<p>because it gives you a license to be pompous as hell . . . hahaha </p>
<p>(not hating–math rules)</p>
<p>gotakun, you have convinced me that your perception of religion is inconsistent with your perception of the world. From this you can conclude that one or more of the following are true (but you cannot determine which one!):</p>
<p>(1) Religion is inconsistent with itself.
(2) The world is inconsistent with itself.
(3) Religion is inconsistent with the world.
(4) Your perception of the world is incorrect.
(5) Your perception of religion is incorrect.</p>
<p>(3) seems to be the best translation of “religion is illogical” in the common sense meaning of logic, and I have the impression that you would really like to conclude that. However, you are miles away from doing that.</p>
<p>“Religious beliefs break fundamental rules of logic” translates into (1), in the sense of formal logic. If you wanted to conclude this, you would have to show that you could derive a contradiction if you took the fundamental beliefs of your favorite religion as axioms. Merely pointing to logical fallacies that occur when people try to reconcile their religious beliefs with other people’s view of the world will not do the trick.</p>
<p>Logic aside, I do indeed believe that religion functions axiomatically: followers take a number of principles as given and make decisions on that basis. You have to start making assumptions somewhere after all. How would you justify that homicide is bad? Well, you could argue that basic safety is essential for the survival of society and ultimately civilization itself. But then you are assuming that the survival of civilization (or mankind) is desirable. Well, okay, that seems like a reasonable assumption. </p>
<p>If you keep playing this game for a little while, you will quickly recover many of the basic assumptions of most religions, minus the spiritual and historical aspects. I have already argued that the spiritual and historical assumptions of religion serve a fundamentally different role from the “moral” assumptions being made, so I will not bring this back up again.</p>
<p>I would suggest a read of the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independance for the OP. Where were these premises derived from? Agree or disagree?</p>
<p>
Religious beliefs are NOT premises; they are conclusions. I believe there isn’t a way to come to religious conclusions while avoiding logical fallacies.</p>
<p>mathboy98, I realize it’s possible to dispute even universally accepted truths. That doesn’t change the fact that they are considered universal truths. Religious beliefs are not anywhere near being classified as such, so how is it appropriate to compare them? “We can’t be absolutely certain about anything, so we should consider all arguments equally possible”? That’s what I’m taking from you. I’m really frustrated at this thread… You guys are arguing but don’t appear to have a goal. If your goal is to prove that I’m misusing the term logic and that what I want taught in schools, involving logical fallacies and practicing thinking in logical steps to make appropriate inferences, is something else, state that clearly and make a complete argument!</p>
<p>
I just don’t understand how what I described falls under these categories. If anything, it sounds like YOU (and others) are delving more into philosophy, out of the realm of logic.</p>
<p>
I think I’ve already stated clearly exactly what I mean when I say “religious beliefs break fundamental rules of logic,” and it isn’t what you assume. There is no merit in finding a logical contradiction within a system fundamentally based on a logical fallacy. It’s completely possible, but it wouldn’t accomplish anything productive and isn’t my goal.</p>
<p>
You are trying to logically justify morals. What is logically in society’s best interest is not always what is moral, because morals are arbitrarily defined and vary by culture. Everyone has the right to define their own morals and reason within that framework, but when it comes to religion, one moral is to assume truth in a statement that should not logically be assumed true, which is very different from any other moral. If your belief is that it is morally right to believe the moon is made out of cheese, you can use that as a starting point and reason based on that assumption, but there is no merit in doing so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some religious beliefs are premises. Example: A lot of religions work with the premise ‘god exists & here a few rules that he handed down to us, that if you follow, you will live the good life, and will receive a reward in the afterlife’. </p>
<p>This is not something arrived at by a line of reasoning–this is something accepted as fact, straight up, to a believer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well are you still reading my words using your definitions? You might need to change the definitions around for it to make sense from your terminology use. For instance, I am still using “logic” to mean a consistent theory based on certain assumptions, which are made independent of notions of universal truth or falsehood – merely assumptions which do not contradict each other. </p>
<p>It sounded like you were questioning the very making of assumptions themselves, which is outside the realms of logic under my definition. If you want “logic” to mean “common sense” then that’s fine with me, just be aware I’m using the term differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s fair, if you think certain religious beliefs contradict logic in the sense of common sense, you can go ahead and believe that. Depending on what religious folks you’ve encountered, that could be true. I think it likely, however, that if you keep searching, you will encounter religious folks who believe in things which seem reasonable to you to hold as foundations.</p>
<p>At this point, what I am growing to think is that you just need to continue living your life humbly and figure out if you really think there aren’t religious folks whose beliefs aren’t contradictory to what you’d allow as “common sense.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>YOU say it should not, and are using the term “logically” alongside it. When you use the term “should”, the term “logically” should not be associated to it. “Should” is fundamentally your BELIEF, nay, I could reasonably call it YOUR RELIGION.</p>
