Is critical thinking part of religious belief?

[Ozzie]

Just a general question. Is it healthy for your belief to question it? Or is it more healthy to accept what is taught? Otherwise what is the effect of questioning your belief: does testing it tend to strengthen it?

 

[Valjean]

Critical thinking is the bane of religion. Most religions actively discourage it.

Intellectuals should concern themselves with philosophy or science, not faith.

 

[FatMan]

Critical thinking is the bane of religion. Most religions actively discourage it.

Intellectuals should concern themselves with philosophy or science, not faith.

That is a great point. Up until about 1900, critical thinking was often called heresy and punishable by death. MOST religions discourage critical thinking because it would cause those poking into some statements accepted as "fact" to be looked at as being questionable at best.

 

[Pah]

Critical thinking is the bane of religion. Most religions actively discourage it.

Intellectuals should concern themselves with philosophy or science, not faith.

I agree. The foundation of faith makes it plain that critical thinking is not required. Church hierarchies survive because it is absent.

 

[9harmony]

"The third principle or teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the oneness of religion and science. Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond. Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance, for the antithesis and opposite of knowledge is superstition born of the ignorance of man. If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 107)

 

[AllMantra]

[SIZE=+0]I like the question you presented, Ozzie, I feel that such thought provoking points should be raised from time to time. In several of the Buddha's discourses he indicates that we should take Nothing as true until we have tested and tried it for ourselves, I believe that all great religious teachers have had similar teachings. I am very non conforming, for I feel that any belief worth claiming should be able to endure through relentless scrutiny. Furthermore, I view all of my beliefs as subject to change, just like everything else in my life.[/SIZE]

 

[Pah]

The foundation of faith makes it plain that critical thinking is not required. Church hierarchies survive because it is absent.

Maybe it did today (for Christianity), but not way back when. In fact, much of Christian Theology and Ideology as we know it today is the result of Christian Monks and Scholars dabbling in things like Greek and Roman Philosophy to explain and expand upon the foundations of basic Christian theological teaching. The stuff that made the most sense stuck around while the stuff that didn't hold together quite as well didn't stand the test of time. That right there shows both critical thinking and independent thought.

The "intellect" was biased research. It existed to justify what was already believed. In no way can that be deemed "critical thought".

There was also uncritical thought for the masses of adherants. Scholarship was kept from them as evidenced by the opposition to print the bible - if you can't read it, you just have to accept what we say.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Absolutely- nothing is the "end all be all" unless that is always what you really come back down to at the end of the day all B.S. aside (recognizing it is the key). For myself it's basic animal instinct, I trust that more than any rules or laws printed by another man for there is no authority higher than our animal makeup for that is what we are from what I have seen- I see no other logical explanation. Progression takes work, stasis takes nothing but belief in the status quo's rightness and faith in their rightness, We are only mirrors unless we strive beyond.

 

[Willamena]

Just a general question. Is it healthy for your belief to question it? Or is it more healthy to accept what is taught? Otherwise what is the effect of questioning your belief: does testing it tend to strengthen it?

I believe that it is healthy for beliefs to grow and evolve, and questioning is a part of that process. Stagnant beliefs would be as unhealthy as a stagnant life.

 

[Willamena]

Critical thinking is the bane of religion. Most religions actively discourage it.

Intellectuals should concern themselves with philosophy or science, not faith.

If the Christian religion actually discouraged critical thinking, we would have no theory of the Big Bang today.

 

[Sunstone]

Although some organized religions might discourage too much critical thinking, that does not seem to be a problem that is confined just to organized religions. Anyone who has worked in a large organization knows that large organizations, whether they are religious or not, tend to discourage questioning certain things about them. There's a "party line" wherever you go.

It would be interesting to see whether religious organizations are more, less or the same as secular organizations in the ways and extent to which they discourage critical thinking.

 

[FatMan]

If the Christian religion actually discouraged critical thinking, we would have no theory of the Big Bang today.

If the Christian religion encouraged critical thinking, the Big Bang theory may have been theorized before the early 1920's.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

As far as the "big bang" theory, I think many churches actually ceeded the vision they cultivated for themselves and their "god" in the face of scientific evidence, there was no other way to explain it so expand the vision- it had to be done for it to survive although probably grudgingly.

Overall though, science does not and will never provide all answers.

 

[Pah]

The intellect was biased research only in the sense that they were trying to verify and support something that they already hold to be true. Don't tell me you don't do the same, because you do, every single time you make a post talking about how church and state are supposed to be seperate and then come up with a lot of different sources to support your theory as well as give us the examples you came up with as part of your own rational discourse with yourself.

It certianly doesn't discredit my point even if I do it too! It is also the basis of science that a "believed" hypothesis is tested.

