Critical Thinking vs. Philosophical Thinking

[cloudyday2]

So, we probably don't want to think of philosophy as the lesser discipline, but rather as the greater one, with apologetics being appropriated by Christians for the purpose of addressing a more limited strata of theological ideas, issues and analyses.

I have a book "a very short introduction to the philosophy of science". I imagine there might be something called the "philosophy of critical thinking". So, yeah, philosophy can mean about anything. There is probably a "philosophy of philosophy of philosophy of philosophy" book out there.

I have noticed in myself that my reasoning is not like many people. Do you remember a game called "pick up sticks"? ( Pick-up sticks - Wikipedia ) You take a handful of plastic sticks and drop them into a randomly tangled rat's nest type of thing. That seems to be how I approach problem solving. There is no step 1, step 2, step 3, ... It is: "let's toss the sticks into the air and see if they give me an answer". It's not that I'm incapable of going through the steps, but I prefer to throw sticks in the air and test to see if the answer they give me is correct. This inclination to a lack of structure in my thinking can sometimes yield novel and correct answers, but sometimes it can lead to big boo-boos. I think this is why I developed that mild case of psychosis a few years ago. Somebody who was trained in critical thinking would have waded through the hallucinations without becoming delusional. Critical thinking skills are used in psychology to help patients with psychosis and other problems. Basically I tend to "jump to conclusions".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Critical thinking could lead us to believe in the existence of Big Foot if we happened to find the secret Big Foot burial ground deep in the Oregon rain forest (for example). Or it might lead us to disbelieve in Big Foot too.

Why should God or Jesus be exempted from critical thinking when Big Foot is subjected to it?

I wouldn't say that God or Jesus are, or should be, exempted. However, much like as in science, our personal and interpersonal applications of critical thinking will meet diverse limitations depending upon the nature of the objects being evaluated. For instance, Bigfoot if he exists, would be a physical entity, maybe not too much different in some physical respects from what we already encounter with modern apes. Sure, Bigfoot is different than, say a gorilla, but Bigfoot still would be a tangible, organic example of life, if we were to finally find him. The Divine nature of God, on the other hand, at least as represented in the Bible, is beyond physical tangibility and won't be open so much to our direct inquiries and evaluations.

Actually, it wouldn't be too much to say that God and Jesus already are open to our critical thinking; we human beings apply our minds to trying to discern what we 'think' God is (and what Jesus was/is) everyday. Some of us, after applying critical thinking within various philosophical and theological routes of investigation (and wonder) think the Bible is plausible, maybe true. Others who also apply critical thinking come to conclusions that God is hard to believe in.

 

[Chesterton]

If the reasoning that leads you to believe in Christianity might just as readily lead you to believe in Hellenistic paganism then the reasoning is defective.

No, not at all. That could only be true when two things are utterly contradictory. For example, I believe in the physics of both Newton and Einstein. They're not exactly the same, they don't completely "jive", but they can both contain truth.

Do you remember a game called "pick up sticks"? ( Pick-up sticks - Wikipedia )

I didn't until I read this. Thanks for bringing up a nice childhood memory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have a book "a very short introduction to the philosophy of science". I imagine there might be something called the "philosophy of critical thinking". So, yeah, philosophy can mean about anything. There is probably a "philosophy of philosophy of philosophy of philosophy" book out there.

I have noticed in myself that my reasoning is not like many people. Do you remember a game called "pick up sticks"? ( Pick-up sticks - Wikipedia ) You take a handful of plastic sticks and drop them into a randomly tangled rat's nest type of thing. That seems to be how I approach problem solving. There is no step 1, step 2, step 3, ... It is: "let's toss the sticks into the air and see if they give me an answer". It's not that I'm incapable of going through the steps, but I prefer to throw sticks in the air and test to see if the answer they give me is correct. This inclination to a lack of structure in my thinking can sometimes yield novel and correct answers, but sometimes it can lead to big boo-boos. I think this is why I developed that mild case of psychosis a few years ago. Somebody who was trained in critical thinking would have waded through the hallucinations without becoming delusional. Critical thinking skills are used in psychology to help patients with psychosis and other problems. Basically I tend to "jump to conclusions".

I can see how learning critical thinking skills could help with managing emotional and/or even other cognitive challenges. And I imagine one could learn to cope better if he or she were to implement critical thinking more often, although I know these things are difficult to deal with. While I haven't had to deal with psychosis, I have had to deal with ongoing (but fortunately) moderate bouts of 'depression.' And I know that trying to gain some perspective about our "reality" by thinking things through a little more can be helpful in dealing with disappointments and "bad emotions" in life. It's not a cure, but it can help a bit.

