Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[British_Atheist]

I found this on another Atheist Forum:-

I was going through the forums here and I saw someone's picture saying something along the lines of giving children logical explanations; not magical explanations. The meaning of the word logical is misused here because we can come to logical conclusions based on false premises which is logical. So, theists aren't illogical, but their logic for concluding the existence of their deity to be true is based on a different set of premises that most atheists wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

You may be thinking that the semantics aren't important but using words more accurately in this case will avoid theists from having to explain the semantics to us. Besides, we look stupid when we use logical to mean 'whatever leads to our conclusions'.

The difference between our logic and their logic I would say is the type of 'knowledge' our logics are based on or even based on our different definitions of what is knowledge. The atheists logic is usually based on general or common experience, the experience of many, the testable and repeatable, what is peer reviewed. From what I've read on the forums and other, theists logic - which leads to the conclusion that their deity exists - is based on isolated experienced, personal experience, anecdotal even.

Theists may think that they are speaking from common experience when they say they know many people that have answered prayers but each individual testimony does not count as repeatable, testable, or review-able.

We could also point out that a lot of their logic is based on a poor understanding of probability but I guess I'll leave that for another post or someone else to post about.

What do you think about theist logic and atheist logic? Am I wrong about logic entirely? Is their only one logic?

What do members think?

[Tank]

Hi

Are you the author of the above? http://atheistforums.org/user-826.html
If so there's no need to attribute it, however if you are not then it would be polite to do so.

Welcome aboard!

Useful links for new members
Mission Statement Why this place is here.
Forum Rules More of a set of guidelines really, upset Whitney (She who must be obeyed) and you'll find the exit door very quickly!
How do I use the quote feature? If you are new to forums this is an important feature to understand. The maximum number of nested quotes is 3.
Help desk. Any problems this is where to ask them.
What's on your mind today? The general chit chat thread.
Somewhere to discuss the fear of dying. Many ex-theists have to come to terms with death, this is a place to discuss this issue.
How to tell your family you are an atheist. Some suggestions about how to deal with this thorny issue.
Parenting Beyond Belief. The forum for discussing how to raise your children 'Faith Free'.
.

[bowmore]

What do members think?

I don't think theists believe a god exists because of a logical argument.
I've also found that many versions of the well-known arguments for the existence of (a) god are not logically valid.
But it also depends on what is claimed about a particular god. Some gods simply are logically impossible (since their existence would imply a contradiction), others are not.

In short, I'd say it is too much of a generalization that all theists are illogical for believing in a god. What is probably more accurate is that most theists are inconsistent on the amount of evidence they require for believing in their god, compared to what they require to believe more mundane claims.

[Filanthropod]

Depends on your idea of logic. It's perfectly logical to me that god exists. And it depends on your philosophies too. If you start out with a premise where the universe can't be anything other than just purely material, then you're going to automatically filter out anything which implies otherwise.

[Caecilian]

Heres a slightly edited version of my reply to this one on the other forum:

Logic is a methodology for making deductions from initial postulates (axioms). It is formal, in the sense of being concerned with the form that an argument takes, rather than its content. Logic can tell you if an deductive argument is valid or not given certain axioms, but what it doesn't do is tell you if the axioms are true or false. For example:

Given the axioms
1. Caecilian is God.
and
2. God is omnipotent.
then
3. Caecilian is omnipotent.
is a perfectly logical conclusion.

However, its also completely wrong, because (alas!) 1 is manifestly false (never mind).

So is religion illogical? My short answer is 'not in any intrinsic sense'.

Theists are just as capable of making logically sound arguments as anyone else. The main problem isn't with their use of logic- its with their underlying assumptions, i.e. their axioms. If you choose as your axioms propositions like 'God exists' and 'Jesus saves us from our sins' then you're in Candyland already, and whatever perfectly logical conclusions you draw from those axioms are going to be Candyland conclusions.

Where logic and religion do collide, however, is when the religionists choose axioms that contradict each other. This is the problem of incoherence. The christian god, in particular, appears to have attributes that are a) axiomatic to christians and b) contradictory, making the christian god an incoherent mess. See particularly the 'problem of evil' (short version: If god is omnipotent andwholly benevolent, why Auschwitz?).

[Davin]

Depends on your idea of logic. It's perfectly logical to me that god exists. And it depends on your philosophies too. If you start out with a premise where the universe can't be anything other than just purely material, then you're going to automatically filter out anything which implies otherwise.

Just as if you start out with the premise that a god exists. The difference between a theist and I is that I start out not making any claims and seeing what evidence there is about a thing before I make a decision whether I accept it or not. I think this is the best way to reasonably be sure of anything that one holds as true. It's just when this is the starting point, there's no reasonable evidence that can be provided to believe in a god.

