Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

Good work, I will only add that not all religious people can be classified as 'strong' theists either. Many who claim theism do little or nothing in their lives that shows that they really believe. I have been going for some cross-analogies all along, yes. Again, a pre-arranged marriage doesn't have to be a failure.

We are always at the mercy of random and uncontrollable events! And, most religions tell us that what we make of our lives is up to us, not in part, but in entirity. What's the difference? Bad/good shit always happens, and we have to deal with it whether we think there is a 'plan' or not. Seriously, if my car dies on a lonely stretch of raod, do you think I am going to blame the devil, or console myself that this is part of God's plan? Even if I did, so what? I still have to get out and find a phone and a tow truck. I am not sure how much more 'real' I can act in that situation. You need to prove that something is a lie, of course.. and then, you need to prove that the 'lie' is comfortable. Do you think life would not be a tiny bit more comfortable for me if I believed that I didn't have to fast, or go to church, or explain my beliefs to others?

But this is so generalized. There are many many shades of belief which deal with the degree to which God is 'in control'. Some beliefs are like a soft determinism, where God could create and then step back, others will say that God planned every little occasion. But you have changed the goal. Originally the question had to do with 'what we make of our lives' and now it is 'how we should live'. Not that I am being obstinately argumentative, but there is a huge difference in how people field those two questions, just as there is a huge difference in how people think God wants them to live, and the degree of control they have over the course of their life. Consider the caste system. Followers of Hinduism may find a big difference in 'what control do we have over our lives' and how should I live my life'. I get the gist, but it is wrong to assume that people only seek medical help if they are atheist, or that no non-religious person has ever been neglectful. Likewise, there are many, many people who destroy nature for personal motive, and many, many religious people who strive to preserve nature as part of their religion or God's creation. Is pantheism wrong? You seem to lump all religions under the category of 'christianity' and complain about only the fringe radicals. The truth is, you will find people of every stripe and every thought process, both in and out of relgion. Too too general. Not all religious people think this, at all. And, you still need to prove that something is a lie before you can say anyone is believing a lie. That is reality. How do you know anyone is 'comfortable' contemplating life after death? How do I know you are not comfortable with the idea that there is no life after death? Isn't part of our belief system finding what we are comfortable with, and can't any belief system have areas whish are uncomfortable? If atheism is a good fit for you, I would imagine it is comfortable. I don't see much of any critical thinking in the way that you over-generalize, paint balck and white pictures of
'reality', and believe what people have 'told you' about their religion. Does it ever cross your mind to find out what people 'mean' when they tell you about their religion? If someone tells you life is part of God's plan, there are so many ways they could mean that, and so many ways they could act on it. You might be surprised to find out that you agree.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

What does that mean? How can we even know which beliefs are correct? They can only make sense to us, and beliefs, under all the pomp of religious ritual and individual gods, are all pretty simple philosophies. 'Correct' is, correct for you. That is not to say that I have ruled out the idea of any one belief having more of the answers, or all of the answers, but that only proves that the belief is 'right' for me.How do you rate your belief? Does it provide you with the answers to your questions?

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 continueA 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

At a minimum, you might believe that what is beyond death is unknowable.

Depends how you look at it...and I don't know that Marx meant what he said in the way that you or I could say it.To say religion is a man made concept seems critical, but it is 100% belief. There is the possibility that all religions have man-made concepts, that one religion is completely inspired, or that all religions are completely inspired by God to fill the people's need. To be critical, you need not deny the possibility of anything being true, but only to be aware of the other possibilities.When it comes to the trappings of religion, the rites and rituals, the rubrics, prayers, costumes, festivals and traditions, it is safe to say that most of that is man-made. That does not and should not detract from or change the possible validity of the religion.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

It is strange that fundementalism nowadays is not attached to critical thinking;The fundementals of Christian life and belief are not very 'basic' at all. They are the result of centuries of critical thinking. Even the claim sole scriptura is not entirely true...without the same critical thinking and the carry-over of that tradtional view, you would expect religion based on the Bible alone to be extremely diverse. So the first fundamentalists did not think critically about most of the pre-set doctrines taken from scripture, or set forth by Calvin. Not that they have to, they beleived them...but Biblical inerrancy bears some critical thinking. The Bible well could be innerrant, but what does that mean? What part is important? Since we can interpret scritpure 500 ways, it must be obvious to anyone the least bit critical, that circular reasoning is hopeless.You can not for example take your interpretation of scripture, and assume it must be true, because 'its in the Bible'. That is often what happens, and while it is not so bad, it is definitely not a critical awareness of your own fallibility. I think that is the main area which fundementalists could improve in; forcing their interpretation on others because 'the Bible says its right'.

