• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Critical Thinking

NLN

Active Member
Mar 8, 2007
44
1
✟22,669.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When I was in the sixth grade (longer ago than I care to admit), the elementary school I attended administered a program that has benefited me ever since. Not long before graduating, a single week was set aside to prepare departing students for their move up the ladder of higher education. For five days we no longer attended a single classroom, but rather six, as would later be the case in Junior High, High School and College. Separate teachers instructed us on a variety of topics: Music, History, Art, Science, Literature, and, my favorite—Critical Thinking. This class was taught by Mr. Anderson, a teacher unfamiliar to me at the time.

Although the specifics of Mr. Anderson's instruction escape me, the essence of it was this: Think about what you are saying and doing. When observing the world, make critical, logical deductions. Try to figure things out for yourself, rather than believing everything you hear out of hand. Insist upon getting the facts, and learn to recognize them; find proof. Say precisely what you mean; do exactly what you resolve. Demonstrate conviction in your thoughts and actions. Be decisive. Use your noodle!

Amazing stuff, coming from an elementary school teacher; don't you agree?

Throughout my life I have often thought about what Mr. Anderson said, and have tried my best to apply it. I've observed that many of man's false beliefs could have been avoided if only the majority practiced critical thinking. Take, for example, the once widely held belief that the Earth was flat. A critical thinker might look up into the sky, see the sun and moon, and from this deduce that the Earth was not flat at all, but round. Why? The moon and sun are round; perhaps it is more logical to conclude that the Earth is similar, rather than different. True, you might say, but how do we know they are not simply flat disks, like coins, rather than spheres? The answer: when we observe the phases of the moon, a shadow moves nightly across its face, having specific visual characteristics. When we try to duplicate these characteristics experimentally, we find that the only way they may be replicated are on the surface of a sphere. All right, you might admit, the Earth could be round, but how shall we prove it? Perhaps in the manner that the young Columbus is reported to have done: by observing the masts of departing sailing vessels sinking ever lower on the horizon. Or, we might do as a Greek philosopher did around 250 B.C.:

Eratosthenes was told that on a certain day during the summer (June 21) in a town called Syene, which was 4900 stadia (1 stadia = 0.16 kilometers) to the south of Alexandria, the sunlight shown directly down the well shafts so that you could see all the way to the bottom. Eratosthenes knew that the sun was never quite high enough in the sky to see the bottom of wells in Alexandria and he was able to calculate that in fact it was about 7 degrees too low. Knowing that the sun was 7 degrees lower at its highpoint in Alexandria than in Syene and assuming that the sun's rays were parallel when they hit the Earth, Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth using a simple proportion: C/4900 stadia = 360 degrees/ 7 degrees. This gives an answer of 252,000 stadia or 40,320 km, which is very close to today's measurements of 40,030 km.

You get the idea. Critical thinking has solved many of the world's mysteries—perhaps most—and is the spearhead of human progress. Continental drift, implied by a map of the world; a case for mass extinctions (and even human evolution), deduced from observing the craters of the moon; clues coming to light about brain function by noting the time lag between reaction to stimulus and conscious awareness...all are examples of critical thinking at work.

Mr. Anderson, wherever you are, I thank you.

Machines Like Us
 

randomman

Regular Member
Jun 11, 2007
381
5
✟23,041.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
When I was in the sixth grade (longer ago than I care to admit), the elementary school I attended administered a program that has benefited me ever since. Not long before graduating, a single week was set aside to prepare departing students for their move up the ladder of higher education. For five days we no longer attended a single classroom, but rather six, as would later be the case in Junior High, High School and College. Separate teachers instructed us on a variety of topics: Music, History, Art, Science, Literature, and, my favorite—Critical Thinking. This class was taught by Mr. Anderson, a teacher unfamiliar to me at the time.

Although the specifics of Mr. Anderson's instruction escape me, the essence of it was this: Think about what you are saying and doing. When observing the world, make critical, logical deductions. Try to figure things out for yourself, rather than believing everything you hear out of hand. Insist upon getting the facts, and learn to recognize them; find proof. Say precisely what you mean; do exactly what you resolve. Demonstrate conviction in your thoughts and actions. Be decisive. Use your noodle!

