Thomas Hood wrote:


Thomas Hood wrote:


Suzanne wrote:



Thomas Hood wrote:


Suzanne wrote:


Thomas Hood wrote:


But you used the info I provided and attempted to deceive readers. The info I provided did not support your opinions. This did call for a value judgement on my part. I can not see you as a credible participant on this topic, and logic, traditional, or otherwise, leads me to the conclusion, I can not see you as credible at all.

Suzanne wrote:


Thomas Hood wrote:


If the discussion participant has decieved in the past, why should I not believe he will deceive again.

Why not?

Does your view of atheism require an absence of virtue?

What does a lack of belief in deities have to do with Humility, honesty or the golden rule?

The golden rule is self centered and erroneous anyway.

Wouldn’t it be better to treat people the way they want to be treated? As opposed to the way you want to be treated?

People are different some may not like what you like…

What if a person is a masochist? Do you want them to treat you the way they want to be treated?

Is the golden rule truely the best way to act torwards your fellow man?

Critical thinking in action!

Later

Because, virtues are aspects of selves.
If humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule are virtues and are inherent in the universe, then they are inherent in a self.
And this self is God.

Those virtues aren't inherent in anything. They are aspects of behavior that we as humans have decided to term "virtuous". You'll find these behaviors a lot in some people, but not much in others. This is due to natural genetic variance and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or divine. How could you have come to the conclusion that these man made labels are inherent in the universe?

Above you said:



If they exist and are found "no where," that is, in no particular place, then they are everywhere and aspects of the cosmos as a whole. Maybe I didn't understand you, as I seldom do because of your peculiar use of words. For example, your use of the word "label" is metaphoric and usually irrelevant to what you are talking about. A "label" is a blank piece of paper attached to a pill bottle or some such, and has no definite connection to the contents of the pill bottle. When the label is inscribed "Amoxicillin" then there is -- or should be -- a definite connection between label (word) and contents of the bottle (referent).

Please comment on how you think virtues are aspects of behavior or are behaviors rather than dispositions, how and when humans decided on the use of the virtues, and why you think virtuous conduct is based on genetics.

It seems to me that buried in the strands of this thread is an attempt to defend a private spiritual belief using logic and reason and I don't think it's possible to do that. Science and logic are tools used to find meaning and truth in the physical world in which we inhabit. Spiritual beliefs are necessarily the domain of the metaphysical which is why spiritual belief requires faith. In my opinion, trying to defend or justify spiritual beliefs using rational thinking and/or science is inherently dishonest and ultimately futile.

Not to say that religion and science are incompatible because it's very simple to say that God invented nature and just because you show that a particular phenomenon has a natural explanation, whether it's the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, or the movements of the tide, it doesn't take God out of the picture. Thus it can be argued that God is the author of all things natural so, therefore, when you show that something has a natural phenomenon all that shows that it's within God's providential sphere. I think Aquinas said this.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that faith is scientifically provable, only that there are ways in which people of faith, who are convinced of the reality of God, to be able to understand science and accommodate it within their own religious views. Obviously this isn't my position, but it seems to me this is the only logically tenable position for someone who needs or wants to have faith in God. Fighting against science or logic has always been a losing proposition for the church and it's not going to work for an individual either.

Just to clarify my previous post, when someone admits that their belief comes from a position of faith they will have no need to assail science and logic or try to bend the truth to fit their beliefs. It becomes a matter of private belief which is not controversial and not debatable. That really is the crux of what I'm trying to say.

The inference is that you believe in critical thinking but have never examined its academic formulations and so have simply accepted it on faith. Now, I'm not criticizing you for being a person of faith, because as I pointed out, checking is expensive. Life is short and we cannot check everything and have to accept some things on trust.

However, in the case of critical thinking, you ought to examine its roots, because critical thinking is the Achilles heel of atheism. Atheism would be no more than a philosophical position If atheists did not have a fallacious logic to assert themselves.

http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/res ... iscussion/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html
Propaganda and Debating Techniques by A. Orange

About the discrimination you have experienced as an atheist, surely you are aware that in the minds of many persons, atheism and its rebellion against tradition has been a main prop of atheistic totalitarianism. When you are considered to be part of such a horror, you should expect others to be punitive.

Tom

It appears that i must point out again that critical thinking is NOT a belief system, but a pair of words to describe careful, inclusive thought processes that evaluate input in relation to other things in your experience.

I don't know what nonsense you have dredged up to make you think you know what you are saying when you talk about critical thinking as some kind of liberal conspiracy, but you are, unequivicably, flat out, wrong.



Critical thinking is not the sole domain of atheists. Everyone uses critical thinking. If you look at a thing you know, or are told and challenge it to stand on evidence, rather than assumption, then that is critical thinking. It is evaluating the merit of a thing. What part of this says atheist? What part of this is liberal?



Fallacious logic you say? Perhaps you would like to hit the back button on your web-browser and peruse the litany of insane assertions you have made recently.

Atheism is, now read this part carefully, the dis-belief in a god. That is all.

This is the only tie that binds us and why we make such poor oppressors. Each and every one of us diverge after this one sentiment. There is no unified vision of atheism, there is no plan about atheism, there is no motive behind atheism, there is no curtain to shove aside, and no man pulling levers.

The main thrust of your argument, the only thing i have been able to filter out of this swill is that you don't trust independent, careful, thought process that evaluates ideas based on merit and veracity, and you would rather have us shoulder the yoke of blind old fools in robes who tow the leads of squabbling bronze age savages who dreamed up the ultimate "You just wait till your daddy comes home" scenario.



There have been no totalitarian regimes who's goal was atheism. There have been totalitarian regimes with atheists amongst their number, surely.

Shall we set up a chalk board and take tally of how many atheist regimes there have been and then make a column for religious regimes? I do not fault religious people alive now for the events of the inquisition, or the crusades. I judge each person on the things they do and the things they say.

I did nothing of the sort. Everything I did was public and documented. I would prefer to have your approval, but everybody can't be pleased all of the time. Apparently you have great admiration and respect for your aunt, and suppose that she should be treated with deference. Surely you do not expect me to share your emotional connection to your aunt.

Your criticism of Wikipedia is unjust. I no more follow Wikipedia mindlessly than I would any other source. I use Wikipedia heavily and shall continue to do so. You are quite right that some Wikipedia articles are flawed, an example being the Wikipedia article on Critical Thinking. This article appears to have been written either by Peter Facione or one of his associates, and it is basically an ad for Facione's critical thinking business. Nevertheless, it gives links helpful in exposing the roots of the critical thinking cult:

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_fi ... hy2006.pdf

A person who had worked for Wikipedia joined BookTalk -- maybe six months ago -- and was critical of the management of Wikipedia, but he did not express himself in concrete terms.

Tom

Well said.



I think, Thomas, in your mad dash effort to demonize atheists you are completely missing the boat about what critical thinking actually is. As Johnson says, critical thinking is not an atheist-only mode of thinking. Any atheist or theist can use critical thinking methods in the ongoing pursuit to get to the truth. I think what you're really trying to argue is that atheism is a religion, but for some reason you've latched onto critical thinking as an atheist's "Achilles heel." Would you have atheists use uncritical thinking methods? What then? Is it your hope that without it's "Achilles heel," an atheist's lack of belief in God will disintegrate and they will become raving believers?



Critical thinking only means thinking, well, critically. There's no creed or theory or pro-Nazi agenda attached to it. These are only your preconceptions that twist the meaning into something else.

I can't speak for others, but for me critical thinking is simply to question the way we do things and to always apply a healthy dose of skepticism to all claims and statements. For example, let's say someone comes up and tells me that they've started taking multivitamin tablets and they feel like they have more energy. I would be skeptical of such a claim; I would be inclined not to take what they say at face value. I would say probably they want to believe the multivitamins gives them more energy and therefore are reaping the benefits of the placebo effect. More importantly, I would reserve acceptance of the claim until I see evidence of it's truth. I am neither convinced of its truth or of its untruth. Although offhand, I'd say it's probably an imagined benefit. But even this bias is based on what I have already read about the alleged benefits to multivitamins (which are either negative—no benefit—or inconclusive).

