Logic in Religion

[root]

Why would supernatural be considered illogical?

Firstly, here is my working definition of "Logic".

The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

The whole view that supernatural is illogical is flawed by the assumption that logic does not exceed the bounderies of teh current natural processes.

Do you not mean that supernatural is flawed in logic because it cannot be subjected to a method of validity and thus it's accuracy and or reliability remains questionable and unsound.

I mean supernational does contradict the natural. So if you assuem that natural is logic and everything else isn't well I guess tthen you would conclude that the supernatural is illogical since it contradicts the natural

.

Not illogical, just not logical. Unsound without any nature of reliability and or predictive qualities. When I drop a stone logic will tell me it falls. In a supernatural world it may suspend in the air then shoot up a mile high and explode. Which is the more logical proposition here and why, not which is "illogical"!

would have been described under supernatural in the earlyer days being today described as actually being natural, albeit rarely. Like I said. The whole view that supernatural is illogical is flawed by the assumption that logic does not exceed the bounderies of teh current natural processes.

Again, I think your exploiting "illogical" for your own gain. Logic, uses a probability based on validity, something being illogical is better placed as being less probable than other alternatives.

Crop circles occur by alien ships landing on earth is not an illogical statement. This does not mean it is the logical answer though!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Firstly, here is my working definition of "Logic".
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

I'm terrible sorry but "your" defenition is off.
Here's what wikipedia says:
Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish logical from flawed arguments.
So you see logic is independent of content and even independent of reality.

Do you not mean that supernatural is flawed in logic because it cannot be subjected to a method of validity and thus it's accuracy and or reliability remains questionable and unsound.

There's so many things wrong in that sentence I don't know where to begin.
*First of al, don't confuse theory with logic. A theory is logical when it's arguments are logical. The first criteria when judging a theory is to look at wheter or not the arguments are build logically. If that checks up, the second criteria could be accurace or reliability. However the accurace and reliability has nothing to do with logic. Those last two are charesteristics of a theory, not of an argument. So a theory can be accurate and reliable yet completely illogical, while yet another theory could be logical but at the same time unreliable and unaccurate. Wheter or not the supernatural is reliable and accurate is a whole discussion altoghether, but that doesn't mean that it is by nature illogical.
*Apart from that your reasoning is flawed when you conclude that something is illogical based on it being questionable. Just because we don't have the answer, doesn't mean there isn't a possible answer. There are philosophers (and scientists) who believe that chaos is nothing more then an order we fail to understand. This failure in understanding might lead us to the false conclusion that somthing is illogical.
*Thirdly, wheter or not something can be subjected to validity is also not a criteria for logic. If I were to state that: "The sum 1+1=2 is true even if there's no existance (wheter cognitive, material, or any other given other thing) with the ability to (keep) count." then I think you'll agree that's a logical statement, yet we are unable to verify it's validity. Even if we were capable of producing a closed enviroment where there is no such an existance, we wouldn't be able to actually check if 1+1=2 in that closed enviroment since by defenition our closed enviroment does not alow us to actually check that.
*Fourth: As I already mentioned when discussing the defenition, if an argument wouldn't refer to reality, that still wouldn't make it illogical. If I make the statement: If Bush Jr. dies before having a child he will not have grandchildren. The statement is logical, nevertheless it obviously does not refer to reality as Bush already has two daughters.

So I don't know wheter you think that:
A) Religion is illogical since it doesn't refer to reality
B) Religion doesn't refer to reality because it is illogical.
But as you can see either one of those two were flawed. And even more then that, you will not be able to support either base. Religion in teh end of the day relies on belief, just as much as atheism relies on (dis)belief. There is no way to establish one as more likely then the other based only on logical arguments, unless a religion is logically flawed. However as far as I know, there is no such logical flaw in Islam, bringing us back to the root of this very discussion.

Not illogical, just not logical. Unsound without any nature of reliability and or predictive qualities. When I drop a stone logic will tell me it falls. In a supernatural world it may suspend in the air then shoot up a mile high and explode. Which is the more logical proposition here and why, not which is "illogical"!

What you refer to as "logical" is actually nothing more then habitual nature. A dropping stone is logical only because we are used to stones dropping. If stones would always behave in teh way you suggested here, then after a while people would consider that logical to. This isn't "logics" but just this is just recognizability. Which brings me again to religion, in religion we believe that the natural laws of this world are the habitual conduct of Allah. In that frame of thinking any other given behavior of nature is just as much logical as the one we are used to. Now, you might object since you do not believe in that frame-work. However -as I told Czgibson- if in a debate you wish to prove Islam wrong based on it's concepts, then you can only argue from a point of vieuw where islam is right. Because if you start of by assuming Islam is false, then any attempt to refute Islam is circular.

Again, I think your exploiting "illogical" for your own gain. Logic, uses a probability based on validity, something being illogical is better placed as being less probable than other alternatives.

That's plainly wrong, even improbable alternatives might be actually logical, and in fact they can even be refering to reality. Let me give an example. If only one out of 1000 people has green eyes and only one out 1000 people have a third nipple, that would mean it's very improbable that there is someone with both green eyes and a third niple, yet it is still posible and logical. More importantly you needn't forget that probability is often suggested based on personal preferance. You're personal preferance tells you religion is illogical because you do not like to believe in the supernatural, but that preferance doesn't make an argument involving the supernatural any less logical.

Crop circles occur by alien ships landing on earth is not an illogical statement. This does not mean it is the logical answer though!!!!!!!!!!

Again, the question here is not wether or not it is logical. It might not be "the answer" but it is "a" logical answer based on the assuptions that given aliens have spaceships with shapes simular to the markings left on fields. The real question here is wheter it refers to reality or not. And again it is our lack of knowledge that keeps us from answering the question!

 

[scentsofjannah]

Not for me....I grew up in a house where I was taught to question everything, and I do. I don't follow things just because it is said to do so- I need reasoning and logic.

good sis keep up that attitude.

REGARDING DOGS

in the Sunni Maliki School of law

Dog's saliva is totally pure

Dog's skin is totally pure

Pigs saliva is totally clean

Pigs skin is totally clean.

In the other Schools of thought(including the Shia) Dogs skin is clean but saliva is najis ie unclean

 

[scentsofjannah]

Faith and Reason
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan


In its issue no. 134 (1992), the journal, Faith and Reason, published from Manchester College, Oxford (England), brought out an article titled, ‘The Relationship between Faith and Reason’, by Dr Paul Badham. Paul Badham is a Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at St. David’s College, Lampeter, in the University of Wales. His paper in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in November 1991.

Professor Badham’s paper can indeed be called thought-provoking, and as such, is worth reading, but he has made certain points with which I do not agree. He states that philosophical certainty should not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: As a philosopher of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could never be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge’ (p. 6). On the contrary, I feel that faith and belief can be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific theory. At least, in the twentieth century there is no real difference between the two.

Knowledge is composed of two kinds of things, Bertrand Russell puts it, knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. This dichotomy exists in religion as well as in science. For instance, to the scientist who regards biological evolution as a scientific fact, there are two aspects to be considered. One is related to the organic part of species and the other relates to the law of evolution which is inherently and covertly operative in the continuing process of change among the species.

When an evolutionist studies the outward physical appearance of species, he may be said to be studying ‘things’. Whereas when he studies the law of evolution, he deals with that aspect of the subject which is termed the study or knowledge of truths.’

Every evolutionist knows that a basic difference between the two aspects. As far as the study of things or the phenomena of evolution is concerned, direct evidence is available. For instance, because the study of fossils found in various layers of the earth’s crust is possible at the level of observation, working hypothesis may be based thereon.

On the contrary, as far as facts about the law of evolution are concerned, due to the impossibility of objective observation, direct argument world’s strength, skill, beauty is not possible. For instance, the concept of sudden mutations in the organs is entirely based on assumptions rather than on direct observation. In the case of mutations, external changes are observable, but the cause, that is, the law of nature, is totally unobservable. That is why all the evolutionists make use of indirect argument, which in logic is known as inferential argument.

The concept of mutation forms the basis of the theory of evolution. However there are two aspects to the matter. One comes under observation, but the second part is totally unobservable. It is only by making use of the principle of inference that this second part of evolution may be included in the theory of evolution.

It is a commonplace that all the offspring of men or animals are not uniform. Differences of one kind or another are to be found. In modern times this biological phenomenon has been scientifically studied. These studies have revealed spontaneous changes suddenly produced in the fetus in the mother’s womb. It is these changes that are responsible for the differences between children of the same parents.

