[mike777]

"The biblical moral code is inherently contradictory"


I certainly agree that a moral code should not be inherently contradictory.
I hope the biblical moral code is not inherently contradictory. I may not understand or explain it very well but I hope it is not contradictory.
Rape and pillage was considered legal in war, forever. I guess a few nation states are trying to make it illegal in the current PC climate.

It seems to be legal in every single prison around the world still.

[barmar]

sceptic, on Jan 4 2008, 01:02 AM, said:

wrongly or rightly a belief is a belief and does not have to be backed up by fact science, logigal or illogical thought or anything else, surely it is exactly what it says on the tin " a belief"

But if there's no good justification for a belief, there's no reason why anyone else should give any credence to it. And it's not even clear to me why any reasonable person would hold steadfast to an implausible belief that has nothing to back it up.

And it certainly seems wrong to try to indoctrinate others with such a belief. But of course, the person who holds the belief cannot be expected to agree with this. To them, the belief is as true as anything else, and they may consider it more important than many logical or scientific beliefs (none of them will save your soul from damnation).

One of the biggest problem is that society in general condones this. Many activities that would normally be illegal get a free pass when done in the name of religion, or religious taboos get turned into laws. Religious leaders are invited to participate in debates on controversial subjects, presumably because they have some special insight into morality -- but whatever they claim is based on a belief system with nothing concrete behind it. It should be a house of cards, but society's traditional acceptance of religion provides the scaffolding that keeps it from falling apart.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Jan 4 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

Quote

Obviously we must use our inherent sense of morality -- but if we have that, then why do we need the bible or religion to define morality?

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

Quote

Someone else asked about belief in alien life.  I don't KNOW that there's life elsewhere, and I don't expect us to prove it any time soon.  What I believe is that it's LIKELY that there's life elsewhere in the universe.  My reasoning is that if something can happen once, it can happen more than once, given enough chances.  We know that life arose once (we're here), the universe is incredibly old and huge, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the Earth, so rules of probability suggest that it has probably happened in other places.

ok, is your belief in the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere irrational or illogical? i'd say no, even though your reasoning might not be perfect in the matter (the fact that something happened once doesn't mean it can happen more than once, given enough time - necessarily)

Two points to which I wish to reply:

1. Moral code.

Unless you argue that atheists, buddhists and others are amoral people, it seesm hard to defend the proposition that we need divinely mandated moral codes.

The biblical moral code is inherently contradictory and anyone living by it today would almost certainly end up in jail. Abraham's threatening to kill his son, for example, would see him in serious trouble, and I don't think many judges or juries would be persuaded by a protestation that god told him to do it. And the bible is replete with people exposing their family to rape (I think Lot did this), and it, in other areas, mandates the murder of others.

It is demonstrable, not only from the bible which reflects the moral beliefs of its times, but from other historical material, that moral values change. The crusading knights, and indeed the knights of Christendom, thought nothing of mass murder, rape and pillage of conquered towns... even towns inhabited by fellow Christians.

I forget the name of the Catholic lord charged with putting down a heresy, who told his troops to kill everyone, knowing that in doing so they would slaughter many true believers, uninfected by the heresy... he said, and I don't have the exact quote.. that the Lord would sort out his own... the true believers would go to heaven while the heretics went to hell.

I can't imagine a modern western leader giving such an order, or having it obeyed.

So morality is a social artefact, not a divine directive, and only the most pigheadedly blind would argue that this is not so.


2. Belief or thought

The proposition that, based on available evidence, someone believes that there is a probability of sentient life elsewhere contains within it a recognition that there is a (lesser) probability that no such life exists. In other words, this 'belief' is actually a thought or a hypothesis recognized by its holder as contingent upon the evidence and subject to re-evaluation... and, most importantly, it is not an article of faith.

Thus it is not equivalent to the absolute certainty that religion requires of its victims: the surety WITHOUT EVIDENCE that one's particular god exists.

If you really can't see the difference, well, I feel sorry, not for you since you need no sympathy, cloaked as you are in your invincible ignorance, but for the rest of us. Not because any one true believer is a risk, but because this mindset plays an enormous role in American politics. Indeed, it is arguable that this mindset is responsible for the Iraq debacle, since Bush is proud of the fact that he makes his decisions after praying for guidance... and getting it! When god speaks to you and tells you to do what you always wanted to do, it is a very liberating thing for you, but not for the people you intend to kill with god's blessing. When god told Bush to go ahead with the invasion, we got hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless billions of dollars wasted, and a clean conscience on the man who caused it all... after all, he has NO doubt about the existence of the god who gave him the green light.

Had Bush entertained any doubt about his faith... were he a rational being, then bin laden would probably have been brought to justice by now (imagine the armed forces in Iraq being in Afghanistan all this time, imagine spending the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq in pursuit of bin Laden). And then imagine spending a fraction of the cost of the war on terror on helping moderate Palestinians build a prosperous democracy without guns.... reversing the image of the US in the islamic world.... but he couldn't do that, and the US can't do that, largely for religious reasons.

Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" – "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his

dates back to the Albigensian Crusade

[sceptic]

I have a question about morality or ethics, you decide how to catorgorise it

A man watches another man gets stabbed in the street the assailant runs away, the man watches the other man die slowly, this takes over an hour, he does not call for help (the only reason for doing this is he did not like that man)


A father is in hospital his daughter is critical and has lost a lot of blood, the surgeon says she needs a blood transfussion or she will die, the man sits next to his daughter and watches her die, it takes 4 hours he refused to allow a transfusion to take place

The girl was brought up by her religious parents and was brainwashed into being a Jehovahs witness, she used to go out and do things that were done by people not of that faith as she had to try an appear dedicated to her faith or she would be ostricised (this is quite common for a lot of religions I believe, I certainly have experienced this on numerous occasions ) had the girl been able to speak she may well have asked for a transfusion against her fathers wishes

any one see a difference?

Religion is not a set of values I would want to associate myself with and the funny thing is getting back to my questionwhich is. Is life not the most important thing there is? or is belief more important?

[mike777]

sceptic, on Jan 4 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

I have a question about morality or ethics, you decide how to catorgorise it

A man watches another man gets stabbed in the street the assailant runs away, the man  watches the other man die slowly, this takes over an hour, he does not call for help (the only reason for doing this is he did not like that man)


A father is in hospital his daughter is critical and has lost a lot of blood, the surgeon says she needs a blood transfussion or she will die, the man sits next to his daughter and watches her die, it takes 4 hours he refused to allow a transfusion to take place

The girl was brought up by her religious parents and was brainwashed into being a Jehovahs witness, she used to go out and do things that were done by people not of that faith as she had to try an appear dedicated to her faith or she would be ostricised (this is quite common for a lot of religions I believe, I certainly have experienced this on numerous occasions ) had the girl been able to speak she may well have asked for a transfusion against her fathers wishes

any one see a difference?

Religion is not a set of values I would want to associate myself with and the funny thing is getting back to my questionwhich is.  Is life not the most important thing there is? or is belief more important?

First off to answer your last question, no life is not the most important thing. I would guess not even for the human, selfish, godless, souless gene. Replicating itself may take a higher priority even at the cost of it's own life.

I would guess most religions would say God is more important than our lives or the lives of our children.
Of course many religions have some form of eternal, everlasting, life also.


Wayne, must you always do anything to save a life? If there are limits then morality plays a huge role in what those limits are. In fact I would say morality is the issue here.

Religion, God, sets those moral rules for many.
If the nation state wants to overrule this, it does.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jan 4 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

you keep making statements like this but everyone who has read even a little on the subject knows that some of the finest minds throughout history have and do offer logical and philosophically sound "accepted line(s) of reasoning" ... have you read any of those arguments? how are they illogical?

