Being a Christian OR Thinking for Yourself

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreggAlvarez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GreggAlvarez

Guest
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/mason-crumpacker-and-the-hitchens-reading-list/

I figured the “Philosophy” section might be a good place to talk about thinking and Christianity. In a nutshell, this article is about a young girl who gets a nice little reading list from Christopher Hitchens. It is a really good story about youth and reading. I really like it.

But after reading this heartwarming story, I perused through the comments to see what people thought. I noticed a trend. There was a consensus among most commenters (I imagine they were atheists) that one is either a religious person or thinks for themselves. One commenter was so bold as put a quote down that makes having religion and having a brain mutually exclusive (so much for thinking for yourself).

This is really frustrating, to say the least. I will just put this out there. I’m Catholic. I read the Bible. Do those two facts make me someone who can’t think for himself? No, or at least, it shouldn’t.

I agree with the article in that we should teach our youth to engage in thoughtful thoughts. And as is made clear by the article, this can be done through reading books, which everybody has access to, whether you’re Catholic or Atheist. (His recommendations of Wodehouse and Dickens were awesome!) Books make us question things and give us a critical eye to see reality as it is and give us the capacity to make our own personal choices of what is to believe and not believe (as beliefs are personal).

Can one be religious AND be a freethinker? Absolutely! I am! So, I believe there is a God and believe the doctrines of my Church. Most Atheists look at that fact and ascertain that I’m indoctrinated and have no sense of logic, reason or rationale. Perhaps, I don’t, but its not because I’m Catholic; it’s because I’m me. (They also mention that I was indoctrinated as a child. They then found out I wasn’t, but they cling on like cling-ons to the fact I’m still indoctrinated regardless, even after being corrected.) Did it ever occur that I only believe what I believe because of free thought? Of course not, that would be ridiculous for someone to think that one actually believes in something with the proper use of the mind. (Note the sarcasm.)

I guess what I want to say is this: being able to think for yourself is not contingent on what you or anyone else believes; it is contingent on whether or not you think for yourself. Needless to say, that should be “needless to say”.

Look at the glaring similarities of the drone-like commenters saying the same thing. Even having the audacity to post quotes saying how religion and free thought are mutually exclusive. Pffft… Yeah, way to prove your point, buddy. The hilarity comes through the free thought of why it is so funny! Haha… 🙂

I will admit that there are Christians who don’t think for themselves. That is plainly obvious. But I will also submit that there are atheists who don’t think for themselves. That, my friends, is also just as obvious. And the worst thing about these two facts, is that those who cannot think for themselves are oblivious! THAT is the dangerous aspect of the God debate.

I had conversed with an Atheist friend about a year ago on this topic. In reading about the God debate in general, I noticed something. I noticed that Christians reading Christian apologetics usually considered those books to be absolute gems. Same for Atheists and Atheist books. Conversely, a Christian reading an Atheist book would probably toss it out as garbage (maybe even literally). Same for Atheists reading Christian books.

Admittedly, I do it to an extent and we all do. We believe what we believe for a reason and that reason is probably intertwined in the argument used in a book in the God debate. BUT I know when an atheist book is clear and cogent and perhaps has better foundational responses to the Christian side. In other words, I don’t disagree or agree with books based on my religious inclinations. I agree or disagree based on the cogency and lucidity of the argument. (The fact that I might agree with an argument in no way says I agree with the beliefs or non-beliefs the author holds.) Of course, due to my prior notions about the existence of God, there is an extent that I agree with Christian books a little more and Atheist books a little less. (My friend admitted to being the same way.) But I am talking about those who disregard the entire content of a book based on which side it is on. This thinking is more prevalent than you would think. One need only to read comments on articles such as these, reviews of books, comments on YouTube, etc…

My friend is a pretty vulgar person (as am I unfortunately), so I can’t post his reponses. Lol… But he knows that my observation is true. He actually hates when Atheists call Christians “morons” and “imbecils” because he says those very Atheists are probably the “morons” and “imbecils”. I said, “Good point.” He hates the YouTube Atheist commenters. He likes the videos, but hates the commenters.

Anyway, these are some thoughtful thoughts.
 
By the way, Christopher Hitchens died several hours ago. I know I will miss him and I will pray for him and his family. He is one of my favorite authors and arguably one of the greatest minds of today. For me anyway…

And the fact that he was wrong about ultimate reality does not make him a bad thinker, or even a bad person. Yeah sure, some stuff he said was pretty messed up. He was still an intellectual giant in my opinion.

And those who pray for him to “go to hell” probably deserve what they got coming to them, whatever that is. How dare a person call themselves a Christian and pray for that!

Anyway, again, he will be sorely missed and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.

May God have mercy on his soul.
 
I think that presenting such a flagrantly false dichotomy is actually tantamount to intellectual bullying. “Think and believe exactly like we do, or else it means you don’t think for yourself!” :rolleyes:

I am a Catholic Christian because I think for myself.
 
The next time someone tells you to “think for yourself” when it comes to saving your soul, ask him when was the last time he consulted a doctor instead of healing himself.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
By the way, Christopher Hitchens died several hours ago. I know I will miss him and I will pray for him and his family. He is one of my favorite authors and arguably one of the greatest minds of today. For me anyway…

And the fact that he was wrong about ultimate reality does not make him a bad thinker, or even a bad person. Yeah sure, some stuff he said was pretty messed up. He was still an intellectual giant in my opinion.

And those who pray for him to “go to hell” probably deserve what they got coming to them, whatever that is. How dare a person call themselves a Christian and pray for that!

Anyway, again, he will be sorely missed and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.

May God have mercy on his soul.
Click to expand...
I too am sorry to hear that Hitchens lost his battle with cancer. He was so certain he could beat it and I will miss his writings; he was an excellent writer. I read some of the changes he made in fighting esophogeal cancer, healthwise.

I think Hitchens turned out to be very surprised, and who really knows? I always felt that when death is inevitable people can turn toward God when there’s nothing else to be done. I don’t know that he did not turn to God, or that his atheism was not real. Only God judges.

Christopher Hitchens was the only witness called to give evidence against Mother Teresa’s beatification. That tells me that if the Vatican was willing to hear him, we have no right to judge him.

I too will pray for him and his family.
 
sedonaman said:
The next time someone tells you to “think for yourself” when it comes to saving your soul, ask him when was the last time he consulted a doctor instead of healing himself.
Click to expand...
True, but as I said earlier even the Vatican was willing to hear him. He knew Mother Teresa and they were willing to let him testify. If the Vatican can consult with an atheist on a beatification, who are we to judge? Obviously, the Vatican did not fear what he might say – and did say. The Church did not fall because the Vatican allowed his testimony.

We make decsions for ourselves. There’s no reason not to hear the other side, if only to understand why we hold the convictions that we do. If one is adult, firm in his convictions, then there’s no harm in reading this very talented writer, or others like him.
 
Leegal said:
True, but as I said earlier even the Vatican was willing to hear him. He knew Mother Teresa and they were willing to let him testify. If the Vatican can consult with an atheist on a beatification, who are we to judge? Obviously, the Vatican did not fear what he might say – and did say.

We make decsions for ourselves. There’s no reason not to hear the other side. If one is adult, firm in his convictions, then there’s no harm in reading this very talented writer, or others like him.
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about? The topic is “Being a Christian OR Thinking for Yourself,” not a person.
 
I am a convert. I obviously thought for myself or I would not have converted. I have noticed that it seems there is sort of a “convert zeal” among some of us where maybe some of the Cradle Catholics in the same age group lack this zeal (generally speaking). Please note I said generally. Maybe this is because I have thought it through and have truly accepted it for myself. That being said I did just meet a good Cradle Catholic who also thinks for himself who is of the same age and I see that zeal as well - so no the two are not mutually exclusive.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
By the way, Christopher Hitchens died several hours ago. I know I will miss him and I will pray for him and his family. He is one of my favorite authors and arguably one of the greatest minds of today. For me anyway…

And the fact that he was wrong about ultimate reality does not make him a bad thinker, or even a bad person. Yeah sure, some stuff he said was pretty messed up. He was still an intellectual giant in my opinion.

And those who pray for him to “go to hell” probably deserve what they got coming to them, whatever that is. How dare a person call themselves a Christian and pray for that!

Anyway, again, he will be sorely missed and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.

May God have mercy on his soul.
Click to expand...
Wow, he seems to have gone so fast! Definitely, no “Christian” should desire that anyone rot in hell. Hope he and his loved ones find peace.
 
sedonaman said:
Who are you talking about? The topic is “Being a Christian OR Thinking for Yourself,” not a person.
Click to expand...
The OP referred to a girl being given a reading list that included Christopher Hitchens. And so it was noted that he died last night. And I’m speaking about Christopher Hitchens. One can read Hitchens and the Bible and still be Catholic and in full communion with the Church. That’s what I’m talking about.

What’s your problem?
 
sedonaman said:
The next time someone tells you to “think for yourself” when it comes to saving your soul, ask him when was the last time he consulted a doctor instead of healing himself.
Click to expand...
Very true! All these freethinkers aren’t really thinking something for themselves, but just echoing what they hear from the liberal media. So there really is no such thing as freethinking.
 
Yes, Christianity and thinking for oneself are not mutually exclusive.

Everyone relies on authorities. We “know” that there is a city called Paris where there’s an Eiffel Tower, a Champs Elysee, and a lot of people who speak French, and the time is 6 hours ahead of New York – even if we’ve never actually been there to see it for ourselves. We “know” who was the U.S. president before we were born, where salami comes from, that copper is an element while bronze is not – all without verifying these things through firsthand experience. We know them because we rely on certain authorities that have conveyed this knowledge to us. (And even our knowledge of which authorities are basically reliable and which are not is largely based on still more authorities.)

No one would claim that you don’t think for yourself simply because you believe what you read in an atlas or a chemistry textbook instead of testing every assertion with your own travels and your own experiments.

Thus, what atheists are really claiming (I believe) when they say that we don’t think for ourselves is that they don’t accept our authorities. In our thought processes as Catholics, we take into account such authorities as the Bible, Church teaching, and the moral law “written in men’s hearts” – in addition to the authorities that atheists are willing to take into account, such as reputable newspapers, books by credentialed scholars, and so on.

When we take these authorities into account, we still think for ourselves, just as atheists normally do. Not only have we made a judgment on our own as to which authorities to consider in the first place, but we also make judgments as to how the authorities bear on the issue at hand, what they mean, how they may be reconciled with other relevant authorities, and what we may or must do about it, if anything. That is all thinking for ourselves.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I think that presenting such a flagrantly false dichotomy is actually tantamount to intellectual bullying. “Think and believe exactly like we do, or else it means you don’t think for yourself!” :rolleyes:

I am a Catholic Christian because I think for myself.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more with the bolded sentence. Not only is it annoying, childish and utter hubris, but it is also self-defeating. “If you don’t believe what I believe, you don’t think for yourself!” “Yeah, sure… Let me start thinking for myself by believing what you believe. Oh wait… Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!”

So much for just thinking in general.
 
Langdell said:
Yes, Christianity and thinking for oneself are not mutually exclusive.

Everyone relies on authorities. We “know” that there is a city called Paris where there’s an Eiffel Tower, a Champs Elysee, and a lot of people who speak French, and the time is 6 hours ahead of New York – even if we’ve never actually been there to see it for ourselves. We “know” who was the U.S. president before we were born, where salami comes from, that copper is an element while bronze is not – all without verifying these things through firsthand experience. We know them because we rely on certain authorities that have conveyed this knowledge to us. (And even our knowledge of which authorities are basically reliable and which are not is largely based on still more authorities.)

No one would claim that you don’t think for yourself simply because you believe what you read in an atlas or a chemistry textbook instead of testing every assertion with your own travels and your own experiments.

Thus, what atheists are really claiming (I believe) when they say that we don’t think for ourselves is that they don’t accept our authorities. In our thought processes as Catholics, we take into account such authorities as the Bible, Church teaching, and the moral law “written in men’s hearts” – in addition to the authorities that atheists are willing to take into account, such as reputable newspapers, books by credentialed scholars, and so on.

When we take these authorities into account, we still think for ourselves, just as atheists normally do. Not only have we made a judgment on our own as to which authorities to consider in the first place, but we also make judgments as to how the authorities bear on the issue at hand, what they mean, how they may be reconciled with other relevant authorities, and what we may or must do about it, if anything. That is all thinking for ourselves.
Click to expand...
Pithy! I like it! 🙂

Except I felt like a total moron reading that 2nd paragraph! I was just thinking to my self, “What the heck is ‘Champs Elysee’? France is 6 hours in time? Where DOES salami come from? Copper’s an element?!” sigh

I don’t expect that people will agree with what we say or perhaps even consider. But what I do expect is fairness and respect especially when I do nothing to deserve disrespect. My friend that I mentioned in the OP is the epitome of the type of person I like to debate. Yeah sure, we curse at each other, but who cares? He respects my ability to argue and the fairness I give to his arguments and he does the same. Granted, we are still straightforward and adamant, but who shouldn’t be if they really believed what the believed? I hate the fact that there are Christians who disregard atheists and completely ignore their arguments, if not completely shut them out of their lives. And he hates that atheists are irrational and unreasonable in the demeanor, especially since all atheists like to use is reason and rationality. So, who doesn’t think for themselves? People who don’t for themselves, and that’s not contingent on beliefs.

I forgot what my point was in relation to your post. Perhaps, you can figure out, because I sure can’t.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/mason-crumpacker-and-the-hitchens-reading-list/

I figured the “Philosophy” section might be a good place to talk about thinking and Christianity. In a nutshell, this article is about a young girl who gets a nice little reading list from Christopher Hitchens. It is a really good story about youth and reading. I really like it.

But after reading this heartwarming story, I perused through the comments to see what people thought. I noticed a trend. There was a consensus among most commenters (I imagine they were atheists) that one is either a religious person or thinks for themselves. One commenter was so bold as put a quote down that makes having religion and having a brain mutually exclusive (so much for thinking for yourself).

This is really frustrating, to say the least. I will just put this out there. I’m Catholic. I read the Bible. Do those two facts make me someone who can’t think for himself? No, or at least, it shouldn’t.

I agree with the article in that we should teach our youth to engage in thoughtful thoughts. And as is made clear by the article, this can be done through reading books, which everybody has access to, whether you’re Catholic or Atheist. (His recommendations of Wodehouse and Dickens were awesome!) Books make us question things and give us a critical eye to see reality as it is and give us the capacity to make our own personal choices of what is to believe and not believe (as beliefs are personal).

Can one be religious AND be a freethinker? Absolutely! I am! So, I believe there is a God and believe the doctrines of my Church. Most Atheists look at that fact and ascertain that I’m indoctrinated and have no sense of logic, reason or rationale. Perhaps, I don’t, but its not because I’m Catholic; it’s because I’m me. (They also mention that I was indoctrinated as a child. They then found out I wasn’t, but they cling on like cling-ons to the fact I’m still indoctrinated regardless, even after being corrected.) Did it ever occur that I only believe what I believe because of free thought? Of course not, that would be ridiculous for someone to think that one actually believes in something with the proper use of the mind. (Note the sarcasm.)

I guess what I want to say is this: being able to think for yourself is not contingent on what you or anyone else believes; it is contingent on whether or not you think for yourself. Needless to say, that should be “needless to say”.

Look at the glaring similarities of the drone-like commenters saying the same thing. Even having the audacity to post quotes saying how religion and free thought are mutually exclusive. Pffft… Yeah, way to prove your point, buddy. The hilarity comes through the free thought of why it is so funny! Haha… 🙂

I will admit that there are Christians who don’t think for themselves. That is plainly obvious. But I will also submit that there are atheists who don’t think for themselves. That, my friends, is also just as obvious. And the worst thing about these two facts, is that those who cannot think for themselves are oblivious! THAT is the dangerous aspect of the God debate.

I had conversed with an Atheist friend about a year ago on this topic. In reading about the God debate in general, I noticed something. I noticed that Christians reading Christian apologetics usually considered those books to be absolute gems. Same for Atheists and Atheist books. Conversely, a Christian reading an Atheist book would probably toss it out as garbage (maybe even literally). Same for Atheists reading Christian books.

Admittedly, I do it to an extent and we all do. We believe what we believe for a reason and that reason is probably intertwined in the argument used in a book in the God debate. BUT I know when an atheist book is clear and cogent and perhaps has better foundational responses to the Christian side. In other words, I don’t disagree or agree with books based on my religious inclinations. I agree or disagree based on the cogency and lucidity of the argument. (The fact that I might agree with an argument in no way says I agree with the beliefs or non-beliefs the author holds.) Of course, due to my prior notions about the existence of God, there is an extent that I agree with Christian books a little more and Atheist books a little less. (My friend admitted to being the same way.) But I am talking about those who disregard the entire content of a book based on which side it is on. This thinking is more prevalent than you would think. One need only to read comments on articles such as these, reviews of books, comments on YouTube, etc…

My friend is a pretty vulgar person (as am I unfortunately), so I can’t post his reponses. Lol… But he knows that my observation is true. He actually hates when Atheists call Christians “morons” and “imbecils” because he says those very Atheists are probably the “morons” and “imbecils”. I said, “Good point.” He hates the YouTube Atheist commenters. He likes the videos, but hates the commenters.

