Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

"Surely" is a bridge too far. It would be nice if religions could pass the logic test, but such a requirement would lead to no religions. That is why I advise the religious to spar on their own turf (faith) rather than lose on the logic battlefield.

First of all and before we speak about the divinely religion this question comes up; do you believe that this world has a creator, owner and superior?

If you say yes, then our discussion will find it way to this manner that divinely region talk based on logic and nature of man. And if you say, no, so we first should talk about the existence of God.

I would find out from your word that you probably are ready to deny the unseen superior of the world, right?

Well, When you don't believe in him, how we can discuss about a religion?!

So we first should discuss in another topic about evidence of existence of God.

A couple of things: firstly, if the topic is the logic of religions, faith is not a requirement to participate in such a discussion (it only requires an understanding of logic).

As an aside, I have successfully discussed religion for a long time, perhaps longer than you have inhabited the planet.

[Semtek]

LuckyR,

thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am new here and am really enjoying this process of dialogue. Thanks for participating in it. I hope to learn something.

I did mean the religion that is sent down by the superior of the universe. Surely such the religion should be able to convince man by logic and science that it is from God. Also the word of God should create this feeling in human that it is higher than an ordinary word which mankind expresses.

"Surely" is a bridge too far. It would be nice if religions could pass the logic test, but such a requirement would lead to no religions. That is why I advise the religious to spar on their own turf (faith) rather than lose on the logic battlefield.

I thought that the purpose of your reply to Mans (above) was to take issue with his' use of the word "surely"... that you think that certainty is not possible (or presently attainable) about the existence of God. But the (alleged; and perhaps widely accepted) impossibility of certainty need not exclude rational belief.

I also wanted to point out that you are the first one to refer to "the logic test"... suggesting that there is some readily identifiable test that can be applied to religion and which it fails. I would appreciate a bit more specificity on what you have in mind. Are you thinking that (some religions) are inconsistent on logical grounds in relation to well-established empirical fact or internally in the concepts invoked in doctrine etc.

This is why I brought up the logical problem of evil. Mans does not seem to imply that there is such a readily identifiable test but that religious belief is generally logical on some level or other.

Basically the content of a real and original religion should be able to prove itself with intellectual and logical signs and evidences that are sensible and understandable for man and are according to his nature and creation.

Why? Most religions exist in the realm of faith not logic and proof.

Here you say that "most" religions exist in the realm of faith not logic and proof. This implies that there is at least one which does not solely exist "in the realm of faith". Do you have a specific one in mind that successfully passes the test of logic and proof?

Also, I am curious about what definition of faith you are employing. You seem to define it in terms of what it is not: logical and based in proof or reasoning...

thank you for reading.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR,

thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am new here and am really enjoying this process of dialogue. Thanks for participating in it. I hope to learn something.

"Surely" is a bridge too far. It would be nice if religions could pass the logic test, but such a requirement would lead to no religions. That is why I advise the religious to spar on their own turf (faith) rather than lose on the logic battlefield.

I thought that the purpose of your reply to Mans (above) was to take issue with his' use of the word "surely"... that you think that certainty is not possible (or presently attainable) about the existence of God. But the (alleged; and perhaps widely accepted) impossibility of certainty need not exclude rational belief.

I also wanted to point out that you are the first one to refer to "the logic test"... suggesting that there is some readily identifiable test that can be applied to religion and which it fails. I would appreciate a bit more specificity on what you have in mind. Are you thinking that (some religions) are inconsistent on logical grounds in relation to well-established empirical fact or internally in the concepts invoked in doctrine etc.

This is why I brought up the logical problem of evil. Mans does not seem to imply that there is such a readily identifiable test but that religious belief is generally logical on some level or other.

Why? Most religions exist in the realm of faith not logic and proof.

Here you say that "most" religions exist in the realm of faith not logic and proof. This implies that there is at least one which does not solely exist "in the realm of faith". Do you have a specific one in mind that successfully passes the test of logic and proof?