These differences between offsprings are observable. But the philosophy of evolution subsequently formed on the basis of this observation is totally unobservable and is based only on inferential argument. That is to say that the ‘things’ of evolution are observable, while the ‘truths’ inferred from observation are unobservable.

Now, what the evolutionist does is put a goat at one end and a giraffe at the other. Then taking some middle specimens of the fossils he forms a theory that the neck of one of the offspring of the earlier generation of the goat was somewhat taller. Then when this particular offspring with the taller neck gave birth, this tallness for generations over millions of years ultimately converted the initial goat with a taller neck into a species like the giraffe in its advanced stage. Charles Darwin writes of this change in his book The Origin of Species: "…it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe" (p. 169).

In this case, the existence of differences between the various offspring of a goat is itself a known fact. But the accumulation of this difference, generation after generation, over millions of years resulting in a new species known as ‘giraffe’ is wholly unobservable and unrepeatable. This conclusion has been inferred from observation only; the whole process of mutation developing into a new species has never come under our direct observation.

Exactly the same is true of the subject of religion. One aspect of the study of religion is the study of its history, its personalities, its injunctions, its rites and its rituals. The above division (knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) amounts to a study of the ‘things’ of religion. In respect of religion, objective information is likewise available. As such, the study of religion too can be done on the basis of direct observations exactly as is done in the study of biological evolution.

The second aspect of the study of religion is what is termed, in general, beliefs pertaining to the unseen world. These are the beliefs that are beyond our known sensory world. That is, the existence of God and the angels, revelation, hell and heaven, etc. In this other aspect of religion direct observations do not exist. The study of religion must, therefore, be done in the light of that logical principle called inference on the basis of observation, that is, the same logical principle which the evolutionists employ in the second aspect of their theory.

Looked at in the light of this principle, both religion and science are at a par. Both have two equally different parts. One part is based on such scientific certainty as permits direct argument. The other part is based on scientific inference, to prove which only the principle of indirect argument may be used. Keeping this logical division before us, we can find no actual difference between the two.

The unnecessary apologia for religious uncertainty made by Professor Badham is occasioned by his inability to consider this difference, and his confusing one area of study with another. Making the error of false analogy, he is comparing the first part of science to the second part of religion and looking at the second part of religion in the light of the first part of science. This meaningless comparison is responsible for the ill-considered conclusions he has arrived at in his article.

Had the worthy Professor compared the first part of science to the first part of religion and the second part of science to the second part of the religion, his inferiority complex (as a man of religion) would have ceased to exist. He would have felt that, purely as a matter of principle the wrong parallels had been drawn. The argument used in the first part of science is equally applicable to the first part of religion. Similarly the argument applied to the second part of science is equally applicable to the second part of religion.

This is a truth which has been acknowledged even by a staunch and leading atheist like Bertrand Russell. At the beginning of his book Why I am not a Christian he has set forth what he considers a valid argument. He points out that in his view all the great religions of the world—Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism—were all untrue and harmful, and that it is not possible to prove their validity from the logical point of view. Those who have opted for one religion or the other have done so, according to Russell, under the influence of their traditions and environment, rather than on the strength of argument.

However, Bertrand Russell has admitted this fact when he says, "there is one of these arguments which is not purely logical. I mean the argument from design. This argument, however, was destroyed by Darwin."

He intends here to say that the existence of God is proved by the argument that in his world where there is design, there should be a designer. He admits that this method of argument in its nature is the same as that used to prove scientific concepts. However, even after this admission, he rejects this argument by saying that it has been destroyed by Darwinism.

This is, however, a wholly baseless point, as Darwin’s theory is related to the Creator’s process of creation rather than to the existence of Creator. To put it briefly, Darwinism state that the various species found in the world were not separate creations but had changed from one species into separate species over a prolonged period of evolution by a process of natural selection.

It is obvious that this theory is not related to the existence or non-existence of God. It deals with the process of Creation instead of the Creator. That is to say, if it was hitherto believed that God created each species separately, now after accepting the theory of evolution it has to be believed that God originally created an initial species which was invested with the capability of multiplying into numerous species. And then He set in motion a natural process in the universe favorable to such multiplication. In this way, over a long period of time this primary species fulfilled its potential by changing into innumerable species. To put it another way, the theory of evolution is not a study of the existence of God, but simply of how God has displayed in the universe his power of creation. That is why Darwin himself has concluded his famous book The Origin of Species with these words:

There is grandeur in this view of life, which its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved (p. 408).

