New Thinker

[anonymous person]

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...

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

And what would you say of people who have analyzed Christianity in such a fashion and have come away with their whole life turned upside down, having been convinced that Christianity is true on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence for the central truth claims of Christianity?

 

[anonymous person]

In addition to the question I posed, let me post another:

What accounts for the fact that a person can utilize all of these tools of reasoning which have been championed here and still come to adopt beliefs that are neither arrived at via these methods of reasoning, nor are supported by them?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And what would you say of people who have analyzed Christianity in such a fashion and have come away with their whole life turned upside down, having been convinced that Christianity is true on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence for the central truth claims of Christianity?

Good luck to them if they get an outcome they're happy with; but I'd be surprised if it happened that way, because most Christians I've encountered who have experience with philosophy and/or critical and skeptical thinking, have acknowledged that their belief, and the Christian mythos itself, is not something they can readily make a rational case for - yet they still believe. I don't have the stats, but most of the stories I hear of non-believers becoming Christian believers seem to involve deeply emotional response rather than critical intellectual analysis; that's not to say it can't or doesn't happen.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What accounts for the fact that a person can utilize all of these tools of reasoning which have been championed here and still come to adopt beliefs that are neither arrived at via these methods of reasoning, nor are supported by them?

I'm no psychologist, but I'll guess compartmentalization, a separation of conflicting or contradictory beliefs or systems into disjoint aspects or facets of mental life. This would reduce the risk of cognitive dissonance.

As we suggested earlier, being aware of cognitive biases, errors & fallacies, etc., doesn't mean you no longer have those biases or make those errors & fallacies, it just means you're more likely to recognise them than if you're unaware of them; and some of those biases make it easier to recognise them in others than in yourself (he said!).

Being human also involves a tendency towards superstitious or 'magical' thinking, supernatural & theistic ideas and beliefs, and emotional and intuitive rather than rational responses; it's built-in, and there are plausible reasons for this. In some people these tendencies are stronger, and in some they're weaker, but we all have them, and that's why explicit techniques and methodologies for rational thinking and knowledge acquisition have been developed (including the scientific method).

With luck, touch wood. Famous last words... Oops! commentator's curse.

 

[Bethany311]

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

Well this is neat... this morning I had an urge to go through old emails and re-read a few. In an email a friend sent last year at almost exactly this same time of month, they explained a little about the Forer effect. That was the first time I'd ever heard about it. I'd forgot about it since then, and now here you are mentioning it, a year later, in a response attempting to help me find truth by way of critical thinking. It makes me think something or someone bigger than myself is helping me, showing me to pay attention and that I may be onto something. Could be coincidence, but things like this do seem to happen more to me these days. Or perhaps I am simply using confirmation bias as described here? I'm sure that is also a possibility...

Thank you for sharing, and even doing so in the form of something that happened directly to you that helped you learn. This entire scenario gives excellent examples, and makes me consider what biases I myself have at any given time in different situations. Lots to think about...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well this is neat... this morning I had an urge to go through old emails and re-read a few. In an email a friend sent last year at almost exactly this same time of month, they explained a little about the Forer effect. That was the first time I'd ever heard about it. I'd forgot about it since then, and now here you are mentioning it, a year later, in a response attempting to help me find truth by way of critical thinking. It makes me think something or someone bigger than myself is helping me, showing me to pay attention and that I may be onto something. Could be coincidence, but things like this do seem to happen more to me these days. Or perhaps I am simply using confirmation bias as described here? I'm sure that is also a possibility...

Well, you asked about fallacies in thinking and I gave you a whole list of cognitive biases - the Forer effect was almost bound to be in there. You noticed it because your previous encounter with it had primed you to. And it was you who decided when to ask. But in any case, so what if it happens to coincide with some particular time of year - why is that significant? It had to happen at some time. If it had been exactly a month later, or six months later, would that have felt significant? what about if you'd used the same computer, or were wearing the same clothes? Humans a very poor at intuiting probabilities - consider the Birthday Problem - who would have thought you only need 23 people to have a 50% chance of two of them sharing a birthday?

