Being a Christian OR Thinking for Yourself

[fhansen]

Atheists are people who haven’t experienced the reality of faith and often assume that religion is always as so many have experienced it in all forms east, west, north, and south-a cultural tradition. Even if someone claims to have gone beyond that and sought truth on their own, they may dismiss this as irrelevant based on an anti-supernatural prejudice or simply not be able to identify with it. They certainly can’t relate to any of the direct supernatural experiences that God dispenses as He wills.

 

[sedonaman]

No person is going to know God exists, except through Jesus.
…

Whaaaaat? People believed in God long before Jesus was born.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Lol. Since when have atheists “as a group” been known to think on their own? My experience has been that they as the same as protestants, repeating the same silly rhetoric as their peers without using deductive reasoning for themselves. I’ll admit, I’ve have a pretty easy time overcoming most of their objections to faith, except for those who were just ‘hard if heart’ and obstinate.

 

[BB2]

I prefer to think for myself. Thank you for the offer.

 

[Whadyamean]

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…

Of course it is frustrating. but it is not, perhaps, about thinking or not thinking. Have you heard the statement “wrong premise, wrong conclusion?” Perhaps you know it better as “gigo” or “garbage in = garbage out.”

So the contention is more likely as to whether the premises various factions might use are true to fact, whether or not they might be valid within themselves. So y’all may not agree on conclusions or whatever because you don’t all proceed from the same premise anyway. So you can neither arrive at the same conclusion nor agree, because you have not examined your premises by the same standard(s). Is it any wonder there is contention???

The one thing that atheist might have going for them is that they reject what are personalizations of God. This can actually be very useful in spiritual growth, but only as a stage, in the same way a teenager battles the parent’s wishes in order to build independence and self confidence. What is missing is an acknowledgement of the Invisible as an actuality.

What’s missing in the religious stance is a habituation over centuries of an idea about God that may not be entirely accurate (how can any mental formulation of God be so?) and thus great sincerity is diverted into piety rather than actual spiritual work, if there is really such a thing. But you have to call it something, eh?

So the result is that both atheists and religious folk are arguing in a sort of flatland that has lost the dimension of actual depth. And that is sad on both counts.

 

[edwest2]

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.

snip

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.

The Church teaches that the existence of God can be determined by reason. I have gone to some atheist sites and I see the bias. I have read books by non-Christians and believe me, those in the Church read the same books. The question partly boils down to: Is the Church telling the truth about Jesus Christ and the Gospel? And yes, there are Christians and non-Christians who are not very well educated either.

Science can become, for some, a kind of god: “Look what Science has done!” As if Christians, including Catholics, have contributed nothing to science. Thinking for yourself is fine. I have been to a Krishna temple, and had a friend who seemed to change belief systems on a fairly regular basis. In the end, we need to decide who is telling us the truth. Because thinking for yourself often involves deciding who is telling us the truth, whether that comes from a book or a youtube video.

I have done a lot of reading, watched a Catholic friend drift away from being Catholic and then returning to the Church.

A commentator on Catholic Radio was talking about the early Church and what those preaching about Jesus Christ got for their efforts. They were killed or imprisoned or even exiled. As one priest put it, Jesus was either a

Liar
Lunatic or
Lord.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Whadyamean]

…A commentator on Catholic Radio was talking about the early Church and what those preaching about Jesus Christ got for their efforts. They were killed or imprisoned or even exiled. As one priest put it, Jesus was either a

Liar
Lunatic or
Lord.

Or something else entirely.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Lol. Since when have atheists “as a group” been known to think on their own? My experience has been that they as the same as protestants, repeating the same silly rhetoric as their peers without using deductive reasoning for themselves. I’ll admit, I’ve have a pretty easy time overcoming most of their objections to faith, except for those who were just ‘hard if heart’ and obstinate.

Like many other areas of specialization I think you will find that there are people that cluster together based on some common views or opinions (whether that be on religion, politics, sports, science, or some other area). Perhaps that is a consequence of being social beings with the ability to express our thoughts. On a lower level one even finds that Neurons that fire together wire together (Hebbian theory, esoteric, I know. If that makes no sense you can ignore that part).

But once you’ve got a network of people sharing ideas I think you’ll start to find that expressed thoughts are the result of the exchange of ideas among the networked groups and influence each other within the group (swarm intelligence). To some degree or another I think that the thoughts of most have had some influence or interactions with the thoughts of others; both those that agree with them and those that raise opposition to their expressions. Rarely do we live or think in complete isolation from the thoughts of others.

 

[sedonaman]

If we all thought for ourselves, would there have been any need for Jesus?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I prefer to think for myself. Thank you for the offer.

There was no offer.

