Christians, Conspiracy Theories, and Critical Thinking

[Stephen3141]

For the sake of clarity,
(c) Stephen Wuest February 8th, 2025

I think that American Christians are in serious need of discussing ...

1 the place of the INTELLECT in the Christian faith

2 what a CONSPIRACY THEORY IS, and how it fails to pass rigorous tests
that (possibly) could establish it as a fact

3 "Critical thinking": this is a phrase that is thrown around, especially by
educators, who are trying to sell the worth of magnet schools or a superior
curriculum in K12 education.


Although (I assert) (1) cannot be removed from historical Christianity, without
damaging basic concepts in Christianity, there are Christian groups in America who
are (functionally) anti-intellectual, while still claiming to be rational and reasonable.
This makes dealing with anti-intellectual versions of Christianity, more difficult.
Because, one has to get below the surface rhetoric of a group, and deal with what
they MEAN by that rhetoric.

(2) is important, because the SAME METHODOLOGY that assigns causality to some
insidious group (for some observed outcome), is the methodology of Christians
who cannot coherently describe the ALGORITHM/METHODOLOGY that a Christian
needs to follow, to test their personal opinions, and establish them as FACTS.
For this reason, I lump the belief in conspiracy theories in the same category as
the INABILITY to evaluate a proposition, to see if it is true. (From the standpoint of
formal logic, the dysfunction of identifying LOGICAL CAUSALITY is the underlying
problem.)

(3) "Critical thinking" is a phrase that is thrown around today, yet it hardly appears in
formal logic textbooks on logic in the 20th century (and, I have read about 2 dozen
of them).

"As it turns out, formal logic is not only concerned with the process of thinking about our shared reality. It has to be concerned with what our shared reality is. This is the topic of so many of the early Christian apologists (including the Apostle Paul).

(Note that the modern phrase, critical thinking, is seen as a larger subject than the modern concept of logic. Critical thinking is concerned with what modern logic would consider the Assumptions section of a proof, and is concerned with demonstrating the truth of what is in that Assumptions section. [Critical Thinking, 12]. What critical thinking tries to add back into the logical process, I am adding through the use of a Christian worldview.)

Our shared reality is important, because every proof in formal logic starts with a section of Assumptions, which includes axioms, basic definitions, and rules assumed to be true. These are the basic “inputs” to a logical proof. And these assumptions must match what we know about our shared reality. Else, the resulting proof will be a proof about some other reality, and not the reality that we all live in." [Christian Logic, Wuest, 2024, xiii]

[Critical Thinking] Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Second Edition, Merrilee H. Salmon, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1989

That is, "critical thinking" historically, deals with evaluating the propositions and rules in the
Assumptions part of a proof. If any of these assumptions does not match our shared reality, then
the proof/argument becomes LOGICALLY UNSOUND. This is the historic meaning of "critical
thinking", and this is how I will use the phrase.
---------- ----------

These goals are deeply Christian, as one of the big 10 Christian moral-ethical commands is
"You shall not bear false witness". And that means not misrepresenting our shared reality.
This is what anchors these goals, in core Christian doctrines.

I welcome comments, on these topics.
But, my emphasis will be on the methodologies of valid and sound reasoning, and not
on arm wrestling about some specific proposition.

 

[timf]

Distance from God (truth) makes one vulnerable to deception.
Discernment is something that has to be exercised (Heb 5:14)
Immature Christians are vulnerable to wherever their passions lead them (1Cor 3:1-4)
Public education fosters unidirectional transmission of information this in turn retards the development of critical thinking as nothing is questioned.

To be roused from the comfortable slumber Satan has designed, one has to be dissatisfied with immaturity and willing to strive to grow in truth, wisdom, and understanding. One has to question and seek to understand. These are not skills often developed much less used.

 

[Stephen3141]

Note that I have posted 5 rounds of challenge questions, for Artificial
Intelligence tools (or Christian high school students), to test their
reasoning abilities (in the thread “About Moral-Ethical Models,
Christian Morals, and Artificial Intelligence”).


