Critical Thinking vs. Philosophical Thinking

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, sometimes our need to believe outweighs our need to know.

Well, how are you going to know if your beliefs are truly justified if the whole process of justification can't in and of itself be fully structured and glued together without any fissure, fault or failure?

"....but, but the science said it would work!!!" (Well then, so much for critical thinkers who think they draw upon conclusive blocks of Foundationalist and Evidentialist assurance!)

 

[Silmarien]

I guess Moses and Muhammad are similar IMO. Paul is the odd-man-out among the three Prophets. Jesus also doesn't fit.

Well, I'm not comfortable analyzing the Old Testament because I think it's pretty much mythology. I'd rather stick to people who are easier to place historically than Egyptian princes who may or may not have existed.

 

[Silmarien]

Yep, sometimes our need to believe outweighs our need to know.

Careful now, anyone can toss insinuations around. Last I heard, the fundamentalist Christians are interested in truth and you're living in denial and self-deception because you're enslaved to your sin. Though that probably goes for me too.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, I'm not comfortable analyzing the Old Testament because I think it's pretty much mythology. I'd rather stick to people who are easier to place historically than Egyptian princes who may or may not have existed.

It seems that Moses is a model Abrahamic Prophet even if he was partially or entirely myth. Jesus and Paul don't fit that model, yet they both claimed to be part of the Abrahamic heritage. Muhammad and his unpleasant characteristics fit much closer IMO. Of course the Jesus of Revelation is more warlike.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems that Moses is a model Abrahamic Prophet even if he was partially or entirely myth. Jesus and Paul don't fit that model, yet they both claimed to be part of the Abrahamic heritage. Muhammad and his unpleasant characteristics fit much closer IMO. Of course the Jesus of Revelation is more warlike.

They don't? Actually, I think Jesus does represent a fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition, and I think Jesus is the Prophet who was to come spoken about by Moses ... ahead of time in Deuteronomy. Paul is a different case, but one who represents a derivative function of Jesus' role in the world, IMO. Moreover, both Paul and James refer to the Christian faith, as initiated by Christ, as being appropriately seen as the successive fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition, as do the Gospel writers.

Mohammad, on the other hand, tried to appropriate the role of the Prophet spoken of by Moses to himself, or at least his followers attempt to attach it to him, and I think he fails utterly in fulfilling that position over and above Jesus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, how are you going to know if your beliefs are truly justified if the whole process of justification can't in and of itself be fully structured and glued together without any fissure, fault or failure?

"....but, but the science said it would work!!!" (Well then, so much for critical thinkers who think they draw upon conclusive blocks of Foundationalist and Evidentialist assurance!)

Not sure what you are complaining about....
Sounds like you are complaining that scientists aren't infalliable and can be wrong?

Being wrong is actually an important aspect of science.
It's how you learn new things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure what you are complaining about....
Sounds like you are complaining that scientists aren't infalliable and can be wrong?

Being wrong is actually an important aspect of science.
It's how you learn new things.

Then scientist need to recognize that they could be wrong about the nature of religion, particularly about Christianity. One doesn't have to be a card-carrying member of BioLogos to recognize this.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then scientist need to recognize that they could be wrong about the nature of religion, particularly about Christianity. One doesn't have to be a card-carrying member of BioLogos to recognize this.

A scientist, any rational person really (including myself), will happily recognize that they could be wrong about anything.

But "could be wrong" is not the same as "being wrong".
If they are wrong, show them wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A scientist, any rational person really (including myself), will happily recognize that they could be wrong about anything.

But "could be wrong" is not the same as "being wrong".
If they are wrong, show them wrong.

Usually, I find that a number of firmly atheistic scientists, particularly those who hold to Philosophical Materialism as does Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or Lawrence Krauss, seem pretty sure that they're not wrong...on matters of religion.

 

[cloudyday2]

Usually, I find that a number of firmly atheistic scientists, particularly those who hold to Philosophical Materialism as does Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or Lawrence Krauss, seem pretty sure that they're not wrong...on matters of religion.

It seems that there are different things:
- There is your best guess when only one thing can be selected and hedging is impossible
- There is your confidence in this guess relative to other possible guesses
- There is your recognition in theory that even your confidence in the various possibilities might be distorted by your own fallibility
- .... probably other things too

 

[Silmarien]

It seems that Moses is a model Abrahamic Prophet even if he was partially or entirely myth. Jesus and Paul don't fit that model, yet they both claimed to be part of the Abrahamic heritage. Muhammad and his unpleasant characteristics fit much closer IMO. Of course the Jesus of Revelation is more warlike.

