The illogical logic...

[Segev Moran]

Usually when I debate, i make sure that the person I talk with, understands my definition of the words i use (only when there is more than one common definition). as i see it, it is vital for a debater to have a clear understanding of the terms being used by the other debater in order to have a fuller understanding of the arguments presented.

For some reason, it always seems to me very hard to understand the exact definition of some words that theist who argue against me use.

When i ask for example what is moral, i have my very clear definition of what it is, and there is a common understanding what we mean by it, but to theists, it is more than a word describing a relative understanding of good acts and bad act, but rather some kind of an objective force or power, that is the absolute good.

It took me quite some time to understand that their logic works very different than the logic of skeptics and the likes.

So i try to understand what is the cause of the different logic mechanism? why is it that my logical assessment is so different than the logical assessment of theist people?

I think one major difference, is what skeptics and theists grasp as cause.

When i ask my self, what is the cause of something i do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal i want to achieve by performing an action
and
The cause as: The events that led me to take that action

I'll try and provide an example:

I help and old man cross he street.

My goal will be to make sure the old man successfully crosses the road. I of course also want to provide example to others that it is not a bad habit to help the older.

As for the events that leads me to help the old man cross the street, it is the fact that i wish that when i will be old, people will help me in a case of need. it is of course a bit deeper than that, but the bottom line is indeed that (it has got to do a lot, of course, with the way i was raised by my parents who taught me to respect and help people when i can).

Most theists that i speak with, will never use such a logic to explain why they help someone. It will usually be due to gods will, or something like that. (which is great, as long as it is causing you help others).

The more i debate, the more i try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really cant seem to understand it.

I would love if someone can raise to the challenge, and explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.

please use the starting point of explaining what is math to you? is it something invented, or discovered, by humans?

Thanks and cheers

 

[crowfeather]

As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.

So theist reasoning is irrational?

 

[crowfeather]

So theist reasoning is irrational?

It isn't a logic thing, nor a reasoning thing, which is different to it being illogical and unreasonable.
Like a nuclear weapon isn't an interior decorating thing.
Rat Poison isn't a Cordon-Bleu thing.

 

[ChristineM]

I am not religious but i do have friends of various religions so some fairly interesting discussions have hit the fan.

One interesting and oft discussed subject is morality. It is my belief that morality is a human (and some animals) concept, without morality group living, sets, dens, tribes, families etc won't thrive and stay together. In the human world it lead to civilization which in turn allowed religion to flourish.

I see the religious view as... each religion claims to have invented morality for themselves and castigate, threaten and cajole immoral non believers to follow their faith. Non believers by definition their logic cannot be moral because it is gods way.

Here is the bit that convinced me of religious selfishness. The claim that without their faith you are a sinner and hence immoral, that's religious logic.

And now I'll probably get several posts contradicting my view. Yes it's a generality, many religious folk take other people at face value. My point is that they are let down by those religious fundamentals who don't and use their version of morality as a weapon.

 

[Nous]

When i ask for example what is moral, i have my very clear definition of what it is, and there is a common understanding what we mean by it

What is your "very clear definition" of what "moral" is, and what is the "common understanding" of what we mean by "moral"?

Are those two different ideas or the same?

 

[Nakosis]

I am not religious but i do have friends of various religions so some fairly interesting discussions have hit the fan.

One interesting and oft discussed subject is morality. It is my belief that morality is a human (and some animals) concept, without morality group living, sets, dens, tribes, families etc won't thrive and stay together. In the human world it lead to civilization which in turn allowed religion to flourish.

I see the religious view as... each religion claims to have invented morality for themselves and castigate, threaten and cajole immoral non believers to follow their faith. Non believers by definition their logic cannot be moral because it is gods way.

Here is the bit that convinced me of religious selfishness. The claim that without their faith you are a sinner and hence immoral, that's religious logic.

And now I'll probably get several posts contradicting my view. Yes it's a generality, many religious folk take other people at face value. My point is that they are let down by those religious fundamentals who don't and use their version of morality as a weapon.

I contradict your view.
Just trying to be helpful.

 

[Nous]

It is my belief that morality is a human (and some animals) concept, without morality group living, sets, dens, tribes, families etc won't thrive and stay together.

Insect colonies have no problem "thriving" and "staying together." I am unaware that any insects abide by moral rules about, say, rape. Why do you set humans "and some animals" (but humans are animals) apart as requiring moral rules in order to "thrive" and "stay together"?

 

[Nakosis]

As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.

I don't place my logic above anything. It's just a way to support my choices/actions.
Maybe that's a hard thing for religious folks to do, support their choices and actions beyond simply saying they are doing God's will.