Also, I am curious about what definition of faith you are employing. You seem to define it in terms of what it is not: logical and based in proof or reasoning...

thank you for reading.

It isn't merely my opinion, the reality is that no one has made a universally accepted logical proof of the existence of a god (and therefore the basis for any subsequent religion). Of course this failure does NOT disprove the existence of any of the gods and therefore doesn't disprove the basis of any religion.

Numerous mythologies are inconsistent with known logic and human experience, in fact most are inconsistent, however since this area deals in the metaphysical, this is not proof of anything.

I am not a student of world religious history so I am not a comprehensive source of the breadth of religious doctrine, I said most assuming that there would be an exception, though I can't name one. Can you? Does it really matter?

Faith in my experience is belief in a dogma in the absence of a logic based reason to do so.

[Semtek]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I think I understand what you mean by the logical test for religions.

There is no certainty-granting argument about the existence of God. There is no logically valid deductive argument with all true premises that has as its conclusion the proposition "God exists". (But that is not the only way in which belief in God arises).

So the logical test religion cannot pass is the one which requires certainty with respect to the question of God's existence. Are you saying that this makes belief in God (or god or gods) illogical or irrational? Because you set up a distinction between faith and "logic-based reason". But there are many beliefs we hold which fail the logic test. For example, there is no logical proof (valid argument) for the belief in the existence of other minds or belief in the existence of the external world. So you would say we have faith in regard to our belief that other minds exist or that the external world exists? The question then becomes: "what do we believe that does not require some faith?" Any belief that is not established with certainty? Perhaps logic and math?



YOU WROTE:.

I am not a student of world religious history so I am not a comprehensive source of the breadth of religious doctrine, I said most assuming that there would be an exception, though I can't name one. Can you? Does it really matter?

You assume that there exists a religion which does pass the logic test (i.e. there is one god or gods whose existence can be established by logical proof). Yes, I think this point does matter based on what you mean by the "logical test". If there is such certainty available with respect to the existence of a supernatural being one should seek it out and know the truth. I cannot name such an argument. I can say that the arguments concerning the existence of God (Aquinas's five ways, Anselm's ontological proof and the principle of sufficient reason) really got me thinking about God's existence. I am more concerned now with belief in God rather than belief that he exists.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. But are you ultimately saying that because religion cannot pass this logical test it is therefore irrational to believe the tenets of religions?

Numerous mythologies are inconsistent with known logic and human experience, in fact most are inconsistent,

Are you including, say Buddhism and Hinduism, within the category of myth? The position that each religion is a myth requires an argument. And if you are counting the theisms as myth, can you please tell me some of the logical inconsistencies you have in mind?

[LuckyR]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I think I understand what you mean by the logical test for religions.

There is no certainty-granting argument about the existence of God. There is no logically valid deductive argument with all true premises that has as its conclusion the proposition "God exists". (But that is not the only way in which belief in God arises).

So the logical test religion cannot pass is the one which requires certainty with respect to the question of God's existence. Are you saying that this makes belief in God (or god or gods) illogical or irrational? Because you set up a distinction between faith and "logic-based reason". But there are many beliefs we hold which fail the logic test. For example, there is no logical proof (valid argument) for the belief in the existence of other minds or belief in the existence of the external world. So you would say we have faith in regard to our belief that other minds exist or that the external world exists? The question then becomes: "what do we believe that does not require some faith?" Any belief that is not established with certainty? Perhaps logic and math?



YOU WROTE:.

I am not a student of world religious history so I am not a comprehensive source of the breadth of religious doctrine, I said most assuming that there would be an exception, though I can't name one. Can you? Does it really matter?

You assume that there exists a religion which does pass the logic test (i.e. there is one god or gods whose existence can be established by logical proof). Yes, I think this point does matter based on what you mean by the "logical test". If there is such certainty available with respect to the existence of a supernatural being one should seek it out and know the truth. I cannot name such an argument. I can say that the arguments concerning the existence of God (Aquinas's five ways, Anselm's ontological proof and the principle of sufficient reason) really got me thinking about God's existence. I am more concerned now with belief in God rather than belief that he exists.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. But are you ultimately saying that because religion cannot pass this logical test it is therefore irrational to believe the tenets of religions?

Numerous mythologies are inconsistent with known logic and human experience, in fact most are inconsistent,

Are you including, say Buddhism and Hinduism, within the category of myth? The position that each religion is a myth requires an argument. And if you are counting the theisms as myth, can you please tell me some of the logical inconsistencies you have in mind?

I apologize for being difficult to understand. I do not detect any difference of opinion between us, though almost total misunderstanding.

Some things: firstly, yes you are putting words in my mouth since I specifically stated that it is not irrational to believe in religion, in fact I wrote it in all caps.

Second I was not referring to logic but to "logic and human experience", so while certain things like life on planet earth itself cannot be proven it does lie within human experience.

I am not interested in parsing whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, as I mentioned I am not a student of religious doctrine.

Lastly I am not equating the term mythology with your use of the common definition of the word myth, as in erroneous or mistake.

[Semtek]

Thanks for bearing with me LuckyR.

I also think that there is not a substantive disagreement between us. I was just asking questions seeking clarification and further discussion. And thanks for taking the time to clarify your ideas for me.

I did not ask you whether you thought Hinduism and Buddhism is a philosophy or religion but whether they are myth (since this is what you seem to imply).

I am curious about your definition of myth... A myth may be entirely false in a correspondence sense (i.e. is not a literal construal of reality) yet very important for informing human action and experience.

If you are ready to end the dialogue, that is cool. I will catch up with you in another thread!

Semtek.

[LuckyR]

Thanks for bearing with me LuckyR.

I also think that there is not a substantive disagreement between us. I was just asking questions seeking clarification and further discussion. And thanks for taking the time to clarify your ideas for me.

I did not ask you whether you thought Hinduism and Buddhism is a philosophy or religion but whether they are myth (since this is what you seem to imply).

I am curious about your definition of myth... A myth may be entirely false in a correspondence sense (i.e. is not a literal construal of reality) yet very important for informing human action and experience.

If you are ready to end the dialogue, that is cool. I will catch up with you in another thread!

Semtek.

I am using Mythology to mean the origin story or backstory behind the religion's dogma. These stories are just that: stories or parables. I believe you are using myth as most do, to mean a falsehood, error or lie.

[Semtek]

I just realized that as a trial member someone must approve my submissions before they are posted. It would be funny if it were you doing that. If so, thanks for the approval.

Your posts leave me with more questions.

I am using Mythology to mean the origin story or backstory behind the religion's dogma. These stories are just that: stories or parables. I believe you are using myth as most do, to mean a falsehood, error or lie.

"myth = origin story behind dogma. AND stories are stories or parables." I am not sure I follow on either front.

I was proposing a definition of myth. I actually know little about it. I think I read The Odyssey about Nestor. I must confess I follow Jordan Peterson a bit and that myth is important in his opinion (based in Jung's archetypes or whatever; i looked at some of the images from Jung's Red Book which we are meant to integrate somehow into our conscious psyche). And humans love stories and tell themselves stories about themselves. And maybe the best way to represent the world is in terms of the structure of narrative. For example, beginning middle end... Protagonist/antagonist... problem/solution. Maybe there is a grand narrative at play in which we may participate.

If you're still reading, I'll leave you with a lyric from a song I like:

I had a lengthy discussion about the power of myth with a post-modern author who didn't exist.
-Conor Oberst of Bright Eyes and Monsters of Follk.

[Felix]

LuckyR said: I am using Mythology to mean the origin story or backstory behind the religion's dogma.

