Psychological reasoning behind religious belief.

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
“ Helping one another is a selfish act that has evolutionary rewards. ”

Not expecting a reward & doing it to reduce human suffering do not contradict the statement you quote. ”

ok so
If I see you drowning and I rescue you, I'm being selfish.
If I just let you drown, then I'm being selfish.
If I call 911 so someone else can rescue you, I'm being selfish.
If I throw you a boat anchor, I'm being selfish.
This is a logical fallacy, because it begs the question: What distinguishes a selfish motive from an unselfish motive?

Whether it's selfish & whatever reasoning 1 goes thru have nothing to do with whether it's partly or mostly due to instinct.

The term logical fallacy is illogical. I suspect you mean logic fallacy. Actually fallacy is enough as any fallacy in thinking is a logic fallacy.

 

[Woody]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
“ Helping one another is a selfish act that has evolutionary rewards. ”

Not expecting a reward & doing it to reduce human suffering do not contradict the statement you quote.

define "unselfish"

Whether it's selfish & whatever reasoning 1 goes thru have nothing to do with whether it's partly or mostly due to instinct.

The term logical fallacy is illogical.

Logical fallacy is correct terminology. Rather, you are in error.

I suspect you mean logic fallacy. Actually fallacy is enough as any fallacy in thinking is a logic fallacy.

I meant exactly what I said.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why???

 

[Woody]

Why???

Because your point begs the question: What's the difference between selfish and unselfish?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No. My point is the level of selfishness or altruism does not exclude evolutionary reasons for such behavior. That point does not depend on exactly how I or you wish to define selfish.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Regardless of whether 99.99% of people use the "term" or whether you find 10,000 websites using it, it does not make sense.
Every fallacy is illogical. Logical fallacy means the fallacy is logical. Logic fallacy discerns what kind of fallacy but all fallacies are fallacies of logic so the word fallacy suffices.

 

[Woody]

No. My point is the level of selfishness or altruism does not exclude evolutionary reasons for such behavior. That point does not depend on exactly how I or you wish to define selfish.

The original claim was that altruism is "selfish" was it not? , hence logic demands a definition for "not selfish." Otherwise your statement is a tautology, and tautologies are logical fallacies, adding no useful information.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Logical Fallacy - Nonfeline Cat
Logic Fallacy - Feline Cat
Fallacy - Cat

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The original claim was that altruism is "selfish" was it not? , hence logic demands a definition for "not selfish." Otherwise your statement is a tautology, and tautologies are logical fallacies, adding no useful information.

No.


“ Helping one another is a selfish act that has evolutionary rewards. ”

“ Originally Posted by Woody
oxymoronic. People don't expect an evolutionary reward for sending out hunger relief to another part of the world. They do it to reduce human suffering. ”

Not expecting a reward & doing it to reduce human suffering do not contradict the statement you quote.

 

[Woody]

Regardless of whether 99.99% of people use the "term" or whether you find 10,000 websites using it, it does not make sense.
Every fallacy is illogical. Logical fallacy means the fallacy is logical. Logic fallacy discerns what kind of fallacy but all fallacies are fallacies of logic so the word fallacy suffices.

You don't seem to understand. An argument can be perfectly logical but completely false, making it a logical fallacy, because of a false assumption. Consider a completely debugged computer model with a wrong input -- garbage in means garbage out -- the output is perfectly logical but completely in error.

Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Not expecting a reward & doing it to reduce human suffering do not contradict the statement you quote.

Your original quote doesn't mean anything without definitions.

Then any conclusion any human makes is logical. Absurd.

No you still don't get it. A logical operator is no better than the assumptions going into it. There are illogical operations as well.

Sorry, but the term "logical fallacy" is standard in philosophy, unless you want to tell all philosophers you are right and they are wrong. Obviously we can not have a logical discussion, and I have no desire to debate stupidity.

Formal (or Logical) fallacies versus Informal fallacies
A formal fallacy relies on a logical step in a proof or argument which is incorrect allowing a conclusion to be reached. An informal fallacy will not occur in this manner.

Then any conclusion any human makes is logical. Absurd.
Anything can be said to be logical if we accept the person's premises & goals.

a premise is an assumption. If an assumption is wrong the whole argument is wrong, though all succeeding steps are in perfect logical order.

BTW, thanks for providing a link to an explanation of something I've known since you were in kindergarten.

You assuming your own conclusion. You don't know how old I am.

Logic requires definitions. Without them you are just blowing smoke.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

BTW, thanks for providing a link to an explanation of something I've known since you were in kindergarten.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Then any conclusion any human makes is logical. Absurd.
Anything can be said to be logical if we accept the person's premises & goals.

 

[Woody]

Then any conclusion any human makes is logical. Absurd.
Anything can be said to be logical if we accept the person's premises & goals.

We're saying the same thing. If we can't accept the assumptions then the conclusions are absurd no matter how logical the argument is. If I assume X=-1 for an algebraic equation, and that's a bad assumption then the answer is a bad answer when I substitute into Y= sq root of X. There's nothing wrong with the logical equation as long as I know its limitations -- I can't take the square root of a negative number.

Helping one another is a selfish act that has evolutionary rewards.

Until somebody can define "unselfish" this statement is meaningless in logic. If I claim that "P" is true then I must consider the state of "not P" in any logical proof. For example I can claim "God is real" and refuse to define reality or the meaning of God (where God could mean anything I choose including myself), while patting myself on the back for being unproveably right. Your claim regarding "evolutionary rewards" and "selfish" falls in the same category. Without the complete set of logical states of being there is no logical proof that can be evaluated.


http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/30/34-unconvincing-arguments-for-god/

point 34 says:

matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed -- which would thoroughly disprove the existence of their god as a being who can create something from nothing.

point 29 says:

Virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Quantum physics demonstrates that there can indeed be uncaused events.

Point 34 says something can't be created from nothing, but point 29 says it can. Am I reading this wrong?