There is no "fallacious logic" inherent in questioning the validity or truth of a claim. If anything it's an absence of belief or, at least, withholding judgment and allowing for the reality that many things are not what they may first seem. The human brain is far from perfect. We have limited cognitive and sensory abilities and flawed memories. We are prone to wishful thinking, subconsciously trying to bend the truth to our opinions rather than the other way around. It's human nature to come to a belief too easily. I think we are hard-wired to come to beliefs but, by thinking critically we are more likely to eventually get to the truth of things.

TH: "If they exist and are found "no where," that is, in no particular place, then they are everywhere and aspects of the cosmos as a whole."

If you’re using my statement that these virtues belong no where as the premise to show that they are everywhere, then I’m flattered. But, you didn’t use my words verbatim. I didn’t say they are ‘found’ no where(I'm sure you've found them in your neighbors), I said they ‘belong’ no where. This statement was to emphasize that there is no ‘purpose’ to these virtues. They are behaviors, or dispositions if you will, which are emergent characteristics of the human mind.

Honesty is a virtue that would not exist without deception. Deception exists because it is advantageous to survival. There is a point where too much deception, whether toward yourself or toward others, is destructive in the long run, but is enticing since it is immediately beneficial. This is not the only reason, but it is one reason that honesty is a virtue. For brevity, the explanation is compressed. Let me know if my peculiar use of words confuses you.

Honesty is the act of telling the truth. How is it that you think an act which is performed by people is everywhere and an aspect of the cosmos? When I deliberate on answering a question posed to me by my mother, and decide that I should be honest, does the universe at that precise moment in time ‘instill’ me with honesty? If you think so, what makes this explanation valid in any sense when such a decision is easily explained as a deliberate or unconscious choice? That we currently don’t have the ability to understand the workings of the brain doesn’t mean that the choices and behaviors that emerge aren’t a direct result of the firing of neurons. You have billions of nerves, each with thousands of analog(more variant than digital) connections, and you say that the act of ‘telling the truth’ cannot be an emergent property? The universe ignores the workings of this astoundingly complex neural processor and instead magically ‘instills’ us with honesty? This is a pristine example of cognitive dissonance.

Or is honesty a disposition that is instilled into us in varying amounts at birth? Which means all of our experiences and thoughts of a life long lived will have no impact on whether or not we lie to our wife when she asks if we think she’s fat. Such acts are deliberated, either consciously or unconsciously. Repetition of such acts is indicative of disposition.

If your new shelter is the unconscious, which I’ve mentioned a couple of times, know that unconscious decisions are still decisions, the same neurons are at work crunching the data ether. The difference is our awareness of this process. We cannot be simultaneously aware of two things at once, we’d be overloaded. So we have some thoughts that we aren’t aware of(and some perceptions we aren’t aware of either, which is interesting, but is a tangent.)

Also, if such virtues are inherent in the universe, what is the criterion for demarcation? Is humility so virtuous that it qualifies, but elegance or gracefulness or toughness or temperance, patience, loyalty, generosity, devotion, etc… do not? Do they all qualify? If so, then do their opposites qualify? Is deception inherent in the universe? If you cannot draw the line on the spectrum of dispositions going from very good to very evil, and everything in between, then every disposition known to man qualifies? If this is the case, who needs a brain! The neurons are all fake, put there to deceive us and lead scientists on a wild goose chase, and we will all still have heartbeats after we’re dead!

I assume you’ll have a problem with some of the words I’ve used, since you’re an adept wordsmith. If that’s the case, let me know and I’ll copy/paste everything I’ve written with the words you dislike replaced with ones you agree with. The underlying meaning and chains of reasoning are sound, so very little else need be changed.

Stop making up stuff, Johnson, and consult what the critical thinking professionals say, like here:

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_fi ... hy2006.pdf
Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts

You are welcome, Interbane, and since you are interested in genetics, I'd like to call your attention to this book by a theist geneticist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Langua ... for_Belief

That's true, Geo. I hold in my hands Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial) -- a Creationist, I think -- and on p.56 he has a section titled "Critical Thinking in Evolutionary Biology, " which begins with "1. Learn to distinguish between what scientists assume and what they investigate." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.