Legal Justice

Legal Justice

Introduction

A poor man stole a watermelon in a village. He is desperate for food, he is also sick and has no access to proper welfare. He was captured, sentenced to jail for 5 years, and fined an exorbitant amount of money. On the other hand, a corrupt official that caused the State a loss of over 1 million dollars is sentenced to jail for the same amount of time as the watermelon man, and then was cut to only 1 year. Then, the official goes completely free, not even a parole.

This is just the many examples of legal injustice, and raises many questions about the current legal system. But is the current system just enough? The legal system has a purpose of protecting citizens and form citizens into good human beings by installing laws that specifically dictates what to do to become a good human being. It also needs to make sure that the citizens does not do things that may harm the rights of others or has negative effects towards the society. And it does that by imposing penalties upon violators, which may be in the form of prison, fines, corporal punishment in some countries, and sometimes, if the crime is severe enough, capital punishment. Capital punishment is merely a euphemism of a death sentence.

The problem is, how effective is imposing penalties upon violators in preventing the same violations from ever happening again? Not only that, is it actually fair and just for the violators? Many prisons in the world do not give the prisoners a comfortable place to live, with the exception of certain countries such as the Scandinavian prison system. And then there are countries applying the capital punishment, which effectively prevents the violator from ever fixing and redeeming themselves. And this is where the currently popular legal system begins to sway from it’s purposes.

Arguments

The penalty system of the currently popular legal system is based on the concept of carrots and sticks. Threaten the citizens with a harsh stick to make sure they do not violate any laws. The philosophy of this system is also based upon the concept of moral responsibility and Free Will. Basically, citizens would be too scared to violate the law because of the punishments, or if they violated it the first time, they won’t want to try it the second time. That seems quite effective, that is if human psychology is as simple as all other animals. But it is more complex, much more complex, let’s review.

Humans chose to do something only because their past had enabled them to do so. Which means the penalty system would only work effectively if the violators had a past that enables them to succumb to the penalty system. But what if they were raised to be strong willed people? People that won’t give up, that will never learn their mistakes. Or even worse, people who would find a way to work their way around the law. Eventually we can deduce that the reason crime rates are low in a country is not because of the actual laws and penalty system, but because the children of that nation is raised and educated properly. Otherwise, they would just find more loopholes in the system. And in some circumstances, if the officials made the punishment harsher, there might be stronger resistance, partly because of reverse psychology. Thus, the penalty system is only effective if the citizens are well educated and have a good past, if they aren’t, don’t expect the crime rates to drop.

How much justice does the penalty system delivers in the modern world? Not as much as the “righteous hatred” it continuosly propagates of course. In fact, it is as much as people who actually forgives everyone unconditionally, in other words, almost nothing at all. The penalty system is based on the concept of moral responsibility. Anyone who does a good thing or a bad thing by their own Free Will deserve praise or blame, reward or punishment respectively. One problem, both concepts have been declared and proven false, unjust, illogical, and unscientific. Which makes the penalty system outright unjust and unfair, why exactly? As we have known, the reason a person choses to do something is because their past enables to do so, both physically and mentally. If the past doesn’t provide the necessary information and correct arrangement to do so, then the person won’t chose to do that particular something.

Reviewing from a previous essay about forgiveness, we have identified that people who committed actions known to be bad are mentally unwell, they are mentally flawed, broken, sick. Yes they are not insane, but if their past is perfectly fine, would they commit evil and atrocious acts? Absolutely not, and that is a certain fact. As a result, when a person violates a law, that is because there is something in their past, and subsequently their mentality and psychology that enables them to violate the law, not because of Free Will and choice. This means when a violator is punished, or even worse, sentenced to death, what we are doing is essentially breaking his mentality and psychology even more. We are doing nothing to fix their broken selfs, and instead we isolate them and make them suffer in prison cells. And if we impose the capital punishment, that means we will effectively prevent the violator to ever realize their mistakes and redeem themselves, not only that it hurts family members and loved ones. Imprisonment does a similar thing, just not as bad.  And that is why the penalty system is simply unfair and unjust. Instead of actually curing the disease, it only worsens it, with a fake facade of reparation.

Then what must be done then to fix this ineffective and unfair penalty system? First of all, if a country has high crime rates, or a rising crime rate, then do not blame the legal system or the law. Blame the parents, the economy, the environment, and of course, the education system. Especially the education system. People commit crimes because their past enables them to do so, and that usually translates to improper education and a terrible past. So the first thing to do as a preventive action is reevaluating the education system and then fixing it, that way the crime rates will be reduced. As a combative action, what we must do is not imprison violators, instead put them in rehabilitation. In rehabilitation, inmates are treated psychologically so that their mentality would make them into good and moral citizens, and they are reeducated. They have all the same rights, the difference being they would still be somewhat isolated, for the safety of the society. Eventually they would be reintegrated into society as fellow citizens of the nation. And instead of treating them as disgusting vile scum of the earth, we treat them as a fellow human that needs help. That is the brief outline of a solution to this penalty system problem, clearly a fairer and just system.

Conclusion

The penalty system has brought more hatred, loss, sadness, and mental deterioration than it delivers what it is supposed to deliver, justice. It hinges upon the concepts of carrots and sticks, Free Will, and moral responsibility. The problem, human psychology is not as easy to control as other animals with the carrots and sticks. And Free Will and moral responsibility has been strucked null and void. Of course, exposing the problem without delivering a potential solution is useless, as a result, a proposed solution is to fix the education system, and create a fairer and just rehabilitation system that actually helps the violators to get back on their feet and become a better person. In the end, the legal system of today, is declared to be ineffective, unfair, and unjust for the human race. But the point is, perhaps we have to reevaluate our understanding of legal justice.

Forgiving The Unforgivable

Forgiving The Unforgivable

Introduction

One day a classmate of yours was talking to you. He told you that there’s going to be a holiday this week. You weren’t the brightest of people, so you fell for the lie. But eventually you got suspicious and asked a teacher, of course they clarified that there is no holiday in that week, but there is next week. You shrugged your friend off as a simple prank, and let him be. Another day, a guy mugged you while you were walking to school. You catched up with him and asked him why he did it. He revealed that he is very poor and desperately needs money, so you forgave him and helped him out while retrieving your stolen stuff.

On the next month, a guy you trust very much betrayed you, creating a deep mental wound. At first, you were mad at him, but then with reluctance, you forgave them as well. And one day, years later, your country went into war, and was invaded. Your family, friends, and everything you had known and loved was destroyed by the invaders, all of that commanded by a single dictator. At this point, forgiveness seems to be impossible, and it practically is. And thus you had a grudge on that dictator, and eventually went on to commit revenge towards that warmonger. Your country won the defensive war, and the dictator was captured and tortured beyond imagination. His entire family and any associates were executed. Has it went too far? Or is it fair and just?