If you look for significance or coincidence in a large number of possibles, you're almost certain to find one - this is the everyday version of the 'Look Elsewhere effect' or the Law of Truly Large Numbers. This was the problem that caused the scare about power lines causing leukemia - a Swedish government study looked to see whether living near power lines had any effect on health. Over 25 years they tracked the health of a huge number of people living within 300 meters of power lines, checking 800 different ailments. when they analyzed the data, they found that out of the 800 ailments, children living by power lines were four times more likely to have leukemia, which caused a huge fuss. What they didn't account for is that when you look at 800 independent variables like that, statistically you should expect at least one in your sample to be that far above the norm purely by chance. That, and the fact that leukemia has very low incidence in the population and so provides a relatively small sample, explained the large divergence from normal. Subsequent studies specifically into leukemia incidence found no such association with power lines (although it didn't stop a similar statistical scare about leukemia 'clusters' near nuclear power stations in the UK).

Anyway, here's an entertaining video about the Forer (or Barnum) Effect:

Thank you for sharing...

You're welcome; this stuff is fascinating - the more I learn, the more I appreciate the importance of critical thinking skills.

 

[anonymous person]

Good luck to them if they get an outcome they're happy with;

So after all the talk of the importance of thinking critically, of acquiring knowledge, of seeking truth even if it means we have to adopt views that contradict our biases, and of seeking truth even if it means we are unhappy at what we find, you now claim that what really matters is whether or not one is happy with the outcome of their inquiry?

Really?

What happened to the cool objectivity of the skeptical, critical thinker who weighs and examines and aspires to the truth, even if it means that the truth contradicts everything they believe? What happened to the setting aside of desire and passion and happiness for the sake of truth and knowledge for their own sake? Was it all just talk? Was it all just posturing? Was it all nothing more than pretense? At the end of the day, if you can tell someone who claims they have critically examined a worldview and found it to be true, "good luck if it makes you happy", do you really value all of these tools of reasoning that you claim you do? If so, would you not immediately ask the person to enlighten you as to how they came to their conclusions and what the evidence was for said conclusions instead of dismissing them with a "good luck"?

If someone came to me and said, "Jeremy, I have critically examined naturalism and have concluded that there is good evidence that it is true after all!" I would immediately be intrigued and ask them to share their findings with me. I would not dismiss them with a "good luck with that so long as you're happy."

but I'd be surprised if it happened that way, because most Christians I've encountered who have experience with philosophy and/or critical and skeptical thinking, have acknowledged that their belief, and the Christian mythos itself, is not something they can readily make a rational case for - yet they still believe. I don't have the stats, but most of the stories I hear of non-believers becoming Christian believers seem to involve deeply emotional response rather than critical intellectual analysis; that's not to say it can't or doesn't happen.

Interesting.

It seems to me that since, as you claim, such people would be the exception, that such people would be so rare, that you who value critical intellectual analysis and desire so heartily to overcome your own biases and to pursue truth at all cost and to acquire knowledge, that you would literally leap at the opportunity to find out what the evidence was that such a Christian had and the processes they went through in their critical intellectual analysis of the Christian worldview which led them to conclude that it was true. Would that not be what a curious, critically thinking, always seeking to know more and learn more seeker of light and truth would do?

Or would they come up with some lame excuse, "eh well the few Christians I have talked with haven't impressed me, therefore there is nothing that a Christian can show me of any value, so I am going to just say good luck to you if your outcome has made you happy."

Come on man can't you see how you are contradicting yourself?

Secondly, you need to get out more. Do you want to be surprised by a Christian? Do you seek out those Christians that can do what you claim most don't?

Have you sought me out to genuinely and sincerely ask me why I believe what I do and what evidence I have for thinking Christianity is true? I stand as one who claims that Christianity is true and as one who has critically examined it through many hours of rigorous intellectual analysis. Do you care to hear what I have to say? My reasons, my arguments, my evidences?

