Bible & Critical Thinking

[Road Warrior]

2 examples:

1) Belief in an omniscient omnipotent diety combined with the concept of God-time creates the possibilty, arguably, for a fundamentalist understanding of the bible while at the same time does not negate intellectual integrity.

2) an Atheist fundamentalist maintains their intellectual integrity.

1) Disagreed that believing the world is only 6000 years old and that God created human beings wholly formed (begging the question who sired the first daughters) is Critical Thinking.

2) Atheist fundamentalists (looking forward to the atheist fundie screams on that one!) are not using Critical Thinking even though they often claim to be the smarted people in the room.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Religion does not have to be the death of critical thinking, but many practitioners are very dogmatic and dogma requires that you not think about it too much.

Yes God catches the proud in their thoughts - proud religious and proud atheists.
The Bible itself can help with critical thinking of the readers as it rightly shows them both God's holy nature and their own fallen nature and the way of redemption.

It is totally reasonable that a God who sets the laws of the universe can lay them aside to make points and even makes sense that that would be one means of validating he is speaking.

As far as literal. The Bible in the original is literally true in the sense of the literature in the claimed sense. That is not necessarily a wooden literal sense but can be depending on context

 

[Road Warrior]

Yes God catches the proud in their thoughts.

It is totally reasonable that a God who sets the laws of the universe can lay them aside to make points and even makes sense that that would be one means of validating he is speaking.

As far as literal. The Bible in the original is literally true in the sense of the literature in the claimed sense. That is not necessarily a wooden literal sense but can be depending on context

Disagreed. That's like the developer of Monopoly being allowed to cheat when it suits him.

IMO, it's illogical, and dishonest, for God to break the same rules created. In addition, and more importantly, it goes against Free Will. Are you saying that people don't have Free Will and must do exactly as God says or be destroyed, see the fundamental laws of the Universe change around them due to God's wrath?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Wait, atheist fundamentalists truly exist, and are not just a caricature?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Disagreed. That's like the developer of Monopoly being allowed to cheat when it suits him.

IMO, it's illogical, and dishonest, for God to break the same rules created. In addition, and more importantly, it goes against Free Will. Are you saying that people don't have Free Will and must do exactly as God says or be destroyed, see the fundamental laws of the Universe change around them due to God's wrath?

Not illogical at all nor is it dishonest if its part of God speaking and making claims. Makes perfect sense. (But a fallen heart does affect the mind and there is a noetic effect of a sinful nature on the mind - hence catching the proud in their pride)

Now Google made veiled claims to curing death in the future and Biden says he will cure cancer if elected.... looks like Jesus exceeded their wildest dreams and more. So will the real promise keeper stand up? That would be Jesus.

End of proof

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Not illogical at all nor is it dishonest if its part of God speaking and making claims

Now Google made veiled claims to curing death in the future and Biden says he will cure cancer if elected.... looks like Jesus exceeded their wildest dreams and more. So will the real promise keeper stand up? That would be Jesus.

Alright. Jesus, stand up.

 

[sealchan]

Yeah but suppose I read The Hobbit by Tolkien. It's a great book. But suppose in the book, the plot is about time-traveling into Sauron's fist in a distant past and involves stories of incest between Gollum and Bilbo. I wouldn't read it. Then suppose someone told me "It tells the story of mankind if you read it just right". Do I still read it?

If it doesnt speak to you from page one then that story-teller has failed you. You are free to find another story.

Just beware of criticizing a story you dont like. However, given the predominance of this sacred story in our world culture I can understand why you might assail it. The Bible is a document that should be held up to critical analysis.

But it is also a story. It is a literary work and whether one is primarily critical of ot or considers it sacred, I would argue it is not given a just consideration unless its literary qualities are taken into consideration.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Alright. Jesus, stand up.

As Stephen said in the book of Acts in the presence of people who did not believe
"I see Jesus standing at the right hand of God"

One even was holing their coats while they stoned him, Saul of Tarsus,
and he later flipped to become Paul the Apostle putting on a truth jersey

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As Stephen said "I see Jesus standing at the right hand of God"

God came to Earth as a man, to save us from Himself, such that we might worship Him. He now sits at the right hand of Himself.

 

[Audie]

What do you mean by "intellectually honest"? That they are lying? Can a true believer be lying about their beliefs? Not just doubt, but actual lying. I know some Televangelists are obvious liars, but I know several people who strongly believe the Bible is the direct word of God. I doubt they are being intellectually dishonest.

No,not that they are lying. That is called "lying".

I think the example I gave is the type specimen for
intellectual dishonesty.