Forgiveness and mercy has always been seen as a very good virtue. In fact, many religions have this virtue as one if not their main virtue. But it seems that many have been confused on what forgiveness actually means. Forgiveness is when we absolve someone from their faults and wrongs. More importantly, we eliminate any grudges, hatred, and anger we have for the person we are forgiving. However, simply not having negative feelings towards the person is not enough, we have to repair our relations to the status quo ante, the situation before the mistake, fault, wrong was made. In short, to forgive someone is to absolve them of their faults, absolve ourselves of any grudge, hatred, and anger, and finally return the relationship back to the status quo ante, before the conflict. Thus, if one claims to have forgive someone, even when they still have negative feelings towards them, or they have not returned the relationship into the status quo ante, they are lying, and they have not forgiven them.

Unfortunately, many seem to either forget this virtue, or misunderstand it completely. And they’re not completely to blame, no one was there to make them understand it. The proof is very clear in history. Until now, is there any genocidal dictator that has been forgiven by the common masses? Or perhaps a mass murderer not being hated upon anymore? No, of course not, instead hatred and anger upon these evil people still thrives. Because everyone has a similar view, that anyone who has created  so much pain, loss, death, destruction, suffering, does not deserve mercy. They had their chance, but they misuse it and thus they deserve no mercy. Or in other words, since they had the power to choose, but they misused it horribly for their own advantages with no regard to other human life or anything else, they deserve to not be forgiven, in fact they deserve to suffer worse or at least equal to what they have caused. An eye for an eye, but has this sounded familiar? It should.

Arguments

One of the core messages of Christianity is to forgive others as much as seventy seven times seven times, or as much as how much you want God to forgive others. But you don’t need God to deduce that you must always forgive because it is the right thing to do. You only need to realize one thing, that Free Will is false. The primary reason people are reluctant to forgive others is because they felt, that the people who commited wrong are misusing their power of choice. Added with the concept of moral responsibility, which has been proved an invalid system of moral justice, then the recipe for a continued so called “righteous anger” and “righteous hatred” is complete. There is one problem though, as no one has an actual power of choice, no one has real genuine control over their actions. It’s just an illusion, as the science is against the very idea.

A short recap of why Free Will is false, is because we humans are a remix of past external information and also our brain, in a progressive manner. As a result, whatever we do is certainly because of our past. If a child is educated and treated in such a way to make him a diligent and successful person, then he will be a diligent and successful person. But if the environment is already making them a lazy person since youth, and none of that environment changes, that is it continues to form the person into a lazy person, then the child will grow up to be a lazy person, and most likely not succeed financially at least. How does this correlate with forgiving others then?

Let’s say there is a dictator that is absolutely anti religion, and genocided the theistic, or even worse, anyone who believes in the supernatural in their nation. Or perhaps a guy that raped over 50 young girls. Or a guy that is so racist that he killed off millions of people of an ethnicity. Essentially anyone evil enough to warrant a “no mercy” treatment. Now, if they had a perfectly good past, that constantly supports them to be a good and caring person, and his environment didn’t change drastically that may lead them to evil, would there be any chance that they would turn into an evil person? Absolutely not, assuming the environment is constantly supportive and shaping them into a good human being. Why is that? Because there would be nothing that can cause them to be an evil person. And we can only deduce one thing, something must be wrong.

While there has been statistical evidence, that will be unnecessary for this essay. As by pure reason alone, it can be deduced that if someone became evil, likewise there must be something in their past that made them evil. Either improper education, a tragedy, or abuse, and so on, and whatever it is, it must be bad. Not only that, evil is not something that would happen in an ideal environment. It is an abnormality, an odd thing that is what happens when the environment becomes unsupportive and destructive. As a result, an evil human would not develop in an ideal environment, but because there were flaws in the environment outside of their control, they become evil. And technically, evil people are flawed people, their brains are flawed, they are mentally unhealthy. They are mentally sick people, or more accurately, mentally wounded. And now, this begs the question, is it remotely undamaging to hurt a wounded, sick man even more than they already are? Because that’s what we are doing when we hate, mock, or plan vengeance against an evil man.

Then what is the correct thing to do then? Isn’t it obvious? Forgiveness, mercy, and reacceptance. When we forgive these evil people, we acknowledge that they are no less broken and wounded than those they have wounded and broken. And to actually forgive them, we must try in all of our efforts to help these evil people, and fix their mentality, make them a better person, not just get mad and hate on them. Not only that, this is the only thing that’s actually going to make a difference after the conflict. Yes you can ask the evil guy to take responsibility and take care of their mistakes, but if we don’t fix their mentality as well, then we have committed a moral crime, because then we are giving them another chance to repeat the same mistake, causing even more damage. And what happens if we hurt them even more? Then they would be more evil and cruel than before. Which means they can do worse things. And yes it is very true that forgiving them won’t completely reverse the damages, but neither will doing the opposite. But with mercy, we are giving them another chance to start anew, and actually be able to be a good person and redeem all of their mistakes.

Some people are also confused about this, and they misunderstood, that if we forgive someone, then we are saying that what they are doing is okay. Say if someone committed murder, and then forgive them, we are saying that murder is okay. That is completely wrong, the logic behind reasoning is that if a person does something, then they are a manifestation of that action. And what they did became an intrinsic identity of themselves. If a guy robbed a bank, then robbery will be an intrinsic part of that person, but that is simply wrong, as nothing is an intrinsic part of anyone, that is intrinsic as in purely connected with that person, rather everything that we are is made out of everything that we are not. As a result, we can forgive a murderer without saying that murder is okay, we still completely oppose murder. In short, when we forgive someone, while we reaccept them as human beings, we still do not tolerate what they have done. We can tolerate them as a person, but not what they have done, and thus we must do everything in our power to prevent the same thing from being done.

Conclusion

Evil and hatred are diseases of the world. But it is a sad thing that when one falls into it, many do not try to cure their fallen friend with mercy and love, but instead fight it with the disease, which of course, only worsen the condition. To forgive everyone without discriminating is an important thing to do, and is the best thing to do after a conflict, even if that someone committed an evil that may be so dastardly that it seems unforgivable. It may not reverse the wounds completely, but it certainly does more good than simply turning a blind eye and breaking the fallen person even more. And certainly forgiving someone is not equal to tolerating what they did, because while you can forgive people, you can not forgive actions. But even if the person seems unforgivable, we still need to forgive them, for it is our duty to forgive the unforgivable.

Moral Responsibility

Moral Responsibility

Introduction

It was Sunday morning when a policeman on his break came to the church to pray. As he walked in the church, he saw a man, lying on the floor, face down, blood around him. The police rushed to the dead man, it was the local priest, he then called his colleagues, and soon enough, the rest of the police came with an ambulance. The priest was already dead, but it’s not late to find out the killer. He was shot dead with a handgun, and after a good investigation, it was found that an extremist Islamist had killed him as a terror attack.

The case became a worldwide media sensation, and of course, the killer became one of the most hated person on earth. Many demanded the death sentence, even from the ulemas and the ustadzs. The person was condemned, cursed, ridiculed, and mocked by the entire world. In short, it’s quite a chaotic mess. Meanwhile, the evidence found that exposed the extremist was found by accident. A fellow priest was just walking around the altar when he found the critical evidence. The priest who found it was praised by people from around the world. Many gave him appreciation, and said he should be rewarded and commended.

