The framework of spiritual exploration might seem to be an odd place for studying logic and rational thinking. However, these mental skills are essential. Let’s look at examples of analytical thinking and illogical thinking. The goal of this exercise is to learn how to make better decisions. We do this by avoiding common pitfalls and errors.
As you read this article, you will train your mind to use its analytical powers and enhance your logical thinking ability. You won’t need to learn advanced mathematics, physics, or philosophy. You can do this.
Logic and Rational Thinking
Thinking 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 is one which uses reason and knowledge in their 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.
Analytical Thinking Versus Illogical Thinking
How do we know what we know is true? Knowledge may have practical and theoretical aspects. It may require you to reference logic and rational thinking to arrive at valid assumptions and conclusions. (2)
Rational knowledge is information that is correct, true, and useful. Knowledge of something may either be beneficial or useless. It all depends upon its use and application.
One of our first examples of analytical 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.
Irrational Thinking Errors and Religion
The arena of spirituality is where religion tries to blur the lines between useful knowledge and information, which misrepresents data to sell ideas. (3)
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.
Preachers use their knowledge to build a congregation and create cash flow. In the opinion of many, it’s the misuse of knowledge. Here, the knowledge of mythology is misrepresented as facts to control people. Illogical thinking is a powerful tool that is the basis for the indoctrination of people.
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. So, irrational thinking errors are often not their knowledge of the subject; rather, it is the misinterpretation and subsequent misuse of the knowledge.
Logical and rational thinking are the means which expose the truth, validity, and usefulness of knowledge, which explains why this is not taught in religious circles. Instead, they prefer “apologetics,” which is the use of circular logic and denial of facts to substantiate the belief in mythology and superstition.
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 strong emotions cloud perceptions and our decision process, so as researchers, 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.
Examples of Analytical Thinking with the Broken Window
A sound argument contains valid, unbiased statements which 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. If you build an argument on invalid assumptions, it 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 of this logic and rational thinking skills training, so pay attention.
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:
- Either Phyllis or Fred broke the window.
- Fred says he did not break the window.
- Phyllis had the most likely opportunity to break the window.
- 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. And 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 Analytical 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 in a range of probable outcomes. It could be anywhere from a low, almost negligible probability to a high likelihood approaching near certainty. It’s 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. 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 more information. When we get more facts, it gives us greater certainty and helps 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.
Ad Hominem Argument
An ad hominem argument is an attack against the reputation of the person making an argument.=. (ad hominem is Latin for to the man or to the person). It’s a strategy to discredit the reputation of the individual. It taints any argument they may have. You can find this in heavy use in politics. Even though this is a false argument, it is an effective tactic for influencing essential decisions.
Improper Use of the Premise to Form Conclusions
Another common issue is stating a conclusion when the premises or facts do not support it. If the results go beyond the data, present the answer in terms of probabilities, but this rarely occurs. People often state the conclusion with absolute certainty, which is a typical error in religion and politics.
The following example outlines how this error relates to the shattered window.
- Someone broke the window.
- Fred and Phyllis were in the area.
- Phyllis broke the window because Fred was considered an upstanding individual. In contrast, Phyllis has a documented incident of breaking windows.
- Therefore, we conclude Phillis is responsible.
This is another false conclusion because of irrational thinking errors. It uses negative bias and prejudice to reach assumptions that cannot be proven while ignoring other possibilities, and it’s the kind of argument you’ll find in the arena of religion.
Using Circular Logic
Circular logic isn’t logical at all. It’s a shell game. So, our use of logical reasoning will uncover this tactic. This is a common tactic with religious arguments. It starts with deriving a valid conclusion from false data and then substantiating a false proposition.
The following example outlines how this process works, and it’s the next critical lesson that helps us identify irrational thinking errors. Almost every unfounded conspiracy theory uses this tactic.
Marilyn Monroe Part One
- No women walked on the moon before 1960.
- Marilyn Monroe was a woman.
- Therefore, Marilyn Monroe, a woman, wasn’t allowed to walk on the moon.
Although the conclusion is correct, Marilyn Monroe was not an astronaut and did not walk on the moon. Although the premise statements of the argument are true on the surface, they do not prove the conclusion. Checking the facts behind the premise statements will reveal errors in the underlying propositions. 1969 is the year of the first moon landing.
The premise statements are correct, but the last infers her gender was why she did not walk on the moon.
Marilyn Monroe Part Two
So, now we take the inference a step further. Here, Marilyn Monroe becomes a victim of gender discrimination because NASA did not select her as an astronaut. Silly as it sounds, this is precisely the type of argument you will encounter in Western organized religion. Here’s what this invalid argument looks like:
- No women walked on the moon before 1960.
- Marilyn Monroe was a woman.
- She was not an astronaut and did not walk on the moon.
- Ms. Monroe was a victim of discrimination by NASA.
Using Logical Reasoning to Investigate Religion
No matter your position, if you have one, everyone thinks their position is correct. People can come up with some sources to back up their thinking. So, one of the best ways to test your beliefs is a process we call comparative analysis. It’s a scientific approach to comparative religious studies. This process lets you see how topics and concepts compare across several worldviews. And it forces people to reconcile inconsistencies and fallacies within their thinking.
Beware of anyone or any organization that prevents or discourages logic and rational knowledge.
This exercise can be quite an emotional challenge when we dig into the facts that support their beliefs. As we unearth and investigate their “sacred ground,” we use “emotional checks.”
Use Emotional Checks
Anytime you engage in spiritual research, we recommend using an emotional check-in process. It’s a practical process to help you stay as unbiased as possible.
Emotional checks will reduce stress and increase the accuracy of our research. So, think of it as a safety net. It will catch us when we fall into emotional distress. When we face ideas conflicting with our current opinion, it creates a dilemma. We instinctively react to protect our sacred ground. You don’t want to research while in a state of distress.
Where to Seek the Facts
We recommend using the public library where there are volumes of resources unavailable on the internet. Also, they have materials that aren’t already on your bookshelf. Always, always, always use resources from authors outside the paradigm you are researching. It will help you avoid bias. Remember, people write books to present arguments supporting a conclusion, which may contain bigotry, prejudice, and even unreliable data sources. The arena of spirituality is full of opinions, with misleading and erroneous fabrications. Avoid works by celebrities or endorsements of “famous people.” Test the validity of all resources.
Look for reference works and researchers without affiliation to the religion you are researching. The exception is when you are trying to show the contrast between the facts and the fiction. Here, you’ll find a lot more on the fiction side. Don’t let the sheer volume of data deter you from the facts.
A Little Reasoning Goes a Long Way
Here’s an example of how to spot the improper use of deductive logic and the “false premise.” We’ll use the Supreme Being, Odin, as our subject.
Prove Odin Doesn’t Exist
Let’s assume we are in the public library, and someone asks us what we are researching. We tell them religion, and they use several logical fallacies to prove their Supreme Being exists.
They first ask you to prove their god doesn’t exist, known as an Argument From Ignorance. It asserts something is true because there is no evidence to prove it is false. Don’t fall for this. The burden of proof is always on the person claiming the existence OF something. They need to provide evidence something exists. Then you can determine if their evidence is valid.
It’s a ploy people use to substantiate their claim of the existence of imaginary beings. Proving something doesn’t exist when it has no physical form is impossible. That’s why they attempt to use this to win an argument. The absence of a material substance (the lack of milk in a bowl) to prove milk exists is not a valid comparison. Milk exists apart from the bowl. It is not valid proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.”
You can’t prove gods don’t exist, but that doesn’t mean they do. You can’t disprove that Apolo, Zeus, Mythra, Dyonisys, or any other doesn’t exist. Simply because there is no proof they don’t exist doesn’t mean they do. This tactic is one religious fanatics rely on to justify their beliefs. It is not a valid argument. Nor is it a valid use of logic and rational knowledge.
We are continuing with our discussion of Odin at the library.
Anecdotal Stories and Sacred Texts as Proof of Odin
When we challenge them to provide evidence for the existence of Odin, we get the following response: First, no ice giants exist. Odin promised to wipe out the ice giants. So, since there are no ice giants, this is proof of Odin’s existence.
Second, Odin is prolific in paganism’s early stories dating back through oral traditions in Germanic mythology. Odin (from Old Norse Óðinn). The God Odin is prevalent in early forms of paganism. Odin, in Old English as Wóden, in Old Saxon as Wōden, and in Old High German as Wuotan or Wodan.
With so much historical evidence from so many authoritative sources, it is evident that Odin exists. The answer is no. This isn’t evidence of the existence of Odin. Sorry, but the absence of imaginary creatures is not evidence of existence. The absence of these creatures does not mean Odin disposed of them. Spreading the stories of Odin and getting others to believe them is evidence Odin existed, and these points apply to all Gods, all imaginary friends, and enemies, not just Odin.
Our friend at the library is not happy with our discourse’s outcome, but we want to encourage them. We present them with some references about logic. And point out it doesn’t matter what you believe.
You can still engage in spiritual exploration, even if you have an imaginary friend. Logical reasoning is one of the primary tools we use in our blended learning process. You can use spiritual technologies without the need to believe in any religion.
The spiritual explorer uses analytical and logical thinking processes to guide their decision-making processes, not mythology and superstition. There are practical and valid processes outside of religion and its arguments. These tools fall into four groups:
- This Module of Analytical Thinking and Logical Reasoning
- All types of sitting and moving Meditation
- Methods to expand Awareness
- Healing techniques
Logical Reasoning Final Thoughts
We hope this discussion helps you see the value of logic and rational thinking. Today, it’s not just religion that is full of false arguments. The nightly news is also full of the misuse of selling tactics. Don’t let them fool you. Refresh yourself with the content of this article regularly.