|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Stuff just happens. Yes, I agree, but all the time? You have never felt a divine intervention? Or at least wondered about something?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. Take comments to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
purpledawn writes: I consider blind faith to be that one believes what one is told without personal investigation. Given that meaning I feel that there can also be blind skepticism. People are capable of choosing to disbelieve without personal investigation just as well as one can choose to believe without personal investigation. Now I find it improbable that you have personally investigated every single religion to come to the conclusion that all religions require blind following. So now again and final time I ask what evidence did you carefully analyze and evaluate that lead you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion? Do, by all means, give me a list of religions that do not require blind faith, and I'll personally investigate every single one of them. It won't take me long, will it? "Believing" leads people to religions, not thinking. By what evidence did I carefully analyze all this? Observation of religious people, and their blatently obvious capacity to lie to thenselves. I'd suggest a trip to the Holy Land of Israel/Palestine if you disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
From your comment to Phat
Some (if not most or all) of what you are using to make your decision is culturally influenced. You are not stopping to analyze the situation. I've been in chat with you, watched you "critially think" about your religious beliefs, and you always are off somewhere... something's always just not right with your thinking. I get the impression that you don't feel Critical Thinking is culturally influenced. Our cultural and personal factors are going to affect the final decision. Now I would agree that many people have difficulty analyzing themselves, whether it is their beliefs on religion, raising children, eating habits, etc. Even among Christians, some people will keep part of themselves separate from the religion. IOW, they don't evaluate it by their religious standards. In Christian circles I know, they say they haven't turned it over to God yet. They keep that part of their life the way it was. They don't want to change it. My guess is that those people also don't want to evaluate their beliefs from the secular standpoint. Even when someone is able to evaluate themselves critially, it doesn't necessarily mean the decision or action will be the right one. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:To lie to themselves, they have to know the truth, therefore they are not blindly following. I don't believe Buddhism requires blind faith. If I remember correctly his teachings were based on analysis of his observations. Also check out the Native American religions. I don't doubt that people blindly follow others. This can happen in the secular world as well as the religious world. So you have not investigated all religions all over the world. As I said earlier, there are many religions with many variations within each. So in your critical thinking process you have only analyzed a small portion and decided that that is representative of all. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
purpledawn writes: To lie to themselves, they have to know the truth, therefore they are not blindly following Are you trying to make me laugh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
RR writes: 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. What do you think deep down in your heart nator?Things happen for no reason? This is my positive truth claim which puts me squarely in the fundamental camp and by default trumps my critical thinking open mindedness. Were I a true critical thinker, I would allow for tentative faith in Christ or in a Holy Spirit pending further information as to the validity of either. Critical thinking, by default, presupposes nothing. There is no positive truth claim in critical thinking...only questions. I honestly won't allow myself to disregard what I believe to be the answer only to endlessly ask the ultimate question---namely---is God real? This in a nutshell is what separates a fundamentalist from a critical thinker. In order to defend my fundamental belief, I will deny any conflicting information....using the excuse that humans cannot possibly know. The whole ritual of the Born Again experience is contingent upon belief.
No new amount of information will dissuade me from this since I will not let human wisdom change my core belief. (Unless, of course, it is my own internal validation.) I suppose I will admit that fundamentalism can be accused of being willfully stubborn, if not ignorant. I won't say ignorant because nobody else knows any more than I do about whether or not God exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes: "Believing" leads people to religions, not thinking. You've bought into the false dichotomy. Believing and thinking are not mutually exclusive. There is a limit to what we "know", about the origin of the universe, for example. There is a limit beyond which we can not "think". Everybody has a belief about what is beyond that limit. The problem with fundamentalists is that they put that limit far too low. They believe when they should be thinking. Not every religious person does that. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
nator writes: What is a more effective way to think; to believe a comfortable lie or to realize an uncomfortable reality? From reading your post, it seems to me that you think the answer to the question would be to 'realize an uncomfortable reality'. For myself, I would agree. But, I do not understand why this should be for everyone. Or, maybe you don't even intend for it to be for everyone? As far as I can tell, "believing a comfortable lie" may very well be a more effective way to think for someone. Like, say, someone who has never been able to depend on anyone, someone who has been abused for much of their life, someone who is constantly scared and worried. Believing a comfortable lie may give someone like this some sort of comfort, at least something to build on. Whereas one more uncomfortable turth may very well push them over the edge and cause them to go insane, perhaps even hurting themselves or others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5982 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Phat writes: This is my positive truth claim which puts me squarely in the fundamental camp and by default trumps my critical thinking open mindedness. Having a belief doesn't have to put anyone squarely anywhere. Spinning off of Ringo's excellent post, there are limits to what we know about Jesus historically, but this does not mean there are limits to what we can or will know. A critical thinker will be open to new information if and when it appears. You might say that we have to choose to believe either positively or negatively in Jesus after the 'fact' and indeed, if we had more facts, there