Logic is My God, Religion is Neurosis.

in religion •  10 days ago

Some thoughts on the nature of 1 + 1 = 2, and the lovely soundness and integrity (not an absence of risk) of the sensible world.


It is my sincere hope that this informal talk will not be construed as “anti” anything, but only pro science, in the truest sense of the word.

I look forward to hearing your comments. Please watch the video first, though!


Main Points:


  • Religious conceptions of “God” often present a male omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being, but at the same time have this being very angry at things within this omnipresence and omniscience, and claiming that these things have nothing to do with this man who has everything to do with their existence.

  • In light of the above, God in the common religious conception is either not all-knowing, omnipresent and all-powerful (how could he be mad?), schizophrenic (multiple personalities), or a man-made conception based on human feelings.

  • Some Christians and other religious individuals may object that we simply cannot understand these things because God’s ways are beyond our logic. If this is the case, the message is that our logic is largely, cosmically, flawed. If our logic is thus fatally flawed, we enter into a state of existential panic. The very logic which tells us to watch out for cars as we cross the road, to eat when hungry, and that things operate by basic rules in this existence, now is called “illogical” and untrustworthy, and life itself must be viewed, at least in large part, as meaningless or absurd.

  • If God is the “father,” then this is child abuse.

  • If I tell my five-year-old son that sometimes he can use his senses to make determinations about the nature of reality, but at other times he can’t because it is magical, and at which times he can and cannot use his own judgement, senses, and estimations is not clearly known, I have effectively communicated that the world is not a sensible place. I may as well tell him that he can drink water, but also that it might be poison sometimes, for no understandable reason, so be careful.

  • Logic, however, is a beautiful “parent.” Love and logic, compassion and rationality, in my estimation, are all part of the same reality. And our logical apparatus, while sometimes prone to error, is largely reliable and trustworthy. What other apparatus shall we use but the sense-making tools nature has provided us? Indeed, these are all we use, even the religious, though they may vehemently deny it? How else do they come to their conclusions but through individual interpretation?


~*~

~KafkA

!


Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

I spend most of my time on my blog and site arguing for rational and logical spirituality. These are possible and it becomes a matter of discarding spiritual hypothesis if any given claim doesn't pass the rational and logical sniff test.
Irrational and illogical claims:
-god, choose me or my group as a revelatory method. Neither pass the sniff test.
-I torture people forever for not doing what I want. Epic fail.
-I use geographical location to impart universal​ truth. Bull-shit!
I get into more here:https://steemit.com/judaism/@andrewmarkmusic/tikkum-olam-compared-to-enlightenment
I would say that a worldwide Marxist Theocracy (better described​ as Technocracy) is just as bad. Bad China!
Worthy of consideration, though, is any claim that passes the sniff test, but then it has to be up to any individual to investigate further and there can't be coercion involved.

·

Nice reply to an interesting post. The phrase "rational and logical spirituality" says it all.

To a great extent, I agree with @kafkanarchy84. While I do not particularly like the title of his post, I was pleased to see that his first Main Point clarified that he was referring to "religious conceptions of god."

Traditional, mass-accepted religions have, by their very composition, limited conceptions of god and spirituality. Even many of the scholars of those religions limit themselves to those basic (min)understandings. And the delusions become self-perpetuating.

However, there are those who see beyond the traditional interpretations. Paul Tillich, for one, was a renowned theologian who can more correctly be called an "existentialist philosopher." One of his most profound (and maybe un-christian) ideas was that god is not so much a being or a father figure or a triune divinity (which are all rather weird concepts themselves). Tillich realized that god was, quite simply, the ultimate "ground of being."

But the basic premise of kafkanarchy84's post is that the traditional mythic view of god (be it of the bible, of the koran, or of many other traditions) is a primitive conception that humans should have outgrown by now.

Actually, discussions such as this make it clear that we are now transcending such worldviews, and maybe even coming to a realization that there is no god, but that "the ultimate ground of our being is divine – or even divinity itself."

I like to think so.

·
·

I think there are still numerous possibilities although I am in 100% accord with your post! From Deism to Process Philosophy, Jean Gebser's Integral Ever-Present​ Origin, various Buddhist ontologies, Hindu, too (Advaita), and Christian Gnosticism (my pet fave)which at least makes sense out of western theism. These I still consider possible along with the possibility that E.T. is our dad:)
I don't really have a problem with atheism although I prefer​ a spiritual atheism as opposed to reductionist materialism. I've had just one too many spiritual experiences to write it all off as nonsense. I think Sam Harris is pointing in that direction, too, although he's not going to concede as many possibilities as me mainly because​ of his persona, and position.

·
·
·

Sam Harris often comes across as quite antagonistic, and for that reason alone I didn't bother to read his books. Eventually, however, I read "Waking Up," and was very surprised to discover that he is essentially a "spiritualist." It's an excellent book, and now I'd really like to read some of his other books.

At the same time, I still find his antagonism a bit irritating. Sure, people may have some bad ideas and horrible beliefs, but we should first try to work with them, not against them.

As for "fave viewpoints / worldviews," I generally lean to Advaita. It's always simple and profound, and usually relevant to daily life and to inner life. I also appreciate healthy doses of Christian mysticism, Sufism, and Buddhism.

Full Steem Ahead. NO! ... Upwards.

·
·
·
·

I like your style!

·
·
·
·
·

I like your content. And your style's pretty good, too.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I'm just a humble gadfly:D But thanks!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

A humble Canadian. Something to be proud of. :-)

I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this subject. I don't spend much time debating religion anymore, but I have in the past.

I went from devout catholicism to extreme anti-theism in my teen years, and then later somehow got to a point where I was actively trying to become religious again, but I learned that traditional religion and belief in a sentient god will just never work for me. I don't feel the same animosity toward religion as I once did, mostly because I've just come to the conclusion that different people are just wired differently and are mostly going to believe whatever feels comfortable for them to believe. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, nor do I think anyone can convince me to believe in their conceptualization of a deity. I don't claim to know anything per se, I just refuse to be controlled by others' beliefs.

It took me a long time to feel comfortable following my own heart and mind, and to stop worrying about having to be "right" according to religion and scientism alike.

·

I really resonate with this and feel that this is kind of my “position” as well these days.

It took me a long time to feel comfortable following my own heart and mind, and to stop worrying about having to be "right" according to religion and scientism alike.

I consider the universe as divine. Thus I don't believe in divinity, I know the divine universe exist. There's a very big difference with believing in something and knowing something.

I agree with you. A lot of believers are illogical and this is to their own detriment.

·

Another great response to this post. With another fine quotable quote; "I consider the universe as divine. Thus I don't believe in divinity."

Damn, we should be in the publishing industry. Oh, on Steemit, we ARE!

Furthermore, your comment about believing and knowing is also a great way to clarify your previous sentence.

·
·

I raise your “another great response” with a “this is another great response to a great response!”

·
·
·

I love this quote by Osho so much and I know the controversy about Osho.

Belief is in ignorance. If you know, you know. And it is good that if you don’t know, know that you don’t know — the belief can deceive you. The belief can create an atmosphere in your mind, where, without knowing, you start thinking that you know. Belief is not trust, and the more strongly you say that you believe totally, the more you are afraid of the doubt within you.

·

Beautifully said man.

Interesting & thought provoking post.

While I search for understanding re crypto I also ask big questions, like "what is money"? "what does money do"?

I am a very logically thinking person & your questions seek to use logic to define the bounds of an answer. My question is what if the answer is not logical? Because we have never know something does that mean it is not possible?

To much thinking :-)

·

Oh, I’m not trying to put anything within “bounds.” That’s the whole point. That is what neurotic thinking does.

·
·

I agree, I was trying to pose a thought or a question:

in some ways "logical thinking" creates it's own 'bounds' by implying that everything must be logic, and must be explainable.

To many have died in the name of 'religion' (of every flavor) over the last 2,000 years or more for me to believe in the man made definitions of it.
But is it possible that there is something bigger?
Is it pure randomness concepts that we are discussing? Statistically the numbers are huge.

But until I can travel a worm-hole, or see the flip side of a black hole, my 'logic' brain cannot reconcile.

So as i said even though I'm a logic thinker, I do wonder about a BIG-er picture!

·
·
·

I’m always thinking about it. I mentioned several times in the video that there are things beyond our understanding, I thought.

I don’t view “Logic” as a “God”, per se, in that sense. I’m just saying that logic is everything. Even logic beyond our current capabilities for grasping.

