Critical Thinkers vs God

[A Vestigial Mote]

I only have one question, honestly. What is "pleafure?" Could this be the thing that I have been missing to make me turn to a religious life?

 

[PureX]

It is a question, is belief necessary... Not sure everyone will agree.
In the beginning, from a place of ignorance belief is certainly necessary. Eventually though, our initial beliefs find rational support or they do not. Should a belief one can not rationally support be held onto?

I think not, but what one sees as rational varies amongst friends.

I think in time we can learn that belief is unnecessary. Observation, reason, and a few clear ethical imperatives will suffice just fine, without it. Faith is necessary, because we are not omniscient. But belief is not. It's that focus on belief rather than on faith that causes religion to fail in the face of critical thinking.

 

[Nakosis]

A counter explanation? Well, one can make assumptions just like what you presented.

50% of those who are in the science field believe in God. That means a field that by default requires you to have naturalism as a methodology has 50% God believers. This will never happen in a church where you are required to have God belief as default. Almost 100% could be assumed theists in a church. Thus, science, drives you to believe in God even though methodologically you are supposed to have naturalism.

Thats one assumption.

Naturalism doesn't require specific position on God's existence.
I think a more likely explanation would be peer pressure.

 

[George-ananda]

​

Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?

Well I came to my pantheistic view through critical thinking so I will answer 'Yes'.

 

[ecco]

Some scientists secretly believe in God or would believe in God if not for the fact that there is the stigma that you aren't a good scientist if you believe in God or even that you're stupid. It's peer pressure.

Source? Oh, you have none? How would you know? Have many atheistic scientists confided in you?
Your comment is based on wishful thinking It is not based on critical thinking. It is a good example of what this thread is about.

Call it a theory then because I'm using critical thinking to come to this opinion rather than wishful thinking as you claim.

No, you are not using critical thinking when you make an obviously fallacious post. If you had applied critical thinking, you would have come to the conclusion that someone in this thread was going to respond as I did and call your integrity into question.

You also could have looked up the definition of the word "theory" before using it to defend your nonsensical remark.






the·o·ry
noun

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

You will see that that in no way applies to your comment;

Some scientists secretly believe in God or would believe in God if not for the fact that there is the stigma that you aren't a good scientist if you believe in God or even that you're stupid. It's peer pressure.
​

I called your comment wishful thinking. Now I'm more inclined to believe that you posted it with the intent to deceive.

 

[firedragon]

Scholars now consider him a Nontrinitarian Arian. In 2019,

Do you know what an "Arian" is Nakosis? I dont want to pursue this, but I would like to ask you to be critical of everything, even yourself.

An Arian stems from the Arian controversy or so called heresy which is Arius and his belief that Jesus was divine, but a created being, not coequal, coeternal with God.

Thus, your assessment is wrong. No problem. Maybe you were not aware.

Having dismissed one God via critical thinking it would seem likely to lead the dismissal of other Gods. The beginning of a pattern or at least the potential for one.

Well, that is the slippery slope fallacy.

It didnt happen. Newton was always an ardent theologian and was always a theist. So your IDEA is a red herring. Its not reality, and not even close. It is your idea, not Newton and his position.

Even if Newton rejected Jesus completely, and embraced only God as God, he is still a believer in God. Thats the bottomline. I am only trying to show your logic is a modal collapse.

 

[ecco]

I'm the splinter your mind; the nagging doubt. You think you have all the answers until I question everything you thought you knew. Deal with it.

Funny.
You haven't questioned anything.
All you did was make a ridiculously fallacious comment about atheists who are scientists. What was your purpose? Did you post it to bolster your own narrow views?

 

[firedragon]

Naturalism doesn't require specific position on God's existence.
I think a more likely explanation would be peer pressure.

You didnt understand what I said. Science in the modern world especially, stemming from older philosophy of even theists like Ibn Haytham, requires you to methodologically practice naturalism. Methodologically, not philosophically.

I hope you understand.

 

[ecco]

A child often desires to please their parent or teacher or friends and so on. Its not religious indoctrination until doctrine is introduced as something desirable to believe in. Desire is an underlying wheel in the thing.

Children hear prayers before eating long before they can recite them.
Children are taught to say bedtime prayers before they can understand the meaning of "If I die before I awake".
Children are taken to church (mosque, temple, whatever) long before they have formulated any desires regarding religion or god beliefs.
Children are put into Sunday schools and bible studies to further the indoctrination.

Indoctrination is something done to political enemies in which you break them down into children eager to please you. Its an evil thing. Parenthood is not evil. Usually. My opinion.

