• 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 thinking vs faith

waitasec

Veteran Member
I think you make a good point. There are different realms of human experience and different tools are applicable to different realms, much like keys. Some keys work on some locks and some don't. Faith is often illogical, it operates on a different level than sense experience and analytical thinking. Almost like a left brain right brain dichotomy.

sure there is the emotional realm and the physical realm that we can all attest to. emotionally we can get to the bottom of why we feel the way we do by utilizing critical thinking. in our physical realm we can get to the bottom of how something works by utilizing critical thinking. the realm of faith concerns the why...which can not be proven. so when faith enters the critical thinking room it is no longer critical thinking but faith, for there is no room for critical thinking when faith is involved.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
but faith cannot be found in the critical thinking sphere since the sphere of critical thinking requires evidence.
I'm not sure.
I think critical thinking (Gergen for example) completely undermines modern notions of a world amenable to evidence.
If reality is a social construction (and I believe it is) evidence is just part of a world view, critical thinking is part of a world view. None of it is 'real'.
 

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
interesting topic. I just want to give the OP another thing to think about:

I agree faith in general doesnt require proof, and i know this seems counter-intuitive: but who is to say that critical thinking requires proof?

One of the basic ideas of philosophy is that you cant prove anything. Science doesnt prove things. Math can prove things within the system of math, but math is ultimately a man-made system that works to describe ideal but not realistic conditions(since we cant ever perfectly measure real life conditions with 100% accuracy).

So if we cant prove anything, then critical thinking doesnt require proof.. then is it perhaps possible that critical thinking and faith can be intertwined, or used in the same playing field? I'd like to think so. I know you say that critical thinking requires "evidence," so I guess you never really said that critical thinking requires proof, but you certainly implied it. But anyways, I think its fair to say that any logical person would not have faith without the requirement of evidence and experience anyways. So once again, I dont see why the two concepts cant be intertwined. You say that faith does not require proof, but you give me no reason to believe that faith does not require evidence or experience.
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
I'm not sure.
I think critical thinking (Gergen for example) completely undermines modern notions of a world amenable to evidence.
i disagree in that the balance of my bank account determines how much money i have or
when buying tylenol at the drugstore, my faith (a belief which cannot be proven) in that pill i'm ingesting is not poisonous is met by the criteria of knowing the FDA approved it therefore even though i personally didn't analyze the pill my critical thinking is satisfied.

If reality is a social construction (and I believe it is) evidence is just part of a world view, critical thinking is part of a world view. None of it is 'real'.
reality is a social construct, i agree. and in order for there to be an understanding when discussing faith (belief with out proof), one would need concede that faith of this sort puts critical thinking out of phase when applied.
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
interesting topic. I just want to give the OP another thing to think about:

I agree faith in general doesnt require proof, and i know this seems counter-intuitive: but who is to say that critical thinking requires proof?

One of the basic ideas of philosophy is that you cant prove anything. Science doesnt prove things. Math can prove things within the system of math, but math is ultimately a man-made system that works to describe ideal but not realistic conditions(since we cant ever perfectly measure real life conditions with 100% accuracy).

So if critical thinking doesnt require proof, then is it perhaps possible that critical thinking and faith can be intertwined, or used in the same playing field? I'd like to think so.

interesting...which philosophy is that? i don't mean to be coy as
i am not educated in philosophy, i am only asking questions and stating my opinion about the conclusions i have discovered for myself while being open to persuasion once the criteria that i have set for persuasion has been met...
:)
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
So if we cant prove anything, then critical thinking doesnt require proof.. then is it perhaps possible that critical thinking and faith can be intertwined, or used in the same playing field? I'd like to think so. I know you say that critical thinking requires "evidence," so I guess you never really said that critical thinking requires proof, but you certainly implied it. But anyways, I think its fair to say that any logical person would not have faith without the requirement of evidence and experience anyways. So once again, I dont see why the two concepts cant be intertwined. You say that faith does not require proof, but you give me no reason to believe that faith does not require evidence or experience.

use my tylenol example.

now in order for a scientist to determine the pill is not poisonous the pill has to meet a certain criteria. it is my job (the use of my critical thinking under this "truth" that the FDA and the tylenol company has ensured i will not be poisoned) to determine if this pill is poisonous or not.

does that make sense?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
use my tylenol example.

now in order for a scientist to determine the pill is not poisonous the pill has to meet a certain criteria. it is my job (the use of my critical thinking under this "truth" that the FDA and the tylenol company has ensured i will not be poisoned) to determine if this pill is poisonous or not.

does that make sense?
Could critical thinking convince someone it is a placebo and would it be justified?
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Could critical thinking convince someone it is a placebo and would it be justified?

if critical thinking convinces someone it is a placebo then the placebo would have lost it's power of influence as tool for controlling an experiment. so it would be nullified, if i understood your question
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
if critical thinking convinces someone it is a placebo then the placebo would have lost it's power of influence as tool for controlling an experiment. so it would be nullified, if i understood your question
Lets just say I've got a headache and the tylenol doesn't help or do anything, as far as I can tell anyway. I could just say that it doesn't work and the FDA is full of it. Maybe conspiracies aren't part of critical thinking?
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Lets just say I've got a headache and the tylenol doesn't help or do anything, as far as I can tell anyway. I could just say that it doesn't work and the FDA is full of it.
yes you could while using your critical thinking that there are a lot of variables to consider...you have developed a high tolerance to pain meds....or a chemical imbalance.

Maybe conspiracies aren't part of critical thinking?
i guess it depends on the criteria the individual has set up for themselves as to what is considered to be evidence/proof. for example the bible is considered to be evidence for gods existence to some and not to others...it is understood why it wouldn't be when one uses critical thinking because evidence for such a thing has never been proven or disproved
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
A rational mind would consider that many thing existed before we had any proof of their existance. Germs would be a good example. Before we had a microscope, a rational mind would say germs do not exist.

The bottom line is, we do not have enough data to prove or disprove many things.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
i disagree in that the balance of my bank account determines how much money i have or......

It's nice to have a change from death and furniture :D
....but the point is the same.


Though realism is excellent rhetoric, maybe the best, in a purely technical or instrumental sense, that cannot be an adequate reason to accept it as a serious intellectual position. In its tropes of Death and Furniture we see a​
[FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia][FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia]rhetoric [/FONT][/FONT]that refuses to acknowledge its own existence; a [FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia][FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia]politics [/FONT][/FONT]that can claim a critical-radical credibility only by the selective use of its opponents' analytic tools; and a [FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia][FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia]theology [/FONT][/FONT]which is deeply conservative and seeks nothing less than the death of disruptive, disturbing inquiry. While tedium, good taste, political and moral sensibility will properly determine what sorts of given realities are thought worthy of inquiry, those considerations are no grounds for promoting a realist ontology for social science, nor any other science, nor for rejecting relativism. On the contrary, relativism is social science [FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia][FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia]par excellence[/FONT][/FONT]. Its pursuit is a thoroughly edifying contribution to the society which has spawned it.

[FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia][FONT=GJFLEG+Georgia,Georgia]Loughborough
[/FONT][/FONT]

Source:- This is worth a read if you're interested http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssde/Death and furniture.pdf (it's a peer reviewed academic paper not random internet rambling).

I have work due for Monday so I'm going to have to absent myself from this interesting discussion for the weekend.
Have a good one :)
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
A rational mind would consider that many thing existed before we had any proof of their existance. Germs would be a good example. Before we had a microscope, a rational mind would say germs do not exist.

Rationality isn't incompatible with imagining, surmising, and infering.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
A rational mind would consider that many thing existed before we had any proof of their existance. Germs would be a good example. Before we had a microscope, a rational mind would say germs do not exist.

The bottom line is, we do not have enough data to prove or disprove many things.
I agree with this. We do our best to make informed decisions but sometime there just isn't enough information to always be correct. We sometimes have no choice but to make decisions based on faith. Like when we say not guilty due having reasonable doubt where the opposite would be to not doubt and have faith in a guilty verdict.
 

839311

Well-Known Member
judging by experience, i have had the opportunity to go on a vacation for several months, with out any sense of responsibility to keep myself afloat financially, oddly enough, i wish that were the case today... ;)
after 2 weeks or so i was bored...i had to do something that required me to be challenged in some way or another...and looking back ...one could say, i made it so to speak...but did i as i found myself bored?

Well, I don't know. I think we would really have to have first hand experience before we could say. The circumstances of a reality and life like that would be completely different, so who knows.

In any case, if we achieved the level of power to know everything, we probably would have the power to erase our memory to some extent. For example when playing a sport or watching a movie or whatever, so that we could do all those interesting and enjoyable activities without knowing exactly what would happen.

Being bored may be an aspect of the human condition based in genetics. It may be that a different kind of life form may have genes that would make it impossible for it to be bored. If we reached the level of knowing everything, then we would know what genes to change so we could get rid of boredom from our lives, as well as all the other undesirable qualities out there.
 

