Do Christians Like To Think Illogically Or Logically?

[Justin]

If he made the fish, then he also made the two-headed calf. And the human child born with his brain outside his skull. He designed the microbes and bacteria, as well as effective distribution of same through creations such as mosquitoes.

 

He designed salmonella. HIV and colds.

 

Florduh, you silly man. All that is a result of man's fall. Christians have an answer for everything. Kind of like saying the answer to 1+1 is 749,273 instead of 2. It's not the right answer, it's the farthest thing from the truth but still yet it's an answer.

[florduh]

If he made the fish, then he also made the two-headed calf. And the human child born with his brain outside his skull. He designed the microbes and bacteria, as well as effective distribution of same through creations such as mosquitoes.

 

He designed salmonella. HIV and colds.

 

Florduh, you silly man. All that is a result of man's fall. Christians have an answer for everything. Kind of like saying the answer to 1+1 is 749,273 instead of 2. It's not the right answer, it's the farthest thing from the truth but still yet it's an answer.

 

 

You know, that is a point that should be addressed.

 

Let's say all the bad stuff is the result of the "fall of Man." Did god create the deadly viruses at the time of the fall? Was anything created by god after those first six days of creation? Or did god create salmonella, HIV, anthrax, etc. originally, seeing that Man would eventually "fall" and deserve the misery these little creatures could dish out?

 

Just wondering.

[Justin]

If he made the fish, then he also made the two-headed calf. And the human child born with his brain outside his skull. He designed the microbes and bacteria, as well as effective distribution of same through creations such as mosquitoes.

 

He designed salmonella. HIV and colds.

 

Florduh, you silly man. All that is a result of man's fall. Christians have an answer for everything. Kind of like saying the answer to 1+1 is 749,273 instead of 2. It's not the right answer, it's the farthest thing from the truth but still yet it's an answer.

 

 

You know, that is a point that should be addressed.

 

Let's say all the bad stuff is the result of the "fall of Man." Did god create the deadly viruses at the time of the fall? Was anything created by god after those first six days of creation? Or did god create salmonella, HIV, anthrax, etc. originally, seeing that Man would eventually "fall" and deserve the misery these little creatures could dish out?

 

Just wondering.

 

 

That should be addressed.

 

I think the christian would say they may have been around before the fall but had different functions. Then, after the fall, they turned hostile towards other organisims. Like the common cold virus, it just went around doing who knows what, then when Adam and Eve commited the most horrible crime of eating fruit from a tree that shouldn't have even been placed there to begin with, it turned and infected people and made them sick. Either way, before or after the fall, god had his hand in it.

 

You know, it's like god wanted everything to go to hell. He placed the tree of knowledge right smack in the middle of the garden. What the hell did he expect to happen? Then everything else fell into place.

 

Another interesting thing is after creation, god was pleased, even though he knew damn well what would eventually take place. Yet, god hated Essaw (however you spell it) even before he was born. What was the difference there? In both instances, the people would eventually turn and rebel against god. So why wasn't Adam and Eve and the whole of what he created hated like Essaw?

[Deva]

You know, it's like god wanted everything to go to hell. He placed the tree of knowledge right smack in the middle of the garden. What the hell did he expect to happen? Then everything else fell into place.

 

Justin have you ever read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards? If so, remember that to Bible God we are worse than loathsome spiders which he is dangling over the fires of hell. He hates and despises all of us. He hates human beings with a passion. That is his true nature. I say the whole of the Bible proves it, if ever any point could be proven by this assorted collection of fables. It is an insult to the entire human race.

[florduh]

Besides creating the bacterial and viral scourges of Man, couldn't an "intelligent design" be a little more intelligent? I mean, why would a man be deliberately designed so his air and food must share the same passageway, thus making choking unnecessarily easy? Why is human sperm only viable at something less than normal body temperature, necessitating the testes to be placed in a very vulnerable exterior location? What's with the appendix? Why does our design encourage back problems?

 

Couldn't almost anyone, with a little thought, improve on the efficiency and practical design of human bodies?

 

Fortunately I can see evolution at work in the plant and animal life on this planet, so I don't have to defend a cruel and inept god to explain reality.

[Justin]

You know, it's like god wanted everything to go to hell. He placed the tree of knowledge right smack in the middle of the garden. What the hell did he expect to happen? Then everything else fell into place.

 

Justin have you ever read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards? If so, remember that to Bible God we are worse than loathsome spiders which he is dangling over the fires of hell. He hates and despises all of us. He hates human beings with a passion. That is his true nature. I say the whole of the Bible proves it, if ever any point could be proven by this assorted collection of fables. It is an insult to the entire human race.

