Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

Actually, many if not most people believe that thier faith is based in logic and evidence. The problem is that the logic and evidence is not scientific in nature. Therein lies the difference, it is not that they lack logic and evidence, but that the logic and evidence is not testable by traditional scientific methods to such a degree as is acceptable to the scientific community.

If the logic and evidence are not scientific, then you have neither logic nor evidence.

Formal logic is a very specific thing that has a very specific set of rules. You can't break any of the rules and still have logic.

Unless the evidence can be corrobrated by an independent source, how can you ever be sure that evidence ever existed at all? Especially when there are studies all over the place that show just how incredibly good humans are at deceiving themselves? My favorite example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

 

[Chalnoth]

How did atheism come ito our discussion? Atheism brings up a different discussion I am afraid and by definition, is considered a religion, thus would fall into the same category. Now one can argue this understanding, but by definition, it is a religion.

How can a lack of belief possibly be a religion?

 

[razzelflabben]

If the logic and evidence are not scientific, then you have neither logic nor evidence.

Formal logic is a very specific thing that has a very specific set of rules. You can't break any of the rules and still have logic.

Unless the evidence can be corrobrated by an independent source, how can you ever be sure that evidence ever existed at all? Especially when there are studies all over the place that show just how incredibly good humans are at deceiving themselves? My favorite example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Wow, lots of independant issues. Where to begin? Formal logic is not just scientific, math uses logic all the time, so does phycolgy and phylosophy, logic isn't a thing, it is a process and as such, there can be multiply right answers based on the premises used to begin the process. Logic is not restricted to science as many here seem to believe. Now if you want to talk about scientific logic, one must first lay out the premis of scientific logic, we however are talking about logic in general and how it shapes our undestanding of our ideas and beliefs. This then means that deception or not, logic can come in any form. Logic is not specific to any discipline.

The only other point I want to make here is that some do believe that there is no reality, so knowing truth is as most things relative based on the premis used. If my premis is that I cannot know truth, then my logical conclusion will be based on the evidence around me, if I base my assumptions on there being a god then my conclusion will fit that by use of evidence around me. Life is experiencial by nature and as such, evidence and logic are relative terms which often are used to assume truth by reason of concensis.

 

[razzelflabben]

How can a lack of belief possibly be a religion?

The most concise definition I know is "one's belief in the supernatural" This would include but not be limited to the belief that we don't know if there is a supernatural. Just as my belief in the issue of origins is that we don't know, I still have a belief. It is this belief that defines religion. In fact, many people who follow Christ, refuse to accept that they are religious, the bible itself defines religion as taking care of the widow and orphan. Religion can be defined any number of ways, but it still comes back to what one believes on issues of spirituality and supernatural and even the atheist has such a belief.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The most concise definition I know is "one's belief in the supernatural" This would include but not be limited to the belief that we don't know if there is a supernatural. Just as my belief in the issue of origins is that we don't know, I still have a belief. It is this belief that defines religion. In fact, many people who follow Christ, refuse to accept that they are religious, the bible itself defines religion as taking care of the widow and orphan. Religion can be defined any number of ways, but it still comes back to what one believes on issues of spirituality and supernatural and even the atheist has such a belief.

there are several notable "religions" that have no reference to the supernatural: Confucianism for one.

the Bible says PURE (katharos) religion(threskeia) is the care for widows and orphans. James 1:27

ne believes on issues of spirituality and supernatural
only in a society dominated by theism like Western culture. Chinese culture before the arrival of Western missionaries, for example, had little to say about the supernatural. Spirituality likewise is deeply culturally defined and is not universal to all people.

it seems that better definitions of religion exist.

 

[Chalnoth]

Wow, lots of independant issues. Where to begin? Formal logic is not just scientific, math uses logic all the time, so does phycolgy and phylosophy, logic isn't a thing, it is a process and as such, there can be multiply right answers based on the premises used to begin the process.

In all of these situations, logic is the same thing, and must be held to the same rules. The premises used are independent of logic. Logic is about a process of going from premises to conclusions. Valid logic does not equate to truth, as the premises may or may not be correct. Valid logic is just about deciding whether or not there is a valid connection between the premises and conclusions.

Logic is, of course, not restricted to science. But the logic as it is used in science is the exact same logic as it is used anywhere else. If it is not the same, then it is not logic.

If my premis is that I cannot know truth, then my logical conclusion will be based on the evidence around me, if I base my assumptions on there being a god then my conclusion will fit that by use of evidence around me.

You cannot use the premise as one of the conclusions. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question. Begging the question violates the rules of logic because the rules of logic are about going from a set of premises to a conclusion. If the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, then you have not used logic.

Life is experiencial by nature and as such, evidence and logic are relative terms which often are used to assume truth by reason of concensis.

Logic is by no means a relative term. Either the logic of an argument is valid, or it is flawed. There can be no inbetween, due to the way logic is defined (as a set of rules governing whether or not a conclusion follows from the premises).

And as for evidence, if that evidence cannot be corroborated, then there is no reason to believe that it wasn't just imagined.

 

[cerad]

LOOK AT ME, I SOUND SMART BY SAYING SATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE

I was born into an agnostic/atheist family but I became a christian myself, how do you explain that?

Obviously he was talking about your spiritual birth and not your physical birth. Funny how handy the whole physical vs spiritual argument can be.

 

[JohnR7]

there are several notable "religions" that have no reference to the supernatural:

I do not see any referance in the Bible to anything "supernatural".

 

[Chalnoth]

I do not see any referance in the Bible to anything "supernatural".

Huh? So you think turning water into wine is natural?

 

[Tynan]

I do not see any referance in the Bible to anything "supernatural".

Angels ?

God ?

Resurrection ?

Demons ?

Miracles ?

Virgin birth ?


Should I go on ?

 

[JohnR7]

If the logic and evidence are not scientific, then you have neither logic nor evidence.

That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. But if it floats your cork, then go at it. Who am I to argue with "logic" like that.

 

[razzelflabben]

If the logic and evidence are not scientific, then you have neither logic nor evidence.

Formal logic is a very specific thing that has a very specific set of rules. You can't break any of the rules and still have logic.

Unless the evidence can be corrobrated by an independent source, how can you ever be sure that evidence ever existed at all? Especially when there are studies all over the place that show just how incredibly good humans are at deceiving themselves? My favorite example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

See this discussion about logic,http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php though logic has specific rules to follow a simple change in the premis can change the outcome, therefore, logic and evidence don't have to be specific to science, religion, phylosophy, psycology, etc. can all use the rules of logic and come up with very different conclusions. This then is why logic and evidence are not specific to science.

 

[Chalnoth]

See this discussion about logic,http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php though logic has specific rules to follow a simple change in the premis can change the outcome, therefore, logic and evidence don't have to be specific to science, religion, phylosophy, psycology, etc. can all use the rules of logic and come up with very different conclusions. This then is why logic and evidence are not specific to science.

Well, yeah, that's obvious. But the rules of logic don't change one bit no matter what you are talking about applying logic to.

Edit:
That is to say, the rules of logic only apply to how you go from a set of premises to a conclusion or set of conclusions: they do not place much of any limitation on the sorts of premises you start with.

 

[razzelflabben]

there are several notable "religions" that have no reference to the supernatural: Confucianism for one.

the Bible says PURE (katharos) religion(threskeia) is the care for widows and orphans. James 1:27

ne believes on issues of spirituality and supernatural
only in a society dominated by theism like Western culture. Chinese culture before the arrival of Western missionaries, for example, had little to say about the supernatural. Spirituality likewise is deeply culturally defined and is not universal to all people.

it seems that better definitions of religion exist.

Thanks for quoting the verse, I though reference would be enough, but your quote is definately appreciated.

I think the point of my post is that depending on how you interprete "religion", depends on your prespective but that all of the definitions fit some form of your belief system. In other words, no one person is exclusive of some form of religious belief including but not limited to atheists, what your religious belief is, however, depends on what definition you choose to go by.

 

[razzelflabben]

In all of these situations, logic is the same thing, and must be held to the same rules. The premises used are independent of logic. Logic is about a process of going from premises to conclusions. Valid logic does not equate to truth, as the premises may or may not be correct. Valid logic is just about deciding whether or not there is a valid connection between the premises and conclusions.

Exactly which is why logic is not specific to science. Logical conclusions will very based on the premises or assumptions made, therefore, creation can be a logical conclusion as can evolution. Religion can be based on logic as can scientific assumptions Logic does not rule either out, science might, but logic never will. -

Logic is, of course, not restricted to science. But the logic as it is used in science is the exact same logic as it is used anywhere else. If it is not the same, then it is not logic.

Right, which applies to religious belief as well. If my religious belief is based out of logic, then science nor logic can say it is wrong, which is why even logical conclusions are fallable.

You cannot use the premise as one of the conclusions. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question. Begging the question violates the rules of logic because the rules of logic are about going from a set of premises to a conclusion. If the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, then you have not used logic.

Not sure how you read my post to assume that I think premise are conclusions but I do agree with you here. I will also say however that conclusions can be used as premises to further our logic.

Logic is by no means a relative term. Either the logic of an argument is valid, or it is flawed. There can be no inbetween, due to the way logic is defined (as a set of rules governing whether or not a conclusion follows from the premises).

Logic is not relative but it's conclusions are.

And as for evidence, if that evidence cannot be corroborated, then there is no reason to believe that it wasn't just imagined.

Which applies to all "disciplines"? Meaning that if my religious belief is based on logic and that is corroborated by evidence, then there is reason to believe it, but that doesn't mean that you will believe it. The same runs true for evolution and creation. The fact that these topics are debated and often heated debate, suggests that there is evidence to corroborate each position, therefore, logic is not the issue being debated but rather the evidence that leads to that logic. For example, if I believe that the word of God is infallible, and you don't, the evidence has little to do with the logical conclusion, it is the premis that is the heart of the debate.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Can it be said that scientists claim exclusive intellectual property rights on 'logic'? 'Logic' is exclusively owned by scientists, and may not be used by non-scientists without permission of scientists, lest it violate the intellectual property rights of such scientists. 'Logic' is exclusive to the scientific mind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can it be said that scientists claim exclusive intellectual property rights on 'logic'? 'Logic' is exclusively owned by scientists, and may not be used by non-scientists without permission of scientists, lest it violate the intellectual property rights of such scientists. 'Logic' is exclusive to the scientific mind.

I implore, on the almighty Origin, that you jest

 

[VinceBlaze]

I implore, on the almighty Origin, that you jest

But those are the rules.

 

[Chalnoth]

Meaning that if my religious belief is based on logic and that is corroborated by evidence, then there is reason to believe it, but that doesn't mean that you will believe it.

What logic? What evidence? I have not seen any attempt at a logical argument for a god that wasn't circular, and no evidence that wasn't invalid.

 

[Chalnoth]

Can it be said that scientists claim exclusive intellectual property rights on 'logic'? 'Logic' is exclusively owned by scientists, and may not be used by non-scientists without permission of scientists, lest it violate the intellectual property rights of such scientists. 'Logic' is exclusive to the scientific mind.

Vince, this whole side topic of the thread got started when you said that your logic may not be scientific, but it is still valid. I said that this was an absurd statement: if the logic is not scientific logic, then it is invalid logic, because the rules of logic are not specific to science. The rules of logic are the same everywhere.