The problem with “common sense” is that it is neither common nor sensible. It is common sense that “life is not fair”; it is also common sense that “you get what you give.” Now if life is not fair then you don't get what you give; and if you do get what you give then life is fair. Two mutually contradictory statements are seen as part of the same mentality. And that means that that mentality is nowhere nearly as sensible as it regards itself to be. Logic has more to recommend itself. However logic too has its shortcomings. Logic builds on premises; and if the premise is wrong then so is the conclusion. As the computer programmers like to say, “Garbage in, garbage out.” If your premise is that blacks are inferior, or that women are stupid, or that Jews are evil, or that entrepreneurship is exploitation, or that love and beauty are patriarchial institutions designed to oppress women, then you will make all sorts of logical arguments building upon these premises while being utterly full of crap. So that when Luther said that “reason is a whore,” he was talking about this shortcoming of logic. Another problem with logic is that it can lead to coldness, hubris and bigotry. If something contradicts one's supposedly logical worldview, then the response is to attempt to invalidate it. Many people claiming logical worldview consider it illogical to believe in God, or telepathy, or astrology, or alternative healing, or romantic love. When someone has experiences of any of the preceding, it contradicts the worldview that one claims to be logical. Then one has two choices: Either commit the claimed illogic of modifying or challenging the worldview; or to commit the real illogic of denying, repressing or invalidating the experience. The people who have not had experiences of such things and are skeptical of them are making an honest, innocent mistake. But the people who have had experiences of such things and have denied or repressed them are in no way honest or innocent. This brings me to a different but related subject. When the idealism of 1960s and 1970s were replaced by materialism of 1980s, the claim was that human nature had won. This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would it be more human nature to want a big house, a fast car, and a pretty obedient wife, than it would be to want to help the disadvantaged or take care of the environment? If what happened in 1980s was human nature, then so was what happened in 1960s. One of the major arguments against the hippie naturalistic ideal was the Christian belief that human nature is “fallen” or “of the Satan.” If this applies to people who are into acid, sex and Led Zeppelin, then it most certainly applies to people who want a big house, a fast car, and a pretty obedient wife. I have been accused all my life of lacking common sense. Guilty as charged; I prefer knowledge, wisdom, experience and intelligence to a self-contradictory mindset. I have been claimed illogical by some. They are wrong; I use reason, I also see more. Common sense has applications in business and politics, and logic has applications in all sorts of pursuits. But neither is infallible, and both are capable of delivering wrong results and being used for wrong.
I actually for a change READ one of your posts and it wasn't long before I stopped dead at "and a pretty obedient wife,".....as if the only important people in the world , whose viewpoint you obviously give, are men.
I don't see the basis for your argument. If one begins with a faulty premise, logic wasn't applied early enough in the process. Seen as part of the same mentality by whom? What is contradictory about them anyway? One child is born healthy to loving parents, another is sickly and born to abusive parents. What has either given to have been born into unequally fair circumstances? We are deluded if we believe that there is some cosmic or karmic arbiter of fairness. Our individual actions do, in fact, influence the results we achieve, but there are always circumstances beyond the control of our acts.
Logical thinking shouldn't limit it itself to just one set of premises. It's not logical. A truly logical person remains skeptical and avoids absolutes. It's not "Smoking causes cancer" it's "research shows a direct relationship between smoking and cancer and other respiratory illnesses. People who smoke have an increased likelihood to have cancer and other respiratory illnesses." The first statement is how we tend to think when we generalize, which humans must do in order to get through life without over-analyzing every detail. The second statement is more accurate but allows for the fact that not every person who smokes will get cancer. Look at other statements. "There is no god" is much more accurately stated "there is no valid evidence that a judeo-christian god exists or does not exist however warranted belief causes me to conclude that such a god is unlikely to exist."
I most certainly believe in God; however whether or not He would arbitrate fairness is not something I know.
You might find this one useful: https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience
That makes no sense but does smack of misogyny seeing women as greedy and incapable and only extensions of men...... That's why I usually don't bother to read your overlong posts.....Sorry , I bothered you.....
This is silly. First the claim is that I am indicting only men; then the claim is that I am indicting women. In fact both men and women can be good or bad.
You appear to write these rather rambling illogical missives for only one purpose which is embodied in the last paragraph. Maybe just skip all the window dressing and go straight to congradulating yourself for your wisdom, experience, and brilliance.