This is a case of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility, is a concept which is still closely tied with the concept of Free Will. According to the idea, people can deserve praise or blame, reward or punishment for something they had done by their own conscience. In simpler words, anything we do that is Free Willed, is subject to moral responsibility. For example, the Islamist there clearly deserved the blame and punishment for that murder, it was clearly his own pure intentions. The priest who found that evidence did not deserve any praise, because it was an accident, he did not found it because he wanted it, he just did, it wasn’t his intentions to do so. Anyway, the priest who helped delivered justice, though by accident, was honored by the government, and the extremist was shot dead in a fire fight with the police.

This seems very fair, fine, and just, but is it? Ignoring the morality of this very concept, is it even logical in the first place? And that is where things start to go wrong. The concept of moral responsibility is the very basis of the legal system most countries have now. If you do something bad, you deserve to be punished, either by paying extravagant amounts of money or getting locked up in a cold prison cell for years. The idea of righteous anger, righteous vengeance, or the eye for an eye is not far from the concept of moral responsibility either. Surprisingly, while true that some have questioned Free Will, moral responsibility is questioned upon even less, perhaps partially because anyone who does is implying that we should discard the entire legal system and change it 180 degrees. Nevertheless, since it hinges upon Free Will, it will not stand long without its partner.

Refutations

As previously mentioned, human action is only subject to moral responsibility when it is caused by Free Will. But it can be rephrased into humans only deserve praise or blame for what they have done, if what they did is because they wanted to do it. In other short words, intention is key.

Intention, or want, or desire, is a human emotion, feeling that drives that human to do or reach something. A better way to simplify it is if someone wants to eat, they will walk to the kitchen, cook some food and eat it. The want, the intention, the desire of eating drives the human to cook, and eat food. But that’s not all, intention must also be realized by the human, the human must be aware that they want something, they have an intention, which means, it has to by their own Free Will.

An example that contrasts with genuine intention is a robot. The robot has been programmed to recharge itself to a power port if its battery is running low. Does that mean the robot has an intention to recharge itself? No, because it is only programmed to do so. Intention is an act of choice, you choose to want something, you can’t choose what you need, but you can choose what you want.

And from that elaboration alone, the pillars of moral responsibility can be demolished instantly. As explained in the previous essay, the concept of Free Will is straight out illogical and even unscientific. As a short review, Free Will means humans have the capabilities of making a choice that is purely from themselves, not influenced and not coerced. But the physical laws are against that idea, as we are merely a remix of every form of information our brain receives and also the brain itself, which is a combination of both a neural network and a computer. By that, Free Will is plain out false.

If Free Will is false, moral responsibility can not exist, as whenever someone does something, the choice to do so wasn’t purely from themselves. In fact it’s not from themselves at all, it’s merely the combination of the present external factors and internal factors, which again are just past external information mixed together. And intention itself is caused by Free Will. A person does not simply desire to do something, that desire comes because of a certain past they had. They want not because they chose to, but because their choice to want is caused by the past, and their brain. Why would you praise someone for something that they actually don’t have control of? And why would you blame someone for something that again, was never their fault in the first place?

Conclusion

Justice, is something longed by all in this world, but it may have been misunderstood by many, if not all. It was misunderstood to the point of creating unnecessary anger, hatred, suffering, and discrimination as a result of the concept known as moral responsibility. A concept which itself is tied to the concept of Free Will, and its ties never broke, as it is brought down along with its ideological partner. With this, moral responsibility is declared a baseless and illogical system of justice, and to be false.

Free Will

Free Will

Introduction

Cereal or bread, cereal or bread, it’s quite a tough decision, even when it’s just for breakfast. Eventually you do make a choice, and apparently it’s cereal, for some reason. While eating that sweet cereal soup with some fresh and cold milk, a thought strikes you, “Could I have chosen to eat bread?” well of course the answer seems obvious, “Yes of course I could have,” but the thing is, is it really? Is it equally likely for you to either choose cereal or bread for breakfast? And if it isn’t, if the probability is gravitating towards cereal perhaps, did you made that choice? Or is it determined by the laws of physics?

The question of Free Will has been debated for most of humanity’s existence. But somehow, there has not been any actual scientific experimentation to try and disprove Free Will, unlike the idea of God, which many people constantly tries to refute. It seems that the idea of Free Will is so good, and has been embedded so deep in everyone’s minds that it is practically impossible to resist, and refute. But it can be refuted, it is possible, and with enough analysis, the truth of this somewhat long standing concept can be found.

What is Free Will though? Free Will is the concept, the idea that we humans have the power of choice, we can make choices freely by our own conscience. Freely meaning without coercion, and also without any influence. According to this concept, there are choices where it is free, and there are choices that is not free. A very easy example is in two situations, on one hand, a person is mind controlled using advanced psychological technology and they were used to kill others. What that person did was not considered Free Will, as they had no control over what they are doing. On the other hand, your choice of eating a cereal or a loaf of bread is Free Will, as you had control. Note that an important aspect of Free Will is control.

From the surface, it seems that this concept is a good concept, as it means we have freedom and control over our choices. The idea is not without heavy implications though, as this idea entails another concept, of moral responsibility. Both of these concepts became the basis of how most, if not all of the world’s justice system work. Eventually, these ideas are followed by forms of hatred and discrimination towards “evil” people, that most people would claim to be a justified and righteous anger. In fact, when these “evil” men suffer, others would laugh and say that they deserved it for all of the evil they had done. This is by reality enforced in some legal systems, in the form of capital punishment, where a person has their life taken away for something others have assumed to be commited in Free Will. And this is when it has taken too far.

Refutation

The idea of Free Will, hinges upon the assumption, an untested one that is, that we humans have control over what we are doing. And that there are choices we made, that are purely from ourselves, and not because of other people. This is a common advice from people about making a mistake and ending up in failure, that we must never blame others, but we must always blame ourselves, as there is only ourselves to blame, but the science simply doesn’t cut it.

The very idea that there is a choice, even just a single choice that is purely from ourselves, has violated a lot of physical laws. Because this is the problem, when we make a choice, we first must have prior knowledge about that choice, and we don’t just create that knowledge do we? The law of conservation of energy states that something must come out of something, it can not come out of nothing. In short, whatever knowledge we have about that choice must have come from somewhere, either from experience, or from other people and so on. Of course, knowledge alone is not enough to make someone do that choice. Knowing about murder, and various ways to murder someone will not make someone an instant murderer. Choice is influenced by more factors.

Choice itself is influenced by two main factors at the contemporary time period, that is an external physical factor and an internal subject factor. The external physical factor is the environment surrounding the subject, such as where is the subject located, what time is it, what is happening around the subject, basically any physical elements surrounding the subject at the contemporary time period. Social elements are included in this physical factor, as they are essentially external and physical in nature. The second factor, the internal subject factor, is the subject themselves, that is their capabilities, their positions, their general physical condition, but most important of all, their mental conditions. Mental conditions being their personality, their memories, their knowledge, in general their psychology. This, is the most important part to examine and to analyze.

