Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

And a bleedingly obvious example of critical thinking having a place in religion; the examination of conscience, or in other words, what have you done today that could have been better? This may not be thinking critically about religion, but many times IN religion you are asked to think critically about yourself. Having some fundemental belief in your own salvation does not improve a person.

Heavens, sounds like part of a Rob speech. Law of non-contradiction or some such 'all skeptics deny the possiblity of trust being true'. Just joking here.Honestly, if Phat hadn't come along and dirtied things up with his talk of being afraid to leave his faith, which may be true and fine, but not in the best interests of the conversation...I would have said that this was a good definition of 'unchecked skepticism'. If you are sooooo skeptical that it has BAD affects, where you can't find anything meaningful, that would be un-useful. As Spinoza said, no one really adheres to this level of skepticism.

The following is the part of the def for 'critical thinking' that I made use of; Which is exactly what the examination of conscience is. You don't need to worry about any equating of conscience with religion, just say that religion also makes use of the concept of 'conscience'. Sorry for that. I guess you can't, as even a detailed analysis of the different beliefs would probably not make one or the other ring true to you...but you could critically analyize them for consistancy and Biblical adherence, logic, etc. Maybe it is not so opposite to what I said. I am thinking that any idea of 'predestination no matter what' is not productive, but I don't think too many people really adhere to this extreme either. I wish I could make this point well...remember Spinoza said that skepticism is good, but if you are skeptical about everything it is not productive? It is almost a contradiction. Likewise, faith in God is good, but if you have some idea that you can get away with anything because you have faith, that is not productive either. What is fascinating is that both of these ideas have an extreme that no one follows. I think that tells us something about reality, but I haven't quite figured it out yet in words. It is just very very odd to follow a teaching that is 'imperfect' in the sense that its own ideals are only good in moderation.Anyway, long story short, the man in the car could have become a better person after finding faith. Maybe some belief did teach him to be critical of his own actions, and to look for the flaws in his thinking. Not about religion, blah, just in general. And lastly, it is pretty obvious that critical thinking can lead a person to a religion as easily as it can lead them away from one.

Teach someone to think critically...how do you control when and where they apply the thinking?My observation is that there is no clear line between religion and critical thinking. There is no implication that critical thinking will cause a person to reject a belief altogether, or not to be satisfied with it in the main part.Sometimes if you take the hot words out of the comparison it is easier to understand. Say we compared marriage and critical thinking, instead of religion.Does marriage stop a person from thinking critically?It can, I think there are names for people who are blind to faults in their spouses. In general, we do think critically about our spouses, but can be largely satisfied with the results, or the good outweighs the bad, and this is probably better than Phat's case where he feels he needs his spouse. I mean, if you need your spouse because you just couldn't get on in life without them, then, no matter how critical you could be, you will be afraid to take the leap, and you will possibly make excuses for them that are not based in reality.Plenty of people divorce, plenty of people choose not to get married at all, which can be good or bad critical wise...are you afraid to take the leap 'into' marriage? That is the opposite 'evil'.The two sins they call Presumption, and Despair.
The opposite extremes in a life where we need a balance between asking questions and finding answers.P.S. I have a new definition for 'unchecked skepticism'; YEC fundementalist.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Very enjoyable post, PD. 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.

What jar said. Oh, and, not only to change your concusions, but to expand them. Critical thinking is not the same as constant skepticism in a negative connotation.A constant skepticism can give you no foundation to work from. Realistically speaking, we ALL have beliefs, for when we go to bed at night we have our beliefs, and we rise the next day acting on them. At some point during every day, ALL beliefs can be challenged...you may find out that the Bible is false, or you might only find out that your best friend is a liar. Being a constant skeptic insures that you won't have a friend in the first place. At some point we need to trust our instincts, etc, but if you DO find out your friend is a liar, the difference is; do you keep trusting them with your confidences, or do you accept reality? It is up to you, and even if you decide to give them another try, and people will call you 'stupid', that doesn't always mean you haven't thought critically.On the other hand, what if you found out your friend is a child molestor? Or even suspected it? No one in their right mind would give them another try.As far as beliefs go, I don't think it is necessary to walk around looking for problems in a good 'relationship'. But if you get new info, you need to challenge the old info, and possibly abandon it.This goes for the atheists too. Any conclusion that does not allow for expansion or outright rejection is a dead end.

Sorry if I was not clear enough, but that was the idea I was aiming for. Using religion as a factor in the comparison can get those who are religious feeling prickly and defensive. If you think instead about parenting, it is easier to see when a relationship is unhealthy, when a child is too dependent, and then to understand what is to be avoided in belief.

This is my observation only, but it appears that you are confusing critical thinking on the part of the believer, with criticism of the believer. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Predestination. Not the best word, but I am talking about ANY belief that something just is how it is, and that you have no say in it.I will go to hell no matter what I do.
I will go to heaven no matter what I do.
The Bible is right no matter what science says.
I need to do everything in the Bible even if it hurts other people.
I will never stop believing in God.
I will never start beliving in God.Any of these final conclusions are not examples of critical thinking. Critical thinking is; if I someday get new information, will I recognize that it conflicts with what I previously held to, and will I be willing to examine my beliefs, to be honest with myself, and analyze what place the new idea has in my life? Or, do I feel so chained to my beliefs that I think the new information is a lie and I should force it from my mind?So, tell me now if this has no bearing? I am not talking a religious tenet here...like free-will versus predestination, just any extreme belief. I know, I mentioned that. Again, you can be a critical thinker in or out of religion. Many aspects of religions are not even open to criticism in the sense that they can be 'proved' wrong...the critical thinking comes in when a person is comfortable enough to look objectively at their religion and decide if it is right for them. This is compared to brainwashing, where someone is deathly afraid to admit that they are not comfortable in the religion, that they don't understand it but they will 'make up' an answer to avoid reality.Let's say something about Jesus doesn't ring true. There are options;
do some research about context, etc. Assume you are too stupid to figure it out, but Jesus must have been right. Decide that Jesus is not the divine person you thought He was, or stop belieivng altogether. What do you think is the best option? And the worst? That's not what I was talking about though. I am talking about the average fundie view that they are 'saved' by belief alone. This implies that they can act however they want, but they damn sure don't. Conversely, being a skeptic might imply that you are never confident about yourself, as the example of Pyrrho. I did not know what I was thinking... It was one of those coincidences you sometimes notice, but don't have the time to analyze. Sometimes I imagine that I am seeing something in some other part of my being, that still needs to be harnessed with human words. I don't worry much about it, the words eventually come. From my days of being a poet, I know it is not too scary to 'feel' something and then try to explain it. Only for a few moments it seems words are inadequate. Yes, we do. But there is a difference in the fatalist view that you can do whatever you want and still be forgiven, which most people don't really believe, and the view that God actually WANTS you to do something evil. Well, that is a complicated issue there. If you love Jesus, and Buddha is true, that does not stop Jesus from being 'your' truth. You can't always find out what is true, but critical thinking will allow you to be honest with yourself. Do you really like yellow, or has someone forced you to believe you do? Did someone force you to like blue, because that is the color of the sky? Are you colorblind, and the sky is just not blue to you? Does the color of the sky have any bearing on your favorite? If God was the sky, and I liked blue, good. That is about where I am. But that doesn't mean that God may not be a marigold, and you might hate yellow, or hate marigolds. Or find a different color marigold. The point is, that if you are honest with yourself, you will find many variations on truth.And yes, critical thinking can lead to religion. Think of St Ignatius Loyola, lying in convalescence from a war injury. It was through study, self-analysis, recognizing his true calling, that he became the religious leader that he was. It was not as they say, some 'born-again' experience, or some neighbor getting him into the church community. If you analyze, find your calling, it makes you happy, and ultimately the most productive that you can be.

If you can prove to me that God does not exist, that there is nothing after death, that their is no purpose for our existance, and no good to strive for, I will be very satisfied with the claim that finding a religion that proposes to answer these questions in any other way, is indeed a process of self-delusion, and can never come from a person's analysis of themselves and what they have learned about the world.

I really don't understand this, no offense. Who are we talking about who doesn't criticize their own beliefs? How is that dependent on whatever notion society has about non-criticism?Remember, 'why do you seek the speck in your brother's eye, while you have a beam in your own'? (something like that). That is a direct call to self-criticism.Now, my question for you, was; Do you believe that a person who has an 'irrational' belief is not a critical thinker?Do you seperate your criticism of religion from a believer's criticism of religion?

Sorry, no fly. You can't in one sentence say that a God might exist, and also that believing one does is deception.Here you go;A girl believing in elves could be a critical thinker. Or not.Consider a married girl having 'clues'...a note with lipstick on it, a husband staying out late, mysterious phone calls, etc. They may point, after some critical thinking, to an affair. The girl will TENTATIVELY believe in an affair, but will, if she thinks critically, be open to the possibility of an explanation.Loyalty is becoming, but blind faith is dangerous.Blind faith would be another girl who completely ignores all evidence, because she either feels that no matter what, her husband would never cheat, or that no matter what, she KNOWS he is cheating.I do not see any difference bewteen an atheist thinking critically and a believer thinking critically. The athesits seem to think that because they are not 'married' to any religion, that there will never be anyone who can think critically and be 'married'. I assure you, we have the option of divorce, just as you have the option of marriage. Point is, keep your options open.

I have been wishy, maybe not washy. I have never been indecisive, as in, I would consider switching to an alternate religion, but if I do too much critical thinking in one day things can get confusing...lines blur, that sort of thing. Scant? Is there any? Just kidding! Don't worry too much. It sounds like you are examining it, Phat. I know you still have tendencies...but the object really isn;t to get rid of things which are personal harmless beliefs, but to get rid of what you don't believe. Sounds wierd, but that is probably what the extreme cases of brain-washing are; people are afraid to be honest with themselves, or to accept reality as in evolution etc.You can't deny your beliefs, because you still believe them. No one should require you to do that.And yes, men are intensely fallible, which does not automatically equal blind faith in your religion, but the same amount of scrutiny and discussion can be applied to any idea of any man. What are 'fundies'?I looked it up and I have found
they are something we change frequently,
but no matter how you wear the word, it has a dirty sound.No, wait, that was 'undies'.I'd say you are a boxer-brief...a tight fit, but added coverage.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Posh! How is that critical? The critical answer is that Leviticus and Paul could be wrong. And people who have religion can admit that, while obviously it is hard for people who have no religion to admit they could be right.Don't mind this particular example, the important thing is that there are no critical 'amswers'. Critical thinking is a process that may lead to an answer, that's all. Again, critical thinking can only get you so far as to say that the concept of the Apocalypse is untested and unknown. What you do from there is all belief. Nonsense. How can you possibly have any statistics for this? No religious people examine their actions, yet almost every religion calls for personal reflection? I don't understand at all. But seriously, society say that self-criticism is taboo? Now you sound like a fundy. They will walk atound and claim that society wants everyone to love themselves and their immorality. No one wants to admit their sins and repent, that sort of thing. Now, is it fair for me to say that all atheists are not critical of themselves because they don't have to fear God watching in secret? Of course not, but you can't just make bare assertions from an unrealistic bias against religion. It is very possible to think critically AND have a religion.I would like to live in a society where self-criticism is really taboo. Ha.

I don't know if you are married or not, but getting married requires some critical thought...not always, that is the dumb kind, the pre-arranged marrige which is never questioned.But over-all, it is the same to say that a critical thinker will never marry anything, including atheism.Marriage requires a leap of faith; you get all the evidence you can for a person's love, which is ridiculous and irrational in itself, and you trust them enough from this evidence to marry. So what? You can remain faithful till you have reason to believe that they were not what you believed.If it works out good. A married person can be just as productive as a non-married one, or an undecided. They have the added benefit of purpose and drive in life, of a warm person who is always there. You may not see those as benefits, or may be undecided, but seriously, no one is immune to the lack of critical thinking. But what is evidence?