Just on the basis of pure curiosity do you suppose there is any correlation between atheism and being a logical person? I'm wondering if there are really any deeply religious people studying for the lsat. And if there are, can you honestly think logically about your religion in the same way you think about lsat arguments or games? I know this may be a stretch, but has the lsat made you think differently about what you believe in terms of religion?

Quit trolling.

ridiculous question.

LSAT = Skills test.

Anyone can learn the skills. It is very unlikely a religious affiliation can predispose someone to perform better or worse.

A test rocked your religious beliefs? Really?

It's just a test d00d.

I look at religion not as something to be logical about but something, if properly practiced, can add to your life. I am not a christian like, I assume, you are questioning. Regardless, for example, if I say a blessing before/after I eat something does it add to my overall life? meaning? purpose? pleasure? if the answer is yes, then what is the harm? Do i think that everything about my religion is correct, logical, and necessary? No. but can certain aspects add to my life? More precisely, can they add the most important thing, that is pleasure, to my life? If the answer is yes, I will do them. And I answer yes to many of the tradition practices of my religion.

Blatant anti-Notre Dame trolling.

That's quite a jump there, hope. In no way is this about me but since you asked...I would find it extremely difficult believing in something supported by such minimal evidence, especially while thinking so logically for these months leading up to the test. I don't think there's anything wrong with this question and I don't think this qualifies as trolling.

Can't see this going anywhere good.

lol titcr

No. If anything, reading a 280 page commentary on the 4 page book of James the two weeks or so leading up to the test helped my reading comprehension.

I'm not sure how long this thread will last, but I think it's an interesting question.

I think the pivotal matter is one's understanding of "religion." Admittedly, it is impossible to logically prove the existence of the Bible or of a god. The opposite is also true, god cannot be logically disproven. The idea of god and spirituality exists outside of logic and reason. In my mind, the elementary question becomes "Do logic and reason encompass all of reality?"

Personally, I view God in a more abstract sense. I would probably be best classified as a deist. I don't find such a position logically indefensible, though again it cannot be logically confirmed.

I believe you create a dilemma where one does not exist. There are logically sound positions between the spectral book-ends of atheism and religion.

Edit: There's really no order to my post, I just kind of rambled. It was fun though.

Winner.

the argument you suggest is that a religious individual would not do as well as....you?... because they believe in something that, you claim, there is insufficient evidence for. am i right?

But logic can support an argument for or against a belief. (off the top of my head i believe one is, if you were to stumble upon a watch in a field, you would assume someone made it. If you stumble upon a tree or a rock, why should you not believe someone created it as well? There are a lot of logical arguments on both sides.)

There are a lot of smart people out there who believe in something higher then themselves, and it doesn't make them illogical or less intelligent, dummy.

Where's that guy who wanted to see nerd fight threads?!

This one is destined for greatness.

Anti-nerd bias!!!

I think it's possible to be a smart, logical theist, but I've met very few of them. Many of the ones I have met believe in God based on some vague "whatever makes you happy" notion instead of evidence. They treat the question of whether or not they should believe in God differently than they treat every other question out there.

Still, I know there are smart theists out there who believe in God on the basis of arguments, like Alvin Plantinga, I just think they're extremely rare.

No, you are wrong. Many religious arguments cannot be supported by evidence nor are they logically sound. One example off the top of my head is the creationst argument, which claims that since we as humans are complex and our world is designed so perfectly for our survival we must have been created by god. Would you not say this is an illogical argument?

Maybe religious people do even better than athiests on the LSAT because they are so accustomed to seeing such flawed arguments? I'm not sure, I'm merely curious what others think.

I am surprised at the extent to which the OP is being so blatantly dismissed.

I have always held the LSAT above other standardized tests in that, unlike the GRE, the SAT, or the GMAT, to name a few, the LSAT actually teaches you to think differently. I think it is perfectly legitimate, then, to ask if having learned to think differently has affected a belief set that you may or may not have had before learning to think in such a way.

Religion is obviously a controversial topic, but this is a legitimate post, IMO.

(Just wanted to add that I realize that for a lot of people, the type of logical reasoning used on the LSAT is not new and they, therefore, learn little. For a majority, however--particularly those who had no training in formal logic--it is a new skill set)

I will agree with this. I'd even concede that there is likely a correlation b/t atheism and being a "logical person" (though an operational defition for logicality would be a difficult one to craft). However, that's most likely a reflection of the contemporary excersize of religion and spirituality than of the viability of a logical approach to spiritual matters.

You are saying that belief in a god is illogical because some arguments used in defense of that position are illogical. You realize that is entirely insufficient, correct?

This is not the thread for this, Christian bashing won't help you get your answer.




The problem is that, as earlier mentioned, deism is not a logically provable or disprovable belief. To suggest that being a Christian implies inferior thinking abilities is quite a smack to the face, and won't get anyone anywhere without everyone's best friend: empirical data, which odds are does not exist in this case, so debating it seems to be worthless.

Not some but all are illogical in my view. What logical argument supports believing in god? It relies solely on faith.

I think you guys are ignoring the fact that rationality isn't just about proving and disproving things. There are also rules regarding when it's rational to commit your belief to something and when it's not.

If the LSAT (as someone mentioned, a skill test) could make someone reevaluate their religion, you are going to have a hard time explaining religious fanatics who are trying to build a nuclear bomb. Knowledge and logic can exist in the mind of some pretty screwed up people -- its not an either or.

Religion is a beast all to itself, I don't try to understand it but I have learned that questions like yours are not going to get you that far.


Also just wanted to add:

Your question is about logic, but I think a lot of people would agree that god cannot be logically proven or disproven. Personally, as an Atheist, I think most if not all of the arguments in favor of god are unreasonable. I think this because they all require MORE explanation that a similar theory without god. In other words, I think the agrument over god is an argument over the empirical justification of beliefs, not simply pure logic.

One logical position for belief in god can be found in Kant (though again, it transcends pure logic). I'd suggest Critique of Practical Reason if you have not read it. Without an absolute standard from which to draw, we have no gounds for trusting in our ability to reason. What makes you think that your understanding of the world is valid, particularly if no ultimate authority instilled such ability.

I suspect that your had the conservative right in mind when you created this thread. If the scope of the argument were narrowed to only include the fundamentalist, I'd agree that such a position is indeed logically indefensible. But to summarily dismiss the idea of a higher power is to reach too far, IMO.