Critical Thinkers vs God

[ratiocinator]

If you dont know what kind of God I believe in or what ever, how in the world are you gonna engage in a conversation about it?

By you explaining it. This isn't rocket science, if you have a belief, then you can either explain it and justify it or you can't.

Also, to discuss "My God" like you say, you have to already believe there has to be "some kind of God". So do you?

I believe that there are many different concepts that people call 'god', hence the use of 'your', as in your version, your own concept, as opposed to my ideas or anybody else's.

This really shouldn't be difficult for somebody who has such superior critical thinking skills...

 

[firedragon]

I believe that there are many different concepts that people call 'god', hence the use of 'your', as in your version, your own concept, as opposed to my ideas or anybody else's.

Right. So before getting into my concept or any concept of God, you should first believe or know that there is "some God". Do you understand that?

 

[firedragon]

This really shouldn't be difficult for somebody who has such superior critical thinking skills...

Lol. I never claimed that. If you look above, two missionary type atheists have been making random commentary and strawman arguments. Is it like a need?

 

[ratiocinator]

Right. So before getting into my concept or any concept of God, you should first believe or know that there is "some God". Do you understand that?

So much for your critical thinking skills.

Of course I don't need to already accept that "some god" exists before we can discuss your concept and the reasons you believe it. The word 'god' without further qualification is all but meaningless anyway, what you mean by "some god" is anybody's guess.

If you believe in something that you refer to as 'god' (which is the implication from your stated faith), then either you can explain it and justify it, using reasoning, logic, and critical thinking, or you can't. If you can, here is your opportunity, if not, then just admit it.

 

[firedragon]

Of course I don't need to already accept that "some god" exists before we can discuss your concept and the reasons you believe it.

Oh yes you do. So your argument should be first to address if any God exists.

Of course I expect some more "commentary" from you. But lets see if you can understand this basic logic.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh yes you do.

Oh no I don't. You seem to have descended into pantomime.

So your argument should be first to address if any God exists.

Of course I expect some more "commentary" from you. But lets see if you can understand this basic logic.

Are you even being serious any more? Where is the logic that says we can't discuss what you believe and why you believe it before I accept some meaningless generalisation of it? I mean, if you feel that you need to go into a generalisation first, then by all means start with justifying the generalisation and tell me why you think "any god" exists.

Remember that the existence of 'god' is a claim you make, so it's entirely your burden of proof. If you need to go via some generalisation, then you need to justify that too.

And, also...

So your argument...

I'm not making an argument, I'm inviting you to make one.

 

[firedragon]

Are you even being serious any more? Where is the logic that says we can't discuss what you believe and why you believe it before I accept some meaningless generalisation of it? I mean, if you feel that you need to go into a generalisation first, then by all means start with justifying the generalisation and tell me why you think "any god" exists.

Its simple logic. And I told you that I expect just commentary from you. I never said "we cant discuss anything". But you are asking for reasons (not generalisation which term you may have not understood) for "my god", which is absurd without you engaging with the possibility of any God.

Anyway, if you really wish to engage with that, then you have to define your epistemology. What do you consider are reasons or logic or even proofs for the existence of a creator or a God or what ever term you wish to use for the moment?

 

[ratiocinator]

Its simple logic.

It's simple evasion on your part.

And I told you that I expect just commentary from you.

And I expected this sort of evasion from you. Anything except actually attempt the logic you are accusing others of failing at.

I never said "we cant discuss anything". But you are asking for reasons (not generalisation which term you may have not understood) for "my god", which is absurd without you engaging with the possibility of any God.

Why is it absurd? All you have done so far, after I invited you to make an argument, is to make utterly baseless assertions about what was needed first. You have provided not the first hint of logic to justify them.

Anyway, if you really wish to engage with that, then you have to define your epistemology. What do you consider are reasons or logic or even proofs for the existence of a creator or a God or what ever term you wish to use for the moment?

It's not up to me to do your work for you. Define your own epistemology (if you feel that's needed) and tell me what you consider are reasons or logic for the existence of a creator god or whatever it is that you believe in.

Remember you said:-

In my worldview, and many other theologians and scholars that I know of, logic and reason is the key function that leads to God.

