logical fallacies

[Tenet Nosce]

Ahem! Woe be to whoever gets in the middle of you and me! Someone with a text phobia might want to avoid the Tenet-Monica dialogs!

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!

I wonder about that. Maybe 'doing it' is actually easy, when true realization has occurred. Maybe what we think is realization, isn't really realization after all.

Could be. An interesting thought!

Or...how about this: Create a 3rd possibility.

That is the nature of reconciling paradox! Creation.

Yes!

BOTH/AND as the entity on one side of the /, with EITHER/OR as the entity on the other.

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!

He was a coworker, not an internet forum buddy. He didn't agree to any sort of discussion or debate. So it wasn't my place to question his religious beliefs.

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

I did, however, call him on his bigotry. I will never stay silent in the presence of bigotry! It didn't do any good, though, because his religious beliefs defined his bigotry. There was no way to access his bigotry without tearing down his religious beliefs, and I didn't have the right to do that.

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!

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?

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.

The evangelicals, in contrast, really study their bibles.

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.

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

I questioned the presupposition that all of the bible was from God.

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.

And my conclusion was so radical, so blasphemous, so scary, that it still took me several years to process it.

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

Did you go to Catholic school? Catechism class? Did your family pray the rosary every night?

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?

Why do you say that? That seems rather arbitrary to me. (See, I can't help but question your logic! haha) On what logical premise has it been determined that the middle ground is always the best one or the most logical one?

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.

Further, on what criteria is the definition of 'moderate view' defined? And, who gets to decide what that criteria is?

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?

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".

They try to account for that. Presuppositions are established. But I contend that, in a spiritual or philosophical discussion, in which unknown biases lie sleeping beneath the surface of consciousness, presuppositions abound, and in fact are the norm, invisible and undetected though they may be.

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.