Re: Logic

From: Chris Taylor (
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 15:15:16 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Logic"

    Received: by id PAA07816 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:17:51 +0100
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:15:16 +0100
    From: Chris Taylor <>
    Organization: University of Manchester
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    Subject: Re: Logic
    References: <> <> <> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    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.

    Absolutely - as a default catholic who became atheist in fairly short
    order I couldn't agree more. Not for nothing were the inconsistencies of
    catholicism protected by being left in Latin, allowing priests to
    'interpret' appropriately. Also the backflips and accomodations made by
    the church over the years are legion (heliocentricity, evolution [at
    least catholics have made their peace with Darwin], where the hell did
    Cain's wife come from etc.) - all to keep the overall structure intact
    (and priests in jobs I suppose). Unadulterated reality burns away such
    religious sentiments like the sun on the morning mist.

    I wouldn't call religious thought a twisted logic though, just rather
    limited; much good science has been done by well educated monks etc. in
    the name of understanding more fully the glory of creation (Paley et
    al.), but which led to the loss of credibility religions now face; the
    point is that logic means self-consistency, which is possible within
    religion, as long as you don't expand the frame of reference too much.
    Archbishop Ussher went a bit too far, for example.

    Also, reflecting our humanity, even the most rational of minds can be
    scared into religion when facing death - so it can still be just a
    matter of the relative fitnesses of these memeplexes in a particular
    mind environment rather than correctness per se.

     Chris Taylor ( »people»chris

    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 - 15:22:09 BST