One of the great causes of misunderstandings between liberals and non-liberals is that the two groups are using entirely different forms of reasoning.  There is a form of reasoning that has become the norm among liberals, and this reasoning is very different from standard logic and observation.  Liberal reasoning allows presuppositions to override observations.  That is the concept of: “I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with facts.”  It allows slogans as proof.  It allows personal attacks.  It allows conclusions that do not follow from the arguments.  It allows the use of unproven formulas.  It allows the filtering of data to get a subset that will give the appearance of proving what the liberal hopes to prove.

This form of liberal logic allows a Dan Rather, when exposed for using obviously forged documents, to say, “Well the documents may be forged, but the thing that we were trying to prove with them is still true.”  This form of worldly liberal logic allows an evolutionist, when shown that all his or her “proof’ was not proof at all, to say: “Well, that may be true, but all the elements are there.”

Oddly, this same liberal logic is sometimes used by fundamentalist Christians.   The reason is this: worldliness is the same as spiritual immaturity.  Speculation is a sign of spiritual immaturity.  Worldly liberal logic is simply a way to try to legitimize speculation.

Here are some more examples of the type of logic of which we are speaking.  We don't subscribe to this type of logic.