New Thinker

[essentialsaltes]

This is addressed at a strawman. I have never argued that sometimes it is better to be ignorant about something than to have knowledge about that something.

I have said that knowledge can be beneficial and can also be detrimental.

Apparently, I did not address a strawman. You maintain that not all knowledge is beneficial. If knowledge were detrimental, then there would be some cases where ignorance would be preferable. I am not guilty of the strawman fallacy. I am accurately representing your argument.

Thinking critically is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition to avoiding lies and half-truths.

Well, at least we'll set her up for success. If she has no critical thinking skills, then she does not even have the necessary tools, as you admit.

In addition, I never claimed Christianity was even subject to harm, but rather, a person, namely Bethany. Bethany's religious views may indeed be true but if she is not able to defend such views against let's say, an atheist professor who challenges her at his every chance, then even though her views may be true, she may suffer in any number of ways as a result of being challenged and being unable to her satisfaction to answer such challenges.

Well, we better get her some critical thinking skills so she would be able to answer any unsound or fallacious arguments this atheist professor might use.

Surely you are aware that not everyone who has the capacity to internalize the best practices that critical thinking has to offer actually does so.

I am constantly reminded of it on this website.

 

[Bethany311]

Hi Bethany,

It's becoming more common these days for those who come from either fundamentalistic or more charismatic forms of Christian faith to begin pondering as to whether or not there is in fact more to the nature of "belief" than what they've been told, whether from within their local church or from the comforts and confines of their own families. Apparently, you're now peeking over the horizon and seeing that there is more. That can be both a good thing and a bad thing, so don't jump into all of this without a sense of caution, Bethany.

While I agree with some of the basic praxis regarding critical thinking that a couple of fellow CF posters have thus far presented to you for your consideration, I would instead state that your beginning point is somewhat "relative" in nature, and where you begin on your journey into things "philosophical" will depend upon, and emerge out of, what you perceive your own felt needs are, today.

Rather than refer you to some source for contemplation (at least not for the moment), answer these questions, Bethany: What is it specifically you think you need to achieve, or will be achieving, by studying "critical thinking"? And why do you need to achieve this goal? Do you think the achievement of this goal will actually bring the "gain" that you might hope for?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

I would like to learn as I mentioned, how to use critical thinking and utilize real evidence rather than belief systems I have been accustomed to, in order to find truth, whatever truth may be. I have observed inconsistencies in the way I come to conclusions, and I'd like to know more about using thinking skills in order to come to conclusions based on something evidently real, rather than just assumptions and beliefs. The gain I hope to achieve is primarily to know truth... not something relative, something everyone else believes or says I should believe... but something based on hard facts and reality.

 

[bhsmte]

To the troll that is Bethany, or rather, lurkers who share "her" professed desire:

To be a critical thinker about biblical matters you must develop an awareness of the significance of deafening silence. Here are just 10 examples of deafening silence:
(1) History is written by "the winners" and the losers' perspective has been suppressed. How can "losers'" voices and contributions be recovered?
e. g. the role of Jesus' female disciples and female missionaries in general in spreading the early Christian faith

(2) NT authors and Christians writers of the first 2 centuries provide no reliable explicit details on how and when Christianity was first brought to Rome, Egypt, North Africa, and the vast region east of the Jordan River. Why not? Hint: in the case of Rome, Priscilla is the best candidate as the founder of the church of Rome.

(3) The Bible gives specific examples of how natural disasters are a tool of divine judgment, but never explains why God allows the innocent to suffer in natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, floods, and pestilence. Why not?
What is the proper Christian response to this deafening silence?

(4) The Bible teaches that at creation God brought order of chaos, but never claims that God has mastered the forces of chaos. So the moral implications of a God who does not micro-manage Nature are never explicitly addressed. Why not?
And what is the proper Christian response to this deafening silence?

(5) In Jewish and Greco-Roman literature of late antiquity, the concept of sex orientation is never discussed in treatments of same-sex sexual acts. Why not?

(6) Paul never uses any of the standard Greek words for "Hell." What does this imply about this perspective on traditional concepts of Hell?

(7) Jesus' physical appearance and personality traits (as opposed to His character traits) are never described in the Gospels. Why not?