<p>Sorry if I’m being hardnosed here, but if I’m not, this could spiral off again on the basis of terminology use.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, “merit” – a matter of your beliefs. What I’ve been saying in my latest discussions is that it’s a nice thing to be able to justify your beliefs as natural to others, but this falls outside the realm of what is taught in a logic course, at least the logic courses I have seen, which focus on formal logic, not common sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Philosophy is outside the realm of logic?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the problem is, OP, that people just don’t agree with you that living under religious assumptions are any less meaningful to persist under than other assumptions which you would call universal truths. This is getting into the realms of what we SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT take for granted. It is about fundamental value systems. </p>
<p>If you’re going to go out and say everyone who ever practices Buddhism is laboring under assumptions that are nowhere close to universally true, you’re going to have some intellectual titans tearing at you, and the problem is you have given no real reasons. </p>
<p>Some religions take their premise to be a certain goal for human beings to achieve, goals which even the most hardnosed skeptics of an omnipotent god would likely live by themselves…</p>
<p>The incredible thing, however, is that religions can cater both to the fundamentally skeptic and the fundamentally trusting. I think it is clear by common sense that we all seek some sort of joy or fulfillment, and that most of us would not believe in abandoning all our worldly passions. Religions can either offer a systematic philosophy which is incredibly well-founded based on fundamental things such as the pursuit of something called “joy” OR they can ask people to assume certain things under the premise that it would lead them to these goals anyway. These things may not be intuitive to all of us, but the insane thing is they can end up having similar positive effects on them and their states of mind. </p>
<p>This is why some religions tend to be vast and cater in different ways to believers and skeptics, giving the option for different individuals to take different assumptions as axioms, with usually some loose common thread which places them under the umbrella of the same religion. </p>
<p>What you should take away from all this is that we’re a bunch of young students, perhaps a little hot-headed, and if you are finding no common sense whatsoever in religious practices or views, then you’re probably missing the point, and should look harder at the different sorts of assumptions people take as their religious axioms and consider that there actually may be very much common sense embedded into the affair.</p>
<p>The only “universal truths” I accept are tautologies, yet to give tautologies meaning is a huge thing.</p>
<p>Also OP, in your original post you talked of rules of logic which is misuse because common sense is not about rules, formal logic in the sense of what we math majors talk of has rules.</p>
<p>If you are still confused, tell me where and I will clarify.</p>
<p>
Before that person was a believer and used that as a premise, it was a conclusion. “God exists” is a conclusion. To originally arrive at that conclusion, you have to assume a logical fallacy is true. “My parents and members of my community believe god exists, therefore god must exist.” “According to the bible, god is real, therefore god must be real.” “I want to believe my dead loved one is now in a better place, therefore the bible is true, god is real, and heaven exists.” I can’t think of and have never been confronted with a single logically sound proof for the most fundamental belief of several major religions.</p>
<p>
Yes, I understand what you mean perfectly. We are on the same page and have been the whole time. You are the one confused if you still want to insist that I am talking about common sense.</p>
<p>
I don’t think this is likely at all. It’s been 7 years now, and I’m still waiting. I would love to be proven wrong, more than you know. If anyone could do this currently, I think some zealous Christian would have pointed it out to me by now.</p>
<p>
In this case, I could have said “cannot,” but people still do it, so I said “should not” instead.</p>
<p>
You’re being equivocal. I can easily rephrase it and replace “but there is no merit in doing so” with “but the conclusions will not be valid outside of that specific flawed logical framework.”</p>
<p>
You’re putting words in my mouth… I never intended to make any sort of value judgment for or against believing in a religion in this thread. There is another thread for that purpose, and if you would like to discuss it, here is the link:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/893497-do-you-believe-there-god.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/893497-do-you-believe-there-god.html</a>
I have made value judgments and worked towards proving them in that thread, so there’s no reason for me to do it again here…</p>
<p>If any newcomer wants to make an on-topic post, I’m still hoping for more, specifically for thoughts about why this is not currently implemented (or if you believe that it is, then why not more explicitly).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless you can supply a proof of the nonexistence of God, it must be left up to the individual to assume as they wish.</p>
<p>
10 charact</p>
<p>If matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then where did matter and energy come from?</p>
<p>You’re the one demanding negative proof (i.e. that God does not not exist). I am merely saying that if there is no proof either way then truth can’t be universally established and any choice as to what one assumes is not a matter of logic.</p>
<p>In general, you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist which is why the burden of proofs lies with the person claiming that something exists.</p>
<p>Lol… ThisCouldBeHeavn… I am not demanding proof that god does not exist. In fact, that is exactly what you demanded. I quoted that very statement from you. Maybe you should read my post again, because I cited the logical fallacy that proves what you just said wrong.</p>
<p>@gotakun</p>
<p>"You are trying to logically justify morals. What is logically in society’s best interest is not always what is moral, because morals are arbitrarily defined and vary by culture. Everyone has the right to define their own morals and reason within that framework, but when it comes to religion, one moral is to assume truth in a statement that should not logically be assumed true, which is very different from any other moral. If your belief is that it is morally right to believe the moon is made out of cheese, you can use that as a starting point and reason based on that assumption, but there is no merit in doing so. "</p>
<p>I just don’t get how you pick out problems with religious assumptions, and then you say “Everyone has a right”… To say anyone has a right to anything is to commit a logical fallacy, jumping from an Is to an Ought.</p>