These are challenge questions that deal with philosophical primitives,
and formal reasoning methodologies. You should try them out on your
favorite AI tool, or on your Christian high school son or daughter. If the
tool (or the kid) CANNOT figure out the purpose of the question, then
I ASSERT that it/they cannot competently do complex human problem
solving. (Note that I started to post expected answers, for the different
rounds of questions.)

 

[Stephen3141]

I take point (1) in the first post, as a basic part of core Christian doctrine.
For that reason, I will not take much time, trying to defend it.
Trying to DENY that the intellect is a core part of being a human being,
leads to disastrous theologies, and a widespread abuse of the language
in the Old and New Testaments.

My position on the intellect and Christianity, is basically laid out in...


"This core language of Paul, and how he sorts our “mind” (consciousness, choosing ability, loyalties, loves, priorities, logic, evaluation, etc.), has huge ramifications on how Christians should view “the mind.” Unfortunately, many Christians remain very anti- intellectual, and do not see training the mind, as having any part of spiritual growth.

This anti-intellectual approach to spiritual growth wages war against the basic reality that the divine Word/Logos/Reason of God became flesh, lived among us, and revealed God to us.

It is true that Christian mysticism is experiencing the presence of God, in some way. But Christian mysticism is not antithetical to using sound logic to reason about all sorts of topics (including, Christian mysticism). When we affirm the goodness of sound thinking, we are not somehow negating the ability to experience God. We need both.

The wisdom literature in the Old Testament presents a very clear picture of knowledge and wisdom, and how one may gain them. One needs to start while young, put great effort into the search, and embrace the moral/ethical law of God.

16 Why should a fool have a price in his hand to buy wisdom, when he has no mind? (Pro 17:16 RSV)

The “fool” in the wisdom literature is someone who does not have a redeemed (and functional) mind. He is also a moral/ethical fool, because he does not accept the basic truths that God exists, God’s moral/ethical law is true, and God is the judge of all.

Being foolish or wise, in a Christian definition, includes the moral/ethical realm, as well as training of the mind. (Paul recognizes that elders who rule well and especially those who labor in preaching and teaching, should be shown double honor.)

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; (1Ti 5:17 RSV)
Getting renewed in our mind, includes being freed from the slavery of sin. But it also includes using a developing mind to search for knowledge and wisdom." [Christian Logic, 72-73]

 

[Stephen3141]

(Note that "conspiracy theory" seems to be used by journalists, to indicate
stories that are made up, regarding the motives of certain people or agencies.
These stories are not necessarily what we would call, historically, "conspiracy
theories", but are just unfounded assertions about motives.)

For example...

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5290282/politico-subscriptions-usaid-x-musk-trump

)

 

[Stephen3141]

(The key quote in the article, above, is...

"President Trump nonetheless leveled unfounded accusations about the media via Truth Social on Thursday morning: "LOOKS LIKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLLEN (sic) AT USAID, AND OTHER AGENCIES," he wrote, "MUCH OF IT GOING TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA AS A 'PAYOFF' FOR CREATING GOOD STORIES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS." "

)

 

[Stephen3141]

Now for what I assert, ought to be the expected answers to Round 5 of the
AI tool (or AP high school student) Challenge Questions...
---------- ----------

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHALLENGE QUESTION AREA

(And for clearness, in future discussions...,)


(c) Stephen Wuest, February 3rd, 2025

These questions deal with thought experiments, that an AI
tool probably WILL NEVER HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN
MACHINE LEARNING DATA.

If an AI tool cannot handle THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS,
Then it cannot be said to be capable of doing complex human problem
solving.

Round #5
————— —————

QUESTION #41

“Evaluate the following situation:

A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.
What can you now assert about the stones in the jar?”

Expected answer:

1 We don’t know how many stones the jar can hold

2 We don’t know how many stones are in the jar

3 We don’t know if there are ANY white stones in the jar,
OR (logical-OR) there are ANY black stones in the jar.

4 We don’t have a precise definition of what “white” or “black"
means, other than that they should be visually differentiable.

5 Conclusion: the jar has one less stone in it, than it did
before I picked out the black stone.

————— —————
QUESTION #41b

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

What can you now assert about the stones in the jar?”

