StillThinking: But we personally have to want to push past it. That is the choice we make.
That's true. And I suppose it would help if that person had some basic understanding of human psychology and how our minds constantly decieve us. If they hadn't identified that as a potential problem, it would be hard to address.
But for those who have a heightened sense of awareness, why would a person choose to embrace bias (in matters of faith) instead of pushing to suppress it? Maybe for some it depends on whether the goal is truth or contentment.
“Here the ways of men part: If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; If you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.”
-Nietzsche
But I'm sure, as usual, there are factors and circumstances I'm not considering... apathy among other things (though that might fall under the "peace of soul" category).
Has it ever crossed your mind that some of these people (since there are so many), may have applied critical thinking...and still come to the same conclusion?
For clarification, critical thinking is needed to separate truth from fiction, right? So we can agree that a friend who fails to question the validity of the "Nigerian prince who needs your funds" is, thereby, failing to use critical thinking? And if this friend tells us, "but I asked him for his birthdate and the name of his parents," we recognize that any CT he demonstrated lacked the depth needed to make an informed, intelligent decision.
Also, I'd like to note that the "since there are so many" plea is an appeal to the masses. One billion Muslims, for example, can all fail to use critical thinking. That's a lot of people. Their greater numbers don't add credence to their claims. And based on logic alone, all religions can't be right... but they could all be wrong. (borrowed)
The very essence of critical thinking means these people would have to accept a large degree of uncertainty, which is incompatible with many faiths, right? And then I suspect there are those who believe they are using critical thinking.. but only because they aren't fully aware of what CT involves. (That's how I'd describe myself 7 years ago... and to some extent, now. )
Critical thinking and the most common types of faith, by definition, seem to be mutually exclusive. Faith seeks to quell doubt while critical thinking seeks to expose it and stimulate it.
From what little I understand, Muslims must hold the Quran as a miracle and nothing less: Unquestionable, untouchable, sacred. If that view is such a fundamental part of their faith, critical thinking cannot be applied to it. I'd like to see the flow chart on a Muslim who applied textbook critical thinking to his own beliefs and, subsequently, maintained his faith.
With Christians in a free country, it's different, but one cannot rationally deny the role of "believing on faith" there either.
So something you would like to happen is definately NOT POSSIBLE because you have surpressed that desire.
Let me clarify, I'm not talking about suppressing the desire, I'm talking about identifying and suppressing the bias & prejudice that might cause me to be slightly less critical of A1 than A2 & A3 instead of equally critical across the board.
Second, when I say "especially skeptical of something I desire" what I mean is if I recognize that I'm holding a belief as sacred, that should be a red flag: stop protecting and start tearing down. Is my emotional desire for this thing inhibiting my ability to judge it accurately? Unlock the hard-shell, foam-lined case, take the thing out, unwrap it from it's pillowy covering, and smack it with the very same intellectual hammer that you smack opposing "things." Intellectual integrity means a person must resist showing any special treatment or restraint towards his 'precious'. Consistency. And if you can't break it, hand the hammer to someone else who wields it more skillfully and let them smack it. Third party or peer review. Whatever is left, if anything, might be considered pretty damned solid but it should never be held as sacred or put back in it's protective case. And should you begin to think it's unbreakable, don't forget that someday a greater hammer might be forged... on that can pulverize it. Nothing is sacred. (I just realized you said the same thing, but more succinctly. I apologize, I've had a drink or three.)
That, to me, is science and critical thinking.
Of course, this is probably a poor illustration and, being that it's an analogy, it proves nothing whatsoever and shouldn't be taken as anything more than a pontificating moron's rambling perspective.
One other thing: There are many scientific hypotheses that go through the meat grinder and eventually come out of the other side as accepted theories. There's zero doubt that the scientist who originates the hypothesis wants to be right. But his desire to be right should not prevent him from completing rigorous testing of his hypothesis via scientific method. In fact, he should be just as thorough scrutinizing his hypothesis as he would that of a peer, because he KNOWS that if any small problem exists in it and he doesn't find it, one of his peers WILL. And in the field of science, I doubt that a record of submitting easily-debunked hypotheses looks good on one's resume.
