Question about logic

[stvdv]

There is a difference between reason and logic. It may be reasonable for a child to believe in Santa based on her informations but there is no logic involved. Logic is much more strict than simple reason.

I would rather say "logic is simple" and "reason is more advanced than just logic", because our Buddhi (discrimination power is very advanced)

reason

verb: reason; 3rd person present: reasons; past tense: reasoned; past participle: reasoned; gerund or present participle: reasoning

1. think, understand, and form judgements logically.
   "humans do not reason entirely from facts"

 

[wellwisher]

Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

There are two centers of consciousness in the human brain. These are the inner self and the ego. The inner self came first and is connected to our DNA. The inner self is the center of the unconscious mind. The inner self internally; inherent with the brain, defines us as a species and gives us collective human propensities. Animals have an inner self, but they have no ego. The inner self of an animal gives the impression of a type of consciousness, that acts within instinct, and within the nature of that species.The lion has specific behavior patterns within its DNA, mediated by its inner self.

The second center of the human brain is the ego, which is connected to the conscious mind. The ego is relatively new in terms of evolution and appeared about 6-10K years ago. It became self standing with the formation of civilization. It is an addendum to the inner self but is more of a product of the external social and physical environments. The ego follows the fads that are temporal and which most often come from outside itself. The inner self is more timeless and follows the instinct engrained in our brain through our DNA.

Religious people appear to be more aware of the inner self, than are atheists. This is why prayer and meditation are more important to religion.These are needed for the introspection that allows one to sense the inner self. The ego, on the other hand will read, listen or examine external data sources. The rational behind God and religion is that the introspection leads to experiences of the inner self, which then help to reinforce faith in the timeless. Religions are systems that help the individual perceive this higher human potential which can unite all humans since it is common to all.

Science looks outside itself for truth and is therefore better equipped to serve the ego, I often wondered how the ego blindly follows cultural fads and the whims of the self serving, who manipulate for power and money. This is all to maintain the fragile ego. It makes more sense to follow a natural inner voice that has been forged over eons and cost you nothing to develop.

Blessed are the poor is connected to the inner self. If one is poor they cannot use money to control the external environment to achieve positive feedback for the fragile ego. They need to discover a new way that creates self esteem through a natural interface.

As an example of the contrast between inner self and ego, the current fad of infinite genders is for the ego. There is no basis for this claim, in the inner self, since this fad is new. The inner self is timeless and being a product of long term natural selection, it defaults back that which is most optimized for the integration of nature; two sexes, but not necessarily the ego. This fad will come and go, but the inner self holds steady to what has been selected over eons. Maybe the ego-centric can answer the question .why is the ego so willing to follow any new fad? My guess this is the latest customizable temporal mask for the ego, to help firm its fragile foundation, within time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

As an example of the contrast between inner self and ego, the current fad of infinite genders is for the ego. There is no basis for this claim, in the inner self, since this fad is new. The inner self is timeless and being a product of long term natural selection, it defaults back that which is most optimized for the integration of nature; two sexes, but not necessarily the ego. This fad will come and go, but the inner self holds steady to what has been selected over eons. Maybe the ego-centric can answer the question .why is the ego so willing to follow any new fad? My guess this is the latest customizable temporal mask for the ego, to help firm its fragile foundation, within time.

Well, there is.
Now I can find and show it to you. But does your ego want that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is a difference between reason and logic. It may be reasonable for a child to believe in Santa based on her informations but there is no logic involved. Logic is much more strict than simple reason.

Can you give an example of how believing in santa is not logical but reasonable?

Does something have to be true (lbw) in order for it to be logically sound?

 

[McBell]

Does something have to be true (lbw) in order for it to be logically sound?

Yes.
That is the difference between being logically valid and logically sound.
Valid simply means the logic works.
Sound means that it is valid AND true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes.
That is the difference between being logically valid and logically sound.
Valid simply means the logic works.
Sound means that it is valid AND true.

Then in the Santa example, it isn't logical how he came to the conclusion of believing in santa?

I'm going off these definitions:

Characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

Natural or sensible given the circumstances.

The reasoning is sound (parents told child santa exists therefore it's sound reasoning to think or conclude that santa does)

Given the circumstances (on christmas), it makes sense or its sensible that a child would believe santa exists. Whether he does or not is irrelevant.

What definition of logic are you using?

 

[McBell]

What definition of logic are you using?

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

[Heyo]

Can you give an example of how believing in santa is not logical but reasonable?

As you said, "I want to get presents" (reason) "Santa brings presents, therefore I believe in Santa" (faulty reasoning).
Important is that you can can state a reason.

Does something have to be true (lbw) in order for it to be logically sound?

