Critical Thinkers vs God

[firedragon]

Whether or not critical thinking can co-exist with religious faith, is of less importance than the recognition that logic and reason do not lead us to God. They may take some thinkers part of the way there, but in the end, these tools of the calculating mind are insufficient.

“[God Consciousness] is not a reasoned conclusion; it is something experienced at the very centre of one’s being, an inalienable fact.”
- Eknath Easwaren

In my worldview, and many other theologians and scholars that I know of, logic and reason is the key function that leads to God. Not everyone engages in it. That does not mean it is not reality.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In my worldview, and many other theologians and scholars that I know of, logic and reason is the key function that leads to God. Not everyone engages in it. That does not mean it is not reality.

I meant no offence to those who arrive at their belief through logic and reason. There are many ways to arrive at the destination, and each man is free to follow his own path, and get there in his own time.

Perhaps I should have said that for some of us, these tools are great as far as they go, but often they do not go far enough.

 

[firedragon]

I meant no offence to those who arrive at their belief through logic and reason. There are many ways to arrive at the destination, and each man is free to follow his own path, and get there in his own time.

Perhaps I should have said that for some of us, these tools are great as far as they go, but often they do not go far enough.

Absolutely accepted.

 

[ratiocinator]

So if one spends their life after material discovery, it is very easy to forget the Spirit that is the cause and has created it all.

Forget? Since when has the "Spirit" being the cause been something that everybody knows? It looks exactly like baseless superstition to me.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

"Moving towards"? I didn't see that in the survey. How do you know they just didn't change their views, or that they did but not to the extent of totally rejecting some sort of god?

When Einstein began his journey, he believed in a static universe, and he was in the majority in the world. The minority of the minority was with the expanding universe idea. It was only later that Einstein adopted the idea, and it was even later that the majority adopted the idea.

Relevance? It is rational to change one's views when you have new evidence. This is a characteristic of science and not, generally speaking, of religions.

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.

People are complicated. I very much doubt that anybody is a critical thinker about everything in their lives. The fact that the training reduces the percentage would suggest that critical thinking tends to move people towards atheist (or agnostic) views.

 

[firedragon]

"Moving towards"? I didn't see that in the survey. How do you know they just didn't change their views, or that they did but not to the extent of totally rejecting some sort of god?

Relevance? It is rational to change one's views when you have new evidence. This is a characteristic of science and not, generally speaking, of religions.


People are complicated. I very much doubt that anybody is a critical thinker about everything in their lives. The fact that the training reduces the percentage would suggest that critical thinking tends to move people towards atheist (or agnostic) views.

You missed the whole point. Everything.

 

[stvdv]

Thank you very much for your replies, I enjoyed reading them, and they were useful

Hmm...I wasn't offerig my background to support my point. Moreso to illustrate why I think about critical thinking in the manner I do. It's a learnable skill, basically.
I've got a Bachelor of Teaching

It did cross my mind for a split milli second, but then I thought "No he probably meant that it's a byproduct of studying", and you using the word "education" made me think you might be a teacher.

I've got a Bachelor of Teaching (with honours...which makes you wonder about the other muppets in the course...), a Bachelor of Education, have lectured, etc. All these things were of interest to me precisely BECAUSE I see critical thinking as a skill that can be taught and learnt.

Aha, I got that right (and reading your nice reply, proves it, you're good at it probably)

Never crossed my mind through all that time to think about learners as 'theists' or 'atheists'. Just individuals at different points on a learning journey.

That is how I feel about it too. I am neither Atheist nor Theist. If I need to describe "who I am" then I would say "I am the Witness" witnessing whatever my mind thinks, my mouth speaks, my hands write etc. But I am neither my mind (why would I say "my mind" if my mind is who I am), nor my mouth nor my hands, nor their thoughts, words and actions. I am just the witness of it all

I don't see it that way. You're drawing a hard line between thinking and non-thinking, and making it a binary choice. There are all sorts of biases people hold which means their thinking is impacted. If you see 'concentration' or 'contemplation' as non-thinking, we're probably going to talk past each other.

I did not intend to make it binary, I just tried to show that there are 2 ways to use the mind. Thinking is 1 way, and when, through training, you manage to reduce the thought-train, Wisdom and knowledge arise in this "emptiness". In the thereby created "space" is room, opportunity for creation. This I experience myself, and anyone can experience this after some practice (not for nothing they advice sometimes to count to 5 or 10, before answering)

Instead, if we HAVE to draw binary lines for descriptive purposes, I would suggest that science is procedural thinking, with identified start and end points, and understood objectives.

Yes, that makes sense to me

Contemplation is much more free-form thinking, and doesn't have the same requirements or aims...indeed, it doesn't even have consistent requirements and aims. I don't see how that makes it 'non-thought' though.

Okay, clearly I did not make it clear before. I am not as good a Teacher as you are. So, I'll try again

It's simple, and I hope I can phrase it simple. Though usually one gets it best, after having experienced it once (practise makes perfect)

Concentration means to focus on 1 point. By doing so, your number of thoughts reduce. So far it's easy, right?

Contemplation starts when there is 1 thought left (can be love for example; can't go wrong with love). Still simple, right? Contemplation can be seen as intense concentration

Worldly example (might be easier to relate to): 10 women come to your house, wanting you, not easy to focus and have peace inside this scenario.
First step is to concentrate. Select 1 woman, and then you can focus on love, right? (of course some will take it as funny, and even frubal it 'funny' and missing the point). This example popped up just now, and seems a perfect illustration to me. I hope I made concentration and Contemplation clearer now

Of course you can 'think as much as you want' about 'making love', but I think that you agree, that "none of your thoughts" beats the 'real thing', right?

That is the same with meditation. Concentration is just the start (having 10 women in your house, focus on 1), Contemplation (having kicked out 9) makes room for deepening the love. Meditation is where you 'lose your mind', thoughts have stopped(don't they even have the saying "I will **** your brains out"?)

Meditation is a natural state which follows contemplation when love absorbs all other thoughts and just love remains. The Witness and the object you witness and "witnesssing" itself merge into just Being

Note: Mind is just a bundle of thoughts.
@stvdvRF

 

[ratiocinator]

You missed the whole point. Everything.

Or you failed to make the point you think you did, or I actually did address it and you missed my points. If you don't elaborate, we'll never know.

 

[firedragon]

Or you failed to make the point you think you did, or I actually did address it and you missed my points. If you don't elaborate, we'll never know.

Yeah. What ever it is, you can ask nicely like a normal, decent, human being.

It was a hypothetical assumption based on correlatory data since this is a quantitative research. There is no way to understand causality because the data is corresponding data.

 

[stvdv]

I've suggested this before, but I think the internet (in particular) can give atheists and theists almost comedically cartoonish views of each other. Atheists aren't all rationality and science and cool, emotionless thought.

That's a good one to repeat occasionally

They're people, some of whom turn them selves into knots by thinking they're more evolved because science, whilst ignoring what science would actually suggest about that. Equally, theists aren't all spirituality and love. They're people, some of whom justify all sorts of behaviour or dehumanisation of others by appealing to a God they've never met...ahem...

Also good to repeat occasionally

Indeed quite a bit of inconsistency, strange they believe they get away with it

I do indeed. I describe myself as a methodological naturalist, and there is absolutely no reason even a verdant theist can't be the same. It's not about what I believe to be true, it's about how well I can manage procedural thinking when I need to.
Some people are good at science, and some are not. I can't tell from that whether they believe in God.

Aha, no supernatural for you. I like the supernatural

I had to google 'verdant theist', something about green grass, maybe a theist who believes his 'grass' is greenest? Or did autocorrect change vedanta into verdant?

For me it's not about what is true or not, but what I have experienced. God I use for the "Great Unknown" what I can't explain or have not experienced (yet)

Incidentally, I mentioned I was an honours student in that Teaching degree. A close friend of mine managed to beat me out for best results (to be fair, she deserved it more than me anyway).
She was a passionate Christian. Somehow she managed to pass maths and science classes as well as magical thinking classes anyway.

The Universe is filled with logic, so it's not so strange she passes both, being so smart I think. If she can see logic and is very passionate, I'm not surprised she can see logic in magical thinking. Our brains are full of creativity.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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?

