Critical Thinking vs. Philosophical Thinking

[cloudyday2]

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.

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?)

Can critical thinking lead a person to believe in Christianity?

 

[Sam91]

Yes

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes

LOL, isn't part of critical thinking that you can explain your reasoning to other people? "Yes" isn't too helpful.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've always preferred a more philosophical or exegetical approach over so called Higher Criticism. I think the modernist approach to various critical methods to be more undermining of faith then affirming.

 

[Radagast]

It seems to me (knowing little about critical thinking or philosophical thinking)

This is a big topic to explain from scratch in a forum.

 

[cloudyday2]

I've always preferred a more philosophical or exegetical approach over so called Higher Criticism. I think the modernist approach to various critical methods to be more undermining of faith then affirming.

That may have hit the nail on the head. Apparently a crucial feature of critical thinking is to recognize the fallibility of human thought and the incompleteness of information and so forth. That attitude probably tends to weaken faith in any conclusion.

 

[cloudyday2]

This is a big topic to explain from scratch in a forum.

Do you think critical thinking is often absent from Christian apologetics? If so, why? Is critical thinking a faith killer?

 

[mark kennedy]

That may have hit the nail on the head. Apparently a crucial feature of critical thinking is to recognize the fallibility of human thought and the incompleteness of information and so forth. That attitude probably tends to weaken faith in any conclusion.

Well it's vital to exegetical study, of course a scholar understands that. The layman just hears all these criticisms and has no idea about the nuances of the original language and text variation between the manuscripts. To benefit, that is to build up the church, a better approach is to work on expositions with exegetical notes.

 

[Chesterton]

It seems to me (knowing little about critical thinking or philosophical thinking) that these strategies are different. Do you agree?

I don't agree, just because I Googled for meanings of these phrases and they both sound like thinking about things in order to make a judgment. I don't see any difference. Can you elaborate on what the difference is?

 

[cloudyday2]

Well it's vital to exegetical study, of course a scholar understands that. The layman just hears all these criticisms and has no idea about the nuances of the original language and text variation between the manuscripts. To benefit, that is to build up the church, a better approach is to work on expositions with exegetical notes.

Here is a video I just found giving an overview of critical thinking. I'm not talking about "higher criticism" of religious texts if that is what you were thinking.

It is only 6 minutes:

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't agree, just because I Googled for meanings of these phrases and they both sound like thinking about things in order to make a judgment. I don't see any difference. Can you elaborate on what the difference is?

The video in post #10 especially after about 5:30 makes some distinctions. It says that deductive reasoning favored in philosophy is only one method employed in critical thinking, and this is necessary because real world problems involve a lot of uncertainty.

 

[Silmarien]

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.

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?)

Can critical thinking lead a person to believe in Christianity?

There is no difference between critical thinking and philosophical thinking, unless critical thinking no longer involves the use of logic. (The way some atheists approach it these days, I'm not sure it does.)

Apologists are not necessarily philosophers. They can be, certainly, but alluding to philosophical concerns does not always make what you're doing sound philosophy. Your argument could be an illogical disaster zone, though this is true in any subdiscipline of philosophy.

I am unconvinced that any amount of intellectualism can lead someone to Christianity, though. Theism, yes. Christianity, I don't know. You can debunk a lot of the arguments against it, but more than that... like I said. Unconvinced.

 

[Chesterton]

The video in post #10 especially after about 5:30 makes some distinctions. It says that deductive reasoning favored in philosophy is only one method employed in critical thinking, and this is necessary because real world problems involve a lot of uncertainty.

I watched that, and it just sounds like it's using a lot of words to describe what we all do everyday, with the addition that things like emotion, bias, popularity, etc. should be excluded or discounted, but I think part of being critical of your own thought should include deciding whether to exclude things like that on a case-by-case basis. I.E., things like that are not always necessarily bad or wrong.

 

[cloudyday2]

There is no difference between critical thinking and philosophical thinking, unless critical thinking no longer involves the use of logic. (The way some atheists approach it these days, I'm not sure it does.)

Apologists are not necessarily philosophers. They can be, certainly, but alluding to philosophical concerns does not always make what you're doing sound philosophy. Your argument could be an illogical disaster zone, though this is true in any subdiscipline of philosophy.

I am unconvinced that any amount of intellectualism can lead someone to Christianity, though. Theism, yes. Christianity, I don't know. You can debunk a lot of the arguments against it, but more than that... like I said. Unconvinced.

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?

 

[cloudyday2]

I watched that, and it just sounds like it's using a lot of words to describe what we all do everyday, with the addition that things like emotion, bias, popularity, etc. should be excluded or discounted, but I think part of being critical of your own thought should include deciding whether to exclude things like that on a case-by-case basis. I.E., things like that are not always necessarily bad or wrong.

That's true that it is more like everyday thinking instead of philosophical thinking. Everyday thinking is about best guesses and rules of thumb and so forth. That is necessary when dealing with the real world. I think statistics has more in common with critical thinking than the typical Christian apologetic thinking.

 

[Chesterton]

That's true that it is more like everyday thinking instead of philosophical thinking. Everyday thinking is about best guesses and rules of thumb and so forth. That is necessary when dealing with the real world.

Well I think philosophical thinking does the same thing, doesn't it?

I think statistics has more in common with critical thinking than the typical Christian apologetic thinking.

lol, I think statistics are almost the opposite of thinking.

 

[apogee]

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.

 

[cloudyday2]

One example of critical thinking might be the "outsider's test of faith" promoted by John Loftus. 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. Similarly if the reasoning that leads you to dismiss Hellenistic paganism might just as readily dismiss Christianity then there is a problem.

Self-doubt is a big part of critical thinking.

 

[Silmarien]

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?

Eh, I don't think they should be, but critical thinking doesn't necessarily mean out of control skepticism presupposing a particular naturalistic model of reality.

One example of critical thinking might be the "outsider's test of faith" promoted by John Loftus. 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. Similarly if the reasoning that leads you to dismiss Hellenistic paganism might just as readily dismiss Christianity then there is a problem.

Self-doubt is a big part of critical thinking.

Sure, but as a non-Christian who finds Christianity to be the most compelling religious option, I don't think that this is nearly as big a problem as Loftus does.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

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?)

Can critical thinking lead a person to believe in Christianity?

Following in the steps of what Silmarian has already stated above, I would also first affirm that the nature of Philosophy encompasses and utilizes critical thinking as it's central mode of operation. So, utilizing critical thinking when doing philosophy-- along with an inherent application of logic to the three or four fields which comprise Philosophy as an academic endeaver--is inescapable.

However, I wouldn't conflate apologetics, particularly Christian apologetics with full-fledged Philosophical thought. Typically, Christian apologetics deals with a smaller selection of philosophical issues than does mainstream, secular (or even Christian) philosophy. 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."

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.