 

[Nous]

I don't place my logic above anything.

You don't place your logic above illogic?

 

[Nakosis]

You don't place your logic above illogic?

Not your illogic. My logic works for me. It may not work for you. You got to figure out your own best way of doing things.
However yes you caught me using a bit of hyperbole.

 

[Polymath257]

Insect colonies have no problem "thriving" and "staying together." I am unaware that any insects abide by moral rules about, say, rape. Why do you set humans "and some animals" (but humans are animals) apart as requiring moral rules in order to "thrive" and "stay together"?

For most social insects, the 'rules' are genetically coded. And for some insects, that may include what we would call rape.

 

[Skwim]

Unlike those who look into the elements of an issue to try to discern relationships and conclusions, I believe theists, among others, look to authority or similar events in the past to tell them what to believe or do. If X worked in the past and Y is similar, it should probably work with Y today. This and the fact that most people aren't into introspection or care to bother with anything more than casual considerations. I believe most people prefer to keep life as simple as possible, and let issues unfold as they may as long as they're not overly consequential.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It isn't a logic thing, nor a reasoning thing, which is different to it being illogical and unreasonable.

I think that justifying our beliefs is very much a "logic thing" and a "reasoning thing", and that anyone who rejects logic and reasoning when coming to their conclusions is being irrational.

 

[Willamena]

Usually when I debate, i make sure that the person I talk with, understands my definition of the words i use (only when there is more than one common definition). as i see it, it is vital for a debater to have a clear understanding of the terms being used by the other debater in order to have a fuller understanding of the arguments presented.

For some reason, it always seems to me very hard to understand the exact definition of some words that theist who argue against me use.

When i ask for example what is moral, i have my very clear definition of what it is, and there is a common understanding what we mean by it, but to theists, it is more than a word describing a relative understanding of good acts and bad act, but rather some kind of an objective force or power, that is the absolute good.

It took me quite some time to understand that their logic works very different than the logic of skeptics and the likes.

So i try to understand what is the cause of the different logic mechanism? why is it that my logical assessment is so different than the logical assessment of theist people?

I think one major difference, is what skeptics and theists grasp as cause.

When i ask my self, what is the cause of something i do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal i want to achieve by performing an action
and
The cause as: The events that led me to take that action

I'll try and provide an example:

I help and old man cross he street.

My goal will be to make sure the old man successfully crosses the road. I of course also want to provide example to others that it is not a bad habit to help the older.

As for the events that leads me to help the old man cross the street, it is the fact that i wish that when i will be old, people will help me in a case of need. it is of course a bit deeper than that, but the bottom line is indeed that (it has got to do a lot, of course, with the way i was raised by my parents who taught me to respect and help people when i can).

Most theists that i speak with, will never use such a logic to explain why they help someone. It will usually be due to gods will, or something like that. (which is great, as long as it is causing you help others).

The more i debate, the more i try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really cant seem to understand it.

I would love if someone can raise to the challenge, and explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.

please use the starting point of explaining what is math to you? is it something invented, or discovered, by humans?

Thanks and cheers

I think you would benefit from reading Luc Ferry's "A Brief History of Thought."

When i ask my self, what is the cause of something i do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal i want to achieve by performing an action
and
The cause as: The events that led me to take that action

Shouldn't it be the events that caused me to formulate that goal?

 

[crowfeather]

I think that justifying our beliefs is very much a "logic thing" and a "reasoning thing", and that anyone who rejects logic and reasoning when coming to their conclusions is being irrational.

When you are so insecure about what you believe, or what you should believe, then you certainly do require justification.
Not actually believing what you believe, without this justification to permit you to believe it, certainly requires logic and reasoning, to justify it.
But real people with real lives, live their lives, intuitively, without neurosing over wondering if they are justified, or logical, or reasonable.

 

[leibowde84]

As long as you place your 'logic' above God, you will continue to not get-it. It's not a logic-thing.

LOL ... priceless. This reply is the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.

 

[Willamena]

When you are so insecure about what you believe, or what you should believe, then you certainly do require justification.

Not by anyone else, though. No one deserves that.

 

[Willamena]

So theist reasoning is irrational?

Rational realism is irrational.

 

[crowfeather]

Rational realism is irrational.

See, I get this, completely. But those who don't, not only don't, but won't, can't, couldn't, wouldn't, ever, never, do.

You have to wonder what anybody gains from knee-jerk inversion, other than a manic sort of momentary rush.
Meanwhile, the rot digs down, deeper and deeper, until there's absolutely nothing left of anything.