New Thinker

[bhsmte]

Right, that's why I have degrees in Philosophy and Education from a secular institution--because it's my Kryptonite. NOT!! (Anyway, that's all I'm going to say; we can haggle on some other thread ... some time in the future. )

2PhiloVoid

Do you consider yourself a biblical fundamentalist?

 

[bhsmte]

Right, that's why I have degrees in Philosophy and Education from a secular institution--because it's my Kryptonite. NOT!! (Anyway, that's all I'm going to say; we can haggle on some other thread ... some time in the future. )

2PhiloVoid

Do you believe people can only be fulfilled and learn knowledge properly if they are Christians?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you consider yourself a biblical fundamentalist?

I don't know. What would the accumulative evidence of my history of posts here at CF make you believe about me? (That's it; I'm only responding to Bethany from this point on.)

 

[anonymous person]

I don't know. What would the accumulative evidence of my history of posts here at CF make you believe about me? (That's it; I'm only responding to Bethany from this point on.)

Same here.

It is evident who wants to argue and derail the thread and who wants to attempt to actually address Bethany's post.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who are these people?

Primarily you so far in this thread. Philo was at least more cautious in his cautioning, saying that her exploration might be good and might be bad. Your condemnation of knowledge for its own sake as a vanity is exactly the deplorable attitude I was describing.

She is trying to leave a shelter? Where did you gather this? What shelter?

"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."

Who is herding someone? What do you mean by herding?

I was employing a metaphor. Do you need it explained further?

 

[anonymous person]

Primarily you so far in this thread. Philo was at least more cautious in his cautioning, saying that her exploration might be good and might be bad. Your condemnation of knowledge for its own sake as a vanity is exactly the deplorable attitude I was describing.

Where did I condemn knowledge for its own sake as a vanity?

"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."

I don't think saying one has lived a sheltered life is synonymous with them saying they want to leave that life or that they no longer want to be a Christian or live in a Christian environment. Seems to me she's wanting to learn how to think more critically and gain more knowledge about subjects outside of her usual realm of experience, which I encouraged if such a desire is attended by right motives.

I was employing a metaphor. Do you need it explained further?

I most certainly do and would appreciate if you would explain why you think someone is herding someone and what you mean by it.

You seem to forget that I have encouraged her on her journey if her motives are right i.e. if her motives for acquiring knowledge are for the sake of Christ and the fulfilling of his commandments to love our neighbors and to preach the gospel to all nations.

I have no where either in this thread or elsewhere condemned the seeking of knowledge if it is done for the right reasons. I have spoken against and cautioned against seeking it as an end in itself. I am sure you would agree that knowledge is not to be sought just so someone can sit back and be satisfied with how much they know and so that they can look down on others who know less or who are not as learned or so they can boast and have inordinate pride in what they know, but that it should be sought as a means to a greater, more virtuous end.

To say that knowledge puffs up is not to condemn any and every search for knowledge or to claim that the seeking of it is vanity. Some may think that, but the scriptures do not support such a view, nor do I espouse it.

 

[juvenissun]

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!

In Christianity, what you believed is quite logic.
Start from one which you are told to believe and convince yourself that it is logic.
Some of them may take decades to untangle. But keep doing it. it could be done.

Is creation logic? Is miracle logic? Is the Salvation logic?
Yes, they ARE.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where did I condemn knowledge for its own sake as a vanity?

"Knowledge is not to be desired in and of itself" - that is knowledge for its own sake.
"We all possess knowledge, but knowledge puffs up" - that is vanity.

I don't think saying one has lived a sheltered life is synonymous with them saying they want to leave that life

Did you read the OP? "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."

She says she has lived a life sheltered from critical thought, but wants to be exposed to the critical thought from which she was sheltered.

or that they no longer want to be a Christian or live in a Christian environment.

I never said so. Frumious Bandersnatch and I pointed her to resources about critical thinking. The very thing for which she asked. As bhsmte pointed out, it's very telling that when a Christian starts to wonder if there might be good tools for thinking, some Christians regard it as a threat.

Seems to me she's wanting to learn how to think more critically and gain more knowledge about subjects outside of her usual realm of experience, which I encouraged if such a desire is attended by right motives.

You are happy to let people inquire freely as long as they already have the final answer fixed at the start. That is not free inquiry. That is a variety of presupposed bias that critical thinking seeks to avoid.

I most certainly do and would appreciate if you would explain why you think someone is herding someone and what you mean by it.

Some shepherds worry if members of their flock stray away too far from allowable forms of critical thinking. And try to herd them back to the approved modes of thought.

You seem to forget that I have encouraged her on her journey if her motives are right i.e. if her motives for acquiring knowledge are for the sake of Christ and the fulfilling of his commandments to love our neighbors and to preach the gospel to all nations.