Let’s say a boy was peer pressured to peep at the girls’ toilet. The boy can either decline or fall into an immoral choice. Eventually, he was threatened that he’s going to be bullied if he doesn’t join his perverted peers, and he fell for the peer pressure. He then got addicted to it, and began watching porn, and it all went downhill from there. In this situation, there are physical factors that made the boy gravitate towards the act, but the true driving force lies within the poor boy’s mind. The boy was at his puberty, which means his curiosity towards the opposite sex is at its highest. But he has also heard warnings and has received sex education, not to mention his parents. He still fell for the peer pressure though, why is that? When asked, the boy claimed he wants to fit in, and he was scared of being bullied. In short, a desire to fit in, and a fear of exclusion. Those who believe in Free Will would say that his contemporary mental condition is made up of his previous choices. And if an argument that it is because something happened to that boy, the folks would say that the boy had a choice on how to react to it. But in truth, the boy had no choice, let’s analyze the most initial stage of the human life, birth.

When a baby was just born, it is true that the baby’s mind is born mostly empty. But it is still equipped with a neural network, a basic algorithm that enables the baby to learn new information and store it as memory. Information comes in multiple forms, sound, sight, smell, taste, touch, anything that can be sensed by the human baby. Now, every bit of information taken in by said neural network affects the neural network itself by making it process newer information a little bit differently, depending on that bit of information. And a single difference, would already change the neural network, which means an alternate universe where just one single element is different, the following effects would be widely different as well.

Eventually the baby will grow into a child, and the neural network will begin to show signs of computer like behavior, which is actually already owned by the baby since birth. The computer, which we know as the mind, controls how the human acts and behaves towards others, towards themselves, how they think and feel and so on. Any new information will also affect the computer and update it, making the human change in their mind or personality by a bit slowly by slowly. What this means is the way the brain, the combination of the neural network and the computer, processes new information depends on what kind of older information is received by the brain. If the brain had processed A before B, then it will process B in a one specific way, but if the order is reversed, the way the brain processes A will be different from the way it processes A if A comes before B.

There is a time where a human can only receive information, but not react towards it. During this period, where does the information came from? From external physical factors, primarily the parents, anyone else the baby meets, the environment, all of those information unoriginal of the baby. And these information, will determine how the human will react towards newer information in the future. As for our peeping Tom, all of the information builds up, his brain develops, and as a result of his experiences during his prior times, he fell for the pressure. Whatever it is that made him do something so disgusting, it was not his fault.

All of this effectively means one thing, any choice we make has been predetermined by previous information. As our choices are done by our brain, which is the combination of a neural network and a computer, and the way our brain works right now is determined by our past experiences. As a result, all of our choices must be influenced by the outside world, and none of it came from us purely. Because us today, is shaped by us yesterday, which collectively, is just a mix of every form of information that we receive combined with the progressive development of our brain as a result of such information. This effectively refutes Free Will to its very cores, and this new information has its own implications. By this, Free Will is declared to be false, and scientifically impossible.

What Now?

Of course, one may say that they feel like they have a choice. But that is merely a psychological illusion, a fakery. While Free Will in its pure form is non-existent, a form of it still exists. It is Psychological Free Will, the thought, or the feeling, the awareness of a choice. We humans are embedded with this so strongly since birth, that we always feel like we have control, because we are alive, we can know that we are alive, we can affect the world, and we know it. That is true Free Will, the awareness of a choice, we don’t actually have one, but we have an awareness of it. And that is the Free Will concept that we should use in our daily lives.

Conclusion

Freedom, something all wish to have, but sometimes, we wish for it so much, that we made up that freedom. It seems good at first, but it ends up destructive, destroying many people’s lives, and fooling everyone. It creates anger and hatred that is actually useless and unnecessary. That is what Free Will is, and like all fakery, it can be exposed, and it has been. We are all a remix of our old selves, our brain, and every form of information that our brain has sensed. In short, we are a remix, of the outside world, multiple elements of it mixed together, to create us. Our choices, they are made by the outside world, which are not us, but eventually became part of us. Even when those things are now part of us, our choices, those things we did, are still not from us, as in the end, it is because of things that is not from us at all. To tie everything up, and as a final statement, Free Will may be false, but sometimes, an illusion may suffice. Have a nice day.

Reforms

The Christmas holidays have arrived for me, and this means one thing, more writing for this glorious blog of mine. Now, anyone reading may notice that during this one month period until around January, I will be writing, or to be fair, rewriting most of my old writings, why is that? I had always thought that the writings I made back then, were simply not good enough, yes they had content, and it's compact, but it's messy, the language is simply too informal and so and so. Of course, the first writing in my schedule would be Free Will, the first, well the first in the revived period. And I won't be messing with any of the older writings, they're just my "SJW" period writing, plain horrible stuff. And the newer writings? I was writing them with an activist like passion, and that, is not the best thing to do when writing. My writings became rushed and simply, messy and unorganized. From now on, I will take a softer and calmer approach on writing, to create perhaps less, but better, more organized writing.

Why am I doing this?

If anyone reads this, and actually cares about this blog, I am impressed. For the months, or perhaps almost a year, I don't remember, I had this blog, no one has paid any actual attention to it. No one stuck with it, very few commented on this blog, and this blog fell upon blind eyes. There wasn't anyone actually asking me for more writing, so in fact, why am I doing this? Isn't all of this writing, expressing thoughts, logical deductions, critical analysis, and time-effort investing work, useless? No one is going to say, "Woah that's amazing!" or "Keep up the good work!" and those who encountered this blog and does read it, most would probably simply criticize it and so and so. So again, why am I doing this? I'll tell you, if you are even there, why I am doing this. I am not doing this for others, I am not doing this to get recognition, to have people appreciate me, to have people pay attention at me, to get praises and compliments, no. That may be true back then, but now, I realize, it's useless, it's meaningless. And now, I write all of this, because I like to write, it makes me happy, it gives me a sense of satisfaction. Thus, I write this, not for anyone in particular, but for myself. Anyway, to anyone who does stumble upon this blog, enjoy. You don't have to give out comments, or tell me how good it is, you're free to do whatever you want to do with this blog. Have a nice day, and may God bless you, if you do believe in God that is. Happy holidays!

Defense of Religion

Introduction

On my previous writing about our relationship with God, there is this one part where I heavily criticized religion, but now, I realized my flaws. So in this writing, I will defend religion instead, and we'll see the purpose of religion, how it has been corrupted over time, and how we can fix religion. Perhaps we can start by defining religion, religion is a systematic set of beliefs, or an ideology about God, or sometimes gods and goddesses, or just a higher power. Religion is not only ideology though, it is also communities founded on that ideology, founded on the core values of a certain religion. Examples of religion are Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, the ancient Greek and Nordic religions, Baha'i religion, and so on. Buddhism, for one, is not a religion at all, contrary to popular belief, this is because Buddhism doesn't focus on the idea or concept of God, but towards the renewing and improving of the self. They acknowledge the existence of a higher spiritual plane and higher powers, but they do not focus on it. With the definition laid, let's begin, shall we?

Role of Religion

In the previous writing, I wrote about how religion prevents us from actually connecting with God, but that statement is actually wrong, so I will revise it here. I  am going to write this in several arguments, that is in a listed form, just as usual.

1. Moral Guidance

Religion acts as guidance, that is moral guidance. Most religions view God as a morally superior being, or a deity that is morally perfect, and seeks morality from God. As a result, most religions will also contain moral codes about what actions appease God, or what actions anger Her. In Christianity, this is known as virtue and sin. Sins are said to be actions that is against God's will. This moral codes though, are not actually something that must be followed strictly. They are just guides on how we should live out our lives. But in the end, we have to decide ourselves what is good and what is bad, religion only helps.

Let's take a very controversial doctrine within Christianity, the doctrine about banning homosexuality. Now many people thinks that this doctrine is a must follow, or God will throw us to eternal damnation. But God is all-loving and all-merciful, so how can She even think of throwing us to hell? Even if God can throw us to hell, what serves as a proof that God hates gays? Saying that it is true just because the scriptures say so is a fallacy of relevance, as it is an argument from "Holy Scripture". And is it not possible that we might have misinterpret the scriptures?

In the end, if I, a Catholic believes that homosexuality is not a sin, or not something bad at all, am I a sinner? To many conservative Catholics, sure I am, and to most priests, yes I am. But in the end, how do you know? And who was it that created the doctrine of "homosexuality is a sin"? Is it God? No, it was humans trying to interpret the scriptures and analyze it, and the result is the doctrine of homosexuality is a sin. And if humans created that doctrine, it can be false, as humans are flawed, so we have to analyze it to prove that a certain doctrine is true. This goes for all other doctrines within all religions.

In the end, while religion guides us to find morality, religion is not the be all and end all of morality. Many parts of religion is created by humans, which can make it flawed, as a result, we have to analyze it and reform it where necessary. We can use religion to help us find morality, but not depend on it. Basically, religion is a tool to find the moral truth, but it is not the moral truth itself. Another example is to create an analogy. Say there is raw food, such as raw chicken. Do we eat the raw chicken itself? Of course not, we have to cook the chicken first, then we can eat it. Religion is like the raw chicken, we have to "cook" it first, and then we can "eat" it. Or we will instead get sick. Seeing religion as the be all and end all of morality is like mistaking raw chicken as cooked chicken. It already contains nutrients you need, but there are still germs that can make you sick or even worse, kill you.

2. Guidance to God

Religion acts as a guidance in many sectors, and one of the core sectors being God, as religion is centered upon God. In many religions, there are doctrines that tell us how to make our faith or our relationship with God stronger, such as how to pray, the moral codes, and so on and so forth. Yet again, these doctrines are not rules that we have to follow very strictly to connect to God, they are just signs, guides, tools. We can take those guides as inspiration on how to conduct or relationship with God, but in the end, our faith is our matter alone.

Perhaps we can take the example of some doctrines. In Christianity, it is said that God is in the form of a trinity headed by a male figure, and we must follow a structure in prayer, we must go to church every Sunday, we must receive the sacraments and so on and so forth. Of course, many Christians say those things are necessary for us to actually have a good relationship with God. But do we? Again, these doctrines are just guides, they serve to help us find our way of connecting with God, but they only help us, we will not find God within them.

In the end, it is our choice on how to conduct our relationship with God, as our relationship with Her is something very personal, that nothing can interfere with. If we feel that going to church helps us, that's fine. If we feel going to church doesn't help, then we shouldn't go to church, it will not benefit us at all. If meditating helps us, then we should meditate, but yet again, we are free to approach God anyway we want. Of course there are borders on how we should relate to God, religion helps define those borders. Such as, God doesn't like killing people obviously, so if someone say they were instructed by God to kill, then it is nonsensical and we should ignore them.

Religion is like a sign, pointing towards God's home. Or perhaps a collection of signs, pathways, compasses, GPS software and other navigational equipment that help us go to God's house. All of this equipment are good, but they are not perfect, they can help us get to God, but sometimes, they just fail. As a result, we mustn't depend on those guides to get to God, we can get help from it, use it to help us, but the decision of where to go is our choice, not because the guide tells us so.

We will not find God within Mosques, Churches, Pagodas, Temples, or Viharas. Nor will we find Her in the oceans, mountains, or the bustling cities. God is not inside the Bibles, the Qurans, the Tripitakas or any other Holy Scripture. But we will find God, when we look into ourselves, when we look at the world, when we let go of our ego, only then we will find God.

3. Unifying Force

This is a minor role of religion, but it is quite important. Religion helps unite people, people of diverse cultures and ethnicities that otherwise would stay separated. This is because religion creates a new common similarity among these people. That is the belief in God in a certain way. Yes religion is influenced by the culture of the original location of it, but then, it is not the focus, but the values within a religion that becomes the focus. That is ideals, which can be practiced universally.

Let's look at Christianity, Christianity is right now the largest religion in the world by member population. And their population is very diverse, there are Asians, Europeans, Africans, and so much more people that would otherwise stay divided. A good example is in Europe and the Crusades. Europe used to be very divided because of political tensions and cultural differences. But when Christianity came, they became united under the Church, and during the crusades, they united under the banner of Christianity against the Muslim forces.

The same can be seen in Islam, the Arab world used to be quite divided. But Islam managed to unite it and also unite many other people of the world under the banner of Islam. They all have solidarity with each other, and help out each other, in the name of Islam. Of course, every other religion does this as well, just sometimes it is not that visible.

Purpose of Religion

There is one single purpose of religion, that is to guide the People. Religion should guide people so they can find God and the moral truth independent of that particular religion. This means that religion should make people to be mature and independent, and can think for themselves, which means one thing, religion should help people to think critically. Religion should be progressive, that is they renew themselves constantly, and they base their teachings on logic and not just tradition. Religion should not make people depend on that religion for God and the moral truth.

Religion is like a well for everyone to wash their body. The proper way to use it is to take some water from the well and then wash our body with it, notice that the water, after washing away our dirt, becomes dirty as well and is thrown away. We should not go into the well and submerge ourselves in the well as it will make the water in the well dirty. What this means is we can make ideas from the original teachings of that religion, but we should not attach it to the religion. We can make our ideas a part of that religion, but it is not attached, it means it can still be renewed without any problems.

A good example is the current situation of Christianity. The Catholic Church has most of its doctrines based upon Paul's teachings. Paul was just trying to interpret the teachings of Jesus from his perspective. That is not wrong, but it's a problem when we make Paul's teachings authoritative and we latch on to it. We have to acknowledge that Paul is also a human, and what he said may contradict what Jesus said, as a result, his teachings must be critically analyzed.

