LOGIC: Help or Hinderance?

                                                               

I shall start with discussing the use of logic in our everyday material world, then the use of logic for religion.  Now is trying to apply logic a bad idea? Is it always a good idea? Or does applying it strongly depend on specific circumstances of everyday life? 

First, a simple definition of logic is, the science of correct reasoning. Also, a logical conclusion is one seen by rational analysis as inevitable or necessary due to an interrelation, connection, or sequence of facts. Therefore, some things do not require logical reasoning, because they are immediately obvious. For example, someone did not look where they were walking, so their head became acquainted with a metal pole. For some other things you cannot apply logic because you have zero information from which to draw a conclusion. For example, whether or not intelligent life exists on other planets. You can only speculate. 

Application of logic comes in when you have pieces of information but not the completed puzzle. The chief is logical deduction. This starts with ironclad brassbound premises, then examining all possibilities to reach a specific irrefutable conclusion. An example of simple logical deduction is: All spiders have eight legs. An Orb Weaver is a spider. Therefore, Orb Weavers have eight legs. Or A = B and C = A. Therefore, C = B. The premises are dependent on each other for self-clarification. With true premises, the conclusion must also be true. To arrive at something else would be illogical. That is always bad as it is always necessarily false. 

Then we have logical abduction & logical induction (or abductive and inductive reasoning). Like logical deduction, they also have two or more interdependent premises to reach a conclusion. Since some disagree upon their definitions, here are my takes: With logical abduction, we fully understand the premises, which premises, working together, lead to a conclusion which is extremely likely to be true. For example, we know the temperature allows for rain. We know the humidity is very high. We know the sky is cloudy. We experience lightning and thunder.  We logically conclude it will rain. But Mother Nature can fool us with virga: a dry thunderstorm.  Or A points to B points to C points to D = extremely likely conclusion. This abduction is similar to the Occam's razor principle. 

Logical induction is somewhat less reliable than abduction. With it we have known facts or premises which are incomplete. For example, I never saw a flightless bird. So, I ask everyone I know, who say they never saw one either. I then learn that there are no flightless birds native to my continent of North America. So, I understandably conclude that all modern birds can fly. However, flightless birds such as kiwis, ostriches, and penguins live today. Or incomplete A points to incomplete B points to incomplete C = likely conclusion. This induction is similar to how Gallup polls work. Both logical abduction and induction are important tools, as long as they are not mistaken for deductive reasoning, and weak forms of conjecture are not used. That would be counterproductive. 

Then there is logical conduction or conductive reasoning. But unlike the other three types, the premises are often completely independent of each other. They instead form a cumulative effect to reach a conclu-sion. And this type has wildly differing degrees of likelihood of the conclusion being true, depending on the quality and quantity of the facts. An example of logical conduction beyond a reasonable doubt: Notable murders in Colorado, Utah, and Washington happened when Ted Bundy lived there and stopped after he left. Ted's car and physical appearance resembled a man's seen near the crime scenes. After Ted sped away from police, they found a crowbar, ski mask, rope, handcuffs, and other stuff in his car. A woman accused him of kidnapping. Blood, fiber, and hair evidence. Etc. In conclusion, Ted was convict-ed and executed. Or A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J + K + etc. = virtually certain conclusion. However, weak conduction should not be used, as it is counterproductive. 

Now the question of logic in religion: Although more complex, this follows similar patterns. Again, some things do not require logical reasoning, as they are immediately obvious. For example, the benefit of peace from those religions which preach and practice peace. For some other things you cannot apply logic due to zero information from which to draw from. For example, what God was doing before the creation of the physical universe. 

{Then there is the Mystical. That is, something that is supernatural or metaphysical and not apparent to the senses or obvious to the intelligence. It is something mysterious involving powers and influences that are beyond human understanding. For example, the idea that Christ purchased us with His own blood. Buying human beings by itself would be problematic enough from a material standpoint, let alone handing a cashier bags of blood instead of money. It's not illogical or contradictory, just something beyond our comprehension. >>>

Likewise, the idea of baptismal water washing away sins.  And everyone believes in the mystical if they believe in the special sanctity of marriage. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as adultery. It would just be another type of cheating. And the claim by Eastern Orthodox priests that Catholicism and Prot-estantism are devoid of Mysticism, having replaced it with Scholasticism is FALSE. It's just that Ortho-doxy emphasizes the mystical more, while others emphasize the scholastic and yet others are averse to scholasticism.} 

The problem occurs when people say you can't use logic with religion. That's outrageously FALSE. Without a logical foundation on which to rest your faith, you could just slip on a banana peel, fall into mud, and call that a sign from God. So, you create the banana mudpie religion. In contrast, mainstream Christianity was founded on the historical writings of a dozen different men, all of whom appear to have been upstanding. That cannot be said of the following: Mormonism was founded on the writings of only one man, Jospeh Smith, who was convicted of fraud. Scientology was founded on the writings of only one man, L. Ron Hubbard, who was convicted of fraud. The Moonies were founded on the writings of only one man, Sun Myung Moon, who was convicted of fraud. I use logic to eliminate those groups from consideration.    

So too the interpreting of religious writings in violation of the rules of language. As in other books, some sections can only have one meaning while others can have multiple meanings. But most people, under the guise of being spiritual, use religious texts as magical talismans, despite incongruences or contradic-tions, in order to escape teachings they don't want to follow.  But God is not going to choose an avenue of communication that has definite rules and then defy those selfsame rules, as God is not the author of confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33). So, without those parameters we have nonsense. Finally, a recap of my lesson: Some things are immediately known. Other things are unknowable. Many others require proper discernment, which is logic.  Applying logic is wisdom. Failing to do so is foolish.