Expected answer:

We still don’t know what we didn’t know, in QUESTION
#41, above, except that

1 Conclusion: the jar has two less stones in it, than it did
before I picked out the 2 stones.

————— —————
QUESTION #42

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

I randomly pick another stone from the jar, and it is red.

What can you now assert about the situation?”

Expected answer:

*** A red flag ought to go up in the reasoning process,
because “red” stones were not supposed to be allowed in
the jar.

1 This raises the question of WHEN BELIEF REVISION is
necessary, in the initial assertions of an argument.

2 This raises the question of WHETHER OR NOT OUR BASIC
CATEGORIES (black, white) are correct, and should be
examined.

3 We can still say that the jar has 3 less stones in it, than
it did, when we started.

————— —————
QUESTION #43

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

What can you assert about the size of the jar?”

Expected answer:

This is a wide open question about the physical constraints
that apply to the definition of “jar”, and “stone”.

I am curious as to how an AI tool would respond, or an AP
high school student.

————— —————
QUESTION #44

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

What constraints would you put on the definition of
“black” and “white”?

Expected answer:

1 “Black” and “white” are human descriptions. So…
I expect these descriptions to be recognizable by human
beings.

2 I would not expect precise definitions of black or white from
the hard sciences, to be applied to the thought experiment.

————— —————
QUESTION #45

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

Tucker Carlson claims that the the next stone picked randomly
From the jar, has a 50-50% chance of being white.

How would you evaluate this assertion?”

Expected answer:

1 The jar may be now empty. So, it is possible that the probability
of the next stone being white, is 0%. This is unaffected, by the
the opinion of Tucker Carlson, or anyone else.

————— —————
QUESTION #46

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

If the jar had been in the Palisades neighborhood, in the recent
L.A. fires, would it have survived the fire?”

Expected answer:

This is a test of whether the reasoning method has any idea about
what characteristics or situations COULD HAVE affected the outcome.

1 The jar, and stones, probably would have survived the heat of the
fire.

2 The jar could have been crushed by falling trees, or falling
rubble from houses.

3 This is probably a question that cannot be accurately answered
with speculations, or “explanations”.

————— —————
QUESTION #47

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

If the next stone is picked randomly out of the jar by a
jarhead, what is the probability that the stone will be black?”

Expected answer:

1 This is a test of the algorithm/mind to understand human
language. Whether or not a jarhead is doing the picking
of the stones, makes no difference in the outcome of the
experiment.
————— —————

QUESTION #48

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is white.

A crowd is watching the experiment.

Someone in the crowd yells, “That stone is not black!”

How would you evaluate the assertion behind the guy who is
yelling?”

Expected answer:

1 What someone in the crowd yells, has nothing to do with
whether the stone is black, or white. Color is a characteristic
of the stone, and is not determined by crowd yelling.

————— —————
QUESTION #49

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

The experiment includes jar-penetrating sensors, that can
differentiate between black and white stones.

I pick another stone randomly from the jar.

What do you think that color of the stone will be?”

Expected answer:

1 Whether or not there are are jar-penetrating sensors…
has nothing to do with the RANDOM nature of the picking
of the stones. The outcome of the experiment will not be
changed.

————— —————

QUESTION #50

“A jar holds black OR white stones.

I randomly pick a stone from the jar, and it is black.

Air tankers have been flying overhead, dropping their
loads of water on the experiment.

Could the air tankers, bias the probability of the color of the
next stone randomly picked from the jar?”

Expected answer:

This is a test of whether or not the AI tool (or high school student)
is able to creatively hypothesize about POSSIBILITIES.

1 IF enough water hits the jar, and fills it up,
and IF one color of stone is porous and floats,
THEN the next stone picked may be one of ones floating on
top of the water.

2 HOWEVER, most stones do not float, so PROBABLY the air
tanker flying over, will not change the outcome of the
experiment.

 

[Stephen3141]

Round 6 Challenge Questions

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHALLENGE QUESTION AREA

(And for clearness, in future discussions...,)
(c) Stephen Wuest, February 13rd, 2025

Round #6
————— —————

About Belief Revision, and Category Revision

Belief revision is part of the normal learning process of a human being.
We revise our current beliefs, when there is evidence that our current beliefs
are not working, and that our current beliefs do not match the information
that we are encountering in our shared reality.