​

I believe God want us to be critical thinkers

 

[KWED]

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.

While this may sometimes be the case, it is more likely that atheists pretend to believe in god to avoid the stigma, discrimination and persecution they may otherwise face.

However, the reality is that a solid understanding of science tends to lead away from religious belief.

 

[KWED]

“Only” about “half of scientists” is still a massive number.

"Scientists" is a pretty vague term. It probably refers to anyone who has a science degree or works within a scientific field.
When we look at top scientists, like members of the Royal Institution or the American Academy of Science, only about 5% claim to believe in god.

 

[KWED]

Belief is already understood in Psychology. It proceeds from desire.

Not religious belief. That generally comes from childhood indoctrination.

 

[viole]

I think critical thinkers would believe in God. Most of these so called "critical thinkers" are more in love with the term and calling themselves that than walking the talk or the walk.

Which one? There are thousands. Actually, an infinity of them if we do not restrict ourselves to the products of human imagination until now. There can be single Gods, Goddesses, multiple Gods, etc.

Do you have one, or more, in mind, that critical thinkers cannot avoid on account of being the necessary consequence of critical thinking?

What would that be? My favourite one is Dyonisus. At least He is not as boring as Allah or Jehovah. Does He have a chance? Do you have some rational reasons that are sufficient to dismiss Him?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not religious belief. That generally comes from childhood indoctrination.

That is what they say in the article that they are trying to determine. The article states more studies are needed. They haven't found what they are looking for. People often believe things religiously without any attempt at indoctrination.

I think you can only indoctrinate someone if they want to believe you.

 

[viole]

Let me tell you directly. Critical thinkers believe in God. And that is my personal understanding, not an assumption well researched and generalised to population.

OK, then the vast majority of those critical thinkers who do that, delude themselves. In a pretty major way. Since believing in Jupiter, contradicts belief in Allah, or in any other deities, and there is no single belief that is not contradicted by the majority of the rest of other critical thinkers.

Ergo, a critical thinker who has not realised that obvious truth, is not a critical thinker at all. Actually, the attribute "critical" is an unnecessary overshoot in case of such easy problems. I wold say, He would not be a thinker at all.

Wouldn't you agree?

Ciao

- viole

 

[KWED]

People often believe things religiously without any attempt at indoctrination.

The vast majority of religious people merely follow the belief of their parents and community. The numbers that convert to a different religion after childhood are statistically irrelevant.

I think you can only indoctrinate someone if they want to believe you.

Children not only want to believe their parents and teachers. They feel obliged to.

 

[viole]

In my worldview, and many other theologians and scholars that I know of, logic and reason is the key function that leads to God. Not everyone engages in it. That does not mean it is not reality.

You mean Apollo?

I ask because if logic leads to God, then which one will you worship? Do you use a sort of random algorithm, or do you base your belief in evidence? In case of the latter, I will have to assume you have evidence in Allah. But if you have evidence in Allah, why do you need logic, scholars, philosophers, etc. to lead you to a general kind of God?

I have evidence of my car, and therefore I do not need to use things like logic, or complicated syllogisms relying on the beginning of the Universe and stuff, or the metaphysical necessity of four-wheeled vehicles, to show the existence of cars in general, for instance. That would be totally silly.

And if you have no more evidence of Allah than you have for any other God, then, well, why not Apollo? He is a very good looking God, apparently.

Little critical thinking 101:

Let us assume logic leads to (one) God. Which one would that be? Let's try to reduce the search space.

For example, does He like to be worshipped? I don't know, if I were God I would not give a rip if people worship me or not. Actually, I would test people, hide, and send to hell anyone believing in me without evidence, on account of not being in my image. So, the question is: does that same logic allow us to conclude that God likes to be worshipped? To be believed in? To require periodic prayer to Him?

What does your critical thinking tell you? Is Kalam of any help here?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For me it's not about what is true or not, but what I have experienced. God I use for the "Great Unknown" what I can't explain or have not experienced (yet)

This is odd to me. For what reason would we give a personal name to something we can't explain or haven't experienced? Why is the "Unknown" thought of in terms of a conscious entity?