Christianity can provide the Gospels, Pauline teachings and other scriptures as guides for us to find God and the moral truth. But none of it is authoritative, even if the Gospel is about what God said Themselves, it is still subject to analysis. But, can a teaching be authoritative at one point? Yes, if it stands up to logical scrutiny, and it is proven by logic, then there are teachings within that religion that is authoritative, but again, we have to analyze how it is supported by logic. We must not swallow it whole, but chew it first. And everyone else has to understand why is it logical in the first place, and not just swallow it, even if others had chewed it. They have to chew for themselves, not ask someone else to chew it for them.

The Present Flaws of Religion

Religion today though, has strayed quite far from its original purpose of guiding people. It has now become an instrument of divide and propaganda, those who feel that their life is improved by religion, is not because of the religion itself. But it's because they can see the meaning behind it all, and not just the rituals and traditions. There are multiple flaws within religion right now, and I shall explain what I know.

1. Static

If we see the situation of most religions right now, we can see that they are somewhat static right now. Even the Catholic Church, even if it has tried to renew itself, they still fail to keep up with the times, especially in terms of the LGBT community. Or other religions that keep holding on to tradition without critically analyzing the traditions itself. The tradition of sacrament has existed for very long, but what is their true purpose? The baptist is only symbolic in nature, and the Body of Christ is a metaphor in itself. But these traditions are still kept in religion. When a religion is static, it fails to serve the purpose of guiding people towards God and the moral truth.

As time progresses, knowledge advances as well, we know more about the world, and religion should keep up with it as well. That is doctrines that doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny should be replaced. If the very scriptures are flawed in logic, then perhaps major reforms should be conducted. If further scientific discoveries decreases the likelihood that God exists, then religion should be ready with rebuttals that is actually logical, and not just based on Scriptures. If it is found out that God doesn't exist, then religion must be ready to dissolve itself, perhaps it can stay as a philosophy of morality, but that's all.

Perhaps an illustration can explain this better. There are 2 religions, religion I and religion C. The religion I is static, it bases all of its arguments on their scriptures, without trying to see if there can be room for reinterpretation. They stick with the same interpretations without accepting any other opinions. When someone asks them for proof, all they say is, "It's in the Holy Scriptures, so it must be true." But in religion C, they still base their beliefs on the Scriptures, but they are open to different interpretations, they open their minds, they try to connect the ideas within their Holy Books with Scientific Laws. They embrace science, as a form of respect to their God. They kept reforming, and they let the members of the religion give out opinions to reform it. They acknowledge their faults in the past, but they also keep moving forward, fitting within the modern world. In the end, the static religion fails to keep up, and they resort to propaganda and various indoctrinative methods, but in the end, their religion is sweeped away under the history books. Religion C thrived, they kept on improving until slowly by slowly, they got to the truth together with the People.

2. Too Authoritative

I explained how the teachings in religion should only serve as a guide, right? But unfortunately, many religions today enforce us to believe that their image of God is the most correct image. Of course, we know that we don't have to follow them, the worst they can do is call us blasphemers or kick us out of their religion. But not all of us are as enlightened as that, and so we must help enlighten them. Many religions today will usually say that if we want to have a good relationship with God, we have to go to the house of worship, we have to repeat certain incantations in our hearts and so on and so forth. But of course, that should not be the case.

It is fine for a religion to have prayers and all, but those prayers serve only as guides. The image of God is fine, but it is only a guide. As in the end, one's relationship with their God is very personal, and must not be interfered. Let's take the example of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, they say we have to go to church every Sunday. we have to sing very specific songs and so on. But then, they also say that we have to keep praising God, and we have to treat ourselves as if we are absolutely inferior to God, that we are the tools of God, we are the servants of God, and so on. Religion should not be telling their followers how to find God, but religion must teach followers on how to find God, there is a difference.

Religion should tell the followers that they can find God in any way they like, but of course also provide the moral borders. These moral borders must only be the objective truth, such as what God is, and how we should view God. And also, religion needs to let followers give input as well, and also analyze their own teachings, make sure it's open to new interpretation and criticism. Make it inclusive, that all followers have equal power to give new interpretations. As in the end, it's the followers that needs guidance, so perhaps we should let them seek guidance for themselves as well.

How to Fix Religion

We have discussed the role of religion, and also the flaws of it today, but of course, if we can point out the flaws, then we have to know how to repair it as well. We want to fix something, we have to know which part is broken. We know a part is broken, we have to try to fix it, and not just leave it broken, the same goes for religion. As a result, I will explain some ways we can fix religion.

1. More Freedom

More freedom? What does it mean? Of course, I am referring to the members, that is more freedom to the members to do what they want. As stated previously, the purpose of religion is to guide them to the truth and God, not force them to accept that particular religion as the truth and message of God. So, religion should give more freedom to the followers of that religion to do what they want. Yes, moral codes and guidelines should be present, but followers must not be forced to adhere to them, religion will act as a consultant. So if someone feels like they don't want to be a homophobic bastard, the Church shouldn't excommunicate him or whatever. Or if they are actually homosexual, then the Church should still give him his well deserved rights.

But why is more freedom important? The answer can be found on the purpose of religion, I explained how religion serves to guide us towards the truth and God, and also to empower us so we can reach it by ourselves. That means independence, but let's analyze it further. Yes, with more freedom, there is a higher chance of misuse right? That is an obstacle, stress, so, must we remove the stress, or make the followers adapt? Some feel like it's easier and better to remove the stress, but I disagree. If you remove the stress, the followers can't adapt to anything new, and they will stop evolving in that part. But, how do we prevent misuse of freedom then? By guidance, that is logical guidance, and critical thinking, this is where religion comes in. The freedom still exists, but religion guides us on what to do. There is no penalty for using that freedom, even if it is wrong, but guidance.

Perhaps I should make an illustration here. In a certain religion, say religion X, the followers follow a strict religious code and moral rules. They are not allowed to divert from it, even if it doesn't cause harm, and if they divert, they are given a severe penalty, perhaps financial or physical penalty. Of course this is illegal in a secular state, so let's say it's in a theocratic state. As time passes, the followers of the religion became fearful of the punishments, added with the threat of eternal damnation, they follow the codes very strictly. This is all good until one day, the theocratic state was destroyed in a war, and the followers were unchained from the strict punishments, as well as being told that eternal damnation is just a concept used by the elites to fool people. Of course, some of the moral codes within X is actually good, such as don't kill and the likes. But the followers of X, thinking there is no one to punish them, they think it's okay to violate the rules. Eventually, they devolve into savages, as they don't know to use their freedoms properly.

In another religion, say religion Y, there are many and various religious codes and moral rules, but the followers are not forced to adhere to it strictly. They can choose their own moral path, and there will be no penalty. Of course, it is still recommended to follow those rules, but the religion doesn't force you to follow it, they will guide you and try to convince you that you should follow them, but in the end, it's still your choice. That is, you are given lots of freedom to do what you want. Doesn't this mean there are lots of misuse of freedom? No, because the religion guides the followers to use those freedoms wisely. Eventually, as time passed, the followers have adapted to their freedom, and they can do the right thing, even if by the law of the religion, they are allowed to divert with no penalties at all, they still do the right thing, as they are aware of which is right and which is wrong. One day, the religion suddenly dissolved, but the followers? They kept to their morals and beliefs, they didn't divert, and they stayed consistent.