Your opinion about what indoctrination is, is not based on correct usage of the English language...

in·doc·tri·na·tion
noun

1. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
   "I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"

Religious indoctrination of children is done out of a desire to have children worship the same deities in the same ways as the parents worship.

It does not need to have an evil intent. That doesn't alter the process nor the outcome.

 

[Nakosis]

I only have one question, honestly. What is "pleafure?" Could this be the thing that I have been missing to make me turn to a religious life?

Now that's what I would call critical thinking.

 

[Nakosis]

Well I came to my pantheistic view through critical thinking so I will answer 'Yes'.

Pantheism, does that mean you see the universe having intelligence and having consciousness?
If so, what led you to this conclusion?

 

[ecco]

I think critical thinking will lead person to God. It can be possible to believe in God, without critical thinking, but I don’t think anyone who is truly critical can say "God does not exist".

Would you say, after applying some critical thinking, that Atlas, the god, did not exist?
Would you say, after applying some critical thinking, that Thor, the god, did not exist?

After applying critical thinking, I and many others, say "The God portrayed in the Christian bible does not exist.

But, I would like to hear, was for example Newton critical thinker?

Newton certainly did apply critical thinking to much of his work. However, Newton suffered from the same problem that most theists suffer from. They can apply critical thinking only up to the point where it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. Newton formulated many of his ideas to support the notion of the glories of God (as he saw god). It probably never occurred to Newton to apply his intellect to the question of whether or not God existed.

 

[ecco]

Which means, after all the training, of selected people who come into this field knowing the naturalism applied in science, half of them are moving towards believing in God. That means science leads people to God.

Not in the slightest. Not in any way you can support with facts.

Being a minority, or 50% of the population does not mean they are not critical thinkers. If there was 10% of scientists that are theists, then still one could assume that they are the most critical thinkers.

The word "theist" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.
A Christian Fundamentalist is a theist.
A Muslim hardcore member of ISIS is a theist.
A geologist who believes a god created the universe can be a theist.

Ditto the word "scientist". There is a vast difference between an evolutionary biologist and a scientist researching aerodynamics.

 

[ecco]

There is no indication from any research that anyones belief in God hinders their critical thinking.

Critical thinking often stops when it comes into conflict with deeply ingrained religious beliefs. Newton is a good example.

 

[George-ananda]

Pantheism, does that mean you see the universe having intelligence and having consciousness?
If so, what led you to this conclusion?

Advaita Vedanta =(Hindu philosophy) non-dual (God and creation are not-two)

In this philosophy Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and the material is a derivative (a play/drama) of Consciousness/God/Brahman.

If so, what led you to this conclusion?

First cause was the so-called paranormal phenomena that showed consciousness can exist without a physical brain.

Next, any explanatory models that made any sense of this like Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others all ended in a non-dual view of reality.

 

[firedragon]

The word "theist" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.

Theist means one who believes there is a divine. if that is meaningless, its good for your personal life, but it has a meaning.

Critical thinking often stops when it comes into conflict with deeply ingrained religious beliefs. Newton is a good example.

You mean like atheists like you. With ingrained, dogmatic, religious beliefs. Same, same.

 

[Colt]

I agree with this claim about how critical thinking and spiritual insight can exist in the same mind.

...."Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness"....

"Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic."

 

[Segev Moran]

The results might help explain why scientists are among the least religious. According to a 2009 Pew poll, only about half of scientists believe in God or a higher deity, compared to more than 80 percent of the general public.
"The results don't speak directly to it, but it could explain why people who receive extensive training in fields that require deep analytic thinking might tend to be among the least religious," he says.
Although critical analysis of life's origins might be one thing that convinces atheists to lack faith in God, Gervais says there are many other reasons that need to be explored.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...itical-thinkers-less-likely-to-believe-in-god

Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?

​

Yes.
The more evidence will be gathered, the easier it will be

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?
​

Pretty sure in your own OP, you suggested 50% of scientists believe in God, right?
So...unless you think 50% of scientists are incapable of critical thinking...that would tend to suggest 'yes'.

Nice to be on the same side of an argument as @Rival

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?

Nah. I'm pretty sure at least most of the other half of scientists are very capable of being scientists.
I'm curious how the question was approached because "sciencey people" tend to give unusual and unconventional answers that aren't really suited for such a dichotomy, even both of those who would label themselves as theist or atheist. And then there was Einstein who said no to both as conventionally understood.
It seems a silly question. Ultimately, belief in Creationism didn't prevent the invention of the MRI. Even Newton believed some wonky things.