There has been a veritable renaissance within the academy with regards to discussions on the existence of God. Many of the brightest and most learned men and women in philosophy departments around the world are outspoken Christians. They are the minority to be sure, but to say that you are surprised if anyone would tell you that Christianity is true and is well evidenced simply demonstrates how very little you know about the numerous men and women out there who have critically examined Christianity and have found it to be well evidenced.

Thirdly, the Bible is clear. God has chosen to hide spiritual matters from those wise and prudent according to the standards of this fallen world and reveal them to babes. Why? Because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. God resists such men like Dan Dennett who would rather believe that the universe could create itself than believe that it is the handiwork of a creator. God resists such men whose pride blinds them from their obviously self referentially incoherent views. Many of the leading scientists and learned men of this world would rather believe that something can come from nothing than to acknowledge that the universe needs a cause if it comes into being. Men like Nagel and Huxley have said that they have motives which critical thinking and reason play no part in for their wanting the world to be godless. Such men were intellectuals. They were smart. They read the books on philosophy. They read the books on critical thinking and yet for all their abilities to reason, their hearts had reasons that reason knew nothing about.

Now you claim to be one here who prizes thinking critically, of being able to point out fallacies and all of that, but your inconsistency is quite alarming.

Do you not value consistency and internal coherence when it comes to your views?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So after all the talk of the importance of thinking critically, of acquiring knowledge, of seeking truth even if it means we have to adopt views that contradict our biases, and of seeking truth even if it means we are unhappy at what we find, you now claim that what really matters is whether or not one is happy with the outcome of their inquiry?

You may be thinking of someone else - I didn't say the bolded part. Please try to keep to what I actually said, rather than make stuff up.

Being happy is important; whether it is 'what really matters' is up to the individual concerned. You asked me what I'd say of someone who became Christian through critical thinking. If they'd convinced themselves, I'd hope that they were happy rather than unhappy.

What happened to the cool objectivity of the skeptical, critical thinker who weighs and examines and aspires to the truth, even if it means that the truth contradicts everything they believe?

Nothing I'm aware of; a reasonable man aligns his beliefs with can be shown to be true.

What happened to the setting aside of desire and passion and happiness for the sake of truth and knowledge for their own sake? Was it all just talk? Was it all just posturing? Was it all nothing more than pretense?

I don't know, perhaps you should ask someone who thinks that.

At the end of the day, if you can tell someone who claims they have critically examined a worldview and found it to be true, "good luck if it makes you happy", do you really value all of these tools of reasoning that you claim you do? If so, would you not immediately ask the person to enlighten you as to how they came to their conclusions and what the evidence was for said conclusions instead of dismissing them with a "good luck"?

You asked me what I'd say of such people, not what I'd say to them. If I had the opportunity to talk to such a person I would ask them the questions you suggest.

If someone came to me and said, "Jeremy, I have critically examined naturalism and have concluded that there is good evidence that it is true after all!" I would immediately be intrigued and ask them to share their findings with me. I would not dismiss them with a "good luck with that so long as you're happy."

Good for you, not-so-anonymous Jeremy.

Are you Jeremy E Walker, aka Elioenai26 ?

It seems to me that since, as you claim, such people would be the exception, that such people would be so rare

Ah, no. I said that in my experience, most such conversions were not a result of rational analysis. Your biases are showing - try to respond to what is actually said rather than embellish it. This is important in critical thinking and analysis, and in philosophy.

...you who value critical intellectual analysis and desire so heartily to overcome your own biases and to pursue truth at all cost and to acquire knowledge, that you would literally leap at the opportunity to find out what the evidence was that such a Christian had and the processes they went through in their critical intellectual analysis of the Christian worldview which led them to conclude that it was true. Would that not be what a curious, critically thinking, always seeking to know more and learn more seeker of light and truth would do?