This is a ridiculous comment

Yes... Many of the finest minds throughout history have offered logical proofs for the existence of God. However, there is good reason that this same territory continuously gets revisited: None of these worthies has every sucessfully offered any kind of conclusive proof. (If any of them had, the nature of philosophy would look a hell of a lot different)

it might be ridiculous if i'd actually said that... the point i was trying to make thruout this discussion is that one can believe a thing and even reason for that belief in a logical fashion - or at least by not being called illogical or irrational... i don't think any of those "finest minds" have ever been called either

helene_t, on Jan 4 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

Barmar offered an explanation of why (s)he thinks faith is illogical. What more do you want, Jimmy? Nobody asks you to agree.

helene, i just want him or someone to tell me how such a belief can be illogical when a very quick glimpse at the writings of some of the most accomplished and logical people in history might change his mind

Quote

As for this burden schurmden thing - I think it's perfectly ok to make blanket statements without references or reasoning. Let alone "proof" (the concepts discussed in this thread are way to vague for "proofs" to apply anyway). Those who don't like blanket statements can just ignore them. Those who want references can find them with google.

it depends on the blanket statements and it depends on how seriously a person wants his point to be taken

PassedOut, on Jan 4 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

you might not need the bible, but you do need something... if you have an 'inherent sense of morality', what is it a product of? is it totally subjective or are there things you believe all "moral" people hold in common?

In my opinion, asking what morality is "a product of" is like asking what language is "a product of."

We evolved as social creatures. Both language and morality provided our ancestors significant advantages in coordinating activities and in maintaining group cohesion. Now our brains possess an increased ability to understand both linguistic and moral concepts.

Surely all basic moral concepts originally passed from generation to generation in the form of interesting tales repeated -- and embellished upon -- by the wiser elders in the successful groups. Claiming that god was responsible for those concepts and stories gave them more weight and gave the elders more authority.

that isn't what i was getting at, but helene said so below... she's right, todd's thread is much better on this subject

mikeh, on Jan 4 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

Two points to which I wish to reply:

1. Moral code.

Unless you argue that atheists, buddhists and others are amoral people, it seesm hard to defend the proposition that we need divinely mandated moral codes.

So morality is a social artefact, not a divine directive, and only the most pigheadedly blind would argue that this is not so.

i don't think and have never said that those groups are amoral, although i would argue whether or not morality is a social atrifact

Quote

2. Belief or thought

The proposition that, based on available evidence, someone believes that there is a probability of sentient life elsewhere contains within it a recognition that there is a (lesser) probability that no such life exists. In other words, this 'belief' is actually a thought or a hypothesis recognized by its holder as contingent upon the evidence and subject to re-evaluation... and, most importantly, it is not an article of faith.

Thus it is not equivalent to the absolute certainty that religion requires of its victims: the surety WITHOUT EVIDENCE that one's particular god exists.

mike, i sincerely don't know why you're arguing what you're arguing, i didn't take that stance... for the last time, barmar made a statement concerning the scientific method and logic and i simply asked for clarification

Quote

If you really can't see the difference, well, I feel sorry, not for you since you need no sympathy, cloaked as you are in your invincible ignorance, but for the rest of us.

wow... i suppose we're all invincibly ignorant of one thing or another, in one way or another... are you less so that most of us, or are your ignorances more acceptable to you because they are - well, they are yours?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

as i've simply asked you to answer questions... you won't, ok, we all know what that means...silence can be deafening... but if you believe the burden of proof in this type argument is meaningless, that explains a lot

i have defended what i 'strongly implied' by offering analogies and syllogisms, using your own words as starting points... so far you haven't disputed any of them

What is all this burden of proof talk? Are you suing me?

It's hard to keep up with your questions, since so many of your answers to everyone's questions are further questions.

How about fewer analogies and syllogisms (which I don't even see, although I'm sure you can direct me there), and more direct response?


My beliefs are logical because _______________________________, by Lukewarm.