Even if it was, you just chose a option from a false dilemma. Way to think for yourself…

Did you even read the OP?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Like many other areas of specialization I think you will find that there are people that cluster together based on some common views or opinions (whether that be on religion, politics, sports, science, or some other area). Perhaps that is a consequence of being social beings with the ability to express our thoughts. On a lower level one even finds that Neurons that fire together wire together (Hebbian theory, esoteric, I know. If that makes no sense you can ignore that part).

I agree, that’s just the nature of the human beast.

But once you’ve got a network of people sharing ideas I think you’ll start to find that expressed thoughts are the result of the exchange of ideas among the networked groups and influence each other within the group (swarm intelligence). To some degree or another I think that the thoughts of most have had some influence or interactions with the thoughts of others; both those that agree with them and those that raise opposition to their expressions. Rarely do we live or think in complete isolation from the thoughts of others.

I don’t think anybody lives in complete isolation from the thoughts of others. If we or anybody did, everybody would have to start from scratch when they are born. That’s just my worthless opinion though.

But, my point wasn’t that neither Catholics nor Atheists should think for themselves apart from any entity, whether it be an individual(s) or an institution. It was that we can all think for ourselves regardless of beliefs or non-beliefs. (I take the blame for any misunderstanding.)

As someone pointed out, we can figure out for ourselves to whom we think we can place our trust. And as you pointed out, this assertion is backed by sociological findings.

In my opinion, I think it is wrong to say that all our ideas, suppositions, etc… are based on other’s ideas to the exclusion of personal thinking. What do you think?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If we all thought for ourselves, would there have been any need for Jesus?

Yes, because thinking for ourselves certainly won’t save us from our sinfulness and sinful natures.

And even if everybody’s IQ was 160 (that’s the highest, right?), that doesn’t change the fact that we are fallen by nature.

Does that makes sense?

 

[BB2]

There was no offer.

Even if it was, you just chose a option from a false dilemma. Way to think for yourself…

Did you even read the OP?

I’m an atheist (former Catholic), so I can only speak for myself. I don’t have an issue with a Catholic following the Pope on matters of theology. What I have a problem with, and I think many others do as well, is when a certain number of Catholics believe in the Pope’s expertise on matters of science, law, economics, politics, sociology, i.e. non-religious matters. That is what is really meant by “not thinking for yourself”. You have essentially let the Pope dictate how you should think. If the Pope disagrees with a war, and you believe the same simply because the Pope has expressed his opinion, you are not thinking for yourself.

That said, the original post itself fails to distinguish between different forms of Christianity. It is well noted that Protestants can “think for themselves”. In his The Protestant Work Ethic, eminent sociologist Max Weber noted that Protestants had higher literacy rates than Catholics. This was because Protestants were encouraged to read the Bible (sola scriptura), whereas Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible. Even today, it is a de facto fact fact that Protestants are more well-versed in Scripture than Catholics. Virtually all of contemporary biblical scholarship is done by Protestants. So Protestants can certainly think for themselves. The very denomination is based on freedom of thought.

 

[sedonaman]

Yes, because thinking for ourselves certainly won’t save us from our sinfulness and sinful natures.

And even if everybody’s IQ was 160 (that’s the highest, right?), that doesn’t change the fact that we are fallen by nature.

Does that makes sense?

Did Jesus tell us how to think or what to think?

A little OT, but it’s impossible for everyone to have an IQ of 160 since the average is 100 by definition. Everyone having an IQ of 160 would make the average 160.

 

[BB2]

A little OT, but it’s impossible for everyone to have an IQ of 160 since the average is 100 by definition. Everyone having an IQ of 160 would make the average 160.

Exactly. I was about to say the same thing as well

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In my opinion, I think it is wrong to say that all our ideas, suppositions, etc… are based on other’s ideas to the exclusion of personal thinking. What do you think?

I think that any ideas presented to us are going to be subject to our personal thinking. But I also think the original ideas that we express are still going to have some connection to thoughts that have been expressed and become information within our social network (and not necessarily the type of social network associated with the Internet).

Going back to the original question, some of the “think for yourself” language I’ve seen has come across as rhetoric. Several years ago a friend of mine (who was an instructional designer at the time) told me about the cognitive domain of “Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning” which looked at ones intellectual development in an area. It started off with “knowledge” (memorization of facts even if they don’t make sense), went on to “comprehension” (understanding enough to restate something in one’s own words), and then there are several other stages that lead up to “evaluation” (being able to make judgments in the area). Sometimes I think the “think for yourself” language may be from observation of some one in the earlier stages of intellectual development in an area.

There’s also possible instances of hasty generalization. If some one says something that sounds similar to what some one else has said it is easy to think the person is just repeating memorized phrases without having evaluated it. Sometimes this may be true. Sometimes it may be something that was repeated, but also something that was evaluated (ex: If I state “A circle is the best shape for a wheel” I am both repeating what I had been taught but it’s also something I understand). Sometimes the person may have original thoughts to add on.