I notice you said you have a book titled, "A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science." Is that the one by Samir Okash? I'm asking because it's one that I have. But even if it's not, there's a lot of good (and complex) stuff in most Philosophy of Science books that is good to consider.

Also, there really are books on Critical Thinking as well. Technically, they're just a form of philosophy book and/or lessons in argumentation, but they're often packaged as something other than books on "how to deal with informal fallacies and basic logic." [Full-fledged Logic textbooks tend to deal with both Informal AND Formal Logic.] One such book I have on critical thinking is Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker.

 

[cloudyday2]

I notice you said you have a book titled, "A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science." Is that the one by Samir Okash? I'm asking because it's one that I have. But even if it's not, there's a lot of good (and complex) stuff in most Philosophy of Science books that is good to consider.

Yep, that is the one I have too. I didn't throw that book in the trash. Another book I didn't throw in the trash is "a very short introduction to statistics" by Hand. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with philosophy of science IMO. The book on statistics was excellent. Hand is somebody who has such a mastery of his field that he can make it exciting and comprehensible to ordinary people. Okash was good too, but Hand was even better IMO.

One such book I have on critical thinking is Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker.

I will add it to my shopping list

 

[cloudyday2]

While I haven't had to deal with psychosis, I have had to deal with ongoing (but fortunately) moderate bouts of 'depression.' And I know that trying to gain some perspective about our "reality" by thinking things through a little more can be helpful in dealing with disappointments and "bad emotions" in life. It's not a cure, but it can help a bit.

In my experience, depression is actually a form of delusional thinking. My depression seems to be like a thunderstorm as opposed to a season. Whenever the storm clears I am always disturbed and frightened at how distorted my perspective had been while I was depressed. When I'm depressed I truly believe that I have a 100% accurate perspective and I can't even remember that I have ever had a more hopeful perspective and I can't imagine that the depression will ever end. That is so strange, because depression usually only lasts a few days in my case. But it is really, really scary after the depression goes away to realize how deluded I had been. I think depression is a lot worse than psychosis in many ways, because it is so insidious.

I've had some good luck with CBD and scopolamine and l-theanine (and exercise too when I can make myself do it).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, that is the one I have too. I didn't throw that book in the trash. Another book I didn't throw in the trash is "a very short introduction to statistics" by Hand. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with philosophy of science IMO. The book on statistics was excellent. Hand is somebody who has such a mastery of his field that he can make it exciting and comprehensible to ordinary people. Okash was good too, but Hand was even better IMO.

I'll have to keep that book on statistics in mind. [I like those little books from Oxford...sometimes they're handy!]

I will add it to my shopping list

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In my experience, depression is actually a form of delusional thinking. My depression seems to be like a thunderstorm as opposed to a season. Whenever the storm clears I am always disturbed and frightened at how distorted my perspective had been while I was depressed. When I'm depressed I truly believe that I have a 100% accurate perspective and I can't even remember that I have ever had a more hopeful perspective and I can't imagine that the depression will ever end. That is so strange, because depression usually only lasts a few days in my case. But it is really, really scary after the depression goes away to realize how deluded I had been. I think depression is a lot worse than psychosis in many ways, because it is so insidious.

I've had some good luck with CBD and scopolamine and l-theanine (and exercise too when I can make myself do it).

Yes, depression does have an insidious way of throwing us off the rails for a time. Fortunately, I haven't had to resort to medications to deal with my more moderate form of depression. My mom, on the other hand, suffered from Severe Bi-polar depression, along with all those other symptoms I've alluded to in past posts. So, I count myself as fortunate (maybe blessed) in comparison, at least.

But, yes, depression feels really bad...when it hits. You're right about all of that which you said above on it. And granted, I can easily admit that my looking toward religion is (in part) a way to help with dealing with it. [But, and this is one of those big buts again, I also believe because after having done a lot of critical thinking in regard to the nature of the Christian faith, it all seems quite plausible to me, even if it's not something I can tangibly point to with certainty for the benefit of others.]

 

[RDKirk]

Apologetics is typically concerned only with those aspects of philosophy that are directly connected to the support of Christian Theology with the express purpose of bolstering and sustaining belief and faith among "the faithful."

Whoa! Important point expressed there--bolded for emphasis.

Apologetics is predominantly useful to and for those who already believe, not as an evangelistic tool.

So, we probably don't want to think of philosophy as the lesser discipline, but rather as the greater one, with apologetics being appropriated by Christians for the purpose of addressing a more limited strata of theological ideas, issues and analyses.

True.

 

[RDKirk]

No, not at all. That could only be true when two things are utterly contradictory. For example, I believe in the physics of both Newton and Einstein. They're not exactly the same, they don't completely "jive", but they can both contain truth.

Sure. Newtonian physics is sufficient to get anywhere inside the Solar System. It would take Einstein physics to send a probe to the next star.

In the same way, a certain path of logic will get us to "theism" before it gets us specifically to Christ. That's what Paul was pointing out to the Athenians. Certain Greeks had actually theorized monotheism purely through critical thinking about their observations of the heavens.

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course philosophical thinking might mean anything, but what I mean is the typical thinking I see when (for example) apologists claim that some "obvious" assumptions imply the existence of God.

People don't appreciate that philosophy is logical thinking.
They think it's more like daydreaming or something.
So it's not the opposite of critical thinking at all.
I think it actually IS critical thinking.
Philosophy is meaningless if it doesn't make sense.

What I mean by critical thinking is the techniques that lead a person to doubt the existence of Big Foot (for example).

It seems to me (knowing little about critical thinking or philosophical thinking) that these strategies are different. Do you agree? If they are different, then why does it seem that apologists rarely speak of critical thinking? (Or is that my imagination?)

I see what you mean.
Philosophy would then be thinking / reasoning towards something, whereas critical thinking would be thinking / reasoning away from something.
We need both to get somewhere.

Can critical thinking lead a person to believe in Christianity?

Critical thinking is essential in finding truth.
If you don't, you'll be like a flag in the winds of claims and assumptions that blow around us (or that blow us around...)
Test everything (for as far as that's possible).

 

[Hieronymus]

In reply to the OP, It’s a mystery to me, isn’t critical thinking as alluded to, essentially a branch of philosophical reasoning. In any case, I’m going to say yes you can arrive at absolutely every possible conclusion by a simple application of critical thinking.

But most things don't stand the test.

 

[Hieronymus]

I have a book "a very short introduction to the philosophy of science". I imagine there might be something called the "philosophy of critical thinking". So, yeah, philosophy can mean about anything. There is probably a "philosophy of philosophy of philosophy of philosophy" book out there.

People can get lost in reasoning.
But i think this is essentially about truth seeking and how to find it.
That always boils down to weighing plausibility, possibility and probability.
Consequently it's a 'big picture' assessment i.m.o.
How weak or strong is the case for a certain view point.

 

[RDKirk]

People can get lost in reasoning.
But i think this is essentially about truth seeking and how to find it.
That always boils down to weighing plausibility, possibility and probability.
Consequently it's a 'big picture' assessment i.m.o.
How weak or strong is the case for a certain view point.

"But what is truth? Is it unchanging law?
We both have truths...are my the same as yours?" -- Pontius Pilate, "Jesus Christ--Superstar"

"Some of your facts are wrong" -- Francis Crick

 

[Hieronymus]

"But what is truth? Is it unchanging law?

It's the opposite of what is not true.
Some of it is unchanging law, depending on the field of knowledge.

We both have truths...are my the same as yours?" -- Pontius Pilate, "Jesus Christ--Superstar"

"Some of your facts are wrong" -- Francis Crick

It's often a question of what someone embraces as his / her truth.
So personal integrity in approaching the matter is essential too.
Let the evidence lead you, not your wishes and / or assumptions.
It helps to be desperate and in doubt of everything.
A shattered ego makes for an open and humble mind.
Yeah, that's outside the comfort zone..
But there is always room for doubts.

 

[RDKirk]

It's the opposite of what is not true.
Some of it is unchanging law, depending on the field of knowledge.
It's often a question of what someone embraces as his / her truth.
So personal integrity in approaching the matter is essential too.
Let the evidence lead you, not your wishes and / or assumptions.
It helps to be desperate and in doubt of everything.
A shattered ego makes for an open and humble mind.
Yeah, that's outside the comfort zone..
But there is always room for doubts.

But what if your facts are wrong?

It's not only a matter of personal integrity. You might be honestly wrong.

Facts are only true until proven otherwise; then something else is the fact.

Oh, and both those lines at the top are part of the same Pontius Pilate quote:

"But what is truth? Is it unchanging law?
We both have truths...are mine the same as yours?"

I'd point out that not all cultures use the same epistemology. Chinese epistemology is not the same a Greek epistemology--Chinese and Europeans can observe the same events and come to different conclusions as to their "truths" with the same degree of critical thinking.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'd point out that not all cultures use the same epistemology. Chinese epistemology is not the same a Greek epistemology--Chinese and Europeans can observe the same events and come to different conclusions as to their "truths" with the same degree of critical thinking.

Actually an important feature of critical thinking is to realize when your reasoning is culture-specific and correct yourself. From what I have read, logic or philosophy is a tiny subset of critical thinking. Critical thinking includes ideas like Occam's Razor and listening to alternative ideas from other cultures, etc. Critical thinking strives to help people make decisions that are good for the world. Maybe it is connected with Humanism a little bit. IDK

 

[Silmarien]

Actually an important feature of critical thinking is to realize when your reasoning is culture-specific and correct yourself. From what I have read, logic or philosophy is a tiny subset of critical thinking. Critical thinking includes ideas like Occam's Razor and listening to alternative ideas from other cultures, etc. Critical thinking strives to help people make decisions that are good for the world. Maybe it is connected with Humanism a little bit. IDK

Occam's Razor is philosophy. William of Occam was a scholastic philosopher and theologian.

Anyway, one problem is that reasoning is always culture-specific to a certain extent. We can never entirely step outside of ourselves to view the world objectively. It seems to me that having a broader understanding of how different peoples have framed different questions over time can help you identify cultural biases, but the idea that this is something that can be easily overcome through the use of some magical thing called "critical thinking" should be approached with skepticism itself.

 

[Hieronymus]

But what if your facts are wrong?

Then they're not facts.

It's not only a matter of personal integrity. You might be honestly wrong.

Of course.
It's not ONLY a matter of personal integrity (regarding following the evidence wherever it leads).
It's a bumpy road towards knowledge and understanding.
Of course we make mistakes or are lied to or otherwise mislead sometimes.

Facts are only true until proven otherwise; then something else is the fact.

Oh, and both those lines at the top are part of the same Pontius Pilate quote:

"But what is truth? Is it unchanging law?
We both have truths...are mine the same as yours?"

I'd point out that not all cultures use the same epistemology. Chinese epistemology is not the same a Greek epistemology--Chinese and Europeans can observe the same events and come to different conclusions as to their "truths" with the same degree of critical thinking.

Maybe sometimes, yes.
I don't know exactly.
My generation and even my parents were more like world religion thinking, new agey, Hinduistic concepts with Christian morals and values. Yeah, perhaps typically European.
But when you seek truth in the field of religion and (thus) the big existential questions, you bump into the Bible at a certain point.
And then it's a matter of investigating whether it is true or not: Is Jesus Christ who He said He is?
Also other religions fall into place in the big picture.
But i guess it's also a matter of God drawing you near Him or not, when you're at that point of considering the truth of Christ.
This can take years for some though.
Some will harden up and refuse to acknowledge it, some will take that final leap of faith, swiftly, eagerly, slowly or reluctantly.
Some will have strong faith, some weak.
But regardless of your background, you ought to realize at a point that the Bible should be read in its context.
It is afterall a collection of ancient writings.
But it's also a history book, supported by extra Biblical evidence.
And the world we live in today provides context too.
In all, i'm convinced that the honest seeker will come to the conclusion that the Bible, and i think i would add 1st Enoch to it too (although i have postponed studying more about that), has the biggest probability of being true and meaningful.
But perhaps God was drawing (dragging perhaps...) me towards that conclusion.
I never was an atheist. Atheism is philosophically bankrupt i.m.h.o.
I have always been convinced everything exists for a reason, life exists for a reason, we exist for a reason.
"Something" deliberately caused us to exist, on purpose, for a purpose.
This implies a conscious being doing its will.
Abiogenesis and a pointless point in the middle of nothing exploding into our reality is a preposterous idea, conjured up by fools blinded by their own pride. ...i.m.h.o.
It fails both philosophically and critically.
But this is a piece of context too.
"They" (who is another discussion) want us to believe life is meaningless beyond living it as we desire (at which we fail too...).

 

[cloudyday2]

Occam's Razor is philosophy. William of Occam was a scholastic philosopher and theologian.

Anyway, one problem is that reasoning is always culture-specific to a certain extent. We can never entirely step outside of ourselves to view the world objectively. It seems to me that having a broader understanding of how different peoples have framed different questions over time can help you identify cultural biases, but the idea that this is something that can be easily overcome through the use of some magical thing called "critical thinking" should be approached with skepticism itself.

Yes I should have said logic instead of philosophy. Philosophy can be various things and often overlaps with religion. Occam's Razor is a heuristic. Although I have read about a mathematical proof that attempts to support or explain Occam's Razor using Kolmogorov complexity.
Here is a link:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-formulate-Occams-razor-in-terms-of-Kolmogorov-complexity