"all the evidence in the universe v what the bible
seems to say"

wik-wik says-
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

• One's personal faith, beliefs, or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another

 

[Audie]

2 examples:

1) Belief in an omniscient omnipotent diety combined with the concept of God-time creates the possibilty, arguably, for a fundamentalist understanding of the bible while at the same time does not negate intellectual integrity.

2) an Atheist fundamentalist maintains their intellectual integrity.

number 2 is irrelevant, number one is not a fundy. maybe
a unitarian.

 

[whirlingmerc]

God came to Earth as a man, to save us from Himself, such that we might worship Him. He now sits at the right hand of Himself.

That apparent contradiction is resolved in the Trinity

Jesus himself spoke of the temple as his Fathers house and immediately in context referred to his body as a temple. Hence God the father... God the Son... there are two of the persons...

see John 2

 

[Audie]

Yes God catches the proud in their thoughts - proud religious and proud atheists.
The Bible itself can help with critical thinking of the readers as it rightly shows them both God's holy nature and their own fallen nature and the way of redemption.

It is totally reasonable that a God who sets the laws of the universe can lay them aside to make points and even makes sense that that would be one means of validating he is speaking.

As far as literal. The Bible in the original is literally true in the sense of the literature in the claimed sense. That is not necessarily a wooden literal sense but can be depending on context

terrif, as nobody knows what the "original" said.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That apparent contradiction is resolved in the Trinity

Jesus himself spoke of the temple as his Fathers house and immediately in context referred to his body as a temple. Hence God the father... God the Son... there are two of the persons...

see John 2

Makes sense. But let me know when the fourth member of the Trinity comes. I want to see it for myself and witness it.

 

[dybmh]

1. I don't understand what God-time is.

2. That doesn't matter. The definitions of Atheist fundamentalist and Christian Fundamentalist are not similar.

Respectfully, Audie's comments do not specify what type of fundamentalists she is speaking about. If she is only speaking about Christian Fundementalists, it would be good for her to clarify that.

Also when it comes to the Fundamentalist flavors of both Atheism and Christianity, the dogmatic approach results in a lack of intellectual integrity for both. The Fundamentalist aspect does not.

Not all fundamentalists are dogmatic, although the 2 most often go together.

Regarding God-time, that's a fundamentalist approach to the creation story that accepts science. Essentially a day in Gen 1, is not a day perceived in real time by humans.

 

[sooda]

Alright. That resolves the OP I spent 20 minutes on finding the verses, and posting in debates for careful consideration and refutation.

You miss the forest for the trees.

Storytelling is for education AND entertainment.. Always has been.

But now we have these fundamentalist nutjobs who think the stories are science and history.

 

[Audie]

Respectfully, Audie's comments do not specify what type of fundamentalists she is speaking about. If she is only speaking about Christian Fundementalists, it would be good for her to clarify that.

Also when it comes to the Fundamentalist flavors of both Atheism and Christianity, the dogmatic approach results in a lack of intellectual integrity for both. The Fundamentalist aspect does not.

Not all fundamentalists are dogmatic, although the 2 most often go together.

Regarding God-time, that's a fundamentalist approach to the creation story that accepts science. Essentially a day in Gen 1, is not a day perceived in real time by humans.

"Fundamentalist atheist" is just garbage, like the claim
that atheism is a religion. Going from an invented term
for non existent people to saying that they are as dishonest
as xiam fundies is absurd.


You did not, btw, identify a flavour of fundy who
can be both well informed and intellectually honest.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You miss the forest for the trees.

Storytelling is for education AND entertainment.. Always has been.

But now we have these fundamentalist nutjobs who think the stories are science and history.

I agree.

 

[sealchan]

My favourite example to illustrate the problem
comes with a hilarious editors note at the end.

From Dr. K Wise, a yec paleontologist.

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See Why use apologetics for evangelism?] Here I must stand.

As much as I would like to simply concur with the notion that for this individual truth is fundamentally irrational and rational dialog fundamentally impossible, for reasons the author probably wouldn't accept there is some truth in his assertion of an axiom in spite of even overwhelming evidence against it. I dont know that I would want to derail this topic by exploring that here.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As much as I would like to simply concur with the notion that for this individual truth is fundamentally irrational and rational dialog fundamentally impossible, for reasons the author probably wouldn't accept there is some truth in his assertion of an axiom in spite of even overwhelming evidence against it. I dont know that I would want to derail this topic by exploring that here.

Hmm. Well you could always create another topic on the matter, referencing the relevant posts in this one. I don't have any problems with you quoting chunks from this thread, personally.