 

 

I've never read that but i have heard many sermons in my time about what god thinks of us. How we are filth and basically not worth spit on shit. How christians can not see this is beyond me. Why don't they come on here and just try? Why are they so scarce?

[Guest not ashamed]

When I said that I have a hard time logically understanding the theory of evolution what I mean is that one of the laws of nature is, that over time things tend to move towards a state of disorder rather than order. Think about it, over time animals and plants die, trees rot and decomposition sets in. So in the midst of all that I am to believe that organisms across the board were actually emproving themselves genetically. Maybe I am not as intelligent as some of you out there, so I could use some help, but in order for something to be scientifically proven doesn't it have to be able to be tested using the scientific method. If that is the case I am not sure if evolution falls in that category, meaning that it too can not be reproduced in a lab or observed somewhere. I do know about Darwin's research and there is just as much prefessional scientific skepticism around his findings about a species of finches as there are intelligent design. I guess what I am saying is that while I am looked upon as crazy for my faith it still takes a certain amount of faith to believe evolution as well.

 

Give me some feed back to help me out.

[florduh]

When I said that I have a hard time logically understanding the theory of evolution what I mean is that one of the laws of nature is, that over time things tend to move towards a state of disorder rather than order. Think about it, over time animals and plants die, trees rot and decomposition sets in. So in the midst of all that I am to believe that organisms across the board were actually emproving themselves genetically. Maybe I am not as intelligent as some of you out there, so I could use some help, but in order for something to be scientifically proven doesn't it have to be able to be tested using the scientific method. If that is the case I am not sure if evolution falls in that category, meaning that it too can not be reproduced in a lab or observed somewhere. I do know about Darwin's research and there is just as much prefessional scientific skepticism around his findings about a species of finches as there are intelligent design. I guess what I am saying is that while I am looked upon as crazy for my faith it still takes a certain amount of faith to believe evolution as well.

 

Give me some feed back to help me out.

 

Look at the resources here: Link

 

I'll be glad to discuss further when I have time.

 

- Chris

[Justin]

If that is the case I am not sure if evolution falls in that category, meaning that it too can not be reproduced in a lab or observed somewhere.

 

Evolution is observable and the evidence is there. Look at cave fish for example. They have eyes that are useless, they are completly blind. Some creationists would say that these fish have merely lost their vision from living in an environment without light. But this isn't the case. When these fish emerge from their eggs they are blind, thus, it is genetic, ie. evolution. They cannot be made by intelligent design for putting eyes on something that doesn't use them is not "intelligent". Various birds are flightless yet still have their wings. Over time they used them less and less, due to being able to survive and get along without them, and their wings became more and more smaller and useless until they eventually didn't use them at all. Penguins lost the ability to fly but their wings became adapted to an aquatic environment and changed over time to be more like flippers than actual wings. This is evolution. You have hip bones in whales and actual hind legs on them while they are developing. Meaning they used to have feet back when they walked around on land. This is evidence of evolution. Transitional fossils, meaning the organisim is inbetween what it was and what it is becoming. Take Archaeopteryx for example. It displays both reptilian and avian qualities because it is between the two classes. It even has a tail like a dinosaur but with tail feathers coming from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx Many dinosaurs have been found that had feathers, meaning some dinosaurs gave rise to birds. It is also no coincidence that birds first started emerging during the Mezozoic era (the time of the dinosaurs).

 

 

Here are some links to help you better understand evolution. http://www.pandasthumb.org/ and http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

 

When I said that I have a hard time logically understanding the theory of evolution what I mean is that one of the laws of nature is, that over time things tend to move towards a state of disorder rather than order.

 

What exactly do you mean by "disorder"? Imperfection? If that is the case then you are right, for nothing is perfect. This has been going on for well over a billion years.

 

Think about it, over time animals and plants die, trees rot and decomposition sets in. So in the midst of all that I am to believe that organisms across the board were actually emproving themselves genetically.

 

Again, just because nothing is perfect does not mean that improvments to organisims is not occuring. Humans have a tail bone that can easily break if we fall on our posteriors. It is quiet painful and the bone no longer serves the purpose it once did. It is vestigial. It can be a hassle if you break it but this does not mean we haven't improved. Think about it, we once had tails so we could better swing through the trees. We eventually came down and evolved to live on the ground and later still we eventually started building houses and structures to live in. Imagine how difficult it would be sitting in a chair or driving a car with a tail underneath us. I can imagine that wouldn't be to comfortable. Thus it is an improvement for we are better adapted for our environment and way of life now, even though we still, on occasion, have trouble with our tail bone.

 

I'll stop there and let other, more knowledgable people respond.