Well, this kind of sounds like "I disapprove of Moses" and "I disapprove of Mohammed," so therefore the two are a better fit with each other than either with the main figures of Christianity. Granted, there is a lot of stuff that shows up in the Old Testament that makes me wonder if Islam doesn't in fact have more continuity with it, but I've so far avoided the type of in depth study of the OT that I would need to do to really have an informed opinion. And I'll probably continue to avoid that topic for the foreseeable future.

It seems that there are different things:
- There is your best guess when only one thing can be selected and hedging is impossible
- There is your confidence in this guess relative to other possible guesses
- There is your recognition in theory that even your confidence in the various possibilities might be distorted by your own fallibility
- .... probably other things too

There's also not being willing to try to understand what your opponent is saying because you're prejudiced against their position. This is how most atheistic public intellectuals (with a couple exceptions who get attacked by the rest) come across to me.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

IMO, the question in your last sentence would vary on the person. If by critical thinking you are referring to "analytical" thinking, it would depend on that persons ability to mix the analytical approach, to reconciling in their own mind, that Christianity is true.

Lots of variables in play there, as well as a person's ability, to compartmentalize how they reconcile conclusions as likely being true.

 

[bhsmte]

Not sure what you are complaining about....
Sounds like you are complaining that scientists aren't infalliable and can be wrong?

Being wrong is actually an important aspect of science.
It's how you learn new things.

And, admitting you could be wrong, leads to more learning and accepting new information, that may make you likely right.

Not a bad thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Usually, I find that a number of firmly atheistic scientists, particularly those who hold to Philosophical Materialism as does Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or Lawrence Krauss, seem pretty sure that they're not wrong...on matters of religion.

That's easily refuted by simply pointing at their own claims.
Take Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, he sets a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being "i'm certain a god exists" and 7 being "i'm certain god does not exist".

Dawkins says he's a 6 and a half.

As for specific claims of religions (or rather: the religious), that's another story.

For example, take the literal interpretation of the flood. That is most definatly wrong. Such a flood never happened. You can actually test that, because such an event leaves all kinds of evidence. So if one wish to hypothesize that it actually occured, then that hypothesis makes testable predictions. None of those tests confirm the idea. Au contraire.

So that flood definatly never happened.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's also not being willing to try to understand what your opponent is saying because you're prejudiced against their position.

Sounds like a good description of religious fundamentalists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's easily refuted by simply pointing at their own claims.
Take Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, he sets a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being "i'm certain a god exists" and 7 being "i'm certain god does not exist".

Dawkins says he's a 6 and a half.

As for specific claims of religions (or rather: the religious), that's another story.

For example, take the literal interpretation of the flood. That is most definatly wrong. Such a flood never happened. You can actually test that, because such an event leaves all kinds of evidence. So if one wish to hypothesize that it actually occured, then that hypothesis makes testable predictions. None of those tests confirm the idea. Au contraire.

So that flood definatly never happened.

Yeah, so? I'm not a Fundamentalist, and I'm not going to affirm that the Flood in the Bible is some ultra-literal account of hyper-exacting language. The narrative is something else. Besides, even if it was supposed to be a literal account, I don't think language and historical writing work that way in the first place (that's where philosophy of history comes in). Also, I do know that Dawkins made the statement you pointed out that he's made. My point is that if he's not sure, his composure toward Christianity should lighten up a bit. And while he's given slight indication over the past few years that he'll consider Christianity to be a step above Islam, as far as I know, he still downs Christianity with an attitude. And it's that 'tude that I'm referring to.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not sure what you are complaining about....
Sounds like you are complaining that scientists aren't infalliable and can be wrong?

Being wrong is actually an important aspect of science.
It's how you learn new things.

Yep, that's one of the benefits of a system which is able to test beliefs against reality. It provides a system for knowing when one is wrong. That's what makes it superior to religion and philosophy for generating knowledge.

 

[KCfromNC]

Usually, I find that a number of firmly atheistic scientists, particularly those who hold to Philosophical Materialism as does Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or Lawrence Krauss, seem pretty sure that they're not wrong...on matters of religion.

That says nothing about them failing to understand that they could be wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That says nothing about them failing to understand that they could be wrong.

Point taken.

 

[apogee]

Yep, that's one of the benefits of a system which is able to test beliefs against reality. It provides a system for knowing when one is wrong. That's what makes it superior to religion and philosophy for generating knowledge.

I'm not really sure what you are attempting to say here. It kinda sounds like you are setting up 'Science' as some sort of competing worldview to religion and philosophy.

On the one hand 'Science' is clearly a philosophical discipline, which is why Universities sometimes refer to their departments of 'Natural Philosophy' as Physics Departments.

Whilst on the other hand 'Science', only applies to the reality that we are able to apprehend with our direct or augmented senses. It says nothing of that which is beyond our perception.