Amazing stuff, coming from an elementary school teacher; don't you agree?

Throughout my life I have often thought about what Mr. Anderson said, and have tried my best to apply it. I've observed that many of man's false beliefs could have been avoided if only the majority practiced critical thinking. Take, for example, the once widely held belief that the Earth was flat. A critical thinker might look up into the sky, see the sun and moon, and from this deduce that the Earth was not flat at all, but round. Why? The moon and sun are round; perhaps it is more logical to conclude that the Earth is similar, rather than different. True, you might say, but how do we know they are not simply flat disks, like coins, rather than spheres? The answer: when we observe the phases of the moon, a shadow moves nightly across its face, having specific visual characteristics. When we try to duplicate these characteristics experimentally, we find that the only way they may be replicated are on the surface of a sphere. All right, you might admit, the Earth could be round, but how shall we prove it? Perhaps in the manner that the young Columbus is reported to have done: by observing the masts of departing sailing vessels sinking ever lower on the horizon. Or, we might do as a Greek philosopher did around 250 B.C.:

Eratosthenes was told that on a certain day during the summer (June 21) in a town called Syene, which was 4900 stadia (1 stadia = 0.16 kilometers) to the south of Alexandria, the sunlight shown directly down the well shafts so that you could see all the way to the bottom. Eratosthenes knew that the sun was never quite high enough in the sky to see the bottom of wells in Alexandria and he was able to calculate that in fact it was about 7 degrees too low. Knowing that the sun was 7 degrees lower at its highpoint in Alexandria than in Syene and assuming that the sun's rays were parallel when they hit the Earth, Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth using a simple proportion: C/4900 stadia = 360 degrees/ 7 degrees. This gives an answer of 252,000 stadia or 40,320 km, which is very close to today's measurements of 40,030 km.

You get the idea. Critical thinking has solved many of the world's mysteries—perhaps most—and is the spearhead of human progress. Continental drift, implied by a map of the world; a case for mass extinctions (and even human evolution), deduced from observing the craters of the moon; clues coming to light about brain function by noting the time lag between reaction to stimulus and conscious awareness...all are examples of critical thinking at work.

Mr. Anderson, wherever you are, I thank you.

Machines Like Us



do religions promote this "critical thinking"?


that website you promote is juat an atheist perspective on existence. there is a link to a live GODCAM :doh: where is the "critical thinking" in this !!!

atheists say that the world exists proves that the world exists and does not prove that God created it. we religious people say that not seeing God proves that you cannot see God and does not prove that God does not exist.

why the double standards :confused:

and the only single logical answer to existence of the world, is that it came from another existence that is abstract and timeless (eternal). it is not limited or confined by any of the definitions we use to confine and bound objects --- length, duration, quantity etc

that abstract eternal existence that caused our bounded timed existence is God. this is why i like islam. Allah swt describes himself in Quran using abstract attributions and warns of the great blasphemy of describing him with anything from this existence (eg. human form, mechanics to describe his actions). why ... because this is the right way to describe God considering the origin of our existence as i mentioned above ......... can you see the critical thinking in believing in God?
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
atheists say that the world exists proves that the world exists and does not prove that God created it. we religious people say that not seeing God proves that you cannot see God and does not prove that God does not exist.

Atheists generally don't say that not seeing God proves that God does not exist. It is far more common for atheists to say that a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means that there is no rational basis for concluding or believing that God exists.

can you see the critical thinking in believing in God?

