Interfaith discussions

[juantoo3]

What would be incredible is if these posts could be answered without the clan getting upset about someone believing what they believe is correct. I would be more OK with someone coming out and saying "I disagree because..." or even "Islam is not congruent to this because..." than someone coming out to tell me that I am incorrect because I believe in one truth.

Please take the last Sentence and make a new post. That is a prime example of a worthy TOPIC to discus such matters.

At Joe's request. Please guys, let's at least make a sincere effort. I can see many things that apply to *all* of us, not just Joe...things like what *precisely* we mean when we write something like "truth," about rhetoric vs logic, and about logical fallacies, and jumps to conclusion. This can be a worthwhile exercise for everyone, and I can plainly see most of us are out of shape when it comes to making rational and logically reasoned, scholarly statements.

I will begin with this one premise...no matter how we believe, or even if we don't believe, it is recognized by the sages and the rationalists across the last couple thousand years, that as we stand at this moment...there is no proof G!d exists.

Now...I want to be VERY clear...I am not stating unequivocally that G!d in fact does not exist. No one can, and that's the point. We don't know...from a scholarly, rational, reasoned, and logical point of view, we have no way to tell if G!d exists or doesn't.

So it doesn't matter if you personally believe, or don't, that He exists. Personally, I have plenty of experiences in my life that suggest G!d in some form does in fact exist, but I have learned over the years that I have no way to logically present that information. I can rhetorically pull on your heart strings with moving stories, but I cannot PROVE He exists.

I would say in an Interfaith discussion, that is probably the fundamental starting position...acceptance that G!d can neither be proven nor disproven.

I will pause for comment, but I hope in the near future to present a list of logical fallacies as well as a few working definitions of words like "truth." The hope is to maybe get some of us on a same or at least substantially similar page for some sincere discussion.

 

[wil]

Over the years I've come to terms with the fact that the most rational position is...Agnostic... While I have a belief system to which I subscribe...stating unequivocally atheist or believer just doesn't seem logical.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

If there were a path with no shortcomings, there would be no need for any other paths...and clearly G!d saw fit to provide *many* paths to His creation.

this is the "last sentence" I was referring to

But, this is one that I believe needs to get placed somewhere as well.

As stated in previous post, and I hope to bring it here without quoting so I will try to make it as original as possible, I believe there are truths for every aspect of existence and the hereafter. A truth in my opinion, is exactly the way things are intended to be. A truth of belief is as simple as recognizing that what you believe is correct. For instance, in Islam, the Shahada is an expression of that truth. "There is no God except Allah, and Mouhammed (PBUH) is his messenger". There is more to this announcement than just recognizing a prophet and monotheistic idea and that IMHO falls under this same aspect of truth of belief. Things taught by Mouhammed (PBUH) which includes Creation, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Djinn, Judgement Day, and the other type of truth that I use often, truth of path, among others of the unseen truths. This truth is ever dependent on the religion/worldview of the speaker. I would not expect a Muslim and Buddhist to agree on all of these, or any of these in some cases.

As truth of path, this reflects on the how of the religion. In Islam it it clearly spelled out as the 5 Pillars. This would also include rules, laws, and exceptions to those laws. What is right and wrong to do, essentially. If you follow these you are on the path commanded by the Creator and if you do this it will eventually lead to success (heaven, paradise, Nirvana, etc.). In Hinduism, the righteous path is spelled out by class, do good in this life, and you ascend to a higher class until you are fully enlightened (I'm sorry if this is not completely accurate, as I know there are many facets of Hinduism and I am confused by them).

Logical, by definition doesn't necessarily mean correct. It means that it is feasible by reasoning. There are several logical beliefs about the origin of the universe. It is entirely logical (although i find it incredibly far fetched) that the Christian (not to offend anyone I will state that most do not believe this) "Poof and it's there" theory is correct. Their evidence comes from a book they believe was brought to them by God, and that the God created the universe and all in it in 6 days. Poof, and it's there. It is also a Logical conclusion that the universe didn't have a creator, and that the universe just was there for all eternity, and it just is. There are countless logical origins to the universe, making pinning a religion to absolute certainty difficult at best, and impossible at worst (depending on POV, I guess best and worst could be swapped).

Now can you prove a truth of belief, yes and no IMO. I believe it is entirely possible, within reason. I cannot hold up a picture of Allah and say you've seen him so you have to know (as opposed to belief). All I can do is take his words, and present them to you. Explain what they mean, and run through them. Now is that to say it is absolute proof, no. I wouldn't aspire to try. I would say for myself, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why there are doubters, as everyone's level of reasonable doubt is different.

I will let you explain what you mean by truth of teaching, and truth of belief as the fact is, if my answer wasn't satisfactory in the previous post, I have no clue what you are trying to say.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Over the years I've come to terms with the fact that the most rational position is...Agnostic... While I have a belief system to which I subscribe...stating unequivocally atheist or believer just doesn't seem logical.

You are correct in that statistically Agnosticism is most likely. It is tough to beat the odds of I don't know. Stating unequivocally believer or atheist would only be illogical if they couldn't use any reasoning to make their point feasible, which I am sure each can.

 

[wil]

Oh they can make their point feasible to themselves, the like minded, and those influence by emotion or logical fallacies....

 

[juantoo3]

"Logic and rhetoric are essential tools for effective communication. The three stages of the trivium are all about language: Grammar teaches the structure of language; Logic teaches right reasoning with language; and Rhetoric teaches the adornment of language with power and beauty for persuasion.

Traditional formal logic is an in-depth study of the syllogism ... the four logical statements, the four ways statements can be opposite, the three ways they can be equivalent, the seven rules for validity, and ... the 19 valid arguments.

To the ancients, rhetoric was the crowning intellectual discipline. It took the knowledge the student had gained over the course of his years of schooling and the understanding of logical principles gained from the study of traditional logic and molded them into powerful tools of persuasion. To Aristotle, the art of rhetoric was the chief weapon in the service of truth."

-http://www.thelatinschool.org/academics/logic/

"Rhetoric (pronounced /ˈrɛtərɪk/) is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the European tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic—see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the ancient art of argumentation and discourse. When we write or speak to convince others of what we believe, we are "rhetors." When we analyze the way rhetoric works, we are "rhetoricians." The earliest known studies of rhetoric come from the Golden Age, when philosophers of ancient Greece discussed logos, ethos, and pathos. Writers in the Roman Empire adapted and modified the Greek ideas. Across the centuries, medieval civilizations also adapted and modified the theories of rhetoric. Even today, many consider the study of rhetoric a central part of a liberal arts education.

One assumption implicit in the art of rhetoric is that people--even intelligent people--can disagree with each other. Sometimes they disagree with each other about deeply held beliefs. When such disagreements become pronounced, there are two typical results--either they begin to fight, or they engage in debate. The choice is up to every country and every citizen--do we solve our problems by using a bullet or by engaging in rational discourse? Mild ethos or a military invasion? Pathos or plastique? Rhetoric removes disagreement from the arena of violence and turns it into debate--a healthy and necessary step in any democracy. For any headway to occur in a debate, wise participants should begin through figuring out what assumptions drive each group. Usually, when two groups disagree, it is because they do not share certain assumptions. The rhetor must assess her audience and then figure out what assumptions operate in her own argument and then what assumptions operate in the arguments made by others."

-https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/resource_rhet.html

I am beginning with rhetoric rather than logic, because so much that is passed off around here and elsewhere is not logic at all, it is rhetoric. Because something is called by a name, does not make it so. Because someone says something is logical, does not mean it is.

Rhetoric is powerfully persuasive, much more so than logic. One doesn't use logic to woo a lover, or sell an automobile, or campaign for political office...or start a war. One uses rhetoric.

