After reading tons of forum subjects on religion one thing I have realized is that those that have faith also believe it is logical and those that don't find having faith in a religion show their reasons that are logical to them.

And there is the problem....

When one explains that a certain parable or phrase in a religious book doesn't make sense or couldn't have been the words of a supernatural they are refuted.

When one explains that a certain parable or phrase in a religious book is actual words of a god or recordings of supernatural happenings is logical they are refuted.


This will be at stalemate forever as we will continue to watch thousands of more forums created with two views.

It has me thinking that perhaps it is the way our brains work to believe in certain ways. They did a research once about how republicans use different brain waves as opposed to democrats. I will have to look for the article. It was tested on 100 people so it wasn't a extensive study.....but I think it has perhaps some merit to it.

Do you have a deeper explanation of why there are two extremes of the both and no middle ground for many people concerning the theories of logic and faith?

Logic is based on scientific evidence. Belief of logical circumstances are based on things you can see, touch, test, and prove. Faith doesn't come from a logical mindset. It is based on something that cannot be proven. It is something that people believe because of upbringing, experience, and inference/implication. When somebody sees something that is unexplainable, much like a mirical, they have to place the reason someplace because logic says there has to be a cause/reason. Faith, by far is a more controlling aspect of human nature than that of logic. People want to belief in a higher power and a purpose greater than just living the short life they have on this planet.

Religion has one inherent problem, it cannot be proven. This also brings up the other idea which comes from science, it cannot be disproven either. The only fact that comes from it all is that religion/faith will always be there.

It is an overflow of faulty logic like that oozing out of Donald Trump's scalp and piling up in a a tenuous nest over his ears and eyebrows.

Pride...



Hope that wasn't too deep. :-Þ

I don't think the explanation needs to be deep at all. On the contrary it's my observation that the explanation is actually extremely shallow and superficial.

People, in general, do not want to think deeply about things. So they try to keep things as simple as they possibly can. This results in extremely shallow views and superficial stances.

For example, if you look at religious arguments what are they almost always about?

TWO THINGS:

Christianity versus Atheism

and

Atheism versus Christianity



But truly that's about the extent of the thinking of the masses. For the most part, of course there are indeed exceptions without a doubt.

Most people are quite content with considering one of TWO possibilities: Either there is a "God", and thus they tend to believe that the most popular mainstream religions is probably right, or there is no "God" in which case all religions are false and Atheism is true.

That makes the choice really EASY.

No thinking required. Pick a side and jump on the bandwagon. Either side is basically a matter of "Faith".

The Christians simply say, "We have faith in the Bible, or in Jesus, or in God", most people don't even want to talk about precisely what the hell it is that they have "faith" in. They have 'faith' in their religion damn it! And that should be sufficient!

The Atheists often take the "logically inverted" position. "We'll believe it when we have sufficient evidence. And we don't see sufficient evidence right now. So don't bother us with your nonsense".

For the most part theses are basically the very simple stances that people take. Giving some leeway for all the various religious sects of the Abrahamic/Christian religions.

I personally try to shoot for some truly deep mystical views that embrace the best of both worlds.

The "Christians" hate me for it because I refuse to accept and support their biblical picture that Jesus is LORD.

The "Atheists" hate me for it because I tend to imply that there might actually be logical reasons for considering mystical concepts.

So in the eyes of the "Christians" I'm a heathen who denys that Jesus is "The LORD". And in the eyes of the atheists I'm an irrational mystic lunatic.

It's a really good thing that I'm not concerned about winning any popularity contests.

in the english language 'logic' has more than one meaning/context, besides scientific

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable


which is why I love, love, love, what jeanniebean said in another thread and what might explain the stalemate regarding belief and non belief


'I count on my own sense of logic',,,,,,not everyone has the same sense of logic, because not everyone has the same experiences, or events in their life to relate to,,,

As you can see everyone has a different opinion on logic and faith. Some use dictionaries, some use scientific evidence, and others religious documents.

And some use a combination of it all.....

The beauty of it is that many are pleased at what they believe is true.

Logic.....

Faith.....

both are beautiful in their own unique way.....

do you agree:)

Again it is only beautiful if it isn't destructive to another person, yet is that even possible when so many belief systems exist in the first place.