You've constructed a straw extremist to argue against. Like many people, I value critical intellectual analysis, try to minimise cognitive biases, seek truth, and acquire knowledge, but not at all cost. I'm curious to know what persuades people to irrational beliefs, but it's just one of many things that interest me.

Come on man can't you see how you are contradicting yourself?

Lol! I certainly contradict the ideologue you describe.

Secondly, you need to get out more.

I get out plenty. You may be projecting.

Have you sought me out to genuinely and sincerely ask me why I believe what I do and what evidence I have for thinking Christianity is true? I stand as one who claims that Christianity is true and as one who has critically examined it through many hours of rigorous intellectual analysis. Do you care to hear what I have to say? My reasons, my arguments, my evidences?

Your posts so far don't inspire confidence, but if you think you have good reasons, sound arguments, and verifiable evidence, by all means, go for it - preferably in a new thread.

... to say that you are surprised if anyone would tell you that Christianity is true and is well evidenced simply demonstrates how very little you know about the numerous men and women out there who have critically examined Christianity and have found it to be well evidenced.

It would if I'd said that. I didn't.

Thirdly, the Bible is clear.

It's interesting how many people say that and yet disagree with each other about what it means.

God has chosen to hide spiritual matters from those wise and prudent according to the standards of this fallen world and reveal them to babes. Why? Because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

Humble babes like you?

Now you claim to be one here who prizes thinking critically, of being able to point out fallacies and all of that, but your inconsistency is quite alarming.

Oh dear; please don't be alarmed. If you think I've been inconsistent, please point it out - but quote me, don't try to put words in my mouth.

Do you not value consistency and internal coherence when it comes to your views?

Yes, I do. Do you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi all! This is my first post here on the forums. I am a life long believer, grew up in a Charismatic environment, pretty sheltered, and have been surrounded by and raised in that type of Christian environment for most of my life. Missionary organizations, Bible schools, Christian music only... you name it, I fit that mold. 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. I want to speak with people on both ends of the spectrum, from those who view evidences, to those who operate primarily on belief. I want to view the claims of others, and my own, in a new way. I was recommended to these forums, that I might find a good mix here, so I can begin to see things in a new way, with a fresh perspective.

Where is a good place to start? Again, I want to hear from both believer and non, and it's all very much new to me, so I'm not going to be as familiar with terms and things as I'd like, but I want to learn. Practical, hands on application in the here and now, especially in discussion is primarily what I'm looking for rather than book recommendations, etc. So how to begin? Thanks for any input in advance!

So, Bethany. Here's the thing. Even if you gain a proficiency in the use of informal logic, the use of this logic for the benefit of thinking critically in no way determines at the outset either the conceptual nature of evidence or the conceptual nature of truth. And this is where the "relative" epistemological considerations come into play that I've alluded to in earlier posts (see again post #50 and the links I provided there).

Informal logic is great and all, but let's not assume that it's application will always parse our understanding(s) into mental models which guarantee clarity (~Truth) about whatever portion of reality we are working with at the moment. While we attempt to gain results from the use of our applications of informal logic, we also want to avoid the "Fallacy of Composition," or its converse, the "Fallacy of Division," do we not?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Bethany311]

This is a great reply (FrumiousBandersnatch), and exactly why I'm on this forum - to try and pick apart the way I'm used to thinking and find out how to determine if it lines up with reality or not. I'd like to jump in and ask more about coincidences... but I'm not really sure where to begin.. I'd have to think about what direction I'd want to go. Great video too... I remember seeing a similar video a few months back, I think put out by BuzzFeed. Everyone seemed to believe their horoscope was correct for them in most ways, and they all received the exact same reading.

I appreciate everyone's posts and the time it's taken to write these things out. I'd like to reply to everyone in some way, but mostly at this time I'm just taking it all in and gleaning from what I've read. It's almost overwhelming to me. I do enjoy reading the conversations between posters, seeing how things can be broken down into compartments and addressed... even in the midst of these convos, I am learning to differentiate between emotional responses, fallacies in thinking, preconceived ideas in a person's mind, and what is actually addressing the points put forth without diverting to something else.

