Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[Godular]

Ewww... then what justification would we have in snarling about people saying "IT'S JUST A THEORY!"

I know it's a stickler thing to do, so I don't want to ruin everyone else's party. But in my experience, conversations end more fruitfully when terms are precisely defined and consistently used. Sometimes I witness two people arguing when they're really saying the same thing.

Like what you and Gon were just doing.

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes. And this is why religion should be abolished.

[Silent Fleet]

The teological argument for god is actually one of the worst I have heard. A god or force should be able to make a world work in which we survive despite it "not being possible" for us to actually survive. This would actually provide evidence that such a force exists. Instead we survive in a world where it is possible for us to survive. We see exactly what we would expect to see should things come about naturally.

A God or force created life on Earth which survives, despite
1) Irreducible complexity makes it impossible for us to have originated through natural processes
2) Absolutely no evidence that natural processes have resulted in intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. In fact, I would use Fermi's Paradox to argue that we do live in a world in which "it is not possible to survive"... clearly no other intelligent races did.

Given the definition of religion I gave, and the problems with many of the claims that attempt to show that god/religion is logical, as well as the fact that there is no evidence for a God/force, I would say that religion/belief in a god is indeed inherently illogical.

There is strong historical evidence for a God, specifically Jesus of Nazareth. The argument for the divinity of Christmas through historical evidence is logical.

Yes. And this is why religion should be abolished.

Cartoons are illogical. We should ban them?

[36 Camera Perspective]

I know it's a stickler thing to do, so I don't want to ruin everyone else's party. But in my experience, conversations end more fruitfully when terms are precisely defined and consistently used. Sometimes I witness two people arguing when they're really saying the same thing.

Like what you and Gon were just doing.

Kinda sorta, yeah. Some of it was active disagreement.

[Neutraligon]

I would claim I was using the term illogical in the OP colloquially rather than using it within the field of logic.

Ewww... then what justification would we have in snarling about people saying "IT'S JUST A THEORY!"

Simple, the use of the term theory is different when it comes to scientific discussions, thus they are equivocating the word theory. For instance the evolution; if the term theory is used colloquially then evolution is not a theory, but is far closer to fact. If on the other had it is being used scientifically, then the term only is problematic, and things like creationism do not fit the term. Either way it is a problem for the person who says it's just a theory.

[Quokkastan]

Yes. And this is why religion should be abolished.

That you for reminding us that irreligion doesn't necessarily imply a mastery of logic either.

[Neutraligon]

The teological argument for god is actually one of the worst I have heard. A god or force should be able to make a world work in which we survive despite it "not being possible" for us to actually survive. This would actually provide evidence that such a force exists. Instead we survive in a world where it is possible for us to survive. We see exactly what we would expect to see should things come about naturally.

A God or force created life on Earth which survives, despite
1) Irreducible complexity makes it impossible for us to have originated through natural processes
2) Absolutely no evidence that natural processes have resulted in intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. In fact, I would use Fermi's Paradox to argue that we do live in a world in which "it is not possible to survive"... clearly no other intelligent races did.

Given the definition of religion I gave, and the problems with many of the claims that attempt to show that god/religion is logical, as well as the fact that there is no evidence for a God/force, I would say that religion/belief in a god is indeed inherently illogical.

There is strong historical evidence for a God, specifically Jesus of Nazareth. The argument for the divinity of Christmas through historical evidence is logical.

Yes. And this is why religion should be abolished.

Cartoons are illogical. We should ban them?

1) There is no evidence of irreducible complexity, unless you define irreducible complexity as keeping the same function, since evolution makes no claim as to keeping the same function as it changes over time, irreducible complexity is thus useless.
2) There need not be evidence of it elsewhere in the universe, there is examples of it right here, or are you claiming that dolphins and other apes are not intelligent.
3) The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is actually rather sketchy, and even if there was evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth, there is no evidence for the things claimed in the bible, or that he was god. So no it is not logical.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Maybe?
I dunno.
Is believing in FTL travel that's not time travel inherently illogical? Probably.
Whatever, I just do it.

[Godular]

Ewww... then what justification would we have in snarling about people saying "IT'S JUST A THEORY!"

