A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I only have one question, honestly. What is "pleafure?" Could this be the thing that I have been missing to make me turn to a religious life?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Critical Thinkers vs God
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
PureX
Veteran Member
I think in time we can learn that belief is unnecessary. Observation, reason, and a few clear ethical imperatives will suffice just fine, without it. Faith is necessary, because we are not omniscient. But belief is not. It's that focus on belief rather than on faith that causes religion to fail in the face of critical thinking.
Naturalism doesn't require specific position on God's existence.
I think a more likely explanation would be peer pressure.
Well I came to my pantheistic view through critical thinking so I will answer 'Yes'.
ecco
Veteran Member
No, you are not using critical thinking when you make an obviously fallacious post. If you had applied critical thinking, you would have come to the conclusion that someone in this thread was going to respond as I did and call your integrity into question.
You also could have looked up the definition of the word "theory" before using it to defend your nonsensical remark.
the·o·ry
noun
- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Some scientists secretly believe in God or would believe in God if not for the fact that there is the stigma that you aren't a good scientist if you believe in God or even that you're stupid. It's peer pressure.
I called your comment wishful thinking. Now I'm more inclined to believe that you posted it with the intent to deceive.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Do you know what an "Arian" is Nakosis? I dont want to pursue this, but I would like to ask you to be critical of everything, even yourself.
An Arian stems from the Arian controversy or so called heresy which is Arius and his belief that Jesus was divine, but a created being, not coequal, coeternal with God.
Thus, your assessment is wrong. No problem. Maybe you were not aware.
Well, that is the slippery slope fallacy.
It didnt happen. Newton was always an ardent theologian and was always a theist. So your IDEA is a red herring. Its not reality, and not even close. It is your idea, not Newton and his position.
Even if Newton rejected Jesus completely, and embraced only God as God, he is still a believer in God. Thats the bottomline. I am only trying to show your logic is a modal collapse.
ecco
Veteran Member
Funny.
You haven't questioned anything.
All you did was make a ridiculously fallacious comment about atheists who are scientists. What was your purpose? Did you post it to bolster your own narrow views?
firedragon
Veteran Member
You didnt understand what I said. Science in the modern world especially, stemming from older philosophy of even theists like Ibn Haytham, requires you to methodologically practice naturalism. Methodologically, not philosophically.
I hope you understand.
ecco
Veteran Member
Children hear prayers before eating long before they can recite them.
Children are taught to say bedtime prayers before they can understand the meaning of "If I die before I awake".
Children are taken to church (mosque, temple, whatever) long before they have formulated any desires regarding religion or god beliefs.
Children are put into Sunday schools and bible studies to further the indoctrination.
Indoctrination is something done to political enemies in which you break them down into children eager to please you. Its an evil thing. Parenthood is not evil.Usually. My opinion.
Your opinion about what indoctrination is, is not based on correct usage of the English language...
in·doc·tri·na·tion
noun
- the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"
It does not need to have an evil intent. That doesn't alter the process nor the outcome.
Now that's what I would call critical thinking.
Pantheism, does that mean you see the universe having intelligence and having consciousness?
If so, what led you to this conclusion?
ecco
Veteran Member
Would you say, after applying some critical thinking, that Atlas, the god, did not exist?
Would you say, after applying some critical thinking, that Thor, the god, did not exist?
After applying critical thinking, I and many others, say "The God portrayed in the Christian bible does not exist.
Newton certainly did apply critical thinking to much of his work. However, Newton suffered from the same problem that most theists suffer from. They can apply critical thinking only up to the point where it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. Newton formulated many of his ideas to support the notion of the glories of God (as he saw god). It probably never occurred to Newton to apply his intellect to the question of whether or not God existed.
ecco
Veteran Member
Not in the slightest. Not in any way you can support with facts.
The word "theist" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.
A Christian Fundamentalist is a theist.
A Muslim hardcore member of ISIS is a theist.
A geologist who believes a god created the universe can be a theist.
Ditto the word "scientist". There is a vast difference between an evolutionary biologist and a scientist researching aerodynamics.
ecco
Veteran Member
Critical thinking often stops when it comes into conflict with deeply ingrained religious beliefs. Newton is a good example.
Advaita Vedanta =(Hindu philosophy) non-dual (God and creation are not-two)
In this philosophy Consciousness/God/Brahman is fundamental and the material is a derivative (a play/drama) of Consciousness/God/Brahman.
First cause was the so-called paranormal phenomena that showed consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
Next, any explanatory models that made any sense of this like Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others all ended in a non-dual view of reality.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Theist means one who believes there is a divine. if that is meaningless, its good for your personal life, but it has a meaning.
You mean like atheists like you. With ingrained, dogmatic, religious beliefs. Same, same.
Colt
Well-Known Member
I agree with this claim about how critical thinking and spiritual insight can exist in the same mind.
...."Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness"....
"Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.
What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic."
...."Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness"....
"Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.
What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic."
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Yes.The results might help explain why scientists are among the least religious. According to a 2009 Pew poll, only about half of scientists believe in God or a higher deity, compared to more than 80 percent of the general public.
"The results don't speak directly to it, but it could explain why people who receive extensive training in fields that require deep analytic thinking might tend to be among the least religious," he says.
Although critical analysis of life's origins might be one thing that convinces atheists to lack faith in God, Gervais says there are many other reasons that need to be explored.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...itical-thinkers-less-likely-to-believe-in-god
Can critical thinking and belief in God coexist?
The more evidence will be gathered, the easier it will be
Pretty sure in your own OP, you suggested 50% of scientists believe in God, right?
So...unless you think 50% of scientists are incapable of critical thinking...that would tend to suggest 'yes'.
Nice to be on the same side of an argument as @Rival
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Nah. I'm pretty sure at least most of the other half of scientists are very capable of being scientists.
I'm curious how the question was approached because "sciencey people" tend to give unusual and unconventional answers that aren't really suited for such a dichotomy, even both of those who would label themselves as theist or atheist. And then there was Einstein who said no to both as conventionally understood.
It seems a silly question. Ultimately, belief in Creationism didn't prevent the invention of the MRI. Even Newton believed some wonky things.