Proven Western Logic VS. Flawed Eastern Logic


In Between Man
#1
Cliffy, in continuation with the challenge of determining whose logic is actually flawed, I would like to present the following argument:

You and other relativists like to make statements about how Christianity is right for me, but not right for others. That it CANNOT work for someone who happens to be born somewhere else, or that happens to be taught something differently previously. It's only true to me, it can't be true for all, because not all agree with it. Sound familiar?

Completely utilized by western logic, we have this beautiful thing called the "Law of Non-contradiction" that states: two opposite claims cannot both be true at same time, in the same sense. The opposite of true is false. God either exists, or he doesn't. This is called 'either-or' logic.

Now, eastern philosophy uses something called the 'both-and' logic. The following conversation between two individuals will provide an excellent example of what 'either-or' and 'both-and' logic mean, as well as undeniably demonstrate my point as to why Cliffy's type of logic is actually flawed and mine sound.



As a Christian apologist, author, and native of India, Ravi Zacharias travels the world giving evidence for the Christian faith. He has an incisive intellect and an engaging personality, which makes him a favorite on college and university campuses.

Following a recent presentation on an American campus regarding the uniqueness of Christ, Ravi was assailed by one of the university’s professors for not understanding Eastern logic. During the Q&A period the professor charged, “Dr. Zacharias, your presentation about Christ claiming and proving to be the only way to salvation is wrong for people in India because you’re using ‘either-or’ logic. In the East we don’t use ‘either-or’ logic—that’s Western. In the East we use 'both-and’ logic. So salvation is not either through Christ or nothing else, but both Christ and other ways.”

Ravi found this very ironic because, after all, he grew up in India. Yet here was a Western-born, American professor telling Ravi that he didn’t understand how things really worked in India! This was so intriguing that Ravi accepted the professor’s invitation to lunch in order to discuss it further.

One of the professor’s colleagues joined them for lunch, and as he and Ravi ate, the professor used every napkin and place mat on the table to make his point about the two types of logic—one Western and one Eastern.

“There are two types of logic,” the professor kept insisting.
“No, you don’t mean that,” Ravi kept replying.
“I absolutely do!” maintained the professor.

This went on for better than thirty minutes: the professor lecturing, writing, and diagramming. He became so engrossed in making his points that he forgot to eat his meal, which was slowly congealing on his plate.

Upon finishing his own meal, Ravi decided to unleash the Road Runner tactic(recognizing self-defeating statements) to rebut the confused but insistent professor. He interrupted, “Professor, I think we can resolve this debate very quickly with just one question.”

Looking up from his furious drawing, the professor paused and said, “Okay, go ahead.”

Ravi leaned forward, looked directly at the professor, and asked, “Are you saying that when I’m in India, I must use either the ‘both-and logic’ or nothing else?”

The professor looked blankly at Ravi, who then repeated his question with emphasis: “Are you saying that when I’m in India, I must use either ,” Ravi paused for effect, “the ‘both-and logic’ or ,” another pause, “nothing else?” Ravi later commented to us that the next words out of the professor’s mouth were worth the time listening to his incoherent ramblings.

After glancing sheepishly at his colleague, the professor looked down at his congealed meal and mumbled, “The either-or does seem to emerge, doesn’t it.” Ravi added, “Yes, even in India we look both ways before we cross the street because it is either me or the bus, not both of us!” Indeed, the either-or does seem to emerge. The professor was using the either-or logic to try and prove the both-and logic, which is the same problem everyone experiences who tries to argue against the first principles of logic. They wind up sawing off the very limb upon which they sit.

Imagine if the professor had said, “Ravi, your math calculations are wrong in India because you’re using Western math rather than Eastern math.” Or suppose he had declared, “Ravi, your physics calculations don’t apply to India because you’re using Western gravity rather than Eastern gravity.” We would immediately see the folly of the professor’s reasoning.

