by brotherdan 181 Replies latest watchtower bible
But if we are thinking critically we have to ask ourselves - what do all these examples really prove? What is Dawkins point?
BD, you're still straying from a complete definition of critical thinking (and therefore practicing incomplete critical thinking). As a follower of CT, this bothers me. I even brought it to your attention on an old thread.
Are you being intellectually dishonest?
Jokes.
I wasn't saying that faith IS based on scientific reasoning. Only that it CAN be.
The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary.
Competing, exclusive religions have a god to answer the same questions.
I'm gonna become a Shiite Atheist before I die.
Yeah, you sent me a youtube video... And I DO understand critical thinking. How was I specifically not using critical thinking when analyzing what Dawkins claims were?
Definitions:
Critical thinking involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true.
The application of logical principles, rigorous standards of evidence, and careful reasoning to the analysis and discussion of claims, beliefs, and issues
It is the art of reflecting and evaluating our conscious understanding and ways of thinking with the hope of improving them.
Consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.
And the non Christian religions are all wrong, LWT. Didn't you know? ;-)
Brother Dan:
Faith can be based upon scientific reasoning, but in the case of faith in God, it is not, and it is not intellectually dishonest for Dawkins to point that out!
So what is your definition of faith, if Dawkins definition is incorrect?
I supposed intellectual dishonesty was too strong a term. But he does not use the definition of "faith" held by any Christian.
My main beef is that since Dawkins discusses various arguments for God's existence, he should be aware that religious faith can be based on argument. Like I originally posted, he may reject those arguments as false, but that does not change the fact that his own definition of faith is limited. Even if someone has a BAD reason for believing in something like homoeopathy or acupuncture (perhpas because it seemed to cure their Aunt Esther of Herpes), they are not then accepting it unquestioningly - they just may not have looked at all the evidence or AT THE RIGHT SORT OF EVIDENCE. If I, as many others have done, decide that God is the best explanation of all the available evidence, then my belief, my "faith", is grounded in fact.
I gave the bibles definition of faith in a previous post.