I approve of her motive to better herself, wherever the search may lead her. You are placing preconditions on her search for truth; she can search as much as she wants, as long as she stays in this pasture.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think Bethany expressed her motives clearly enough in the OP. She comes across as intelligent and articulate - maybe we should let her decide for herself whether they are right. She can always ask for help if she's unsure.

The kind of knowledge she's seeking is useful for gaining deeper understanding, and it seems to me that's a laudable aim, whatever your beliefs.

 

[Bethany311]

My father, who was a successful barrister, told me that a crucial skill in discussion, argument, and life in general, is to be able to put aside your own views and try to see things from the other person's point of view - which often requires empathy, (although this can be dispassionate if you dislike their views). This will give you insight into their motivations, where they're going with an argument, and help you better understand what they mean by what they say - many people have difficulty articulating what they think or feel. It will also help you spot flawed assumptions on which their arguments may be based. It's not always easy to discover the other person's point of view - you may have to ask a lot of indirect questions.

You'll find a lot of people on forums, especially online where they don't have to look you in the eye, will deliberately misconstrue what you say, using (abusing) your own words as a straw-man argument (i.e. an argument easy to refute, or ridicule, but not the one you actually made) to avoid dealing with what you really meant. This looks clever and makes them feel good by making you look foolish, but is a sign of insecurity and doesn't lead anywhere; once you see this, you know that they're likely to avoid, evade, distract, and generally mess you around by trying to 'win' and feel superior. There used to be an etiquette that one should take the most positive and meaningful interpretation of what someone says in an argument or discussion, but this is more honoured in the breach these days.

It is sometimes entertaining or useful exercise to continue these straw jousts - they'll teach you plenty about psychology, but little about the topic of discussion. You may find that, rather than counter-jibing, apologising for not communicating clearly and restating your point unambiguously will spike their guns and help you by clarifying your own ideas, whether they're interested or not. An apology, sincere or not, can be very effective on both sides, and costs nothing if you're mature about it.

When discussing or arguing, please don't try to tell people what they think or feel - this is really annoying, and usually counter-productive. If you think that what they say implies that they think or feel something particular, then ask them directly, or tell them what it suggests to you.

Insightful reply. I was just discussing "straw man" with someone this morning, and talked about how politicians do this constantly - bring up a subject that is irrelevant to the topic being discussed in order to divert and arouse an emotional response, leading the person off-topic and onto an entirely different issue. I believe there is another word for this too... I may be getting a couple terms flip-flopped or meshing them together... but I think there is another word specifically for something that elicits an emotional response to get the other person to jump onto that new subject emotionally, and forget the former topic...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I may be getting a couple terms flip-flopped or meshing them together... but I think there is another word specifically for something that elicits an emotional response to get the other person to jump onto that new subject emotionally, and forget the former topic...

Probably - I tend to use 'red-herring' for distractions in general. I can't think of a word for emotional distraction offhand, but I expect one exists; perhaps it's just an 'appeal to emotion'. Sometimes people use a straw-man argument as a red-herring, resulting in a straw herring; I suppose that could sometimes be an emotional straw herring!

 

[anonymous person]

"Knowledge is not to be desired in and of itself" - that is knowledge for its own sake.

Correct.

"We all possess knowledge, but knowledge puffs up" - that is vanity.

To say that knowledge puffs up is to say that it tends to make the one who possesses think more highly of themselves if not accompanied by an equal or greater amount of humility, humility which knowledge is impotent in itself to impart, and which must act as a weight to keep one grounded lest their head become so full of air that it lifts them right up into the clouds. Humility which will always call one's attention to the fact that there is nothing that one has that they have not received. Seeking knowledge can indeed be a fruit of one's vanity, but that is not a claim I have ever made or even care to substantiate.

Did you read the OP? "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."

She says she has lived a life sheltered from critical thought, but wants to be exposed to the critical thought from which she was sheltered.

Exactly.

I never said so. Frumious Bandersnatch and I pointed her to resources about critical thinking. The very thing for which she asked. As bhsmte pointed out, it's very telling that when a Christian starts to wonder if there might be good tools for thinking, some Christians regard it as a threat.

I am glad you two provided resources for her to review. Like anything else, knowledge can be beneficial and detrimental to a person. Many things which are beneficial to us can be bad for us if we are not aware of their potential for being detrimental to us. The bible warns against the vain philosophies that are part and parcel of this fallen world, against those that are always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The bible warns about those who know a lot, but whose lives reflect little of what they know. The bible warns about those who are haughty because of their learning and knowledge and that the more one thinks they know, the more it is shown that they do not yet know as they ought.