·
·
·
·

Logic (mathematics) is the tool we have been given that best describes thing in an explainable and understandable fashion. I can't say there exist (non-material) things that are not "logical", but I can say there are non-physical things that come "before" logic. For example we can look at our "EXPERIENCE" and compare it to what Science shows us is "out-there" in physical reality.

What is EXPERIENCED -----------------------------What is in Physical Reality
Colors (black & white) -------------------- Frequencies of ElectMag Waves
Sounds ------------------------------------- Frequencies of pressure waves
Hot/Cold --------------------------- Frequencies of vibration in Molecules
Flavors ---------------------------------------------------- Shapes of Molecules
Smells ----------------------------------------------------- Shapes of Molecules

The problem is that most do not consider this difference from what Science shows is the "Material World" and what we EXPERIENCE within our Consciousness. Most people wrongly believe that they "Look Out" and see the world,,, when in fact the entire physical universe one experiences ONLY happens with in their CONSCIOUS MIND (a non=physical event [aka a verb],,, not the brain [a noun]). It can be argued that there is NO external "physical reality" as the only experience of such a thing happens ONLY within non-physical mind.

Here is to the Old Philosophical Question:

If a tree falls in the woods and nothing is there to "hear it",,,,, does it make a "sound"?

answ:
of course it makes NO SOUND,,, it makes pressure waves in the air,,,, SOUND is a perception in MIND,,,,, there is no such physical thing as a "sound".

for further understanding see this post:
https://steemit.com/spirituality/@i-am-mark/3zrvaq-what-am-i-suppose-to-be-doing-here

Upvoted. I'm going to resteem this now :)

I've been during my childhood on a Christian school. Yes, I had to pray, chant, do these acts for our almighty God. Since I was young I never believed in Christ nor a God. I believe in being here and in being good to the fellow man. I don't need a religion to keep me in check nor control me. Still some things we're enjoyable on that school, especially Christmas. The massive treats and meals with its celebrations are something I'll never forget, but I believe in the now and believe in being good for the people I care about, also to be polite and friendly to whom I don't know. I like Buddhism, because mindfulness believes in the now, but I don't believe in an upper being keeping watch on us all. I tried to be religious here and there, but my heart just doesn't follow with it.

·

Celebrations has nothing to do with it but it may be the reason that pull you away. What could push a person towards God or pull them away? Our lives are but a short life even if we were to live for 1000 years. What logic can explain that? What logic can explain time, let alone our own existence. Man has enslaved man and corruption occurs over time. God is neither a man nor woman and yes religions mainly represent God in a masculine approach and consider Earth in the feminine approach. There is no logic in this because it been like this before our time.

Logic can't explain the existence of logic...

·

I can tell you didn’t watch the video. Interesting observation, though I’d have to disagree.

·
·

Nah you got me, watching it now...I would be interested to hear your explanation as to how logic can explain its own existence, regardless though, can you use your own senses and reasoning to prove that your own senses and reasoning are valid?

·
·
·

Life perpetuates life. Adaptation. Survival. Thus it makes sense that there is a system nature/god/life/adaptation has supplied by which we navigate. That’s only logical if life is to continue.

I am fairly certain I did not claim in the video to understand or know everything. That’s absurd. In fact, I emphatically and specifically pointed this out.

·
·
·
·

No but my point is that in order to know ANYTHING for certain you either have to know EVERYTHING or you have to know somebody who knows everything. Without one of those two things you can't know to any degree that you are not just the dream of a turtle floating through out of space. This (I'm guessing you know) is called solipsism and cannot be disproven according to the worldview that you propose. Not to mention that the problem of induction has yet to be addressed "1+1=2" I agree, but in a completely chance and random universe it would seem a little naive to believe that the future will always be like the past. Is it possible that 1+1 could equal 3 tomorrow? If not why not?

Sorry, cannot watch the video...

However, I disagree with everything you said... logically speaking.

Starting with 1+1=2
Our current mathematics assumes that you can always add one to a number. Thus, we end up with stupidities like infinity. And, play around with them, you get formulas such as 1 = 0. Yes, 1 = 0 is absolutely, mathematically logical.

I do not agree with the assumptions of our current mathematics.


You use one particular religious text to define god omniscient and angry. This comes from a book that we know has been abridged, mistranslated, and edited for content.

In order to agree with your conclusions on god, I would have to accept a whole host of assumptions and misinterpretations that I do not hold.

