By creating an account, you agree to our terms of service.
Is it possible to have a purely logical debate ( no emotionally and personally attachment) if the topic is about religion?
Absolutely not, because humans are emotional animals at the core.
No, I don't think it's possible. I've seen too many examples here where people begin a discussion of religion, and the discussion quickly degenerates into a verbal brawl.
No because only one of the two sides uses logic, so it can never be a logical debate unless both are non-believers.
I say no because logic is scientific. It is a scientific formula that necessary to be able to prove something, and religion cannot be proven. That is why they call it faith: the ability to believe something without seeing or proving.
When people form their opinion, they tend to seek out evidence that support their point of view and discard anything that contradicts it. This psychological phenomenon is known as confirmation bias. It goes for scientists too - scientists are humans, and they are susceptible to confirmation bias as well as other people. Scientists often can't come to the same conclusion and have a few different theories on a problem for example. And each group has their own logical proofs. So I dont see how two people with certain religious views can discuss it without being influenced by their views.
Yes, it is possible to have a purely logical debate about Religion, providing that both parties adhere to
either Deductive or Inductive Arguments.
Beyond that, one of two parties engaged in debate can employ logic, whereas another party to the debate might not.
Logical Proofs exist, but there is no way to compel anyone to acknowledge a Logical Proof.
Absolutely yes. A key is to stay open minded and to find common thoughts. But i would debate about belief and avoid religion. "Religion is a set doctrine of beliefs." and it makes brains liquified.
I think it is not possible to find truth. But it is possible to estimate what could be truth and hope that the estimation is right.
simplified example: i measure something and i have a set of different values. What should i do? I will count mean value. If i want to find right value i need to know infinite number of measured values (points of view).
simplified example: i measure something and i have a set of different values. What should i do? I will count mean value. If i want to find right value i need to know infinite number of measured values (points of view).----7051
But counting is a "numeration" rather than a "valuation". Counting does not indicate a "right"
nor a "wrong".
The issue involved would be referred to as The Naturalistic Fallacy,
which indicates that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".
This is also designated "Hume's Guillotine" and it informs us that we cannot logically derive
a value from fact. There is why there exists no Moral Measurements in the Natural Sciences.
Epistemologically, Moral Arguments are the province of Philosophy.
Numerical Measurements are the province of the Sciences.
Moral Values exist as Abstract (and "Transcendent") conceptions, and they do not exist in a
Causal Relation to any Natural Phenomena.
I think it is not possible to find truth. But it is possible to estimate what could be truth and hope that the estimation is right.-----7051
The "estimation" you refer to, is not a demonstration of Logic, as it pertains to conceptions of Truth.
You are mixing your terminology, equating such statistical designations as "mean value" with Truth.
Of itself, that is demonstrative of the common logical error deisgnated the Fallacy of Equivocation.
In that regard, your claims are not de rigeur, specifications as to Logic, which is itself pertaining to two kinds of argumentation.
(A) Deductive Logic (formal or "syllogistic" reasoning)
(B) Inductive Logic (informal reasoning, as in from a particular occurrance to a general idea)
"Mean Value" as a statistical designation, is only logical in the context of the basic fact that Mathematics is itself, like Geometry, (see Euclid) demonstrative of Logic. But Mathematics and its postulates, and associations with "value" are references to NUMERICAL VALUES, and not Moral Values, pertaining to "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil".
Truth, in the context of a Moral Absolute, cannot exist in the sciences, because nothing in the Sciences is an Absolute. When we speak of Truth in the Natural Sciences, we refer to things which can be changed as new data is discovered. All the Laws and Theories of Science, are subject to change and modification. That is why Scientific "Truths" are a term of convenience, and not a term of an Absolute Value.
This is such a great question! If the people discussing religion are both non-religious people then I think it is possible. However if one or both people in the conversation have strong religious beliefs then I think it would be difficult perhaps impossible to have a purely logical debate.