However, as we shall see in due time, rhetoric is not constrained by the boundaries of logic. Rhetoric would love to have the credibility that logic has, and why so many rhetorical arguments attempt to convince that they are indeed logic. Rhetoric has no requirement to be factual or true, rhetoric has no requirement to be supported by facts. Rhetoric has to appeal to our emotions and elicit a visceral response. Rhetoric wins at all cost.

More coming in time...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Oh they can make their point feasible to themselves, the like minded, and those influence by emotion or logical fallacies....

Are you saying there is not possible for religiously minded people to be logical? That seems a very non-interfaith thing to say.

 

[wil]

What I am saying is that this has been argued by many...on both sides of the aisle as it were... and there has yet to be a proof of G!d or a disproof, getting pushed beyond agnostic seems illogical to me. (not that I am able or willing to debate either side of that coin.)

But take for instance your statement of truth... There is but one G!d, Allah, and Mohamed is his final prophet/messenger... that is an axiom...something Muslims are asked to take on faith as being true...not something that is provable.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

What I am saying is that this has been argued by many...on both sides of the aisle as it were... and there has yet to be a proof of G!d or a disproof, getting pushed beyond agnostic seems illogical to me. (not that I am able or willing to debate either side of that coin.)

But take for instance your statement of truth... There is but one G!d, Allah, and Mohamed is his final prophet/messenger... that is an axiom...something Muslims are asked to take on faith as being true...not something that is provable.

But it is a Logical conclusion. If God is a logical conclusion as there is evidence one could point to that there is a distinct possibility, namely text, universe origin, etc, then we must examine if Abrahamic faiths can be logical. If a God exists (limit of english language to say exist, but you get the point) is it feasible that he would send messengers to those who know him that would guide them in the right direction to allow for advancement and furthermore to be successful in what is unseen? If he sent messengers, is it feasible that he would eventually come to one that could complete his law (in this I am referring to Jesus) and bring in a new era of peace? Is it also feasible that he would send 1 more prophet to eliminate human error in the lessons he sent. and establish the correct path for one to follow to reach the ultimate goal, and that he would be able to make it incorruptible?

If, then, else, andif, orIf, etc.... Logic (used in programming)

This exercise could be accomplished for most if not all religions. And incorrectness would bear the burden of proof. Can you Prove there is no God. How about no prophets. OR can you prove that of those prophets there was no last prophet? No you can not. I'll answer it for you. A logical answer is one that has a possibility of being correct due to reasoning. There is no burden on the person to prove logic, but rather the one who wants to dismiss it to take away all possibility. A discussion of if it is correct of not, is a whole nother beast. One I wouldn't want to get into on a IF forum..

 

[wil]

lol.... No.

 

[Senthil]

I agree that agnostic is the most logical. It shows the uncertainty of it all. But religion is not about logic. Lots of religious folks have gone and done things that are totally illogical. (I keep hearing Spock telling Kirk, "But thsat's illogical, Captain." and Kirk saying, "But sometimes you just have to go with your feelings,"

I've done a ton of illogical things personally, and I can't say I regret any of them. In mysticism, we learn to work from an area of the mind called superconsciousness, (direct cognition, intuition ... all the same sort of stuff) and over time learn to trust it.

But if our world functioned on logic alone, yes, we'd all be agnostics regarding God.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

I've done a ton of illogical things personally, and I can't say I regret any of them.

A Catholic Priest once told me, in matters of faith you might as well throw logic out the window, because human concepts won't help you one little bit.

 

[wil]

Oh I am not saying that we don't do the illogical....just that it is illogical to say it is logical when it clearly is not.

folks around here know that I enjoy my mythology.... I also enjoy magic...just get upset when folks indicate it is something different...

 

[juantoo3]

But it is a Logical conclusion. If God is a logical conclusion as there is evidence one could point to that there is a distinct possibility, namely text, universe origin, etc, then we must examine if Abrahamic faiths can be logical.

I agree with Wil here, minus the "lol." It is not a logical conclusion, it is an axiom, a tenet of the faith. Again...for every so-called argument "for" G!d, I can produce a perfectly valid argument against...in other words, and this is not my idea, wise men across the western world have argued this for centuries and come to no firm conclusion. You are free to believe as you will, but axioms are *not* logic, and you deceive yourself believing they are.

Understand...logical reasoning transcends our cherished beliefs. I have my beliefs, but I *must* set them aside to pursue a properly logical study, and pick them back up again when I am through. Anything less is *not* logic.

To begin, here you are arguing from the conclusion, or begging the question...you are beginning with the presumption that G!d exists. That is a logical fallacy.

If, then, else, andif, orIf, etc.... Logic (used in programming)

Logic used in programming is not human logic. Same word, different usage. Apples and potato peelers. I have the right to write about being right on the right while I conduct the rite. It also has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is a faulty generalization, another logical fallacy.

Can you Prove there is no God.

It is impossible to prove a negative, this is a fallacy called "argument from ignorance." The burden of proof is on the person saying something exists. Show me G!d. Not what you say are His writings, or His creations or anything like that, show me G!d. The burden of proof is on you, in this case, according to logic.

Further, you can't prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist. So I could say the same thing in reverse...if your argument that I can't prove G!d doesn't exist is enough to convince me He does, then you should accept that invisible pink unicorns exist because you can't prove they don't exist.

A logical answer is one that has a possibility of being correct due to reasoning. There is no burden on the person to prove logic, but rather the one who wants to dismiss it to take away all possibility.

No, your answer is rhetoric...not logic. Rhetoric is not bad of itself, although it can be used for bad. Rhetoric does not stand the burden of proof that logic requires. Burden of proof in logic is ALWAYS on the person who says something exists. Always. To think or say otherwise is to not understand how real, genuine logic actually works.

Further, no amount of faith can make a thing true. You may tell me the Queen of England is really a man in drag...you may believe it with all of your heart, you may have a legion of followers who agree with you...it doesn't make it so. Because you say it is logic, doesn't make it logic.

 

[juantoo3]

If there were a path with no shortcomings, there would be no need for any other paths...and clearly G!d saw fit to provide *many* paths to His creation.

In fairness, when I made this statement it is absolutely with the presumption that G!d exists, so while I must admit that I cannot prove G!d exists, I can show the vast multitude of religious faiths around the world and throughout the past 100 thousand years and more, the greater majority of which are spent seeking some form of communion with a Divine source. Even if G!d cannot be shown to exist, clearly the effort spent by the whole of humanity to reconnect with the Divine is immense, and not simply focused into one tiny little corner of humanity. I offer the wide variety of religious faiths around the world and throughout time as my proof.

I beg anyone to logically refute this.

 

[juantoo3]

Logic is the language of scholarship. It is not about winning arguments, it is about discovering reality.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I offer the wide variety of religious faiths around the world and throughout time as my proof.

I beg anyone to logically refute this.

I do agree that humanity has a need to find some form of divinity. As you say the majority people thru time have wanted a divine source to connect with. That says something (I'm not sure precisely what) about being human. It has nothing to do with logic, however. It has no relation as to whether any such divinity has ever existed.

Most people also want to believe that there is an afterlife, either that one goes to only to return for another run, or goes to permanently. The fact that most people desire this to be true has no relation to the probability that such an afterlife exists. Desiring something to be true and something actually being true has nothing to do with how many people want to believe it.

Can I prove it doesn't exist? No. Of course not. It is a part of the human condition that we can neither prove nor disprove this, no matter how many people want to believe it.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"A Catholic Priest once told me, in matters of faith you might as well throw logic out the window, because human concepts won't help you one little bit."

..which is one of the reasons I'm not Catholic anymore. I think it is extremely important to look at our religious beliefs in a critical way, and immediately throw out ideas which do not make sense. All of today's religious wars (and there are a lot of them going on right now) are caused by people not doing this.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

'Agnosticism' has been mantiond frequently lately, so I'm puthing this forward. It is sort of relavent to interfaith as well.

 

[juantoo3]

LOL...that sums it up pretty well...but for the shades in between! The question is whether people can see themselves.