this site is now closed to new membership and exists for archival purposes only
Are there logical problems (inconsistencies) in religion?
...and they're off
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher on
-
I didn't want the title of the forum to harbour my biases so I left it an open question. However, to me, it is a rhetorical question as I feel there are many logical problems. Now where are my notes...
-
Permalink Reply by Lincoln Cannon on
-
My perspective is that there are no logical problems inherent in religion, but there are many logical problems in individual persons' views, religious or otherwise.
Please present your case, and I hope Roko joins in. His claim that there are logical problems inherent in religion merits justification. Be forewarned that I am Mormon and that my view of God may not match stereotypes of theism commonly circulated among atheists.
. . . and please understand that I enjoy these sorts of conversations, so please do not hesitate to express your concerns honestly and directly -- and passion makes it all the more enjoyable. :-)
-
-
Roko, as mentioned in the blog comment, those are red herrings and straw men.
You've commented that there are inherent logical problems in religion. Are you able to articulate what those are?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Martin on
-
One thing that gives me the willies about organized religion is its baseless patriarchy. How much devestating proof do we need to concede that macho males (and honorary males) have taken our existance to the brink time and time again? We all know, I assume, that women give birth. Religious myths seem unable to deal with this simple law of nature. Athena sprang from Zeus's forehead and Eve sprang from Adam's rib... Figurative or not, the structural violence inherent in such worldviews is literal. Now, I'm not debasing faith because I don't know where to begin. We can't see gravity, per se, but its effects are plain as day. We can't see religion, but its effects are quite tangible as well, and not very inviting IMHO.
-
-
Michael, I agree that patriarchy is oppressive to women, and that, in our day, it seems to be detrimental to our community as a whole. However, that also seems to become a more complicated judgment to make as we look back further in human history. Patriarchy appears to have provided some evolutionary advantages in the past. In any case, with you, I look forward to continuing change away from patriarchy.
I'd also like to mention something about religious myth. As you point out, the dominant myths are those that have been most vigorously repeated and propogated by our historical patriarchal systems. However, there are religious myths that are not patriarchal, and some are even quite matriarchal. These non-patriarchal myths have been gaining increasing exposure in recent years, and I suspect that trend will continue.
-
-
Lincoln, yes and the Iroquois are but one group of Native American tribes that shed great light on such societies.
-
-
Jacob: "if a god interacts with our universe in any way, then the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Therefore, his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable. If god is essentially non-detectable, then he does not interact with our universe in any way."
I agree.
Jacob: "Whether he exists or not, is not important, because a thing which cannot be detected in principle, does not logically exist."
I almost agree. I would agree that a thing which cannot possibly be detected does not practically exist. However, of course, all identified gods are detected, and therefore effective in some way, at least to the extent of their abstract (or spiritual, if you will) influence on the persons that posit faith in them.
Jacob: "And in practice, there is no evidence of a god . . ."
This depends entirely on your understanding of God.
Jacob: ". . . besides subjective, personal, so-called 'revelations'."
These should not be discounted as unimportant among all that influences humans.
Jacob: "Personal accounts do not have reliable evidence."
This depends on the account. For example, if I say that God is this sentence then there is, in my estimation, reliable evidence for the existence of God. That said, not all gods are equal, and positing that sentence as God seems to be relatively weak.
Jacob: "Person A might believe in fairies, for example, according to her revelation, but that does not mean that person B should also believe in fairies."
That depends on the practical ramifications of the faith in the context in which the persons find themselves.
Jacob: "-religion was created in a time where science did not exist (skeptical inquiry was discouraged, ie. "faith")"
As my religious tradition and I use "faith", it is foundational to science. It is manifest in our will to exercise the method. It is in our will to become empowered by the resulting knowledge. In my religious tradition, faith is a principle of action and power. We will in faith. We act in faith.
Science is an advance in epistemological process, which has always been a part of religion. Anciently, of course, the process was relatively poor and more easily abused. Modernly, we have learned much, yet have much to learn -- not merely as a consequence of the process, but also about the process itself and how to improve on it.
Jacob: "-religion arrives at conclusions first, (contrary to the scientific method) and then seeks to find evidence to defend them."
Poor religion arrives at conclusions first, which is generally a manifestation of poor epistemological process whether or not it happens in religion. Dependable religion sets broad principles of faith to guide our values and interactions, yet recognizes that nothing short of eternity will be required to know God. Dependable religion does not hold dogmatically to creeds, but rather asserts the need for continual improvements, stemming from growing wisdom, flashes of intuition, and moments of profoundly moving communion with God. Poor religion fears for its survival. Dependable religion is assured that truth will cut its own way.
Certainly there has been and is much in the way of poor religion. I hope we can do better.
Jacob: "example, the idea of "irreducible complexity", defended by believers in so-called 'intelligent design'. Of course, this was soon debunked."