You always move the goal posts! Saying words that sound similar and hoping no one realizes, is not gonna work with me. 'Religion is a man-made concept', and;'Humans create religions',Are two different statements.Proof that humans have created SOME religions is not proof that we have created ALL religions.Proof that we have created ALL religions is likewise not proof that we have created the concept of 'religion'.I do agree that all religions have some created elements, but without proof against God, and a god who wants us to find him, I can not know that we have created the concept of religion.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Test them against reality. Sound familiar? Even then, you can't tell for sure, but you can definitely get some eliminations. Funny, you changed your mind a little, I may change mine. I suppose I would say that if men did not create math, we still had to create a process to make it useful.The way I see things, a real religion will be a real morality. (hee hee) Both of these things, which might exist, are not known to us automatically, so I imagine that all religions and all moralities are man-made attempts to make something intangible, into something useful.There would be an acception; if a god showed us a morality and a religion, it would not be our creation. Many religions believe a god DID show it to someone. So we are back where we started.All I can say, is, did humans create the 'concept' of math?Concept;A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See synonyms at idea.A scheme; a plan:It seems we might have. Then again, if one religion were true, and inspired by God, it might not classify as a concept? As concepts are formed in the mind, something which exists outside of our mind might not be a concept, although we can and must 'conceptualize' it. For instance, dogs exist outside of our mind, but we can not express 'dog' without a concept. So, we can not express God without concepts.

It does not have to be complicated, or even point to God. If you think back to the origins of morality discussions, even if a morality is evolved, and part of natural 'rediscovered' human behaviour, it is not simply/only a creation of man.This is not supposed to be a morality topic, but that is just an illustration.Obviously we have choices, and our choices and structures can sometimes blind us. If we find a thing that works, it is in some part probably true...even if it is only a survival instinct.In other words, it is useful. A useful religion will have a logical answer to the obvious mysteries of life...God in a sense is a logical premise, but even if He was not, and if we granted that one illogic, the rest of the belief could be useful.It is true that many things in religion cease to be logical answers to anything. Science can explain some of the 'mysteries'. But a 'real' religion is no more than a philosophy and a way of life that 'works'. It is selected for, it sticks around, because people have found it useful. Even if science had all the answers, we would most likely still have need of a philosophy for living.

Yes, sure. Someone may find dancing 15 minutes in a hula-hoop and then shucking 15 ears of corn while smoking a cigar 'useful'. Maybe they think it brings good luck, maybe they can convince a few other people of the same. But how 'real' is it?We must depend on the criticism of others to validate our own reality. This is what people are often afraid of; living without the crutches they have built. Take away the crutches, you might find you don't need them, or you might find you were never using them at all. In other words, your ideas might stand on their own.

A good philosophy for living is 'real' in the sense that a good diet could be.It brings results,
it's sensible,
safe for the long-term,
flexible, well-rounded,
neither too lax, nor so strict that a person 'gives up',
it fits into your life-style and can be followed without the necessity of closeting oneself in a 'diet community'. Either way, there is no critical thinking.

I am not sure how a Being of Infinite Power's allowing us to do things proves that all religion is a man-made concept. I'll move on. No, I am arguing that critical thinking involves awareness of all possibilities, known or unknown. 'Choice' to worship by no means equals 'man-made'. If the concept of worshiping a higher being is man-made, the opposite would be that the concept of worshiping a higher power is God-made. After all, you did not create the choices that you have. You can worship, or not worship. By choosing not to worship, you did not create the concept of choice, and can not effect whether God exists. You can not 'uncreate' Him, anymore than a worshiper could 'create' Him.'Seek and ye shall find' does not mean 'seek and ye shall create' nor does it mean that in way you have created the concept of seeking or the object to be found.Any of the above could be true but it is not proven that they are true. It doesn't matter if something can be shown to be right...the topic is critical thinking, and that involves looking at the possibilities.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

A physically empirical sense, surely. But if there IS a woo-woo reality, it can only be detected by a woo-woo sense, which is likewise unmeasurable. That means, as you know, that there can be empirical evidence for the spritual, but only through an un-proven assumption that humans can detect the spiritual.