No doubt that theology may include some critical thinking, but this gets drowned in demands for uncritical acceptance and belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

randomman

Regular Member
Jun 11, 2007
381
5
✟23,041.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Atheists generally don't say that not seeing God proves that God does not exist. It is far more common for atheists to say that a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means that there is no rational basis for concluding or believing that God exists.

i was commenting on the live GodCAM.

still, a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means a lack of perceptual evidence for God ... 1000 years no body believed in electromagnetic waves

No doubt that theology may include some critical thinking, but this gets drowned in demands for uncritical acceptance and belief.

uncritical acceptance by belief is required when critical thinking fails. however, the source of uncritical acceptance must be true information from God himself.

critical thinking tells me God exists and his like nothing of this world. uncritical acceptance is required because i cannot visualize or perceive this God that nothing is like him
 
Upvote 0

funyun

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Feb 14, 2004
3,637
163
37
Visit site
✟4,544.00
Faith
Atheist
i was commenting on the live GodCAM.

still, a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means a lack of perceptual evidence for God ... 1000 years no body believed in electromagnetic waves

There is a fundamental difference between deities and electromagnetic waves, however, and that difference is critical to understanding epistemology. For thousands of years no one knew electromagnetic waves existed because they didn't have the technological capability to empirically discern their existence. Supernatural beings, like deities, however, cannot be empirically detected no matter how technologically advanced you are. The two propositions are on two separate epistemological levels.

If there's a double standard, as you say, with regards to the Abrahamic God, then there is also a double standard with regards to unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. The fact is there is no double standard. The skeptical position is always the default epistemological position. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.
 
Upvote 0

randomman

Regular Member
Jun 11, 2007
381
5
✟23,041.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
There is a fundamental difference between deities and electromagnetic waves, however, and that difference is critical to understanding epistemology. For thousands of years no one knew electromagnetic waves existed because they didn't have the technological capability to empirically discern their existence. Supernatural beings, like deities, however, cannot be empirically detected no matter how technologically advanced you are. The two propositions are on two separate epistemological levels.

If there's a double standard, as you say, with regards to the Abrahamic God, then there is also a double standard with regards to unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. The fact is there is no double standard. The skeptical position is always the default epistemological position. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.


likewise, you cannot detect the pre-existence that caused our existence. but critical thinking requires accepting it.


i guess the bottom line here, is that we base our critical thinking on different set of rules and principles
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
likewise, you cannot detect the pre-existence that caused our existence. but critical thinking requires accepting it.
What does this mean?

i guess the bottom line here, is that we base our critical thinking on different set of rules and principles
I'm curious about this post as well if you don't mind getting into it.

I suspect that critical thinking - whilst to a certain degree learnable and trainable - is a matter of talent. :)
I have to disagree on this point. Maybe I'm wrong but I wouldn't underestimate the value of an education. It can work wonders ime.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
46
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
A recent observation showed that the distant galaxies are actually ACCELERATING away from us. This and other observations imply the existence of at least one spacial dimension beyond the three spacial dimensions we live in. The human mind can't rap itself around the concept of four spacial dimensions, despite rational conclusions that they nevertheless exist. It is rational to conclude that there are things that exist that are impossible for us to understand. It's narrow-minded to believe that only things that we can understand exist. In everyday life, we broaden our horizons by believing things we read about it the news. It requires faith to believe things in far-off places around the world. We certainly have to apply logic to news articles, because not all news is true. By the same token, it's healthy and logical to adopt religious explanations for events in the Universe, and it's prudent to apply logic to test faiths for efficacy. God expects nothing less from us.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I suspect that critical thinking - whilst to a certain degree learnable and trainable - is a matter of talent. :)

And/or a matter of temperament. Some people seem to enjoy critical thinking, and other people seem repulsed by it as if it just doesn't suit their personalities.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,570
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟547,714.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Atheists generally don't say that not seeing God proves that God does not exist. It is far more common for atheists to say that a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means that there is no rational basis for concluding or believing that God exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is this rational? Is it rational to assume there is no other means for a rational basis to exist when perceptual evidence is lacking, as they so assume?

What do you mean by "perceptual evidence'?
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,570
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟547,714.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is a fundamental difference between deities and electromagnetic waves, however, and that difference is critical to understanding epistemology. For thousands of years no one knew electromagnetic waves existed because they didn't have the technological capability to empirically discern their existence. Supernatural beings, like deities, however, cannot be empirically detected no matter how technologically advanced you are. The two propositions are on two separate epistemological levels.