In fact, despite what the relativists believe, things work in the East just like they work everywhere else. In India, just like in the West, buses hurt when they hit you, 2+2=4, and the same gravity keeps everyone on the ground. Likewise, murder is wrong there just as it is here. Truth is truth no matter what country you come from. And truth is truth no matter what you believe about it. Just as the same gravity keeps all people on the ground whether they believe in it or not, the same logic applies to all people whether they believe it or not.

So what’s the point? The point is that there’s only one type of logic that helps us discover truth. It’s the one built into the nature of reality that we can’t avoid using. Despite this, people will try to tell you that logic doesn’t apply to reality, or logic doesn’t apply to God, or there are different types of logic, and so on. But as they say such things, they use the very logic they are denying. This is like using the laws of arithmetic to prove that arithmetic cannot be trusted.

It’s important to note that we are not simply engaging in word games here. The Road Runner tactic(recognizing self-defeating statements) uses the undeniable laws of logic to expose that much of what our common culture believes about truth, religion, and morality is undeniably false. That which is self-defeating cannot be true, but many people believe it anyway. We contradiction ourselves at our own peril.

Checkmate. Let us pray. Lord, please give all my friends at Canadian Content your wisdom and let them see that my heart is in the right place when I post these arguments. Amen.
Last edited by In Between Man; May 6th, 2009 at 11:17 PM..Reason: spacing
 
Ron in Regina
#2
Alley, if you found something that works for you, and you're not
try'n to push it onto anyone else, and it gives you comfort and
strength, and you're not hurting yourself or anyone else....

Then who cares what anyone else thinks?
______________________________
________________________
 
In Between Man
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Alley, if you found something that works for you, and you're not
try'n to push it onto anyone else, and it gives you comfort and
strength, and you're not hurting yourself or anyone else....

Then who cares what anyone else thinks?
______________________________
________________________

Its not that I care about what anyone else thinks, but its for the reason you mentioned, not trying look as if I'm pushing this on. If the readers believe my sincerity, my argument will be more receptive. Even though I can't push it on someone, because everyone has their own will, I need to take every precaution to make sure I'm not coming across pushy, or self righteous. Otherwise the argument more than likely doesn't even get read. The main reason why I post these arguments is that I see it necessary to speak about what I know, and challenge what I know goes against it, as with most people I assume.
Last edited by In Between Man; May 7th, 2009 at 12:08 AM..Reason: d
 
Cliffy
#4
Logic and intellectual prowess are nothing more than mental masturbation. The truth can only be found in the intuition of the heart. It is through the heart that we may find our intrinsic connection to all that is. Thought originates with the ego and the ego is a construct of a frightened little child. The ego is not real. Thought is not real, or more precisely, thought contains no reality, no substance, just mind games of an insecure little child. The ego never grows up but is in control of the western psyche.

That is why you will find that in all aboriginal tribes the world over, they had an initiation ritual that was designed to kill the childish ego so that person could grow up into their adult responsibilities within that culture. In the west we do not have such a process and the childish ego continues to run our lives.

That is why most people need a patriarchal god to give them rules for controlling their behaviour; because for the most part most people never develop emotionally or spiritually past eight years old. They may develop an intellect, but so what? It is just the ramblings of an eight year old ego. This explains why we keep on developing technology that is slowly killing the planet and ourselves.

The christian religion has no basis in reality. It is a commodity that is marketed to people who can't face real life. It is a product of a Walt Disney fantasy mentality. Most westerners are the victim of Hollywood brain washing and marketing. Nothing more.
 
Ron in Regina
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayz View Post

Its not that I care about what anyone else thinks, but its for the reason you mentioned, not trying look as if I'm pushing this on. If the readers believe my sincerity, my argument will be more receptive. Even though I can't push it on someone, because everyone has their own will, I need to take every precaution to make sure I'm not coming across pushy, or self righteous. Otherwise the argument more than likely doesn't even get read. The main reason why I post these arguments is that I see it necessary to speak about what I know, and challenge what I know goes against it, as with most people I assume.


Cool. I respect others in and for their beliefs. I won't knock someone for their
religious beliefs. I have my own...they're very different from most other peoples.
I don't care what others think about them, 'cuz they work for me, and I'm not
recruiting anyone. Anyway....

