be brought to bear in considering one's faith.
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?
People are religious for a wide variety of reasons. I would suspect that "logical folk" are more likely to shun religions that appear to them substiantially illogical. I am continually amazed, however, to find otherwise. I know many people working in technical fields who appear in most respects very logical, but cling to the most illogical beliefs. Granted, most of these are colleagues and we don't often discuss religion explicitly. Perhaps they have found adequate logic in their faith, for instance by starting from fundamental assumptions that are metaphorical rather than factual. All this just seems like so much mental gymnastics to me. The worst is a faith that claims to be logical, but isn't. It should at least admit its contradictions and paradoxes openly.

Speaking for myself, I am quite logical, but also have faith. It took me many years, however, to find a faith I could believe in without feeling like a hypocrite. I arrived at it largely through peeling away the illogic of the faith of my childhood, and related belief systems. Yes, there is still that "suspension of disbelief" as someone put it; that assertion that cannot be proven, but only accepted. But it has the combination of internal logic based upon what I consider to be a sound set of fundamental assumptions.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Porcelain Hearts

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
167
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
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".
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
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.

Does this help clarify things?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Religion isn't inherently logical. However, religion is not practiced by only illogical members of society.

Religion is not inherently illogical either. And I will need some examples of "illogical members of society."
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You mean science really isn't a religion after all?
 
Top