Sometimes I just see it as a competition...or a race of some sort. Who will have the most followers to rule the planet? I know I shouldn't see it like that but when I see how hard certain religions work to influence others to join them...one can only see it like a competition.

God gave us a brain to use, also.

Just because one has faith, doesn't mean one doesn't use logic.

God expects man to use the Intelligence He gave us, also.

The problem with that is for some who do not believe in a god will find that as a faulty logical conclusion.

You are using faith as logical. For others this faith you use for your personal belief system isn't logical at all for others.

Just like some do not find it logical in what Scientists discover because it contradicts their faith system that depends on faith leading to be illogical for them.

It goes back and forth as you can see.

Faith is not Logic.


I realize you misunderstood what I posted, and will leave it at that.

Have to run...be blessed.....

ps...a lot of scientists are finding out that science and the bible agree.

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am saying that there are many who use faith and find it logical and claim what they learn in their faith to be logical.

Be on your merry way then. Have fun.

You have a good day too now

I see that you changed your post above morningglory at the last moment again...

You added:

ps...a lot of scientists are finding out that science and the bible agree


I am not saying that what you believe is wrong. I am just showing the contradictions between the two.

Yes there are those as I have mentioned above that use both science and faith to conclude in what they believe as logical, just like those that don't believe in faith but only science to be logical, and last but not least those that use only faith on whatever belief system they use to be logical.

In the end it shows that there will always be a contradiction leading to disagreements in these forums, which depends on where one is born in this world, how they were brought up or raised, what environment they grew up in, and what dominate ( in most cases) belief system they are confronted with and as an end result in what they come to conclude as logical.

It is an interesting observation if you ask me.

Aye... Faith is not logic.

Yet strangely logic is faith. Faith based on what one understands of science. Faith based upon that science being true within this reality.

Logic can strengthen faith.

can you name those scientists and the passages in the bible that agree with their science discipline??? not trying to be a wise a$$ i just like to keep up on science and have yet to see a credible scientist agree with any spacific passage of the bible. sure, some scientists are christian and enjoy worshiping their faith but that's a far stretch from finding credible agreement between the bible and their fields of science.

Some people believe that we have only one way of knowing which must include an interaction with the physical world. Through a physical exchange people gain information. We determine what information should be incorporated and when and how it should be applied.


Some people believe there is a non-physical world that humans can also interact with because humans themselves have a non-physical essence. Information is not equally exchanged between the non-physical (or spiritual) and humans otherwise all humans would have spiritual beliefs and clearly, they do not.

So now we have two ways of knowing physical and non-physical. There should be no problem between these two ways of knowing, just as in ancient times it was not a problem for the victors, not only to tolerate but to honor the gods of the conquered. Of course honoring/respecing another person's beliefs does not mean incorporating physical infringements on social or civil order.

But there is a problem, why?

The fact that there are as many stories equating to beliefs of non-physical interactions, as there are experiences makes it impossible to determine if there is any common knowledge between them all.

Therefore, we rely on the physical, which every human DOES experience, to find commonality from which our social, cultural, and civil orders are formed.

The problem occurs when those who believe they have knowledge of a non-physical world, also believe that others should change or adjust in some way to the beliefs that can never be shared with those who have never experienced a spiritual interaction not to mention that no two spiritual encounters are ever the same.

I think it was Pan, a few posts back, who said "Pride" and I think could agree with that.

I think that those who believe in the non-physical have to understand that their beliefs are their own. Comparing notes to come to new conclusions, or new beliefs, is also a personal matter and cannot be applied in ways that would interfere with the development of social, cultural, and civil order. THAT IS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

All one has to do is review the theocratic governments of the past and present to see why one person's interpretation of a non-physical experience should not be enforced on others.

I can accept any individuals beliefs as long as the individual does not expect me or others to live or act in accordance with information that has been channelled on a singularly personal level.

This is just the explanation that 'logically' accompanies the remark that Pan made "Pride".

Ridicously sounds logical Redykeulous!

A friend of mine, who is very unwell, prays to god, but she isn't religious. Many ill people like to have faith that somehow god will help them heal. Even if they're not religious. They must believe in SOMETHING, then, just not knowing exactly what. A spirit? Maybe?