Critical Thinkers vs God

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some scientists secretly believe in God

"secretly"?

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.

Please cite evidence of this supposed "stigma".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I probably think more critically than you do. For example you are just accepting everything at face value whereas I question it. I know that statistics are easily misrepresented, falsified or manipulated.

I'm using rational thinking and I believe I did hear as much from more than one scientist talking candidly about their colleagues who are pressured into denying anything supernatural. But no it wasn't a study or a poll.

I love how you first brag about your "rational thinking" skills and in the same breath are trying to defend a general statement you made which turns out to be based on nothing more or less then a small unverifiable anecdote which is nothing but hearsay.




Can you see the irony?

 

[Nakosis]

Sure.

All it takes is some good old compartmentalization

Kind of what I'm thinking is the need to compartmentalize means it can't.

Perhaps the individual consciously or unconsciously choosing not to apply critical thinking to their faith.
I myself don't always apply critical thinking were I should. For religion, I have my reasons. Other areas maybe not so much.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Perhaps "divine" is not the right wrong. In Arianism Jesus was not God nor eternal like God and subordinate to God. Divine in the sense of like God. So many undivine characteristics being attributed to God. However I understand the use of the word divine in different contexts.

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.

Newton lived in an age of limited information access. One can't expect him to have had all the resources we have now. Bringing up Newton, a scientist of his time is a red herring. However certainly an analytical thinker of his era.

 

[Nakosis]

What does critical thinking mean in this thread?

There is a chart in the OP outlaying the steps in critical thinking.
The biggest point to me is to question the answers given to any solution. To criticize the answers based on these questions that remain unanswered.
One has to create a reasonable, analytical question about the answer. If that question is not answered, then the answer given remains suspect. Ideally leaving us to look for an answer which satisfies all possible questions.

Of course we can never answer all possible question but the more that can be answered, the more confidence we can have in that answer.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps "divine" is not the right wrong. In Arianism Jesus was not God nor eternal like God and subordinate to God. Divine in the sense of like God. So many undivine characteristics being attributed to God. However I understand the use of the word divine in different contexts.

Yeah. But that's exactly what the Arian philosophy is.

Newton lived in an age of limited information access. One can't expect him to have had all the resources we have now. Bringing up Newton, a scientist of his time is a red herring. However certainly an analytical thinker of his era.

Speaking of red herrings, what you just did was by definition a red herring. By stating that at the time due to lack of information Newton was a brilliant guy but still a theist, but in the modern world with all the information you could find, and the methodological naturalism applied, you assume 50% of the scientists are atheists because they are critical thinkers and the rest are theists but are also scientists for whatever unknown mindboggling reason. The problem is you dont understand research data and simply follow an article and its conclusion based on correlatory data. That is absolutely unsophisticated analysis.

If you want I will give you an analogy.

There are more men in the STEM fields. If you take your type of analysis, are women not capable or non-critical thinkers? What do you think?

 

[Nakosis]

There are more men in the STEM fields. If you take your type of analysis, are women not capable or non-critical thinkers? What do you think?

Everyone IMO, is capable of it. It is more whether we choose to and what areas we chose to apply it.

I certainly don't apply it in every aspect of my life. In some cases I have to to identify the best solution for a problem.

This likely means simply that more men are interested in the STEM fields than women. Those that get into STEM fields are more likely to need to use critical thinking to be successful.

A more interesting poll would be to see if there is any difference between men and women in STEM fields which believe in God.

Anyway it's not my analysis, it is an open question which seem to be encouraging some critical thinking.

 

[firedragon]

This likely means simply that more men are interested in the STEM fields than women.

Right. So that's a different way of analysis you used here in this case right? That is exactly how you should think. Critically.

Apply the same thing everywhere.

Another problem in your argumentation about Newton. Let me explain it as concisely as possible with a question to you.

In the beginning of the 20th century there were far more atheists in the world than lets say in the 70s. So given that within the last 50 years science has expanded its wings exponentially, and it was much much more primitive in the beginning of the 20th century, why do you think atheism grew so much like magic? Is that more information that today?

 

[Nakosis]

"secretly"?




Please cite evidence of this supposed "stigma".

It's funny, no offense to anyone, that we tend to accept something we believe to be true as fact.
Sometimes we don't see it ourselves thereby showing the benefits of peer review.

If we can just get around being so defensive about whatever "true" thing we are claiming.

 

[Nakosis]

Right. So that's a different way of analysis you used here in this case right? That is exactly how you should think. Critically.

Apply the same thing everywhere.

Another problem in your argumentation about Newton. Let me explain it as concisely as possible with a question to you.

In the beginning of the 20th century there were far more atheists in the world than lets say in the 70s. So given that within the last 50 years science has expanded its wings exponentially, and it was much much more primitive in the beginning of the 20th century, why do you think atheism grew so much like magic? Is that more information that today?

I suspect because there has been more critical thinking in the sense that others have brought up these questions. Not to champion any individual thinker, many have questioned what before was accepted as true. Information in the sense that the questions are out there for more to consider.

Whether you agree with folks like Dawkins, Dennett or Harris or not, people are more aware of the type of questions being asked.

Back to the study itself, it is a bit dated. Didn't find anything newer. It was more a conversation starter than claim to defend.

I don't think every scientist is necessarily interested in critically questioning their faith. I suspect it is more the influence of peers with are more likely to question such beliefs.

None of that really answer the real question though.
Can our belief in God, whatever that happens to be survive critical examination?

That would probably depend on how critical it was.

