An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (atheist, quote, faith)

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I like this video. I would enjoy hearing Tza's response to it.

"false ideas" and "false ideologies" is a red flag. (at time marker 0:54)

it does not invite exploring topics in depth. by setting up the simplistic "true false" it shuts down exploration.

have you ever been a journalist? interviewed someone for a report or paper?
remember what they told you about the difference between asking "yes no" questions (which yield a very limited short answer and very little information) and asking "open ended questions" (which yield a great deal of information and insight) such as "what was that like" "how did that feel"
"what happened next" "what were you thinking of when you did that" "what other questions does that raise"

that's the problem with true false.

a - yields very little information and shuts down further exploration
and
b - when it comes to the topics we are discussing there is no true false, remember? "we don't know" as atheists are always pointing out. so since "we don't know" there can't be true false.
and
c - "false" is a judgment as in "bad" "wrong" "not telling the truth" "liar liar pants on fire" seriously. that is not critical thinking. that is not even being a grown up.

not to disparage a video you like gaylen, but it felt rather juvenile. and patronizing. "crops failed angry sun god" seriously? it is the tone someone takes when talking to an imbecile. or someone they consider an imbecile. or a patronizing adult talking to a someone they consider well beneath them in capacity to understand. which says a lot about the person making this video, and those who "like" this video.

it's like a religious tract printed on very poor quality newsprint left in a bus station or phone booth or public bathroom. sort of pathetic and desperate in that same way.

other red flag words "concede defeat" "legitimate theory"
this is not about critical thinking it's about how to "win an argument" or "defeat someone in a debate"

that's enough, i couldn't get past 1:53. that's plenty.

now....compare what you posted in that video (juvenile, simplistic, patronizing, imbecilic) to what i posted the second post on critical thinking. that to me is adult, recognizes a person has an intellect and actively seeks to improve and develop it, and seeks to improve their critical thinking skills. to me they are worlds apart.

i'm serious put them side by side. compare them.

[Tzaphkiel]

Here i'll post it again. my evaluation of the video (the less than two minutes i watched) is that it does not meet any of the criteria below. The video does not demonstrate critical thinking at the level or bar i have set for myself and apply in my own learning and studies. if you like it Gaylen, then well you like it. it felt like someone trying to teach the alphabet to someone with a college degree who has written and published several books. Extremely......inappropriate, like someone is really really really out of touch and disconnected from reality.

pa·tron·ize
treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
treat condescendingly, condescend to, look down on, talk down to, put down, treat like a child, treat with disdain

if that's how you see yourself, and that's how you see people who believe in God, it doesn't cast you or anyone else in a favorable light. you asked for my feedback, there it is. perhaps i need to not be in this thread any more. that's what I'm thinking.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

More on critical thinking

"Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked.

"They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies.... They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of integrity, humbleness, civility, empathy, sense of justice.

"They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will always at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, ...

"They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. .

~ Linda Elder

Our Conception of Critical Thinking

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

"false ideas" and "false ideologies" is a red flag. (at time marker 0:54)

it does not invite exploring topics in depth. by setting up the simplistic "true false" it shuts down exploration.

have you ever been a journalist? interviewed someone for a report or paper?
remember what they told you about the difference between asking "yes no" questions (which yield a very limited short answer and very little information) and asking "open ended questions" (which yield a great deal of information and insight) such as "what was that like" "how did that feel"
"what happened next" "what were you thinking of when you did that" "what other questions does that raise"

that's the problem with true false.

a - yields very little information and shuts down further exploration
and
b - when it comes to the topics we are discussing there is no true false, remember? "we don't know" as atheists are always pointing out. so since "we don't know" there can't be true false.
and
c - "false" is a judgment as in "bad" "wrong" "not telling the truth" "liar liar pants on fire" seriously. that is not critical thinking. that is not even being a grown up.

not to disparage a video you like gaylen, but it felt rather juvenile. and patronizing. "crops failed angry sun god" seriously? it is the tone someone takes when talking to an imbecile. or someone they consider an imbecile. or a patronizing adult talking to a someone they consider well beneath them in capacity to understand. which says a lot about the person making this video, and those who "like" this video.

it's like a religious tract printed on very poor quality newsprint left in a bus station or phone booth or public bathroom. sort of pathetic and desperate in that same way.

other red flag words "concede defeat" "legitimate theory"
this is not about critical thinking it's about how to "win an argument" or "defeat someone in a debate"

that's enough, i couldn't get past 1:53. that's plenty.

now....compare what you posted in that video (juvenile, simplistic, patronizing, imbecilic) to what i posted the second post on critical thinking. that to me is adult, recognizes a person has an intellect and actively seeks to improve and develop it, and seeks to improve their critical thinking skills. to me they are worlds apart.

i'm serious put them side by side. compare them.

If there was any doubt about your unwillingness to address your views critically and assess them against a rational standard this post eliminates all doubt. You clearly do not believe there is any such thing as a rational basis for evaluating controversial ideas since you refuse to accept the existence of anything short of true/false which you feel does NOT apply to these issues. As Gaylen would probably say there is a spectrum of probability and some are so low that they are equivalently false. You seem not to credit that idea as you cling to very low probability ideas backed by magical thinking. Am I wrong?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Everything I said about Arq, is true based on his own expressed lack of knowledge and his incessant pretense to debunkings of what he clearly does NOT understand. I have explained my position on the book of Revelation (NOT Ezekiel) and presented what I would consider a rational explanation of the symbolism in Daniel's dream with my reasons explained. Revelation defies my ability to explain the symbolism rationally and none of the explanations I have seen are remotely rational. Of course, you understand I do not consider anything magical to be rational.

I maintain that I HAVE debunked you repeatedly from our first encounter in the Matrix/Plantinga thread where I pointed out that your use of Imperfect human perception was invalid because science was designed to get around that and does produce valid results. This is simple and doesn't need a Phd, but you use your certificate -waving to try to steamroller a point you can't refute.

Thereafter there was a first cause debate where I pointed out that your dismissal of the way logicians assign the burden of proof to the claimant, your sneering at Occams razor (because it was inconvenient for you) with the stock theist claim that it was a human convention (I debunked that with a practical example in the bush and rock mind -experiment) and your attempt to debunk the materialist default (mainly by using the philosophical definition of naturalism rather than the scientific and practical use) showed up the fallacy of your argument and your logic and also why - you took God as an a priori on faith, and this buggered all your erudition from the start.

Again, this is simple and anyone can see it without needing a course in Nano-physics. Except you, because you could be the model for the statue the American Humanist government ( ) will have to put up: "The Universal Theist" with eyes screwed shut, fingers jammed in ears, and mouth wide open, repeating Faith - based mantras.

I haven't even mentioned the endless deprecation and sneering I got from you as I humbly struggled to grasp the details of the various disciplines that you referenced to support your thesis (you are very erudite, I never denied that) but you obfuscated rather than explained and it was Gaylenwoof who did the explaining that you should have done, and I have got to say that it was a qualisoup vid.on Substance dualism that finally got me to grasp qualia.

And while I had to throw up my hands at Gaylen's assertion (or so I recall) that philosophy proves that not only can material-physicalism not explain qualia now, it never can (though I recall that he denies that he ever said that) , or that Chalmer's zombies prove dualism because a zombie without human mental faculties is logically possible but a zombie without arms or legs isn't, and finally philosphical ideas about the nature of "red' by people who not only did not know what colour actually was, but appeared to ignore the infinite gradation of it, rather rendering a colour principle to the realm of mythology, and I said "I bow to your expertise, but I cannot buy your conclusions. Here I stand; I can do no other", it pointed up Mystic's use of substance dualism as handy evidence for a Universal consciousness Aka "God"..

But the point is that your universal Field went down the tube in the course of this debate because of animal consciousness (in the course of my supporting the idea of an evolved consciousness along with evolved life) which raised the question of -if it's all the Universal Field (aka God), why aren't animals as smart as us? ( I won't even comment on the expected 'That's your concrete thinking again, Arq" (1). But in fact it's faith -based theory cobbled together from bits of philosophy, science (or non -science..I'll be getting to that ) and religion as convenient without much regard for whether they work together, make sense or are even true.

But the fact is that you tacitly admitted that I was right by revising your theory from a universal field to individual clumps of it for each human (The 'gnatswarm theory" as I call it) without crediting me, of course or even admitting that you'd done it. Your response to this, as in all my debunks, is silence - then denial and deprecation.

I'm only doing this because you have gone for my throat here in no uncertain manner and frankly deserve no mercy.

Your claim to science support was debunked when you had to claim..or admit, rather... that your science wasn't the science we all know and use but a mysterious unknown (to anyone but you) "Science" for which the known science is used by you as an analogy or signpost. I may reveal that I may not be a scientist but I have e -mails from some who are and the term 'fraud" was used.

This should embarrass anyone with intellectual integrity into a hands- up posture, but you continue to ignore it, deny everything and (as we see here) occasionally damn me with faint praise while stamping on my face. So you are asking for what you are getting.

I may only mention the 'Revelation' thread where you made it clear that you regarded divine revelation into the head as more reliable than mere validated science, and the excuse for your fossil spiritual record (what I call the learning curve theory) has it's lessons out of order was (as I recall) an analogy of various counties in different locations, which sounds as footling an excuse as I have heard.

In short, you HAVE been debunked, repeatedly, and simply ignore it in a way that bespeaks a personal hubris (one of your favourite projections ) of staggering proportions, and you tend to deal with opposition by sneering and deprecation such as you did by pointing up my lack of certificates.

But you don't need certificates to point up, old mate, what is wrong with your theory and with your thinking, and your certificate -waving is good old attempts to blind with science.
You have been sussed, and debunked before, and by no means just by me, but by every poster you engaged with (2), and are debunked here, and nobody will need a phd in anything to see it quite clear and plain.

Don't blame me - you started it

(1) in case any didn't know, I used to be Arequipa, but was Transponder long before that.

(2) other than your irritating disciple Gldnrule, and broken -record Arach, who is well on the way to being the third, and you are welcome to both of them, and Gaylen, who seems just to enjoy discussing philosophy of which you obviously have considerable knowledge.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I like this video. I would enjoy hearing Tza's response to it.

I don't disagree with this definition of critical thinking, but I don't find it quite as useful as I would like. Too many of the terms are, themselves, in need of a great deal of clarification. Take "skillfully analyzing" for example. Yes, of course, skillful analysis is great. Nobody consciously strives for sloppy analysis. "Rigorous standards of excellence" are, well...excellent! But what are the criteria a for being rigorous or excellent? I'm feeling unsatisfied, so I'm going to see if I can zero in on what I think are some key features of critical thinking that are shared by most of the people who are trying to define and explain critical thinking (whether they explicitly say so, or not).

(1) A willingness to discover that some of your beliefs and assumptions need to be changed. I'm giving this the honor or #1 because it is absolutely essential to critical thinking. It is certainly best if this is an explicitly conscious willingness - an attitude of discovery, rather than an attitude of "I already know with certainty that X has to be true and now I'm going to prove that X is true to everyone else." Sometimes it is possible for someone to be dragged kicking and screaming toward the feeling that some cherished prior belief may be wrong. This starts off as overconfidence - a feeling that it is impossible for any contrary view to infect my mind, so I can safely study the opposing views without fear of unsavory contaminations. This was me reading things like Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible when I was in high school (shortly after reading the Bible and realizing that there was some crazy stuff in there). The more I read, pro and con, the more I came to realize that I didn't really know much at all about the ultimate truths of reality. I guess that unconsciously my mind was more willing to accept contrary evidence than I consciously realized. In any case, some sort of willingness must have been there somewhere, because eventually I did change my views. (BTW: Although the process can be uncomfortable, finding out that I have to give up some old beliefs in order to adopt some new beliefs is always vastly more interesting than finding out that I was right all along. If I find that I am right about too many things, I tend to grow a bit bored and restless and, eventually, a little suspicious.

(2) A willingness - indeed, preferably, a flat-out desire - to study the best argument on BOTH (or ALL sides) of the contentious issue that you are trying to think critically about. This, too, is essential. You almost never understand any issue as well as you think you do, but you are a total goofball if you think you've earned a blackbelt in some issue by beating up a bunch of strawmen. There is way too much information out there to study everything, which is why it is crucial to pick at least some examples from the best and the strongest arguments on all sides. If you are not feeling much desire to find the best and strongest arguments that make you the most uncomfortable, then this is a good indication that you already failed back there at step #1.

