Religious Believers and Critical Thinking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Counterpoint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Counterpoint

Guest
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. Why do you think that is so? (Or, just in case you disagree with this characterization, do you think most religious believers are objective and exercise critical thinking when evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion?)
 
I don’t know about all other religious people, but I can speak for myself. If I hadn’t done any critical thinking I might not have become a Catholic. I was brought up Episcopalian, left for the Assemblies of God (as a young teen–it was my mother’s decision rather than mine at the time). I was in the AoG for nearly 20 years all the while attending other Evangelical/Pentecostal churches, sharing fellowship but also searching for “something more.” That something more was the truth. Seeking for the truth is what led me, much against my own feelings but very much in line with my desire to know the truth, to the Catholic Church.

And yes, I looked into non-Christian beliefs with an open mind and critical eye. While I saw, and still see, much good in them, they don’t have the risen, glorified Christ. Most have some elements of the truth because we all have God’s natural law written within our hearts, but only the revelation of the Word of God, who is Christ Jesus, is the fullness of the truth which subsists within Christ’s Church.

You should read what G. K. Chesterton has to say about circular reasoning and critical thinking. He’s really on the spot about this very important aspect of finding the truth of God.
 
Counterpoint said:
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. Why do you think that is so? (Or, just in case you disagree with this characterization, do you think most religious believers are objective and exercise critical thinking when evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion?)
Click to expand...
When you refer to “Critical Thinking” is there a particular definition or discipline you are referring to?

Might it be related to THIS?

If so - I would venture to answer your question this way - -

The reason is that most people do not practice critical thinking in ANY facet of their lives in any consistent manner.
That may not be a flattering response to people in general…but that is how I see it…🤷

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
When you refer to “Critical Thinking” is there a particular definition or discipline you are referring to?

Might it be related to THIS?
Click to expand...
Well, I didn’t think I would have to define it. But if you want one, you can find it here.
JRKH said:
If so - I would venture to answer your question this way - -

The reason is that most people do not practice critical thinking in ANY facet of their lives in any consistent manner.
That may not be a flattering response to people in general…but that is how I see it.
Click to expand...
I do.
 
Counterpoint said:
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. Why do you think that is so? (Or, just in case you disagree with this characterization, do you think most religious believers are objective and exercise critical thinking when evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion?)
Click to expand...
Many have rational reasons for their beliefs and many others are moved primarily by faith. No matter where a person falls from one end of that spectrum to the other, there will never be a completely rational and objective proof which explains every aspect of their belief. Every believer must at some point take a leap of faith.

To skeptics this willingness to believe as fact that which cannot be scientifically proven is anything from irrational to insane. But for the believer who leaps and finds that the God he envisions is truly present to him it brings peace, joy and hope.

Even atheism, deism. agnosticism and other “non-beliefs” require great faith. It is just a different kind of faith. It is equally impossible to scientifically prove. Just because we can’t prove there is a God, does not prove that one does not exist.

More importantly, while I may be completely misguided, I am happy with my life. My belief helps me live in a highly moral manner characterized by my sincere and focused desire to be loving to everyone. Worst case? I die. And then…nothing. I won’t even know I was wrong! As far as I can tell that is no great loss. If there isn’t anything more, I haven’t truly lost anything. In the meantime my life in Christ offers me hope, comfort, love, community, joy and purpose.

However, the non-believer must trust that there is nothing after death. If he is wrong he will have to face judgment for his life spent in denial of faith. I can’t say what God will do. Only He knows. But, there will be “issues” to work through even if they have lived an honest and kind life.

In the end, I find that there is reason enough to believe and faith enough to live with the mysteries of it.
 
Counterpoint said:
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. Why do you think that is so? (Or, just in case you disagree with this characterization, do you think most religious believers are objective and exercise critical thinking when evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion?)
Click to expand...
May I respectfully ask a sincere question? Why does it matter to you?