Categories, are basic concept definitions. Human beings revise categories
less often that they revise personal beliefs. Category revision is usually a
sign of a paradigm shift in thinking.

QUESTION #51

“Under what circumstances will you revise your beliefs?”
————— —————

QUESTION #52

“Under what circumstances will you revise your category definitions?”


“Trivial example

1 “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3.23
2 “Christ was a man like us, except without sin.” Hebrews 4.15

Here we have what looks like a global rule (no exceptions). Except that the Scripture also states that the man Christ Jesus never sinned. This is an exception to that global rule.

If we put this into formal logic code, we could say…

H: is a human being
c: is Christ
S: has sinned

The 2 propositions go into logic like this:

(all x) (Hx —> Sx) for all individuals, if x is human, then x has sinned
~Sc Christ did not sin

We can combine these in a universally quantified rule:

3 (all x) [ (Hx AND ~(x==c) —> Sx] for all x, if x is human and x is not Christ,
then x has sinned

By encoding exceptions right into rules, the rules can be instantiated so that x is changed to any other specific individual, and the instantiation rule will be valid, and preserve the fact that there is an exception to the rule.

NOTE: This example points out that we cannot form global rules, from a single passage of Scripture, without studying all the rest of Scripture, to see if there are biblical exceptions to that rule.

This is a result that is not obvious to a lot of Christians, who often use “proof-texting” to assert global rules.” [Making Bible Study formal, Wuest, 2020, pp. 239-240]


Note that in this simple example, if an AI tool is asked about the orthodox Christian
position on who (of human beings) is a sinner, then…

1 when the AI encounters Romans 3.23, then it will conclude that Christianity considers
That ALL human beings have sinned.

HOWEVER, if the AI then encounters the text of Hebrews 4.15, this should trigger
belief revision in the answer that the AI is preparing.

The AI should know that orthodox Christians consider that then ENTIRE canon of
Scripture (according to Christians) is considered inspired by God, it cannot simply
list what seem to be contradictory answers in Scripture to this query, but must
somehow RECONCILE the different answers. That is, the AI should know that it has
to do BELIEF REVISION.

As I mention in the book Making Bible Study Formal, the global rule

“If x is a human being, then x has sinned”

Can be revised to include the biblical exceptions to this rule…

“If x is a human being, and x is not Jesus Christ,
Then x has sinned.”
—————

What this question is getting at, is whether or not the algorithms in the AI
tool recognize that it may not have seen all the relevant data, that is necessary
to answer the query that the user asked. AND, the question gets at whether
or not the software algorithm recognizes that it may have not seen all relevant
data, and HOW and WHEN seeing new data will trigger belief revision in the AI.

Note that it is a characteristic of some Christian denominations, to try to
extract global theological principles from a single verse, leading very naive
theological conclusions, that other passages in Scripture do not agree with.

This underlines that an AI tool, or AP high school students, need to have a
general map of all the data that is relevant to a specific query, before coming
to a conclusion.


In an earlier Challenge Question (I believe) I asked the AI tool to list all the
sorts of data that would be RELEVANT to a query about <such and such>
a topic. This is a question that asks the AI for a partial mapping of its internal
map of all knowledge.


(Note that some who hold to conspiracy theories, openly state that there
is NO INFORMATION that would conclude them that their favorite conspiracy
theory is FALSE. Being unwilling to engage in personal belief revision, is NOT
a mark of being correct, but a mark of being anti-intellectual.)
—————

The question about category revision, is much more difficult.
Scientists in the hard sciences were slow to accept Albert Einstein’s
new definition of “gravity”, as the bending of space-time.

Note that in BOTH the cases of personal belief revision, and personal
category revision, an AI cannot simply refer to the most popular
conclusion that it has encountered, on the Internet. What is TRUE, is
often NOT what is most popular. And reaching the TRUE conclusion, often
will involve categorical reasoning, and not a survey of what answer happens
to be popular, today, on social media sites.
—————

 

[Stephen3141]

(And for clearness, in future discussions...,)
(c) Stephen Wuest, February 3rd, 2025

QUESTION #53

This deals with “fact-checking”, to use a modern slang expression.
“What is the place of fact-checking” in a proof/argument?