Good on you. I'm off to bed.
________________________
 
gerryh
#6
know what cliffy..... You dear sir, are a self righteous, egotistical *****.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; May 7th, 2009 at 12:23 AM..Reason: Sorry Gerryh, I'm too tired. He'll get the gist of it...
 
In Between Man
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Logic and intellectual prowess are nothing more than mental masturbation.

Did you read the original post? I get the feeling you just grabbed one of your prewritten articles, did a little modifying and posted the same silly assertions. Now get in there, pick my argument apart, and defeat it if you can. Tell me your right and I'm wrong. (Even though that's what doing, while arguing that's not what your doing) Or are we both right, or are we both wrong? Or is right wrong? Or is wrong sometimes right? Is is right for you, or is only wrong to me?
Last edited by In Between Man; May 7th, 2009 at 12:39 AM..Reason: d
 
In Between Man
#8
Quote:

The truth can only be found in the intuition of the heart.

What do you think the heart is? Since you never did explain exactly what you believe about various things, why don't you tell me exactly what thinking with your heart means, or is.

I argue that your "heart" is actually your spirit.
Last edited by In Between Man; May 7th, 2009 at 12:39 AM..Reason: d
 
Cliffy
#9
What is right or wrong, good and evil, love hate? Nothing more than personal opinion.
Sorry, but there is no right or wrong way to think, believe or worship. How can I argue with "logic" I think is just so much fluff? At this point, going to a porn site would be more productive.

There is no sin, just whatever makes you feel uncomfortable and most of that is just social conditioning or political correctness of the particular group you happen to be hanging out with.

Oh, and gerryh, thanks for your constructive input. You proved my point about eight year old emotional development.
 
ironsides
#10
Beneath knowing, understanding
Beneath understanding, seeing
Beneath seeing, recognizing
Beneath recognizing, knowing
 
gerryh
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Logic and intellectual prowess are nothing more than mental masturbation. The truth can only be found in the intuition of the heart. It is through the heart that we may find our intrinsic connection to all that is. Thought originates with the ego and the ego is a construct of a frightened little child. The ego is not real. Thought is not real, or more precisely, thought contains no reality, no substance, just mind games of an insecure little child. The ego never grows up but is in control of the western psyche.

The "heart" is an organ that pumps blood..... that's it. There is no scientific evidence that supports it doing anymore than that. It has no mental capabilities on it's own and therefore can not have "intuition".
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

That is why you will find that in all aboriginal tribes the world over, they had an initiation ritual that was designed to kill the childish ego so that person could grow up into their adult responsibilities within that culture. In the west we do not have such a process and the childish ego continues to run our lives.

That is why most people need a patriarchal god to give them rules for controlling their behaviour; because for the most part most people never develop emotionally or spiritually past eight years old. They may develop an intellect, but so what? It is just the ramblings of an eight year old ego. This explains why we keep on developing technology that is slowly killing the planet and ourselves.

The christian religion has no basis in reality. It is a commodity that is marketed to people who can't face real life. It is a product of a Walt Disney fantasy mentality. Most westerners are the victim of Hollywood brain washing and marketing. Nothing more.

Your above ramblings have even less basis in reality than what you propose the Christian Religion has.
 
Cliffy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Beneath knowing, understanding
Beneath understanding, seeing
Beneath seeing, recognizing
Beneath recognizing, knowing

You forgot "Beneath all anger is fear."
 
Cliffy
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

The "heart" is an organ that pumps blood..... that's it. There is no scientific evidence that supports it doing anymore than that. It has no mental capabilities on it's own and therefore can not have "intuition".


Your above ramblings have even less basis in reality than what you propose the Christian Religion has.

It is a metaphorical reference. Intuition comes from the core (or heart ) of our being, our essence or the energy that animates the vehicle we call our body. Thought is not consciousness. Where do you suppose consciousness originates? Is your intelligence a product of the sum total of the consciousness of every cell in your body or is it greater than that? It certainly does not originate from your brain, which is just an organ like the heart.

