Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable?

Becasue you can'T have both. Believing in a relgion means your reason has to surrender, you do not wish to know - you blindly believe, untested, unchecked, unproven. You submit to simply believe in hear-say, and give up logic and reason. That si the deal.


How can a religious person say that the things we discover through reason and science are not part of some divine plan that is utterly beyond our comprehension?

What need is there to make that assumption? I myself can happily live without depending on finding the ultimate answer to some questions. I can accept to say "I don't know", without seeing a need to invent a joker that i use to raise the illusion to know where i do not know in fact.

And do we discover things and nature as they really are? I say we do not perceive things as they are,. but form our own, selfcreated image inside our mind. Our senses do just fire electric impulses along our nerves and into the brain - there it is where a rythm and intensity of electrical opulses get interporeted as forms, colurs, sounds, smells and tastes. Prove that things really are like your image in your mind! you can't.

You want to assume there is a plan behind it all? that is your assumption. Prove that as well. Evidence, please. Just believing - well, believe what you want. beoueving is not knowing.

And do not answer that I cannot prove that it is not like you say. You are the one trying to sell an invisible car here, not me. The burden of evidence is with you.


Would believeing that one could truly understand God not be supremely arrogant?

Isn't believing that one believes correctly and in the right god - arrogant as well? talking of an invisble car: you never have seen its form and colour, then, you even never drove in it since you do not know where the door is. But you want to advise me on buying it...?


How can an atheist person explain infinity? Where do the questions stop? Can something really "cease to exist"? How does one explain that life is the only force of perpetual order in a universe dominated by entropy?

Entropy is by far no conception undisputed in science. It is a theory, or even a paradigm if you want. Wether or not cosmos in infinite, or not (since it is said it is still expanding, it then could not be infinite at the same time according to our earthly logic), we do not know. It also is of not so much importance for us, since we nevertheless live our lives with all it's ups and downs right here where we are. wether the universe out there really exists, or is just a creation of our mind, we cannot say with all safety. but we can say that things are not like our senses seem to describe them for us. we construct and interpret what reality is to be. Heisenberg: What we see never is nature itself, but nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it. Niels Bohr, another giant in the world of physics, said something like that physics do not deal with reality, but with our ways and fashions to give an imagined form to what has no form or has a form we do not know and cannot perceive. In other words: we deal with our own crutches, and thinking models. We need them, because for the human psyche a life in total insecurity and without the assumption that we can influence our future life, is unbearable. we need the illusions to be the masters of our fate, and to have influence over our future, else we become mentally ill, and our psyche suffers. Our personality can break apart from that. Religion is such a crutch, so is parts of science. It's just that science are aware of that, while religion is not. responsible scientists never say they know the truth, and they will stress that all scientific "truth" is theory, is a paradigm which will live for some time, and then changes again. but religion always missionises by proclaiming eternal, never-changing truths - although these never were checked, questioned, critically exmained, analysed. It's "truths" are just to be believed, with reference to old books people had written long time ago, like little kids believe in the good fairy to take care of their teddy-bear.

Wouldn't it be best for both parties to simply agree that they don't know? Religion certainly has had its' share of nut-jobs, but so has science.

As I said, responsible scientists already will do that, and the evidence for them doing so is there, in print. the problem is theistic religions, they will listen to what you say, and then interrupt you and say, "yes, but I BELIEVE different." that is the point where all reason,logic and argument always comes to a sudden death. You cannot debate with religious believers, therefore, it is not in thei code of communication. They BELIEVE. Hell, even buddhism - originally not knowing any deities and gods - showed not to be invulnerabel to this deformation of human mind.


I think the principle issue here is power, both political and social.
Both could easily exsist together given a modicum of tolerance and respect for personal freedom, and yet neither has been innocent of intolerance.

the lion's share of guilt for being intolerant has to be accepted by theistic relgions, no doubt. And by that i mean not only the present, but all history of the past 3000 years.


Religion calls the unfaithful heretics, atheists call the religious idiots. Not so different from any other power struggle no?

It is different, because you claim respect and same eye level for believing stuff that you simply do not know, and cannot make object of analysis and examination. And that is just absurd, because you have nothing of value to offer to justify believing being seen as of same potency as logic and reason. religion is the realm of irrationality. Reason obviously is not. Both could not be more different.

Again, you want selling an invisible car being treated as of same value and respectability like selling a real, visible car that people actually drive with on the street. Guess where I prefer to buy my own car, then!