So yes, knowledge without the fear of God is a threat to Bethany. It is a threat to anyone. It is a threat to her eternal soul. It is a threat because it can be a source of inordinate pride, pride which is the very root of all sin. I need not list to you the innumerable ills that have afflicted the human race as a result of men who possessed great knowledge, but used their knowledge to destroy and to hurt rather than to build up and heal.

So yes, while you and I encourage her to learn more and acquire more knowledge, there also needs to be someone to encourage her to make sure that her search and her desire for knowledge finds it's place in God's will for her life and that such a search is accompanied by a desire to test all things by the scriptures and that God's word and the fear of God is to be her guide as to what she properly judges to be knowledge worthy of taking and acting upon and knowledge that is best left to those who do not fear God.

You are happy to let people inquire freely as long as they already have the final answer fixed at the start. That is not free inquiry. That is a variety of presupposed bias that critical thinking seeks to avoid.

I am happy to let people inquire freely so long as I also warn them about the inherent pitfalls and dangers of their inquiry.

If I really believed that Bethany could be negatively affected by an inordinate desire and quest for knowledge outside of the will of God and did not warn her, then I would be found by God as one who failed to love their neighbor. As one who failed to warn someone of something that I myself would have desired to be warned of if I were in her shoes. I would be as one who failed to do the right that I knew I should do and to me it would be sin.

Some shepherds worry if members of their flock stray away too far from allowable forms of critical thinking. And try to herd them back to the approved modes of thought.

I am not a shepherd. I am a concerned brother of hers in Christ and as such, if I think some harm or ill may befall her then I am going to caution her and warn her and encourage her.

The problem you have is not that I and others would warn her or caution her, but that we are Christians and we do not esteem knowledge the same way you do.

You have no misgivings about warning or cautioning people when it comes to things you think are detrimental to them. Neither do I.

I approve of her motive to better herself, wherever the search may lead her. You are placing preconditions on her search for truth; she can search as much as she wants, as long as she stays in this pasture.

In a sense yes I am. I am encouraging her to be careful about what she reads, and receives as so called "knowledge". Much of what is written and taught by men today is either full of half-truths or outright lies.

And if Christianity is true and the Church is the "pasture" so to speak, then she as one who is admittedly new to all of this, needs to be very careful about what she reads and what she receives.

In addition, you cannot say you approve of someone bettering themselves and then open the door and so, "Go wherever your search leads you."

That is not a position one takes who is genuinely concerned for someone's welfare and concerned that they better themselves. Her search very well could lead her to adopt beliefs, attitudes, and views that are detrimental to her and instead of her bettering herself, she could end up totally confused and believing lies and half-truths.

What you are saying is akin to an older brother saying to their younger sister, "Sis, I want you to better yourself, now go on out into the world and wherever your search leads you, you go."

People who care about people, warn them if they think danger lies ahead. People who care about people, caution them and encourage them, especially if they see them in a place where they once were and know the inherent danger that exists there. They don't just say, "Do whatever you feel" or "believe what you will", or "Good luck!".

Once again, if I were a "free thinking" skeptical atheist warning her against the perils of religion, you would be liking my posts and you would be all ears to what I had to say. Since I am not, but am on the other side of the fence, you take issue with what I say which is fine.

 

[TillICollapse]

Probably - I tend to use 'red-herring' for distractions in general. I can't think of a word for emotional distraction offhand, but I expect one exists; perhaps it's just an 'appeal to emotion'. Sometimes people use a straw-man argument as a red-herring, resulting in a straw herring; I suppose that could sometimes be an emotional straw herring!

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. ?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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 would work too, although it's not necessarily an emotional distraction (and not always fallacious).

 

[TillICollapse]

That would work too, although it's not necessarily an emotional distraction (and not always fallacious).

True enough

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Her search very well could lead her to adopt beliefs, attitudes, and views that are detrimental to her and instead of her bettering herself, she could end up totally confused and believing lies and half-truths.

Fortunately, the objective of "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", that Bethany seeks to acquire, is to broaden and deepen understanding so as to explicitly avoid being, "totally confused and believing lies and half-truths".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Correct.

To say that knowledge puffs up is to say that it tends to make the one who possesses think more highly of themselves

Well, I'm glad we're now agreed about what you said.

Exactly.

I'm glad we're now agreed about what she said.

Like anything else, knowledge can be beneficial and detrimental to a person.

No, knowledge is always better than ignorance. Wisdom is a separate issue.

I am not a shepherd. I am a concerned brother of hers in Christ and as such, if I think some harm or ill may befall her then I am going to caution her and warn her and encourage her.

With respect, you are a shepherd as defined in my metaphor. You confess it freely.