Yes.
An argument (syllogism) can be valid if the conclusion follows from the premisses but it can only be sound when the premisses are also true.
To believe in Santa is not sound as the premise (Santa brings presents) isn't true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I saw this in math class actually. A and B equals C so C minus A is B or something or other. I'm pretty simple so the word logic (and other words) are pretty much what's in the dictionary.

 

[McBell]

I saw this in math class actually. A and B equals C so C minus A is B or something or other. I'm pretty simple so the word logic (and other words) are pretty much what's in the dictionary.

I was great at math until they threw in the alphabet.
Then the whole "solve for x" thing really turned me off to math.
If my ex wants the answer, she can find it herself.
I mean, she is my ex for a reason.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

Obviously people have their reasons, otherwise they wouldn't be believing in the first place. But their reasons may have nothing to do with reaction to the best and most consequential data available on the topic at hand.

So while it may "make sense" that a given person believes in something based on their current level of education about a particular topic (think a child who has only ever been told that Santa exists), that certainly doesn't mean that we should all just stand by and say "oh, how cute" as they continue to reject information with better evidence, or spread what are tantamount to unwitting lies to the rest of our fellows. Because we have to face facts here - there are enough religious beliefs in contention with absolutely no cogent evidence to their name that are in complete conflict with one another. And this even within the SAME religion many times (it's "faith, not works" that gets you in, versus "it is works, not faith", etc.). SOMEONE in those scenarios (or all parties) is lying their butts off... even if that is an unwitting lie. That is for certain.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Obviously people have their reasons, otherwise they wouldn't be believing in the first place. But their reasons may have nothing to do with reaction to the best and most consequential data available on the topic at hand.

So while it may "make sense" that a given person believes in something based on their current level of education about a particular topic (think a child who has only ever been told that Santa exists), that certainly doesn't mean that we should all just stand by and say "oh, how cute" as they continue to reject information with better evidence, or spread what are tantamount to unwitting lies to the rest of our fellows. Because we have to face facts here - there are enough religious beliefs in contention with absolutely no cogent evidence to their name that are in complete conflict with one another. And this even within the SAME religion many times (it's "faith, not works" that gets you in, versus "it is works, not faith", etc.). SOMEONE in those scenarios (or all parties) is lying their butts off... even if that is an unwitting lie. That is for certain.

Like a child and santa, it's no big deal if any religious person believe in something or someone that can't be "found in data." It's quite silly to supposed there "should" be any evidence to religious people's claims. It doesn't solve anything to "prove" say god only exists in the brains of followers or meaningful synchronicities are random occurrences humans find patterns in. It's fine to see these things, god, afterlife, whatever as true or fact without needing to devalue the beliefs because they are totally outside what we (many of us) consider as logical.

Who "holds the claims" to reality and what's fact or fiction in regards to belief in god?

 

[McBell]

Who "holds the claims" to reality and what's fact or fiction in regards to belief in god?

Anyone and everyone making a god claim...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Anyone and everyone making a god claim...

In other words, who says what is true and what isn't?

God exist and god does not exist are both claims. Both sides speak as if their views are a representative of reality. If it's just who made the claim, then you guys can be arguing all day but at the end its just you guys' opinion.

 

[McBell]

In other words, who says what is true and what isn't?

Lots of people make truth claims.
Some of them might even be right.

God exist and god does not exist are both claims. Both sides speak as if their views are a representative of reality. If it's just who made the claim, then you guys can be arguing all day but at the end its just you guys' opinion.

Seems to me that this is the only reason god claims are made with such surety.
They can not be proven.
Since they can not be proven, people are free to make whatever claims about god they like with out fear of being proven wrong.
Of course, they can not be proven right, but when one takes the attitude they are right until proven wrong....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Like a child and santa, it's no big deal if any religious person believe in something or someone that can't be "found in data."

People in this very thread have already relayed some of the dangers. Like people rejecting sound medicinal advice in favor of their chosen deity "coming to the rescue." Or people basing the ostracization of a particular type of person (homosexuals for example) based on nothing more than what is written in some book. You think all of them have actually thought the issue over in their minds and come to any conclusion on their own? I'd love to see that be the basis of their argumentation... then maybe we who have thought about it would actually get somewhere in debates with them. But instead they can always just lean back on "Well God said so and God is always right." It's asinine. And according to you, I should just put up with this? Hahaha!!!! Not going to happen. Good luck convincing me in light of all the idiotic crap I see go on daily from "the faithful." Geez.

It's quite silly to supposed there "should" be any evidence to religious people's claims.