After reading many of your posts I realize that you are not a believer. I also know that you have written many posts skeptical of Christian beliefs. I don’t question your right to do that in any way. You challenge what I believe and the end result is that it increase my faith. Are you concerned that the responses to your posts are not more open to what you view as your more rational approach?

What is your intent in your questioning?

Are you open to another viewpoint yourself and a true give-and-take of ideas?

Are you trying to “shake up” believers and show us that our faith is unsubstantiated?

Are you attempting to proselytize?

Are you just curious?

Like I said, these are sincere questions that I ask respectfully. I hope you will answer and give me some insight.
 
Counterpoint said:
Well, I didn’t think I would have to define it. But if you want one, you can find it here.
Click to expand...
Yup - that appears to be the same organization and definition as the one I linked to.

In such discussions it is wise to make sure that we all understand the definitions being used. That is why I asked for the clarification.

Peace
James
 
From the original post:
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, **when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. :bigyikes: **
Click to expand...
Where did you get that information? 🤷
In fact, it would be nearly impossible to get it since you’d have to interview a thousand people for a week to find out all theit opinions about all matters from cradle to grave and beyond. Nobody has done that.

Who starts with a blank piece of paper and builds up all his beliefs from pure thought?
:hmmm:
Nobody!
:clapping:

We all inherit, are taught, or otherwise learn 99% of our ideas and beliefs from others.
Thus, ***we incorporate the critical thinking of our culture of the last thousand years or more ***without having to do all the work ourselves. 👍
A highly religious person may never have come up with an original idea in his life, yet be able to quote chapter and verse of the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic theologians of the last two thousand years have done whole lifetimes of critical thinking, and we inherit the results.
Other religions? Where is their Augustine, Aquinas, College of Cardinals, Pope and all the rest? Two Protestant ministers with two churches on the same street will disagree with each other on particulars.

So the point ( that was attempted to be 😃 ) made in the OP is not worth worrying about.
 
It is called confirmation bias and is true of anything that a person associates with their own identity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

We all have it. And unfortunately, even being aware of it and taking steps to avoid it does not seem to work.
 
Counterpoint said:
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. Why do you think that is so? (Or, just in case you disagree with this characterization, do you think most religious believers are objective and exercise critical thinking when evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion?)
Click to expand...
Criticism and reasoned evaluation are two different things.

A reasoned critical evaluation means seeing the goods things as well as the bad, and having the capacity to evaluate from another’s perspective in order to present arguments they themselves from their perspective would not necessarily agree with but cannot refute. Tall order. 😃

It is true there are people who are reluctant to acknowledge the flaws in their own line of argument let alone attempt to address them. One who truly critically evaluates can see the flaws because nothing is perfect, yet defend them as the best possible option. This is not unique to religion but that is the focus. There are religious believers who can do this. They are usually one’s who are very comfortable with who they are and what they believe. Thus, they do not see challenges to their faith as a threat. They are not only willing to see the other’s point of view but actually can. Such people have the capacity to hand on their faith in a way that is not adversarial and out of respect and understanding for the other, hand on their faith by way of choice as opposed to condition.

I once met a priest like this. One thing he said stuck with me. When you speak to someone leave your words between you and them as then they have a choice whether or not to pick them up. The other thing someone said to me is when you are inside the circle you cannot see what’s going on. You need to step outside the circle and look in to see what is going on. There is a tendency of those who profess a particular religion to look at it inside out as opposed to outside in because they are in the circle. This means we see our faith only from our own perspective, and not how others see it. A person who truly critically evaluates can see it outside in, and a sign of maturity is the capacity to engage in that endeavor yet not change, and capable of handling challenge in a way that is not adversarial without change. The priest who taught me this was an epitome of it.

