Re: virus: Religion & Logic
John A (jwa@inx.net)
Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:51:30 -0500
Ken Pantheists wrote:
> Pat Bunt wrote:
>
> I view art, language, spiritual inquiry as a technology as well. They
> are EXTREMELY undervalued technologies (especially art). They have a
> purpose, they are used as tools. They not only "sooth the soul" (I don't
> quite understand that statement because it makes the oul sound like a
> liability, like some kind of unpleasant rash.) They provide us with a
> sense of ourselves as individuals, as a member of a culture, as a member
> of a species and they give us tools to express very complex and
> sophisticated ideas. These ideas can sometimes only be expressed in
> metaphors.
>
I am not a pure rationalist. I agree with you on all counts; especially
about art. Art is one of the greatest human endeavors. Its expression of
feelings and ideas is invaluable to individuals and society.
On spiritual inquiry, I think that if a spiritual idea defies logic,
then that idea cannot be acknoledged as truth. Almost every process or
phenomenon in nature that humankind has researched and understood is
logical. Many of these things at first appeared to defy logic, but in
reality the logic of these things was more profound than human logical
capacity. Once more data was uncovered, this more profound logic was
discovered. I think that this applies to what we call "spiritual" or
"supernatural". Things that appear "supernatural" (ie ghosts, miracles)
are in truth perfectly natural; we merely don't possess the data to
fully understand them.
> > same claim, so I still don't see how logic and religion are
>incompatible,
I don't believe that logic and spirituality are incompatible. I believe
that eventually certain concepts of spirituality will be proven
logically. Both are intertwined, we just do not see the connection yet.
I think that we will also reach a point where all existing concepts can
be proven by existing concepts. for example,
Plato- Statement "a" is true.
Socrates- How do you know this?
Plato- Because this can be scientificaly proven from statements "b" and
"c".
Socrates- How do you know that these statements are true ?
Plato- Because of statements "d" and "e".
Socrates- And how do you know that these statements are true?
Plato- Because of statement "a".
It completes a circle. Does any one else think this is feasable? If not,
why?
--