Re: Logic

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 14:43:18 BST

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id OAA07761 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:45:52 +0100
    From: Philip Jonkers <>
    X-Authentication-Warning: www-data set sender to using -f
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:43:18 +0200 (CEST)
    References: <> <> <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.5
    Precedence: bulk

    > And (!) logic can exist within religion - it's just a behaviour after
    > all, not a worldview.

    Isn't it a twisted logic then? I mean the tenets of religion
    obviously are metaphysical and therefore not rational. To
    `explain' phenomena of the world using logic based on
    shaky grounds is bound to ultimately run into inconsistencies,
    contradictions or fruitless results. Again I refer to the fruitless
    labors of Creationist science. Also you deny a possible
    rational explanation if you adhere to religious explanation,
    e.g. claiming something to be a `divine intervention' or
    sticking to slogans such as `It was the will of God'.
    People stay ignorant if clinging to such irrational sentiments.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 14:49:56 BST