If they are intent in convicing anyone of their position there had damn well better be. And if there isn't, and they aren't willing to provide then Why should we take them seriously? Why? Like in the argument against homosexuality. Why should a believer be taken seriously when they say that homosexuality is wrong if all they bring to the table is that their book states it? Why? And if you don't think they necessarily should, then you see the exact problem I am talking about. If they only ever kept their stupid religion-based opinions to themselves that would be one thing. But do they? Hell no they do not. Do not. They don't. Don't. Don't. Don't. Don't. Do freaking not. Done. Get it? (EDIT: to anyone reading this who does actually keep it to themselves, I am not referring to you with any of this)

It doesn't solve anything to "prove" say god only exists in the brains of followers or meaningful synchronicities are random occurrences humans find patterns in.

This sentence is barely intelligible, but what I think you're getting at is to say that it doesn't solve any problem to prove that god only exists in the brains of believers. And I staunchly disagree. If we could literally prove this to them to the point that it was undeniable without demonstrably being irrational or in conflict with nigh-undeniable evidence, then that would be amazing. How many people "on the fence" would immediately jump down off of it and distance themselves as far as possible from those making claims about the God in their brains without evidence present in reality? That'd be a fantastic leap forward for human kind. People actually respecting adherence to evidence and holding rationality and honest investigation as a cherished principle? Amazing.

It's fine to see these things, god, afterlife, whatever as true or fact without needing to devalue the beliefs because they are totally outside what we (many of us) consider as logical.

Not in all cases it isn't. No way. Not when people are being hurt because whoever is doing the hurting is "pretty sure" God is on their side. Like the U.S. re-installing the state of Israel and basically inviting a decades (perhaps centuries, or millennia as we continue on) long war over the territory, all because we wanted to be the idiots to "fulfill prophecy." Pathetic. Freaking wannabes. So damn sad and pitiful. Why didn't we re-seat the American Natives while we were at it, huh? Move our hypocritical asses off of what was originally their lands because we stole it out from under them? This is the work of complete dumbasses who couldn't see further than The Bible that was being held out in front of them by self-proclaimed "authorities." That's the harm that can be done. Don't trivialize it, for goodness sake! It should be readily admitted to, apologized for, and promises should be made that stupid crap like that will never happen again. Instead what is the real admittance you have to make? That people will do harmful things in the name of religion for all of time. Seriously. That much we can basically count on if the evidence of all of our collective past is to be taken into consideration.

Who "holds the claims" to reality and what's fact or fiction in regards to belief in god?

Isn't it obvious that it should all be treated as unsubstantiated garbage until such time as one of the purveyors of a faith can actually produce some compelling evidence of their claim to "truth?" That's where I stand.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lots of people make truth claims.
Some of them might even be right.


Seems to me that this is the only reason god claims are made with such surety.
They can not be proven.
Since they can not be proven, people are free to make whatever claims about god they like with out fear of being proven wrong.
Of course, they can not be proven right, but when one takes the attitude they are right until proven wrong....

Could it work the other way around?

The common argument or fallacy, I guess, is for a believer to say a non-believer (his opponent) is not telling the truth because the opponent can't prove otherwise. So, both can't prove their position (excluding who has the burden of proof at the moment).

Since god, by definition, isn't something you can prove exist with a microscope (aka by definition it is not an objective truth), it makes more sense for the believer to claim god exist is true (since they aren't dependent on objectivity) than a non-believer proving that god (the claim) is not true since they don't have subjective criteria to go on.

 

[McBell]

Could it work the other way around?

The common argument or fallacy, I guess, is for a believer to say a non-believer (his opponent) is not telling the truth because the opponent can't prove otherwise. So, both can't prove their position (excluding who has the burden of proof at the moment).

Since god, by definition, isn't something you can prove exist with a microscope (aka by definition it is not an objective truth), it makes more sense for the believer to claim god exist is true (since they aren't dependent on objectivity) than a non-believer proving that god (the claim) is not true since they don't have subjective criteria to go on.

It works both ways.
The claim "god does not exist" can not be proven any more than "god exists".

Thus the reason I intentionally worded it as a "god claim".
Meaning ANY claim about ANY deity..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Goodness gracious!

People in this very thread have already relayed some of the dangers. Like people rejecting sound medicinal advice in favor of their chosen deity "coming to the rescue." Or people basing the ostracization of a particular type of person (homosexuals for example) based on nothing more than what is written in some book. You think all of them have actually thought the issue over in their minds and come to any conclusion on their own?

I'd love to see that be the basis of their argumentation... then maybe we who have thought about it would actually get somewhere in debates with them. But instead they can always just lean back on "Well God said so and God is always right." It's asinine. And according to you, I should just put up with this? Hahaha!!!! Not going to happen. Good luck convincing me in light of all the idiotic CRAP I see go on daily from "the faithful." Geez.