In a sense yes I am. I am encouraging her to be careful about what she reads, and receives as so called "knowledge". Much of what is written and taught by men today is either full of half-truths or outright lies.

And how do we avoid accepting half-truths and lies? The best route is to think critically about matters.

And if Christianity is true and the Church is the "pasture" so to speak, then she as one who is admittedly new to all of this, needs to be very careful about what she reads and what she receives.

Why? Critical thinking will allow one to discover errors in thought. If Christianity is true, critical thinking can do no harm to it.

In addition, you cannot say you approve of someone bettering themselves and then open the door and so, "Go wherever your search leads you."

Everyone is prone to mistakes, but if she internalizes the best practices that critical thinking has to offer, I don't fear that she will be taken in by cults or astrology or cupping.

What you are saying is akin to an older brother saying to their younger sister, "Sis, I want you to better yourself, now go on out into the world and wherever your search leads you, you go."

No, the Bandersnatch and I pointed her to some particular resources we thought would be helpful in her quest. We did not turn her loose into the internet.

Once again, if I were a "free thinking" skeptical atheist warning her against the perils of religion, you would be liking my posts and you would be all ears to what I had to say. Since I am not, but am on the other side of the fence, you take issue with what I say which is fine.

Sorry, like many here, you are a terrible mind reader.

 

[anonymous person]

Fortunately, the objective of "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", that Bethany seeks to acquire, is to broaden and deepen understanding so as to explicitly avoid being, "totally confused and believing lies and half-truths".

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. She may walk away after having read the pieces more confused with even more questions than she had before.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[anonymous person]

No, knowledge is always better than ignorance. Wisdom is a separate issue.

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. I am speaking here of what is possible.

Whether or not knowledge is beneficial or detrimental to one will depend largely on what one's intentions are with regards to the acquisition and application of said knowledge. It will depend largely on their psychological state and their moral constitution.

Two men may both have a desire to acquire knowledge of how the human body functions and repairs itself. To the physician whose desire is to use his knowledge to benefit and heal his fellow man and who is a morally upright human being who sees all men as having been created in the image of God and by virtue of this are of infinite intrinsic worth, such knowledge would benefit him and others. To the sadistic, hedonist who lives purely for the pleasure he can derive from inflicting pain on others and who sees his fellow man as simply some evolved animal, such knowledge would be detrimental not only to himself, but to others.

With respect, you are a shepherd as defined in my metaphor. You confess it freely.

Then you are a shepherd too. In fact, anyone who has ever cautioned or warned someone would be considered a shepherd, after all, it is to those two things you have pointed to as reasons for comparing me to a shepherd.

I take that as a compliment by the way.

And how do we avoid accepting half-truths and lies? The best route is to think critically about matters.

Thinking critically is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition to avoiding lies and half-truths. I have seen people think critically and still arrive at wrong conclusions.

Why? Critical thinking will allow one to discover errors in thought. If Christianity is true, critical thinking can do no harm to it.

It can help, but as I stated, it is not sufficient. There must be more. This is where the heart comes in. To say that critical thinking itself is a sufficient condition for arriving at truth is to ignore the innumerable psychological and existential and emotional components that are involved in arriving at truth and being free of errors in thought.

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. Hopefully this would spur her on to find an answer, but to say that if what she believes is true, then this necessarily makes her immune to any sort of psychological and emotional harm that may result as having her beliefs challenged is another error in reasoning.

Everyone is prone to mistakes, but if she internalizes the best practices that critical thinking has to offer, I don't fear that she will be taken in by cults or astrology or cupping.

Then you underestimate the power of the heart to influence the mind. You think far too highly of the human mind and its abilities as if it some sort of autonomous entity unaffected by the desires and totally ignore how it is affected by the heart. 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. In fact, we all at times, suspend our best judgment and act according to other dictates of which critical thinking has no part.

 

[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!

Hi again, Bethany.

Ok. So, perhaps you've had some time to briefly consider the questions I've posed above, which as you might have noticed is my attempt to get you to begin to critically think about some of the initial, personal aspects of your own usage of "critical thinking." IOW, it's a kind of self-referential evaluation.

Now, since you don't what any books or, I'm assuming, any intensive sources with which to engage just yet, I'd like to offer you the brief Youtube video by which you can practice some of the new critical thinking concepts that I'm sure you've been imbibing recently from the philosophical pool of our atheist acquaintances.

The video below is a comparative presentation between the different approaches of two leading atheists--Richard Dawkins and Eugenie C. Scott--to the issue of the compatibility or incompatibility between science and religion. I'd like to invite you to watch it and begin deliberating as to which of these two atheists you think have the better approach and reasoning to the issue under discussion. Enjoy this foray into one aspect of current and relative (and relavent) critical thinking.

2PhiloVoid