Why do people not want to believe logic when it points to what they do not support?

You have not been watching “V”. Actually I wonder the same thing- the arrogance of these people is hard to stomach.

I agree. After all, we are filled with steroids, our water and air is polluted. I would move on and go to a cleaner planet to eat the people there. (blahhh, humans just taste bad)
All they would have to do is look at our toilets and they would know we are rotten fruit.

I’m guessing this is a rhetorical question or a rant, because the answer seems obvious enough. Some people are just not intellectually honest enough to want to change their minds when they’re likely to be wrong.

Not everyone has the good fortune to grow up in a culture that encourages reason. And of those who haven’t, not everyone has what it takes to decide to and figure out how to become a rational person all by themselves.
Then there are even less fortunate people, who grow up in a culture of resolute irrationality – like a Middle Eastern theocracy – who would have to defy their entire native culture plus all their own memetic instincts to become a rational person, on top of the regular obstacles. If the idea even occurred to them in the first place that there’s something wrong with the way everyone thinks.

I think that sums up why.

Sorry, but your creationist logic is pretty flawed.

1) You’re attributing very human traits to something not human.
2) Even among humans, there are people who create their masterpiece and then stop. (I can’t remember off the top of my head, but was recently told about some director who made one movie that is awesome and stopped…).

That aside, people refuse to believe things they see because the reality they have built up for themselves would fall apart. The human mind is great at ignoring things, and people make full use of this ability.

@roundsquare
If I’m not mistaken, Emily Brontë wrote one world-famous classic and nothing else.

When people encounter arguments that don’t fit into their mental schema of how things are or how things should be, they develop a cognitive confliction. In order to deal with the dissonance they face, they sometimes shut out and ignore all information that threatens the idea they have in their mind. Some people use the new information and adapt their schema, but some don’t. That’s my explanation for why it is that people don’t want to follow the logic when it is something they don’t care to believe in.
I also think that sometimes people think, “If I don’t believe in it anyway, why even bother trying to understand it?”

I think a lot of beliefs like religious and spiritual ones cater to a need for guidance and security in this immoral world, and whether some know or not that it’s fabrication, people don’t like having such things questioned, since it helps them get by.

I agree with your logic about the likelyhood of life on other planets, I believe there are probally at least billions of other planets with many lifeforms on them. There is a major difference between an open-minded skeptic and a cynical skeptic. An open-minded skeptic looks at both sides of an argument and studies both sides immensely and if its something they can’t answer they still keep an open mind about a possibilty even if its something they didn’t origially believe in before analyzing something. A cynical skeptic however (there are many of these on fluther I have found) is someone who wants to believe something so badly that they won’t fairly look at both sides of an argument, will look at some points of a discussion that supports their point of view while convenientely ignoring the ones they can’t explain and than trying to claim their views are a “proven fact”. The greatest scientists and inventors in history always kept an open mind. Logic always relies on facts but using logic also requires that you keep yourself open to all possiblities even if they fall outside your “normal” realm of rationalization. We don’t even know all the laws of science yet, we don’t know much about quantum physics and many other things but you do need to keep an open mind or nothing new will ever be discovered.

Also, lots of people believe that logic is the wrong way to think about things. They somehow see logic as part of math and say things like “you can’t explain everything with equations.” Now, thats a true statement, but hardly relevant to someone using logic in a different form.

@roundsquare Having someone create the greatest work or perform the greatest they ever had then stop would be rare upon rare. It would be as if a rookie pitcher stepped on the mound and threw a game in which no batter even hit the ball once; the guy struck out ever batter who stood before him. Then said “That was a masterful game”, and promptly retires never to pick up a mitt again or throw another pitch.

@Symbeline I think that is where most people run foul on that they try to shove religion into logic or visa versa. Spiritual things are often not logical one believes and follows because that is their choosing. So, one should not get angry or try to hold religion or spiritual matter up to logic because there is no real way you can. Logic (at least to me) is based highly on the probable of what could or will happen (or has happened) in given situations.

All men are created equal. That sounds logical but reality the logic would say they are created equal only in their physicality. Mentally, spirit wise, athletically, maybe they are not. If everyone were anyone would have the ability to be a Coby Bryant, a Carl Lewis, or an Albert Einstein. That is why individuals such as that seem so extraordinary.

Under democracy we have the right to free speech. Sounds logical, but the actual truth shows it is not logical. Or if it is logical it is not exercised as such because it is not fair. And people would rather have it be fair more than logical. If I had freedom of speech and someone gave a comment I did not agree with and I had the means to go or use the media to lambast them, I could be sued for slander. I logically have the right to say what I feel or voice my opinion, or do I? If the person I was slamming did not have access to defend themselves it would not be fair, even if that is logic, same as if a stronger man fights a weaker one, the weaker one more than likely will get their but kicked.

People will use religion to cope or get through the day some but not all, and maybe get upset when someone tries top show how this or that could not logically happen. It would not be spiritual or a faith if you did not have to put faith into it but could explain it away with facts or conditions. :-)

@Jabe73 Larvae for you!

@Fyrius You have given the definitive answer to why some people don’t respond well to logic, or are seemingly immune to persuasion by any logical means. I would just add that it is written into our genes to survive, and preserving our “reality” or belief system is part of that drive. It helps guide us through every day. So for someone who hasn’t looked into separating self from ego, any challenge to the belief system triggers the fight or flight instinct, adrenalin starts coursing through the system, and any hope of a logical debate flies right out the window.

Even scientists, who should be steeped in the culture of decisions based solely on logic, are not immune. Look at the uproar the biological evolution of the mind (sociobiology) stirred up among the academic community when it first challenged the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM). Biologist E. O. Wilson was doused with a pitcher of ice water as he tried to begin a talk. Students showed up with bullhorns and noisemakers to drown out lectures.

@Hypocrisy_Central Here are some techniques people use to ignore logic:

1) Ignore part of the argument. For example, I also stated that you are attributing to god very human traits. You’ve completely ignored that.

2) Create an example that is superficially similar but very different in detail to defend their views. For example, god creating life is almost nothing like a rookie pitcher with a perfect game. Its much much much more like an artist who finally creates a masterpiece. And in facts, its even not like that. Its like… well, we have no good example because its so far out of our experience that any analogy we make can only be superficially similar.

3) Twisting words out of context. For example, “All men are created equal” was never meant to mean “everyone can do everything with equal skill” but instead means “all people should be given the same rights.”

4) Simplifying what others say in order to defeat their views. For example, most people (adults anyway) don’t believe that complete freedom of speech flows from democracy. They believe that a large amount of freedom of speech flows from democracy. Pointing out that in most democracies, you can’t go on TV and bash any random person is fighting a straw man.

@roundsquare ”Ignore part of the argument. For example, I also stated that you are attributing to god very human traits. You’ve completely ignored that.” I did not ignore that. Logically it may seem that I did because I did not address it. To do so I would 1st have to pretend I know what God thinks apart from what is said or revealed in the Bible. Second I would have to know if you were a believer in God, if you don’t believe in him there would be nothing I could say that would even have a modicum of truth in it for you. It was basically a road that would never get through the forest.

”For example, god creating life is almost nothing like a rookie pitcher with a perfect game. Its much much much more like an artist who finally creates a masterpiece.” ”well, we have no good example because its so far out of our experience that any analogy we make can only be superficially similar.” Yes, you are correct, we could never really fathom what God would do because He is so far above us. It would be as my cat trying to figure out how and what an iPhone was and how it worked. My human logic it would seem that God would not have started or stopped with man here (then again none of that makes much difference if you do not believe in God creating us but evolution) because man id flawed and not perfect, so a perfect God would seem to either try again to get perfection or try again if he was greatly happy with how we came out flaws and all.

”For example, “All men are created equal” was never meant to mean “everyone can do everything with equal skill” but instead means “all people should be given the same rights.” Whether that is what or how they meant logically they really didn’t because there were people in bondage, servitude or sporting a virgina who wasn’t factored in that equation or decree. It sounds good and I am sure in their heart of hearts believed it even while they were not following it to the letter. Surely even though they may have believe in the theory that all have the same rights I would suspect that right did not include equal opportunity, housing, or a share of the wealth, the rich had to have someone chauffer and clean the house.