You want respect for believing? then give us evidence for the object of your belief, simply old-fashioned solid evidence worth the label of "evidence". but then you would not need to believe, but you would KNOW it! It's a hard world, isn't it. :lol:

"I believe man is nothing more than the highly developed form of a bicycle."

A differrence worth to be made, is between "believing", and "trust". believing is hear-say, and erratically making a systematic effort to take something unknown, unchecked and unquestioned as a known truth and then blidnly believe in that, mistaking it for real knowledge. But trust is an empirically justified confidence.



Do not put faith in traditions, even though they
have been accepted for long generations and
in many countries. Do not believe a thing because
many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on
the authority of one or another of the sages of
old, nor on the ground of statements as found
in the books. Never believe anything because
probability is in its favour. Do not believe in
that which you yourselves have imagined,
thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe
nothing merely on the authority of the teachers
or the priests. After examination, believe that
which you have tested for yourself and found
reasonable, which is in conformity with your
well being and that of others.

Kalamas-Sutra

I think "religion" and "God" shouldn't necessary go into the same category.

While science may prove one thing or another, maybe something divine caused it to happen? Like the Big Bang theory. All that matter suddenly exploding causing this and that, badabing badaboom, universe is here. Religious people say it's God(s) that created it, while science clamed it was a natural thing caused by X and Y....well....I think that maybe it was something divine that caused the thing that caused X and Y etc...

Although I'm not religious, I rather like to argue for their cause. Although I can see ALOT of weird stuff in the Bible and in the Qur'an, (what I read from it anyway) I can always see why people believe it so. Also, a theory that I often point out, is that God(s) are simply too complicated for us to understand. Maybe there is a God/number of Gods, but really, how big are the chances that any of the worlds religions views are the exact correct one.

woah, bit messy text here, bear with me lads, I've had a bad day...

Snippy? No, not really. A little defensive maybe.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but you wrote it as a direct reply to my comments, and without qualification, so I assumed it was aimed at me. 'S what I get for assumin'.

I agree that faith gives a lot of people hope, but rational atheists question whether that hope is based on anything real. I qualify 'rational', because I have know atheists who were as honest as anyone could be, and simply don't believe because they see no reason to, and I have met and seen atheists who were just what vocal public Christians like to claim they all are - a 'godless religion'. Ellen Johnson, publisher of American Atheist magazine, is one of those. To me her writings sound just like the ravings of the worst religious fanatic.

Most atheists, like most people of all stripes, are of the 'live and let live' variety, and it bothers me to see them dismissed or lumped in with the usual small rabble-rousing groups. But, as with all other groups, I firmly believe that 'Freedom of Religion', like all other freedoms, includes the freedom to disagree, or to not believe at all. Once again, Thomas Jefferson, referring to The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which he authored:

I protest againts that statement :down:

You are talking about the common majoritary forms of religion like christianism, jewish and islam, but those are not the only meanings of the concept "religion". A religion as I understand it is a form of relationship between man and God, where the man tries to accomodate his actions to what he considers is God's will. The problem comes when you try to determine what is God's will, and here we come to the revealed religions, to whose I'm a firm opposer. But you could equally consider as religion any form of cult and relationship with God whose rules or commandments are not revealed but instead deducted through logic and philosophy (ethics, moral).

For example, I'm Deist and hence beliece that an allmighty creator God exists, but I have arrived to that conclusion through reasoning and reading what philosophers like Locke, Hume or Montesquieu (All of them Deists) have argued. And my understanding of what God pretends from us is deducted from natural law (Since I studied laws I'm familiar with that disicipline) and moral. I consider that all a form of "religion", and yet my reasoning has never submitted to any dogma in the process of adopting it.

In my opinion you are confusing the concepts of faith and religion. Faith is where reasoning is meant to surrender and is incompatible with, as both are supposedly in different dimensions of the human -spiritual and intellectual-.

@ Skybird

Predictably, you have a mountain of logical arguments against religion, so do I.
And you're right, I can't come up with any real evidence that isn't a series of dubious links between order in the natural world and the existence of a real divine structure.

But don't think I'd ever try to sell you an invisible car. I only ask that you let me enjoy mine:D

Personally, I have a real car and an invisible car, and I enjoy them both, if you take my meaning. :yep: If I choose to be a fool by doing so then I choose to be a fool. What harm is there to anyone in that?

Naturally, we agree that religions should not pursue forcible or even consistent conversion of others. Actually, we agree on a lot of things, but I'll keep my faith. Based on what may be entirely a series of coincidences and misperceptions on my part, it has served me well.

As with all things, I advocate lassiez-faire policy as far as it can be reasonably taken. And that means religous tolerance of atheism and other religions as well.
(note: NOT accomodation, though. We both know the dangers of that.)

So, do you still think religion and atheism are irreconcileable? Or at the least, do you think my views cannot co-exist with your own?

I agree to a great extent with you. Atheist can and do have morals. However, there are those factions that present themselves as amoralists which i think give Atheists a bad rap by and large. The worse offender of this was Anton Lavey, who despised Christians and cited their alleged hypocrisy as the reason he started the Church of Satan. Which he himself denies exists...The premise for him was anything goes...quite simply he was an amoralist who used Christianity to invent a very clever religion to indulge immoral behavior and label it as a religion. Psychologically he was angered at Christianity not because of hypocrisy but because to him they represented a moral structure that he did not like nor did he want to abide by. They were the logical choice to target here in America. The man himself was a hypocrit in that he vaunted Satan to attract a certain demograph of people, but publically and often denied he existed. And no, I am not saying atheist are satanist here. But this represents a group who deny the existance of any deity and simply worship self and desires, to group them all together would indeed be misguided.

As I recall, you original formulation was "Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable", and yes, I stick to it, reason and logic on the one side and religious belief on the other cannot be had both at the same time.

However, on your compariosn relgion and atheism, I commit myself to the motto formulated by Sailor steve: I have no problem with anyone who does not raise a problem to me. I do not care what kind of colour you have on the walls of your flat - as long as you do not come here and tell me I need to colour my walls the same way.

I also do not care for religions being around as long as they do not try to reform the society I live in according to their religious demands and teachings, but keep for themselves. Unfortunately, in case of certain Christian sects, this is not the case, which is obvious in the US with evangelicals and fundamentalists, and also happens in europe, just not on such an obvious scale. I am not American, but you get the general idea behind me linking this (once again):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

"Keep thy religion to thyself."

You imply that a deity exists. That already is a belief that in no way you can prove, and not a reasonable conclusion or the result of a test by terms of logic and empiry. In other words: you believe.

Protest rejected. ;)

I personally separate spirituality from religion. Spirituality means, in the widest meaning of it, to be self-reflexive, to
realise that there is you and non-you, and to think about and be interested in the relation between both, and the
answers to the questions why we are here, where we come from, where we go, and how much time we have. In this sense, every man is "spiritual", even if he avoides the question by becoming a hedonist or materialist - then this may be his way of
dealing with these existential challenges: active ignorration, and destraction. religion, on the other hand, is an
institutionalised cult that claims to have the answers and in form of a dogma demands not to doubt them but to
believe them, and often a hierarchy of priests and clerics live not bad from regulating the teaching of these to the
people. So, the spiritual man tries to find the answers to his existential questions by his own effort and direct
experience, while religion replaces direct experience with hear-say and keeps you away from experiencing and
learning yourself: it turns you into a dogmatist instead.

Being spiritual and being religious are total contradictions - and according to this I have taught all people and
students I ever had in my meditation courses. I claim that it worked out well that way - many of them had left religions behind
in dissapointment over their dogmatism and "just believing", and then came to me. A mystical experience that you do not make yourself, is no mystical experience, and is of no worth for you. The enlightenment of somebody else is of as much worth for
you like watching somebody else drinking a glass of water when you yourself are thirsty. you are also not helped by reading how water feels, and oainting a precise picture of a glass of water also does not help ypu. you need to drink yourself, and when you are done - you will leave it behind and will not think of it anymore.

Aim for your own direct experience, if you feel you are on the search. But be warned, it canot be done, but the key mnay be not to do yourself so much, but just to let yourself, and not being obsessed with managing your spiritual fate. Other people's answers - including mine! - cannot be of any meaning for you - you are not them. Forget the old books. Ignore the religious dogmas. stop trying to put a second head onto your shoulders - use your own, its right there where it should be and works best. If you pay attention to all this glitter called relgion and practicing and God and belief, you lose time. And you do not know how much time you still have. Possible that your life is over in the next hour. there is only two things you can be certain of: that you will die, and that all that you have is the present moment. The present moment is the
gate to eternity. Whatever there is beside that, you will lose it sooner or later.

From my own rework of the TaoTeKing:

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner Essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires, means to reach the invisible inside.
Acting with desires, means to stay by the limited outside.
The all-One and the all-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and in name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to true understanding.


Das Wesen, das begriffen werden kann,
Ist nicht das Wesen des Unbegreiflichen.
Die Vorstellung, die gedacht werden kann,
Ist nicht das Abbild des Ewigen.
Namenlos ist das Eine, ist inneres Wesen.
Mit Namen benannt ist die Vielheit, ist äußere Form.
Begehrdenlos lassen heißt das geheime Innere erfahren.
Begehrdenvoll tun heißt dem begrenzten Äußeren verfallen.
Eines und Vieles sind gleichen Ursprungs,
Ungleich nur in der Erscheinung und im Namen.
Ihr Gemeinsames ist das Wunder,
Das Geheimnis dieses Wunders
Ist das Tor allen Verständnisses.

As is true of any group. I try to avoid extremism in any form, including the mild version of absolutism. If one is right the other has to be wrong, and being forced into the wrong choice worries me more than anything.

Of course I'm faced with the dilemma that that might be a form of absolutism in itself. Sometimes reason is more trouble than it's worth.

Nope, I can proof that a Deity exists with logic, like Deschartes and all philosophers I indicated did already. You can question the logic in the reasoning, but you never can say that there is a conceptual jump anywhere, forcing you to "blindly believe" in anything.

I agree with that only partially. As I said before, you still are confusing faith and religion.

When you refer to Descartes' ontologic evidence for God, I assume you are also familiar with Kant's and Mersenne's rejection of that attempt. Also Leibnitz argued that Descartes was basing on one basic wrong assumption from the very beginning: that god does exist he took as a given, and on that all his following thoughts are basing on. Descartes from the beginning moves inside a "Zirkelschluß" (circulus virtiosus), and his chain of thoughts thus result in a self-refering logical fallacy. Please - spare me Descartes. If you do not know the rejections by Kant, Mersenne and Leibnitz, there is material easily available on the web.

So, I stick to it, there is no evidence being given that a deity does exist.

I can, and I do, wether you like that or not. ;) Religions declare you a heretic if you start to critically analyse the dogma of theirs, for the dogma is what they demand you to believe, with the act of believing declared to be a virtue that is the stronger, the more you resist the temptation to check and analyse it and want to see evidence for the dogma's claims being true. That is the essence of religion. It is a cultic surrogate for direct experience, not a mystic experience itself.

there is a danger that we mistake terms and labels here, so I have checked with the dictionary again, using faith as "Glaube, Gottvertrauen, religiöse Zuversicht", and trust as "Vertrauen" not limited to a purely religious context.

then faith IS part of religion, there is no religion without a faith. As I said before, I differ between sprituality and religion (which is not another form of differing between faith and religion, since spirituality and faith for me are two very different things as you can see from my description of spirituality in one earlier psoting), and even before that I said "a difference worth to be made, is between "believing", and "trust". Believing is hear-say, and erratically making a systematic effort to take something unknown, unchecked and unquestioned as a known truth and then blindly believe in that, mistaking it for real knowledge. But trust is an empirically justified confidence."

the important point to keep in mind about trust is "empirically justified".

When you claim there is a god or a deity, give me evidence for that. If you cannot, enjoy to drive in your invisible car - but not in my garden.

However, all this is nice and well and amusi9ng to kill some time, but it helps neither me nor you nor anyone else to live his life, in the present, and to exist in this precious moment that holds and e,mbraces all and evertyhing that ever was, is and will be. that is why such theological disputes and long volumes of written theology in true Zen tradition do not play a role, and are ignored. It would be of so incredibly much more use if you would be aware of your own breathing right now and understand what this present moment you live in really means. It's the most valuable gem there is - and it is the only one you can ever find, and will ever need. Theological debates - mean nothing.

So drink that damn water yourself, instead of just imagining to do so. If you don't, you'll die by dehydration - no matter how smart a clever Dick you are. Wether you know that it is made of H2O, or not, is unimportant.

P.S., you may be surprised, but I "believe" - if you forgive my little hijacking of that word, that life and world is not by random chance. I have good reason to do so. But that does not mean there is a need to conclude that there is a deity beside me and this world, which created both me and the world, and exsists separate, before, during and after it. Not at all.

Truer words were never said:up:

Yes indeed. Or even think of religion...!

IMO, Science is a form of Religion. So is Atheism. It is all about believe, either based on deity or ideology, indoctrination or education.
Even in the 'informed scientific community', people will be punished and ostracized if they dispute a popular scientific theory (Global Warming, anyone?), similar as it is in Religion, except they wont be burned on a stick anymore.

Science relies on evidence and doesn't even comment on the supernatural. Atheism goes against the basic principals of religion. Henceforth, neither is a religion, Thomen.;)