[chefranden]

When I was a Christian I despised illogical thinking. As far as I could tell my system was rational, and the system of an atheist was irrational. From personal experience I'd say that no Christians do not like to think irrationally. Even approaching God's shit as mysterious gems of wisdom, is logical within the system.

 

I don't think that logical rational thinking is a core skill of a human being. I think that it is an adjunct skill. It is good for figuring out how to tie a sharp stone onto a stick, but when rational thinking attacks a taboo that is part of the groups cohesion strategy (example: male circumcision) it's katy-bar-the-door time. Group cohesion outranks rational thinking.

 

In human affairs, it is next to impossible to think outside the system. It is difficult in the extreme to sort things and events into "inside my system", and "inside your system". When the systems significantly overlap there is little trouble between people. When there is a great deal of offset between systems, there is trouble.

 

Those of us who are ex-christians now have trouble with the rationality of that system to which we once belonged. This experience is something like the chalice face illusion.

It is very difficult to see both the chalice and the faces at the same time. And even if you manage it you see both only for a split second. You could think of the dichotomy of christian vs atheist as one seeing only the faces vs one seeing only the calice.

 

Of course it is not that simple in reality. I think that a rational scientific bias produces a world view that is closer to what is real than does a christian bias. But I also think that a rational scientific bias goes awry when it doesn't take all of human nature into account. That would include for my argument here that the human desire for group cohesion can and usually does trump what would be rational thought when viewed from outside the system. Within their system, Christians can think as rationally as we can.

 

Edit: Try to see the above illustration for what it really is: a mere splotch of black on white. I can't do it myself, I can't get outside of my visual system, i.e. I must see a chalice shape or faces shapes. This experience of trying not to see this is closer to what I'm trying to get at.

[Neon Genesis]

When I said that I have a hard time logically understanding the theory of evolution what I mean is that one of the laws of nature is, that over time things tend to move towards a state of disorder rather than order. Think about it, over time animals and plants die, trees rot and decomposition sets in. So in the midst of all that I am to believe that organisms across the board were actually emproving themselves genetically. Maybe I am not as intelligent as some of you out there, so I could use some help, but in order for something to be scientifically proven doesn't it have to be able to be tested using the scientific method.

Expect that evolution has been observed by scientists: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80515120759.htm

[chefranden]

When I said that I have a hard time logically understanding the theory of evolution what I mean is that one of the laws of nature is, that over time things tend to move towards a state of disorder rather than order. Think about it, over time animals and plants die, trees rot and decomposition sets in. So in the midst of all that I am to believe that organisms across the board were actually emproving themselves genetically. Maybe I am not as intelligent as some of you out there, so I could use some help, but in order for something to be scientifically proven doesn't it have to be able to be tested using the scientific method. If that is the case I am not sure if evolution falls in that category, meaning that it too can not be reproduced in a lab or observed somewhere. I do know about Darwin's research and there is just as much prefessional scientific skepticism around his findings about a species of finches as there are intelligent design. I guess what I am saying is that while I am looked upon as crazy for my faith it still takes a certain amount of faith to believe evolution as well.

 

Give me some feed back to help me out.

 

You have a misunderstand of the second law of thermal dynamics -- entropy. The second law only operates in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, a vast amount of energy is injected into the earth all day every day, and will continue to do so until the sun burns out. Imagine a hoard of air molecules minding their own individual business until the heat of the sun gets them acting in concert rising and swirling until they form a organized storm like a tornado.

 

The decay you speak of is the result of organisms ingesting dead matter and using it for energy and construction of their own bodies which will be eaten in turn by larger organisms and on up the line until the circle starts again. This recycling of matter will continue in one fashion or another until the fire goes out.

 

Even the fire comes from the reorganization of hydrogen atoms into more complex helium atoms. Even that fire was kindled by the gravitational collection of huge gob of hydrogen until the mass was enough to produce the gravitational energy to ignite the fire. As long as there is energy to power matter, matter organizes. It is just what happens.

[Ravenwing]

They have their own internal logic like fantasy and science fiction plots. It makes sense in context.

Too true, florduh. I remember coaching people in my philosophy class when they just couldn't wrap their heads around the different theories of reality. I said, try not to apply it to the reality that you understand. Just pretend like it's in its own little bubble or some other world and all it needs to do is make sense internally to itself.

 

But I must say, you can't just wrap all Christians up into the one category and say thay are all logical or all illogical. They have a spectrum. C.S. Lewis is heralded as the atheist who convinced himself through his own argumentative processes that there is a god after all. I know several christians who struggle with aspects of doctrine because they are logical people and it needs to make sense to them. In those situations, faith is not the cure all. Rather they have faith that the answer is there somewhere.