The "anger" god has is similar to the emotion you have when your child touches a hot stove. (or about to)


Logic is not the end all be all. There are so many assumptions that we just take for granted. Time and space being linear. They are not, but humans are designed to perceive them that way.

Time is circular, and thus infinite. Not linearly infinite.

There are many things we cannot think of because we are inside this dualastic, positively attractive universe. The best I can do to illustrate this is an analogy. Here, we have good and evil. (dualistic) What if we had a trialstic universe? good, neutral and evil? But, they have to be the furthest apart points.


Our universe has many paradoxes. Not at all logical. Or, it puts two paths of logic in direct confrontation to each other.

·

It may be worth considering the distinction between irrational and non-rational...

·

I can tell you didn’t watch it.

·
·

I watched the whole thing and agree with you completely, but you are only talking about western theism. Gnostic Christianity would agree with every point you made, ​too, so western theism isn't completely hopeless.

·
·
·

Thanks. Well, yeah, I wasn’t knocking Gnostic Chrisitianity or even “Christianity,” really, but the religious mindset which is anti-reason.

·
·

I said cannot not did not.

Shall I just never comment?

·
·
·

I mean, the counterpoints you are raising don’t even address what is really being said in the post, but if you wanna comment, comment on.

·
·
·
·

I was able to watch your video.

First, you should delineate between religions and Protestant Christianity.
It is now clear, that you only meant the later.

And, my responses where in arguments against the basis of the basis, of your posts points. So, I was being very meta.

Such as, you say, several times, that if you jump off a cliff you die. And this is not the always the case. There are people who jump off cliffs for the thrill and excitement. There are also people who do not hold much kin with gravity. So, although you are just trying to make an example of something obviously stupid, to counter that with "logic", you are missing the point that your example doesn't hold up, nor does your logic hold up to the challenge of working with metaphysics.

Now, I will agree with you that Protestant Christianity has been thoroughly changed to be a propaganda tool of govern-cements or control structures.
Verily, I say unto thee, that if you drive outside the lines, god (the po-po) will be very angry and visit their wrath upon you.

King James translated the bible into english, to give more power to the king.
Yes, he had the bible edited to give himself more power.

So, I found what you said to not be logical. However it is truthful complaints about where Protestant Christianity has gone with the information.

When I think of Kafka I mean paradox, there is not much logic in his works :) In religion there is a paradox, I admit. But..

Science says matter and energy are indestructible, religion also says matter and energy are indestructible. They explain all this in their own way. Religion is created by people, people are talking about God, people are not perfect, no religion is perfect, but science is not perfect either.
Personal faith is one, religion is the other. Faith is necessary to man, there is little atheism in this world.
Religion is abused, and science is also.

Logic is also relative, which is logical to me is not logical to you. But there's beauty in it. The essence is that we are all different.
This is logical for me :)

·

Is it absolutely objective that logic is relative?

·
·

There is a mathematical proof that 1 + 1 is not 2. A man is subjective, more or less. But no one can say for himself that 100% is objective, that is not objective. And since a person is talking about logic, there must be subjectivity, even in a small percentage. There may be a universal logic, but not from the angle of man.

·
·
·

Is the view you have just articulated objectively true?

·
·
·
·

And what do you think?

·
·
·
·
·

Lol. A nice non-answer. This demonstrates exactly the mindset I am referring to.

·
·
·
·
·

Much respect, though, from human being to human being. Thanks for commenting.

really nice video I like this..

Logic cant explain a lot of things how can a sick person who is dying of cancer just miraculously get well with cure or the vastness and ever expanding universe how is it happening, what is dark matter and how does it explain gravitational pull of the cosmos, there are things that border on the line that is beyond logic and people fill that religion, they have to believe in a higher power, cause their is a force that is holding things together in this grand universe . to scientist its a quantum force that they cant explain, to the normal human its the concept of God , and different cultures have different ways of expressing their believe in a higher force/being. even the child believes in their parents and this parent believe in something that has a higher power (God, science, mother nature)

·

Did you watch the video?

·
·

my response actually came from the video, you have a lot to say on the video , i prefer videos than reading articles, its easier for me to understand listening than reading

·
·
·

Well, if you watched it, I don’t understand where you are getting the idea that I said “logic (current, human level) can explain everything.”

I didn’t say or imply that.

I believe we are all gods playing an endless game of hide and seek. Words we use create our destinies. Love is an energy, the most powerful one.