 

[firedragon]

I suspect because there has been more critical thinking in the sense that others have brought up these questions. Not to champion any individual thinker, many have questioned what before was accepted as true. Information in the sense that the questions are out there for more to consider.

Whether you agree with folks like Dawkins, Dennett or Harris or not, people are more aware of the type of questions being asked.

Back to the study itself, it is a bit dated. Didn't find anything newer. It was more a conversation starter than claim to defend.

I don't think every scientist is necessarily interested in critically questioning their faith. I suspect it is more the influence of peers with are more likely to question such beliefs.

None of that really answer the real question though.
Can our belief in God, whatever that happens to be survive critical examination?

That would probably depend on how critical it was.

You didnt respond to the question I asked.

 

[Nakosis]

You didnt respond to the question I asked.

I think I did.
You asked why did atheism grow. The public awareness of critical thought. Just more so in scientific related fields.

 

[firedragon]

I think I did.
You asked why did atheism grow. The public awareness of critical thought. Just more so in scientific related fields.

You did not understand the question at all Nakosis. Maybe my articulation is not good.

Beginning of the 20th century, Atheism grew exponentially.
Latter part, it reduced.

If the growth or the population of atheists and/or atheism is due to scientific advancement and information dissemination, why did it work the other way around in the 20th century? Do you understand the question?

 

[Nakosis]

You did not understand the question at all Nakosis. Maybe my articulation is not good.

Beginning of the 20th century, Atheism grew exponentially.
Latter part, it reduced.

If the growth or the population of atheists and/or atheism is due to scientific advancement and information dissemination, why did it work the other way around in the 20th century? Do you understand the question?

Ok, sorry.
I'd ask your sources, but I think I've seen things that support it.

I suspect a resurgence of apologetics. Religions attempting to give answers to the critical questions raised. Religion trying to respond to critical thought.

Critical thinking is not so much coming up with answers. Even though the answers can sound reasonable/logical. It's continuing to question the answers given.

Like Newton came up with his theory of physics, which satisfied the world until Einstein showed up and thought to question Newton's model. Scientists continue to question Einstein's theories.

IMO, apologists have become better at answering the critical questions that were raised. Their response to critical thinking however is not itself critical thinking. The critical thinkers are the ones who find the gaps in the answers given.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, sorry.
I'd ask your sources, but I think I've seen things that support it.

I suspect a resurgence of apologetics. Religions attempting to give answers to the critical questions raised. Religion trying to respond to critical thought.

Critical thinking is not so much coming up with answers. Even though the answers can sound reasonable/logical. It's continuing to question the answers given.

Like Newton came up with his theory of physics, which satisfied the world until Einstein showed up and thought to question Newton's model. Scientists continue to question Einstein's theories.

IMO, apologists have become better at answering the critical questions that were raised. Their response to critical thinking however is not itself critical thinking. The critical thinkers are the ones who find the gaps in the answers given.

So bottomline is scientific advancement and information has gone the other way around how ever you infer onto the data.

Anyway, as a source I can probably provide you something for sure that is easy to analyse if you wish. No problem.

BTW, tomorrow another physicist might come across a new theory or a modification that surpasses Einstenis GTE. You never know. Thats how it works. Thats not relevant to the point. The point is, we cant assume things without critically analysing the data, not only within it, but also the meta space, and the superficially non relevant. You never know.

Peace.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps the individual consciously or unconsciously choosing not to apply critical thinking to their faith.

Absolutely 110% correct.

Every single time when I'm in a conversation with a theist and manage to get to the very roots of his / her beliefs, the reasons why, every single time I have to conclude that the reasoning they provide for justifying their religious beliefs would NEVER suffice to justify believing anything else.

Clearly they hold a double standard. Their standard of evidence (if there is a standard at all) is MUCH MUCH MUCH lower then their standard of evidence for any other claim.

This is my experience with conversing with theists.

 

[alypius]

There is a chart in the OP outlaying the steps in critical thinking.
The biggest point to me is to question the answers given to any solution. To criticize the answers based on these questions that remain unanswered.
One has to create a reasonable, analytical question about the answer. If that question is not answered, then the answer given remains suspect. Ideally leaving us to look for an answer which satisfies all possible questions.

Of course we can never answer all possible question but the more that can be answered, the more confidence we can have in that answer.

Is methodological skepticism the proposed course of inquiry?

 

[osgart]

The God question is a matter of proof and is philosophical not scientific. God believers see design in everything. They make inferences from evidence and make this conclusion. They also try to match their experiences with what their religious book is saying.

God believers will often put aside their thinking to follow the course of what their religious book says to do, and to understand.

How many people have direct access to all the evidence to make a reasoned decision? We all rely on narratives and faiths of different kinds to some degree.

God beliefs usually come down to personal experience. Some believers see no evidence of a God but only through personal experience do they arrive at this conclusion.

Often the believer puts aside critical thinking in favor of other lines of thinking.

Often the believer thinks with their emotions about it.

 

[Nakosis]

Is methodological skepticism the proposed course of inquiry?

Ideally, a methodical approach leads to better certainty.
I suspect this is usually only employed by professional researchers.
My approach has been less methodical and more skeptic.

I rely greatly on those involved in neurological research. Their findings. IMO, there in no such thing as perfect knowledge. Just what we find to be more likely true and hopefully can support in some small measure.

 

[alypius]

Their findings. IMO, there in no such thing as perfect knowledge.

If their findings are that there is not perfect knowledge, then could the findings itself be imperfect?