Examples of Logical Thinking Versus Illogical Thinking in Religion
Some people don’t think analytical thinking and spiritual exploration are compatible. However, critical thinking skills are essential in spirituality. Let’s look at examples of logical thinking versus illogical thinking.
Reading this article will train your mind to use its analytical powers and enhance your ability to think rationally. You won’t need to learn advanced mathematics, physics, or philosophy. All you need to do is follow the discussion. You can do this.
Get Seekerproject4se’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Brain and Mind Thinking Processes
Thinking is a process that involves the hardware of the brain and the software of the mind. What we think is expressed in language through premises that support an argument or idea. An argument is logically correct when the premises of the argument are correct, true, valid, and useful. A rational argument uses reason and knowledge in its proper context. (1)
Premises are building blocks that support the overall argument, but if the premises are false, the argument is false. Most people use common sense to weigh an argument’s content and conclusion. It is an instantaneous process. Our conclusions use our subject knowledge as a guide in this analysis. Our conclusion will be accurate if the data is accurate and we use it properly.
Logical Thinking Versus Illogical Thinking
When you think logically, your brain processes information in a clear and organized way. The prefrontal cortex, handles decision-making and problem-solving. It gathers information from different parts of the brain. It uses memories, sensory information, and emotional input. Then, it analyzes this information and experience using the filter of our worldview and beliefs. Finally, it renders a conclusion.
Illogical thinking occurs when this process contains errors, inaccurate data, or is disrupted. This can happen if the information from different parts of the brain is inaccurate, confusing, or incomplete. If something in the programming of our worldview trigger our emotions, it can overwhelm the thinking process. This interferes with rational thinking.
This kind of conflict can occur when our beliefs don’t align with new data. Or, we might retrieve irrelevant data or memories that don’t help with the current situation. As a result, we struggle to make sense of the information, leading to decisions that don’t follow a logical pattern.
The accuracy of brain and mind thinking processes depends on logical and rational thinking. It relies on the brain’s ability to process information in a structured and coherent manner. Inaccurate data, emotional distortions, or misinterpretation of data create illogical thinking.
Discerning Truth from Falsehoods
To find out what is true or correct involves a few important steps. First, we gather information from different sources. It’s important to check if these sources are reliable and known for providing accurate information. So, you can rule out inaccurate sources of propaganda like Fox News.
Next, we compare this new information with what we already know. If it matches our previous knowledge and experiences, it’s more likely to be true. If it doesn’t match, we might need to investigate further. Keep in mind that just because it doesn’t align with what we believe doesn’t mean it isn’t true or correct. It’s possible that what we know or believe isn’t correct. (2)
We also think critically about the information. So, we ask basic questions like, does this make sense? Is there valid evidence to support this? By thinking carefully and checking facts, we can decide if the information is true or not.
Sometimes, we need more information or ask others for their opinions. This helps us see different perspectives and make better decisions about what to believe.
Knowing what is true involves gathering reliable data, comparing it with what we know, and asking critical questions. Sometimes, we may need to seek more details. This careful process helps us understand and believe what is actually true.
Useful Versus Unuseful Knowledge
Knowledge about something may be beneficial or useless, depending on its use and application. Knowing a lot about something that is useless is a waste of time and energy.
One of our first examples of logical thinking versus illogical thinking is about underwater basket weaving. You may know a lot about underwater basket weaving, but this information has no useful purpose. Or, you may spend hours counting the exact number of blades of grass that are in your basket weaving project. Although the number is true, the data and your efforts are otherwise useless.
So, we see that one way to understand rational thinking is to contrast it with irrational thinking errors. When something is irrational, it is illogical, unreasonable, and impractical. In contrast, rational knowledge is information that is true, valid, and useful.
Almost anything used out of context can be irrational. Mathematics is an excellent example of rational knowledge, which can be used for a valuable purpose. However, using it to count the number of threads in your underwater basket weaving project is probably not one of them.
Religion is a good arena for exploring how knowledge is used. Let’s say you know a lot about religion, mythology, and superstition. This knowledge is only valid if you use it correctly.
How Illogical Thinking in Religion is Camouflaged
In the arena of spirituality, religion blurs the lines between useful knowledge and useless data. It is an intentional misrepresentation necessary to sell its ideas. (3)
Religion misrepresents myths and legends as facts. It starts with the belief in imaginary friends and enemies. It progresses to the belief in divinely inspired texts and people.
