Critical thinking

Originally posted by masqua
Rather than continue addressing individual remarks about the two subjects being discussed under the broad scope of 'Critical Thinking', perhaps it should be a pre-determined FACT that both God and myth may be debated in perpetuity without ever concluding to a definite and final result.

The spiritual realm and the use of myth has existed beyond the historical record in polytheistic forms while monotheism is relatively new in comparison. It was formed in the mind of mankind so far back in time that the first instance of theology is utterly lost to us. We are left only to speculate as to how or why the concepts arose.

well this would then fall into the theism/atheism category and should be moved to the appropriate section ?

In both instances they are a means to educate, whether it's God's Will or Santa Claus we're addressing. It is not so important to assess, through logic, the truth of these two examples. What IS important is what effect they have.

the again the merry-go-round begins, how can one explain Monotheism's God to some not willing to accept any definition, instead only look for a white haired man with fiery eyes ?

I have discovered alot of atheists in the religion section believe in aliens, that they are even here too... I have asked this of several of my Metal-Headed friends (-referring to music) who do not believe in God because it sounds cool, and we talk some really cool stuff about aliens which can be found even right here on ats in the given sections.

do you see me there trolling people who believe in underground bases made by aliens and asking them if they believe in God (the unseen) just to shoot them down ?

actually reading in the given sections I was referring to in my last post, one does not even have to ask them if they believe in God, quite often it is stated openly with smug remark, yet they go right back talking about Grays Vs Greens Vs Reptiles.

reply to post by masqua

In both instances they are a means to educate, whether it's God's Will or Santa Claus we're addressing. It is not so important to assess, through logic, the truth of these two examples. What IS important is what effect they have.

It is precisely because of this that I find it important to question the use of a word, and whether that use of the word is being used properly. Logically speaking, the actual "truth" or "falseness" of a particular hero in a particular monomyth is irrelevant. It matters not that Spiderman, or Luke Skywalker are fictional characters, it is their journey that speaks to the human psyche because those journeys tap into universal truisms. Thus, when diminishing the word myth to mean nothing more than a falsehood, it is worth questioning such a use, and whether that use is doing justice to the word itself. Indeed, since myths speak to universal truisms using the word to be equated with falsehood becomes contradictory, only confusing the issue of what a myth actually is.

The word myth is not the only example of a word that has come to be defined in illogical ways. The word selfish is another word that has an illogical definition. Selfish is largely defined as a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. However, since humans are primarily social beings and depend on others in many ways to maximize their potential to survive, it is illogical to have disregards for others as a part of ones own interest. It would make more sense to simply define selfish as a chief concern for ones own interest and not add the qualifier of disregard for others, but this is not at all how the word is used in peoples vocabulary, so lexicographer's will define it as it is used, regardless of the illogical meaning.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
well this would then fall into the theism/atheism category and should be moved to the appropriate section ?

Good point. On the other hand, it was only a small portion of the OP (and that in a supplied video) and it has been yourself who has constantly focussed on that side topic. Why not make a seperate thread (again) on theism/atheism and begin it in the appropriate forum yourself. The OVERALL topic here is critical thinking and how it works.

the again the merry-go-round begins, how can one explain Monotheism's God to some not willing to accept any definition, instead only look for a white haired man with fiery eyes ?

Good question for the Faith forum. How about starting another thread in there which is focussed entirely on that subject.

do you see me there trolling people who believe in underground bases made by aliens and asking them if they believe in God (the unseen) just to shoot them down ?

No, but I do see you determined to make a thread discussing critical thinking to be one about atheists and theists. You don't believe that theology is the only subject available, do you? You could go to just about any thread on ATS and apply critical thinking.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm curious -since you made this request- will you back up your claim that the Constitution contains the principles of Protestant christianity? You've been asked to several times already in this thread and have systematically avoided it.

on page one I first spoke of it and stated this to you...

this country was indeed founded on Christian ideals, the philosophies and ideas of the Protestants are directly worded and stated in the Constitution.

where a better word I should have used from my language would have been "reflected" but their ideals did reflect the words in it and the Declaration of Independence, taking into account of course which came first...

Puritan movement Main articles: Puritan and English Civil War The success of the Counter-Reformation on the Continent and the growth of a Puritan party dedicated to further Protestant reform polarized the Elizabethan Age, although it was not until the 1640s that England underwent religious strife comparable to that which its neighbours had suffered some generations before. The early Puritan movement (late 16th-17th centuries) was Reformed or Calvinist and was a movement for reform in the Church of England. Its origins lay in the discontent with the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. The desire was for the Church of England to resemble more closely the Protestant churches of Europe, especially Geneva. The Puritans objected to ornaments and ritual in the churches as idolatrous (vestments, surplices, organs, genuflection), which they castigated as "popish pomp and rags". (See Vestments controversy.) They also objected to ecclesiastical courts. They refused to endorse completely all of the ritual directions and formulas of the Book of Common Prayer; the imposition of its liturgical order by legal force and inspection sharpened Puritanism into a definite opposition movement. The later Puritan movement were often referred to as dissenters and nonconformists and eventually led to the formation of various reformed denominations. The most famous and well-known emigration to America was the migration of the Puritan separatists from the Anglican Church of England, who fled first to Holland, and then later to America, to establish the English colonies of New England, which later became the United States.

