critical thinking verses religion

[Athena]

Folks, we seriously need to understand critical thinking. The conflict is not science against religion. Plently of scientist are also very religious people.

The conflicts are between abstract thinking and concrete thinging, and also between critical thinking and non critical thinking.

When we read the bible abstractly, there is no conflict with science. Only when we interpret the bible concretely does it conflict with science. What do you think the difference between concrete and abstrast thinking is? How does an abstract thinker understanding morality verses a concrete thinker?
Are demons real or do they allude to something like fear, anger, jealousy?

When we attempt to understand reality with critical thinking, we will understand it differently, than when we use religion to explain reality? What is this difference? Do we have reason to believe that it is demons that make us sick? From where do you get this information and are you being a critical or non critical thinker?

Here is a google site explaining critical thinking

PDF] Chapter One - Critical ThinkingFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML corrupting the youth of Athens. Nothing else Plato wrote has had a more ... part of critical thinking. One must cultivate a healthy skepticism along with an ... skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/ch1.pdf - Similar pages

What separated Athens from the rest of the world, is every where except in Athens, religion explained reality for everyone, and was the only thing people learned, to understand reality. In Athens, a handful of men began developing critical thinking. Christianity killed this movement of critical thinking, and what happened in Europe? How can we explain the 200 years of witch hunts and Martin Luther's firm conviction that they were neccessary? What did critical thinking have to do with ending the witch hunts?

[samsara15]

Although I am a non-believer, I seldom conflict with those who interpret the Bible abstractly; my conflict is uusually with the literalists.

One has a difficult time understanding whether one is thinking critically or not; it's not easy to judge ourselves objectively.

Many scientists indeed are religious people, but they seldom are Biblical literalists.

[Athena]

My attempts to provide a link failed. I will try again and this one is even better. You see with religion people are suppose to take religious teachings on faith, and they are to trust religious "authority". For Catholics the authority is the Pope and the hierarchy under him. For Protestants the authority is the bible, and this even more problematic because it can't be up dated as our understanding of reality is improved with facts, on needs to change, because social conditions change. For example we no longer live under kings and have slaves, which is the reality when the bible was written.

Those who question religious authority are heretics, and different religious groups have responded to them differently. Socrates was order to drink hemlock for questioning the Gods, and gives us the best model for critical thinking. This is just a sample of the site:

A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago who discovered by a method of probing questioning that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge. Confused meanings, inadequate evidence, or self-contradictory beliefs often lurked beneath smooth but largely empty rhetoric. Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief. He established the importance of seeking evidence, closely examining reasoning and assumptions, analyzing basic concepts, and tracing out implications not only of what is said but of what is done as well. His method of questioning is now known as "Socratic questioning" and is the best known critical thinking teaching strategy. In his mode of questioning, Socrates highlighted the need in thinking for clarity and logical consistency. Socrates set the agenda for the tradition of critical thinking, namely, to reflectively question common beliefs and explanations, carefully distinguishing those beliefs that are reasonable and logical from those which--however appealing they may be to our native egocentrism, however much they serve our vested interests, however comfortable or comforting they may be-lack adequate evidence or rational foundation to warrant our belief. A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking - The Critical Thinking Community

[Athena]

Quote by: samsara15 Although I am a non-believer, I seldom conflict with those who interpret the Bible abstractly; my conflict is usually with the literalists. One has a difficult time understanding whether one is thinking critically or not; it's not easy to judge ourselves objectively. Many scientists indeed are religious people, but they seldom are Biblical literalists.

Thank you. I am so glad someone got the difference between interpreting the bible abstractly or concretely/literally. Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalism Muslim are a threat to us now, and we need to shift our arguements to reduce this threat. Returning to liberal education and focusing on abstract thinking skills again, would bring us back to abstractly understanding the bible, and the return of moderate Christianity. When these skills are not learned the result is interpreting holy books literally, and this is where the trouble comes in.