And to further illustrate my point, there are many things that we hold and believe as true today, yet we never come to those conclusions by our own critical thinking. For example, the square root of 4 happens to be 2, the earth circles around the sun, and so on and so forth. Now, it just so happens that these things can be verified through phyisical means, but if you don't want to take the time to do that, you can always look up the intellectual explenations for these things and once again, take them for granted.

Non sequetor to what I said. Except that there was critical thinking at the beginning in order to provide for my scholarship. My thought process is not entirely assention to what is taught. I do digest and form my own working hypothesis at times.

On spiritual and theological matters, it's a little bit more difficult, but it's by no means impossible to verify certain truths. And how do we do that? Easy, through the use of logical and rational discourses.

Not diffecult but it is impossible to arrive at faith (not believing, but faith) by a rational process.

Discourse within religious topics is possible at the level of learning "what" faith is but hardly what the "why" of faith is. Only science answers the "why".

As far as the church trying to keep the information from the adherents, that's not a fair example because we're talking about two completely different kind of people. I was talking about the Christian Monks and Scholars who were trying to expand their own theological understanding, while you're talking about the priests and monks who wanted to monopolize religious understanding in an attempt to gain authority. While those two groups of people would sometimes overlap, that does not mean they were always one and the same.

Part and parcel. Enough so to brand the whole "scholarship" of Christian religion. What was lacking in all of it was "testability".

 

[Quiddity]

Critical thinking is the bane of religion. Most religions actively discourage it.

Intellectuals should concern themselves with philosophy or science, not faith.

Far be it, that he/she may choose to do all the above eh?

Part of being religious is forming of conscious. How one can truly do this without critical thinking is beyond me.

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know (or at least suspect) the ancient Pagan Greeks were the great critical thinkers of the West. It was with their rediscovery during the 1200's that critical thinking was reintroduced into European Christian culture. After their reintroduction, they had a huge influence on the Renaissance and the rise of science.

I think there is a strain of anti intellectualism in Christianity that comes out at times, but I don't think Christianity is overall anti intellectual. There have been too many times when Christians were in the forefront of Western thought and science to say that Christianity has always and universally discouraged critical thinking.

 

[Quiddity]

I think there is a strain of anti intellectualism in Christianity that comes out at times, but I don't think Christianity is overall anti intellectual. There have been too many times when Christians were in the forefront of Western thought and science to say that Christianity has always and universally discouraged critical thinking.

Very true and agreed. It's like an internal tug war from within. Some of the youths are unsatisfied with how their forefathers explained it and build upon it with a more vibrant movement. It's a variety of things that effect it really.

 

[Pah]

Far be it, that he/she may choose to do all the above eh?

Part of being religious is forming of conscious. How one can truly do this without critical thinking is beyond me.

The "stuff" of conscience is learned, faith is learned. In so many of religious bent conscience is learned. Consciousness, by the way, is fully present at birth which is an absence of religion until taught. No critical thinking need apply

 

[Pah]

And it is also the basis of healthy religion that you don't put faith in something you don't completely understand.

I believe that's true. There is a lot of unhealthy religion because people can not undersatnd the supernatural nor some of the attendent dogma.

And so do I. Huh, what a coincidence. And chances are, Victor does too, why, I wouldn't be surprised if Booko was the same way. I know Christina's father is, and he's probably the most religious and faithful man I've ever met

.
All thought from a faulty premise is faulty. There is no objective testabilty for religion.

That's not true. In fact, faith is further strengthened by rational thought. And science is not the only thing that is able to answer the question "why." In fact, the Baha'i Faith has answered more than satisfactoraly questions such as "Why are we here?" "Why do we suffer?" etc.

Irrational premise leads to irrational thought.

The "why's" you quoted prompt the secondary questions "why my God?", Why my religion?", Why is the dogma associated those correct?". While science is ultimately caught in that childish game we all played. it offers far more levels of answers than the religious "why?".

So the misdeeds of the church stunted rational thought a bit, that does not mean that things couldn't be tested later on. Besides, even back then things were still tested. Remember how I said some theological thought didn't stand the test of time? That was because the masses rejected those things because they didn't see those concepts as being able to hold water.

Christianity, for example, has been tested for neigh-on two thousand years and found wanting in it's thoughts. What makes you think Christianity will test itself beyond the Religious Right's return to staid thought? What makes you think the basic assumptions comprising religion will ever be tested at all in religious circles?

 

[Quiddity]

The "stuff" of conscience is learned, faith is learned. In so many of religious bent conscience is learned. Consciousness, by the way, is fully present at birth which is an absence of religion until taught. No critical thinking need apply

I would have thought you caught the distinction between consciousness vs. formation of consciousness. Perhaps not.