Jump to content

subjectivity and logic

Recommended Posts

This thread is derived from another thread where it was claimed that religious logic can't be defended because it is subjective and therefore totally open to interpretation. Imo, theological ideas make more sense when viewed according to some logic than others. Arguing that God is an external entity, separate from the people who write "divinely inspired scripture," for example, doesn't make sense in the logic of spiritual inspiration to write in and of itself. I.e. if someone claims to have been inspired by God, that is in itself the essence of divine inspiration - i.e. the subjective experience of God. To apply objectivist logic and claim that there is some objective, external entity that is separate from the experience of divine inspiration itself doesn't work within the logic of spirituality. The question is whether it is legitimate to criticize logical inconsistencies in people's interpretations and discussions about religion, or must we always defer to the authority of whatever logic the OP assumes?


By this logic, should critics of religion also be restricted from questioning or expressing criticism about inconsistencies or other interpretations that hold religion/theology accountable to scientific, materialist, or other logics? I.e. if each thread is going to be protected as its own axiomatic regime, should all threads be afforded equal protection and posters be required to conform to the premises and assumptions of the OP, without voicing dissent or critique of those?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.