:clap: The Boy Owen got there first.

[Monty92]

Which is precisely what is wrong with them. Surrendering your will to an interpretation of an age old book that hardly anybody around you agrees with, and which demands from you actions that all but a psychopath would be appalled by, is not a rational, logical act. It is an act of desperation and stupidity.

Apart from anything else, how can blind faith ever be logical.

If you believe what they believe, their actions are utterly logical. In the same way that a person caught in the grips of a psychotic episode, convinced they are hearing voices compelling them to murder, would also be acting logically.

[Peter]

If you believe what they believe, their actions are utterly logical. In the same way that a person caught in the grips of a psychotic episode, convinced they are hearing voices compelling them to murder, would also be acting logically.

You think that is logical? A voice in your head telling you to do something?

I am not convinced that understand the term.

[Burney]

You think that is logical? A voice in your head telling you to do something?

I am not convinced that understand the term.

Logic can be impeccable, but still arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion if it embarks from a false premise.

[Peter]

Logic can be impeccable, but still arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion if it embarks from a false premise.

Very true. By the same token, doing as you are instructed to do is not a logical act. It can be an act of obedience, of self-preservation, of belief. By definition it is derived not by any logical process but by instruction. Be it religious doctrine or voices in your head.

[Burney]

Very true. By the same token, doing as you are instructed to do is not a logical act. It can be an act of obedience, of self-preservation, of belief. By definition it is derived not by any logical process but by instruction. Be it religious doctrine or voices in your head.

Yes, but only if you look at it from a purely post-Enlightenment, rationalist standpoint in which religious belief is an optional extra rather than a given.

To medieval man, God was real. No ifs, no buts. His nature may occasionally have been disputed, but never His existence or His authority. There was therefore nothing irrational about belief in God or adherence to His strictures. The fact is that Islamic culture and society still very much exist in the medieval paradigm in this sense. Indeed, a desire to take the world back to a pre-medieval state is very much to be desired as far as the likes of ISIS are concerned.

[Peter]

Yes, but only if you look at it from a purely post-Enlightenment, rationalist standpoint in which religious belief is an optional extra rather than a given.

To medieval man, God was real. No ifs, no buts. His nature may occasionally have been disputed, but never His existence or His authority. There was therefore nothing irrational about belief in God or adherence to His strictures. The fact is that Islamic culture and society still very much exist in the medieval paradigm in this sense. Indeed, a desire to take the world back to a pre-medieval state is very much to be desired as far as the likes of ISIS are concerned.

The logic doesn't extend beyond 'this is by definition true so I must do it'..... its not so much logical as mechanical.

[Burney]

The logic doesn't extend beyond 'this is by definition true so I must do it'..... its not so much logical as mechanical.

Sure, but we all have articles of faith, don't we? For us it's pretty much a mechanical article of faith to say that democracy is good, free speech is good, women and gays should have the same rights as straight men and that there should be no racial discrimination.

We take those things as givens, but they are anything but in global and historical terms. They are, in fact, simply products of our time, our society and moral outlook. Equally, the belief that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger is just as much a given to a billion or so muslims worldwide. We may see it as madness, but it's nothing of the sort. It's just a different belief system.

[Monty92]

You think that is logical? A voice in your head telling you to do something?

I am not convinced that understand the term.

You're missing my point. To them, it is logical.

To tell a muslim that it is illogical to blow themselves up in a crowd of unbelievers is akin to telling a mad person in the grips of a psychotic episode that the voices in their head are not real and they should just go home, have a nice cup of tea and get an early night.

Except, thankfully, we don't need to do this with the overwhelming majority of muslims, because they have implicitly disavowed their faith.

[Peter]

You're missing my point. To them, it is logical.

To tell a muslim that it is illogical to blow themselves up in a crowd of unbelievers is akin to telling a mad person in the grips of a psychotic episode that the voices in their head are not real and they should just go home, have a nice cup of tea and get an early night.

Except, thankfully, we don't need to do this with the overwhelming majority of muslims, because they have implicitly disavowed their faith.

I'm not saying it is illogical because it is evil or mental. It is an act of faith or obedience, neither of which is arrived at through a logical thought process.

The religious nut does his duty because he believes he has been instructed to do so, not because he has weighed the pros cons and consequences of the act and believes it is the only logical course of action.

I get your point, its just the wrong word. And however you dress it up it remains an act of faith, however misguided.

[Monty92]

I'm not saying it is illogical because it is evil or mental. It is an act of faith or obedience, neither of which is arrived at through a logical thought process.

The religious nut does his duty because he believes he has been instructed to do so, not because he has weighed the pros cons and consequences of the act and believes it is the only logical course of action.

I get your point, its just the wrong word. And however you dress it up it remains an act of faith, however misguided.

I don't ever recall suggesting it was anything other than an act of faith.

Is it very much the concept of faith that I would blame for this sorry saga above and beyond anything else.

Faith is very silly, except where Arsene Wenger is concerned, natch.