(Numbered for clarity)

1. The OP wasn't about the harm religious belief does to others as a basis of it being illogical. It was pointing out the sound reasoning or logical reasoning a child or believer come to their conclusions santa or god exist regardless the benefit or consequence of these beliefs.

2. I don't share your method of sentiment.

If they are intent in convicing anyone of their position there had damn well better be. And if there isn't, and they aren't willing to provide they WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY? Why? Like in the argument against homosexuality. Why should a believer be taken seriously when they say that homosexuality is wrong if all they bring to the table is that their book states it? WHY? And if you don't think they necessarily should, then you see the exact problem I am talking about. If they only ever kept their stupid religion-based opinions to themselves that would be one thing. But do they? Hell no they do not. DO NOT. They don't. Don't. Don't. Don't. Don't. DO FREAKING NOT. Done. Get it? (EDIT: to anyone reading this who does actually keep it to themselves, I am not referring to you with any of this)

3. This doesn't sound like it addresses what I said. I do get you have strong feelings about it though.

This sentence is barely intelligible, but what I think you're getting at is to say that it doesn't solve any problem to prove that god only exists in the brains of believers. And I staunchly disagree. If we could literally prove this to them to the point that it was undeniable without demonstrably being irrational or in conflict with undeniable evidence, then that would be amazing. How many people "on the fence" would immediately jump down off of it and distance themselves as far as possible from those making claims about the God in their brains without evidence present in reality? That'd be a fantastic leap forward for human kind. People actually respecting adherence to evidence and holding rationality and honest investigation as a cherished principle? Amazing.

4. It doesn't solve anything to prove god doesn't exist.

5. Would you try to prove god doesn't exist without taking into consideration why they believe in such a thing to begin with?

For example, some people cannot live without god-that's their whole life is based on it. The only way they can "not believe in god" (regardless his existence idea or actual being) is if they are presented with a situation (say have a homosexual child) that they have to struggle with their belief or the love of their child. It has to be done by challenging their personal experiences not debating objectivity vs subjectivity and the contradictions of scripture (for examples).

6.
How did you want believers to live if you took god away from them?
What would you do if they didn't agree with how you want them to see reality?

Not in all cases it isn't. No way. Not when people are being hurt because whoever is doing the hurting is "pretty sure" God is on their side. Like the U.S. re-installing the state of Israel and basically inviting a decades (perhaps centuries, or millennia as we continue on) long war over the territory, all because we wanted to be the idiots to "fulfill prophecy." Pathetic. Freaking wannabes. So damn sad and pitiful. Why didn't we re-seat the American Natives while we were at it, huh? Move our hypocritical asses off of what was originally their lands because we stole it out from under them? This is the work of complete dumbasses who couldn't see further than The Bible that was being held out in front of them by self-proclaimed "authorities." That's the harm that can be done. Don't trivialize it, for goodness sake! It should be readily admitted to, apologized for, and promises should be made that stupid crap like that will never happen again. Instead what is the real admittance you have to make? That people will do harmful things in the name of religion for all of time. Seriously. That much we can basically count on if the evidence of all of our collective past is to be taken into consideration.

7. Which makes me wonder again if god was out of the picture, how would "you" want them to live? What criteria do you feel they should base their life on if not god?

8. The rest I don't share the sentiment.

An example is a psychiatrist treating a client because that client hears voices. Hearing voices doesn't do anything in itself. Once the psychiatrist treats the symptoms (suicidal behavior, things like that), and have coping techniques and all, hearing voices becomes less of a problem for the client if, indeed, they still hear voices despite the relief of their symptoms.

Isn't it obvious that it should all be treated us unsubstantiated garbage until such time as one of the purveyors of a faith can actually produce some compelling evidence of their claim to "truth?" That's where I stand.

9. Okay. I understand your opinion about it, but who holds the claims to this truth (how are you any more correct and your criteria you base your opinions on) any more than the believer beside you?

 

[Heyo]

Like a child and santa, it's no big deal if any religious person believe in something or someone that can't be "found in data." It's quite silly to supposed there "should" be any evidence to religious people's claims. It doesn't solve anything to "prove" say god only exists in the brains of followers or meaningful synchronicities are random occurrences humans find patterns in. It's fine to see these things, god, afterlife, whatever as true or fact without needing to devalue the beliefs because they are totally outside what we (many of us) consider as logical.

Who "holds the claims" to reality and what's fact or fiction in regards to belief in god?

I smoke. Smoking is one of the most illogical things to do, knowing the possible consequences. I do it anyhow but I don't claim it to be logical.

Believing in things that can't be evidenced or proven is also not logical. Believers do it anyhow. But why do they have the need to say that it is logical?