Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 46 of 159 (386393)
02-21-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by anastasia
02-21-2007 12:35 PM


anastasia writes:
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.
No critical thinker has the option of marriage to a religion. Religions require "FAITH", and faith is the greatest enemy of critical thought.
If there is no evidence for the existence of elves, that does not prove their non-existence, but a critical thinker would never actively believe in them unless or until there is evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 12:35 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:16 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 59 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:22 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 47 of 159 (386395)
02-21-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
02-21-2007 1:08 PM


Faith is the substance
bluegenes writes:
Religions require "FAITH", and faith is the greatest enemy of critical thought.
Well then, I guess I will always be more fundamental than critical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2007 1:08 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 48 of 159 (386399)
02-21-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by bluegenes
02-21-2007 12:55 PM


Re: Follow Blindly
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2007 12:55 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2007 2:08 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 49 of 159 (386401)
02-21-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by anastasia
02-21-2007 12:24 PM


Re: Needs of the People
I really don't understand this, no offense. Who are we talking about who doesn't criticize their own beliefs?
Pretty much most religious people. A good Christian friend of mine will be critical of attempts to sensor and restrict homosexual rights but would never question the base dogma that homosexuality is an abomination. That is why you get comments from moderate Christians such as, "As long as they don't shove it in my face they should be able to do whatever they want."
The critical answer is that Leviticus and Paul were wrong.
How is that dependent on whatever notion society has about non-criticism?
It is taboo. If I say your belief in fairies is irrational then I am on firm ground. But if I say your belief the Apocalypse is irrational I am intolerant despite very good critical reason why the concept of the Apocalypse is irrational.
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.
A call that very few if any religious people actually do.
Now, my question for you, was; Do you believe that a person who has an 'irrational' belief is not a critical thinker?
With regards to their religion yes! A very good friend of mine is an engineer. If he couldn't think critically he would never have made it through college. But he completely abandons his skepticism with regards to religion. He can go to work every day to work on radioactive chemistry and still claim that radiometric dating is wrong because God says so.
Do you seperate your criticism of religion from a believer's criticism of religion?
No. I thought that was clear. When I talk about critical thinking I am talking about society and religious people are part of society. Society has these taboos and those include self-criticism.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 12:24 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:52 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:07 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 159 (386407)
02-21-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jazzns
02-21-2007 1:35 PM


Quirks in expression of faith
Jazzns writes:
A very good friend of mine is an engineer. If he couldn't think critically he would never have made it through college. But he completely abandons his skepticism with regards to religion. He can go to work every day to work on radioactive chemistry and still claim that radiometric dating is wrong because God says so.
I have a good friend who graduated at the top of his class and who works at Ball Aerospace. He is a whiz at theoretical physics, he designs some of the most advanced equipment that they make and he is also a Roman Catholic.
Once, he and I had a discussion on Holy Communion. It boggled my mind when this educated and enlightened critical thinker stood and told me that he believes in a literal trans substitution. (Is that what its called?) When at communion, the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Even as deep as my beliefs are, I would never believe such a thing! To me, Communion is real yet is a spiritual communion rather than a literal one.
Of course, I suppose my critics could say that its the same thing with a literal Christ versus the idea of Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 02-21-2007 1:35 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 159 (386408)
02-21-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
02-21-2007 1:27 PM


Re: Follow Blindly
purpledawn writes:
You aren't providing any evidence for your position....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.
Have you provided "evidence" for yours?
Religions require blind faith, not intelligent effort. People who think critically (on this subject) would never come to the conclusion that any of the existing religions in the world are true.
It is not intelligent to actively believe in something for which there is absolute zero evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 02-21-2007 1:27 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 2:19 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 88 by purpledawn, posted 02-22-2007 4:14 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 159 (386409)
02-21-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by bluegenes
02-21-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Follow Blindly
I don't see people lining up to believe in Santa Claus or the big white rabbit in Harvey. Evidently, there must be some sort of internal reason why people accept Jesus Christ. To say that there is no empirical evidence is correct, but to imply that people stumble into faith with absolutely no evidence is just your own beliefs talking.
I will admit that orthodox Christian beliefs are all based on faith and not facts.(evidence, as you science types call it)
To say that evidence must equal facts is to say that critical thinking is the bedrock of my belief system. This is not true.
To me, evidence=confirmed beliefs and feelings within myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2007 2:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2007 2:33 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2007 3:14 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 64 by ReverendDG, posted 02-22-2007 5:57 AM Phat has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 53 of 159 (386412)
02-21-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
02-21-2007 2:19 PM


Re: Follow Blindly
Phat writes:
I will admit that orthodox Christian beliefs are all based on faith and not facts
I think you're being honest, here, Phat, and it seems that we have some common ground. I'm trying to point out to others that religious faith has nothing to do with critical thinking.
To point to your faith and "feelings" is honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 2:19 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 159 (386414)
02-21-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:02 PM


Re: Fundamental Roadblocks
Phat writes:
I trust my beliefs more than I trust the ever changing human wisdom (and subconscious intentions) of scholars.
So Phat wisdom trumps human wisdom?
And Phat intentions alone are untainted?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 159 (386416)
02-21-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
02-21-2007 2:19 PM


Re: Follow Blindly
I don't see people lining up to believe in Santa Claus or the big white rabbit in Harvey.
Well, when you go out in public and tell people you don't believe in Santa Claus, most people don't question your fitness to parent, vote, serve in public office, hold employment, or even be allowed to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 2:19 PM Phat has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 159 (386456)
02-21-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:02 PM


Re: Fundamental Roadblocks
quote:
I would say that we as humanity are involved in a spiritual war and that humanity subconsciously or even consciously tries to dissmiss a personal God because our nature abhors it (or Him)
Again, I would say that this is completely wrong.
I think that humans LOVE the idea of God/gods, personal or otherwise.
Why else would most of the planet believe in some kind of godlike thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 57 of 159 (386458)
02-21-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:02 PM


Re: Fundamental Roadblocks
Phat writes:
I fear being so open to change that I become wishy washy or indecisive in my beliefs.
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.
When people start saying that there is scant evidence for Jesus Christ, my feathers do become ruffled and my defenses go up.
Scant? Is there any? Just kidding! Don't worry too much.
Critics would say that I have a weak belief since I am afraid to examine it. I would respond to them by saying that there are some things that are non-negotiable. To me, denying that God is personal and real is denying my beliefs.
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.
Does that put me squarely in the Fundie Camp?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 58 of 159 (386469)
02-21-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jazzns
02-21-2007 1:35 PM


Re: Needs of the People
Jazzns writes:
The critical answer is that Leviticus and Paul were wrong.
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.
It is taboo. If I say your belief in fairies is irrational then I am on firm ground. But if I say your belief the Apocalypse is irrational I am intolerant despite very good critical reason why the concept of the Apocalypse is irrational.
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.
A call that very few if any religious people actually do.
Nonsense. How can you possibly have any statistics for this? No religious people examine their actions, yet almost every religion calls for personal reflection?
No. I thought that was clear. When I talk about critical thinking I am talking about society and religious people are part of society. Society has these taboos and those include self-criticism.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 02-21-2007 1:35 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jazzns, posted 02-23-2007 8:01 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 59 of 159 (386470)
02-21-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
02-21-2007 1:08 PM


bluegenes writes:
No critical thinker has the option of marriage to a religion. Religions require "FAITH", and faith is the greatest enemy of critical thought.
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.
If there is no evidence for the existence of elves, that does not prove their non-existence, but a critical thinker would never actively believe in them unless or until there is evidence.
But what is evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2007 1:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 02-22-2007 12:07 AM anastasia has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 60 of 159 (386476)
02-22-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by anastasia
02-21-2007 11:22 PM


anastasia writes:
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.
Atheism - Wikipedia
From Wiki:
quote:
Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist. However, others”including most atheistic philosophers and groups”define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).
A good critical thinker, on the subject of Gods, would fit the nontheistic type of atheist (weak atheism). I'll stick my neck out, and claim that that would always be the case. Religious people and strong atheists cannot rationalize their views, and it's arguable that both require faith.
Don't you think that the dumb arranged marriage that you mention might be a good analogy to people remaining in the religion of their childhood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:22 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-22-2007 1:15 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-22-2007 10:53 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024