This happens both within and without religion. We attach to ideas, we identify with them, and it becomes difficult to let them go. Of course, religion often exagerates this tendency, which could be both good and bad, depending on the situation. In the end, however, the strength of resolve common to religious attitudes will out-compete weaker attitudes. For me, that is often frightening, because I do not see value in all manifestations of religion. The answer, however, is not the eradication of religion because that simply will not happen. Whatever has the resolve to "eradicate religion" will itself manifest the essential attributes of religion. The hand raised to finish the dying God is the sign of the oath to the resurrecting God.
Jacob: "-religion causes more harm than it does good."
I recognize much harm done by religion, but I disagree with your assessment. In any case, whether it causes more harm or good is beside the point. The point is whether we can persuade each other toward deeply moving positions of faith that will result in less harm and more good. Only the powerful memes will win, and the powerful memes are essentially religious in nature whether you like the word "religion" or not. Please understand, too, that by "power" I do not necessarily mean force or violence. Those are certainly a form of power, but there is another form of power, call it "love", that I hope will prove more resilient.
Jacob: "or example, the Pope of the Catholic Church rejects condoms as a counter to AIDS. Because of the fact that condoms do actually reduce the chance of getting AIDS, the Pope has just helped cause more disease and suffering."
Whether a particular person agrees with this example or not, there are plenty of examples of religion harming individuals and communities, as there are plenty of examples of religion helping. In this matter, you find what you look for.
Jacob: "Consider this analogy, from philosopher Bertrand Russell . . . And biologist Richard Dawkins developed this a bit further . . ."
I agree with the comments you quoted from both Russell and Dawkins, and also hope you recognize they do not apply to many forms of religion.
Jacob: "The existence of god is just as likely as the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster."
That depends entirely on your definition of God.
Jacob: "Strong, objective evidence, and a clear definition of 'god' may influence my beliefs. If you can produce both of these in tandem, bravo. Otherwise, get out of my house, and stop preaching. Also, I am not interested in arguing about the reasons why I don't believe in god, but I am interested if you actually find any strong, objective evidence that supports your god."
Before I offer some ideas on a God in which both you and I exercise faith, I'll point out that, for me, asking for a clear definition of God is like asking for a clear definition of Jacob as he should and can be. I can certainly talk about it, but you will be misunderstanding me or over-estimating my intentions if you accept my talking as having any intention of being the final word on the matter.
That aside, I'll offer an idea on a God, or rather an ASPECT of God (thus, not an exhaustive description of God), in which I exercise faith. I will also venture to guess that, by a different name, it is a God in which you exercise faith. I posit faith in a God that we should become: an immortal, glorified and exalted human. I call that a "god" when I talk in church. I call that a "neohuman" or "posthuman" when I talk to Transhumanists. My religious tradition teaches that we should be seeking to become such persons, and that teaching has valuable practical consequences, particularly when we understand such persons to be paragons not only of knowledge and power, but also of charity -- a broad benevolence.
Faith in such a God is not merely an existential assertion. The present existence of such a God is certainly important in its practical effects on various individuals -- for example, those for whom confidence in our possibilities increases when they feel deeply that such possibilities have already been achieved by others. However, yet more important is the will BOTH to discover and join God to the extent it now exists AND to create and become God to the extent it does not yet exist. This is real faith. It influences us to act, which often leads to greater empowerment. In the end, it may be that nothing less than our fullest exertion will be sufficient.
As Transhumanists, most of us look forward with interest to the possibility of a neohuman future. We desire it and will it. We seek to establish communal laws that will facilitate it. So far as I am concerned, this is real faith, and the only kind that matters after all.
Such beings may already exist. The Simulation Argument seems to be a sufficient argument for that. Of course, subsequent to internalizing the argument, different persons will have different feelings as to the likelihood of the Simulation Hypothesis disjunct of the argument. Beyond that, I think there are some practical reasons for positing our faith in the Simulation Hypothesis, but those are, at least for now, beyond the scope of where I'd like to go with this discussion.
I think we have much in common, whether we use the word "God" or not. There are other aspects of God, as my religious tradition teaches, that may resonate (under different labels) with your thoughts. Mostly, I suspect this will depend on our mutually charitable interpretations of each other's words.
-
-
Roko, the rabbit hole goes deeper, so to speak. However, to put it simply, I am a theist. I do have faith in God. I do posit the existence of God. However, to understand my perspective accurately, you should understand that faith in God is more important to me than existential claims.
The other problem we are going to run in to, as I warned at the beginning of this thread, is that Mormons do not put their faith in God in the traditional sense, as you referred to it. Mormons are often criticized, particularly by other Christians, for using the same words to mean different things. Of course, our perspective is that other religious traditions have been and are doing the same thing. That does not necessarily make the word meaningless, but it does mean there is work to do to ensure accurate communication.
Have you read the transcript to which I referred you earlier -- from a presentation I gave in Second Life? If not, I recommend it again. I gave the presentation to a Transhumanist audience, and it seems pertinent to our current discussion. Here is the URL:
http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/second_life_20070429/de...
When you've had an opportunity to read that, I would like to discuss another aspect of God. You and I might not agree about the current existence of neohuman gods (although it appears that we agree on the more important matter of faith in such a future), but perhaps we can agree on the existence of some other aspects of God.
-
-
Roko, is the following an example of nonsense?
"The concept of mass-energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light) while still retaining mass. Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass. The total amount of mass and energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity theory, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other."
So far as I am concerned, it is saying roughly the same thing, in different and less well-developed terms, as the passage from the transcript that you criticized as nonsense. Our attempts to unify our understanding of physical laws began with concepts and aspirations that were more vague.
I'm sorry that you see nothing more than nonsense poetry in the transcript. I and others see much more than that. Your inability or unwillingness to see more will create unnecessary barriers between you and others. I am not asking you to agree that the transcript is the best way of describing the world. I am hoping, rather, that you can see commonalities -- but that does require some effort.
Your comments on philosophy and its relation to poetry are, simply put, incorrect. Poetry has long held a position of prestige in the estimation of influential philosophers. Among the reasons for this is the recognition that poetry communicates something that non-poetry does not.
You asked why I believe in the Old Testament God. That is like me asking you why you believe in Aristotelian physics. Of course, you probably do not believe, without serious reservation or creative interpretation, in Aristotelian physics; however, you likely see value in it as a precursor to more modern forms of physics. My perspective on the Old Testament and the God it describes is similar.
You also asked me what benefit my faith in God provides. I have answered that question previously:
"Faith in such a God is not merely an existential assertion. The present existence of such a God is certainly important in its practical effects on various individuals -- for example, those for whom confidence in our possibilities increases when they feel deeply that such possibilities have already been achieved by others. However, yet more important is the will BOTH to discover and join God to the extent it now exists AND to create and become God to the extent it does not yet exist. This is real faith. It influences us to act, which often leads to greater empowerment. In the end, it may be that nothing less than our fullest exertion will be sufficient. As Transhumanists, most of us look forward with interest to the possibility of a neohuman future. We desire it and will it. We seek to establish communal laws that will facilitate it. So far as I am concerned, this is real faith, and the only kind that matters after all."
-
-
Roko: "No, that's called a falsifiable, empirically testable, mathematically rigorous scientific theory. I think you would do very well to look up the terms 'falsifiable', 'empirically testable' and 'mathematically rigorous'."
I am familiar with the terms and their meanings, and do not particularly appreciate the condescending remark. :-)
That aside, what I see (that you do not see) in the Mormon text is a sampling of the ideas that, over time, gave rise to the hypotheses reflected in the modern theories that we recognize as being falsifiable and empirical -- which, of course, have their own philosophical problems remaining to deal with. Where you might (as I understand you, so far) see science as a clean break from prior epistemic processes, I see science as an advance on prior epistemic processes. Where you might see hypothesis-formulation as a clean break from prior forms of speculation, I see progression.
I have a high esteem for science. I do not have a low esteem for that which preceded and gave rise to it.
Roko: "Lincoln Cannon said: "So far as I am concerned, it is saying roughly the same thing, in different and less well-developed terms" Right. Less well developed, eh? I think that makes a good first entry for the English-Mormon dictionary that I was alluding to!"
Oops. That was a mistake. I meant "more well-developed". To clarify, then, I think many (but not all) of our contemporary hypotheses are better stated (better adapted to modern epistemic processes) than earlier forms of speculative thought. Thanks for catching that. I hope you will not hold my fallibility against me. ;-)
Roko: "Mormon says: "Less well developed than" English translation: "Complete and utter gibberish, to a degree that it is not even comparable" Hey, I think I agree with you ;)"
Roko, I hope you recognize that this attitude detracts from persuasion of well educated persons, and will only harm the aims that you and I share.
-
Permalink Reply by Carl Youngblood on -
One important point that Lincoln raises is that Bostrom's simulation argument is sufficient grounds for a logical belief or faith in the present existence of a god. If you believe that it will ever be possible for us, as a civilization, to develop simulations that are indistinguishable from our present existence, then it follows that is is highly improbable that we are the first or the only civilization to do so. Therefore, it is highly probable that we live in a simulation ourselves, whose creator would probably seem godlike to us. This belief or faith in the present existence of a god requires no breakdown in logic. For these reasons, it can still be logical to believe both in the present existence of god(s) as well as our potential to become gods.
-
Permalink Reply by isaac on
-
to be honest do u guys i think the universe is a little to ordered to be purely random
i mean from what we believe to word go (big bang) at that point this energy coming forth(at that point apparently gravity,electromagnetism,strong and weak force where all essentially one ) splitting into the forces of the universe some of it shifting into matter in the process slowly cooling down and clumping together through the act of some of the forces and continuing until forming stars and galaxies which in turn formed planets and then on at least our planet more matter clumping together into the first organisms thats to me seems like this incredible tapestry
i said in a thread i wrote as well about the stars the way these things are meant to work is the delicate interplay between gravity and strong force(i think)
i dont presume to say things are this or that but i look at these things scientists have discovered and it suggests to me there is something perhaps not an intelligence maybe just a force
and in saying that i dont proscribe to a religion and especially not the dogma of religions... allthough in saying that there a many good pieces of advice in relgion that we should follow those these are just common sense things like do unto others as u would have them do onto you
About
© 2010 Created by Christopher on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