[luke warm]

sigh... my beliefs are not *illogical* simply because they aren't subject to the scientific method... that's all i've said all along, and i thought you knew that

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

sigh... my beliefs are not *illogical* simply because they aren't subject to the scientific method... that's all i've said all along, and i thought you knew that

I read your post as stating that 'my beliefs are not illogical because I say so'

Indeed, I completely fail to see any other interpretation open to the reader. Not once have you offered any logical analysis of your belief structure, or why you believe (and really you need to say why you 'think' rather than why you believe) that a belief in a proposition that it untestable is 'logical'

What premises underly this belief? How do we get from the premises to the 'proof' of the belief? I venture to suggest that the argument will be circular: I believe such and such, I believe that there is no other rational explanation, therefore my belief is logical.

Once you admit, as an intellectual exercise if nothing more, that MAYBE your particular god has no more validity than the gods of the ancient Greeks, or the gods of the Hindi or the god of islam, and that there is at least a chance that maybe there is no god that is recognizable as any of these.... then your premises fall away and your assured belief is shown for what it is: unreasoning superstition.

Religion is like going to the movies: to enjoy it requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

As for the comment about my ignorance: the point is that I freely confess to ignorance about many things, including answers to ultimate questions. This ignorance is NOT the invincible ignorance that fetters religious minds precisely because it entails both a recognition that there are areas to which we currently lack answers and a willingness, indeed an eagerness, to pay attention to evidence that will cast a light on those areas. The invincible ignorance of the religious mind consists of its utter assuredness that it KNOWS the answers.. the answers involve the worshipper's god! God is the answer to everything, and we can stop thinking at that boundary... and perish the thought that we admit that the notion of god is itself a social construct.

Let me see if I can set it out simply for you:

1. Human society has created many gods that we know of, and it seems reasonable to assume that pre-historical societies also worshipped various supernatural powers

2. Given that each believer in a religion believes that his god or gods are the true gods, the majority of religious believers both now and over the timeline of religious belief as a human phenomena must be wrong. Why should an outside observer, if prepared (as I am) to contemplate that some god may exist, conclude that you are right and all the others are wrong?

3. There is no way to prove which, if any, of the god or gods are more likely to be real than any other one. Efforts to find such proof (the famous prayer study of a couple of years ago.. other studies on the effectiveness of the 'laying on of hands' and so on) have generated no positive correlation between religious practices and real world outcomes.

4. The area of human ignorance susceptible to explanation by recourse to divine forces rather than prosaic physical causes now identified by the scientific method is diminishing at an increasing pace

5. In those areas of continuing ignorance, god is a plausible explanation unless one then seeks to understand 'how' the god explanation answers the real questions without immediately raising the 'who created god' question. But the fact that the god explanation MAY be plausible does not mean that it is the ONLY plausible explanation, nor that it is the CORRECT explanation... and there is neither a logical nor a rational argument that it is the ONLY plausible argument...if there is, please share it with us. BTW, your answer must specify and compell the reader to conclude that your particular god is the only real one.... and maybe, once you've worked that out, you can send it to the islamists, jews, hindis, mormons, etc.

6. Unless you can do all of this, an absolute belief in the existence of your god is surely an example of invincible ignorance

Exchanging posts with you is a frustrating exercise because, while you know the words, you don't appear to know the language.... you either deliberately or through ignorance fail to follow the reasoning that others put forward. Your replies quote the words of the posts in question, but do not address the meaning. That is what I mean, in part, by invincible ignorance.

[Al_U_Card]

Its agartha and shamballah all over again! Try this vid on for size. Guaranteed to enlighten your load.

http://video.google....611327825391213

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jan 4 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

sigh... my beliefs are not *illogical* simply because they aren't subject to the scientific method... that's all i've said all along, and i thought you knew that

I read your post as stating that 'my beliefs are not illogical because I say so'

Indeed, I completely fail to see any other interpretation open to the reader. Not once have you offered any logical analysis of your belief structure, or why you believe (and really you need to say why you 'think' rather than why you believe) that a belief in a proposition that it untestable is 'logical'

ok mike, be intellectually honest here... go back to my first response to barmar and tell me in your opinion what i was saying/asking... let's start there, at the beginning

