The combative nature of logic and religion.?

[YoHoho]

Everyone knows the of the arguments:

A: Your faith has no reason.
B: Your reason has no faith.
A: Your arguments are FALSE logic! There is no way, using my specific set of rules could you ever prove the existence of a god!
B: Insert example of logical argument on god that may or may not be half***ed.
A: That Statement only proves your stupidity.
B: Prove that there is no god!
A: I don't need to prove anything. You, the one who is making a claim, needs to.

Eventually the situation devolves into blatant questioning of the other persons moral heritage.
And no one seems to understand that by making their assertion, ie. stating that god does or does not exist... that they themselves are making a claim, makes the "I don't need to prove anything" point invalid.

My question here is on this combative nature. What do you think on its development through history? Has the progression of Thinking>Reasoning>sequential reasoning>logic spelled doom for religion? Will they become compatible?

 

[leaherachelle]

the thing is, we all want to believe there an answer for everything, and better yet, a logical answer.
but in REALITY, that is not the casee...

 

[rotis93]

I think they could become compatible if the various religions ever decided to try and modernize there sermons a little, and if they stopped arguing about science.
Such as not allowing Darwins theory to be taught in school, simply based on the fact that the bible says that god created the earth in 7 days, thus the creation theory.
However science class should never be bothered by an individuals faith. Faith can be a good thing for some people, but it is not for everyone, and should not be pushed on people. As for science, well we are in a scientific age, and if you want to understand the things going on around you, then you are going to have to be as open to science as you are to faith, and learn.

 

[SilverThunderbird]

I think that you have a valid question, i'm just trying to figure out how to answer it without sounding like a nutcase.

I think that because of the argument in and of itself is the main reason why religion is so powerful, ie. christianity... and by powerful, i mean financially powerful, influentially powerful, and therefore 'spiritually' powerful. for the sake of argument, (not to offend anyone) I'm going to stick with christianity and 'other', be it athiests, pagans, hindu, etc. etc, etc... You can have christian believers as a group trying to explain that god exists, but when they can't get the other group to agree (aka convert) they will either bully them, try to buy them off, or kill them if it means enough to the cause. Now, please understand that i'm not talking about the individual christian, who, i believe for the most part, are just as good a person as the next, but corruption runs deep in any orginization, regardless of the goal. It's when you get to the 'sequential reasoning>logic" part that the christian religion starts to get a little scared... take it to our level as individuals that may or may not go to church. I went to church a year or so ago with my mom, because she wanted me to. the entire sermon talked about killing the easter bunny and damning Dan Brown for writing a story. Not sure if you've read The Da Vinci Code or not, but IT'S JUST A BOOK. same with Angels and Demons, again, another novel by Brown, that is JUST A BOOK. both fiction. both found with other fiction novels in the library or bookstore. But,,,, they got people thinking. But, instead of being open minded enough to invite people to read the book and teach their point that it's false (which, is easily possible, Brown took quite a bit of creative license with some of the 'history' in the book) they would rather tell everyone NOT to read it... avoid the issue all together. Guess that's where the term "Blind Faith" is supposed to kick in... seems to me like it's christianity's motto at times...

this is how I see your question.

A: Your faith has no reason.
B: Your reason has no faith.
A: Your arguments are FALSE logic! There is no way, using my specific set of rules could you ever prove the existence of a god!
B: Insert example of logical argument on god that may or may not be half***ed.
A: That Statement only proves your stupidity.
B: Prove that there is no god!
A: I don't need to prove anything. You, the one who is making a claim, needs to.
(but, add)
B: Believe or I'll punch you.

As for your last questio, will they become compatible? no. it defyes the entire basis of the Christian Church. Convert 'em or Kill 'em. it would be nice if everyone could agree to dissagree, but unfortuantely it won't happen any time soon.

BB )O( STB

 

[meretankh]

Science versus Religion, needs to be combative, how else can one bring forth fruit on a subject, take a look at nature! So how can that spell doom for either subject, the only thing that is doomed is old ideas.