Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

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.

I think that it is necessary to at least acknowledge even extreme Catesian skepticism. We must acknowledge the limits of epistemology to be fully honest. At the same time we should not abandon all beliefs, the question is which ones are worth keeping, and why. Clearly our belief in the external world as we percieve it (allowing for known errors) is somethign that we must at least pragmatically accept. But much beyond that is - and should be - open to question.With regard to the existence of Jesus I have to say that I see no reason to believe that the gospels are complete fictions and that there was no historical person behind them. At the same time we must acknowledge that the Gospels are second-hand accounts (maybe excepting the majority of John), certainly partisan in being Christian documents and quite probably partisan even within the Christian movement. If we applied the ordinary standards of rational inquiry to them we should be sure that the Gospels contain many inaccuracies. They are as much - or more - about the Jesus the writers wanted to believe in as they are about any historical person.Does this disturb you ? Maybe it should. But it is a fact that needs to be recognised - especially by believers.

Being asked to think critically by your religion is a million miles away from thinking critically about your religion.

No.That is what some religions tell us How is taking charge of ones mind a conundrum? I teach people to do it every day.

quote:

---

What people need is their basic needs met, and a good moral code. Religion is not needed for either of these things.

---

What do you deem as the basic needs?If we look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs we see there are various levels of need.I assume by basic you mean the physiological needs of breathing, food, water, sex, homeostasis, excretion; but since you mentioned good moral code, that moves up to safety needs.If we continue up the pyramid we see the need for love and belonging. Do you consider love and belonging to be basic needs?Not everyone has a bad experience with religion. Religion does provide some basic needs for some people. Religion can fill the need for belonging. Remember, all religions don't necessarily function like Chritianity.By saying that Religion is not needed by anyone for any basic needs is just as bad as a religious person saying that their brand of religion is needed by everyone.I don't see that being raised with religion is being taught that one needs religion. This obviously varies with religion, church, parrish, preacher, priest, family, etc. It becomes a part of one's life, just like the town or school one grows up with. For some it becomes their main social avenue.Let's say the main social avenue for someone is a local skating rink or bowling alley. That's where the families get together and socialize. Even someone new to the town looks for the places where the people socialize to get to know and become a part of the town.Now someone outside the town decides that the local bowling alley isn't needed for basic physiological needs since they've never needed one and decides to tear it down. How hard will those people fight to keep their space? If they lose the fight, that loss will leave a big hole in those whose lives it was a part of.Yes they will probably find or create another avenue for socializing, but it will take time for the comfort level to return.Just as I have a problem with people "selling" religion, I also have a problem with those who wish to rip it out from under someone who is happy in their religion.It doesn't have to be all or nothing in either direction.This discussion concerns fundamentalism versus critical thinking, not whether religion is right or wrong, needed or not needed.Just as the town bowling alley fulfills a social need for the towns people, Phat has stated that their beliefs provide a bedrock an anchor. Their beliefs would probably fulfill the human need for safety, love, belonging, esteem, etc.So just as the town would fight to retain their bowling alley, the fundamentalist fight for their beliefs. Depends on how deep the roots are.Now critical thinking may help when it comes to food, water, and shelter; but how much critical thinking is needed for love and belonging, or some of the safety needs?Does skepticism or critical thinking really fill all our needs beyond physiological?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

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.

Maybe, but critical thinking does not allow anyone to reach a definite conclusion....which is the linchpin of Belief.

But that is where you are wrong. Critical thinking can lead to conclusions, only the conclusions are held tentatively, always acknowledging that some NEW information may become know which will require you to change those conclusions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, right.We can only wait for Phat to come back and enlighten us all as to what he meant by "unchecked skepticism".

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.

quote:

---

I don't know Schraf. If Phat and others feel comforted with a belief in an afterlife, a God, etc. then it seems a bit presumptuous to claim that "they don't really need it".

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something controversial.The comfort that people get from religion is often a crutch that keeps them from giving themselves credit for their own strength and allows them to make excuses so that they may avoid dealing with reality."Not dealing with reality" is what we can easily get from religious people, like the President. He has no problem ignoring reality, and that has some very serious consequences for the entire world.

quote:

---

It just seems troublesome and difficult to tell people what they do or do not need in terms of emotional and/or spiritual support.

---

I know what you mean, but it is still my opinion.Look at it this way. When we are little children, we look to our parents when we are frightened or upset or otherwise troubled. We expect them to meet our needs, to protect us, to teach us.As we become older, we are expected to become more and more independent. It would be strange, would it not, to see a 22 year old man run crying to his mother when he stubbed his toe, wouldn't it?To me, religion is like adults inventing invisible surrogate parents to cry to when bad things happen. It is sort of like an arrested development.That's not to say that we can't have adult relationsips with other people that are sources of comfort and wisdom, etc. but all of this stuff about "giving over all control of my life to God" and all of that is just not something that seems healthy for adults to do.

quote:

---

But if people rely on an organized or "disorganized" religion for a "good moral code" then who are we to tell them "religion is not needed for...these things"?

---

Sometimes, though, the other stuff that one must believe along with the moral code is nonsensical and irrelevant to morality.

quote:

---

Please don't get the wrong idea, Schraf, I far too often agree with your posts; including this one, to a certain extent.

---

Oh, goodness, one cannot agree with my posts far too often! Edited by nator, : No reason given.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

What happens though if everyone who goes to the bowling alley starts believing something silly that has practical repricussions such as only bowlers get to have children. Do we still protect them from skepticism because their affiliation with bowling brings them comfort even though they continually and more sucessfully over time lobby to outlaw breeding by non-bowlers?That I think is a better question than if religion is compatable with critical thinking. I could not care ANY LESS about a group of people who have some rational or irrational association with eachother to fill their basic need for belonging. It is ONLY when that belief spills out into society and has practical implications that such belief SHOULD NOT be immune to criticism and rational thought.I have absolutly NO regard for Pat Robertson's sense of belonging when he derives practical dogma that if effective would take away my freedom. His fundamentalism is therefore fair game for rational criticism regardless of how fulfilled the bowling league....i mean.... 700 club is.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

That is an analogy many religious groups use, but one I tend to have a problem with because human parents raise their children to be independent at adulthood and use analysis, judgment, and evaluation skills to survive. We don't raise them to depend on us because we know that parents barring accidents or illness will die before their children. When the parent dies (depending on age of course) the adult child should not lose a part of themselves if the relationship was healthy.When clergy put God in the parental position, but try to say people should not strive to be independent of God; they create a problem. It goes against the natural order. It is the same with a parent who doesn't want to let their child become independent. It is unhealthy. IMO, that scenerio clashes with critical thinking and is a source of strife for many. Again, groups vary.Instead with God as the source of life, or that which sustains us we don't really conflict with critical thinking. The clergy or family then functions as teachers of spirituality, behavior, etc. and should not have a problem when some people feel they don't need the religion or have outgrown the clergy. There should be nothing wrong with questioning the teachings or leaving the nest.Just as a parent should not feel rejected because their child grows up and learns to live independent of them, so the church should not feel rejected. Everyone has different needs.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz