Celebrating the Day of Miracles
Thekchen Chöling, Dharamsala, HP, India - The courtyard of the Tsuglagkhang, the Main Tibetan Temple in Dharamsala, was packed with people, Tibetans and others, who had gathered to listen to His Holiness the Dalai Lama this morning. He was escorted from his residence to the throne set up beneath the Temple under the shade of a huge ceremonial umbrella, to the stirring accompaniment of chanting monks. After His Holiness had taken his seat, the Heart Sutra was recited while tea and sweet rice were served.
After reciting a verse calling on gods, demigods and others to listen to the teaching, His Holiness also repeated Nagarjuna’s verse,
Homage to Gautama
Who, through compassion,
Taught the exalted Dharma,
Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.
“Today,” he began, “is the Day of Miracles, celebrated as part of the Great Prayer Festival that has been held in Lhasa for almost 600 years. It commemorates an occasion during the Buddha’s life when he defeated other ascetics in a display of miraculous feats.
“Gods or human beings, we all want to be happy and the root of happiness is in the mind. Liberation may take some time, but we can all find peace of mind if we pay attention to it here and now. Even animals, when they are not in danger, remain relaxed and at peace. What makes us upset is anger, fear and suspicion. It’s the unruliness of our minds that makes us unhappy. The ancient Indian traditions saw dealing with mental afflictions as more important than cultivating sensory pleasure. The Buddhas don’t wash away misdeeds and mental afflictions with water, they show us how to understand reality as it really is—that is how we can overcome them.
“We tend to see things as existing independently on their own part, and when they are attractive we become attached to them. When somehow our access to them is disrupted we get angry. American psychologist Aaron Beck explained to me that in observing people, who he described as prisoners of anger, he saw that they viewed the object of their anger as totally negative. However, he judged that 90% of this response was their own mental projection. Nagarjuna stated similarly that the elimination of karma and mental afflictions, which arise due to our conceptual exaggerations, leads to liberation. Ignorance is a combination of misconception and exaggeration. And it’s because of insights, such as dependent orignation, that today scientists are taking interest in what the Buddha had to say about the mind.”
His Holiness explained that the Buddha did not teach immediately after his enlightenment because he reflected that no one would understand what he had realized. In due course, however, he taught the nature, function and results of the Four Noble Truths.
We cling to the appearance that things exist independently, he said, a distorted view that the Buddha countered by use of reason. Human nature is compassionate, rooted in the love our mothers show us, without which we would not survive. And yet the world is rife with conflict and problems, which occur when we are overwhelmed by anger and attachment. Secular education based on universal values can help us better understand the flaws in this. On the other hand, the Buddha taught that we can put an end to karma and mental afflictions by challenging our view of true existence through meditation on emptiness.
“We need to know who the Buddha is,” His Holiness continued, “which doesn’t mean being able to identify the major and minor marks of his body, but coming to understand his teaching. The more we familiarize ourselves with his teaching, the more we appreciate how scientific it is.
“The Buddha taught different things to different groups of people at different times. He first explained the Four Noble Truths. In the second turning of the wheel of Dharma he explained the perfection of wisdom, and in the third turning he taught about Buddha nature. The Four Noble Truths included a rough account of selflessness, which the perfection of wisdom explains more subtly. In the ‘Unravelling of Thought Sutra’, part of the third turning of the wheel, he clarified that he taught according to his listeners’ different mental disposition.
“Essentially the Buddha taught how to transform the mind, which involves the use of logic and reason. By seeing through our distorted views we can penetrate our mental afflictions. Just as we preserve our health by following a code of physical hygiene, we need to adopt a sense of mental hygiene to achieve and preserve our peace of mind, here and now.”
Noting that the tradition for commemorating the Buddha on this day includes reading one of the Jataka Tales, the stories of the Buddha’s previous lives, His Holiness observed that the collection was compiled by Aryasura, also known as Ashvaghosha, a student of Aryadeva who was the disciple of Nagarjuna. Today’s story concerned a noble, selfless hare, who lived in the forest where he led other animals, an otter, a jackal and a monkey in particular, along the path of virtue.
After reading the opening of the Jataka Tale, His Holiness annnounced that he would also like to read Je Tsongkhapa’s ‘In Praise of Dependent Origination’, transmission of which he received from the Kinnauri Lama, Rigzin Tempa. It begins with a verse of homage to the Conqueror who saw dependent origination and taught it. It is on the basis of this that we can overcome our distorted view of reality that is the root of our mental afflictions. These mental afflictions, His Holiness stressed, are not of the nature of the mind. He remarked that the perfection of wisdom teachings of the second turning of the wheel deal with the emptiness that is the object clear light, while the third turning of the wheel refers to the subjective clear light, the subtle mind that is used to realize emptiness. This mind of clarity and awareness is the basis of the practice of tantra. All Tibetan Buddhist traditions stress the importance of understanding the nature of the mind.