 

[Whadyamean]

Did Jesus tell us how to think or what to think?

A little OT, but it’s impossible for everyone to have an IQ of 160 since the average is 100 by definition. Everyone having an IQ of 160 would make the average 160.

Lord, wouldn’t THAT be wonderful!!!

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I’m an atheist (former Catholic), so I can only speak for myself. I don’t have an issue with a Catholic following the Pope on matters of theology. What I have a problem with, and I think many others do as well, is when a certain number of Catholics believe in the Pope’s expertise on matters of science, law, economics, politics, sociology, i.e. non-religious matters. That is what is really meant by “not thinking for yourself”. You have essentially let the Pope dictate how you should think. If the Pope disagrees with a war, and you believe the same simply because the Pope has expressed his opinion, you are not thinking for yourself.

That said, the original post itself fails to distinguish between different forms of Christianity. It is well noted that Protestants can “think for themselves”. In his The Protestant Work Ethic, eminent sociologist Max Weber noted that Protestants had higher literacy rates than Catholics. This was because Protestants were encouraged to read the Bible (sola scriptura), whereas Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible. Even today, it is a de facto fact fact that Protestants are more well-versed in Scripture than Catholics. Virtually all of contemporary biblical scholarship is done by Protestants. So Protestants can certainly think for themselves. The very denomination is based on freedom of thought.

Well, I firstly have to just say, that your understanding of the Catholic faith seems rather lacking. I mean, it seems like you only know the Catholic Church as some kind of a strawman through very very limited portrayals of the Church in pop culture or something. You seem to believe that Catholics really rely on the Pope to do a lot. Well, that’s wrong. Many Catholics don’t follow what the Pope says about things, and they don’t have to.

Everything the Pope says is based on laws and teachings of the Church, all of which stem from the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, we don’t need to look to the Pope to determine if a war is unjust. We can look at Catholic doctrines such as Jus ad Bellum, the Just War Theory… which I think came about somewhere around 1000-1200 A.D.

So, Catholics probably disagree with a war bc of doctrine and not what the Pope says, and what the Pope says is similarly based on doctrine.

That all being said. If a war is unjust, it is wrong for a Catholic to support it. Now, we have the freedom to disagree and support the war. We have the freedom to do good and do bad, its called free will. If Catholics want to support an unjust war, or abortion they can do that and “THINK FOR THEMSELVES” It doesn’t mean their thoughts aren’t sin and innately evil though. :dts:

1. THE denomination of Protestantism? Protestantism is not a single denomination friend. Not even close.
2. Protestants have always been richer than Catholics. Hence, less literacy in Catholics. Well, you don’t have to be educated to receive salvation. But, whereas Christianity has nothing to do with literacy… atheists are largely elitists. They’ll continue to attack religious people as stupider than they are. But, the fact is, Christianity calls people to be meek, poor in spirit, etc. Many people choose to give things up out of their lives… like spending money on books, etc.

Atheists would again, attack these people as stupid. But, Jesus Christ would judge them as better people who are sanctifying their lives. They will be rewarded for their earthly poverty :angel1:. The earthly wealth of elitists who look down on uneducated people will also receive their rewards…

 

[Langdell]

I don’t have an issue with a Catholic following the Pope on matters of theology. What I have a problem with, and I think many others do as well, is when a certain number of Catholics believe in the Pope’s expertise on matters of science, law, economics, politics, sociology, i.e. non-religious matters. That is what is really meant by “not thinking for yourself”. You have essentially let the Pope dictate how you should think. If the Pope disagrees with a war, and you believe the same simply because the Pope has expressed his opinion, you are not thinking for yourself.

I don’t think there are many Catholics who rely on Church authority for deciding what non-religious beliefs to hold. In the U.S., at least, most Catholics seem to ignore any Church pronouncements in those areas unless what the Church says supports a position they hold anyway.

 

[sedonaman]

… What I have a problem with, and I think many others do as well, is when a certain number of Catholics believe in the Pope’s expertise on matters of science, law, economics, politics, sociology, i.e. non-religious matters. That is what is really meant by “not thinking for yourself”. You have essentially let the Pope dictate how you should think. …

Those are not matters of faith and morals, and as such would not be binding. If the pope issued a statement on global warming, say, and some Catholics believed it, would it be any different from some dope-smoking, mop-headed hippie believing the foreign relations pronouncements of Janeane Garofalo? At least the pope has some science consultants. What does Garofalo have? Fame. How fame translates into expertise escapes me. The latter, it would seem, is more prevalent than the former, but there are no demands place on hippies to “think for themselves” rather than relying on self-proclaimed pseudo authorities who are out of their fields. Why is this not a problem for you?