Do you see the difference there? In religion X, the followers need a threat of punishment so they can obey. When that threat is eliminated, they feel that they can do anything they want. While in religion Y, they can choose the right choice, with or without the threat of punishment. Or in other words, the followers of Y have adapted to their freedoms, and they can use those freedoms without destroying themselves. This has something to do with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, but that's a topic for another day. I hope this example makes it clear.

2. More Democratic

This is similar to the first solution, but this is more about letting members have say on their religion more. Making a religion more democratic means giving the followers more power over their own religion over time, just as the State gives more power to the People as time goes on. As stated before, one of the flaws of religion is that it is static thus it can't keep up with the times. So, the solution is to make it not static, then how does democracy improve that? You see, in a democracy, the basic pillar is letting people express their own different opinions and then integrating all of those opinions into a single new and innovative idea which everyone then agrees upon. By that definition, if we implement more democracy within religion, it should then improve religion over time, though there is a catch, let me explain.

When a religion becomes more democratic, it will be more open to criticisms and critical analysis. As followers can give input to doctrines that they feel is nonsensical, or perhaps they feel even contradicts each other. With constant discussion about certain doctrines, of course that is discussions based upon logic, the religion will get better slowly and slowly. But not just the doctrines, the very scriptures that those doctrines are based upon should be criticized and discussed until it is clear that it is morally true. But what about multiple interpretations? Well of course that will addressed in discussions. Until all members of said religion agrees upon a single interpretation, but that interpretation can still change if members find new flaws within that interpretation. So it may seem that the religion has inconsistent principles, but it is because it keeps changing and progressing. In the end, the teachings are the guidelines, but it is still subject to discussion. And I mentioned the "catch" in the first part of this solution, what is it?

That is it is quite possible for all members to be indoctrinated and all discussion goes only one direction. That is why, just like democracy in the State, the followers should be guided first. This will be the job of the clerics to help guide the followers to take more control in their religion and think critically to analyze the religion even more effectively. And if even the clerics are brainwashed? Then surely there must be one or two sane people, then they can climb up the ranks and start guiding everyone to the right path. Or if there isn't, someone from outside can analyze that religion, and start guiding followers of that religion to reform. Critical thinking and an open mind is critical to all applications of democracy, or it will fail horribly, and go back to extremism. Another example should help explain this.

There was a religion called religion A, religion A is similar to religions of today, static, and followers are not given much power in changing the teachings or doctrines. They can serve in it, participate in charity work, and so on, but the doctrines are shut by the clerics. While the clerics have made an effort in improving the doctrines, they are still based upon old interpretations of their scriptures, and the last renewal was more than 50 years ago. The religion was unable to change fast enough and adapt to the times. Eventually, the followers had enough, and a violent conflict happened within that religion, and it split into two, the original A, and A+. A+ was no different than A, while the doctrines are new from the A doctrines, it never changed again, and just like A, the doctrines are shut by the clerics, the situation is still the same, and they never develop or renew themselves, other than conflicts and rare councils.

Meanwhile, there is religion B, which is quite similar to religion A, but the difference is, the clerics allow and in fact encourage their followers to help discuss with them and analyze doctrines and also the scriptures. They organize themselves in a staged direct democratic structure (See my writing "The Political Ideology II" for more information) and constantly discuss to improve themselves. They keep revising interpretations so that it is much more logical, supports human rights, and is scientific over all. As time goes, the religion keeps developing, new ideas are created, new teachings are created, verses are reinterpreted, all for the better. The clerics guide the followers as they grow more independent, and more control is given to them as time goes on. In the end, they never experienced any huge conflicts, and most disagreements are decided by discussion. They prospered and thrived in the world, adapting to changes and so on. I hope that example is clear enough.

Closing

Religion, is made with good intentions and purposes, but it is true that over time, it may have went the wrong way. This doesn't mean religion has to be eliminated completely, but it needs to be reformed, and fixed. Religion serves to guide us towards the moral truth and God, but in the end, it is our choice. Religion has no power to force us to abide by their image of God, in fact, we should have the power to change religion so it can suit us. Religion is now static and authoritative, but we can fix that, by making it more democratic and have more freedom. That is all for now, I hope you enjoyed.

The Analysis of Logic

THE ANALYSIS OF LOGIC

Introduction

            

After an argument over the internet, and also looking at the situation of the world, I was dumbfounded when I realized how the ability of critical thinking and critical thought has been lost. How so? Well extremism and ideological fundamentalism is quite the proof of it. And what does critical thinking means? Well, it is the application of logic. And what is logic? Well, that is what I will discuss here.

The Definition of Logic

            

So, as I always do, I would define a topic first before I explain more. So, by essence, logic is a way of creating new information out of existing information. Logic, is technically, how the entire universe works. All scientific laws, are based on the principles of logic. Some say that logic is subjective, but what they mean is probably the lines of reasoning, being different from one person to another. And that is affected by the point of view, or the perspective. There is the capitalist perspective, the socialist perspective, the theist perspective, the atheist perspective, and so on. But how it can be different will be for another section.

           

Logic, as repeated, is a way to make new information out of previous information. Of course, for the new information to be valid and true, then the previous information must also be true. We call this previous information, premises. The new information, conclusion. We use logic everyday, especially in making decisions or when we are studying at school. We may not realize it, but we do use logic on a day to day basis. Now that we have defined logic, we’ll define the structure.

The Structure of Logic

            

There are several terms that will be used here, and I’ll explain their definitions as we go. First, we know that the basic form of logic, is analyzing a group of premises to reach a conclusion. Now the collection of the premises and conclusion is called an argument. The flow of said argument is a reasoning. A line of reasoning is the logic behind any argument. But, how so? Well, it’s basically how the argument is made, is it valid or not? Is it sound or not? That is it.

            

There are 2 types of reasoning, actually 3, but the important ones are the 2 types. The most basic form of reasoning is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning produces valid, sound, and true conclusions, that is if the premises are all true. Then how do we determine that the premise is true? Well, a premise is also a conclusion produced from analyzing other previous premises. As a result, you will have a whole network of premises and conclusions. An argument, has to be both true and valid, what does that mean?

           

 The trueness of an argument, or the trueness of a conclusion, is determined by the trueness of the premise. This trueness, as it can only true or false, is called the truth value. Sentences that declare something, or state something, has a truth value. Such as, “I have a cat” or “My mom died”, as they both can be proven true or false. I may or may not have a cat, and my mom may or may not have died. While interrogative and imperative sentences, or in daily language, questions and commands, don’t have a truth value. As they do not declare anything, interrogative sentences will bring out declarative sentences that do have a truth value. Imperative sentences have nothing to do with truth values at all.

The validity of an argument checks whether the conclusion follows the premises. It is possible to have true premises, but a false conclusion. This is a result of a flaw in reasoning, or commonly known as logical fallacies. The validity of an argument can be checked by presenting the argument in the form of a syllogism. A syllogism is an argument presented in 3 statements. The first statement is the major premise, the second a minor premise, and the third a conclusion. The major premise is a general statement such as, “Living things can breathe”. Then the minor premise is a specific statement such as, “Humans are living things”. And the conclusion, well is the conclusion. A conclusion we can make is, “Humans can breathe”.