As His Holiness read through the verses he paused to clarify and observe. Understanding dependent origination helps us overcome ignorance, the first of the twelve links of dependent origination, which can involve not understanding the law of causality, or ignorance of how things are. He observed that ‘dependence’ counters the extreme view of eternalism, while ‘origination’ counters nihilism. We know things exist because they affect us, but they only exist by way of designation. In clarifying dependent origination His Holiness mentioned that a result exists in dependence on its cause, but we can also say that something is only a cause because it has a result. There is a similar relation between a whole and its parts.
“The study of logic prevailed in India and we have continued that tradition in Tibet,” His Holiness observed as he was nearing the end of his reading of the text. “The great texts of Indian Buddhist literature were translated into Tibetan, thereby enriching the Tibetan language, which is now the language in which Buddhist ideas can be most accurately expressed. The Buddhist tradition we have kept alive in Tibet is something like a treasure for the world; it’s something for us to be proud of.
“Even after the political fragmentation of Tibet, the Kangyur and Tengyur collections were a source of unity and harmony. They were found and revered in all three provinces of Tibet, as well as adjacent lands like Mongolia and Ladakh. Although I am not very highly educated, I can appreciate that there is knowledge in this literature that can contribute to a wider conversation. For example, the quantum physics view that things have no objective existence resonates with the views of the Mind Only School. The difference may be that in our tradition we try to use our understanding of how things are to transform the mind, which quantum physicists may not do.
“Je Tsongkhapa applied what he learned in practice. We too have to integrate what we have learned into our own minds. We need to study and reflect so that our faith is based on reason. In the past, Namgyal Monastery, the two tantric colleges of Gyutö and Gyumé and nunneries didn’t peruse the philosophical treatises, but at my urging they have taken up their study to good effect. These monks and nuns have set a bright example for the generations to come.”
Dedication prayers were recited as His Holiness descended from the throne. He then walked back to his residence, greeting friends and well-wishers in the smiling crowd on the way.
Original link & photos: https://www.dalailama.com/news/2018/celebrating-the-day-of-miracles
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2018
Dalai Lama Celebrates the Day of Miracles
Labels:
14 dalai lama,
4 noble truths,
buddha,
china,
compassion,
day of miracles,
dharma,
gyuto,
lhasa,
logic,
mind,
mongolia,
Tibet
Friday, April 8, 2016
Wanted & Needed ... Common Sense Thinking!
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, Someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty Conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group Think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this is an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful Thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, Someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty Conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group Think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this is an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful Thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Labels:
christians,
common sense,
critical thinking,
demonic,
group think,
logic,
ostrich fallacy,
plausibility structures,
red herring,
satan,
straw man,
wishful thinking
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Wanted and Needed...Common Sense Thinking
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Labels:
christians,
common sense,
critical thinking,
demonic,
group think,
logic,
ostrich fallacy,
plausibility structures,
red herring,
satan,
straw man
Thursday, August 28, 2014
WANTED AND NEEDED....COMMON SENSE THINKING
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Last week we talked about the importance of critical thinking/logic, which is simply common sense stated differently.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Last week we talked about the importance of critical thinking/logic, which is simply common sense stated differently.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Labels:
christians,
common sense,
critical thinking,
demonic,
group think,
logic,
ostrich fallacy,
plausibility structures,
red herring,
satan,
straw man
Thursday, August 21, 2014
The Burden of Proof Lies on Those Affirming the Existence of Ghosts
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
I bought a book recently entitled, "Critical Thinking" which is a popular text in colleges on logic--how to think carefully and reasonably. At 5 am, while in the gym on the bike, it was a curious coincidence that I opened the book randomly to a discussion re: 'burden of proof' in an argument. What blew me away was the example given...it woke me up!! It was a section entitled "Misplacing the Burden of Proof" Below is a verbatim quote and it mentions ghosts.
Before I proceed, I want to say that 'Critical thinking" has been a love of mine for 40 years, and have done graduate work in logic at UNC-CH. I also started Caldwell Academy in GSO and designed their logic curriculum...as well as "Greensboro Academys".
