Is it possible for people of religion to understand "logic"??

Question

It seems to me that most(not all) people of religion don't understand basic logic.

You keep hearing the proverbial "prove god doesn't exist" question. Then you see the answers to that equating to "you can't prove a negative".

But, and I may be way off, the way I understand it is like this. The absence of proof in a positive assertion is the evidence to prove the negative. Basically, if there is no evidence proving something exists, that is the proof that is doesn't exist.

So, concering this issue, the lack of legitimate(meaning more that a book and people's faith) evidence proving god's existance is the proof he does not exist.

If I am way off on this understanding of logic, someone please let me know.

Brad - Hence the use of "most" in the question.

Answer 1

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

The god concept IS logically impossible, but that still doesn't prove a negative.

The only real proofs exist in mathematics. The rest of everything else is only categorized by "degrees of certainty".

Answer 2

Your entire position fails because you are confusing formal logic (deduction) with informal logic (induction). The first deals with validity, the second deals with the strength or weakness of an argument. In the first, the conclusion preserves the truth of the premises "airtight", while in the second, the conclusion goes beyond the content of the premises. There is no such thing as a "proof in a positive assertion" when dealing with induction or cause and effect arguments, because faith, which is an abstract concept that cannot be measured by any scientific method relative to a count/number system, is what you are attempting to address. God cannot be subject to, or validated by, logic in the way you are trying to construct your chain of reasoning. Your statement that "the lack of legitimate evidence proving God's existence is the proof He does not exist" would utterly fail any rigorous analysis by both formal and informal logic. You must specify which type of logic you are applying because if you don't you will, and already have, violate any of a number of fallacies both formal and informal. For example, your initial question as written has the underlying assumption already that people of religion don't understand logic because you have assumed by even asking in the first place that they don't. Put in argument form to expose your fallacy, this is how it would look:

People of religion don't understand logic
Jared is a person of religion
Therefor, Jared doesn't understand logic
As it stands this argument seems perfectly valid, maybe
even sound. Is it either? This is a valid argument form because all three terms are distributed- religion, logic, and Jared. Remember that validity has nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of an argument. Its only concern is with the form of an argument. Is this argument sound, meaning that both premises and the conclusion are equally true? No. Why? Because even if it was true that no people of religion understood logic it would not necessarily follow that just because Jared is a person of religion that he doesn't understand logic. For all we know, Jared may be a tenured professor of philosophy or mathematics or both. The first premise is a sweeping generalization because it is qualified too strongly by the qualifier "No". The conclusion of this argument does not necessarily follow from its premises, therefor it is not sound.

In symbolic form, it looks like this:

No A are B
C is an A
Therefore, C is not B

You cannot argue A on the strength of B and B on the strength of C unless A and B mean the same thing, and here they clearly don't.Alone or together, they have nothing to do with Jared whatsoever. In this one argument, two fallacies are committed- The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning, and, this is REALLY ironic, The Fallacy
of Irrelevant Evidence. All of the suppositions in your entire post could be either true or false and still have no bearing on whether or not believers understand logic. I know you wrote most (not all), but in logic "most" has the force of at least "one" if not "all", and that is why your understanding in this entire matter is flawed. By the way, I'm a believer and I HATE religion.

Answer 3

You are assuming that there is a lack of evidence. Personal experience, although subjective, is evidence. The fact that science is not yet able to measure and test this evidence does not make it any less real.

If we assume that nothing in the universe exists that we cannot perceive with our measurable and testable senses, we chose to limit ourselves to understanding of only those things. Are we so arrogant to truly believe that we see all and perceive all?

The absence of a positive assertion may be due to the inability to perceive a positive assertion. By claiming this absence as proof of the negative, you presume to have all knowledge of the subject. This you do not have.

You may, indeed must, dismiss our personal knowledge of God and our experiences to support your "logic". You dismissal makes our experiences no less real. Your dismissal is nothing other than your choice.

What proof would you offer a blind man that colors, for which he has no evidence of, exists?

Answer 4

I see what you are saying, and sometimes religious people do use faulty logic if they are trying to prove something which they really cannot prove.

But there are many logical elements to most religions, and some religions have quite an elaborate system of logic, like the Buddhist religion.

Answer 5

Um, yeah -- you're a little off.

Lack of positive evidence is simply lack of positive evidence...it doesn't prove a negative. If you're calculating odds, lack of positive evidence can be used to increase the odds of the negative being correct -- but it can't prove it.
To disprove the existence of god would require specific evidence showing that it's not possible for god to exist -- and given how the mythical gods have been framed by religions, that's not possible.
It's very easy for me to prove that humans do NOT have six arms. It's impossible for me to prove that it's not *possible* for them to have six arms, though the likelihood is awfully tiny.
Get it?

Peace.

Answer 6

yes, you are way off...by your 'logic', until someone found fossils to support the theory of evolution, there WAS no evolution...before the telescope, stars too distant to see with the unaided eye didn't exist...before the microscope, there were no cell structures, amoeba, viruses, molecules....and the lack of evidence in each case was proof that evolution was a myth, there are no stars that we can't see, there are no cells, molecules, amoeba, viruses...do you see?
beware of relying on logic...your pc, internal combustion engine, television, toaster, etc are good examples of things operating 'logically'...but they are all just machines-so are people who expect life to work that way...in being able to analyze the structure of the keys, valves, reeds, and strings of a complete orchestra, they miss the beauty and wonder of the symphony...life (and God) is like that...it's what you can't measure, analyze logically, and reproduce mechanically that make all the difference

Answer 7

Wait a minute, let me see if I understand this...
Are you saying that it is "logical" for me to believe that two bits of matter came from nothing, and collided nowhere, causing the universe I see around me, which is never-ending, but somehow expanding into...uh...well, nothing??
Can you prove this, please?
While you are at it, can you prove, beyond any doubt, that we all didn't just pop into existence three seconds ago?
Can you honestly prove, beyond any logical doubt, that you are not a figment of my imagination....or that I am not a figment of yours??


....tapping her foot.....







I didn't think so.....


God bless you!!

Answer 8

Yes the religiously infected can be logical, but usually not when it comes to their silly infantile god fantasy. A belief in gods is not logical and trying to get them to see this is impossible, as they have a built in shell they retreat to when confronted by logic.

Answer 9

obviously you are using the fallacy of generalization: not all religious people use that "argument," and i doubt most do.
plus where is the evidence to arrive at the generalization: most.

and that is also a straw man argument, just because you see someone who happens to be religious use that fallacious argument, does not render that person, or people who are religious, incapable of understanding logic. people use simple logic in everyday lifestyle

Answer 10

You say the proof that is doesn't exist, and you're talking about logic? Very funny.
Belief in God is very logical.