I am quite surprised that is still on Wiki

en.wikipedia.org...

Martin Luther and the Calvinist

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Logically speaking, the actual "truth" or "falseness" of a particular hero in a particular monomyth is irrelevant. It matters not that Spiderman, or Luke Skywalker are fictional characters, it is their journey that speaks to the human psyche because those journeys tap into universal truisms.

Completely agree. It has become a negative via ignorance in the same way a conspiracy theorist is regarded today. Because myth is not based on actual facts, it must be stupid and worthless. The actual meaning behind a myth is dismissed by the same arrogance as valid facts surrounding a conspiracy.

I believe it's part of the dumbing down we hear so much about today. i.e. Don't think for yourself, think what we tell you to think.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


So... where is Calvinism mentioned in the Constitution other than when marking the date (Year of our Lord).

BTW... I was raised Calvinist. Not a very pleasant personal experience and have live among Amish/Mennonite all my life. Me? I prefer electricity and a car.

I learned all about the colonies in school, I remember social studies being one of my most loathed classes... I just couldn't stand it, now I can't seem to get enough...

I remember sometime even back before this in elementary, had to be 2nd or 3rd grade when a teacher (I even remember her name) give the class these tests of logic like what should you do with this semi-truck if it got stuck under a bridge... there were no multiple choice answers, I said something like separate it from its trailer and drive it out, it was however the wrong answer.

When she pulled down the map on the chalkboard showing a map of the world, she asked us (without pointing to anything) what does this look like... some kids answered "that there looks like a boot" and others answered different animals or something... when it came to my turn I said "it looks like a big puzzle" I remember that as being my first achievement, I was congratulated when I surely was not the teachers pet.

little info on the Colonies least we forget...

New England is a region in the northeastern corner of the United States consisting of the six states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. New England is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, Canada, and the State of New York. In one of the earliest European settlements in North America, Pilgrims from England first settled in New England in 1620, to form Plymouth Colony. Ten years later, the Puritans settled north of Plymouth Colony in Boston, thus forming Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. In the late 18th century, the New England Colonies took the lead in combating British efforts to impose new taxes without the consent of the colonists. The Boston Tea Party was a protest that angered the British, who responded with the Coercive Acts, stripping the colonies of self-government. The confrontation led to open warfare in 1775, the expulsion of the British from New England in spring 1776, and the Declaration of Independence in July 1776.

en.wikipedia.org...

Tea anyone ?

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

So... where is Calvinism mentioned in the Constitution other than when marking the date (Year of our Lord).

oh that's cool masqua, I really and honestly do not know the constitution that well, thanks for pointing it out... this is one document I have been meaning to read thoroughly for some time now, it has to be studied along with my favorite of the two, the Declaration of Independence.

however I did mention ""ideals" and "philosophies" stuff like that... being a direct result from.

you know back in the day all the folks were religious types.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I'm also aware of how important a role the Enlightenment played during the 1700's. For a good background on how America was established, I suggest you read one of the most instructive books ever written: Edward Gibbons 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'. In it, you will find that America was established on the lessons learned after that disastrous first millenium AD. The Constitution of America was, imho, written with Gibbon's warnings in mind. However, I have doubt that you will enjoy reading it very much. It's very critical of the manner in which monotheism played its crucial part in the destruction of the Roman Empire.

Gibbons wrote it in the 1700's and published the first book of the series in (wait for it) 1776.

Originally posted by masqua
(wait for it) 1776.

Awesome, I have Mod in my list now

I will look for the pdf online as I will be running about this coming week... up north where some of my family is I doubt I will find any of the mass Costco sized books stores we have around here, or even the smaller converted supermarket sized ones.

I don't learn much in college, maybe a few things...but not the amount you'd expect for what i'm paying and investing my time into. I feel like myself and most of the kids around me are just screwing around and "doing what they need to" to pass the class. It's really just mindless assignments and papers that need to be completed that you don't learn much out of...just keeps your brain from going stale.

Wow! Thanks for the Brain food. A fantastic introduction to an important idea. It would be great if the video clip could be compulsorily viewable before anyone else joined ATS.

So much arguments here are just hot air because of the lack critical thinking. I am going to pass this link on to the kids that I know. It was sad that most of the thread has been hijacked by an irrelevant argument.

S & F

I've heard it said that Civility may be defined as:

Consciously motivated organizational behavior that is ethical in submission to a higher power (even as an imagined perfect observer).

Love - the will to give of one's self for the sake of another's spiritual (or psychological) growth and well being.

Critical thinking must involve a sufficient amount of bracketing of prior assumptions and the willingness to investigate what might reside in the realm of an unknown unknown (what we don't yet know we don't even know) free from any sort of contempuous bias prior to investigation. It must deny ignorance, one's own, in order to cultivate an open mind capable of recieving new information, and evaluating new paradigms. "Myths" in this regard can therefore be highly informative, particularly those formed around universal principals of truth, justice, Civility and love.