If you had any idea about the origins of the bible, its history and the political intrigue that has transformed it from its original content to the present day parody of the original, you too would say that christianity has no basis in reality. It is based entirely on a work of fiction.
 
gerryh
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

It is a metaphorical reference. Intuition comes from the core (or heart ) of our being, our essence or the energy that animates the vehicle we call our body. Thought is not consciousness. Where do you suppose consciousness originates? Is your intelligence a product of the sum total of the consciousness of every cell in your body or is it greater than that? It certainly does not originate from your brain, which is just an organ like the heart.

If you had any idea about the origins of the bible, its history and the political intrigue that has transformed it from its original content to the present day parody of the original, you too would say that christianity has no basis in reality. It is based entirely on a work of fiction.


Nothing you have posted has any basis in "reality"...... individual cells do not have consciousness. There is no basis in "reality" for your assertions. Nothing more than superstition. Consciousness originates in the brain. It is documented and proven. Your assertions about cellular consciousness and heart intuition are nothing but gobbledy gook and fairey tales for 6 year olds.
 
Cliffy
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Nothing you have posted has any basis in "reality"...... individual cells do not have consciousness. There is no basis in "reality" for your assertions. Nothing more than superstition. Consciousness originates in the brain. It is documented and proven. Your assertions about cellular consciousness and heart intuition are nothing but gobbledy gook and fairey tales for 6 year olds.

Oh and christianity isn't? I guess you would not consider watching What the Bleep do we Know? or How Far Down the Rabbit Hole Do You Want to Go? You might learn something.
 
SirJosephPorter
#16
As a Christian apologist, author, and native of India, Ravi Zacharias travels the world giving evidence for the Christian faith.

I think he calls himself Robbie these days, he is Robbie Zacharias. Ravi is a Hindu name, a Sanskrit name. Now that Zacharias has found the light, found the truth, he obviously wouldn’t want to keep the Devil’s name, something that comes out of Devil’s machinations (As all religions other than Fundamentalist Christianity do, according to religious right. Robbie Zacharias belongs to religious right). So these days he calls himself Robbie, not Ravi.
 
darkbeaver
#17
Proven Western Logic VS. Flawed Eastern Logic

Like the jesus acolyte said there is only one logic, you're presenting a conflict that does not exist and building an argument to support your machinelyness. God isn't a logical thinker anyway is she?
 
gerryh
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Oh and christianity isn't? I guess you would not consider watching What the Bleep do we Know? or How Far Down the Rabbit Hole Do You Want to Go? You might learn something.


think about it junior..... think about the arguments you are using to support what you believe.......the arguments you are using to justify your condemnation of Christianity..... In reality you are proving Zacharias point.
 
darkbeaver
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Oh and christianity isn't? I guess you would not consider watching What the Bleep do we Know? or How Far Down the Rabbit Hole Do You Want to Go? You might learn something.

Hello Cliffy, the intercourse with the gentle emmisaries of christ herein is frightening, they are actually arguing for jesus the master mathmetician and the consciousness of one cell of the universe instead of the logical consciousness of the enormously greater universe as a whole with all its attached appendages. And they even used the lack of scientific proof as proof. Isn't that heresy? I wonder if what we have here isn't a couple of demons poseing as christians. I certainly can't recognise any classical christian thinking there but you know with the extent of thier great schism and the fracturing of thier solidarity all manner of freakish sects have emerged.
Last edited by darkbeaver; May 7th, 2009 at 11:08 AM..
 
Niflmir
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Logic and intellectual prowess are nothing more than mental masturbation.

Discovering insulin: mental masturbation.
 
darkbeaver
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Discovering insulin: mental masturbation.

Discovering insulin must have felt good, maybe he meant it as a good thing.
 
darkbeaver
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Nothing you have posted has any basis in "reality"...... individual cells do not have consciousness. There is no basis in "reality" for your assertions. Nothing more than superstition. Consciousness originates in the brain. It is documented and proven. Your assertions about cellular consciousness and heart intuition are nothing but gobbledy gook and fairey tales for 6 year olds.