Affirmative/negative. Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side. In other words, we generally want to hear reasons why something IS the case before before we require reasons why it is NOT the case....This rule applies to existence versus non-existence, too. Most often, the burden of proof should fall on those who claim something exists rather than on those who claim it doesn't. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GHOSTS, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE GHOSTS. BUT BECAUSE NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS (when someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn't so, we have a subtype of burden of proof known as an APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.) This is a burden-of-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do do not believe in ghosts. (Critical Thinking. 8th ed. 2007, Moore, Parker..pg 187....emphasis added)
This is NOT a Christian text by any means. However, I almost fell out of my stationary bike when I read this at 5 am! The first time I opened the book, the above is what I had turned to. Logic/critical thinking rules are subordinate to Scripture, but since Jesus is the Logos/Logic, then we must realize that Jesus wove logic into the fabric of reality. Aristotle did not create logic, he simply 'discovered' and categorized what the Logos had intertwined into the warp and woof of reality.
According to secular accepted rules of logic (in line with bible) any claims for existence of ghosts MUST assume burden of proof. That has profound implications for--A calling non-believers in ghosts "fundamentalist"in derogatory way. B more importantly, ANY claims of apparitional humans have burden of proof. There is an arrogance toward the "all paranormal is demonic", but in reality they are bumping against reality and logic.The bible clearly affirms the existence of two types of angels--good and bad. There is an unending enumeration of alleged spirit entities by those not guided by the bible. Now they must see that logic itself opposes them.
If you believe in ghosts in ANY form (other than biblical examples), the burden of proof lies squarely upon your shoulders.
In conclusion, if one responds by saying that there is an abundance of evidence for the existence of ghosts via EVP, sightings, etc, then that is another fallacy--circular reasoning. One has to assume the existence of ghosts, to interpret those experiences as being evidence of ghosts. Christians have to bow before the authority of God's Word, which makes clear that Satan is the great deceiver.
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
I bought a book recently entitled, "Critical Thinking" which is a popular text in colleges on logic--how to think carefully and reasonably. At 5 am, while in the gym on the bike, it was a curious coincidence that I opened the book randomly to a discussion re: 'burden of proof' in an argument. What blew me away was the example given...it woke me up!! It was a section entitled "Misplacing the Burden of Proof" Below is a verbatim quote and it mentions ghosts.
Before I proceed, I want to say that 'Critical thinking" has been a love of mine for 40 years, and have done graduate work in logic at UNC-CH. I also started Caldwell Academy in GSO and designed their logic curriculum...as well as "Greensboro Academys".
Affirmative/negative. Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side. In other words, we generally want to hear reasons why something IS the case before before we require reasons why it is NOT the case....This rule applies to existence versus non-existence, too. Most often, the burden of proof should fall on those who claim something exists rather than on those who claim it doesn't. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GHOSTS, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE GHOSTS. BUT BECAUSE NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS (when someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn't so, we have a subtype of burden of proof known as an APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.) This is a burden-of-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do do not believe in ghosts. (Critical Thinking. 8th ed. 2007, Moore, Parker..pg 187....emphasis added)
This is NOT a Christian text by any means. However, I almost fell out of my stationary bike when I read this at 5 am! The first time I opened the book, the above is what I had turned to. Logic/critical thinking rules are subordinate to Scripture, but since Jesus is the Logos/Logic, then we must realize that Jesus wove logic into the fabric of reality. Aristotle did not create logic, he simply 'discovered' and categorized what the Logos had intertwined into the warp and woof of reality.
According to secular accepted rules of logic (in line with bible) any claims for existence of ghosts MUST assume burden of proof. That has profound implications for--A calling non-believers in ghosts "fundamentalist"in derogatory way. B more importantly, ANY claims of apparitional humans have burden of proof. There is an arrogance toward the "all paranormal is demonic", but in reality they are bumping against reality and logic.The bible clearly affirms the existence of two types of angels--good and bad. There is an unending enumeration of alleged spirit entities by those not guided by the bible. Now they must see that logic itself opposes them.
If you believe in ghosts in ANY form (other than biblical examples), the burden of proof lies squarely upon your shoulders.
In conclusion, if one responds by saying that there is an abundance of evidence for the existence of ghosts via EVP, sightings, etc, then that is another fallacy--circular reasoning. One has to assume the existence of ghosts, to interpret those experiences as being evidence of ghosts. Christians have to bow before the authority of God's Word, which makes clear that Satan is the great deceiver.
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Labels:
aristotle,
bible,
burden of proof,
christian,
critical thinking,
evps,
ghosts,
God,
jesus,
logic,
scripture,
sightings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)