If critical thinking is unwilling to move into novelty, then it is not critical thinking, being blind to new domains of understanding, by cowering in the dim light of the already known, which represents a slice of reality so thin, relative to all that can be known and understood, as to constitute ignorance, but an ignorance which is NOT bliss since it's motive force or catalyst is driven by nothing more than ego and the limitations of the self, and will therefore become hostile when threatened with any new information which might overturn a previously cherished worldview ie: truth is only relative, and there is no connecting principal, for example.

I think it's also important that if we are to be "smart" that we have the capacity to be not only open minded, but authentic; authentic about what we know, don't know, in some cases can't know, instead of simply pretending we are smarter than we really are, as if to impress someone - that cannot bring about critical thinking either, and again gives birth only to ignorance, even intollerance.

Here's a piece of critical thinking for people to ponder - intents and purposes are made apparent in action, even in the form of words typed on a screen. The human being has an absolutely tremendous evaluative skillset, which see's THROUGH people, either when in person via body language, or even in "word palaces" like ATS, where we can read between the lines between the lines, to see, not only the mind of a person, but even their heart, and yes, their capacity for critical thinking.

There's just so much information available, and so much we do not know, even about the human being ourselves and our place in the grand scheme of things. If critical thinking might help us re-evaluate the entire context and frame of reference for the human being and the "self" within a newfound Civility, and drive a mutual inquiry capable of bracketing the self long enough to look and listen and learn and better understand, then critical thinking and reason itself might be the great hero and the redeemer of human history, the logos who's root, is logic.

The only thing we must not do however, is to ASSUME based merely on prior entrenched belief systems while regurgitating standardized, pat responses, which do not serve the process of either authentic communication or mutual understanding, and which therefore result in a breakdown of Civility, of love (the "glue" of Civility), while leaving little more than ignorance, in it's wake.

Critical thinking, is a foundation for Civility, which by its very nature ought to instill the willingness and the discipline to "bracket" ego-self, long enough to really listen, evaluate, and even try on new ideas, while weighing them in the scales of all our prior knowledge and "learning" and then testing them in the crucible of our own faculty for critical thinking and reason.

And of course the more we know, the more we come to know that we do not know.

So I say that a "beginners mind" (Suzuki Roshi) is a prerequisit for critical thinking, because only a beginners mind can be a truly discerning mind, capable of slicing through BS in search of truth, and real understanding, of the wholly authentic and not the pretend variety, which gets old really fast, and is so transparent it's insulting to everyone else's critical faculty, reason, and to their innate sense of Civility and fairness and what is and is not reasonable.

It's always apparent at the level of the activity, in our case, verbal written communication, which although it contains significant gaps based on many variables, is nevertheless highly informative, if some people only knew the degree to which this is the case..

reply to post by jlv70


Critical thinking is one of the most important things for a free society. A society without it is one simple step away from a slave society.

reply to post by jlv70


S+F

Thank you for posting this. I believe our educational system has been twisted and squeezed beyond recognition!
What really interested me is how you took note to the students not being able to be un-bias when swayed by witness testimonial or political swaying....i mean wouldn't TPTB want people to not be able to tell when they're being lied to or mislead?

Or am i inferring what you inferred the wrong way?

Just my ten pence worth here -

Critical thinking is great. I was taught how to think critically, but I never got taught when or where to apply it. Then, several years ago some bad experiences made me angry enough to start questioning certain things - the flood gates opened and I started applying critical thinking in my life properly, to everything. The difference has been incredible - but hard work. I no longer believe anything at face value. Also, I've lost several friends because I refused to accept things they took as truth - it's amazing what a person with blind conviction will say just to try and prove they are right without any evidence at all.

I leave you with this....

ATS recommends or perhaps even demands critical thinking. But most of the people here wouldn't know critical thinking if it hit them in the face. Most residents of ATS are so tied down into their world of unproven facts, and personally convicted theories, that to apply Critical thinking would mean they would have to be wrong, several times - they couldn't handle this. If only we could propound critical thinking, but also help people to understand that being wrong is a great thing - ATS would become much more effective then.

The Revenant.

I only read some of the first page of replies, seems like the thread was going off on religion or not and getting away from the point on critical thinking. The schools are indeed dumbing kids down, critical thinking is actually discouraged by the way things are run. They don't want smart kids, they want consumers. John Gatto wrote a great book on the subject. I highly recommend it if you are interested on what are schools do ...and how it got there.

reply to post by jlv70


Well happy I think critically. A bit of Stoic methods of thought along with some biblical knowledge. Why do people assume that if you're very religious that you are incapable of being fair? My best friends are a bisexual atheist and another atheist. Oh, and another atheist. When I debate abortion, I do not argue from morals nor religion. When I discuss politics, I justify myself from religion, but always have a nonreligious core to why I am a certain way. Is it o impossible to separate faith from governance?

reply to post by SurReality


You're absolutely right, that's what I was getting at.