For an argument to be valid, then it must abide by several logical laws, there are several types of syllogism. And I will explain all of it. There are 3 types of syllogisms, conditional syllogism, categorical syllogism, and disjungtive syllogism. Conditional syllogism basically states, if A is true, then B is true. A good example would be this syllogism, “If my mom was alive, I wouldn’t be depressed all the time. My mom was dead. I am depressed all the time.” Note how the major premise is in the form of “if A is ..., then B is...”. The minor premise then checks whether A is true or not. If A is true, then B is true, if not, then it is false. You then reach a conclusion, where it is in the form of “B is true/false”. The regular form is, “If A is true, B is true. A is true/false. B is true/false.” But it can also work both ways, it’s just the same.

The second type of syllogism is the categorical syllogism. It is good to understand set theory to understand this kind of syllogism. The categorical syllogism states that if A is part of C, then B is part of C. Let me illustrate this, see this syllogism, “All humans are living things. Skarlet is a human. Skarlet is a living thing.” Note how the major premise is in the form of “A is a part of C”. Then the minor premise states that B is part of A. The conclusion states the final membership status of B. I think that should be easy enough.

The third type of syllogism is the disjungtive syllogism. The disjungtive syllogism is almost like a “A or B” situation. So if A is true, then B must be false, or vise versa. Only one of them can be true, or it wouldn’t be a disjungtive syllogism at all. Say this syllogism, “She either hated me or forgave me. She didn’t hate me. She forgave me.” Essentially, the major premise will be in the form of “Either A or B”, the minor premise states which one is false or true, so it is, “A/B is true/false”. And the conclusion states the truth value of the other member, whether it is A or B.

There are also 4 types of propositions, such as the universal positive or negative, and the particular negative or positive. The universal states “All A is B” or “No A is B” whether it is positive or negative. The particular operates similarly, but it only applies to some members, and not all. So it would be in the form of,  “Some A are B” or “Some A are not B”. But this is not that important to know.

The second type of logical reasoning is the inductive reasoning. This is not as accurate as a deductive reasoning, and may produce conclusions that may be false. But it is very useful in prediction and forecasting. The conclusion will usually be a probability. Take this syllogism, “Most of the time, after a hot day, there would be a rainy day. Today it is sunny. It will probably rain tomorrow.” So essentially, inductive reasoning uses a trend in a set of data, and uses that trend to predict the next datas. It is also useful when we are unable to know every single premise, so we look at the trend, and form a prediction. That is inductive reasoning, estimating smartly.

Then there is abductive reasoning. It is mostly used in scientific research, that is when we make hypotheses. When we have information and evidence of facts that can not be explained by the existing theories, we try to make the most logical explanation, the best explanation. But the most important type of reasoning is the deductive reasoning, you can keep your eye out for inductive reasoning, but you can keep abductive reasoning away for now.

Logical Fallacies

            

A logical fallacy is a flaw in one’s line of reasoning. Such as using logical principles that doesn’t exist, or applying it wrongly, and many other forms. I’ll try to list the fallacies that is quite common.

1. Fallacies of Relevance

            

There are many types of fallacies that fall into this category, but they all have the same feature. The arguers assert the truth of an argument from factors that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Such as claiming that since it is a tradition, it must be true. Or since the People does it, it is true. A common form of this fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy, that is when you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself. Let me make an example. Say this argument, “Heavy drinking has been a culture and it has been passed down through generations for centuries. So it must be good for us!” Of course, we may believe it to be true, but then, the universe does not care at all. The scientific fact that heavy drinking will cause health issues will not change even if it is a tradition to drink heavily.

2. Other Fallacies

            

While there are many other types of fallacies, it’s actually quite easy to identify when someone begins to commit a fallacy. A common fallacy is the circular reasoning, that is for example, “The bible says God exists. The bible is inspired by God. Therefore God exists.” Notice how the first premise, is not based upon actual evidence, the conclusion is required to prove the second premise, and well, it becomes messy. Then there is the Red Herrings, a series of fallacies designed to divert the argument. Such as pointing out the argument’s hypocrisy, and so on and so forth. Or a famous one is the Straw Man, that is when we modify the argument so it still sounds similar but different enough and simpler enough so we can break it. Like if I am arguing about how religion is misused and has been corrupted, and suddenly someone says I am accusing religion to be completely horrible and must be destroyed.

           

 Then there is the hasty generalization, that is when we generalize things without any sufficient evidence. This is the core of discrimination usually. There are so much more fallacies, but it is not that necessary to remember all of it. As we can easily disprove an argument by pointing out the violations of logical laws, or the truth of the premises.

In Relation to All Studies

           

 When one says that science and God is in different domains is a false assumption. Because science came from applying logical laws on information gained through observation. While the idea of God came from applying logical laws to the question of the cause of it all. As a result, every study out there has a basic commonality, that is they are all based on logic. So if we can not scientifically proof God, then we can logically prove God, as I did.

            

And furthermore, whether we realize it or not, we also practice logic in a daily basis. People say that when we study, we don’t just know the knowledge, but we must also understand it. As we may know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but if we don’t understand what it actually means, it’s meaningless. As a result, when teachers teach us about reading strategies, that is applying logic so we can understand the meaning of a certain passage. Or when we are writing, we are applying logic on how to make the writing sound good. In conclusion, we use logic everyday.

The Importance of Logic

          

Logic is essential to human survival, or most call it critical thought. We have to use logic to understand why things happen, or just to appreciate art. We need logic to decide on which candidate to use in an election, or just deciding which brand of soap is the best. But our abilities of critical thought can be eroded away, slowly by slowly if we don’t use it. This is evident if we keep playing games that doesn’t induce heavy critical thinking, or if we don’t study seriously, or something else. And when logic is not enforced, we can get very foolish. An effect of people not thinking critically is them falling into horrible ideologies, which explains the reemergence of the alt right in Europe, or the Islamist Extremist threat in Indonesia.

            

But there are also factors that can cloud our mind even if we use logic properly, that is between having an open mind or a closed mind. What is an open mind? When we are open minded, we are open to any ideas, no matter how far fetched it is, and we are also able to accept that we can be wrong and we may be wrong. While when we are closed minded, we tend to feel that what we believe is already the truth, and everything else is false, we stick to the old ways, and use some assumptions, premises that is actually unsupported, to defend ourselves. And this will cause us to use various logical fallacies and so on.

Closing

            

I really feel like that my skills are getting eroded as time flies, I don’t know why, I just feel, like I can’t do this you know. If the closings are sounding more like expressions of the heart, forgive me. Yet again, I feel like this log is so very lacking, like very lacking. It seems I have to do something else to clear my mind. Anyway, that is all I can write about for now, I am sorry if it’s not as good as it used to be. I hoped you enjoyed, though unlikely, and do give me suggestions, compliments, and critiques through the comments. Have a nice day!