[barmar]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 4 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

sigh... my beliefs are not *illogical* simply because they aren't subject to the scientific method... that's all i've said all along, and i thought you knew that

I read your post as stating that 'my beliefs are not illogical because I say so'

Indeed, I completely fail to see any other interpretation open to the reader. Not once have you offered any logical analysis of your belief structure, or why you believe (and really you need to say why you 'think' rather than why you believe) that a belief in a proposition that it untestable is 'logical'

ok mike, be intellectually honest here... go back to my first response to barmar and tell me in your opinion what i was saying/asking... let's start there, at the beginning

I don't know about Mike, but I have a hard time reading any of your responses, they ramble on and on. This thread is too long to try to read them thoroughly. And searching through over 150 posts to find your "first response" is too bothersome.

So do you think you could summarize your position succinctly?

[luke warm]

barmar, on Jan 4 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 4 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

sigh... my beliefs are not *illogical* simply because they aren't subject to the scientific method... that's all i've said all along, and i thought you knew that

I read your post as stating that 'my beliefs are not illogical because I say so'

Indeed, I completely fail to see any other interpretation open to the reader. Not once have you offered any logical analysis of your belief structure, or why you believe (and really you need to say why you 'think' rather than why you believe) that a belief in a proposition that it untestable is 'logical'

ok mike, be intellectually honest here... go back to my first response to barmar and tell me in your opinion what i was saying/asking... let's start there, at the beginning

I don't know about Mike, but I have a hard time reading any of your responses, they ramble on and on. This thread is too long to try to read them thoroughly. And searching through over 150 posts to find your "first response" is too bothersome.

So do you think you could summarize your position succinctly?

here is the original

luke warm, on Jan 1 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

as you can see all i did was ask you to explain how my belief is illogical.. from that simple question we have all that followed, people constructing straw men, people attempting to make me defend something i never claimed... and i *did* ask the question to read the answer, because it's possible your assertion is right, that my belief is illogical unless it can be proved by the scientific method... how can we know though until you tell me if your words mean what they appear to mean and how you arrive at that conclusion

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 4 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

sigh... my beliefs are not *illogical* simply because they aren't subject to the scientific method... that's all i've said all along, and i thought you knew that

I read your post as stating that 'my beliefs are not illogical because I say so'

Indeed, I completely fail to see any other interpretation open to the reader. Not once have you offered any logical analysis of your belief structure, or why you believe (and really you need to say why you 'think' rather than why you believe) that a belief in a proposition that it untestable is 'logical'

ok mike, be intellectually honest here... go back to my first response to barmar and tell me in your opinion what i was saying/asking... let's start there, at the beginning

'i believe Christ was crucified and arose.... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical'

A direct quote.

Scientific reasoning and logic are not equivalent. Scientific reasoning uses logic: logic is a tool for reasoning. Scientific reasoning takes facts ascertained by observation, or when constructing some theories, takes hypothetical facts assumed for the sake of argument, and then applies logical rules to them to see if the facts fit with the theory... or, when not yet dealing with facts, whether the theory give rise to expectations re future-discoverable facts that can be tested for.

But (while I have not studied philosophy nor taken courses in logic beyond relatively easy math in engineering many years ago) my understanding is that logical reasoning can be applied to situations that we do not ever expect to be 'real world' scenarios. We propose certain premises or axioms and construct an intellectual concept by applying rules of logic to those premises or axioms.

With this in mind, it is not possible for a third party to form an opinion as to whether your belief, stated as above, is logical or illogical.

And I think that josh has, in other language, attempted to make this point.

You have stated your conclusion: that, as a matter of fact, Christ arose from the dead after dying on the cross.

But it is impossible to tell whether that conclusion was arrived at logically when you refuse to articulate the facts and assumptions and the logical steps followed by you in arriving at that conclusion.

