Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

quote:

---

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.

---

Never had that happen in all my days of bowling. The bowling alley is a social arena.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which is why I said: I think people have difficulty using critical thinking in relation to their own actions, beliefs, etc. It is easier to anaylse someone elses action than your own.Do those who feel the need to press their beliefs (lifestyle) onto others, whether religious or not, objectively analyse the possible outcome of their actions.Is anyone truly capable of that type of critical thinking about themselves?Do many still feel the tribal need for everyone to be the same?

---

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

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.

quote:

---

I think people have difficulty using critical thinking in relation to their own actions, beliefs, etc. It is easier to anaylse someone elses action than your own.

---

That is very true, especially if those people currently or used to regularly and easily believe things without any evidence or in the face of contrary evidence, such as is done in religions, certain political and social codes, etc..Critical thinking skills take practice, study, and knowledge and understanding of all the different flavors of self-delusion we humans are prone to.Most people don't practice them, or even know about them.Like Feynman said and I've included in my sig:"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool."

quote:

---

Is anyone truly capable of that type of critical thinking about themselves?

---

I'd say yes, although there is a rather steep gradient.

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.

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

Impossible. Blind faith leads to religion. Thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion. Faith is an excuse for not thinking, and undergoing a process of self-delusion should not be confused with "critical thinking".Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

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 don't make the distinction. People who hold irrational religious beliefs are part of society too aren't they?The only reason they are not critical of their own belief is because we have this notion that it is taboo to criticize things of faith in general. Self-criticism is just as important.

I cannot prove that fairies do not exist, or that Zeus does not exist, or that dragons do not exist, or that your God does not exist. But actively and positively believing in any of those things requires self-deception (whether you are "satisfied with the claim" or not). Theoretically, all of them might possibly exist, along with an infinite number of other magical entities that we could dream up.I used to know someone who believed in elves, and I can assure you that she had not arrived at the belief through a process of critical thought, but through the same kind of mental processes that lead people to religion.I repeat, critical thought does not lead anyone towards religion.

quote:

---

Impossible. Blind faith leads to religion. Thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion. Faith is an excuse for not thinking, and undergoing a process of self-delusion should not be confused with "critical thinking".

---

Following anyone blindly is not good.Using critical thinking, what evidence leads you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion?Remember there are many religions and levels of belief.I don't know about fundamentalism, but IMO people can choose to follow a religion after careful analysis and evaluation just as they can choose to leave a religion after careful analylsis and evaluation.Again it depends on the specific needs of the person.

---

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

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.

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.

I fear being so open to change that I become wishy washy or indecisive in my beliefs. Some things were and are easier to accept than are others. The idea that there was no literal global flood and that there in all likelihood was never an Ark full of animals is quite easy for me to dismiss. It has no bearing on my faith nor on my beliefs...a literal Bible, although embraced by many denominations, is unnecessary within my personal belief...to a point. When people start saying that there is scant evidence for Jesus Christ, my feathers do become ruffled and my defenses go up. I begin to pull Bible quotes out of the air in an attempt to defend God, His Son, and the Bible in general...(as if they even needed defending! )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)This is an example of how I let fundamental beliefs get in the way of my critical thinking.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. I would never go so far as to deny my beliefs because some scholars came up with a new theory of the fallibility of the Gospels, for example. I trust my beliefs more than I trust the ever changing human wisdom (and subconscious intentions) of scholars.Does that put me squarely in the Fundie Camp?