1) A myth need not be religious in nature, e.g., scientific stories like Schrodinger’s cat and the multiverse theory of reality are myths.

2) Dogmatic belief in a myth drains whatever virtue it may possess.

"Myths are stories that may or may not be true, designed to be taken into deep consideration rather than believed." - Joseph Campbell

[Semtek]

my issue is with locating the origin of religion in myth because doing so seems (no one has yet provided a definition of myth for us to work with) to imply that the concepts and propositions within a religion are simply untrue. i.e. there is, in fact, no supernatural metaphysical being God (or god or gods)... or, in the case of non-theistic religions those particular propositions are simply and wholly untrue.

Relegating all religious systems of belief (epistemologically) to the realm of myth (i.e. we ought to relate to the main claims of religion as we would to myth/story...) is consistent with naturalism. Naturalism denies the existence of any supernatural reality. Is it possible that one hold all religions to be myth yet assert the existence of some supernatural entity? If so, what is the character of such a being? And if your understanding of it does not come from one of the main traditions (with all its scholarship and force) then where does it come from?

again some terms are being thrown around which I think need to be expanded upon.

2) Dogmatic belief in a myth drains whatever virtue it may possess

I am wondering what you mean by "dogmatic belief" in this context.
Perhaps you mean "to accept as true" the stories that make up a myth. Dogmatic belief, then, is that there "really is" a God as described in some theistic scripture.
So you are assuming religions as myth (implied by your saying "not all myths are religious in nature"), and then saying that accepting as true is not how one ought to properly relate to myth. This line of reasoning is quite worth drawing out and making explicit.

First, what is a myth? Why are religions myth?

[Felix]

I wrote: "Dogmatic belief in a myth drains whatever virtue it may possess."

Semtek replied: "I am wondering what you mean by "dogmatic belief" in this context?"

I was responding to LuckyR's statement that "myth is the backstory behind a religion's dogma," which implies that myth and religious dogma go hand and hand. By dogmatic belief I meant uninformed and credulous acceptance of an idea.

Semtek said: "Dogmatic belief, then, is that there "really is" a God as described in some theistic scripture?"

Not exactly, one could accept that a Supreme Being exists without it being a dogmatic belief, it becomes dogmatic when one insists that the descriptions or myths about the Supreme Being are literally true.

Semtek: "First, what is a myth?"

There's no simple answer to that question but here is an exchange between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell that illuminates the concept:

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life.

BILL MOYERS: What we’re capable of knowing within?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: And experiencing within.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: I liked that you changed the definition of a myth from the search for meaning to the experience of meaning.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: The experience, the experience.

BILL MOYERS: The experience of life.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: The experience of life. The mind has to do with meaning; in here, what’s the meaning of a flower? That Zen story of the sermon of the Buddha when his whole company was gathered, and he simply lifted a flower. And there’s only one man, Kashyapa, who gave him a sign with his eye that he understood what was said.

What’s the meaning of the universe? What’s the meaning of a flea? It’s just there, that’s it, and your own meaning is that you’re there. Now we are so engaged in doing things, to achieve purposes of outer value, that we forget that the inner value, the rapture that is associated with being alive, is what it’s all about.

Now, we want to think about God. God is a thought, God is a name, God is an idea, but its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought. My friend Heinrich Zimmer of years ago used to say, “The best things can’t be told.” Because they transcend thought. The second best are misunderstood, because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can’t be thought about, you know. And one gets stuck with the thoughts. The third best are what we talk about, you see. And myth is that field of reference, metaphors referring to what is absolutely transcendent.

BILL MOYERS: What can’t be known.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: What can’t be known.

BILL MOYERS: Or can’t be named.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Except in our own feeble attempt to clothe it in language.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: And the ultimate word in our language for that which is transcendent is God.

[Semtek]

Not exactly, one could accept that a Supreme Being exists without it being a dogmatic belief, it becomes dogmatic when one insists that the descriptions or myths about the Supreme Being are literally true.

