Liberty, or library?

[Suzanne]

Thomas Hood wrote:

I wasn't trying to deceive you in asking for information about your aunt. (I had forgotten her name.) Most of the introduction to one of your aunt's books on critical thinking is available as a Google Book. I went to the trouble of looking it up and reading it.

Thomas Hood wrote:

Help me out here, Suzanne. Didn't you say you had an Aunt who taught Critical Thinking at Berkeley?

Suzanne wrote:

Yes

Dr. Eileen Gambrill wrote:

Quote:
Critical thinking involves more than the mere possession of related knowledge and skills. It requires using them in everyday situations and acting on the results of thinking carefully. It involves accurately presenting alternative perspectives and paying attention to the process of reasoning, not just the product. Strong-sense critical thinking involves a genuine fair-mindedness in which opposing views are accurately presented and there is a genuine effort to fairly critique both preferred and unpreferred views. Critical thinking involves questioning what others take for granted, asking "What's the evidence for this?" even when professors, supervisors, or administrators would rather not consider such questions. It requires paying attention to gaps between our background knowledge (current beliefs and related evidence) and related research findings. Critical thinking and scientific reasoning are closely related. Clarity and the critical appraisal of claims is important in both. Both share a commitment to fair mindedness and reliance on standards that are more likely than others to yield accurate answers to certain kinds of questions.

Thomas Hood wrote:

Thank you, Suzanne. Your aunt's nine-sentence description of critical thinking supports my view that critical thinking is "emotional
thinking applied to liberal ends, supposedly a beneficial propaganda."

Suzanne wrote:

You asked for information from my aunt, I provided it, and again, you spun it around to suit your needs. Information can not be used that way. I truly believed you were searching for purposeful knowledge, I was not aware that what you wanted was knowledge to suit your purpose.

Thomas Hood wrote:

I wasn't trying to deceive you in asking for information about your aunt. (I had forgotten her name.) Most of the introduction to one of your aunt's books on critical thinking is available as a Google Book. I went to the trouble of looking it up and reading it.

But you used the info I provided and attempted to deceive readers. The info I provided did not support your opinions. This did call for a value judgement on my part. I can not see you as a credible participant on this topic, and logic, traditional, or otherwise, leads me to the conclusion, I can not see you as credible at all.

Suzanne wrote:

If my neighbor on my right tells me that my neighbor on the left is getting divorced, should I just believe it?

Thomas Hood wrote:

Until you have reason to think otherwise, yes, you should accept it. If your neighbor has been a responsible informant in the past, why not accept it now? Checking costs. It takes time, effort, and sometimes expense. Most people aren't trying to deceive us, although they may be mistaken.

If the discussion participant has decieved in the past, why should I not believe he will deceive again.

[Frank 013]

TH
If you find humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule hidden in the heart of things, I certainly wouldn't label you an atheist.

Why not?

Does your view of atheism require an absence of virtue?

What does a lack of belief in deities have to do with Humility, honesty or the golden rule?

The golden rule is self centered and erroneous anyway.

Wouldn’t it be better to treat people the way they want to be treated? As opposed to the way you want to be treated?

People are different some may not like what you like…

What if a person is a masochist? Do you want them to treat you the way they want to be treated?

Is the golden rule truely the best way to act torwards your fellow man?

Critical thinking in action!

Later

[Thomas Hood]

TH
If you find humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule hidden in the heart of things, I certainly wouldn't label you an atheist.

Why not?

Because, virtues are aspects of selves.
If humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule are virtues and are inherent in the universe, then they are inherent in a self.
And this self is God.

[Interbane]

Those virtues aren't inherent in anything. They are aspects of behavior that we as humans have decided to term "virtuous". You'll find these behaviors a lot in some people, but not much in others. This is due to natural genetic variance and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or divine. How could you have come to the conclusion that these man made labels are inherent in the universe?

[Thomas Hood]

Those virtues aren't inherent in anything. They are aspects of behavior that we as humans have decided to term "virtuous". You'll find these behaviors a lot in some people, but not much in others. This is due to natural genetic variance and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or divine. How could you have come to the conclusion that these man made labels are inherent in the universe?

Above you said:

They are virtues, but they 'belong' no where. Just as the golden rule of morality does not belong to religion, but precedes it, the virtues of humility and honesty were understood by philosophers before the bible was written.

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. Maybe I didn't understand you, as I seldom do because of your peculiar use of words. For example, your use of the word "label" is metaphoric and usually irrelevant to what you are talking about. A "label" is a blank piece of paper attached to a pill bottle or some such, and has no definite connection to the contents of the pill bottle. When the label is inscribed "Amoxicillin" then there is -- or should be -- a definite connection between label (word) and contents of the bottle (referent).

Please comment on how you think virtues are aspects of behavior or are behaviors rather than dispositions, how and when humans decided on the use of the virtues, and why you think virtuous conduct is based on genetics.