Thanks for your perspective!
Peace, Love, Gratitude!

How else do they come to their conclusions but through individual interpretation?

By faith and trust.

I also try to think logically all the time as not being tied to common sense recently.

I'm probably going to do a terrible job with this, but here it goes.

I am a Christian and I believe in God. Do I have an answer to even 1% of questions that get thrown toward Christians, No. Atheist probably have a better understanding of the Bible than I do.

Why is this loving God going to destroy all sinners at the end of time, or damn them to an eternity in hell?

I do believe people do a great job destroying God's message or bending his words to fit there own agenda and to justify their religious beliefs.

I just believe because that's my faith. I don't know how else to explain it.

God is the logic in all its aspects.
This is my personal proof. God is infinite.
Infinity must be one. No such thing like infinities. It is only one. It includes everything even the opposites and the contradictories. It must include everything, concept, phenomena, energy, idea, word, number ….. Nothing exists outside infinity. There is no such concept of outside or inside infinity. So infinity is God and it must be one. As you see this is neither a Jewish, Christian nor a Muslim God. This is my God. I believe all three religions tried to define God the infinity like the blinds and the elephant. blindman.jpg

Great work man.. Keep it up.

One has to define the word "God" correctly or discussion of the topic is non-relevant.

When you read my stuff below it will become clear,,,, but:

God is not committing "Child Abuse",,, he is committing "Self Abuse",,, but even that is not correct as ONLY the "Experiencer" can logically be "proven" as real and what is experienced can NEVER be proven as "real" (could be a dream or hallucination).

Consciousness, or the act of being aware or awake, or the action of being the EXPERIENCER are all "VERBS", not nouns,,,, reality is not found in nouns, as the ONLY thing you can ever PROVE beyond any doubt is that you are having an experience,,, you can never trust what you experience is the "truth" (especially when you add the fact that one's past experiences colors their current experience).

And a VERB is "ONE" thing, one concept, like "running" or "swimming",,,, they are ONE thing that many "things" (nouns) participate in.

There is ONE "act of consciousness" and (properly defined "God") is the one having all of them, from sub-atomic particle to rock to plant to you and I,,,,, there is only ONE "EXPERIENCER",,,, and the (false) one that wants to sit on his "throne" (aka EGO - ones memories and feelings and predictions) is an illusion. Hence EGO=Satan eg. @i-am-mark=Satan

Because "God" is the only act of "Experiencing", it is experiencing EVERYTHING (omnicient) at all places and time (omnipresent) and since CONSCIOUSNESS is the "creator of the physical experience" it is omnipotent (see Dual Slit Experiment below in my other responses or the link below).

Also consider that the "Act of being Awake" is ALWAYS happening in the "NOW",,, outside of time. One's experiences are ALWAYS in the "NOW",,,, you entire existence has always been "NOW",,,, NOW is ETERNAL and the place where "God" is said to hang out,,, outside of time in the ETERNAL.

There is ONLY "God",,, and anything trying to distinct itself from that fact is not in harmony and is the ultimate cause of suffering.

See this post for clarification:
https://steemit.com/spirituality/@i-am-mark/3zrvaq-what-am-i-suppose-to-be-doing-here

·

further proof of the "ONEness" nature of the Universe can be found in these quantum physic experiments:

Boes Einstien Condensate

Entanglement

Zeno effect' verified—atoms won't move while you watch
https://phys.org/news/2015-10-zeno-effect-verifiedatoms-wont.html

Good post, I invite you to read my Bible study. Thank you so much.

https://steemit.com/religion/@cyclope/three-bases-on-our-new-birth

I enjoyed your post. You stated in the beginning that you didn't want to be "anti". I see what you're going for, and it's very clear what you are "anti" toward. My question would be this...is there any room for individuals to believe whatever they want without their potential IQ being called into question. Not saying that's what you said...I mean Is there room for someone to not want to follow logic but to live a life of wonder? Is it possible that since we all have individual experiences that add to our lives that maybe it's not as simple as 1+1=2, what about 1.5+.5=2. Ultimately the end is the same, but the individual equation is different.

Reason and logic have not solved our human problems.

For reason and logic has not solved any of our political, economic or social problems, nor has it solved the intimate human problems between two people.

It becomes more and more obvious that we live in a world that is going to pieces, that has become quite insane, quite disorderly and a dangerous place to live in.