Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[vulcanlogician]

Agreeing that logic leads to better conclusions while reaching opposing conclusions through logic...is that logical? Also, we have the majority vote issue again. One thing theists tend to agree on is the existence of at least one god, but that doesn't mean much to you.

Okay, so I think I need to show you what I mean when I say logic is consistent:

Let's say that you adopt the conclusion "God is the author of moral law." I'm going to assume you do accept this, but it doesn't matter if you do or do not accept it. It's just an example. I'm going to demonstrate how (through logic) you can reach this conclusion. I disagree with your conclusion here, but that doesn't mean your logic is bad. The argument for divine command theory is put thusly in my ethics textbook:

1. Every law requires a lawmaker.
2. Therefore, moral law requires a lawmaker.
3. Humans cannot be the author of moral law (since we are imperfect in so many ways).
4. If humans cannot be the author of moral law, the God is its author.
[Conclusion]: Therefore, God is the author of moral law.
(Russ Shafer-Landau)

Now, you and I have different opinions about the conclusion "God is the author of moral law" but that doesn't mean the logic of the above argument is fallacious. As far as I can tell, the logic is good. So why do we disagree? Well, let's take a look at the first two premises:

1. Every law requires a lawmaker.
2. Therefore, moral law requires a lawmaker.

Premise #2 is a mini-conclusion that follows from the first premise. So far, I agree with premise 1 & 2. So we both agree (for sake of example) that the first two premises are true. Every law does require a lawmaker. Because premise 1 is true, so is premise 2. So far so good. Let's look at premise # 3:

3. Humans cannot be the author of moral law (since we are imperfect in so many ways).

Oops! I do not accept that this premise is true. But you do. Because I think that imperfect beings CAN be the author of moral law, we disagree on this premise. The fact that I disagree with premise 3 alone means that I don't accept premise 4 (premise 4 follows from premise 3). Even if I did agree with premise 3, however, I could still reject premise 4 on the grounds that God does not exist.

BUT!!! If I did accept the third and fourth premises, then I would accept the conclusion of the argument-- just like you.

This is what I mean when I say logic is consistent. It doesn't mean that every logician reaches the same conclusions because there may be disagreement on the premises used to reach any given conclusion. However, (in a sound logical argument) if we DO agree on the premises, we WILL agree on the conclusion, each and every time. There is a word for that: "Consistency."

If you don't see where I'm coming from, I could offer more information, like how scientists use logic to draw conclusions about the validity a particular scientific theory. I would say it here, but I feel like my answer is already more long-winded than you'd like. (I'm really working on being more concise in my writing, bear with me.)

You're comparing apples to oranges. Philosophers don't make up all secular thinkers, yet you compare them to theists in general. Theologians do the same thing as philosophers.

And also, many philosophers (at least historically) have been theists who tried to logically argue for the existence of God. My comparison was between inerrantists and philosophers, not theists and philosophers. I slipped up there, and you were right to call me out on it.

And I've had plenty of secular educators who put things out to be believed rather than tested.

So? Some people suck at their jobs.

In a science class this may be excusable. You don't want to waste time on the validity of Newtonian physics when you are trying to teach the nuts and bolts of gravity. Then again, advanced physics should explore the validity of the theory. In a philosophy class, everything ought to be subject to rigorous questioning. No excuse for that. If a philosophy teacher ever told you what to believe, he/she let you down.

Point being that you've already asserted that logic is better than faith in such regard, but you don't know if it's true. The assertion just flows from your materialist worldview.

George Berkeley was a theistic philosopher who utterly rejected materialism. He called his philosophy "immaterialism"-- ie. the opposite of materialism. However, he also used logic to reach his conclusions. To value logic in no way makes you a materialist by default.