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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 91 of 159 (386665)
02-22-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
02-22-2007 11:51 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 02-22-2007 11:51 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 92 of 159 (386707)
02-23-2007 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by purpledawn
02-22-2007 4:14 PM


Re: Follow Blindly
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by purpledawn, posted 02-22-2007 4:14 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 02-23-2007 4:29 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 02-23-2007 10:36 AM bluegenes has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 93 of 159 (386708)
02-23-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jon
02-22-2007 5:44 PM


Cultural Influence on Critical Thinking
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jon, posted 02-22-2007 5:44 PM Jon has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 94 of 159 (386712)
02-23-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by bluegenes
02-23-2007 3:13 AM


Re: Follow Blindly
quote:
Observation of religious people, and their blatently obvious capacity to lie to thenselves.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by bluegenes, posted 02-23-2007 3:13 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by bluegenes, posted 02-23-2007 8:21 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 95 of 159 (386721)
02-23-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by purpledawn
02-23-2007 4:29 AM


Re: Follow Blindly
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by purpledawn, posted 02-23-2007 4:29 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 96 of 159 (386725)
02-23-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by riVeRraT
02-22-2007 9:34 AM


The positive truth claim
RR writes:
What do you think deep down in your heart nator?
Things happen for no reason?
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.
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.
  • I believe in Jesus Christ, that He is alive today.
    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.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 02-22-2007 9:34 AM riVeRraT has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by anastasia, posted 02-23-2007 12:41 PM Phat has replied
     Message 107 by purpledawn, posted 02-24-2007 8:32 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 111 by jar, posted 02-24-2007 1:56 PM Phat has not replied

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


    Message 97 of 159 (386734)
    02-23-2007 10:36 AM
    Reply to: Message 92 by bluegenes
    02-23-2007 3:13 AM


    Re: Follow Blindly
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 92 by bluegenes, posted 02-23-2007 3:13 AM bluegenes has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by bluegenes, posted 02-23-2007 2:43 PM ringo has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 98 of 159 (386747)
    02-23-2007 11:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 66 by nator
    02-22-2007 9:14 AM


    Was this a rhetorical question?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 66 by nator, posted 02-22-2007 9:14 AM nator has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by nator, posted 02-23-2007 8:30 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 99 of 159 (386753)
    02-23-2007 12:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 96 by Phat
    02-23-2007 10:06 AM


    Re: The positive truth claim
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by Phat, posted 02-23-2007 10:06 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by Phat, posted 02-24-2007 8:28 AM anastasia has replied

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


    Message 100 of 159 (386771)
    02-23-2007 2:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
    02-23-2007 10:36 AM


    Re: Follow Blindly
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by ringo, posted 02-23-2007 10:36 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 101 by ringo, posted 02-23-2007 3:19 PM bluegenes has replied
     Message 102 by anastasia, posted 02-23-2007 6:27 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


    Message 101 of 159 (386776)
    02-23-2007 3:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by bluegenes
    02-23-2007 2:43 PM


    Re: Follow Blindly
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by bluegenes, posted 02-23-2007 2:43 PM bluegenes has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 02-24-2007 6:43 AM ringo has replied

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


    Message 102 of 159 (386805)
    02-23-2007 6:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by bluegenes
    02-23-2007 2:43 PM


    Re: Follow Blindly
    bluegenes writes:
    Really? What's mine? Everybody?
    At a minimum, you might believe that what is beyond death is unknowable.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by bluegenes, posted 02-23-2007 2:43 PM bluegenes has not replied

      
    Jazzns
    Member (Idle past 3912 days)
    Posts: 2657
    From: A Better America
    Joined: 07-23-2004


    Message 103 of 159 (386815)
    02-23-2007 8:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by anastasia
    02-21-2007 11:07 PM


    Re: Needs of the People
    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)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by anastasia, posted 02-21-2007 11:07 PM anastasia has not replied

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


    Message 104 of 159 (386819)
    02-23-2007 8:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by Stile
    02-23-2007 11:22 AM


    Re: Was this a rhetorical question?
    quote:
    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?
    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:
    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.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by Stile, posted 02-23-2007 11:22 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 105 of 159 (386851)
    02-24-2007 6:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 101 by ringo
    02-23-2007 3:19 PM


    Re: Follow Blindly
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by ringo, posted 02-23-2007 3:19 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 108 by ringo, posted 02-24-2007 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