A proof/argument have the same format…

“Key Idea:

A Rule, a Theorem, and a Proof all have the same format:
A ==> B (read, “if A, then B, or “A entails B”) (or read “for all A, then B”)

A is the section that defines entrance conditions to the Rule, Theorem, or Proof. B is the Conclusion that is entailed.

Although you can read this form with an “if” in it, the “if” describes the entrance condition to the assertion. It does not indicate that there is some question about the soundness of the assertion. The assertion claims that logical entailment exists.

So the following statements are equivalent:

“If A then B”
“A logically entails B” “All A are B”
“A ==> B”
A Venn diagram with a large circle B, with a small circle A completely within it.” [christian Logic, Wuest, 193]

Consider a slightly longer explanation of what a proof is…

“Proofs

A proof is another word for an argument. “An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows the premises. That means, the conclusion cannot be false if all the premises are true. Any argument that is not valid is invalid.” [Logic, 15]

Note that the statements in an argument should be relevant to the conclusion. It is possible for the conclusion of an argument to be TRUE, but necessarily TRUE (not based on the premises). In this case, the argument is called vacuously valid. [Logic, 16]

“An argument is sound if and only if it is a valid argument and all its premises are true.” [Logic, 21]

“An argument is cogent if and only if its premises are acceptable, relevant to and sufficient for its conclusion.” [Logic, 21]

A proof in formal logic has the “shorthand” form of a material implication (A ==> B), but where this notation stands for parts of a complete proof:

A stands for the entire list of Assumption/Definitions
==> stands for all the intermediate steps of the proof
B stands for the proven Conclusion of the proof

What a proof does, is assert some initial “assumptions” that are taken to be TRUE.

Then, for each line in the body of the proof, a new proposition is demonstrated to be TRUE. (Each of these lines must be justified by one of the 20 Rules of Inference or one of the Quantification Rules, to show that the new proposition is valid.)

Finally, the last line of the proof shows that the target Conclusion is valid.” [Christian Logic, Wuest, 194-195]

[Logic] Logic: a Complete Introduction, Siu-Fan Lee, Hodder & Stoughton, 2017


NOTE:

If the Assumptions part of the proof (the “A”, in A ==>B) has FALSE statements/
propositions/rules, THEN the proof will be logically UNSOUND. This has nothing to do
with the the Rules of Inference in formal logic.

IF a proof/argument is logically UNSOUND, then Christians should not use it, and
should not consider that the “proof” is anything but gossip.

BUT, note that if we put this meaning into modern American language,

then …

IF THE INITIAL DEFINITIONS/RULES IN A PROOF DO NOT
MEET THE RIGOROUS STANDARDS OF FACT-CHECKING, THEN
THE PROOF IS UNSOUND.

By this careful logical standard, many of the assertions made on
American social media sites, do not meet the logical standards of
A true explanation/proof/demonstration/argument.

And those (such as the billionaires who own these social media sites)
who wave away the need for careful fact-checking of assertions that
their platform repeats (millions of times a day), have NO REGARD FOR TRUTH,
AND ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION IN OUR
SOCIETY.

Fact-checking is different than the freedom of speech/expression that
we have in America.

If you love TRUTH,
then demand careful fact-checking on social media.

 

[com7fy8]

About Christians and conspiracy theories and critical thinking . . .

Don't assume you can trust a Christian, or a theory, or your ability to think!

But become able to make sure with God.

Then discover how He is able to use the Christian or reported conspiracy or your intellect.

God is able to use our intellect better than we can.

So - - - instead of first rushing to get people and reporters and your mind to answer to you . . . I need to first answer to God, in my prayer. And discover how He guides me; and He guides us according to all ***He*** knows is true, plus He uses it all to bring His ***all*** - loving results.

