Logical thinkers and religion

[freeeekyyy]

Isn't this topic getting a bit worn out?

 

[Skip Foreplay]

No, not for those who haven't been discussing it.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Isn't this topic getting a bit worn out?

Amen.

Pun intended.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

Well, a few thoughts:

1. Logical people do practice religion; I think, though, that the question is that of "initial assumptions" on which their faith is built, not the logical way they proceed based on those assumptions. In other words, I think a logical-minded non-believer should be able to follow what a logical believer believes, once they are made aware of the initial assumptions of the believer. It typically proceeds rationally from the initial assumptions.

2. For me, my rationality tells me to be more agnostic in my consideration of faith (from the logical perspective), but that does not mean that I cannot hold personal values that are expressed through the faith that is being practiced; I just consider them moral imperatives meant to reflect who i am and what I have come to believe, even if I cannot "prove" them to be true through some process. I use my rationality instead to justify their possibility, and within that realm of possibility and plausibility, i have freedom to pursue values that matter to me.

And why would God need a Noah, a ship and a flood to kill 99% of life on earth ?

I think the Bible offered all the explanation that you are going to get for that one.

as to whether you accept the Bible's explanation, that's another matter.

In the bible it didn't say that the glaciers melted and that's where the water came from. It states that it rained, until the highest mountains were covered by water. (from what I remember)
Mount Everest has 8796 meters, where the hell would all that water come from? We don't have so much water.

That's unless God decided to beam us some water.

That's one really good reason to believe that the Flood (if it occurred) was FAR more limited in scope rather than a world-wide deluge. It simply isn't feasible, even within the realm of miracles.

 

[A window to the soul]

Moses wasn't God and he could move the sea.How could he split a sea in 2?

God is the one who parted the red sea, not Moses. God simply told Moses to raise his staff. God wanted Moses to trust him. Moses raised his staff to God when it was time for God to part the sea. It was a symbolic act of obedience. Moses was leading the Jewish slaves out of captivity from pharaoh. When they got to the Red Sea the people were afraid. They wondered why they were brought out of captivity just to drown or die by the Red Sea. God parted the sea to rescue them.

God is all powerful. He created the universe.

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3).

Was Moses creating a force field inside the sea?

Only God knows.

And how would anyone create a large boat to fit all the species on earth?

God.

God instructed Noah on how to build it down to the small details. The build instructions are in the Bible.

The ark was believed to be discovered on Mt. Ararat, which is exactly where the Bible said it came to rest.

Here is a very interesting video with everything you want to know:

*

And why would God need a Noah, a ship and a flood to kill 99% of life on earth ?

If I remember correctly, God was destroying mankind and starting over. Angels were cohabiting with humans and the gene pool got corrupted. Noah and his family were the only righteous people left on earth; meaning, in right standing with God.

Edit: That was the method God chose to purge the earth. (Maybe he's ENTP, lol.)

In the Genesis narrative, God observes that humanity is corrupt and decides to destroy all life. However, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation, [and] Noah walked with God," and so God gives him instructions for the ark, into which he is told to bring "two of every sort [of animal]...male and female ... everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life," and their food.[7] The dimensions of the vessel are specified: "the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits".[8]

God instructs Noah to board the ark with his family, seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, and one pair of the unclean animals. "On the same day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth," and God closes up the door of the ark. The flood begins, and the waters prevail until all the high mountains are covered fifteen cubits deep. All the people and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens are blotted out from the Earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remain alive.[9]

Then "God remembered Noah," and causes his wind to blow, and the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens are closed. The rain is restrained, the waters abate, and in the seventh month the ark rests on the mountains of Ararat. In the tenth month, the tops of the mountains are seen, and Noah sends out a raven and a dove to see if the waters have subsided; the raven flies "to and fro" but the dove returns with a fresh olive leaf in her beak. Noah waits seven days more and sends out the dove again, and this time it does not return.[10]

When the land is dry, God tells Noah to leave the ark, and Noah offers a sacrifice to God. God resolves never again to curse the Earth, "for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth."[10] God grants to Noah and his sons the right to kill animals and eat their meat, but forbids meat which has not been drained of its blood. Blood is proclaimed to be sacred, and the unauthorized taking of life is prohibited: "For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man...Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." God then establishes his covenant with Noah and his sons and with all living things, and places a rainbow in the clouds, "the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth."[11]

 

[iwakar]

God is the one who parted the red sea, not Moses. God simply told Moses to raise his staff. God wanted Moses to trust him. Moses raised his staff to God when it was time for God to part the sea. It was a symbolic act of obedience. Moses was leading the Jewish slaves out of captivity from pharaoh. When they got to the Red Sea the people were afraid. They wondered why they were brought out of captivity just to drown or die by the Red Sea. God parted the sea to rescue them.

God is all powerful. He created the universe.

I know you're not the only Christian aboard the SS TypC, but you've been one of the most vocal lately in the discussions surrounding belief vs. non-belief so I've quoted some of the premises you've set forward in your post since they're reflective of Christian beliefs at large.

As far as I can tell, barring direct communications with the divine, you've determined all of this to be fact based on a multi-authored book...
based on a multi-authored collection of manuscripts
based on a multi-authored collection of scrolls
based on an oral tradition...
estimated to have been pieced together between several hundred and 2,000+ years ago depending on your textsource and scholarship of choice. You're also one of 2+ billion other people on the planet who believes the same thing. That is certainly a lot of faith in the authenticity of twice-translated, 2000+ year old authorship.

In keeping with my agnosticism, I don't think it's fair to expect believers such as yourself to suffer righteousness and certainty in non-believers, but pardoning their skepticism of yours seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Coriolis]

As far as I can tell, barring direct communications with the divine, you've determined all of this to be fact based on a multi-authored book...
based on a multi-authored collection of manuscripts
based on a multi-authored collection of scrolls
based on an oral tradition...
estimated to have been pieced together between several hundred and 2,000+ years ago depending on your textsource and scholarship of choice. You're also one of 2+ billion other people on the planet who believes the same thing. That is certainly a lot of faith in the authenticity of twice-translated, 2000+ year old authorship.

In keeping with my agnosticism, I don't think it's fair to expect believers such as yourself to suffer righteousness and certainty in non-believers, but pardoning their skepticism of yours seems perfectly reasonable.

All those centuries of enforced conversions and state religion certainly helped.

It would be nice if those who don't believe, or just believe differently, could be spared the righteousness and certainty as well. Anyone unwilling to entertain alternative perspectives or thoughtful critique of their beliefs has weak faith, indeed. Like the blind men with the elephant, each of us has part of the truth, but no one of us has all of it.

 

[iwakar]

All those centuries of enforced conversions and state religion certainly helped.

It would be nice if those who don't believe, or just believe differently, could be spared the righteousness and certainty as well. Anyone unwilling to entertain alternative perspectives or thoughtful critique of their beliefs has weak faith, indeed. Like the blind men with the elephant, each of us has part of the truth, but no one of us has all of it.

When I was a little girl, my devoutly Christian grandparents required me to read scripture with them every morning. And I remember on a particular morning discussing Genesis and the origins of the universe. I made the fateful mistake of asking my grandfather too many questions --the final one being, what existed before God created the universe and he became very angry with me and yelled at me that I should not question it. I never forgot this. It was the seed of doubt for everything that came after. I'm sure he believed discouraging my inquisitive nature was the surest way to encourage belief. Obviously, he was wrong.

I wonder how many non-believers Christianity creates by discouraging critical analysis. Possibly more than the default godlessness that would persist if we were born orphaned on an island in a sensory deprivation chamber. Suppressing inquiry and dissent is far more subversive to Judeo-Christian aims than carbon-dating: the persistence of human curiosity predates it and may outlast it.

 

[entropie]

When I was a little girl, my devoutly Christian grandparents required me to read scripture with them every morning. And I remember on a particular morning discussing Genesis and the origins of the universe. I made the fateful mistake of asking my grandfather too many questions --the final one being, what existed before God created the universe and he became very angry with me and yelled at me that I should not question it. I never forgot this. It was the seed of doubt for everything that came after. I'm sure he believed discouraging my inquisitive nature was the surest way to encourage belief. Obviously, he was wrong.

I wonder how many non-believers Christianity creates by discouraging critical analysis. Possibly more than the default godlessness that would persist if we were born orphaned on an island in a sensory deprivation chamber. Suppressing inquiry and dissent is far more subversive to Judeo-Christian aims than carbon-dating: the persistence of human curiosity predates it and may outlast it.

This basically what outlines the root of evil or religion to me. When you are raised with this stuff, it's hard to shun your childhood afterwards. People who still do it, tho being raised with the pure belief that God created the Universe, are the most strong to me, because they face the hardest challenge of them all. Its not only about confronting your parents, you basically have to reset your whole upbringing at some point, forget about all of it and create a new ideal for you that still is strong enough that you can believe in it.

The funny thing is, if you raise your kids by showing them all alternative concepts, namely religion and science, you basically automatically raise them to become critical thinkers. And 90% of those childs prolly wont be religious. And then there are those, who may be raised rational and science only but become religious afterwards, because they see a sense in life given thru religion, they would miss otherwise. Those ones are the real religious people to me. The rest are only parrots.

 

[iwakar]

This basically what outlines the root of evil or religion to me. When you are raised with this stuff, it's hard to shun your childhood afterwards. People who still do it, tho being raised with the pure belief that God created the Universe, are the most strong to me, because they face the hardest challenge of them all. Its not only about confronting your parents, you basically have to reset your whole upbringing at some point, forget about all of it and create a new ideal for you that still is strong enough that you can believe in it.

The funny thing is, if you raise your kids by showing them all alternative concepts, namely religion and science, you basically automatically raise them to become critical thinkers. And 90% of those childs prolly wont be religious. And then there are those, who may be raised rational and science only but become religious afterwards, because they see a sense in life given thru religion, they would miss otherwise. Those ones are the real religious people to me. The rest are only parrots.

These are excellent points. And yes for me it was a total reset and a painful one. Despite the fact that I am an otherwise decent, charitable, and productive member of society, I have still failed at life and personhood for having rejected religious dogma in the eyes of some of the nearest and dearest to me. That this one issue can override any other admirable quality in my person because their dogma serves as a greater narrative on my character than their personal knowledge of it, hurts, disappoints, and angers me.

Any belief system centered around granting moral assessments of your peers (which gives people leave to commit all manner of horrors) from a 2000+ year old textual compilation that discounts and rewrites your own observations about them is absurd and corrupt.

I'd like to add that conclusions are where we arrive at, not depart from.

 

[entropie]

These are excellent points. And yes for me it was a total reset and a painful one. Despite the fact that I am an otherwise decent, charitable, and productive member of society, I have still failed at life and personhood for having rejected religious dogma in the eyes of some of the nearest and dearest to me. That this one issue can override any other admirable quality in my person because their dogma serves as a greater narrative on my character than their personal knowledge of it, hurts, disappoints, and angers me.

Any belief system centered around granting moral assessments of your peers (which gives people leave to commit all manner of horrors) from a 2000+ year old textual compilation that discounts and rewrites your own observations about them is absurd and corrupt.

I'd like to add that conclusions are where we arrive at, not depart from.

Dont be sad. The greatest people of history were always loners. I know thats not very comforting but what those people who said that didnt know was the internet. And nowadays loners can find each others and unite against stupidity. I have your wing, you did the right thing .

 

[Coriolis]

Iwakar and Entropie: your comments are right on target.

When you are raised with this stuff, it's hard to shun your childhood afterwards. People who still do it, tho being raised with the pure belief that God created the Universe, are the most strong to me, because they face the hardest challenge of them all. Its not only about confronting your parents, you basically have to reset your whole upbringing at some point, forget about all of it and create a new ideal for you that still is strong enough that you can believe in it.

This is what I did. Though eventually I came around to belief in deity, it was my own belief, not something foisted on me by others, and quite different from anything I grew up with. I had to reject all that first. The experience wasn't painful for me, but the in-between years, when I found it hard to believe anything, were very frustrating and spiritually empty.

The funny thing is, if you raise your kids by showing them all alternative concepts, namely religion and science, you basically automatically raise them to become critical thinkers. And 90% of those childs prolly wont be religious. And then there are those, who may be raised rational and science only but become religious afterwards, because they see a sense in life given thru religion, they would miss otherwise. Those ones are the real religious people to me. The rest are only parrots.

I'm not sure about the 90%. Even absent a religious upbringing, the idea of god is just too pervasive, in society, in literature, art and public discourse. I suspect the majority of people raised to be critical thinkers will still develop spiritual faith, but it will be much more individual, rational/consistent, and possibly outside formal religious organizations. I know a few people who are open-minded, logical critical thinkers and have spiritual faith. They seem far more secure in their faith (and respectful of others' beliefs) than the many who blindly follow some established religion. These last often seem to cling to faith almost out of fear and desperation rather than wonder, as if shifting to examine it too closely will cause them to lose their grip and fall.

These are excellent points. And yes for me it was a total reset and a painful one. Despite the fact that I am an otherwise decent, charitable, and productive member of society, I have still failed at life and personhood for having rejected religious dogma in the eyes of some of the nearest and dearest to me. That this one issue can override any other admirable quality in my person because their dogma serves as a greater narrative on my character than their personal knowledge of it, hurts, disappoints, and angers me.

Sad, isn't it, and quite counterproductive. I can't help but think this is not what Jesus himself would do. I often see far more "Christian" behavior from non-believers.

Dont be sad. The greatest people of history were always loners. I know thats not very comforting but what those people who said that didnt know was the internet. And nowadays loners can find each others and unite against stupidity. I have your wing, you did the right thing .