Anyway, these are some thoughtful thoughts.
Click to expand...
Never going to know God by rationale, though might still deny Him, after revelation.

There is no indisputable reason for believing in God; though, there are limitless reasons not to.

👍
 
Curious_Seed said:
Never going to know God by rationale, though might still deny Him, after revelation.
Click to expand...
This is strangely worded. Could you please put a subject and predicate in there to clarify things? I’m unsure whether you are saying “we are”, “you are”, “I am”, “Topanga is”, etc… Or just rephrase the entire sentence. That might be better. Also, do you mean “know God personally” or “know that God exists”?

I will take a stab at what I THINK you’re saying though. Do correct me if I’m wrong though. I think you’re saying that nobody will ever know God exists through rationale. (I don’t know what the second half of your statement means.)

This is just not true. Rationale is just a bunch of reasons to believe in something. People have a bunch of reasons to believe in God. (While there are good and bad reasons, they are still reasons, nonetheless.) So, people can know God by rationale.

But, if I am objecting to something you’re not saying, well then disregard it.
Curious_Seed said:
There is no indisputable reason for believing in God; though, there are limitless reasons not to.
Click to expand...
At the same time, none of those “limitless reasons” are indisputable.

I’m not sure what you’re point is here. There are no indisputable reasons for believing or not believing in (or even agreeing or disagreeing with) anything. Every belief and non-belief is disputed. And the reasons for not believing in God are certainly not limitless.

Perhaps, it would be best to not respond to my response because it has absolutely nothing to do with my original post. You talking about reasons for believing and not believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on thinking for oneself. (I was just responding to give you my eight cents and tell you that your response has nothing to do with my post.) So, unless you have something to contribute in accordance with the thread topic, then it would be best use of your time to go elsewhere.

If there was a “thumbsdown” emoticon, I would post it riiiiiight HERE!

Take care buddy.
 
GreggAlvarez said:
This is strangely worded. Could you please put a subject and predicate in there to clarify things? I’m unsure whether you are saying “we are”, “you are”, “I am”, “Topanga is”, etc… Or just rephrase the entire sentence. That might be better. Also, do you mean “know God personally” or “know that God exists”?

I will take a stab at what I THINK you’re saying though. Do correct me if I’m wrong though. I think you’re saying that nobody will ever know God exists through rationale. (I don’t know what the second half of your statement means.)

This is just not true. Rationale is just a bunch of reasons to believe in something. People have a bunch of reasons to believe in God. (While there are good and bad reasons, they are still reasons, nonetheless.) So, people can know God by rationale.

But, if I am objecting to something you’re not saying, well then disregard it.

At the same time, none of those “limitless reasons” are indisputable.

I’m not sure what you’re point is here. There are no indisputable reasons for believing or not believing in (or even agreeing or disagreeing with) anything. Every belief and non-belief is disputed. And the reasons for not believing in God are certainly not limitless.

Perhaps, it would be best to not respond to my response because it has absolutely nothing to do with my original post. You talking about reasons for believing and not believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on thinking for oneself. (I was just responding to give you my eight cents and tell you that your response has nothing to do with my post.) So, unless you have something to contribute in accordance with the thread topic, then it would be best use of your time to go elsewhere.

If there was a “thumbsdown” emoticon, I would post it riiiiiight HERE!

Take care buddy.
Click to expand...
No person is going to know God exists, except through Jesus.

No person is going to know Jesus is the Son of God, except that it be revealed to him/her by the Father (Matthew 16:17).

No one is going to know Jesus, by any rationale, except as the rationale serve as a revelation for the Father.

After revelation, one may still deny that revelation, of course.

There is no indisputable reason for believing in God.

There is no indisputable reason for not believing in God.

To know God is to have had your own Damascus. 🙂

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top