So, if our evaluating is mainly concerned about what's for us and about our own selves and country - - this can keep us from how God can have us see things and do what will work.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths."
(Proverbs 3:5-6)

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

There is only one way to make sure about anything; and it is not our own ability to figure things out. Plus with God we find better than we can know to look for and try to get.

So, in prayer . . . instead of trying to steer God's attention, submit to Him and first answer to Him, instead of trying to get Him to answer to us.

 

[Stephen3141]

About Christians and conspiracy theories and critical thinking . . .

Don't assume you can trust a Christian, or a theory, or your ability to think!

But become able to make sure with God.

Then discover how He is able to use the Christian or reported conspiracy or your intellect.

God is able to use our intellect better than we can.

So - - - instead of first rushing to get people and reporters and your mind to answer to you . . . I need to first answer to God, in my prayer. And discover how He guides me; and He guides us according to all ***He*** knows is true, plus He uses it all to bring His ***all*** - loving results.

So, if our evaluating is mainly concerned about what's for us and about our own selves and country - - this can keep us from how God can have us see things and do what will work.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths."
(Proverbs 3:5-6)

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

There is only one way to make sure about anything; and it is not our own ability to figure things out. Plus with God we find better than we can know to look for and try to get.

So, in prayer . . . instead of trying to steer God's attention, submit to Him and first answer to Him, instead of trying to get Him to answer to us.

You make a lot of assertions, in your post.

Your view of logic and the mind, is common in SOME Christian groups.
But, it does not agree with a huge number of historic Christians.

There is no necessary conflict between trusting in God, and using our mind.

I point these things out, because they are NOT obvious to those who grew
up in anti-intellectual Christian groups.

 

[com7fy8]

Your view of logic and the mind, is common in SOME Christian groups.

How about in comparison with the word of God?

"And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom" (in 1 Corinthians 2:4)

I did not say to have no reason, but not to depend on our own human ability, "of human wisdom" self-dependent.

And we need, instead, to share with God and how He uses our intellect, in His ways "past finding out" > in Romans 11:33.

"without Me you can do nothing" (in John 15:5).

Our Creator can have us functioning better than we can do things ourselves. This is what I mean.

But, it does not agree with a huge number of historic Christians.

What I mean . . . or how you have understood what I have offered, does not agree? There are people who claim to be Christian's but they do not agree with God's word . . . to my knowledge.

You can give us one example of what you mean, if you want.

There is no necessary conflict between trusting in God, and using our mind.

What I understand is we do well to submit ourselves to God so we discover how *He* uses us and our minds in personal sharing with Him in His love and creativity.

And my experience is that the greatest geniuses are ones who know how to love. Their humility and gentleness and compassion affects how their minds can work.

Haven't you noticed how a person's character can affect what he or she is capable of believing and thinking?

I point these things out, because they are NOT obvious to those who grew
up in anti-intellectual Christian groups.

I simply understand that I do well if I submit to how God uses my intellect . . . including where He guides my attention for using it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Critical thinking, is that like when those street preachers yell at people and call them sinners?

Because their way of thinking is very critical of others .. yepp.

 

[com7fy8]

Critical thinking, is that like when those street preachers yell at people and call them sinners?

Because their way of thinking is very critical of others .. yepp.

lolololololol

That is critiquing (c:

 

[Gregory Thompson]

lolololololol

That is critiquing (c:

I mean, people who are already so critical, you want to teach them to be even more critical?

What's the deal? Trying to give them a heart attack? have some mercy.

 

[Stephen3141]

About comments on "critical thinking"...

Currently, in america, the phrase "critical thinking" is not used to describe
some sort of action that is critical, sombined with some sort of action that
is thinking.

"Critical thinking" is a general (and often not carefully defined phrase) to mean the
careful use of logic, to analyze and solve problems.

Comments about being critical of people, in general, do not address the modern
meaning of the phrase "critical thinking".

 

[com7fy8]

Comments about being critical of people, in general, do not address the modern
meaning of the phrase "critical thinking".

I would say "critical" and "thinking" never have been put together when "critical" has meant someone is self-righteously criticizing others. They only say the person is critical; they do not say he or she is thinking.

The word "critical" is one example of an English word which can have exact opposite meanings.

