Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

Literary sources themselves were scant outside of scripture.

Actually this is untrue, during and around Jesus prescribe lifetime there were several major Roman & Greek historians who wrote tons of historical and biographical literature:Paterculus (19 BC-30 AD) - Roman Historian
Josephus (37-100 AD) - Jewish Historian and Military Leader
Plutarch (45-125 AD) - Roman Biographer and Historian
Tacitus (54-119 AD) - Roman Senator and Historian
Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD) Roman Governor, Lawyer, Natural Philosopher and Historian
Suetonius (71-135 AD) - Greco-Roman Biographer and Historian
Appianus (95 - 165 AD) - Roman HistorianOf these historians only four talk about Christianity (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius). And of these only Josephus and Tacitus only explicitly reference Jesus Christ and Tacitus seems to be getting his information from another source: There remains some question by Biblical scholars of how much of was from Josephus own hand and how much was added to or rewritten.There were also many other historians (about 40) however much of there work have been lost and none mention Jesus Christ.Here are some good links for further research: Did he actually exist? All sides to the question Historicity of JesusFrom Jesus to Christ: The Story of Storytellers Jesus-History or Myth?T he Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer

---

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan

So does that mean that all religion was derived from unthinking masses?

Are you suggesting that to be a good critical thinker implies being skeptical in any and all matters of the heart?Have you ever had any experiences in life which were an emotional catharsis?Why must we always become skeptics by default? If it works, who cares whether or not it is a placebo?Edited by Phat, : fixed Boo Boo

The placebo effect is basically the Hawthorn Effect (my favourite effect). That means as long as you think someone cares you will feel a bit better.Now, if you were in receipt of the Hawthorn Effect and applied critical thinking to the positivity you felt you may well lose the effect.That's why you should never apply critical thinking to ones god of choice.

I would suggest that being a "good critical thinker" implies applying critical analysis to all matters, be they "of the heart" or otherwise. Irrelevant. Cathartic emotional responses do not require irrational thought, and are not necessrily invalidated by critical thinking. In fact, many of my own cathartic experiences have come as a direct result of applying critical thinking and embracing skepticism. What we "must" do is a matter of personal values. If one values a rational outlook on how the world actually works, then skepticism is a necessity. If this is not a priority, and living in a fantasy-land is acceptable so long as it "works," then skepticism is unnecessary. But make no mistake - without skepticism and critical thinking, universally applied, it is impossible to maintain a rational and reasonable understanding of objective reality. Flights of fancy, including "faith," correspond to reality only through bare chance, and far more often lead to inaccurate conclusions.Failing to use reasonable skepticism and critical thought results in gullibility, nothing more.

But how do we know for sure how the world actually works? Why is faith, despite lack of support, an outdated concept? Must we assume that everything than cant be tested does not exist?

No, the key thing is that we "mustn't" assume that something that can't be tested does exist.

We don't. That's exactly why skepticism is a constant, ongoing necessity. Even the things we think we know could be wrong. It's not outdated... sort of. We just now understand where it's benefits are and it's negatives. Faith can be a fantastic tool for providing hope and motivation for certain people. This hasn't changed and is not outdated. We do know that other ideas exist to provide hope and motivation equally well (and possibly better for certain people), but this doesn't make Faith an outdated concept in this arena, just one of many.
However, we do now understand that Faith is particularly weak when attempting to work out the truth of how reality works. When considering this aspect, Faith is extremely outdated because it just doesn't work, at all. Mod's answer: I just want to make sure that Mod's answer is clear here because this is a very large, ongoing issue in the misunderstanding to the application of reason and skepticism.There are three main divisions (to keep this simple):
1. Known to exist (strictly reality)
2. Known to not exist (strictly imagination)
3. Unknown (imagination that could possibly be reality, but nothing points in that direction yet)
The "unknown" certainly ranges from "likely to exist" to "unlikely to exist"... but that's a topic for another thread.Your question seems to assume that reason and skepticism says Faith related ideas are specifically, 100%, completely restricted to the "known to not exist" area, without any consideration. This isn't true, and it is the misunderstanding that fundamentalists love to exploit as much as they can... even to the point of lying about it. However, as Mod's answer point's out, this isn't true. The fact is that when we apply reason and skepticism, Faith related things are only 100% restricted from entering the "known to exist" area. That is not the same as specifically stating that Faith is known to not exist, but it is something that is obviously uncontestable.By definition, if something taken on Faith was actually known to exist, it would no longer be Faith. It would be fact.The highest priority of reason and skepticism is to make as clear a distinction as possible from "known to exist" and everything else.Edited by Stile, : I'll edit you.