(8) Jesus never kept any diaries or wrote any books or letters, as far as we know. Why not? Why wouldn't God inspire Him to do so, in anticipation of doubts about whether our Gospels present legends or facts, genuine or spurious sayings of Jesus?

(9) NT sources earlier than Matthew and Luke (e. g. Paul and Mark) never mention Jesus' virgin birth. Why not? Has the doctrine not been formulated yet? Has it been formulated, but kept secret because of its association with polygamous Greco-Roman virgin birth stories of gods and heroes?

(10) Luke is clearly aware of Paul's execution during Nero's reign, but he never recounts the story of Paul's execution. Why not?

Why is Bethany a troll?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The video below is a comparative presentation between the different approaches of two leading atheists--

This focus on atheism is quite bizarre.

Bethany asks for help in thinking better.
Some people offer help in thinking better.
Other people offer dire warnings about atheism.
Many centuries' worth of Christian philosophers, who worked hard at thinking better, are spinning in their graves.

 

[bhsmte]

This focus on atheism is quite bizarre.

Bethany asks for help in thinking better.
Some people offer help in thinking better.
Other people offer dire warnings about atheism.
Many centuries' worth of Christian philosophers, who worked hard at thinking better, are spinning in their graves.

Precisely why I posted it appears some feel threatened.

Someone is saying that want to critically think and if the critical thinking doesn't involve agreeing with certain people, there must be something wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

To the troll that is Bethany,

Again, this assumption that a Christian asking questions is most likely a troll is just bizarre.

 

[Chesterton]

I would like to learn as I mentioned, how to use critical thinking and utilize real evidence rather than belief systems I have been accustomed to, in order to find truth, whatever truth may be. I have observed inconsistencies in the way I come to conclusions, and I'd like to know more about using thinking skills in order to come to conclusions based on something evidently real, rather than just assumptions and beliefs. The gain I hope to achieve is primarily to know truth... not something relative, something everyone else believes or says I should believe... but something based on hard facts and reality.

Yes. You mention wanting real evidence and hard facts, which is what I also asked for in a previous post. Before you utilize critical thinking about reality, you need hard facts and evidence to think about.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Again, this assumption that a Christian asking questions is most likely a troll is just bizarre.

Over my years here I've seen several Christians deconvert. So it's definitely not a given that "Christians" who want to learn critical thinking must be trolls.

But since I've heard several preachers (in person, on the radio and on TV) mention that Christians should run, not walk, from "secular" knowledge like science and Philosophy, I understand the fear that Christians may have.

 

[Bethany311]

Also, don't forget to check out a full list of cognitive biases. Once you have an idea of the ways we can easily fool ourselves, you can spot these problems in how you and other people reason and argue.

I really appreciate this link. I had heard of cognitive biases before briefly, but had no idea there were so many specific biases! FrumiousBandersnatch, if you wouldn't mind and have the time, could you give me some real-life examples of a few of these? Maybe a few you have dealt with recently and personally? I realize the definitions are pretty self-explanatory, but it would be nice to have some examples if possible...

In fact, I'd like to broaden this discussion and ask anyone interested...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would like to learn as I mentioned, how to use critical thinking and utilize real evidence rather than belief systems I have been accustomed to, in order to find truth, whatever truth may be.

That is very commendable, Bethany. But, what you're going to find out is that the "use" of critical thinking and the utilization of "evidence" are endeavors that are subject to some level of relative consideration. A lot of the truth of a matter will depend on the way in which you approach a subject for investigation or on the theoretical framework in which you place the so-called evidence. Moreover, I have to mention that the nature of evidence isn't something that is so clear; the meaning of evidence itself isn't self-evident. And I say this not in opposition to you, but simply as a brother in Christ who is wanting to inform a sister.

I have observed inconsistencies in the way I come to conclusions, and I'd like to know more about using thinking skills in order to come to conclusions based on something evidently real, rather than just assumptions and beliefs.

I'm glad that you've become aware of inconsistencies in your thinking and that you want to come away honest about this situation. We all have to work on our cognitive inconsistencies, but in this regard, if we are going to apply the effort to be consistent to the truth of our faith, we'll find that not everything that we'd like to be enlightened about will necessarily open up it's hidden truth to our inquiring minds. I just say this as a cautionary measure.

