Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I was going through the forums here and I saw someone's picture saying something along the lines of giving children logical explanations; not magical explanations. The meaning of the word logical is misused here because we can come to logical conclusions based on false premises which is logical. So, theists aren't illogical, but their logic for concluding the existence of their deity to be true is based on a different set of premises that most atheists wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

You may be thinking that the semantics aren't important but using words more accurately in this case will avoid theists from having to explain the semantics to us. Besides, we look stupid when we use logical to mean 'whatever leads to our conclusions'.

The difference between our logic and their logic I would say is the type of 'knowledge' our logics are based on or even based on our different definitions of what is knowledge. The atheists logic is usually based on general or common experience, the experience of many, the testable and repeatable, what is peer reviewed. From what I've read on the forums and other, theists logic - which leads to the conclusion that their deity exists - is based on isolated experienced, personal experience, anecdotal even.

Theists may think that they are speaking from common experience when they say they know many people that have answered prayers but each individual testimony does not count as repeatable, testable, or review-able.

We could also point out that a lot of their logic is based on a poor understanding of probability but I guess I'll leave that for another post or someone else to post about.

What do you think about theist logic and atheist logic? Am I wrong about logic entirely? Is their only one logic?

[Paul the Human]

I don't think that a belief in the supernatural is logical, especially when it is a belief in an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent being. 'God did it' is not a 'logical explanation' for anything. It is a belief based upon emotion and desire... not logic.

[KichigaiNeko]

From my experience it is LOGICAL to give children magical reasons for unexplainable (age appropriate) situations. More often than not THEY will come back with sound reason based on observable evidence and sound logic.

Happened with my kids and I fail to see it not happening with any other child.

I had "House Dragons" running through my house..."Shit Mum...it's only the ambient energy flow...you KNOW this!!" from a 14 year old

I was so proud of my children!! Still am. I gave them the magical when they were young (1-7yo) and then built it from there. As they could comprehend more of the REAL world I gave it to them, no holds barred. I am thinking that this is the best way to raise balanced children to become questioning young adults.

I am proud of my epileptic girlie woman going to uni as much as I am of my Autistic man child. Both question EVERYTHING as it should be. They have their own coping mechanisms but that is OK as they KNOW that their definitions are pertinent to them ONLY and have no grounding in reality.

I am also thinking that this is the human adventure....

[Darwinian]

A belief in some sort of creator, call it god if you like is quite logical. Humans design and make things and when early man looked at nature and how it all seemed to work it's quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that these things must also have been made and designed.

[remza]

Yes, I agree with the you, to equate a ‘rational explanation’ with a ‘natural explanation’ is at best an indicator of a strong prejudice, at worst a category mistake.

No-one can avoid having his or her own philosophical commitments. You may have a naturalistic one, I may have a theistic one. These commitments won’t figure very largely, if at all, when we are studying/explaining how things work, but they play a much more dominant role when we are studying/explaining how things came to exist in the first place, or when we are studying things that bear on our understanding of ourselves as human beings.

I was reading this kind of thing in a John Lennox book on the tube yesterday.

Another related thing he was saying is that Christian theism has more than one source of knowledge or information, science and revelation from God. Whereas scientism would say that only science can lead to truth i.e. real knowledge or information.

The main point he was trying to make is that in cases where science is not our source of information, we cannot automatically assume that reason has ceased to function and evidence has ceased to be relevant.

[fr0d0]

Faith is illogical.

The God concept in Christianity is acutely logical.

[Paul the Human]

Faith is illogical.

Pretty much by definition. Agreed.

The God concept in Christianity is acutely logical.

How do you figure? It requires faith to believe that the Christian god actually exists, so how is this belief 'acutely logical'?

[fr0d0]

The belief can't be logical, based on faith.

[Violet]

The belief can't be logical, based on faith.

Well... in that case no knowledge/beliefs can be logical... as they are all based on faith

Logic itself is faith-based... all the more so when sure things are states as 'the universe is logical'.

[fr0d0]

Thanks for that existentialist curve ball Sae :S