Absolutely.

 

[A window to the soul]

As far as I can tell, barring direct communications with the divine, you've determined all of this to be fact based on a multi-authored book...
based on a multi-authored collection of manuscripts
based on a multi-authored collection of scrolls

I also feel God's presence and it feels tangible to me.

based on an oral tradition...

I do not belong to any churches or religions. For clarification, I do not consider the Bible religion. Religion is man-made.

In keeping with my agnosticism, I don't think it's fair to expect believers such as yourself to suffer righteousness and certainty in non-believers, but pardoning their skepticism of yours seems perfectly reasonable.

I'm human. I was also skeptish once. With regard to personal beliefs, I accept people as they are.

"There is no one righteous, not even one," (Romans 3:10).

"For by grace we have been saved through faith that's not our own, it is a gift of God, and not by works, lest anyone should boast," (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I wonder how many non-believers Christianity creates by discouraging critical analysis. Possibly more than the default godlessness that would persist if we were born orphaned on an island in a sensory deprivation chamber.

Christianity doesn't discourage critical analysis; people and religion do.

For people born on remote islands without a Bible, I don't know. I know God is fair toward mankind, He has bestowed common grace to the believer and unbeliever alike. Romans teaches that God will judge people on what they know and are capable of knowing.

 

[Nicodemus]

I also feel God's presence and it feels tangible to me.

No, you feel something. Then you give it a name that fits your world view.

 

[redacted]

The distinction between logical and illogical people is something that should be expanded upon. Should we evaluate a persons logicality based on each potential internal consistency in their narrative (their logicality would be 1-(number of inconsistencies)/(number of possible inconsistencies))? Or should we weight the possible inconsistencies based on their importance in the narrative? If so, how would we determine the values of the weights? Is someone who has fewer inconsistencies percentagewise more logical than someone else if their fundamental assumptions are fishy or convoluted? How would we know how valid their assumptions are anyway?

Logic is not a worldview. It is a means of evaluating consistency. Logic does nothing with no premises. You can feed it any premise from any worldview and all it will say is whether or not that premise is consistent with other premises you feed it.

I personally think most prototypical religious views would fail many logic tests I could come up with, but so would most prototypical non-religious views. People generally don't dedicate that much processing power to internal consistency, and for good reason -- internal consistency doesn't help with truth if your premises are faulty -- it just isn't computationally economical much of the time. People that want to increase their percentage of consistent beliefs have to work hard, however they want to frame their worldview. You can succeed in this task with religion or without.

I've just always found it easier to increase consistency/conciseness without religion.

 

[A window to the soul]

No, you feel something. Then you give it a name that fits your world view.

I have no doubt about what I feel. And it even goes beyond that, it's a knowing.

I'm in a room with a view of heaven too.

 

[redacted]

I have no doubt about what I feel. And it even goes beyond that, it's a knowing.

I'm in a room with view of heaven too.

The problem Nico has with your stance (I'm assuming) is that people that are wrong about things often feel they KNOW they are right. Therefore the feeling of knowing doesn't help validate or refute beliefs and should be left out of a discussion meant to do just that.

 

[Nicodemus]

I have no doubt about what I feel. And it even goes beyond that, it's a knowing.

There is no way for you to know that what you feel is god's presence. The feeling does not come with a name tag.

 

[A window to the soul]

The problem Nico has with your stance (I'm assuming) is that people that are wrong about things often feel they KNOW they are right. Therefore the feeling of knowing doesn't help validate or refute beliefs and should be left out of a discussion meant to do just that.

I'm not here to validate or refute beliefs in God that will prove his existence to you. You're in the wrong thread.

My feelings and knowing validate MY beliefs, which is what this thread is about; our individual beliefs.

To me, my beliefs are Biblical, logical, and realized. They are not up for debate. They prove that a logical thinker as myself can transcend that which is logical to another person that doesn't believe in God or religion. That's what this thread is about.

There is no way for you to know that what you feel is god's presence. The feeling does not come with a name tag.

You are wrong. I know with 100% certainty.

 

[redacted]

To me, my beliefs are Biblical, logical, and realized. They are not up for debate. They prove that a logical thinker as myself can transcend that which is logical to another person that doesn't believe in God or religion. That's what this thread is about.

What does being a logical thinker entail? I think the definition of logical thinker would be the source of potential disagreement about this paragraph.

You are wrong. I know with 100% certainty.

Many would consider the claim of any knowledge with 100% certainty illogical. What exactly do you mean when you say you "know"? Do you mean that your perception of God is a true representation of the universe and everyone who disagrees is wrong?