Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

I know that religion is a man made concept. The depths of spirituality, however, can arguably said to be something other than what we humans merely make up. Thats what I have done concerning arguments favoring YEC or a Global Flood. I gave up being a Biblical Literalist. The core aspect of my beliefs, however...based of course on what I was initially culturally taught...introduced me to Jesus Christ. The story was a legend and was either embraced as a solid belief or as a cultural myth. I chose to embrace it as a solid belief.My overall world view as to the characteristics of human nature showed me that humanity is not evolving into a more perfected or complete species by virtue of evolution alone. We apparently sought our opium, after all! The opium of Christ is not a drug that masks our humanity. It is, rather, a necessary (fundamental) ingredient in our makeup.The alternative, of course, is to embrace critical thought as the zeitgeist of our culture and of our future. Ironically, within my belief, God allowed us to opt out!

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

Stereotyping is not a characteristic of critical thinking. Having no fixed belief is not the same as having no belief.(Having no fixed position is not the same as having no position. Every number has a position on the line, whether it's positive or negative, finite or infinite.) So you believe. Some believe the possibilities are finite. I'll let you know when I see some. If you think critically (take the beam out of your eye), you might find beliefs where you thought there were none.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Depends how you look at it...and I don't know that Marx meant what he said in the way that you or I could say it.To say religion is a man made concept seems critical, but it is 100% belief. There is the possibility that all religions have man-made concepts, that one religion is completely inspired, or that all religions are completely inspired by God to fill the people's need. To be critical, you need not deny the possibility of anything being true, but only to be aware of the other possibilities.When it comes to the trappings of religion, the rites and rituals, the rubrics, prayers, costumes, festivals and traditions, it is safe to say that most of that is man-made. That does not and should not detract from or change the possible validity of the religion.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

It is strange that fundementalism nowadays is not attached to critical thinking;The fundementals of Christian life and belief are not very 'basic' at all. They are the result of centuries of critical thinking. Even the claim sole scriptura is not entirely true...without the same critical thinking and the carry-over of that tradtional view, you would expect religion based on the Bible alone to be extremely diverse. So the first fundamentalists did not think critically about most of the pre-set doctrines taken from scripture, or set forth by Calvin. Not that they have to, they beleived them...but Biblical inerrancy bears some critical thinking. The Bible well could be innerrant, but what does that mean? What part is important? Since we can interpret scritpure 500 ways, it must be obvious to anyone the least bit critical, that circular reasoning is hopeless.You can not for example take your interpretation of scripture, and assume it must be true, because 'its in the Bible'. That is often what happens, and while it is not so bad, it is definitely not a critical awareness of your own fallibility. I think that is the main area which fundementalists could improve in; forcing their interpretation on others because 'the Bible says its right'.

What does positive truth mean? Why would you deny evidence that could be verified?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

To say religion is a man made concept seems critical, but it is 100% belief.

---

No, it isn't.We know, without needing to take anything at all on faith, that humans create religions.Ever heard of cargo cults? Edited by nator, : No reason given.

You always move the goal posts! Saying words that sound similar and hoping no one realizes, is not gonna work with me. 'Religion is a man-made concept', and;'Humans create religions',Are two different statements.Proof that humans have created SOME religions is not proof that we have created ALL religions.Proof that we have created ALL religions is likewise not proof that we have created the concept of 'religion'.I do agree that all religions have some created elements, but without proof against God, and a god who wants us to find him, I can not know that we have created the concept of religion.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Proof that humans have created SOME religions is not proof that we have created ALL religions.

---

True.How do you tell the human-created ones from the ?-created ones?

quote:

---

Proof that we have created ALL religions is likewise not proof that we have created the concept of 'religion'.

---

Er, you lost me there.If without humans there would be no religion, then by definition, humans created the concept of religion.

Test them against reality. Sound familiar? Even then, you can't tell for sure, but you can definitely get some eliminations. Funny, you changed your mind a little, I may change mine. I suppose I would say that if men did not create math, we still had to create a process to make it useful.The way I see things, a real religion will be a real morality. (hee hee) Both of these things, which might exist, are not known to us automatically, so I imagine that all religions and all moralities are man-made attempts to make something intangible, into something useful.There would be an acception; if a god showed us a morality and a religion, it would not be our creation. Many religions believe a god DID show it to someone. So we are back where we started.All I can say, is, did humans create the 'concept' of math?Concept;A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See synonyms at idea.A scheme; a plan:It seems we might have. Then again, if one religion were true, and inspired by God, it might not classify as a concept? As concepts are formed in the mind, something which exists outside of our mind might not be a concept, although we can and must 'conceptualize' it. For instance, dogs exist outside of our mind, but we can not express 'dog' without a concept. So, we can not express God without concepts.

quote:

---

Test them against reality. Sound familiar? Even then, you can't tell for sure, but you can definitely get some eliminations.

---

But what is the test? What outcome points to a human origin and what outcome points to a ? origin?What are the characteristics, in other words, that mark a "real" religion compared to a "fake" one?

quote:

---

The way I see things, a real religion will be a real morality. (hee hee) Both of these things, which might exist, are not known to us automatically, so I imagine that all religions and all moralities are man-made attempts to make something intangible, into something useful.

---

I'll agree with that.

It does not have to be complicated, or even point to God. If you think back to the origins of morality discussions, even if a morality is evolved, and part of natural 'rediscovered' human behaviour, it is not simply/only a creation of man.This is not supposed to be a morality topic, but that is just an illustration.Obviously we have choices, and our choices and structures can sometimes blind us. If we find a thing that works, it is in some part probably true...even if it is only a survival instinct.In other words, it is useful. A useful religion will have a logical answer to the obvious mysteries of life...God in a sense is a logical premise, but even if He was not, and if we granted that one illogic, the rest of the belief could be useful.It is true that many things in religion cease to be logical answers to anything. Science can explain some of the 'mysteries'. But a 'real' religion is no more than a philosophy and a way of life that 'works'. It is selected for, it sticks around, because people have found it useful. Even if science had all the answers, we would most likely still have need of a philosophy for living.

A sawed-off shotgun is "useful" too, but that doesn't make it a "good" thing. Society protects itself from sawed-off shotguns because their usefulness is individual, not societal.Similarly, society needs to protect itself from religions that are "useful" to their members but detrimental to society as a whole - e.g. YECism.That's where critical thinking comes in. Every religion needs to be assessed for its overall "good" and "bad" qualitites. If religious groups don't do that for themselves, society will do it for them.If you don't think critically about yourself, somebody else will think critically about you. You might as well take control of your own destiny.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, sure. Someone may find dancing 15 minutes in a hula-hoop and then shucking 15 ears of corn while smoking a cigar 'useful'. Maybe they think it brings good luck, maybe they can convince a few other people of the same. But how 'real' is it?We must depend on the criticism of others to validate our own reality. This is what people are often afraid of; living without the crutches they have built. Take away the crutches, you might find you don't need them, or you might find you were never using them at all. In other words, your ideas might stand on their own.

Double post.Edited by Ringo, : No reason given.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC