Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

I beg to differ in regard to the bolded phrase.But truthfully, I wrote a very long paragraph before I decided to erase it all and write this very simple reply. Either of these approaches to the questions we have can be helpful at times. They sort of act as shoes for you to walk in. It would suck to only have one shoe to walk in while leaving the other foot bare.In other words, there is a time and place for either of these approaches. A bleedinly obvious example of when critical thinking isn't helpful at all is in the heat of a battle. You simply don't sit down and try to calculate the paths of the projectiles flying at you. You simply don't sit down and try to come up with an explanation for the fundamental differences between your two nations that have resulted in this conflict. You simply don't sit down and try to fit how this battle fits in with Kantian view. You just do what you've been told to do and try to slaughter your enemies. The biggest problem that I can see with fundamentalism is that sometimes principles need to change to make people's lives better, and fundamentalism more often than not just won't allow such changes to occur.Take the flood story for example. By all practical purposes, the events surrounding the flood are just too illogical for it to be considered as valid history, yet there are millions of people that believe in the fairy tale no matter what. Even a creationist like riverrat has even admitted that it's possible only because there's a goddunit factor somewhere along the line. Phat, you need to be careful with your usage of terms here. Unchecked skepticism is an oxymoron. You're coming quite close to a strawman presentation. According to certain sources here who have known you (or rather your thought process) a lot longer than I have, you were once little better than the typical preacher who tries to tell his flock that he knows more about biology than working biologists. You've gotten better over the years, and I commend you for it. But I want to point out that your case is a perfect example of what fundamentalism does to a person's intellectual well being.Some months ago, you and I had a discussion on your supposed contact with god. You were half asleep and you felt (not heard) a very powerful voice that seemed to have touched you. At the moment, you knew that it was god who have touched you and you were blessed. Being a skeptic that I was, I went ahead and started checking your story. I asked you if you tried to record this "voice" and you said no. I asked you if you tried to remember what this "voice" said, and you said no. I asked you if anyone else heard it and you said no. I asked you if you tried to at least write down the experience to avoid any possibility of false memory syndrome in the future and you said no. I asked you beside saying you "felt" god's presence if there was anything else you could tell me about it and you said no.In other words, there was nothing tangible for me to go on other than your words that you "knew god was there".I don't know if I made this clear back then, but I'll try to make it clear now. It's not that didn't or don't believe you. It's that being a skeptic I really need more than your word on it. What would you think if I tell you I saw some pink goblins running around my house while I was half asleep?Now, your case is a mild one. You did not go out and condemn people or become a doomsayer. But there are many people out there who have "felt" this god's voice and become self-proclaimed prophets... like Pat Roberson. In other words, you continue to believe that you were touched by god solely on faith, which to me sounds like unchecked fundamentalism.This brings me to another point. It really doesn't matter if you teach your child to think critically about religion. All religions require one to have a leap of faith. You can't be religious and think critically about it at the same time. And again, I just point to you as a perfect example of what I mean. I have no doubt that you think you are critically thinking about all these so-called questions in/of life. But you continue to demonstrate to me that you take things more on faith than anything else, and you are a full grown adult. Just how do we expect a child to approach something as inherently fundamentalist as religion and expect him to think critically?By the way, on the god touching you thing, anything can happen in dreams. I once had a dream that I saw a 4-dimensional object. I also once had a dream that I took the derivative of an ipod. It made perfect sense while I was asleep. It still made a lot of sense shortly after I woke up. I spent the whole day trying to redo the problem on paper what I saw in my dream and just couldn't make any sense out of it. After all, how the hell do you mathematically take the derivative of an ipod?

There often is a misunderstanding among non-skeptics of what skepticism is. When they hear the word "skeptic" they automatically assumes that a skeptic is one who denies everything. They assume that a skeptic goes through life not believing in anything. Perhaps this is what phat meant when he referred to "unchecked skepticism"?Furthermore, I sometimes get the feeling that people of faith automatically assume that skeptics are always out to get them and their religions. While some of it is true, it is still not what skepticism is about.Perhaps we should try to explain what skepticism is, what makes us skeptics, and why we have chosen to be skeptics?