Simple, the use of the term theory is different when it comes to scientific discussions, thus they are equivocating the word theory. For instance the evolution; if the term theory is used colloquially then evolution is not a theory, but is far closer to fact. If on the other had it is being used scientifically, then the term only is problematic, and things like creationism do not fit the term. Either way it is a problem for the person who says it's just a theory.

That's exactly my point though. If we use 'I was using it colloquially', we lose standing to correct others for using 'theory' colloquially. In both circumstances, a misunderstanding resulted that could have been avoided if we stuck to the technical usage as opposed to the colloquial usage.

[Neutraligon]

Simple, the use of the term theory is different when it comes to scientific discussions, thus they are equivocating the word theory. For instance the evolution; if the term theory is used colloquially then evolution is not a theory, but is far closer to fact. If on the other had it is being used scientifically, then the term only is problematic, and things like creationism do not fit the term. Either way it is a problem for the person who says it's just a theory.

That's exactly my point though. If we use 'I was using it colloquially', we lose standing to correct others for using 'theory' colloquially. In both circumstances, a misunderstanding resulted that could have been avoided if we stuck to the technical usage as opposed to the colloquial usage.

I fail to see how there is any loss of standing. If they are using the term colloquially then I can explain how the theory of evolution does not match the definition of the term colloquially. If they are using the term scientifically, then I can explain that things like intelligent design and creationism does not match the definition of the term. Either way no standing is lost.

[Wallenburg]

Yes. And this is why religion should be abolished.

Cartoons are illogical. We should ban them?

There's a good chance that IM would say "yes".

[Godular]

That's exactly my point though. If we use 'I was using it colloquially', we lose standing to correct others for using 'theory' colloquially. In both circumstances, a misunderstanding resulted that could have been avoided if we stuck to the technical usage as opposed to the colloquial usage.

I fail to see how there is any loss of standing. If they are using the term colloquially then I can explain how the theory of evolution does not match the definition of the term colloquially. If they are using the term scientifically, then I can explain that things like intelligent design and creationism does not match the definition of the term. Either way no standing is lost.

It's about consistency at that point. If we're gonna correct others on the misunderstanding caused by mixing up which usage of a word applies, we shouldn't say we meant another word in a non-technical manner when a similar misunderstanding arises in turn.

[Silent Fleet]

1) There is no evidence of irreducible complexity, unless you define irreducible complexity as keeping the same function, since evolution makes no claim as to keeping the same function as it changes over time, irreducible complexity is thus useless.

There is strong evidence for irreducible complexity. Remove critical parts of an organism's gentic code, and it no longer functions. Even at the simplest level, this is true. Since it is incredibly unlikely that the first primitive cell or virus was generated with a complete genetic code, it must have had its code assembled in successive processes... which leaves a non-functioning organism. Irreducible complexity.

2) There need not be evidence of it elsewhere in the universe, there is examples of it right here, or are you claiming that dolphins and other apes are not intelligent.

I am not claiming that. Dolphins are very intelligent. So are apes. I don't know if I would say they are sapient, as apes at least have been able to communicate with humans for decades and they show rather pitiful reasoning skills... they don't ask questions, they don't have philosophy, and they don't make scientific experiments or advancements. One would think even the most primitive sapient lifeforms would display these traits when interacting with a more advanced race.

Regardless, the Earth really does seem to be a location set apart by God in the universe: even where we would expect extraterrestrial life, there is no evidence of it.

3) The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is actually rather sketchy

It is better than most other historical figures within a similar timeframe.

, and even if there was evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth, there is no evidence for the things claimed in the bible, or that he was god. So no it is not logical.

There is quite a bit of evidence that he was God, especially because the Bible provides such evidence. And the evidence for the veracity of Gospels is quite strong.

Perhaps I should just repeat my arguments here for the sake of jumping to the point:

1) We have modern translations of the Gospels.
2) We know these translations are accurate and have remained almost completely unchanged since they were written. The earliest complete New Testaments date to A.D. 350, but the earliest manuscript fragment (Part of John) dates back as far as A.D. 117, possibly as early as A.D. 98. This is only about 60 years after Jesus died, and only about 8-27 years after the gospel of John is believed to have been written by most scholars. The original manuscript may have still been around at that time, or even copies made directly from the original, so it is unlikely any significant changes occurred. As for the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the two complete New Testaments, we can easily check our modern Bibles against them. The result is that many biblical scholars have said that the Bible is essentially the same now as when it was written. Compare to the Quran, where Sahih Bukhari records that there were disagreements on what the Quran said after Mohammed's death, and an official version was made, with all disagreeing versions systematically destroyed. This is only one example, and while other religions may have had their works preserved accurately, I merely want to show that the Gospels were.

3) We know these Gospels were written shortly after the life of Jesus, when eyewitnesses were still around. As noted above, the gospel of John, considered the last one written, is believed written by A.D. 90 or so. Mark is considered the earliest, at A.D. 70ish, only 30 years after the events of which it speaks.

4) We know the Gospels claim to be eyewitness testimony. That means a lot. After all, just 30 years after Jesus died, we have a book written claiming to be his autobiography, and it claims Jesus was the son of God. That's pretty significant, especially in regards to later points.

5) We know that these accounts were taken seriously by some at the time, even though eyewitnesses could have contradicted the Gospels if they were false. Christians took it seriously. They believed these account to be true, even though they could have asked people who would have been in Judea at the time Jesus was there to ask of these stories were true. If an autobiography of John F. Kennedy came out in 1994 saying that he performed miracles and was God, don't you think people would ask someone they knew was there if it were true? Wouldn't accounts record that it was a lie? Furthermore, Josephus was a contemporary historian who recorded the death of James, the brother of Jesus, at the hands of Ananias the High priest. This is in his The Antiquities (20.200), written about A.D. 93.

6) We know contemporary accounts record that early followers of the Gospels were willing to die rather than say they were false. This is fundamentally different from a suicide bomber dying for a lie which he believes to be true. No, I'm saying that people who could have checked to see if the Gospels were lies (including Jesus' own brother, who would have known if Jesus was God or not) said that they were not lies, and would rather die than admit it. Would you die for something you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a lie?

7) We know contemporary historical accounts record that Jesus really lived and was crucified. Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger all record events regarding the followers of Jesus Christ, who was crucified. As for Josephus, the passage is 20.200, and Edwin Yamauchi, who holds a doctorate in Mediterranean studies from Brandies University, among other accomplishments, says this of the passage: "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage. L.H. Feldman noted that if this had been a later Christian addition to the text, it would have likely been more laudatory of James."

8 ) We know that Jesus could not have survived crucifixion.

9) We know that dozens of Jesus' followers claimed to have seen him alive after he died. They would have known with absolute certainty if they saw Jesus alive or not.

10) We know were willing to die for these beliefs, even though they had a way of knowing with certainty whether it was false or not. They chose to die for something they either knew to be complete BS (which is stupid, you don't choose to die over stuff you made up) or knew to be complete truth.

11) We know despite the ability of Jewish leaders to produce a body if Jesus really was dead, they did not. They obviously cared enough to execute him and his followers, something claimed even in their own records (the Talmud, and Josephus was a Jew as well).

12) We know the Jews had compelling reasons to discredit Christianity, but even Jewish accounts record Jesus performed miracles (through sorcery, they say)

13) We know Jesus could not have performed miracles or resurrected except by supernatural power. There is no natural explanation for Jesus coming back to life. Therefore supernatural.

14) We know Jesus claimed in the Gospels that he had this power because he was the Son of God.

15) Therefore, we know Jesus is God.

Obviously, Jesus could only have been God, or everyone in all of ancient Judea had a mass halucination.

The level of citation drops of towards the latter arguments, but that's because I never finished organizing all my arguments into one neat post. You get the picture, right? If not I'll dig up my old defenses of those arguments.

[Silent Fleet]

Cartoons are illogical. We should ban them?

There's a good chance that IM would say "yes".

Maybe, but IM would rather give up voting than videogames, so I figured that cartoons would be too dear to abolish or something.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Cartoons are illogical. We should ban them?

There's a good chance that IM would say "yes".

Anime, porn, game of thrones, video games, literature all contain illogical elements or examples. Banning them all would be fucking stupid.

[Godular]

1) There is no evidence of irreducible complexity, unless you define irreducible complexity as keeping the same function, since evolution makes no claim as to keeping the same function as it changes over time, irreducible complexity is thus useless.

There is strong evidence for irreducible complexity. Remove critical parts of an organism's gentic code, and it no longer functions. Even at the simplest level, this is true. Since it is incredibly unlikely that the first primitive cell or virus was generated with a complete genetic code, it must have had its code assembled in successive processes... which leaves a non-functioning organism. Irreducible complexity.

2) There need not be evidence of it elsewhere in the universe, there is examples of it right here, or are you claiming that dolphins and other apes are not intelligent.

I am not claiming that. Dolphins are very intelligent. So are apes. I don't know if I would say they are sapient, as apes at least have been able to communicate with humans for decades and they show rather pitiful reasoning skills... they don't ask questions, they don't have philosophy, and they don't make scientific experiments or advancements. One would think even the most primitive sapient lifeforms would display these traits when interacting with a more advanced race.

Regardless, the Earth really does seem to be a location set apart by God in the universe: even where we would expect extraterrestrial life, there is no evidence of it.

3) The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is actually rather sketchy

It is better than most other historical figures within a similar timeframe.

, and even if there was evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth, there is no evidence for the things claimed in the bible, or that he was god. So no it is not logical.

There is quite a bit of evidence that he was God, especially because the Bible provides such evidence. And the evidence for the veracity of Gospels is quite strong.

Perhaps I should just repeat my arguments here for the sake of jumping to the point:

1) We have modern translations of the Gospels.
2) We know these translations are accurate and have remained almost completely unchanged since they were written. The earliest complete New Testaments date to A.D. 350, but the earliest manuscript fragment (Part of John) dates back as far as A.D. 117, possibly as early as A.D. 98. This is only about 60 years after Jesus died, and only about 8-27 years after the gospel of John is believed to have been written by most scholars. The original manuscript may have still been around at that time, or even copies made directly from the original, so it is unlikely any significant changes occurred. As for the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the two complete New Testaments, we can easily check our modern Bibles against them. The result is that many biblical scholars have said that the Bible is essentially the same now as when it was written. Compare to the Quran, where Sahih Bukhari records that there were disagreements on what the Quran said after Mohammed's death, and an official version was made, with all disagreeing versions systematically destroyed. This is only one example, and while other religions may have had their works preserved accurately, I merely want to show that the Gospels were.

3) We know these Gospels were written shortly after the life of Jesus, when eyewitnesses were still around. As noted above, the gospel of John, considered the last one written, is believed written by A.D. 90 or so. Mark is considered the earliest, at A.D. 70ish, only 30 years after the events of which it speaks.

4) We know the Gospels claim to be eyewitness testimony. That means a lot. After all, just 30 years after Jesus died, we have a book written claiming to be his autobiography, and it claims Jesus was the son of God. That's pretty significant, especially in regards to later points.

5) We know that these accounts were taken seriously by some at the time, even though eyewitnesses could have contradicted the Gospels if they were false. Christians took it seriously. They believed these account to be true, even though they could have asked people who would have been in Judea at the time Jesus was there to ask of these stories were true. If an autobiography of John F. Kennedy came out in 1994 saying that he performed miracles and was God, don't you think people would ask someone they knew was there if it were true? Wouldn't accounts record that it was a lie? Furthermore, Josephus was a contemporary historian who recorded the death of James, the brother of Jesus, at the hands of Ananias the High priest. This is in his The Antiquities (20.200), written about A.D. 93.

6) We know contemporary accounts record that early followers of the Gospels were willing to die rather than say they were false. This is fundamentally different from a suicide bomber dying for a lie which he believes to be true. No, I'm saying that people who could have checked to see if the Gospels were lies (including Jesus' own brother, who would have known if Jesus was God or not) said that they were not lies, and would rather die than admit it. Would you die for something you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a lie?

7) We know contemporary historical accounts record that Jesus really lived and was crucified. Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger all record events regarding the followers of Jesus Christ, who was crucified. As for Josephus, the passage is 20.200, and Edwin Yamauchi, who holds a doctorate in Mediterranean studies from Brandies University, among other accomplishments, says this of the passage: "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage. L.H. Feldman noted that if this had been a later Christian addition to the text, it would have likely been more laudatory of James."