 

[Stephen3141]

For clarification, the thread presents ideas about formal logic, and its
methodology.

Although a lot of people do not connect the "intellect" with formal logic, and
the algorithms of Artificial Intelligence, that is the direction that I am going in
the thread. I think that this becomes clear, when I continue to present
"Challenge Questions" for the new AI tools, or for Christian AP high school
students.

ANY tool or ability that God gave to human beings, can be consecrated to him
for proper use. (This includes our amazing intellectual abilities.)

But, bypassing the modern and historic definitions of formal logic, and using
the language of giving them all to God, so that he can (basically) tell us what
truth is, is BYPASSING the discussion of what these intellectual tools are. I
meant this thread to discuss what the intellectual tools are, not to bypass that
discussion.

(This point is difficult for Christians who have been raised in an anti-intellectual
culture, to recognize. Just using the rhetoric of "intellectual activities" or "reason" or
"logic" or "critical thinking", is NOT the same as actually USING intellectual
activities or reason or logic or critical thinking. Many, who use the rhetoric of
using the intellect, actually do not. And that problem, is part of the subject of this
thread.)

 

[Stephen3141]

Although the thread that I started, was on the basis of formal logic,
its abilities, and the need for its rigorous methodology to demonstrate
the difference between a proposition merely being a personal opinion, and
establishing it (through that methodology) as TRUE, some Christians
continue to bypass the life of the mind, in their denominational theology.

While all Christians have free will (I am NOT a hard Calvinist), and may
believe this, it is not the position of historic Christianity, NOR is it a
balanced view of all that the Scriptures teach about the mind, and
knowledge, and understanding.

I assert that historical, orthodox Christians, accept the life of the mind as a
great gift from God, which is to be used as God meant us to use it. This
involves a process of learning and understanding, that involves BOTH the
guidance of God, but also, firm rules of inference that have been discussed
and debated and (for the most part) embraced by the different Christian groups.
I assert, that the Rules of Inference of formal logic, are part of "our shared reality",
in that they accurately describe deductive logic as it describes relationships
of LOGICAL CAUSALITY. Although this sort of causality is not the only type,
it is very basic as a building block in sound reasoning about all sorts of topics
(including hermeneutics, theology, moral theory, and epistemology). What I
am saying to the Christians who wish to bypass formal logic and the rules of
Inference, is that they have made a decision that the principles of formal logic
ARE NOT PART OF OUR SHARED REALITY, AND SO WE HAVE NO MORAL-ETHICAL
OUGHT TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS PART OF OUR SHARED REALITY.
---------- ----------

24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Jn 21:24–25.

Christians who claim that ALL KNOWLEDGE and TRUTH is contained in
the pages of the Christian Bible, are contradicted by the Apostle John.

I will not try to do a synthesis of biblical teaching about knowledge and
understanding, as this is not a thread on that subject.
---------- ----------

The American Library of Congress is filled with books, holding knowledge
and understanding about all sorts of topics. A reasonable Christian
theology MUST accept that the Bible does not hold all truth.

Historic Christians have carefully moderated their claims about the
divine inspiration of Scripture, to assert that "the Bible is infallible,
in what it addresses", or that the Bible is a "sufficient guide" to
salvation, and living a holy life.

I accept these historic Christian understandings of what the purpose
of the Bible, is.

Although Christians who disagree with my beliefs are free to start threads
promoting their own theologies about what the Bible is, this thread is
dealing with the foundation of formal logic, and its place in our shared
reality, and so, the necessity of Christians to "bear true witness" about
everything that is in this shared reality.

It is from this formal logic foundation, that I have posted about 50
"Challenge Questions" for both the AI tools, and for AP level Christian
high school students.

Christians who come from anti-intellectual theological groups, are
welcome to try to come up with answers to these Challenge Questions.
But, I expect that the answers would not be able to engage with the
philosophical primitives that the Questions point to, or the logical
fallacies and unsoundness that the Questions point to.

On the other hand, Christian theologies that embrace the human
intellectual gifts, as a gift from God, SHOULD BE ABLE TO COHERENTLY
ANALYZE OR ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.