So here is your opportunity to give your logic and reason that leads you to 'God'. If there are any preliminaries that you think are needed, then it's entirely up to you cover them first. Stop running away and trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[firedragon]

So here is your opportunity to give your logic and reason that leads you to 'God'. If there are any preliminaries that you think are needed, then it's entirely up to you cover them first. Stop running away and trying to shift the burden of proof.

As I said, Anyway, if you really wish to engage with that, then you have to define your epistemology. What do you consider are reasons or logic or even proofs for the existence of a creator or a God or what ever term you wish to use for the moment?

Of course, I will ignore all your side commentary which is just a show.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I said, Anyway, if you really wish to engage with that, then you have to define your epistemology. What do you consider are reasons or logic or even proofs for the existence of a creator or a God or what ever term you wish to use for the moment?

More evasion. As I said, it's not up to me to do your work for you. You can either back up your claim that "logic and reason is the key function that leads to God", or you can go on running away from it by pretending that there is some obligation on me to help. There isn't. It's entirely your burden of proof.

When you made your original claim about "logic and reason" (#81) you must have had something in mind (if not, it was a baseless assertion), so what did you mean by "logic an reason"? What epistemology did you have in mind when you said it? Why would you now need me to define these things for you? Use what you had in mind when you made the claim.

 

[firedragon]

More evasion. As I said, it's not up to me to do your work for you. You can either back up your claim that "logic and reason is the key function that leads to God", or you can go on running away from it by pretending that there is some obligation on me to help. There isn't. It's entirely your burden of proof.

When you made your original claim about "logic and reason" (#81) you must have had something in mind (if not, it was a baseless assertion), so what did you mean by "logic an reason"? What epistemology did you have in mind when you said it? Why would you now need me to define these things for you? Use what you had in mind when you made the claim.

Well, if you dont even know what your epistemology is, and are unable to even make your understanding of it, it is not possible mate. Maybe try rather than making all kinds of commentary. Try.

 

[alypius]

Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?

What does critical thinking mean in this thread?

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, if you dont even know what your epistemology is, and are unable to even make your understanding of it, it is not possible mate. Maybe try rather than making all kinds of commentary. Try.

Give up the smokescreen, you're making yourself look silly.

If you actually had logic and reason that leads you to (some version of) god (#81), then your audience shouldn't matter, so long as they are reasonably familiar with logic and reasoning.

This isn't a personal, one to one conversation, we are on a public forum and if your claim was true, you should be able to start your own thread (without any knowledge of who would respond) and astound us all with an actual, well thought through, reasoned and logical basis for belief in god. If your argument involves going into epistemology, then you can do that. There is no need to understand everybody else's ideas first.

It's time to put up or give up.

 

[firedragon]

Give up the smokescreen, you're making yourself look silly.

If you actually had logic and reason that leads you to (some version of) god (#81), then your audience shouldn't matter, so long as they are reasonably familiar with logic and reasoning.

This isn't a personal, one to one conversation, we are on a public forum and if your claim was true, you should be able to start your own thread (without any knowledge of who would respond) and astound us all with an actual, well thought through, reasoned and logical basis for belief in god. If your argument involves going into epistemology, then you can do that. There is no need to understand everybody else's ideas first.

It's time to put up or give up.

See, I will ignore all your commentary. Its not worth a second of time spent.

Explain your epistemology. Only then one could engage in a logical engagement. If you dont understand logic, state it. No problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

See, I will ignore all your commentary. Its not worth a second of time spent.

Running scared of actually addressing the points

Explain your epistemology. Only then one could engage in a logical engagement. If you dont understand logic, state it. No problem.

Obviously you don't understand logic (or, most likely, epistemology). You're giving the impression of hiding behind affected superiority and big words you think will intimidate. If you had anything like a logical argument, and any confidence in it, you'd be keen to share, not running away.

You're not worth any more of my time.

 

[firedragon]

Running scared of actually addressing the points


Obviously you don't understand logic (or, most likely, epistemology). You're giving the impression of hiding behind affected superiority and big words you think will intimidate. If you had anything like a logical argument, and any confidence in it, you'd be keen to share, not running away.

You're not worth any more of my time.

Again, more commentary without addressing the point. If you dont know something, just request some information. Its pretty simple to be a bit humble. No big deal.