When someone states only that they acknowledge that there is no way to objectively test the validity of their belief and refuse/fail to articulate any other basis for the formulation of that belief, then the most rational conclusion appears to be that the belief was formed illogically....

Now, a possible logical argument might go as follows:

I have read the Bible. We know from historical research that many of the events at the time and general location of this event as recounted in the bible are supported by and consistent with other, non-religious records.. thus we know that Pilate was the imperial representative, we know that the romans accorded their subjects significant elements of self-government, we know that jesus's activities were antithetical to much of the contemporaneous establishment, and so on.

There are several relatively consistent versions, in the various gospels, of the events leading to the death of jesus.

There are stories purporting to be eye-witness accounts of his grave being found empty after his death and of his being seen by and speaking to a few of his apostles.

If we accept that these stories are accurate and truthful accounts, then, while the resurrection offends our understanding of human physiology, he did arise and that can only be explained by invocation of supernatural powers.

I do find that these stories ring true and I therefore believe in the resurrection.

Of course, a rational person would at least consider a number of other factors and would weigh the apparent effects of these factors in deciding whether to accept the biblical version(s) at face value.

These include such matters as:

1. The gospels were not written by the participants in the events. Not one eyewitness ever wrote any of the documents that are now assembled as the New Testament, even tho the names of some of the participants are attached to the gospels. It is as if I wrote a novel in the name of Isaac Newton and later generations were to call it the autobiography of Newton. Even if I have access to some of his papers (and we have no evidence that the actual scribes of the gospels had any such access, nor that any of the apostles kept records) and even if I did meticulous historical research (which was not likely possible in the 300-500 years after the event in question), it would be absurd for later generations to accept at face value any inherently unlikely story I made up about Newton.

2. The authors of the gospels had a mission. They were in the process of creating/justifying/spreading a religion at a time when even educated people believed in the supernatural. People expected the founders of religion to have or to at least claim supernatural powers. Jesus would have made for a sorry founding figure if there were no claims of miracles associated with him. What better story than that he rose from the dead? In this vein, how do you deal with the stories about the founder of the Mormon sect or about Mohammed.... muslims believe that god dictated the Koran to him.... why not believe him... an historical figure who actually did write or personally dictate his holy book...how can you reject him and yet accept as factually accurate the stories scribed by men who were not born for generations after the alleged resurrection?

3. Tales get magnified in the retelling. How many times has Elvis been seen in the last 30 years?

It seems to me that the willing suspension of disbelief has to work overtime in order for a rational mind to ignore these and other arguments to the effect that the resurrection probably didn't actually happen

Bear in mind that this post is written more or less as a stream of consciousness response to your invitation, and not as an attempt to marshal all of the logical arguments against a belief in the resurrection. But I suggest to you, Jimmy, that unless you have a rational and logical answer for these concerns, such as to render them utterly invalid... such as to disprove them... then the holding fast to a firm belief in the resurrection is indeed not only irrational but also illogical.

[luke warm]

mike said:

me said:

i believe Christ was crucified and arose.... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical'

A direct quote.

yes, and not an awful lot out of context... as i did above i'll post the entire thing here

luke warm, on Jan 1 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

as you can see, i asked a question and from that flowed all of this

Quote

But (while I have not studied philosophy nor taken courses in logic beyond relatively easy math in engineering many years ago) my understanding is that logical reasoning can be applied to situations that we do not ever expect to be 'real world' scenarios. We propose certain premises or axioms and construct an intellectual concept by applying rules of logic to those premises or axioms.