The gain I hope to achieve is primarily to know truth... not something relative, something everyone else believes or says I should believe... but something based on hard facts and reality.

That is an excellent virtue to long for, Bethany. We should all want to know the truth as far as it is possible to know. However, let me bring your attention to the fact that there is a difference in meaning between the term "relative" (as in "relativity") and the similar term "relativism." One is not the other, and it would probably be a good thing if you learn the difference and their respective applications to the idea(s) of Truth.

Another thing is that "hard facts" do not by necessity equate to "reality." These are not synonyms. Nor is there simply one mode or theoretical definition of Truth. Here's a link to the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia article on the diversity of conceptual approaches to this thing that many people seem to clamor for:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ ​

I'd recommend the following professional journal article by Catherine Elgin as a beginning, related illustration of my insistence of the things I've stated above:

Elgin, C. (2007). Understanding and the facts. Philosophical Studies, 132(1), 33-42.​

Now, where would YOU like for us to begin? (I'd suggest further studies on Epistemology as a practical starting point, but you may feel differently.)

2PhiloVoid

 

[bhsmte]

That is very commendable, Bethany. But, what you're going to find out is that the "use" of critical thinking and the utilization of "evidence" are endeavors that are subject to some level of relative consideration. A lot of the truth of a matter will depend on the way in which you approach a subject for investigation or on the theoretical framework in which you place the so-called evidence. Moreover, I have to mention that the nature of evidence isn't something that is so clear; the meaning of evidence itself isn't self-evident. And I say this not in opposition to you, but simply as a brother in Christ who is wanting to inform a sister.

I'm glad that you've become aware of inconsistencies in your thinking and that you want to come away honest about this situation. We all have to work on our cognitive inconsistencies, but in this regard, if we are going to apply the effort to be consistent to the truth of our faith, we'll find that not everything that we'd like to be enlightened about will necessarily open up it's hidden truth to our inquiring minds. I just say this as a cautionary measure.

That is an excellent virtue to long for, Bethany. We should all want to know the truth as far as it is possible to know. However, let me bring your attention to the fact that there is a difference in meaning between the term "relative" and the similar term "relativism." One is not the other, and it would probably be good if you learn the difference and their respective applications to the idea of Truth.

Another thing is that "hard facts" do not by necessity equate to "reality." These are not synonyms.

Now, where would YOU like for us to begin?

2PhiloVoid

What do you think, best equates with reality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you think, best equates with reality?

Jesus ...? (I know you love that answer, bhsmte. Anyway, back to Bethany ...)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Another thing is that "hard facts" do not by necessity equate to "reality." These are not synonyms.

Hard facts are the very definition of reality...

 

[timewerx]

However I've recently been challenged, and I want to learn new skills based on what I've recently been exposed to: I want to learn critical thinking, skills in logic, how to care about and examine evidence and consider evidence and not just "belief", fallacies in thinking, what they are and how to avoid them... It's all brand new to me, like a new language. I realize I've been surrounded mostly by people who don't utilize critical thinking, evidence based reasoning, etc... and it's so new to me, I want to be exposed to it more and more and understand how to actually think critically about issues.

Welcome to the club!

I want to speak with people on both ends of the spectrum, from those who view evidences, to those who operate primarily on belief.

You're in luck! I'm both! Not at the same time though. For 20 years, I've held my Christian beliefs to be free of errors. Then in recent times, I've held jobs that required lots and lots of critical thinking. Slowly, it changed my views of religion and I began to see many inconsistencies, contradictions in the things I've been taught as a Christian for 20 years.

Where is a good place to start?

I would strongly advice you to learn critical thinking skills, deductive reasoning, logic, take jobs in data analysis, investigative analysis, statistical analysis, data forecasting, even in IT/scientific research....Jobs that will require quite a lot of critical thinking, pattern and correlations analysis.

Once these skills become 2nd nature to you (after a considerable time to be honest). Are you familiar with the fictional "Sherlock Holmes" ? Then come back and analyse Christianity and make your own conclusions for yourself.

 

[Bethany311]

Perhaps an ad hominem ? An attack made in a personal nature, often to illicit an emotional response and distract the other person from the point or topic at hand, etc. ?

That's the word I was looking for...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That may indeed be the objective of the piece, but just because an author or authors intend their work to aid in helping one to not be confused or to help one to recognize lies and half truths, it does not follow that Bethany will be aided in the fashion they intend after having read the piece.

Explanations of critical thinking, logic, skepticism, etc., are not like works by a particular author or authors, they are explanations of methodologies, tools for effective thinking.

By analogy, if they referred to putting up shelves, they'd be warning about safety and technique - ensure there are no pipes or cables where you want to put your supports, mind your thumb when hammering, use an RCD when drilling, ensure the ladder is stable, make sure the shelves are level and strong enough for what you want to put on them, etc. The shelf material, colour, height, fixings, and style are up to the indvidual, but effective methods and techniques apply to any and all.

IOW, they're not telling you what to think - that's up to the individual, they're giving you useful techniques for specific contexts.

This highlights the importance of the points Philo made earlier. It is not enough just to tell somebody to go read some material on the internet that you may personally have benefited from yourself. What helped you may not help another. What is easy for you to grasp may not be easy for someone else. What makes sense to you and is easily comprehended may not be so for someone else.

Of course; if Bethany finds it hard going, or can't get on with some material, or doesn't understand something, she should drop it, or ask for explanations, or seek alternative sources. This applies to recommendations for anything.

You have teeth and can eat meat and that is great, but to think that because you can eat it, that a person without teeth can eat it just as well is itself an instance of fallacious reasoning.

So it's a good thing no-one suggested that.

I would be far more interested in actually getting to know more about Bethany and what exactly has caused her to all of a sudden want to come to a philosophy forum and ask people the questions she has asked.

So ask her.

I hope the piece you referenced does indeed aspire to do what you say. I would be inclined to recommend it myself if it does not contain a caricature of what "belief" is, for example.

I gave a whole bunch or references, all by acknowledged experts in their fields - which piece did you have in mind?

When concepts like 'belief' are discussed in such material, if the semantics are particularly relevant (i.e. more than simply colloquial), the particular usage will be defined in advance. For example, in contemporary philosophy, unless otherwise qualified, it's usually taken to be 'the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true'. Depending on the context, it may be explicitly qualified. In theological discussions, it may be different. It's up to the reader to decide whether they agree with how such a term is applied in general discussion, but when learning how to think critically, argue, and analyse effectively, they only need to understand what it means in that context.

I have read many of the works people have recommended I should read that falls within the genre which we are discussing and much of what was recommended was woefully misleading and presented strawmen and caricatures of concepts such as faith and belief. Such material was compiled by internet skeptics and pseudo philosophers, and had one read it who did not know how to discern what was true from what was false and what faith and belief are as understood by people who actually use the terms, one could have easily been misled.

As Wittgenstein observed, meaning is a function of usage; in philosophical discussion, the terms should be defined in advance, where necessary. Once defined, they provide a standard for the context. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with references - are you sure it wasn't that the definitions used were different from the ones you were accustomed to? Words like faith, belief, knowledge, information, etc., have different meanings in different contexts, and they're not always made clear.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I really appreciate this link. I had heard of cognitive biases before briefly, but had no idea there were so many specific biases! FrumiousBandersnatch, if you wouldn't mind and have the time, could you give me some real-life examples of a few of these? Maybe a few you have dealt with recently and personally? I realize the definitions are pretty self-explanatory, but it would be nice to have some examples if possible...

OK, I'll have a go...

Incidentally, I know you said you didn't want book recommendations, but I think there's a book that's a 'must read' for learning about critical thinking and cognitive biases, because it provides a background explanation for them, and also gives a bunch of examples you can try for yourself. The book is 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman, and is about the two systems of thinking we use - System 1, the fast, automatic, effortless, intuitive, involuntary system, and System 2, the deliberative, slow, effortful, conscious, logical, stepwise thinking. System 1 will instantly tell you what 3x2 is, but it takes System 2 to work out 17x24. It's System 2 that you need to use to spot cognitive biases.