may be no question of 'belief'. The pertinent question for the thread, IMO, is whether it is beneficial to stay in a perpetual state of agnosticism. My answer; not exactly. It is good to continually weigh ideas and points of view, but without any beliefs we can't learn much. A scientist has to critically analyze info to formulate an hypothesis. An hypothesis is essentially a belief from which to 'test' and without it new information can not be obtained. An archeologist has to have a belief that he will be digging in the right area, which comes from a critical analysis of evidence for an ancient site's location. But these are never dead ends. The process must go on. If the archeaologist insists he is in the right place, that 'faith' can be rewarding. If he finds nothing, he has added to the body of evidence for another location, but if he finds artifacts, he must STILL be critical enough to do the actual analysis of those. The thinking part must continue A belief in Jesus is a beginning...it is not particularly useful to be forever uncertain about where to dig. But critical thinking will give you the ability to 'give up' if there is nothing for you there, or to find awesome amounts of 'evidence'. It will tell you to continue to analyze the evidence, to check for 'windmills'. A prime example of negative fundamentalist thinking versus critical thinking; prophecy. Revelations can be interesting, there is no harm in starting with an hypothesis and looking for evidence. But your hypothesis can not be turned into 'truth' which should be acted upon. People entirely forget that their are MANY possible 'truths' in revelations, they entirely forget that the bible says 'no one knows the hour or the minute' or the many parables in which Jesus tells us to be prepared for an unexpected return of the master or bridegroom. They forget that for the most part, revelations is a part of apocrypha, that it is only a vision given to John, not a way of life. Edited by anastasia, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Ringo writes: You've bought into the false dichotomy. Believing and thinking are not mutually exclusive. There is a limit to what we "know", about the origin of the universe, for example. There is a limit beyond which we can not "think". Everybody has a belief about what is beyond that limit. Really? What's mine? Everybody?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluegenes writes: Everybody has a belief about what is beyond that limit. Really? What's mine? You haven't told us. You're just expecting us to accept on faith that you don't have any blind beliefs. You're thinking like a fundamentalist about fundamentalists. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5982 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: Really? What's mine? Everybody? At a minimum, you might believe that what is beyond death is unknowable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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. The problem is that a large number of people won't even consider that possibility. They will claim tolerance of homosexuality without ever renouncing the homosexuality taboo. Of course this is all my anecdotal opinion before you start demanding statistics.
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. Yea, and the answer after thinking critically about the problem is the root taboo of homosexuality stemming from an ancient book of myth is causing a lot of grief for innocent people in modern society. Who are you to decide there can be no such thing as a 'critical answer'?
Jazzns writes:
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. My point which you ENTIRELY evaded is that no one is going to question me for being critical of a belief in fairies. But people will call me intolerant if I portray the same criticism to apocalyptic doctrine. Compare these two: "I think your belief in fairies is unfounded and is a mere delusion rooted in fantasy.""I think your belief in the second coming is unfounded and is a mere delusion rooted in fantasy." Which one is more or less appropriate at the dinner table? You may say neither. I think that the first one is entirely more acceptable in the current climate.
I don't understand at all. But seriously, society say that self-criticism is taboo? Now you sound like a fundy. Ahh, so now the ad-hom begins? How did I get you so riled up? I don't know how many times in the course of my religious education I was told to, "just have faith" when a question of applying religion to practical matters of life. Of course it is taboo to self-criticize! That is how religions work! At least that is how it is for the Abrahamic faiths. If in church they actually TAUGHT people to be self-critical of their religious beliefs then IMO the pews would slowly but surely empty. But that is no worry because the messages being delivered are all the equivalent of spiritual masturbation. Now before you ask again, no I don't have any statistics but then again I am not the one making the positive claim that people are self-critical because their religion tells them too. Someone else made that claim....who could it be...hmm??
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? Are you trying to claim that atheists don't self-criticize their lack of belief? Either way, it is totally beside the point. Atheists don't have preachers on projection screens telling them not to question their atheism.
Of course not, but you can't just make bare assertions from an unrealistic bias against religion. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. Your point makes no sense.
It is very possible to think critically AND have a religion. Yes of course. I even gave an example of that in my last post. You must not have read it and decided to reply anyway. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I think that it can be for everyone, and should be promoted and encouraged much more than it is. Currently, the opposite seems to be encouraged in most of the world. Like I said, the world would be a MUCH better place if we had MORE rational thought, not LESS.
quote: Perhaps. On the other hand, how many religious people who were perfectly sane have perpetrated acts that have hurt others and themselves? Now include the crazy religious people. I really don't think we need to worry much about people going crazy from a lack of religion and an excess of rationality. I am much more concerned with the sane religious people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
You haven't told us. You're just expecting us to accept on faith that you don't have any blind beliefs.You're thinking like a fundamentalist about fundamentalists. I've no belief about how this universe came into existence. "Everybody has beliefs" statements are common amongst religious people. For all I know, the universe may have been created by seven Goddesses because they were bored in whatever might be the equivalent of a rainy Sunday afternoon in eternity, and they wanted to see what happened in black holes. The possibilities are infinite. Do you have an objection to honesty?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024