When something is supposed to be everywhere and accessible by anyone at any time they need it, but there is no evidence for it, then the absence evidence of this thing is evidence of absence. Example is gravity, it's supposed to be everywhere, it can't be seen, and it's supposed to affect everything. Now do we just blindly believe that gravity is there? No, we can see it's effects, make extremely accurate predictions of what will happen to objects affected by it and demonstrate how it works. God is equal to the the theory of gravity except that there's evidence for gravity and for god there is none.

Now I agree that the argument for a god may be presented as a valid argument, however a valid argument can't merely be accepted as true just because it's valid. Accepting the conclusion of an argument just because the argument is valid, is illogical. Now that doesn't make a theist illogical in everything else, it just means they're illogical in at least this one thing.

[i_am_i]

Depends on your idea of logic. It's perfectly logical to me that god exists. And it depends on your philosophies too. If you start out with a premise where the universe can't be anything other than just purely material, then you're going to automatically filter out anything which implies otherwise.

Nobody starts out with any premises about the universe or God. Those come later. Once they're in place, that's when the debating starts. At some point in your life you became convinced that God created the universe, and you believe that to this day.

I don't know what you mean by "It depends on your idea of logic." Merriam-Webster gives us this definition:

1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

If I tell you that I am completely convinced that the only logical explanation for the Christian god is that it is just as made up as all of the thousands of gods that came before it were then you would, of course, dismiss that out-of-hand because of your premise, your belief, that God exists; you would dismiss it without bothering to consider whether there is any logic at all to it.

I say that it is not logical to believe that this current god, out of all those thousands of gods that nobody believes in anymore and that have been long-consigned to the realm of myth, that this one is the real thing. That makes no sense to me at all. What makes perfect sense to me is the idea that humans have been making gods up for centuries and that this Christian God, Allah and all the other popular models are just the latest in a long line.

[Sophus]

I wouldn't word it that way because some will be too eager to generalize. Rather all I can say is "I find the belief in God to be illogical".

[deekayfry]

Depends on your idea of logic. It's perfectly logical to me that god exists. And it depends on your philosophies too. If you start out with a premise where the universe can't be anything other than just purely material, then you're going to automatically filter out anything which implies otherwise.

First, logic is only a tool.  It is not the only tool, nor is it a perfect tool. Your "point of view" does not conclude that your premise is true or false.  Logic is a form of deductive reasoning not a means of saying something is "right" or "wrong" or that it "exists" or "does not exist."

The problem, in general, is that we lean on logic to prove or disprove.  Fundamentally, logic is purely objective.  So when saying something is "true" or "false."  We are viewing "true" as meaning "right" and "false" as meaning "wrong" when, inf fact, the use of logic has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong."

[Filanthropod]

Depends on your idea of logic. It's perfectly logical to me that god exists. And it depends on your philosophies too. If you start out with a premise where the universe can't be anything other than just purely material, then you're going to automatically filter out anything which implies otherwise.

First, logic is only a tool.  It is not the only tool, nor is it a perfect tool. Your "point of view" does not conclude that your premise is true or false.  Logic is a form of deductive reasoning not a means of saying something is "right" or "wrong" or that it "exists" or "does not exist."

The problem, in general, is that we lean on logic to prove or disprove.  Fundamentally, logic is purely objective.  So when saying something is "true" or "false."  We are viewing "true" as meaning "right" and "false" as meaning "wrong" when, inf fact, the use of logic has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong."

I agree that logic is a tool. But we all, every one of us, combine "logic" (or our idea of it) with all of our prejudices. I see it here all the time.

[wildfire_emissary]

For an argument to be logical (sound), it must have true premises and a valid inference. Without one of the two requirements, it is illogical (unsound). Almost all of the arguments for god's existence are valid. The truth of the premises is suspect however.

[Argie]

The most logical theist arguments I´ve ever heard belong to Saint Thomas of Aquino in his long Summa Theologicae:

The unmoved motor or engine:  something has to be the cause of the first movement.
The uncaused cause:  all effects are caused by a cause, until a first cause is found.
The cosmological cause:  things exist because a cause that came into existence when things didn´t exist
Degrees of perfections: things that exist tend to perfection and ultimately there is an ideal perfection degree.
Theological argument of design:  all things have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer.

Saint Thomas spends a lot of pages explaining these arguments, and they seem sound, except that the first three are just the same argument and they rise a bigger problem, the cause of the first cause, since no cuase/effect can exist without a first cause.  The fourth argument is just a question of taste, there just isn´t a final stage of perfections... perfection itself is perfectible.  The fifth argument falls when confronted by the natural selection and evolution arguments that we have thanks to Darwin.

Then again, most belivers don´t read Saint Thomas and belive only out of superstition or because of indoctrination.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

I believe in God because I don't want to go to Hell. What could be more logical than that?

[pinkocommie]

I believe in God because I don't want to go to Hell. What could be more logical than that?

Math.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

I believe in God because I don't want to go to Hell. What could be more logical than that?

Math.

Math won't save you from Hell or forgive your sins.