From an average thinking that would consider illogical, contradictory ideas to be true, and turn against those who’d disagree with those ideas, we have jumped to an average thinking of logic where those who disagree with that logic are turned against too.
This is not good enough, as it leaves out that in many cases of logic, things that cannot be or haven’t been experienced are considered to be true, just because somebody who knows better says they are true. The book says so, so it is so. Many say so, so it must be so. Everybody knows what’s going on in Syria, for example. Yet, very few have been there. The fact that a smart person can make about anything seem logical is neglected. When two argue, they are usually both logical about what they argue. Or else logical people would never argue.
But most importantly, it leaves out one’s own liking and agreeing with something or not. It leaves out one’s own self determinism. Actually, it makes it seem wrong. I really wouldn’t want to be at some place and engage into something I wouldn’t like, just because somebody made it seem logical that I should be there and do something. That’s denying oneself, for the sake of some ‘objectivity’ that somebody claims to represent, like others claim to represent God (more than the rest do).