johnson1010 wrote:It appears that i must point out again that critical thinking is NOT a belief system, but a pair of words to describe careful, inclusive thought processes that evaluate input in relation to other things in your experience.

I don't know what nonsense you have dredged up to make you think you know what you are saying when you talk about critical thinking as some kind of liberal conspiracy, but you are, unequivicably, flat out, wrong.

Well said.

Thomas Hood wrote: However, in the case of critical thinking, you ought to examine its roots, because critical thinking is the Achilles heel of atheism. Atheism would be no more than a philosophical position If atheists did not have a fallacious logic to assert themselves.

I think, Thomas, in your mad dash effort to demonize atheists you are completely missing the boat about what critical thinking actually is. As Johnson says, critical thinking is not an atheist-only mode of thinking. Any atheist or theist can use critical thinking methods in the ongoing pursuit to get to the truth. I think what you're really trying to argue is that atheism is a religion, but for some reason you've latched onto critical thinking as an atheist's "Achilles heel." Would you have atheists use uncritical thinking methods? What then? Is it your hope that without it's "Achilles heel," an atheist's lack of belief in God will disintegrate and they will become raving believers?

Wikipedia wrote:Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments.

Critical thinking only means thinking, well, critically. There's no creed or theory or pro-Nazi agenda attached to it. These are only your preconceptions that twist the meaning into something else.

I can't speak for others, but for me critical thinking is simply to question the way we do things and to always apply a healthy dose of skepticism to all claims and statements. For example, let's say someone comes up and tells me that they've started taking multivitamin tablets and they feel like they have more energy. I would be skeptical of such a claim; I would be inclined not to take what they say at face value. I would say probably they want to believe the multivitamins gives them more energy and therefore are reaping the benefits of the placebo effect. More importantly, I would reserve acceptance of the claim until I see evidence of it's truth. I am neither convinced of its truth or of its untruth. Although offhand, I'd say it's probably an imagined benefit. But even this bias is based on what I have already read about the alleged benefits to multivitamins (which are either negative—no benefit—or inconclusive).

There is no "fallacious logic" inherent in questioning the validity or truth of a claim. If anything it's an absence of belief or, at least, withholding judgment and allowing for the reality that many things are not what they may first seem. The human brain is far from perfect. We have limited cognitive and sensory abilities and flawed memories. We are prone to wishful thinking, subconsciously trying to bend the truth to our opinions rather than the other way around. It's human nature to come to a belief too easily. I think we are hard-wired to come to beliefs but, by thinking critically we are more likely to eventually get to the truth of things.

TH: "If they exist and are found "no where," that is, in no particular place, then they are everywhere and aspects of the cosmos as a whole."

If you’re using my statement that these virtues belong no where as the premise to show that they are everywhere, then I’m flattered. But, you didn’t use my words verbatim. I didn’t say they are ‘found’ no where(I'm sure you've found them in your neighbors), I said they ‘belong’ no where. This statement was to emphasize that there is no ‘purpose’ to these virtues. They are behaviors, or dispositions if you will, which are emergent characteristics of the human mind.

Honesty is a virtue that would not exist without deception. Deception exists because it is advantageous to survival. There is a point where too much deception, whether toward yourself or toward others, is destructive in the long run, but is enticing since it is immediately beneficial. This is not the only reason, but it is one reason that honesty is a virtue. For brevity, the explanation is compressed. Let me know if my peculiar use of words confuses you.

Honesty is the act of telling the truth. How is it that you think an act which is performed by people is everywhere and an aspect of the cosmos? When I deliberate on answering a question posed to me by my mother, and decide that I should be honest, does the universe at that precise moment in time ‘instill’ me with honesty? If you think so, what makes this explanation valid in any sense when such a decision is easily explained as a deliberate or unconscious choice? That we currently don’t have the ability to understand the workings of the brain doesn’t mean that the choices and behaviors that emerge aren’t a direct result of the firing of neurons. You have billions of nerves, each with thousands of analog(more variant than digital) connections, and you say that the act of ‘telling the truth’ cannot be an emergent property? The universe ignores the workings of this astoundingly complex neural processor and instead magically ‘instills’ us with honesty? This is a pristine example of cognitive dissonance.

Or is honesty a disposition that is instilled into us in varying amounts at birth? Which means all of our experiences and thoughts of a life long lived will have no impact on whether or not we lie to our wife when she asks if we think she’s fat. Such acts are deliberated, either consciously or unconsciously. Repetition of such acts is indicative of disposition.

If your new shelter is the unconscious, which I’ve mentioned a couple of times, know that unconscious decisions are still decisions, the same neurons are at work crunching the data ether. The difference is our awareness of this process. We cannot be simultaneously aware of two things at once, we’d be overloaded. So we have some thoughts that we aren’t aware of(and some perceptions we aren’t aware of either, which is interesting, but is a tangent.)

Also, if such virtues are inherent in the universe, what is the criterion for demarcation? Is humility so virtuous that it qualifies, but elegance or gracefulness or toughness or temperance, patience, loyalty, generosity, devotion, etc… do not? Do they all qualify? If so, then do their opposites qualify? Is deception inherent in the universe? If you cannot draw the line on the spectrum of dispositions going from very good to very evil, and everything in between, then every disposition known to man qualifies? If this is the case, who needs a brain! The neurons are all fake, put there to deceive us and lead scientists on a wild goose chase, and we will all still have heartbeats after we’re dead!

I assume you’ll have a problem with some of the words I’ve used, since you’re an adept wordsmith. If that’s the case, let me know and I’ll copy/paste everything I’ve written with the words you dislike replaced with ones you agree with. The underlying meaning and chains of reasoning are sound, so very little else need be changed.

johnson1010 wrote:It appears that i must point out again that critical thinking is NOT a belief system, but a pair of words to describe careful, inclusive thought processes that evaluate input in relation to other things in your experience.

Stop making up stuff, Johnson, and consult what the critical thinking professionals say, like here:

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_fi ... hy2006.pdf
Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts

Interbane wrote:If you’re using my statement that these virtues belong no where as the premise to show that they are everywhere, then I’m flattered.

You are welcome, Interbane, and since you are interested in genetics, I'd like to call your attention to this book by a theist geneticist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Langua ... for_Belief

geo wrote:. . . critical thinking is not an atheist-only mode of thinking.

That's true, Geo. I hold in my hands Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial) -- a Creationist, I think -- and on p.56 he has a section titled "Critical Thinking in Evolutionary Biology, " which begins with "1. Learn to distinguish between what scientists assume and what they investigate." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As I sit here reading these posts, with my critical thinking robe on, and with my vessel of critical thinking water at my side, before I think my critical thinking thoughts before going to bed, I have decided to seek some critical thinking guidance.

Has anyone else noticed the critical thinking light, (bulb). Maybe would like to sing a critical thinking chant of some sort, something like, "this critical thinking thread, I want to see it die"!

Lets all critically think together! Maybe a critically thinking conclusion will happen!

TH: "You are welcome, Interbane, and since you are interested in genetics, I'd like to call your attention to this book by a theist geneticist:"

I'm familiar with the perspective. Basically, god creates the universe then withdraws to his den. This is satisfying to a theist since it adds a conclusive termination point to the ultimate causal riddle. For that very reason, it's not parsimonious. Are you willing to explain your views on virtues a bit more after reading my post? I'm curious.

TH
The inference is that you believe in critical thinking but have never examined its academic formulations and so have simply accepted it on faith.

Wrong… again… I guess I should be getting used to that by now… but somehow your distorted thinking keeps catching me off guard.

I have researched critical thinking in the past because I am not a lazy thinker… As Johnson1010 and I have said (repeatedly) critical thinking is not the thing you are trying to make it out to be.

I am beginning to doubt that you personally use critical thinking, but most people do and most are not atheists.

Just as a hammer can be defined in many ways so can a tool like critical thinking. Some people define it differently than others. And some put emphasis on different properties of it… and some definitions are better than others, but I find the simplest definitions to be the most accurate.

Geo describes critical thinking well when he states that it is merely thinking critically. Applying skepticism to a claim and withholding judgment until credible evidence is presented.

You on the other hand have searched many definitions with the sole purpose of finding material that supports your twisted world view, not realizing that your initial assumption is wrong.

It has been said by every person involved in this discussion multiple times… critical thinking is not a belief system or a creed, it is not propaganda or liberal, it only has users and people who believe that it works… we believe this because it has been demonstrated time and time again. Just as I believe a hammer works because I have used one, I believe that critical thinking works because I have used it and it works.

TH
Now, I'm not criticizing you for being a person of faith, because as I pointed out, checking is expensive.

You would love this to be true I am sure… but as I stated before I am not the lazy thinker that you are.

And do not think you are going to goad me into a tirade because you called me a person of faith…

I will not bite at that bait.

Suzanne
Lets all critically think together! Maybe a critically thinking conclusion will happen!

We can't TH will not think critically with us...

Later

TH
About the discrimination you have experienced as an atheist, surely you are aware that in the minds of many persons, atheism and its rebellion against tradition has been a main prop of atheistic totalitarianism. When you are considered to be part of such a horror, you should expect others to be punitive.

So as a theist you should expect to be penalized for the witch hunts, the inquisition, the dark ages, the crusades, human slavery and the hundreds of other religious crimes throughout history?

Can you actually hear yourself?

You seem to actually support injustice against atheists… that is bigotry and is more Nazi like than anything any atheist here has posted.

I suspected this about you already, but you seem to add evidence to my point with your every post.

But I will withhold judgment for now… maybe you are just dense and irrational.

Later

Frank 013 wrote:

Suzanne
Lets all critically think together! Maybe a critically thinking conclusion will happen!

We can't TH will not think critically with us...

As a Confucian, I believe in the value of ritual, and I think I could willingly suspend disbelief for a few hours, or at least I could pretend for the sake of the party. But Suzanne is right about the need to terminate this discussion. We apparently have run off nice MissBlake, new member etudiant has gone silent, and GentleReader has withdrawn again into the darkness of Cyberspace.

Tom