There is something else a friend brought up to me today to think about - Occam's Razor - the idea that Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Or as they put it to me today, the simplest solution is the most probable. Would anyone like to chime in on this principal and give me some example of this?

Again, thanks to everyone who's added to the conversation here. I appreciate it, and hope to keep exploring the forums with my own questions and input.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is something else a friend brought up to me today to think about - Occam's Razor - the idea that Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Or as they put it to me today, the simplest solution is the most probable. Would anyone like to chime in on this principal and give me some example of this?

Once upon a time, people used to joke that when you close the refrigerator door, a little man would come out of the works and turn off the light inside the refrigerator. Other people suggested that a little switch in the door hinge would accomplish this task. Certainly a switch is simpler than having a dedicated mini-employee in your fridge. A switch answers the whole question, while the man seems to require a lot of other assumptions or explanations. How is he fed? Does he eat your leftovers? Is he paid? Where did this little guy come from, anyway? Is he an Oompa Loompa?

Now, I don't think we have any assurance that Occam's Razor is always correct. Perhaps reality is more complicated than our simplest explanation. But at least it does allow us to examine the situation and test our explanations and their assumptions. You could now go look at your fridge, and see if you can find the switch. Play with it, and see what it does. Assuming you find the switch (and not a little man), and it works as it ought to, then the addition of the little man would seem to be totally unnecessary.

More seriously, one could look at the orbits of the planets. As seen from earth, some of the planets seem to backtrack strangely in the sky. The images show the positions of Mars as it moved across the sky on successive days

One could formulate a complicated curve to make Mars (and Jupiter, and Saturn, etc.) move like that around the earth. But if you make a different assumption -- that all the planets (including the earth) move about the sun, then these complicated motions become simpler. Every planet moves in an ellipse. Only the motion of the earth makes it appear that some of the planets backtrack in the sky.

Occam's Razor would seem to prefer the latter hypothesis. Again actual empirical observation and experiment can also help settle the matter more definitely.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is something else a friend brought up to me today to think about - Occam's Razor - the idea that Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Or as they put it to me today, the simplest solution is the most probable. Would anyone like to chime in on this principal and give me some example of this?

Just to add to essentialsaltes's post, Ockham actually said, "It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer", which is generally expressed as, "Entities must not be multiple beyond necessity", and sometimes known as 'parsimony'.

There are some things to bear in mind - it's generally used as a decider when the competing hypotheses are equally effective; sometimes it's the number of types of entity that's important - the simpler explanation may involve many of the same kind of entity (e.g. matter being made out of lots of atoms); and it's also important to consider the hidden assumptions of explanations that appear superficially simple (as with the little man in the fridge in essentialsaltes's post, conspiracy theories, or paranormal explanations).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is a great reply (FrumiousBandersnatch), and exactly why I'm on this forum - to try and pick apart the way I'm used to thinking and find out how to determine if it lines up with reality or not. I'd like to jump in and ask more about coincidences... but I'm not really sure where to begin.. I'd have to think about what direction I'd want to go. Great video too... I remember seeing a similar video a few months back, I think put out by BuzzFeed. Everyone seemed to believe their horoscope was correct for them in most ways, and they all received the exact same reading.

I appreciate everyone's posts and the time it's taken to write these things out. I'd like to reply to everyone in some way, but mostly at this time I'm just taking it all in and gleaning from what I've read. It's almost overwhelming to me. I do enjoy reading the conversations between posters, seeing how things can be broken down into compartments and addressed... even in the midst of these convos, I am learning to differentiate between emotional responses, fallacies in thinking, preconceived ideas in a person's mind, and what is actually addressing the points put forth without diverting to something else.

There is something else a friend brought up to me today to think about - Occam's Razor - the idea that Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Or as they put it to me today, the simplest solution is the most probable. Would anyone like to chime in on this principal and give me some example of this?

Again, thanks to everyone who's added to the conversation here. I appreciate it, and hope to keep exploring the forums with my own questions and input.