[geo]

Because, virtues are aspects of selves.
If humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule are virtues and are inherent in the universe, then they are inherent in a self.
And this self is God.

It seems to me that buried in the strands of this thread is an attempt to defend a private spiritual belief using logic and reason and I don't think it's possible to do that. Science and logic are tools used to find meaning and truth in the physical world in which we inhabit. Spiritual beliefs are necessarily the domain of the metaphysical which is why spiritual belief requires faith. In my opinion, trying to defend or justify spiritual beliefs using rational thinking and/or science is inherently dishonest and ultimately futile.

Not to say that religion and science are incompatible because it's very simple to say that God invented nature and just because you show that a particular phenomenon has a natural explanation, whether it's the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, or the movements of the tide, it doesn't take God out of the picture. Thus it can be argued that God is the author of all things natural so, therefore, when you show that something has a natural phenomenon all that shows that it's within God's providential sphere. I think Aquinas said this.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that faith is scientifically provable, only that there are ways in which people of faith, who are convinced of the reality of God, to be able to understand science and accommodate it within their own religious views. Obviously this isn't my position, but it seems to me this is the only logically tenable position for someone who needs or wants to have faith in God. Fighting against science or logic has always been a losing proposition for the church and it's not going to work for an individual either.

[geo]

Thus it can be argued that God is the author of all things natural . . .

Just to clarify my previous post, when someone admits that their belief comes from a position of faith they will have no need to assail science and logic or try to bend the truth to fit their beliefs. It becomes a matter of private belief which is not controversial and not debatable. That really is the crux of what I'm trying to say.

[Thomas Hood]

TH
Please be fair, Frank. I asked you for your recommended sources:

I have been so much more than fair already...

Sources? For what… how to think fairly/rationally/critically?

My sources are my personal ethics and search for honesty and truth… no matter what my personal belief might be on the subject.

The inference is that you believe in critical thinking but have never examined its academic formulations and so have simply accepted it on faith. Now, I'm not criticizing you for being a person of faith, because as I pointed out, checking is expensive. Life is short and we cannot check everything and have to accept some things on trust.

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.

http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/res ... iscussion/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html
Propaganda and Debating Techniques by A. Orange

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.

Tom

[johnson1010]

The inference is that you believe in critical thinking but have never examined its academic formulations and so have simply accepted it on faith. Now, I'm not criticizing you for being a person of faith, because as I pointed out, checking is expensive. Life is short and we cannot check everything and have to accept some things on trust.

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.

...critical thinking is the Achilles heel of atheism.

Critical thinking is not the sole domain of atheists. Everyone uses critical thinking. If you look at a thing you know, or are told and challenge it to stand on evidence, rather than assumption, then that is critical thinking. It is evaluating the merit of a thing. What part of this says atheist? What part of this is liberal?

Atheism would be no more than a philosophical position If atheists did not have a fallacious logic to assert themselves.

Fallacious logic you say? Perhaps you would like to hit the back button on your web-browser and peruse the litany of insane assertions you have made recently.

Atheism is, now read this part carefully, the dis-belief in a god. That is all.

This is the only tie that binds us and why we make such poor oppressors. Each and every one of us diverge after this one sentiment. There is no unified vision of atheism, there is no plan about atheism, there is no motive behind atheism, there is no curtain to shove aside, and no man pulling levers.

The main thrust of your argument, the only thing i have been able to filter out of this swill is that you don't trust independent, careful, thought process that evaluates ideas based on merit and veracity, and you would rather have us shoulder the yoke of blind old fools in robes who tow the leads of squabbling bronze age savages who dreamed up the ultimate "You just wait till your daddy comes home" scenario.

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.

There have been no totalitarian regimes who's goal was atheism. There have been totalitarian regimes with atheists amongst their number, surely.

Shall we set up a chalk board and take tally of how many atheist regimes there have been and then make a column for religious regimes? I do not fault religious people alive now for the events of the inquisition, or the crusades. I judge each person on the things they do and the things they say.

[Thomas Hood]

you used the info I provided and attempted to deceive readers.

I did nothing of the sort. Everything I did was public and documented. I would prefer to have your approval, but everybody can't be pleased all of the time. Apparently you have great admiration and respect for your aunt, and suppose that she should be treated with deference. Surely you do not expect me to share your emotional connection to your aunt.

Your criticism of Wikipedia is unjust. I no more follow Wikipedia mindlessly than I would any other source. I use Wikipedia heavily and shall continue to do so. You are quite right that some Wikipedia articles are flawed, an example being the Wikipedia article on Critical Thinking. This article appears to have been written either by Peter Facione or one of his associates, and it is basically an ad for Facione's critical thinking business. Nevertheless, it gives links helpful in exposing the roots of the critical thinking cult:

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_fi ... hy2006.pdf

A person who had worked for Wikipedia joined BookTalk -- maybe six months ago -- and was critical of the management of Wikipedia, but he did not express himself in concrete terms.

Tom