8 ) We know that Jesus could not have survived crucifixion.

9) We know that dozens of Jesus' followers claimed to have seen him alive after he died. They would have known with absolute certainty if they saw Jesus alive or not.

10) We know were willing to die for these beliefs, even though they had a way of knowing with certainty whether it was false or not. They chose to die for something they either knew to be complete BS (which is stupid, you don't choose to die over stuff you made up) or knew to be complete truth.

11) We know despite the ability of Jewish leaders to produce a body if Jesus really was dead, they did not. They obviously cared enough to execute him and his followers, something claimed even in their own records (the Talmud, and Josephus was a Jew as well).

12) We know the Jews had compelling reasons to discredit Christianity, but even Jewish accounts record Jesus performed miracles (through sorcery, they say)

13) We know Jesus could not have performed miracles or resurrected except by supernatural power. There is no natural explanation for Jesus coming back to life. Therefore supernatural.

14) We know Jesus claimed in the Gospels that he had this power because he was the Son of God.

15) Therefore, we know Jesus is God.

Obviously, Jesus could only have been God, or everyone in all of ancient Judea had a mass halucination.

The level of citation drops of towards the latter arguments, but that's because I never finished organizing all my arguments into one neat post. You get the picture, right? If not I'll dig up my old defenses of those arguments.

I'd trash the shit out of this post but I gotta get some sleep. Where's mavorpen when ya need 'em?

[Silent Fleet]

I'd trash the shit out of this post but I gotta get some sleep.

Thanks. I can tell this is going to be an insightful and civilized discussion.

[Neutraligon]

I fail to see how there is any loss of standing. If they are using the term colloquially then I can explain how the theory of evolution does not match the definition of the term colloquially. If they are using the term scientifically, then I can explain that things like intelligent design and creationism does not match the definition of the term. Either way no standing is lost.

It's about consistency at that point. If we're gonna correct others on the misunderstanding caused by mixing up which usage of a word applies, we shouldn't say we meant another word in a non-technical manner when a similar misunderstanding arises in turn.

Sure I will change the the OP to mention that the word logic is meant in the colloquial sense rather than in the mathematical sense.

[Taviana SSR]

As intelligent human beings we should oppose every religion. Religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god.

Religion is irrational, a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Is also negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo.

In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Karl Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.”

Furthermore, Religion is very hypocritical.Although it might profess valuable principles, it always sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. The problem is that many workers have not yet achieved ideological independence from the petty bourgeoisie and the leaders of Al Qaida, Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State are all representatives of the petty bourgeoisie.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Damn. Its like watching a master painter at work.

Happy to be in this thread, mostly because we now have an insider on philosophy.

I'm not an insider. Just a lowly undergraduate.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

I'm not an insider. Just a lowly undergraduate.

My mistake. Sorry

[Nacesa Plana]

According most religions god is omnipotent and infinite good. He’s the creator of all and everything.

Simple question:

But why is he allowing babies with anencephaly?

A baby and certainly a foetus can’t be a sinner. There’s no way they ‘deserve’ this cruel medical condition.

It means…

• god isn’t omnipotent and the creator of all and everything.
• Or it’s possible he is, but in that case he isn’t infinite good.

If you accept one or both answers then the god as described in most religions can’t exist.

And that’s probably the most logical conclusion. God doesn’t exist. You don’t need a god to create the entire universe and life.

Inferior humans will create life from nothing pretty soon. Even the creation of an universe is within our reach. The last not tomorrow, but one day we’ll just do it.

[Risottia]

Yes. And this is why religion should be abolished.

Drinking Pastis is illogical. This is why drinking Pastis should be abolished.

...

[Risottia]

According most religions god is omnipotent and infinite good. He’s the creator of all and everything.

Simple question:

But why is he allowing babies with anencephaly?

Because anencephaly is evidently good.
And it's good because, uhm... PIE IN THE SKY!

[Alvecia]

2) Absolutely no evidence that natural processes have resulted in intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. In fact, I would use Fermi's Paradox to argue that we do live in a world in which "it is not possible to survive"... clearly no other intelligent races did.

I've never liked Fermi's Paradox.
Particularly when combined with a misunderstanding, or even ignorance, of the distances involved and signal decay.