Hi Bethany,

How about reading a (~short) article that addresses this very thing (i.e. as to how Ockhams Razor can be used, and in this case, as to how it applies to the relationship between science and theology). This article is from one of the latest issues of the periodical, Philosophy Now.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Science_Ockhams_Razor_and_God

2PhiloVoid

 

[TillICollapse]

Great thread with good examples.

To those who may still think Bethany311 is a "troll", for what it's worth, I am the one who recommended this forum to her. I considered recommending a skeptics forum, however I thought the variety of believer and non would be better represented in this forum. In general, I have appreciated this forum for the way both believer and non believer interact with each other ... it's not as free as other forums on the internet as far as who can interact with who about what topics, in my opinion, but still, it's a good variety for examination.

 

[Bethany311]

I'd like to post here again to continue to learn how to critically think for myself. Some of you have seen my other recent post concerning gaining evidence for how I can know for sure the "god" I'm believing in/interacting with is real.

For those who are willing, I'd like to take that post (mentioned above and linked below) and pick it apart for fallacies. I believe I've seen several thus far, most recently the majority or "bandwagon" fallacy and strawman - "giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." I have an idea for myself when this is happening, but I'd like to hear from others who spot them as well. I don't intend this conversation to be a bashing party or to gang up on anyone, and I think it's possible to do this civilly and matter-of-factly, but let's use specific scenarios and responses, for the purpose of study and identification. It would be nice to start training myself to see faulty reasoning for what it is, identifying fallacies as they arise in conversation correctly, and I think pin-pointing the responses put forth in this thread (linked) is as good a place as any to start.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...th-and-hope-in-is-the-real-god.7963454/page-6

This includes in my own conversations as well. Please feel free to pick apart what I say... it helps me gain perspective and see my own tendencies. It's been pointed out to me that I lack Theory of Mind in certain posts. I realized characterizing "God" as having to also be "creator" is an assumption I have made that goes as far back as I can remember. Another poster pointed out, "...I definitely have experiences that could be described the way you describe yours. Except, since I don´t have your religious background, I never got the idea that this may be advice by an exteriour entity." So I want to be made aware when I'm reverting back to what I think I know rather than using my newfound tools of critical thinking. Thanks in advance.

 

[mindlight]

Hi all! This is my first post here on the forums. I am a life long believer, grew up in a Charismatic environment, pretty sheltered, and have been surrounded by and raised in that type of Christian environment for most of my life. Missionary organizations, Bible schools, Christian music only... you name it, I fit that mold.

Welcome

Our stories have a lot in common. I came from a similarly sheltered background. There was resentment in me that maybe my parents and church had set the boundaries too tightly leaving me ill equipped to deal with the real world. But now I look back on that time of innocence with fondness. Life was simpler and less painful then!

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. I want to speak with people on both ends of the spectrum, from those who view evidences, to those who operate primarily on belief. I want to view the claims of others, and my own, in a new way. I was recommended to these forums, that I might find a good mix here, so I can begin to see things in a new way, with a fresh perspective.

Again our stories appear similar. The questions that drove me outwards were things like how do I know that what I was taught is true and that other worldviews cannot provide better answers. My quest led me through an exploration pf New Age, Muslim, Marxist and Nietzschean thought before I realised the futility of many of these alternatives and that the boundaries of my own faith could be set far more widely than they had been.

Where is a good place to start? Again, I want to hear from both believer and non, and it's all very much new to me, so I'm not going to be as familiar with terms and things as I'd like, but I want to learn. Practical, hands on application in the here and now, especially in discussion is primarily what I'm looking for rather than book recommendations, etc. So how to begin? Thanks for any input in advance!

The way we approach reality critically could take the following 5 different ways for example.

1) Scientifically a person can learn methods of material observation, information collation and organisation to make sense of the universe. Such a task is practically limitless and so a focus in one discipline or another would be necessary. Chemists think differently to Biologists and Physicists.

