-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Critical Thinking, Logic, Reason & Empathy. :-)
- Thread starter timothy1027
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
because if any of those are lifted up as rigid absolute ideals then they have become religious doctrine, axioms.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You can also find that in philosophy and in some folk beliefs about morality, usefulness and what the world is. even for standard non-relgious people.
In a sense it is as much general psychology as it is religion.
One example of a non-religious version is the claim that only that with is objective and with evidence is real. The problem is, that is real, is not objective and without evidence as the word real has no objective referent.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, how all of these have limits for the everyday world.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Sadly, there's a tendancy for "critical-thinking" to produce an "I'm smarter than you" "I'm right/you're wrong" dynamic. This leads to arrogance, then the critical thinker stops critically thinking about their own critical thinking.
The simple truth is, there's mutiple ways to produce a valid understanding of how to operate happily safely and cooperatively in the here-and-now. But, when a person lifts up "critical-thinking" and "reason/aka-having reasons" as the only best way, they are inevitably sabatoging what is supposed to be "reasonably-critical".
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Now one problem is that for rational and evidence as combined, there is no evidence for good or bad in all its varaints, but some people can be critical of other versions of good and bad, but not their own. In a sense their version is to them self-evident as it makes sense subjectivelty to them and then they don't check, if it is rational and with evidence.
In other words they don't apply critical thinking to their own good and bad.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
100% yes.
And, if a person is too commited to subjectivity, then good and bad become meaningless. That would be produced by being too rigid about being flexible.
It seems like many paradoxes are produced when things are applied in extremes... but.... avoiding extremes is itself.... extreme.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The short version for same, similar and/or different is to figure out when which of these apply for 2 or more humans.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
In the extreme, isn't it obvious?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Sometimes - especially when you are talking about more traditional/fundamental forms of religion. Honestly, that was the path I took to become an atheist
All that said, we have to share this planet with each other. As long as folks are respectful and mind their own business, the specifics of their beliefs don't bother me much. The goal is tolerance in the midst of diversity, not the elimination of diversity itself, imo
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but I wasn't personally exposed to that, so in effect I differ from some atheists. But even as religious I am closer to atheism than theism.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
... which includes atheists who seek out theists asking for evidence, disingenuously, for the purpose of preaching their "critical-thinking" ideal.
Optimistically, it's for an altruistic motive. Realistically, it's not. Honestly, I think it's political more than anything else. The atheist preacher is trying to attack the base of American right-wing conservatism. But it back-fires and only produces more extremes and rigid thinking on both sides of the political aisle.
Yazata
Active Member
I'm an agnostic of a similar age. I've never been a Christian. As to whether I qualify as a theist, probably not, though I do believe that reality is ultimately a giant mystery towards which I sometimes find myself responding in a religious sort of way.
I don't think that religion is going to be replaced planetwide, anytime soon. It's too integral to human psychology.
As an old philosophy major, I have to be empathetic towards thinking, logic and reason (even if I'm not sure what they are or how they are grounded). But don't be too quick to toss away ritual. Religious practice is part of what religion is, it isn't primarily what one believes so much as what one does, how one behaves. Right action can be transformative in profound ways.
Last edited:
Arggchchgchch!
timothy1027
Technology Advocate! :-)
Life on Earth had to appear AFTER the Earth was formed: If it was only early Earth "conditions" that spawned the origin of life, then these "conditions" had to include the sophisticated programming provided by DNA & RNA which could NOT survive while immersed in liquid HOT magma.
Last edited:
A double? Certainly!
timothy1027
Technology Advocate! :-)
Sounds like a bit too much mental gymnastics for me!Well, you could learn how limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism work even for a natural world and how that connects to critical thinking.
Last edited: