A "Valid" Argument

In the midst of my studies the other day I recalled a conversation with a buddy some time ago.  In discussing world religions he suggested that more than one religion could be "valid."  I believe that my response involved noting that truth claims were still the heart of the issue, or something to that effect.  And while my response was correct to a degree, it failed to acknowledge that my friend too was correct in his statement. We did not truly tackle the difference between validity and truth.

An argument (or belief system) can indeed be valid, even if it is not true.  Validity simply refers to the fact that the conclusion follows logically from the premises.  However, it does not establish the truth of the conclusion, unless the premises are also true.  For example, consider the following syllogism:

All dogs are blue

Marley is a dog

Therefore, Marley is blue.

This is a valid argument.  It is well constructed logically in that the conclusion, "Marley is blue" logically follows from the premises.  However my dog Marley is not blue.  So the argument is valid, but it isn't sound.  The conclusion is false.  In that case, we look to the premises to find the problem and we see that Premise 1 - "All dogs are blue" is not in fact true, because we can show many examples of things that are dogs that are not blue.

The laws of logic can and should be applied to any religion to test the validity of the claims, but also the truth value of the premises.   With the stakes so high, (in fact, none could be higher) I am not satisfied with a religion that is merely valid.  I want a system that is both valid and true.  

Explore the truth claims of various religions.  See how the conclusions are reached, and how the premises are supported.  It can be an enlightening experience.  Once again we see that faith (held beliefs) and reason (logic) are not mutually exclusive.