2) Philosophically the ground of reality is thought itself. Learning to think critically in this context has to do with logic, consistency and an ability to assess and weight strong and weak arguments. By itself this way of thinking generates few facts and can lead to some confusion. Pure philosophers will only give you questions and never solid answers or convictions. People in the OP may have alluded to computer programming or maths as examples of logical thinking and enabling the construction of organised and systematic approaches to reality but these usually only have coherence or purpose when linked to the material world, ones own personal motivations and agenda or definite revealed truthes ( e.g in the bible)

3) Psychologically you have experiences shaped by your own unique genetic hardware , inner life / choices and environmental exposure. Knowing yourself is important to how you approach science, philosophy, theology or your community. You are more complicated than your name, have unresolved contradictions and formative experiences and maybe unaware of the presupposition pool that informs your starting premises in any discussion.

4) Sociologically you inhabit a definite geographical and historical community with its own language, laws and traditions. Maybe as a missionary you also lived in other lands but to what extent did you let those lands in and test your own traditions and assumptions against those alternatives. My own experience of emigrating and learning a foreign language has taught me the importance of this dimension. Very often humans are tribal and rote learn responses to reality for which no ownership has been taken. They do not know why they do what they do but are driven by a communal logic that might be as invalid as that of the Communist USSR or Nazi Germany or the cultural revolution in China for instance.

5) Theologically the focus of reality is God and what He has revealed. This is the most important and helpful way of looking at reality and indeed shapes and animates all the others with the special light of truth. My own journey has led me to the point where I honestly believe the bible to be the most reliable and authoritative source of revealed knowledge there is and to the conviction that Jesus was the best possible way in which God could reveal Himself to man, save Mankind and guide us to our futures. There have been massive debates about the scriptures but it is possible to come through these with a deeper conviction of their authority and appreciation of the infinite riches to be found there.

 

[ScottA]

Hi all! This is my first post here on the forums. I am a life long believer, grew up in a Charismatic environment, pretty sheltered, and have been surrounded by and raised in that type of Christian environment for most of my life. Missionary organizations, Bible schools, Christian music only... you name it, I fit that mold. 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. I want to speak with people on both ends of the spectrum, from those who view evidences, to those who operate primarily on belief. I want to view the claims of others, and my own, in a new way. I was recommended to these forums, that I might find a good mix here, so I can begin to see things in a new way, with a fresh perspective.

Where is a good place to start? Again, I want to hear from both believer and non, and it's all very much new to me, so I'm not going to be as familiar with terms and things as I'd like, but I want to learn. Practical, hands on application in the here and now, especially in discussion is primarily what I'm looking for rather than book recommendations, etc. So how to begin? Thanks for any input in advance!

By now your desire to think anew has undoubtedly made you some new friends...friends who are not friends of God.

Consider what you are purposing: to "think"...rather than to "know." Indeed, thinking comes from ungodly men. On the contrary, have you not read, that "God gives wisdom and knowledge?" Ecclesiastes 2:26

Critical or objective thinking is fine...but it is an admission of not knowing. Therefore, to seek "thinking" is to seek a mind devoid of real knowledge.

Seek knowledge. Seek God.

 

[Bethany311]

BUMP

 

[Bethany311]

I've bumped the conversation to the top because I would like to continue the conversation. I'd like to give others who haven't replied yet a chance to give their input, and of course, anyone who has replied already can chime in with more as well. I'm learning a lot from these forums with so many different views, and it's exciting to me.

If anyone would like to respond to my last post here as well, #75, I would be interested to see some examples of fallacies in the way some of us discuss things here in the forums. Feel free to use the thread linked above, or perhaps another thread with examples you've ran into recently here. Thanks.

 

[essentialsaltes]

By now your desire to think anew has undoubtedly made you some new friends...friends who are not friends of God. ... Indeed, thinking comes from ungodly men.

poisoning the well / ad hominem.

Therefore, to seek "thinking" is to seek a mind devoid of real knowledge.

Appeal to consequences & Non sequitur.