One way is through the use of complex language and ideas that make it hard to question or understand. Religious leaders use complicated explanations of based on myths. These explanations make their beliefs seem more convincing, even if they don’t make sense.
The Cause of Irrational Thinking Errors
Illogical thinking in religion is often based on interpretations of their sacred texts. These interpretations can be twisted to substantiate everything from discrimination to war.
Another way is by appealing to emotions. Religion often connects deeply with people’s feelings and experiences. When beliefs are tied to strong emotions, like love, fear, or hope, it can be harder to think critically about them. People might accept ideas because they feel good or comforting, not because they are logical.
Religious teachings are often presented as absolute truths that should not be questioned. This is intentional. It discourages people from thinking critically or asking questions. When beliefs are seen as sacred or unquestionable, they can hide any illogical aspects.
Lastly, religious communities can create a sense of belonging and identity. When everyone around you believes the same things, discerning truth from falsehoods is difficult. The desire to fit in and be part of the group can make people accept ideas without questioning them.
These methods can make illogical thinking in religion seem more reasonable and harder to challenge.
Preachers use their knowledge to build a congregation and generate cash flow. Many people believe this is a misuse of knowledge. Here, knowledge of mythology is misrepresented as facts to control people. Irrational thinking errors are the a sign of religious indoctrination.
Mythology that is misunderstood as factual is not valid, although the facts about it may be true. Many religions intentionally make their knowledge of mythology perform as if it were factual. Logical thinking exposes the truth, validity, and usefulness of knowledge, which explains why logic is not taught in religious circles.
Discerning truth from falsehoods would expose the problems with their myths and superstitions. Instead, they prefer “apologetics,” which uses circular logic and denial of facts to substantiate the belief in mythology and superstition. So, irrational thinking errors are not caused by knowledge of the subject; rather, they are caused by misinterpretation and subsequent misuse of the knowledge.
The arena of spirituality is prime territory for misleading claims and tactics. Studying logic and rational thinking will help you sort out the “facts from fiction.” Trust me. You need this if you are serious about investigating spiritual matters.
Knowing the distinction between a change in perception and awareness versus emotional enchantment is essential. We know emotions can cloud perceptions and our decision process, so we employ an emotional check-in process to ensure we stay on track.
After reading this article, we recommend two complementary tools: spotting logical fallacies and the truth-seekers axioms. Using these three tools together will enhance your critical thinking ability. You’ll see that analytical thinking and spiritual exploration go hand in hand.
Examples of Logical Thinking — The Broken Window
A sound argument contains valid, unbiased statements that result in a correct conclusion. So, the best way to determine a false one is to identify problems with its construction. To do this, you need to know the format of the two main types of selling propositions: deductive and inductive reasoning.
You can create a valid argument with either inductive or deductive reasoning and still have a false or inaccurate conclusion. The first step is to determine what type of argument is being used, deductive or inductive. The easiest way to tell what kind of argument is being used is by how the conclusion is stated.
A “deductive argument” presents its outcome as absolutes or “proofs certain.” In contrast, the conclusion of an inductive argument shows its answer in terms of probabilities. The accuracy of either type depends on the accuracy of the propositions. Building an argument on invalid assumptions results in a false conclusion.
Inductive reasoning is a way of investigating phenomena using relevant, valid data. It helps us reach the most probable conclusions. It contrasts with the closed-world assumption of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning presupposes the desired answer the provides data to support it. Omitting data that is irrelevant is appropriate as long as it truly does not matter to the final decision. The problem arises when you leave out valid data that does impact the outcome.
The Broken Window Example Using Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning (4) uses the concept of a “Closed World Assumption.” It’s the presumption that what is known is presumed to be true, and conversely, that which is unknown is assumed to be false. The correct argument construction for deductive reasoning must always include the answer in the premise statements. The following is an example of the proper form of deductive logic. It’s the first major lesson in our study of logical thinking versus illogical thinking.
We discover a window that is broken. Phyllis and Fred live in this house. Phyllis was the last person at home. So, using deductive reasoning, we conclude that:
1. Either Phyllis or Fred broke the window.
2. Fred says he did not break the window. He was not in the area all day.
3. Phyllis was in the area, so she had more opportunity to break the window.
4. Therefore, Phyllis broke the window.
Here, the argument rests on the validity of the above statements. Thus, the answer must be that Phillis broke the window.
The answer must be within the premise statements of the argument; then, all other possibilities not in the premises are false. The answer is definitive, precise, and without question as long as ALL the Closed World Assumptions are valid. The value of analytical thinking begins with spotting this proposition and testing the statements on which they base their conclusion.
When using deductive logic, it is essential to ensure that the premise statements are valid. It includes ensuring “what is not unknown to be true is false.” However, the premise statements in the above example raise several questions.
Many unknowns could impact our conclusion. Our certainty of Fred not being involved is also suspect. Can we be sure of the facts? Are we sure some unknown cause isn’t responsible for the broken window? So, it is improper to use deductive reasoning here because it leads to illogical thinking and irrational thinking errors.
Examples of Logical Thinking Using Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning (5) uses data to provide a degree of certainty. It’s how logic and rational knowledge calibrate the data to provide the best possible answer. It is the likelihood of something happening. With inductive reasoning, we reach conclusions based on the degree of probability that something is true or false. Our answer is not absolute certainty, but an educated assumption on the likelihood of it being true.
The conclusion is a range of probable outcomes. It could be anywhere from a low, almost negligible probability to a high likelihood approaching near certainty. High certainty is the level of truth you need in religion and spirituality.
Inductive reasoning may appear less accurate than deductive reasoning, but this isn’t true. It seems less precise because it provides a range of probabilities, not absolute certainties. Yet, inductive reasoning is the basis for science and most of what we know. The scientific process uses inductive reasoning because it’s the best way to seek the facts, and this process is the best way for us to make predictions and conclusions.
For example, we base our knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow on inductive reasoning. The data used to validate this is historically validated “sunrises.” Inductive reasoning is often required because the answer you seek goes beyond the data. Our broken window presents an excellent example of how this reasoning is better than deductive reasoning.
The Broken Window Using Inductive Reasoning
Unfortunately, the statements of the broken window argument leave us with several unanswered questions. How else could the window have been broken? Could the window have been damaged by the weather or a bird flying into the window? When was the window shattered? Did it happen in the last hour or last year? Can we be sure someone else was not involved? Could both Fred and Phillis be responsible? Are there any mitigating circumstances? You can see there are a lot of unanswered questions. It is prudent to use inductive logic to reach the most probable conclusion.
If we can’t say for sure that either Fred or Phyllis broke the window, then the probability of either of them breaking the window goes down from 50/50. As the number of unknowns increases, our certainty about who or what broke the window decreases.
If we don’t know exactly when the window was damaged, this creates more opportunities for other people or things to be involved. To gain greater certainty, we need more facts and information. More facts give us greater certainty and help us avoid illogical thinking.
Let’s assume that Fred or Phyllis are the only two people who could have broken the window. Suppose we know the window was broken in the last hour? These kinds of facts would increase the probability that either Fred or Phyllis broke the window. Let’s say this is as far as we could go with collecting data. The probability that Fred or Phillis broke the window goes down if we include other mitigating circumstances. Given all the unknowns, the likelihood that either Fred or Phillis broke the window is still less than 50/50.
Your goal should seek facts to find the most accurate conclusion, not seek data to support your current opinion. Inductive reasoning is the best process for this type of research.
How Negative Bias and Prejudice Influence Conclusions
Most people aren’t satisfied with the certainty of less than 50/50. They want to be more confident in their conclusion. Unfortunately, this means many people are more apt to accept a decision even when there isn’t data to support it. People use other internal filters to help form their conclusions. Unfortunately, this filter is usually negative prejudice and bias.
Let’s return to our example of the broken window to see how bias might influence our conclusions. Let’s assume Phyllis has a history of breaking windows. Fred has no record of breaking windows. We don’t know why Phyllis broke windows, only that she did. Does this information increase the probability that Phyllis broke the window? No. It should not be because this is biased historical information. Her previous history has nothing to do with the facts of the current situation.
This information about Phyllis doesn’t bring us a “higher degree of probability” of certainty. It is not additional proof additional Phyllis broke the window. If Fred knew about her history, perhaps he damaged it to get Phillis in trouble.
Unfortunately, historical practice is the basis of many legal systems. Rapists target prostitutes because the victim has a history of promiscuity. The rapist uses the victim’s history as a defense against allegations of rape. Minimizing potential bias reduces the probability of irrational thinking errors.