(3) When trying to think critically about X, try to identify the assumptions that underlie your beliefs about X, and then adopt an attitude of skepticism toward each of these assumptions. This is where studying the best argument for/against X become helpful. For most important issues, some people have spent lifetimes trying to identify the relevant assumptions. Stand on their shoulders. This will give you a chance to see what they saw and, with luck, maybe even see a bit further.

(4) Try to think of some ways to collect evidence for or against X. If you can't think of any way to collect evidence, then articulate a good argument for why it is okay to believe X, even though there can't be and/or does not have to be any evidence for X.

(5) Do a bunch of the other stuff that critical-thinking advocates suggest (logical analysis, creativity, synthesis, mindfulness - especially mindfulness...that's a really good one - etc.)

That's all good and your first point is about 'skillfully analyzing'. Well, that's what the methods of critical thinking should provide. Logical reasoning and validated science, as I endlessly reiterate. Sometimes the validity of this is questioned, such as logic merely being human convention, and science being based on imperfect human perceptions.

But as I mentioned in subjecting Mystic's credibility to the death of a thousand cuts, even debated logical principles like Occam's razor are based in practical realities (the bush behind a rock is - on Occam's razor -still there. Understanding how the world works says that it being there out of sigt is a preferable explanation to it ceasing to exist every time we lose sight of it. And practical experiment with a third observer can verify this) . The track record of science (using checks and balances to weed out human misconceprtions and misperceptions) speaks for itself. With those mental tools, critical thinking has all it needs.

B t w. If I caught a slight sorrowfulness at your changing your views, I would say it does you credit and is something to be proud of. Leave it to the dogmatists to maintain they are right, no matter what the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

Here i'll post it again. my evaluation of the video (the less than two minutes i watched) is that it does not meet any of the criteria below. The video does not demonstrate critical thinking at the level or bar i have set for myself and apply in my own learning and studies. if you like it Gaylen, then well you like it. it felt like someone trying to teach the alphabet to someone with a college degree who has written and published several books. Extremely......inappropriate, like someone is really really really out of touch and disconnected from reality.

pa·tron·ize
treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.
treat condescendingly, condescend to, look down on, talk down to, put down, treat like a child, treat with disdain

if that's how you see yourself, and that's how you see people who believe in God, it doesn't cast you or anyone else in a favorable light. you asked for my feedback, there it is. perhaps i need to not be in this thread any more. that's what I'm thinking.

I can only observe, dear lady, that Qualisoup (1) has (as Gaylen once memorably put it) "a master's degree in this crap" and that it does not meet YOUR criterion of what critical thinking is, suggests that it is your criteria that needs amending, not the video.
(1) now posting as Theramin trees.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

"false ideas" and "false ideologies" is a red flag. (at time marker 0:54)

it does not invite exploring topics in depth. by setting up the simplistic "true false" it shuts down exploration.

It seems to me that, in your post, you are exhibiting several red-flag tendencies yourself. Indeed, I would say that you are cleverly avoiding the very exploratory attitude that you seem to be advocating. Assuming, for a moment, that you are 100% correct about the "false ideas" comment being a red flag, this does not rationally justify your refusal to watch the rest of the video. Yes, the video is quick and simplified; it is intended to highlight some key points in a quick, non-intimidating fashion for people who are just now being introduced to the concepts, but this doesn't make the video wrong or worthless. You are demonstrating just the opposite of the principle of charity that I referred to in a previous post. By zooming in on a trivial off-hand comment that you see as a red-flag, you are giving yourself an excuse for not confronting the strongest parts of the approach. By allowing yourself to become totally distracted by this minor point, you completely blind yourself to the BEST ideas being offered. By turning off the video at the first signs of discomfort, you missed virtually all of the key concepts being presented. Now, if you had randomly stumbled upon this video, your reaction might have been a bit more reasonable. One could spend thousands of hours reading and watching videos on any given topic, so an instinct to not waste time on something that triggers red flags in the first minute is reasonable. But you claim to have at least some respect for Trans and I, and we are the ones who recommended the video. So you did not stumble randomly into it. The video was recommended by people you respect. Five minutes is a very minimal investment, given that you are dealing with a recommended reference.