If there's a double standard, as you say, with regards to the Abrahamic God, then there is also a double standard with regards to unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. The fact is there is no double standard. The skeptical position is always the default epistemological position. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

I understand your distinction but I do not think it really precludes the type of inference Randomann was making from the reasoning of, " It is far more common for atheists to say that a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means that there is no rational basis for concluding or believing that God exists.

A lack of perceptual evidence is a lack of perceptual evidence, regardless of the reasons WHY there is a lack of perceptual evidence. The fact remains, where there is a lack of perceptual evidence, there is also lacking a rational basis for concluding or believing. So, the logical inference to be drawn from this is precisely the type of inference Randomann was making.

There was a lack of perceptual evidence for electromagnetic waves, and consequently, there was no rational basis to conclude or believe in electromagnetic waves. This statement MUST BE TRUE if the alleged reasoning of the atheist is also true.

The reasons why there is a lack of perceptual evidence does not negate and is entirely irrelevant to the inference being drawn from the reasoning, primarily because the reasoning does not include such elements.

Randomann was correct in what he identified to be a logical inference from the reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

randomman

Regular Member
Jun 11, 2007
381
5
✟23,041.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I understand your distinction but I do not think it really precludes the type of inference Randomann was making from the reasoning of, " It is far more common for atheists to say that a lack of perceptual evidence for God of whatever sort means that there is no rational basis for concluding or believing that God exists.

A lack of perceptual evidence is a lack of perceptual evidence, regardless of the reasons WHY there is a lack of perceptual evidence. The fact remains, where there is a lack of perceptual evidence, there is also lacking a rational basis for concluding or believing. So, the logical inference to be drawn from this is precisely the type of inference Randomann was making.

There was a lack of perceptual evidence for electromagnetic waves, and consequently, there was no rational basis to conclude or believe in electromagnetic waves. This statement MUST BE TRUE if the alleged reasoning of the atheist is also true.

The reasons why there is a lack of perceptual evidence does not negate and is entirely irrelevant to the inference being drawn from the reasoning, primarily because the reasoning does not include such elements.

Randomann was correct in what he identified to be a logical inference from the reasoning.


thanks for clearing out my point .... i do like your way of thinking and your ability to write effectively ... this is a good motive for me to improve my writing in non-engineering subjects (i study engineering)
 
Upvote 0

vajradhara

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom
Jun 25, 2003
9,403
466
57
Dharmadhatu
✟34,720.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Namaste all,

whilst i agree intoto with Marks post i would suggest that the term "perceptual evidence" is a bit of a misnomer and seems to have spawned several tangent threads which are missing the points actually being raised.

generally speaking, and Mark please correct me if i've mistaken your position, it is intersubjective evidence which is required to establish a claim and it is this sort of evidence which atheists are typically asking for even if they don't specify it with such an appellation.

metta,

~v
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
23,111
6,801
72
✟379,251.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I suspect that critical thinking - whilst to a certain degree learnable and trainable - is a matter of talent. :)

I think it is trainable to a major degree. But the truely inspited use is a great talent.

Much of 'critical thinking' is really just the basic question of the scientific method. If this is true what things should then follow. The round earth example given earlier in this thread is a classic example, of both hte trainability and need for inspired thought.

One could assume the Light from the sun is either a point or that all the light is comming parallel. It is then fairly simple to draw a point source and a parallel source and a globe and a flat surface and see how the light angles would be different for each. But very few could do this, very very few who were not trained in Geometry. And that is what so often is the big step. One must apply ideas from many sources where many do not see how they interrelate.


BTW the way I laid this out a point source and a flat plane for the earth and parallel rays and a globe would both result in light making it straight down a well in some places and at an angle elsewhere.

If you can figure out the differences then I'd say you have a good shot at real critical thinking, as opposed to just passing on thoughts of others.
 
Upvote 0