For examples of biases, buying a car is instructive. Your 'positive outcome bias' and 'overconfidence effect' may lead you to think you'll be able to get a great car for a low, low price. The salesman will probably use the 'anchoring effect', where, by mentioning a higher sum (it doesn't even have to be directly related to cars, but usually is) before discussing the price for the car you want, he primes you to see even an excessive price as more reasonable than it is (shops do this with pricing, and also reverse it, by raising the price of a single item to make the 2-for-1 seem like good value). He might use the 'Forer effect' (or 'Barnum effect') to persuade you that a particular car is an ideal match for your needs, by listing a bunch of features as particularly suitable to you, when they're features almost everyone would want (this is also used by astrologers & psychics to make you feel they know all about you). On the test drive, 'expectation bias' and 'selective perception bias' may make you feel the car is better than your old one, even if it isn't.

The salesman will make you think you got the better of him in assessing the car and haggling the price, by giving you the 'illusion of control' and knowing that the 'overconfidence effect' means you probably think you know more about cars and haggling than you actually do, and the 'Dunning-Kruger effect' means your ignorance of cars & haggling prevents you realising this. Using 'hyperbolic discounting' he'll knock a chunk off the price, or throw in rubber mats and mud flaps, in return for signing you up to a 'bargain' service contract that'll cost you more in the long term.

Once you've paid more than you should for a car that isn't ideal for you, 'post-purchase rationalization' bias will help you feel it was a bargain, 'rosy retrospection' bias will suggest you were well in control of the purchase process (when you were actually a sweating, nervous wreck), and 'hindsight bias' will tell you that you were right to think you could get a great car for a low price. When you take your new car out on the road, your brain primed with the image of your new pride and joy, and you may find yourself suddenly seeing far more instances of that model than you expected, as if a significant proportion of the public bought that model at the same time you did. This is the 'frequency illusion'. When you tell your friends about it later, the 'Lake Wobegon effect' will encourage you to boast about outwitting the salesman. And so-on; you get the idea.

Over all of these, and contributing to many of them, 'confirmation bias', the unconscious tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, casts its deceptive shadow...

You may think that I recently bought a dud car - I didn't, all that happened a long time ago, and contributed greatly to my eventually realising that, as a student, I knew a lot less about the world than I thought

 

[essentialsaltes]

Over all of these, and contributing to many of them, 'confirmation bias', the unconscious tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, casts its deceptive shadow...

Lovely work. And yes, confirmation bias is one of the big ones. Once an idea or belief gets into your head, we tend to ignore information that disagrees with it, and latch onto information that agrees with it. We all suffer from this. I find myself doing it. I get in some heated debate, and google something to get more ammunition, and I find myself clicking on the websites that seem to agree with me, rather than the ones that challenge my ideas. But once you start to become aware of it, you can at least try to overcome it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would strongly advice you to learn critical thinking skills, deductive reasoning, logic, take jobs in data analysis, investigative analysis, statistical analysis, data forecasting, even in IT/scientific research....Jobs that will require quite a lot of critical thinking, pattern and correlations analysis.

Also, learning to program (writing computer code) is a skill that can be learn in spare time and encourages logic skills, analytical care, error spotting, edge cases, reductio-ad-absurdum, structuring a coherent argument, etc. Having said that, it does need a spark of interest in computing...

Once these skills become 2nd nature to you (after a considerable time to be honest). Are you familiar with the fictional "Sherlock Holmes" ? Then come back and analyse Christianity and make your own conclusions for yourself.

They are also useful life skills that are applicable beyond the analysis of religious belief systems.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lovely work.

Thank you

We all suffer from this. I find myself doing it. I get in some heated debate, and google something to get more ammunition, and I find myself clicking on the websites that seem to agree with me, rather than the ones that challenge my ideas.

Yes, me too; the main problem is one often only realises it retrospectively, but even then it can be very difficult to be even-handed and fair with information that contradicts your ideas.

But once you start to become aware of it, you can at least try to overcome it.

Absolutely - awareness is key to reducing the impact of biases, because it allows you to make adjustments and corrections, even if they come after the fact, and it primes you to recognise likely problem situations in future.