Religious belief is not objective and lets not pretend it is. A high percentage of religious believers are not objective due to fact they were not offered a range of options to evaluate. They were brought up in a faith as a child and told that was it. They believe what they do because that is what they have always been taught to believe. But lets be clear - if a person is content this is not wrong. What is wrong is demanding a higher level of scrutiny to others beliefs than we are prepared to apply to our own. If you are going to be critical of others you must be prepared to subject your own views to the same degree of scrutiny. Having said that, this phenomenon is not unique to religious belief and lets not pretend it is.
 
chefmomster2 said:
Many have rational reasons for their beliefs and many others are moved primarily by faith. No matter where a person falls from one end of that spectrum to the other, there will never be a completely rational and objective proof which explains every aspect of their belief. Every believer must at some point take a leap of faith.
Click to expand...
The argument I made in the OP of this thread is that religious believers cannot evaluate their own religion with the same critical thinking they use to evaluate the religions of others.
 
Counterpoint said:
The argument I made in the OP of this thread is that religious believers cannot evaluate their own religion with the same critical thinking they use to evaluate the religions of others.
Click to expand...
And I thought I’d shown that that’s not necessarily true in my first post. Examining other religions doesn’t mean that I must accept what they teach, only that I must be able to do the same thing to my own religion, which I’ve done. The authors that helped me do this were C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, Fulton Sheen and St. Paul, among many others.

Critical thinking doesn’t mean one must reject all religions in order to be able to see clearly. It means being able to find the one that truly has the fullness of truth. Truth is not merely facts and figures about the physical universe, it’s also God revealing himself to man, for God is truth.

God has revealed himself to man in natural law, which all men subscribe to whether they are aware of it or not. Many religions are attempts by man to understand the One who put natural law into men’s hearts. Having read many mythologies I am amazed at how consistent this thead is in all religions, whether based on mythologies of great leaders of men or based in the revelation of prophets.

What one must ask oneself is this–is there a religion in which the fullness of the truth (that can provide for man’s happiness in this world and the next) subsists? The asnwer is yes, there is. It is the Catholic faith. Reason, history and revelation all agree on this.
 
Counterpoint said:
Most religious believers can be very critical when evaluating the plausibility of a religion other than their own. However, when it comes to evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion, they appear to completely dispense with critical thinking. Why do you think that is so? (Or, just in case you disagree with this characterization, do you think most religious believers are objective and exercise critical thinking when evaluating the plausibility of their own particular religion?)
Click to expand...
Tony the Mad mentioned confirmation bias earlier. I agree. Confirmation bias exists because of pride. No one wants to be told that they’re wrong about something. Once we decide that something is true, our gut reaction to anything that even hints that we could be mistaken is to disregarded it out of hand. This is the case with religious belief, but also with philosophers, scientists, teachers, politicians, parents, children… basically, all humans in all situations.

The only way to combat confirmation bias, the only way to defeat pride, is to cultivate the virtue of humility. The humble man is willing to consider that he might be wrong about something. The humble man actually listens to what another person has to say, even if he disagrees. The humble man knows that he is flawed, limited, fallible. And when he’s right, the humble man is not arrogant and does not demean those who disagree with him.

The prideful man wants people to associate the truth with him. He is deeply concerned with being right. He wants the adulation of others, praise for being intelligent, wise, knowledgeable, or whatever. He wants the truth to serve him.

The humble man does not associate the truth with his own self. He knows the truth is objective, a thing outside of his own person. He is not concerned if someone rejects the truth, because that rejection takes nothing away from him. He is not concerned with praise and adulation. He is at the service of truth.

I try to be humble rather than prideful. All too often, I fail miserably.
 
Counterpoint said:
The argument I made in the OP of this thread is that religious believers cannot evaluate their own religion with the same critical thinking they use to evaluate the religions of others.
Click to expand...
And why would we? Certainly it’s good to use critical thinking on one’s own religion, and in my experience many Christians do this a great deal (I certainly do). But the goal shouldn’t be to treat one’s own religion in the detached or hostile way in which one tends to treat other religions; the goal should be to empathize with other religions so that one has a glimmer of what it would be like to belong to that religion.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top