It really seems like you are trying to equate religion with conscience, which for some darn reason I am having a lot of doubts for.After all, if conscience really comes from religion, then I must point out the fact that religion couldn't prevent centuries of witch burnings, decades of terror inflicted upon black people in this country, and your own intolerance of those different from you. I don't think this is critical thinking at all. I think this belongs more to common sense. I don't know... When I was a part of religion, it seemed like all the questions that I was asked were questions like "who can you hate today?" and "how are you going to tell them they're going to hell?"Sorry, but I choose to be a good person, live my life as a good person, and perform good deeds for and upon others. Life is too short for me to try to find the next group of people I could oppress. See, even among christians that is up for debate. I know that catholics think the protestants aren't really christians and vice versa, but speaking as an outsider I really can't tell who's right.While I was driving home the other day, I had the radio tuned to a local christian station. The speaker was talking about the subject of salvation and what makes a good person, and he was saying the opposite of what you said. He basically said that ever since he knew he was a "child of christ" he had become a much better person. He knows his own salvation... etc. etc.Edited by AdminPD, : Font Size

Are you one of those that looks up the word "biology" in a dictionary and afterwards claim yourself to be a biologist because you know what the dictionary says biology means?If it is as simple as what you making it out to be, there wouldn't be any need for school. Everybody would be going around with webster's dic and looking up words to professionalize themselves in whatever area they decide to look up in the dictionary.By the way, that's a poor definition of skepticism. I can understand how that fuels the misunderstanding.

And this is exactly what I want to point out to. Whether it is productive or not should have no bearing in this matter. Now, remember you and others like you are the ones that claim god is all powerful and all knowing. Base on this, I really have to conclude that predestination makes a lot more sense. Whether it is productive or not based on our limited capacity to see the big picture should have no bearing on a supreme being. Spin also said that almost noone uses this type of skeptical view on life.The most notable skeptic who used this runaway skepticism was Pyrrho of Ancient Greece. He was so skeptical of everything that he refused to even write down his philosophy for fear of his views being misunderstood. But after him, I can't really think of anyone else, ancient or modern, that had such a view. But skepticism isn't the same as religion. Skepticism is a method of human reason (a manmade tool) that allows people to cherry pick through all the facts and non-facts in life. Religious doctrines are suppose to be infallable no matter what. Being productive or not has no bearing in religious beliefs. This is apparent in the catholic doctrine that the pope is infallable no matter what. Actually, I beg to differ. There have been plenty of blind followers of faith who have committed atrocities beyond belief. On the other hand, I can't think of the last skeptic who went around condeming people. A little bit on the humor side, my English professor once told me that if you can't put your thought in words, you don't really know what you are thinking. I often go back and remind myself what she said because, oddly enough, I often find myself not being able to project my thoughts accurately onto paper. Well, with really no frame of reference other than what you already believe, how can you tell if it is imperfect?I am tempted to point to an example (a user) that left here not too long ago. I asked her if it is a right thing to kill a 3 year old boy and run a sword through a pregnant woman because these little kids might or might not pose a future threat to Israel, and she answered yes, it is a right thing. In her worldview, she sees nothing wrong with murder and rape as long as it's sanctioned by god.The point is we do see examples of extremes on the religious end. See, this is where I don't quite agree. Is it really critical thinking or just self-delusioning? Ok, perhaps that word is too strong. But remember that "truth" is not always a pretty thing. Yellow is my favorite color, but obviously the sky isn't yellow most of the time. There's nothing I can do about it. Picking a choosing self-proclaimed "truths" like religious beliefs just doesn't make any sense to me. If god forbids the real and only only truth is to be found in buddhism, no matter how much sense you find in Jesus or how much love you have for the judeo-christian god, it's still not truth. No matter how much love I have for the color yellow, it's still not the color of the sky.

Well, I guess both of us have already said what we wanted to say.