 

There are also a crowd called Ex Nihilo who attempt to marry scripture with science ... how are bible stories reflected in the archaelogical and geological stories found in the earth. They are "old earth" christians ... and then there are these guys, Creation Science, who are young earth Christians. Where science starts to break down is when you start proclaiming things like

"The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself"

As the Creation Ministries crowd have done. Then we are back to Florduh's original point.

[Heavenslaughing]

I agree largely with chefranden's argument: there is more than one kind of internally logical system, and we will tend to see our own mode of thinking rational and other modes irrational. We constantly create meaning in the ways that we have learned (and helped create), and it's impossible to perceive the universe from no particular perspective whatsoever. Christians are entirely logical from within their perspective. This logic might not be the logic of deductive proofs: American Fundamentalists frequently operate with a sort of narrative logic, with a story whose completion relies on the proper action of the hearer. It is important not to confuse a different rationality with irrationality, since this action forecloses dialogue once it becomes clear the other side does not listen to what you see as straightforward logic. Put differently: never mistake your logic for universal logic.

 

This does not mean that any logic is just as good as any other. True, since each logic ultimately supports itself, one versus another might not be provable in intellectual terms. But we certainly see the effects of different rationalities. The sticking point comes when people persist in a particular logic even when they see that it causes harm. This decision, I believe, matters much more than accepting or rejecting an apparent contradiction of ideas. This is the point that I would refer to as illogical.

[Angel of Hope]

There's that saying that "God works in mysterious ways". or "God's ways are not our ways". which would make understanding his motives a little bit tricky.

 

But does this mean that Christians don't like to think logically about their problems or the problems of the world? because if a rational person, the scientific method, one can examin a problem or moral conundrum, and come up with a sensible solution.

 

Example, take a 3rd world country's low infant mortality rate. one could conclude that it's over run with devils and monsters and ghosts and zombies, and demons making children sick, and thus people will pray and exocise demons with "The Power of Jesus compells you". OR.... one could look at the enviromental conditions that the people live in, perhaps the mother is malnourished and doesn't have the physical ability to birth a healthy baby. or, maybe there are water diseases, or there are mosquitoes biting the hell out of the children.

 

Which would make sense then? trying to organize the neighborhood, or hospital, or using charitiable funds to help the midwives birth the children in a healthy condition, or chase away the demons inside the baby, with holy water, and chanting?

 

The sensible person would chose the sensible and logical answer, improve the quality of life for children. A religious person would say.... it was God's will that the baby or child dies, that it's all part of his plan, and that "God Works in mysterious ways".

 

Firstly, MesaGman, you have a creepy avatar...

 

Secondly, with all due respect, your assumptions of how a Christian would view the situation are just plain wrong. A Christian wouldn't assume that something was God's will, just because it was happening. There is always the possibility that it is the Devil, manipulating the situation... or, that some people did the wrong thing to the environment and the children, and that's why the children have had the consequences forced onto them (in which case, it is our duty as Christians to do all we can to help alleviate the problem: either if it's the Devil's fault, or the fault of careless humans). Of course, there's even the possibility that God didn't mean for people to live in that location (as is the case with Death Valley, in my opinion, though it is a beautiful place)... in which case, we should do what we can to find them better places to live.

 

The Christian is supposed to do God's Work, however he/she is called to it. If that means taking a position as a doctor at a free clinic in a 3rd-world country, then so be it. If it means guarding the area against the enemies of the people, so be it. However a Christian can help out, he/she is supposed to... especially in a situation when children are in need.

 

God bless,

 

~AOH~

[Guest Trevor]

As far as first posts go that was pretty good.

 

Just keep in mind, its quite a stretch to go from looking at the intricacy of a fish and presupposing a creator to believing in Jehovah and all the loveliness of the Bible. There is mystery and beauty in the universe, but an incomplete understanding is no reason to go filling in the blanks with a god.

 

Anyway welcome to the site.

 

Well said and a good response to a first time poster as well. However I have a question of my own according to your response if I may. I wonder how, then, if it is not so difficult to think our way through the mystery and beauty of a universe with incomplete understanding (which I daresay I have an abundance of) and then find it impossible to include in that mystery, beauty and incomplete understanding the possibility of a god? Just a question from a question.

[Guest October s Autumn]

There's that saying that "God works in mysterious ways". or "God's ways are not our ways". which would make understanding his motives a little bit tricky.

 

In the second instance, they are quoting. I suspect the first is just a modernization of the 2nd. I'm finding that (most/many) Christians just prefer not to think. I doubt this is unique to Christians, it seems to be more of a human problem. I run into it in my secular job as well.