It is true that the new facts regarding the universe discovered in the twentieth century have revolutionized the world of logic. Now the difference between religious argument and scientific argument which had been erroneously conceived prior to the twentieth century, has been eliminated. Now in respect of argument, the case of science too has reached exactly the same point as religion.

Newton (1642-1727) made a special study of the solar system, discovering laws governing the revolution of planets around the sun. His study was, however, confined to astronomical bodies, which can be called the macro-world. It is possible in the macro world to weigh and measure things. As a result of the immediate impact of these discoveries, many began to think along the lines that reality was observable, and that proper and valid argument was one based on observation. It was under the influence of this concept that the philosophy generally known as positivism came into being.

However the discoveries made in the first quarter of the century shook the very foundation of their preliminary theories. These later discoveries revealed that beyond this world of appearance, a whole world was hidden, which does not come under observation. It is only indirectly possible to understand this hidden world and present arguments in its favor. That is, by observing the effects of something, we arrive at an understanding of its existence.

This discovery altered the whole picture. When the access of human knowledge was limited to the macro-cosmic world, man was a prey to this misapprehension. But when human knowledge penetrated the micro-world, the academic situation changed on its own.

Now it was revealed that the field of direct argument was extremely limited. New facts which came to the knowledge of man were so abstruse that indirect or inferential argument alone was applicable. For instance, The German scientist, Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen found in 1895 during an experiment that on a glass before him some effects were observable, despite the fact that there was no known link between his experiment and the glass. He concluded that there was an invisible radiation which was travelling at the speed of 186,000 miles per second. Due to the unknown nature of this radiation, Reontgen named it X-rays (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 19/1058).

The twentieth century has seen the discoveries of a number of things like X-rays, which do not come under direct human observation. However due, to their effects having come to knowledge of man, it was not possible to deny their existence. As a result of modern research, not only were different departments of science revolutionized but the science of logic too saw basic changes.

Now inferential reasoning was also accepted as a valid method of reasoning, for, without this discoveries like X-rays, the scientific structure of the atom, the existence of Dark Matter, etc., could not have been explained.

After the extension of this method of reasoning in modern times, argument on religious faith has become as valid as reasoning on scientific concepts. Exactly the same inferential logic which was employed to prove the newly discovered concepts of science, was applicable to religious faiths to prove their veracity. Now differences in the criterion of logic have vanished.



Answer to a Question:

At the end of his article Professor Badham writes: And I have to acknowledge that the existence of so much evil and suffering in the world counts against any vision of an all-powerful and loving God (p. 7).

Here I have to say that evil is a relative world. An evil is an evil so long as it cannot be explained. A doctor performs surgery on the patient’s body, a judge sentences a criminal to be hanged. All this appears to be injustice, cruelty. But we do not call it so, simply because we have a proper explanation to give for the acts of the judge and the doctor. The same is true of the evil pointed out by the article writer.

The first point is that the evil existing in human society is not spread over the entire universe. Leaving aside the limited human world, the vast universe is perfect, par excellence. It is entirely free of any defect or evil.

Now the question arises as to why there is evil in the human world. To arrive at an understanding of this we shall have to understand the creation plan of the Creator. The certain plan of God provides the only criterion by which to judge the nature of the matter.

The creation plan of God as revealed to His Prophet is that this world is a testing ground, where man’s virtue is placed on trial. It is in accordance with the records of this trial period that man’s eternal fate will be decreed. It is for the purpose of this test that he has been granted freedom. In the absence of freedom, the question of life being a test would not arise.

The present evil is, in fact, a concomitant of this freedom. God desires to select those individuals who, in spite of being granted freedom, lead a disciplined and principled life. For individuals to prove their worth an atmosphere of freedom must be provided. Undoubtedly, due to such an atmosphere, some people will surely misuse this freedom and perpetrate injustice. But this is the inevitable price to be paid for such a creation plan to be brought to completion. No better creation plan can be envisaged for this world.

The present world appears meaningless when seen independently, that is, without joining the Hereafter with it. But when we take this world and the Hereafter together, the entire matter takes a new turn. Now this world becomes extremely meaningful and extremely valuable

For details regarding the method of argument refer to the book ‘Religion and Science’ by the author. (pp. 9-21)

Source:
http://www.alrisala.org/intro_page_links/article_categories.htm