I f a cell doesn't know it's a cell why does appear as a cell and act as a cell?
 
gerryh
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I f a cell doesn't know it's a cell why does appear as a cell and act as a cell?


yer missin the point there junior samples.
 
darkbeaver
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

yer missin the point there junior samples.

It woodint be the first time. But you having a logic completely alien to mine it dosen't surprise me, I'm not afraid that it will be fatal or painfull.
 
s_lone
#25
Both ''either-or'' logic and ''both-and'' can work if they are used in their right contexts.

For example, I could say ''this movie is either good or bad and it can't be both at once''. But that would be an inappropriate use of ''either-or'' logic. The problem is that we are dealing with a subjective statement.

The movie can be both good and bad, depending on your point of view. When we are dealing with subjective statements, we are dealing with personal interpretation of exterior data and most of the times, ''either-or'' logic simply doesn't apply.

''Unicorns either exist or they don't''... In the ''real'' objective world, you can almost surely say this and be right. But in the subjective world, you wouldn't be quite so. If I say the word ''unicorn'' you have a very clear mental image of what I am talking about. In a sense unicorns DO exist because we have a word for the concept. Unicorns exist as human mental construct. In another sense, unicorns simply don't exist because the only place we can find them is in our imagination.

''Either-or'' can only work in an attempt to be purely objective. And I won't even get into the issue of whether or not pure objectivity is possible.

To use ''either-or'' logic on a statement such as ''God exists or he doesn't'' is naive at best. First of all, to say such a thing, one must define God in a very precise way. And we quickly get into a puzzle of various subjective interpretations of what the word ''God'' means.

To one, ''God'' means a particular version of the Christian God (and there are many!). To another, ''God'' means the universe as a whole, in its complete oneness. The former tends to see God as something other than the universe while the latter sees God as being the universe. The two interpretations of the word are miles away from each other and that is only the tip of the iceberg of how many variations you can find in the interpretation of the word ''God''.

So saying ''God either exists or he doesn't'' is rather pointless.
 
L Gilbert
#26
Nuts. Logic is logic. There are two types, for sure, but they have nothing to do with geography. The types are inductive and deductive. Deductive is using a set of spedific data or a general principle to arrive at a specific conclusion. Inductive is using a number of proven facts to draw a general conclusion.
 
s_lone
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Nuts. Logic is logic. There are two types, for sure, but they have nothing to do with geography. The types are inductive and deductive. Deductive is using a set of spedific data or a general principle to arrive at a specific conclusion. Inductive is using a number of proven facts to draw a general conclusion.

Of course, but logic as you describe can only be used when describing the world objectively. As soon as subjectivity points its head, the rules of the game tend to change quickly enough.
 
L Gilbert
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone View Post

Of course, but logic as you describe can only be used when describing the world objectively. As soon as subjectivity points its head, the rules of the game tend to change quickly enough.

Of course, but then the logic turns to something else known as "interpretation" or something of that nature in which you can USE logic to arrive at an opinion or an interpretation, but it is sometimes flawed logic.
 
Cliffy
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Of course, but then the logic turns to something else known as "interpretation" or something of that nature in which you can USE logic to arrive at an opinion or an interpretation, but it is sometimes flawed logic.

Only sometimes? I don't think logic can be applied to subjective beliefs. Opinion is a subjective thing. We can agree that a rock is a rock, although native americans might have a very different idea what it is, but very few have an identical concept of what a god is.
 
darkbeaver
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Of course, but then the logic turns to something else known as "interpretation" or something of that nature in which you can USE logic to arrive at an opinion or an interpretation, but it is sometimes flawed logic.

If my arrangement of logic blocks dosen't yield the dictated results it is not logical. Proof by reasoning. and or nor not nand have I missed any?
 

Similar Threads

13
Hey Logic! Question!
by Toro | Sep 29th, 2006
47
The logic of Humanitarian Intervention
by darkbeaver | May 22nd, 2006