I did not assert that all belief in a Supreme Being is dogmatic. Why would I? I am challenging your contention that belief in doctrine is dogmatic. I was trying to characterize your sense of "dogmatic" as belief that "there exists" some substantial reality in accordance with (some example) of doctrine (what you call "myth"). No argument as to why or how scripture or doctrine is myth. I think literal truth is worth arguing for.

I would ask how one comes to belief in God in a way that is not dogmatic... I already asked you this.

it becomes dogmatic when one insists that the descriptions or myths about the Supreme Being are literally true.

are they descriptions or myths? Also (some) scripture does not purport to be myth.

The idea that God transcends all human categories and concepts and is totally ineffable I have struggled with for a while. It opens up the idea that the different traditions are all on equal footing... different paths up the same mountain.

the concept of revealed theology is relevant as well as the idea that God is a personal being and not impossible to know.

[Felix]

"I am challenging your contention that belief in doctrine is dogmatic."

Dogmatic means a tendency to be intransigent, resistant to change (to changing one's beliefs), relying on authority rather than personal experience and insight.

"I would ask how one comes to belief in God in a way that is not dogmatic... I already asked you this."

Through mystical experience or insight, all else is mental speculation.

Also (some) scripture does not purport to be myth.

Well yes, it purports to be revealed knowledge but one must take that on faith - just accept the word of authority.

"The idea that God transcends all human categories and concepts and is totally ineffable I have struggled with for a while. It opens up the idea that the different traditions are all on equal footing... different paths up the same mountain."

Aldous Huxley espoused this idea in his book The Perennial Philosophy, i.e., that a mystical awareness of Ultimate or Transcendent Reality is the experiental foundation of all the great religions and wisdom traditions. However, people tend get caught up in championing a religious path and forget it's destination.

[Belindi]

Also (some) scripture does not purport to be myth.

Can language 'purport' anything? Isn't it people who purport?

The Bible consists of

mythical tales mostly wise and fertile:

pre- enlightenment history ( this is not what we call history):

moral , political, and hygienic rules and regualtions:

devotional texts:

the famous pericopes which has been inserted by later editors and which may be and often are myths or politics:

primary source material which is accessible to historian anthropologists.

"The idea that God transcends all human categories and concepts and is totally ineffable I have struggled with for a while. It opens up the idea that the different traditions are all on equal footing... different paths up the same mountain."

The import of your first sentence is Platonic; I like the idea of transcending worldly qualities and values. It does not necessarily follow from transcendence that I should adopt the tenets and practice of any sect or religion. I aim to think for myself. This is a strenuous activity during which the idea of transcendence is an encouragement.

Though the pericopes (small units) of which the Gospels are constituted include many forms, or genres, they are mainly divided into narratives (including legends, miracle stories, exorcisms, healings, and tales) and sayings (prophetic and apocalyptic sayings, proverbs and wisdom sayings, parables, church discipline and rules for the community, Christological sayings, such as the socalled “I am” sayings [e.g., “I am the bread of life”] in John, revelations, and legal sayings). Some stories may simply be the background for a pithy saying; these latter are sometimes called paradigmatic sayings, and the pronouncement stories are their vehicles of transmission.

Britannica

[Karpel Tunnel]

Dogmatic means a tendency to be intransigent, resistant to change (to changing one's beliefs), relying on authority rather than personal experience and insight.

That covers a lot of beliefs most of us have, from all over the secular spectrum also. I mean, who has the time?

Well yes, it purports to be revealed knowledge but one must take that on faith - just accept the word of authority.

Some scripture, sure. But then there is prescriptive scripture which can lead to practices and attitudes that can be lived or experienced and one can see if one's life/experience changes in preferred directions. I mean, this is especially true of Eastern Scriptures that can be very practice/attitude focused. But it is also true of Abrahamic scriptures.