So, Tunesmith, in answer to your question about whether logic can be applied to religion, the answer is an unequivocal "yes."

But I think a lot of people have a distorted view of logic. A computer operates with a form of logic called "binary logic." At its base, binary logic allows only two responses to every question, "yes" or "no." To deal with complicated stuff, it has to boil the problem down to umpteen bajillion "yes or no" questions. 64-bit computing allows for greater complexity in each calculation, but it still boils down to "yes or no" questions. There are explorations into far more complex versions of computer logic, but these are still in the beginning stages.

The output of a computer is dependent upon the quality of the data that is put into it. Thus the acronym "GIGO" (garbage in: garbage out). If you put faulty data into a computer or into a logical argument, don't blame the logic.

The questions of religion are in the realm of those "premises" that are stated before the logical processes begin. To my mind, it is foolhardy for people to try to prove or disprove religious premises.

Look at the initial statement from Tunesmith:

For example, to be a Muslim, one must believe in the words of one person: Muhammad
Words - the truth of which - can not be verified be any other human being.
Surely, there is not a trace of logic in such beliefs.

At its face, the statement is correct. But on the other hand, the statement actually says nothing. The words of the Prophet are the premise, and the logic follows thereafter. Same applies to all religions - the words of the "sage" (Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, Buddha) are the "given," to be accepted by believers. The logic follows thereafter.

But there's another problem with Tunesmith's statement on Islam - Tunesmith defines Islam in Western European terms. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are Middle Eastern religions at their base, so they should be understood in Middle Eastern terms. Middle Eastern thinking is not so concerned with doctrine, and right and wrong, and correct and incorrect. Middle Eastern thought focuses far more on relationships, on family and tribe and community. Thus, the basic concept of most Middle Eastern religions is this: Love God (whoever God is), and do unto others as you would have them do unto you - it's about relationships, not doctrine. What is the "doctrine" of Islam or Judaism? I submit that these two religions really have no doctrine. Furthermore, it seems to me that "doctrine" is something that was imposed on Christianity by Western Europe, and Eastern Christianity is far closer to its roots because it does not focus so strongly on doctrine. So all this foolishness about proving and disproving "beliefs," may be missing the point completely.

But I'm really trying to avoid letting this discussion morph into yet another heated battle about religion. Leading to that, here's a piece called "The Logic of Quantum Mechanics:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dmalamen/courses/prob-determ/Putnam.pdf

There's a lot to consider there.

And then there's another matter - in seminary (sorry), we were taught the rudiments of counseling through the principles of Cognitive Therapy, which is based on a theory that says that many psychological issues may be based on.....logical fallacies. I think there's something worthwhile to consider there, even if I DID learn it in such a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad place...

-Joe-

---

Also consider these:

Is Logic Empirical?

and

Boolean Algebra (logic)