With this in mind, it is not possible for a third party to form an opinion as to whether your belief, stated as above, is logical or illogical.

it's true that the rules of logic can be applied to almost any argument to test for soundness... is this or that argument reasonable, is it sound? but i think you're starting to slide a little... it doesn't matter whether or not my belief as stated is logical or illogical, all that matters is whether or not my belief must meet the requirements of the 'scientific method' in order to be logical... that's what barmar asserted and that's what i questioned

Quote

You have stated your conclusion: that, as a matter of fact, Christ arose from the dead after dying on the cross. But it is impossible to tell whether that conclusion was arrived at logically when you refuse to articulate the facts and assumptions and the logical steps followed by you in arriving at that conclusion.

first of all, i stated my *belief* that Christ arose... and mike, it's my opinion that you're missing the point again when you wonder whether or not my belief was/is arrived at logically - for the 100th time, it doesn't matter... all that matters is whether or not my belief is illogical because it fails to meet whatever burden the scientific method places on it... *that* was the assertion

Quote

When someone states only that they acknowledge that there is no way to objectively test the validity of their belief and refuse/fail to articulate any other basis for the formulation of that belief, then the most rational conclusion appears to be that the belief was formed illogically....

again mike, it doesn't matter whether or not my belief was formed illogically, that has nothing to do with barmar's assertion or my question.. now if or when he answers me, *then* it might play a role

Quote

Now, a possible logical argument might go as follows:

i'm sorry to keep harping on this, mike, but i don't know of any other way to make you see what i'm trying to say... i am not interested in making a logical argument for my belief, i'm interested in knowing why the holding of that belief is illogical simply because it doesn't meet the tests of the scientific method... see?

Quote

But I suggest to you, Jimmy, that unless you have a rational and logical answer for these concerns, such as to render them utterly invalid... such as to disprove them... then the holding fast to a firm belief in the resurrection is indeed not only irrational but also illogical.

and there's absolutely nothing wrong with your holding that view, nothing at all... maybe my belief is irrational, maybe it is illogical... but is it either because it fails to meet some scientific method test? at this time that's all i was interested in

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 4 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

maybe my belief is irrational, maybe it is illogical... but is it either because it fails to meet some scientific method test? at this time that's all i was interested in

You are entirely missing the point. I finally get it now, you just want to have a completely pointless discussion. Rather than, like like everyone else, discussing something interesting like "is this belief logical, if so why, if not why not", you want to discuss "is one proposed reason that this belief is illogical a valid one". Uh, why? So you don't even want to argue it's not illogical, you just want to argue against one reason that it's illogical? Have fun.

(Made slight edits after the fact, now differs from where it is quoted below.)

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

I probably should not butt in as I do not have the education that many other posters possess, but reading this thread brought something to mind.

As I'm sure you remember, I was raised in a strict fundamenalist Protestant home, so I certainly don't mean a personal affront to believers.

John Maynard Keynes once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

To me, this is the sane, rational, and logical thing to do. And it is at the heart of your question.

So, to answer, I do not believe it is illogical to believe in the resurrection simply because it is not scientifically testable, but I do think it is illogical because it is illogical to hold a belief that does not allow a challenge to that belief as facts and knowledge change.

As this belief is an inviolate part of Christian beliefs, it cannot be challenged without abandoning the belief.

This, IMO, is why Christians fight so hard to explain the scriptural paradoxes as justifiable under the belief system, whereas, again IMO, the logical thing to do would be instead of fighting to hold onto the belief, put belief on hold until more information was available.

So, to recap, I do not believe the illogic stems from the non-testability but from the anti-questioning nature of the belief.

[helene_t]

What's so interesting about discussing whether a particular belief is logical, Josh? I don't even know what the word "logical" means in that contexts. Fluffy's assertion that we will adapt to the Martian field of gravity if we migrate to Mars might be interesting to discuss. But a discussion about whether it is "logical"? No thanks.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jan 4 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

What's so interesting about discussing whether a particular belief is logical, Josh? I don't even know what the word "logical" means in that contexts. Fluffy's assertion that we will adapt to the Martian field of gravity if we migrate to Mars might be interesting to discuss. But a discussion about whether it is "logical"? No thanks.

Well I'm not sure what you are doing posting in a discussion which you find uninteresting and don't understand the meaning of...

[Winstonm]

Quote

Fluffy's assertion that we will adapt to the Martian field of gravity if we migrate to Mars might be interesting to discuss

Is it logical to believe we might migrate to Mars, though?