”Simplifying what others say in order to defeat their views. For example, most people (adults anyway) don’t believe that complete freedom of speech flows from democracy. They believe that a large amount of freedom of speech flows from democracy.” Maybe we have met or know different Americans. Many I have met seem to take it at face value even though it frustrates then not to be able to use that freedom freely; to do so could get you sued or maybe land you in jail if you misused the freedom by yelling bomb in a crowded subway when there was no danger. I am not simplifying anything just taking it straight as it is said not making it more complicated by adding what might be there, thought of as their or trying to assume what was meant.

@Hypocrisy_Central

In order:
1) What I believe is actually irrelevant. I was questioning your logic by saying you are attributing to god a very human trait. You could have responded with why you believe god would have such a trait…

In fact, given that I was responding to your creationist logic argument, it would have been very reasonable to assume there is a god for this part of the argument because your argument is really: If there is a god who created everything, then god wouldn’t have stopped with one planet. One can’t logically argue that the statement is false by saying “but there is no god…” so it doesn’t matter what I believe.

If you wanted to, you could also have further clarified that you were talking about a specific god (maybe the one from the bible) and then given me reason to believe that such a god would have human traits (perhaps by quoting the bible).

2) So… you agree with me that applying human feelings/motives/tendencies/etc… here doesn’t work? (Thats what it seems like from the cat example). If so… why do you still think your argument holds up?

3) Agreed that the founders didn’t follow through on this as well as they could have… but thats hardly the point I was making. You brought up “all men are created equal” and said “well, not really, because we have different abilities.” I pointed out that the statement wasn’t a reference to ability but to rights… I’m not sure how the quality of the implementation validates your original point or invalidates my critique of it. (5th method used to avoid a logical conclusion, bringing up some past offense in order to mask the real point).

4) Most people you have met really believe that in a proper democracy, speech should be 100% free? I suppose I can’t argue this point since I haven’t met the same people you have met… but I’d still contest that the point you made is fighting a straw man. Its possible that some/lots of people do say this, but I’d suspect that if pressed, they would admit that they weren’t accounting for the nuance as much as they should have. In any event, I’ll concede that this is my weakest criticism of your arguments.

@ETpro
Holy crap, did that really happen? That’s bafflingly unprofessional and childish, even for students.

@roundsquare ”What I believe is actually irrelevant.” Agreed, but if the subject was reincarnation, time travel or what have you and you did not believe in it how could I sit down and expect you to treat it as something real? You use God as “god” (little ‘G’) not personalizing Him as the supreme being he is so right there we are coming from 2 different areas on who is God. ”I was questioning your logic by saying you are attributing to god a very human trait. You could have responded with why you believe god would have such a trait…” Because we come from different areas on who God is it would not be easy or make much sense why I have my belief in God as I have it. But to answer your end question the traits I believe God has comes from His book the Bible. If you don’t believe in the Bible then what it said won’t make much sense. The Bible has in places revealed traits of God, He said vengeance is His, that he was a jealous God, that he is pleased by things, that certain people stirred His wrath, most important He has love for us. Since God has been around way longer than we, and He created us I would have to say human emotions and traits were more God inspired than the other way around.

”If you wanted to, you could also have further clarified that you were talking about a specific god (maybe the one from the bible) and then given me reason to believe that such a god would have human traits (perhaps by quoting the bible).” Yes….I could have assumed most people (especially here in the western societies) might have mistaken I was speaking of Zeus, Odin, Ra, Osiris, etc. Had this been AB, Answerville or some other site over ran with hormoned infused youth asking if this person loves me or how do I get him/her to love me I might have felt the need to draw a road map. I believe the people of Fluther would have the intelligence to figure out which God we were speaking if since Creation was part of it; I did not want to seem to be “dumbing it down” for them when I did not need to.

”So… you agree with me that applying human feelings/motives/tendencies/etc… here doesn’t work? (Thats what it seems like from the cat example). If so… why do you still think your argument holds up?” I believe it is valid because the ability to reason, discern, wonder etc comes from God who created it in us. I can’t say why God would do this or that exactly anymore than I could you. If you punched someone because he insulted your SO in the line at Starbucks I could logically say he got punched because I heard him insult your SO, you might have not heard the insult but remembered him as the guy who stole your bike in the 6th grade and decided to get some payback. But situations of what I heard and saw would lead to the conclusion it had to do with an insult I heard and not an old theft I didn’t know of. God did not seem to make most men (or women) to just stop once they created something great but have the desire to do it again or do it better; the true nature as to why or how I can’t tell you if I could I would be God. That is why I said one cannot really use logic in spirituals or religious situations because many of the things are not logical and can’t be explained away as if by science, that is why it is a faith, something you believe because you choose to have faith it is what it is with out dye in the wood proof.

Dam, here I go again! I promised myself I would stay away from these types of questions and just stick to helping people with home repair questions but I just can’t seem to stay away.

I know one thing, I am as skeptical as they come, I don’t have blind faith in anything! When I went to church as a kid I didn’t really believe in god or anything supernatural for that matter, it just wasn’t logical and seemed at odds with proven scientific facts. However, when something so bizarre happens to you and you know it happened but it doesn’t seem to match anything “logical” or “scientific” it changes things from your own perspective whether other people believe you or not so would it be logical, (at least from my perspective) to assume that several things that have really happened couldn’t of had happened even though (at least through my own perception) that they really did happen because other people say they couldn’t of happened even though through my own experience I know they did and the “alternative” explainations given to me I know could not be the real answer?

I compare this as being the lone eyewitness to a murder where someone has a clear view of the murderer and crime being committed itself. The police however already arrested a person for the murder and no one in the community liked the person arrested and there was a reasonable amount of evidence against this person but from the police lineup I know the accused person didn’t commit the crime because I saw with my own eyes who really did it but the person I saw commit the murder was well liked by everyone, unlike the person being accused, would it be logical for me to assume this other person I know didn’t commit the crime maybe committed it anyway?

Maybe we shouldn’t research sub-atomic particles, quantum mechanics, string theory and naked singularities because we don’t know they really exist yet? This is NOT an argument for whether there is a god or not but what gives anyone the right to determine whether something is “irrational” or “logical” when we are only in the infant stages in the knowledge of physics. I am not talking about irrational bible and other religious claims that I am sure myself are false but I am going WAY WAY above that. We DON“T know about all the laws of physics, how do we know that an ethereal existence and the possibilty of other dimensions aren’t a part of an advanced non-linear area of physics that we havn’t discovered yet? Is it logical to NOT analyze things that we don’t currently know and remain closed-minded skeptics just for the purpose of staying in the “norm”. Just like a 6000 year old earth, earth being the only planet with life on it, dragons, unicorns seems irrational so does close minded skeptic thinking. Many credible scientists, past and present have put their reputations on the line with nothing to gain and everything to lose studying all types of unknown phenomenon with very impressive results. Maybe nothing was “proven” but would it be logical to just stamp this research out and assume that materialist scientists have the answers? It seems everyone elses definition of “logic” is just as variable as “facts” and “opinions”.

@Jabe73 You sound like a fellow agnostic. I don’t know that there is a God, but nobody has proved there isn’t one either. I think it is just as illogical to accept disbelief on faith as it is belief. Of course, things like unicorns and tooth faeries seem pretty unlikely. If I had to bet on things we will not prove to exist in the next 100 years, both those would make my list.

But imagine that tomorrow, to my great surprise, a ship from planet Gurjug lands on earth, and out rides the Tooth Fairy on the back of a unicorn. Narfnaw (the Fairy’s name) explains that because of the distances involved, even her advanced ship can only make the trip to Earth once every 5,000 Earth years or so, and her previous visits are where the legends of the Tooth Fairy and the unicorn came from on Earth.

Am I suggesting this is likely to happen? Absolutely not. I am saying there is a very small chance it will happen, perhaps near infinitesimally small, but nonetheless a possibility.

“how could I sit down and expect you to treat it as something real?”
“If you don’t believe in the Bible then what it said won’t make much sense.”
Sure it would. As you say later, its clear you are talking about the God from the Bible, we would be talking from a common source (even if I’m less knowledgeable about it).

“The Bible has in places revealed traits of God, He said vengeance is His, that he was a jealous God, that he is pleased by things, that certain people stirred His wrath, most important He has love for us.”
This is what I was looking for! Evidence of God’s human like emotions. (Note: even if, as you claim, these emotions were around longer than humans, I’m only calling them human like to relate to your original argument).

“I did not want to seem to be “dumbing it down” for them when I did not need to.”
Fair enough. I think once I question things it would make sense to be more specific, but thats not a point of logic… so I’ll not argue it much.

“God did not seem to make most men (or women) to just stop once they created something great but have the desire to do it again or do it better; the true nature as to why or how I can’t tell you if I could I would be God. ”
Now that you’ve laid out the other part of the argument, I can agree with the logic of this part.

Anyway, after the first post, I wasn’t really critiquing the logic of your argument, but showing ways people can avoid having their logic questioned. Once someone’s logic is questioned, a lot of defense mechanisms jump into place. It can be rough to break through them, but I find it fun (and usually learn something myself in the process).

There’s still a couple of points hanging from the previous posts… but oh well.

@ETpro I’ve never considered myself agnostic but maybe I am and I don’t realize it. Is it possible to believe that your conscious still exists after physical death and at the same not believe there is a “god” because of how little we know about “quantum physics”? I don’t want to change the subject here but I do believe that everything needs to be evaluated by reason or facts and not just “belief” or wanting to believe something. I believe in theistic evolution but can I “prove” it? No, of course not but does that make my belief any more illogical than natural selection evolution, has abiogenesis been proven? What does determine what is considered logical when many theories have not even been proven/disproven yet? I have my own beliefs about many different things and I am not even sure whether I am right or not but I always keep my mind open to any possibilty rather than assume that I am right or if “science” can’t explain something than it can’t exist when we don’t even know everything about “science” or “physics” to begin with.

I’ve been working alot more, I will try to respond when I can.

@Jabe73 Sure it’s possible to believe in a Cartesian soul and not in a God. I suppose the opposite is equally possible.

Regarding theistic evolution, I would say that believing in that requires first that you believe in God, and next that you believe science pretty much devoid of any proof is just fine. The evidence for evolution driven by natural selection is overwhelming and there is zero evidence outside wordy arguments among philosophers to support Theistic intelligent design. The ID explanation relies on things that can’t be tested scientifically. It hasn’t been able to predict other observations which then proved true. It has no claim to the label of Theory in the strict scientific use of the word.

The word “theory” means many things and scientists even use it loosely. To many, it means hunch or idea or possible explanation. Those uses should, for scientific discussion, be referred to as postulates instead. A theory, such as the Theory of Evolution or Theory of Relativity is what you get after you make a postulate, observe to see if it fits available behavior of the Universe around you, make predictions about other observations that would have to be true if your postulate were right, observe and find that they are indeed found when you look for them, then subject the whole matter to vigorous peer review where every other scientist in the field looks for ways to poke holes in the argument. So far, ID has not gotten past being postulated, and given its lack of predictive quality I don’t see how it ever will.

Abiogenesis has not been conclusively proven. There is mounting evidence to support it. The Miller–Urey experiment and others like it set up early Earth conditions in a laboratory and proved that all the amino acids needed for protein production will form from inanimate natural materials present in that environment. But questions remain to be resolved. We are not yet sure whether replication or protein synthesis from amino acids came first.

It probably will have to wait the generation of life from inanimate matter in a laboratory to truly establish that it is possible. But collecting evidence from 4.5 billion years ago proving that life began back then in the same way a laboratory experiment today demonstrates the principle may never happen.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution though. Evolution by natural selection doesn’t seek to establish how life began. It only concerns itself with how, after life was underway, it became ever more diverse and ever more complex—something which seems at first blush to run counter to the Law of Entropy, but which we know happened and is continuing today