As for the "red flags" themselves: Are you saying that there are no false ideas or ideologies? Is the "Flat Earth" concept not a false idea? Isn't white supremacy a bad ideology? Isn't human slavery based on some bad ideas and bad ideologies? And shouldn't critical thinking help us to avoid these things? Notice I am not saying that we should apply purely black&white standards nor am I saying that we shouldn't ask why people think this way or that and explore some subtle distinctions; I'm just saying that, at the end of the day, critical thinking can help us make some critical decisions about such things. If you had watched more of the video, you would have seen that, in the overall context, it was not advocating simplistic "true false" inquiry.
BTW: The Linda Elder quote you gave seems to agree that there are false ideas: "They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked."

other red flag words "concede defeat" "legitimate theory"
this is not about critical thinking it's about how to "win an argument" or "defeat someone in a debate"

Again you very quickly projected a bunch of your own emotional baggage onto the video and thus successfully avoided any need to think deeply about anything that you didn't already agree with.

that's enough, i couldn't get past 1:53. that's plenty.

And thus you exemplify a form of thinking that is even more "juvenile" than the video you are rejecting.

now....compare what you posted in that video (juvenile, simplistic, patronizing, imbecilic) to what i posted the second post on critical thinking. [...]i'm serious put them side by side. compare them.

I am serious as well. Put them side-by-side and compare. That is an excellent idea! But you can't do it because you watched less than half of the video, so you can't actually make the major-point comparisons. (And, what's even worse: You seem to think that you have made the comparison but you have not. You've picked on a couple of minor stylistic issues and thereby conveniently avoided any exposer to the central points, so you have no actual points for comparison.)

Just to be clear: I'm not condemning the quote you posted. It is fine insofar as it goes. I don't disagree with it. I'm just saying that some key points have been left out, and it suffers from some of the same vagueness that I found dissatisfying the earlier rendition.)

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That's all good and your first point is about 'skillfully analyzing'. Well, that's what the methods of critical thinking should provide. Logical reasoning and validated science, as I endlessly reiterate. Sometimes the validity of this is questioned, such as logic merely being human convention, and science being based on imperfect human perceptions.

Two point about science: The scientific method is, to a great extent, an example of critical thinking on a grand social scale and thus it makes sense to respect the method and its findings. Some religious people interpret this fully justified respect as if it were just another "religion" saying "science is your god" etc. That attitude, of course, is just a clever way to avoid having to confront the core reasoning and evidence offered by science.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible for some advocates of science to go catapult themselves over the critical thinking target and land back in the thickets of dogmatic thinking. I think that virtually every atheist and/or science-lover would agree, in principle (and they general do agree, when the principle is explicitly stated) that the findings of science are mostly matter of probability rather than absolute certainty, and most will agree that there are limits to they types of truths that science can confirm. Logic and science are not (logically cannot be) entirely self-justifying. Brute facts and human values play a role most scientists agree cannot be fully explained by objective empirical means. (Indeed, brute facts can't be "explained" at all. Discovered, yes, but not explained in terms of any deeper truths.) Atheists shoot themselves in the foot when they get too exuberant and say things that are too easily interpreted as a sort of rationalist or scientific dogmatism. I would advice all atheists to consistently remind themselves and others that most ideas are not encased in gold-plated certainty. It is precisely this reluctance to proclaim dogmatic certainty that primarily distinguishes most religious from more non-religious people. The vast majority of religious people believe they can claim certainty via faith, divine grace, and/or mystical experience. People basing their beliefs on science and reason do not have that luxury. Everyone knows this, but we are well-advised to keep saying it aloud.

[TRANSPONDER]

I quite agree. Dogmatic thinking is common to all humans, and objective thinking isn't so natural to us. It's something we have to learn. And of course, that requires that it be taught. Outside science and logic classes, it isn't taught very much.

But as to your point, I have come across many scientists who have been dogmatic about this or that idea they held. But the debate went on around them and eventually the concensus settled on something else. The scientific and indeed logical method has its' own inherent mechanism for coping with and overcoming, dogmatism.
and inded hereon the forum, many atheists have come to realize that argumentisn't so much about beating up on your opponent,but in putting a sound case that those thousands looking in will see is the best case.

[granpa]

there are no 1000's of lurkers here. what you see is what you get