logical fallacies

[Monica]

Caution! Wall of text ahead!

LOL. That made me wonder if, in some far-off reality, there are two people channeling aspects of our Higher Selves, and writing a book about it!

Now there's a thought!

The degree to which reading that sentence made my brain hurt, is a sure sign it would be a good idea for me to contemplate it!

:idea:

Oh, I thought you had said he was spouting off about his religious beliefs or something.

Well he was. Typical around here.

Hmm. That's an interesting take. In my own view, I would feel that if somebody feels they have the right to spew bigotry, that gives me the right to critique the sponsoring beliefs. I will admit it really grinds my gears when people use their religion as a shield... especially when coming out at people with prejudice, racism and bigotry. Oh, so you get to tell me this is what the "LORD your GOD" says, but then retreat behind your shield and act as if I can't come back at you because nobody is "allowed" to criticize another person's religious beliefs? Why should that be? Why should said person have the "right" to throw their religion in other people's faces, but those people not have the "right" to respond? Sounds like there is a logical fallacy or two lurking behind that kind of mentality to me!

You're right. I agree totally! Were this to happen today, I would surely speak up. This was many years ago, and I was in a disadvantageous position because he was my supervisor. So I had to eat some s***.

It kind of reminds me of back when I used to teach weight loss classes and people tried to use their culture as a shield for their eating habits. "Well I am Indian and we eat a lot of rice!" or "I am Middle Eastern and we have a big feast with our families every weekend!"... um yeah? So what? One could say "I am American and we eat lots of burgers and fries!" Do you want to lose weight, or not?

Haha, that would be so funny to say "we eat lots of burgers" Yes, exactly!

Point being... I don't think religion or culture should function as an "impenetrable shield" against criticism of behaviors which are harmful or disrespectful to others. It is one of those areas where I think "political correctness" goes too far and is used too often as a convenient excuse for deplorable behavior.

This is an area in which you and I have had 100% agreement.

The difficulty is, however, in discerning at what point do we really want to get into it with them. ("pick your battles") And, on which basis. For example, I feel the same way about religion as you do, but I also feel the same way about the meat issue, whereas you don't feel the same way on that particular issue.

(NOT going down that road in this thread...just using it as an obvious example of where you and I might disagree as to application of the idea you just expressed and which I agree with in concept but maybe not always in application.)

True. I would even take that one a step further in that the intent study of the bible under the premise that it is all the literal "Word of God" really does one in as far as accepting logical fallacies are concerned.

Oh yes! Much more so than with the Catholics, who accept that it isn't all literal but some is allegorical. It's much easier to discuss something with someone who is somewhat reasonable (despite having their own strong biases) than someone who believes something 100% with no room to ever question it at all.

I have to admit, I really question the ability of humanity to create a better world when all this fallacious thinking is still the way of the majority.

I question that too.

Then again- I don't get the feeling that it is necessary to shore up one's thought processes to any large degree in order to graduate to fourth density.

Apparently not, or Ra would have mentioned it, since they were directly asked about the requirements for graduation to 4D. Logical thinking wasn't one of them.

I even wonder if logical thinking might get in the way for those just beginning to learn about love. Here's why I wonder that:

As we've seen here on this forum, sometimes having a lot of information might actually get in the way of compassion, because it's easy to just say "oh that's their karma...who am I to interfere?" or "well I wouldn't stop someone like Hitler because who am I to say he's wrong?"

Political correctness run amok!

Whereas, those in organized religions, although their thinking is very skewed in some ways, at least they are being told by their elders to love others and have compassion...the basics. They might not be ready for advanced teachings about 5D wisdom etc. or even stuff like reincarnation, because it might even get in the way of learning the basics.

The problem of course is that they are also taught that they are elite, the 'chosen by God' people, the 'saved' people and that obviously gets in the way of compassion. What I do frequently say to these people is: How can you truly have compassion for someone you think is doomed to hell anyway? and how could you truly have compassion for someone that God has already given up on and condemned? If even God thinks there's no hope for that person because they are too stubborn to switch their beliefs to the 'correct' religion then why should we even bother? That is what I tell them, because I think their elitism is very dangerous and even evil.

So it's a mixed bag.

Now fifth- I would say it is a critical requirement.

Agreed. Which makes me wonder whether any of us can truly know which density we're from. It seems that if one is from, say, 5D or 6D, then critical thinking would be sort of a given. Do ya think? Or do you think maybe that ability got veiled for some reason?

Ah! Yes- that may be a key difference between our respective upbrinings. The "bible as word of god" aspect wasn't really pounded into my head all that much.

Actually, it wasn't for me either, although the idea of Christianity being the 'one true religion' was quite programmed in my thinking The Catholics don't focus on the bible that much (which is what the evangelicals like to point out when building their case that Catholics "aren't real Christians but actually a cult").

But I did a 3-year stint as a born-again Christian, so that's where it got hammered in. Not totally though; I was able to break free of it! yea!

For my part, I wasn't scared... but ANGRY! Oh, so pissed. I guess in some ways I am still processing that.

Oh yes, I can relate!

I went to catechism class, but I pitched such a fit about it that it wasn't a regular thing. Eventually my mom just gave up. As for prayer, no we didn't do much family prayer, although if I were feeling worried or anxious about something, my mom would suggest that I say the rosary before bedtime. But in practice, it had the sort of opposite effect on me- while one part of my mind was engaged saying the prayers, another part was watching with incredulity as to why/how God would want me to pray in this way. I thought- wouldn't it be better to just have a conversation, or something?

Very similar to my experience, except that my parents were much more hardcore. But my questioning was similar to yours.

LOL! Well at first I said that one could be heavily biased, yet still be logical. Then you refuted my point, and I was attempting to acknowledge your counterpoint as valid.

...which I then questioned. Isn't this fun?

Moderate would be the the view which acknowledges some validity to all sides of an argument. But- having been a "moderator" that would make you the expert! What do you think it means?

The term moderate connotes to me, the middle-of-the-road path, being careful to not veer too far to the left or right, to not make a stand on anything, and maybe even being willing to compromise one's values in order to stay in the middle and thus non-controversial.

Avoiding controversy becomes the only conviction one adheres to.

In short: wishy-washy.

Here's the dictionary definition:

mod·er·ate   
adjective
1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3. mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4. calm or mild, as of the weather.
5. of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.
noun
6. a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.
7. ( usually initial capital letter ) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform.

Now if someone's views truly are moderate in nature, then there's nothing wrong with taking that stance. But when they must squelch their true passions and convictions, in order to be accepted by society or by their religious authorities, then that is suppression.

Suppression is of course necessary in some cases. Those who have tendencies towards violence must be suppressed for the good of the whole. I'm most definitely NOT in favor of just letting everyone do whatever they wish, willy-nilly, if doing so harms others!

But setting aside violent 'extremists' which is a whole 'nother conversation and one in which you and I are in agreement, and getting back to only philosophical terms, I'd say that many people stay locked in the 'moderate' position not because that's how they really think, but because they're afraid to question authority. They're afraid their religious elder will tell them their salvation is in jeopardy.

The problem with the moderate stance, in a philosophical context, is that the middle point cannot be defined. It shifts according to popular belief. Who gets to say where the middle point is? It's all very subjective.

Sometimes, it isn't a matter of the person lacking logic skills. Both sides of the debate might be presented with flawless logic, but just appear illogical to the other side. Why? Because the presupposition is different.

Yes, that is true. In which case I would attempt to look at the two presuppositions and see if there is a third "higher" supposition which includes both of them. I imagine if this process were carried out long enough, it would eventually lead to the supposition that "All is One".

I agree, which is what I was attempting to convey with my example...the one that made your head hurt.

You and I both tend to do that, which is why we are able to carry on long discussions with walls of text that send some people away screaming! haha

But sometimes even that can be taken too far, for we might think we're getting to the higher supposition when all we're really doing is going round in circles.

But we try! So I think we get some credit for that!

No doubt about that. Though personally, I would question the wisdom of engaging in a debate without having some awareness of one's own suppositions.

That's a tall order being that most people aren't even aware that they have suppositions at all. Their suppositions are so embedded in their thinking that they think they are facts, never to be questioned at all. It doesn't even enter their minds that they even have suppositions! They truly think that's the way it is.

Surely you've seen this exemplified, in conversations with those who are so locked into their belief that "the bible is the word of God" that they cannot even follow any questioning of that. They keep going back to "God said ...xyz" and we keep pointing out that "no, the bible said that...you just believe it was God, and that's ok, but not everyone agrees that it was God" and they go back to "but God said..." and cannot even follow the conversation. It's like they totally block out anything to the contrary of what they believe is fact, just as surely as we all believe the Earth is round.