Do you not understand something?

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, more commentary without addressing the point.

First genuine laugh out loud of the day, thanks.

Do you not understand something?

I understand perfectly. I'll be around if you want to stop running away and actually attempt some logic of your own but in the meantime have a nice day - and thanks for the laugh.

 

[firedragon]

First genuine laugh out loud of the day, thanks.


I understand perfectly. I'll be around if you want to stop running away and actually attempt some logic of your own but in the meantime have a nice day - and thanks for the laugh.

Thanks for more commentary. Its generally expected from very active missionaries when faced with questions they cant answer about their religion.

Tell me. Are you an empiricist, and if you are critiquing my truth bearer, what is it?

Can you explain and debunk it with some good logic? Not your typical apologetics like "running away, laughs, LOL, and avoiding answers while attempting some ad hominem because you dont know the answer to a question".

 

[BrightShadow]

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 think the link provided in the original post - is deceptive. I don't see proper details of the research or how many people were considered in the experiment and their religious background. I don't see any link regarding the 2009 pew poll either. I don't know how many general people or scientists were interviewed in that poll and how many were already an atheist prior to that investigation. It simply states that "a report" suggests so and so finding.

So, I am dismissing it because there is no merit in such a report or such an experiment unless more details are provided!
Anyhow, I would still make a few comments on the topic - critical thinking and God.

Critical thinking does open up the eyes and if you were born into a faulty religious concept to begin with (such as belief in a human god or an animal god or multiple gods) then it is likely that analytical thinking may wake you up and reject that faulty belief system. On the other hand - an ordinary person who gives no serious thought to any of the faulty concepts of his religion and thus never questions his religion - may stay faithful to his religious beliefs for life without realizing the foundation of his religion was vastly weak.

So, that is why it matters what background the scientists had before they were considered for the investigation. If you take 100 scientists who were born into a crazy religion to begin with - then of course they would reject their belief system after getting educated about its weaknesses and faulty lines. So, we need to take religious background of everyone involved into account since critical thinking process can help verify the validity of one's personal belief system. However, I must add that - just because analytical thinking may help a person question his faith system systematically and subsequently make him lose faith in the faulty parts (if any) of his religion - it doesn't automatically make him an atheist. It may also make him a non-practicing weak religious person or an apostate and just a non religious agnostic who still believes in some sort of a creator! If such a scientist is lucky enough to come across another religion that makes sense to him - then critical thinking may actually help him to endorse it. So, critical thinking can work both ways!

I don't think atheists are born via critical and systematic thinking. Most atheists I came across usually have one or so critical issue with religion and it is enough for them to reject all religion because none can satisfy that particular issue. For example - some atheists would look at the suffering in the world and decide that a sane god cannot be there to allow such sufferings. So, they stop believing in a god altogether but I think they need to investigate further via critical thinking and try to understand reason behind God allowing sufferings in this world. Some other Atheists may think a god (if existed) wouldn't stay away from his creations. To reject belief in a Creator due to lack of direct proof - may make sense to them and they may think they are smart but in my opinion it is just the opposite. What if there is a valid reason why we don't have direct interactions with God in this world? What if we have a history with God in our premortal existence and we have already annoyed God in that existence and as a result we became "rejects" or close to "rejects" to God. What if God arranged all the rejected souls to be placed in a repository, erased our memory of that interactions and then one by one we are being sent to this world for our second chance at redemption? In that case - does God really need to show himself to us rejects? Imagine a person goes to jail where there is no outside communications, no TV or phones etc. So, as a result he doesn't get to see the Mayor, the Governor or the President, all he sees are just a few jail guards. Does that mean the Mayor, the Governor and the President don't exist?

I think if one does some critical thinking - it will makes more sense that a creator is behind all the creations rather than just random chance.

I wrote why I believe atheist are less rational in their thinking process - in another thread titled "John believes in God, Joe doesn't..." . Feel free to read it. Of course Atheists won't agree with my opinion but I tried to make a case why a creator must be there behind all the creations.

My posts are number 25 & 45.
Here is a link to post number 25 on page 2 ...
John believes in a god, Joe doesn't. Who's right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?

Sure.

All it takes is some good old compartmentalization