Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

quote:

---

What people need is their basic needs met, and a good moral code. Religion is not needed for either of these things.

---

What do you deem as the basic needs?If we look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs we see there are various levels of need.I assume by basic you mean the physiological needs of breathing, food, water, sex, homeostasis, excretion; but since you mentioned good moral code, that moves up to safety needs.If we continue up the pyramid we see the need for love and belonging. Do you consider love and belonging to be basic needs?Not everyone has a bad experience with religion. Religion does provide some basic needs for some people. Religion can fill the need for belonging. Remember, all religions don't necessarily function like Chritianity.By saying that Religion is not needed by anyone for any basic needs is just as bad as a religious person saying that their brand of religion is needed by everyone.I don't see that being raised with religion is being taught that one needs religion. This obviously varies with religion, church, parrish, preacher, priest, family, etc. It becomes a part of one's life, just like the town or school one grows up with. For some it becomes their main social avenue.Let's say the main social avenue for someone is a local skating rink or bowling alley. That's where the families get together and socialize. Even someone new to the town looks for the places where the people socialize to get to know and become a part of the town.Now someone outside the town decides that the local bowling alley isn't needed for basic physiological needs since they've never needed one and decides to tear it down. How hard will those people fight to keep their space? If they lose the fight, that loss will leave a big hole in those whose lives it was a part of.Yes they will probably find or create another avenue for socializing, but it will take time for the comfort level to return.Just as I have a problem with people "selling" religion, I also have a problem with those who wish to rip it out from under someone who is happy in their religion.It doesn't have to be all or nothing in either direction.This discussion concerns fundamentalism versus critical thinking, not whether religion is right or wrong, needed or not needed.Just as the town bowling alley fulfills a social need for the towns people, Phat has stated that their beliefs provide a bedrock an anchor. Their beliefs would probably fulfill the human need for safety, love, belonging, esteem, etc.So just as the town would fight to retain their bowling alley, the fundamentalist fight for their beliefs. Depends on how deep the roots are.Now critical thinking may help when it comes to food, water, and shelter; but how much critical thinking is needed for love and belonging, or some of the safety needs?Does skepticism or critical thinking really fill all our needs beyond physiological?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Think about a child' need for a parent or caregiver. It is a progressive need, from providing the basic necessities of life, to a strong 'bedrock' foundation on which to build and work from, then gradually becoming a relationship based on love and belonging...to say someone does not need religion is similar to saying that an adult does not need their parents. Not physically, no, but to lose them would be ripping a hole in emotions, and really, losing a part of oneself that will take time to replace.

​

If someone actually literally 'needs' their parents, as in, they won't make a single decision in life without consulting them on more than a loving basis, then something may be wrong with the parenting.

---

That is an analogy many religious groups use, but one I tend to have a problem with because human parents raise their children to be independent at adulthood and use analysis, judgment, and evaluation skills to survive. We don't raise them to depend on us because we know that parents barring accidents or illness will die before their children. When the parent dies (depending on age of course) the adult child should not lose a part of themselves if the relationship was healthy.When clergy put God in the parental position, but try to say people should not strive to be independent of God; they create a problem. It goes against the natural order. It is the same with a parent who doesn't want to let their child become independent. It is unhealthy. IMO, that scenerio clashes with critical thinking and is a source of strife for many. Again, groups vary.Instead with God as the source of life, or that which sustains us we don't really conflict with critical thinking. The clergy or family then functions as teachers of spirituality, behavior, etc. and should not have a problem when some people feel they don't need the religion or have outgrown the clergy. There should be nothing wrong with questioning the teachings or leaving the nest.Just as a parent should not feel rejected because their child grows up and learns to live independent of them, so the church should not feel rejected. Everyone has different needs.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What happens though if everyone who goes to the bowling alley starts believing something silly that has practical repricussions such as only bowlers get to have children.

---

Never had that happen in all my days of bowling. The bowling alley is a social arena.

quote:

---

It is ONLY when that belief spills out into society and has practical implications that such belief SHOULD NOT be immune to criticism and rational thought.

---

Which is why I said: I think people have difficulty using critical thinking in relation to their own actions, beliefs, etc. It is easier to anaylse someone elses action than your own.Do those who feel the need to press their beliefs (lifestyle) onto others, whether religious or not, objectively analyse the possible outcome of their actions.Is anyone truly capable of that type of critical thinking about themselves?Do many still feel the tribal need for everyone to be the same?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Impossible. Blind faith leads to religion. Thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion. Faith is an excuse for not thinking, and undergoing a process of self-delusion should not be confused with "critical thinking".

---

Following anyone blindly is not good.Using critical thinking, what evidence leads you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion?Remember there are many religions and levels of belief.I don't know about fundamentalism, but IMO people can choose to follow a religion after careful analysis and evaluation just as they can choose to leave a religion after careful analylsis and evaluation.Again it depends on the specific needs of the person.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

All religions require blind following. I'm using the word "thinking" as implying some kind of intelligent effort in the process, and I'm not including "faith" as an intelligent thought process.

---

You aren't providing any evidence for your position.I'm glad you aren't including faith as a thought process since it isn't one, just like love isn't a thinking process either.So using your critical thinking skills, show evidence that has lead you to conclude that intelligent effort never led anyone to religion.Without evidence a skeptic can fly just as blindly.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Have you provided "evidence" for yours?

---

Evidence that leads me to conclude that without evidence a skeptic can fly just as blindly?In Message 37 you declared: in response to anastasia comment in Message 35 that critical thinking can lead to religion.In Message 41 I asked that you share, by use of critical thinking, what evidence leads you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion?I stated in that post that following anyone blindly is not good either.I also stated that, IMO, people can choose to follow a religion after careful analysis and evaluation just as they can choose to leave a religion after careful analylsis and evaluation. Again it depends on the specific needs of the person.You limited response in Message 44: But nothing that shows how critical thinking lead you to your all encompassing conclusion.In Message 48, I again requested that you provide the critical thinking process that lead you to conclude that intelligent effort never led anyone to religion.I also stated that without evidence a skeptic can fly just as blindly.Now my comment may be worded incorrectly depending on what you consider to be blind faith. I consider blind faith to be that one believes what one is told without personal investigation. Given that meaning I feel that there can also be blind skepticism. People are capable of choosing to disbelieve without personal investigation just as well as one can choose to believe without personal investigation.Now I find it improbable that you have personally investigated every single religion to come to the conclusion that all religions require blind following.So now again and final time I ask what evidence did you carefully analyze and evaluate that lead you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

From your comment to Phat I get the impression that you don't feel Critical Thinking is culturally influenced. Our cultural and personal factors are going to affect the final decision.Now I would agree that many people have difficulty analyzing themselves, whether it is their beliefs on religion, raising children, eating habits, etc.Even among Christians, some people will keep part of themselves separate from the religion. IOW, they don't evaluate it by their religious standards. In Christian circles I know, they say they haven't turned it over to God yet. They keep that part of their life the way it was. They don't want to change it. My guess is that those people also don't want to evaluate their beliefs from the secular standpoint.Even when someone is able to evaluate themselves critially, it doesn't necessarily mean the decision or action will be the right one.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Observation of religious people, and their blatently obvious capacity to lie to thenselves.

---

To lie to themselves, they have to know the truth, therefore they are not blindly following.I don't believe Buddhism requires blind faith. If I remember correctly his teachings were based on analysis of his observations.Also check out the Native American religions.I don't doubt that people blindly follow others. This can happen in the secular world as well as the religious world.So you have not investigated all religions all over the world. As I said earlier, there are many religions with many variations within each.So in your critical thinking process you have only analyzed a small portion and decided that that is representative of all.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Personally, as an a-priori type believer, I hold to my basic belief that Jesus Christ is personal, is Gods character manifest, and is (He or the Holy Spirit) in my heart.

​

This is my positive truth claim which puts me squarely in the fundamental camp and by default trumps my critical thinking open mindedness.

---

Now see, I don't see that those basics put you in the fundamentalist camp, if I understand fundamentalist Christianity correctly.I am not a fundamentalist, but I find the teachings of Jesus have useful fundamentals for behavior and getting along with others. If you base your behavior on those fundamental teachings, then his spirit is within your heart.The difficulty lies in what your spirituality is attached to. I'm probably not saying this well, but bear with me. IOW, if your spiritality is truly within you, then finding out that Moses didn't write the first five books should not shake your spirituality since that doesn't change the basics that Jesus taught.But if your spirituality rests on the belief that Moses wrote the first five books, then criticism of that will be uncomfortable. (This is just an example, I'm not saying that is what you feel or believe.) Many people do not truly carry their spirituality within them. It is attached to something and when that something comes under scrutiny, they feel threatened.It's kinda like hanging on to the history we learned in first grade (at least when I was in first grade). We learned that Christopher Columbus was first to discover the new world. As we get further along in school, we learn more about how people came to the Americas and find that Columbus wasn't necessarily first, etc. Even once we've graduated new discoveries arise.If we hang on to what we learned about the discovery in first grade, we become stuck at that level. We have no problem updating our info concerning math or any other history, but don't touch Columbus.The Jewish religion evolved as did the Christian religion. If we put fences around areas of our religion that we won't accept new information on, then we get stuck and don't grow spiritually.As I alluded to in Message 93, people (religious or not) have areas of their lives they put fences around. They don't want to look at those areas critically. They want things to stay the way they are. There are even people who venture to look at those areas critically (religious or not) and know that they should upgrade, but choose not to.

quote:

---

...is God real? This in a nutshell is what separates a fundamentalist from a critical thinker.

---

IMO, the idea that God is real isn't really the problem between fundamentalists and critical thinkers. I think the above are more the conflict.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz