Introduction: Principles of Reasoning, and a Few Definitions

Introduction: Principles of Reasoning, and a Few Definitions

1.1 "There is no god above truth," Gandhi said. At the root of our problems, we find irrationality, ideology, and especially denial of the truth. If everyone practiced reason and science, instead of ideology, we would have a true civilization. If everyone in the world worshiped Althea, the goddess of truth, she would lead us into a new world, blessed with unity, peace, and freedom.

1.2 Reason versus Ideology: reasoning and science start with evidence, and arrive at a conclusion. Any new evidence must be examined, and if necessary, the conclusion must be changed. On the other hand, ideology, such as religion and political partyism, starts with a conclusion and either denies the evidence, or tries to bend it to the conclusion.

1.3 For instance, if you tell me that based on the overall evidence, men are physically stronger than women, and I say "but training is more important", or I go find a rare example of an Amazon woman, you could say that I am ignoring the data in favor of my ideology (feminism). However, if I look at the same evidence and say, "yes, men are stronger; if a woman and man are equally trained, the man will still be stronger, faster, etc", I would would be reasoning from evidence, and accepting the truth.

1.4 Ninety-Nine Black Marbles: if I gave you 100 marbles, and 99 of them were black, but one of them was white, what would be a logical conclusion? The statistical conclusion would be that 99% of the sample was black, while 1% was white. However, in plain reasoning, you could say that marbles are black, with the single white marble being an error or exception. If you said, "color does not matter; marbles can be either black or white", that would be irrational.

1.5 The Law of Heinous and Ridiculous Conclusions (LOHARC): if any idea necessarily leads to a heinous (inhumane, extremely unethical) or ridiculous (absurd, foolish) conclusion, then the idea is wrong. If I said to you, "Jews are evil, and are responsible for most of our problems", that would lead to the heinous conclusion that Jews should be eliminated. If I said, "Islam will dominate the world", that would mean everyone must be coerced to believe in Islam, with the implication that those who refuse should be eliminated. LOHARC

1.6 If I said to you, "Once a person is saved (justified by God through Jesus Christ), they cannot ever be lost (condemned)", that would lead to several ridiculous conclusions. Christians can sin without concern, cannot sin so far as to be lost; and since actions have nothing to do with salvation, cannot really know if they are saved. If your sins cannot condemn you, and you fall into sin, how do you know you were ever saved? Also, it would mean that a person cannot apostasize, as I have done. According to "once saved, always saved", I am still justified by Christ and headed for heaven - despite being agnostic. Or else, despite my previous devotion to Jesus, I was never really saved. What a mess! LOHARC

1.7 The Box of Snakes: If I gave you a box containing 10 snakes, and they all looked very similar, but one (10%) was deadly venomous, what would you do? It is your job to accept snakes, but to reject venomous ones. Would you (a) accept them all, and wait for one to bite? Or would you (b) examine all of them carefully, to extract the one venomous serpent? If you answered (b), you would be correct. You would have protected people from the venomous snake. You would also be guilty of "snake profiling".

1.8 "Inciting Violence": First of all, the violent are responsible for their violence; no one is responsible for what another person does (with the exception of mentally undeveloped people). If I said that women who dress in sexy clothes, are responsible if they get raped, I would be wrong. If I said that men who wear expensive suits and watches, are "asking to be robbed", I would be equally wrong. There are certain things we can do to make ourselves less appetizing to predators; but that in no way excuses the predator.

1.9 Secondly, if we forbid speech that "might incite violence", then the authors of the Declaration of Independence were the original "inciters". If the Founders' writings did not incite a war, then nothing I say in this book is responsible for inciting anyone. If you think the Founders did incite the Revolution, then you despise the freedom of America, and you are free to leave the country.

2.0 "Hate Speech": This politically- and emotionally-charged expression really means nothing. For instance, if I said, "The Old Testament God was a genocidal murderer", I would be mostly ignored. For all the times I have heard such things or seen them written, never once have they been labeled "hate speech". But if I said, "The Prophet Mohammed was a child molester", I would be verbally and possibly physically threatened for the crime of "hate speech". Therefore, if you see the truth as "hate speech", you may as well burn this book (if it belongs to you).