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
interesting...which philosophy is that? i don't mean to be coy as
i am not educated in philosophy, i am only asking questions and stating my opinion about the conclusions i have discovered for myself while being open to persuasion once the criteria that i have set for persuasion has been met...
:)

Honestly, Im not really that educated in philosophy, in an academic sense that is(Im a math major). But one idea I've learned from my friends taking philosophy is that you cant prove or unprove anything in philosophy because no matter what you say there will always be a counter philosophical argument, and really no basis for determining which one is right.

As far as I'm aware, math is the only way you can "prove" things(Im taking a math proof class right now). But that being said, math is still a man-made system, and you can only prove things that can fit within the system. And like I said, math only describes ideal conditions, but not realistic conditions since we cant measure things with 100% accuracy. So if you want to get super philosophical, technically math cant even prove anything about reality since math is a man-made system that exists outside of reality(it can only describe ideal conditions).

Okay so technically you cant prove or unprove anything. But in a PRACTICAL sense, we obviously use math all the time to "prove" things, and I have a ton of trust in science and math. So its sort of irrelevant to me personally whether or not we can philosophically prove things, when the practical implications of math and science in our everyday life is so USEFUL.

But I dont really want to debate about that anyways, the point I was trying to make is that philosophically you cant prove or disprove anything. Yes critical thinking requires evidence, but like I said, you've given me no reason to believe that faith does not require evidence or experience(yes I am aware illogical people exist who have faith with no evidence or experience but thats besides the point im trying to make).

waitasec said:
use my tylenol example.

now in order for a scientist to determine the pill is not poisonous the pill has to meet a certain criteria. it is my job (the use of my critical thinking under this "truth" that the FDA and the tylenol company has ensured i will not be poisoned) to determine if this pill is poisonous or not.

does that make sense?

Good example of critical thinking. But notice you did put "truth" in quotation marks because the criteria the FDA gives you is not perfect. I feel like very similar examples could apply to the relm of faith though.

We deal with an experience, concept, object, etc in life (pill). Then we try to determine something about that pill (such as a belief for example - whether or not its poisonous) and in doing so we critically use things we accept to be as "truths."

For example, I am a Jew and my people have thousands of years worth information and experience relating to God. So often when I deal with an experience, concept, object, issue, etc in life, I might read Torah, Talmud, commentaries, books on Jewish philosophy, living, etc and use them as "criteria" for forming a belief on the said issue. And philosophically speaking, the criteria I am using is no less or more provable than the FDA criteria you used in your example ;)

So like I said, I see no reason why faith and critical thinking cant be intertwined. And you've certainly given me no reason to believe that faith doesnt require evidence or experience for a logical person.
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
A rational mind would consider that many thing existed before we had any proof of their existance. Germs would be a good example. Before we had a microscope, a rational mind would say germs do not exist.

The bottom line is, we do not have enough data to prove or disprove many things.

such is 'our' lot in life... if the human species survives for another 1000 yrs who knows what will be discovered.
but in the here and now, all i know is what i know and i will continually challenge my critical thinking skills until my brain explodes.
:)
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
It's nice to have a change from death and furniture :D
....but the point is the same.



Source:- This is worth a read if you're interested http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssde/Death and furniture.pdf (it's a peer reviewed academic paper not random internet rambling).

I have work due for Monday so I'm going to have to absent myself from this interesting discussion for the weekend.
Have a good one :)

i should follow your lead...;)
thank you for the link...i will try my best to understand it.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Well, I don't know. I think we would really have to have first hand experience before we could say. The circumstances of a reality and life like that would be completely different, so who knows.
fair enough.


In any case, if we achieved the level of power to know everything, we probably would have the power to erase our memory to some extent. For example when playing a sport or watching a movie or whatever, so that we could do all those interesting and enjoyable activities without knowing exactly what would happen.

Being bored may be an aspect of the human condition based in genetics. It may be that a different kind of life form may have genes that would make it impossible for it to be bored. If we reached the level of knowing everything, then we would know what genes to change so we could get rid of boredom from our lives, as well as all the other undesirable qualities out there.

maybe so, but that's not the case for us today
:)
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Technically speaking, everything hangs on faith when it comes to any belief. explanation:

If you know this because of this other thing, and this other thing because of this other thing, then eventually there must be a first thing from where you extract the whole knowledge you have. This first thing is taken up because of faith.

When it comes to many beliefs that sutain something, it becomes circular reasoning.
 
Top