might because when I was a young ham, I wallowed in a patch of poison ivy. Then came the (practically) endless regimen of shots of various steroids and such.. and that was back in the days they really weren't so good finding a good vein to put said re-used dull needle into.. (yes, they actually reused them. They put them in some kind of sterilizer..)
probably kept me away from heroin in the "old days"..
An appeal to authority. . . . is what we did in TWI. . . . The bible says it. . . that settles it. . . .I believe it. . . . and that is what many Christians do concerning faith.
Examining a cause and effect with relating evidence to draw a conclusion is not the same thing. The bible speaks of the cause. . . . but, before you can appeal to it's authority you have to examine if and why you believe it.
It is illogical to say you come from a position of believer if your scope of understanding is limited to an aberrant form of the system of belief you are denying.
Seems your perspective might be skewed. . . and with good reason. If you consider that experience a proper understanding of the faith. . . . you would have no reason to revisit it. . . . and who would blame you.
This is from Robert T. Carroll's site "The Skeptic's Dictionary":
"appeal to authority:
The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. E.g., to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that God exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief"
I really don't have the heart for getting into a ....ing match currently. Though I often have in the past. I just thought it was a tad incongruous to have a thread titled "Critical Thinking" and be talking about something as UNcritical and illogical(IMNSHO) as religious beliefs. YMMV...
I think a big issue for some of us here - with regards to real critical thinking - is that we STILL don't want to let go of some of our more comfortable a-priori assumptions about life in general. I.E. - we still assume that the basic Biblical frame of God, Jesus Christ, the Devil, heaven and hell, etc. is reality.
Until we're willing to put it all on the table, all of our superstitions, feelings, intuitions, "faith", and whatever, we're just paying lip service to "critical thinking" and not really practicing it at all. Much like what we did with WayWorld dogma. We claimed to be "researching" and even practiced a form of some sort of scholarship, but we never ever questioned the basic tenets of Wierwillism. So what did we get out of it? Not much.
Likewise if we hang onto notions of an invisible, loving God and His superman Son, and then force all of our cranial imput through that filter, we're not thinking critically. No doubt it makes us feel good though...
I have to disagree with you regarding your idea of real critical thinking. I'm certainly no expert on critical thinking and definitely consider myself damaged goods as far as what I think of my personal faith after my TWI experience – but I'm of the opinion that a person could develop competent critical thinking skills regardless of their belief system.
I also feel that if I focus critical thinking skills on my own belief system – it tends to be a good reality check on my point of view. I know what you mean about input being filtered – but just being honest I feel we all do that to some degree, after all that is how we interpret and navigate through the world around us– but I do agree that if one is prone to "force" all input through this filter they're not thinking critically and may very well be deluded.
Please keep in my mind I'm not representative of a typical Christian, ideal Christian or just plain Christian. I said I was damaged goods so I'm probably a screwed-up Christian. About the only belief that makes me feel comfortable is feeling that the God of the Bible is for real. But that could be wishful thinking. And actually - whatever has gone before us - and whatever is going on around us in real time - one has to make a few assumptions one way or the other regarding the big picture. Some things cannot be verified so I guess we each address the big questions differently hoping we're on the right path, or maybe just move on and forget about it or I dunno.. . see what episode of Boston Legal is on tonight.
I do have my doubts at times and when it comes to a lot of things in the Bible I either don't understand it or sometimes wonder what God wants me to do about the stuff I do understand. And in all honesty, I do tend to over-think stuff and so it all boils down to simple creed of living by the golden rule, loving God & neighbor. I have no desire to evangelize and don't worry about other faiths – and boy, this is gonna sound sacrilegious or something but lately have even thought God may have several programs going on – I'm just trying to figure out the necessary details of the one I'm in.
Critical thinking would have made for a shorter term of involvement with TWI. For instance on just one of their many insidious tenets, I should have seen through their "law of believing" doctrine in my 12 years with them – but did I go by the lack of results my five senses registered? Nope! It took me a few years after leaving TWI of intense Bible study & thoughtful reflection of experiences to realize the ability to magically manipulate reality through the power of my believing is merely a fantasy and huge waste of time & energy!
Just to clarify - I'm not saying that critical thinking can determine if one's particular belief system is true. All I'm saying is that critical thinking when applied to our own belief system may help to refine it in terms of some kind of intellectual integrity and draw up a more realistic map of "reality" - what's going on in my life and the world at large. The realistic map of "reality" I'm referring to is the way my belief system explains what's going on in the real world, how life works, and if it all seems to make sense. Again referring back to TWI's "law of believing" – besides there being no scriptural support for it, I've also found in life, it is an impotent substitute for simple virtues such as hard work, honesty, the golden rule, self reliance and compassion that are in plain sight and easily understood.
Speaking of having some more comfortable a-priori assumptions about life in general – I could be wrong but I think we are drawn to what we feel is most "comfortable" anyway – whatever that means – maybe something that seems to fit in with other parts of our belief system. I also feel it should be grounded in reality – in terms of its basic tenets being compatible with the real world – not some bizarre mindset that has you spinning your wheels and thinking you're going places fast. And in speaking about my own faith – I believe God created us and so faith and reason are compatible and complementary.
[edited after having a serious bout of critical thinking ]
I thought this topic was on Critial Thinking Skills and how to get OUT of THE WAY.
No, not really, Cheranne. It's more about learning to think properly and in depth; to analyze what we understand, think; and to be able to make better decisions. To understand our thinking processes, and what we utilize when making decisions.
Many of us, post-TWI, have quite damaged thinking skills. We may have been able to think properly before we got so involved, but our involvement, and the prolonged time spent where any questions we raised were "squashed," has taught us not to question anything. We learned to absorb information without thinking about it much; and if we did have questions or not understand, we either learned to ignore those questions or put them on one side in some dusty corner of our minds to think about later - but never got round to doing that. We may then have regurgitated that informatiion that we absorbed to other people, thus in our own minds promoting acceptance of it.
We learned to accept information just given to us, without thinking about it. That in itself transferred to either (a) not accepting at all what others told us (because they are "unbelievers"); or (b) accepting what others told us, also unthinkingly (because accepting unthinkingly had become a habit). Both are wrong.
If our thinking faculties have become dull or blunted through misuse, or even were never too sharp to begin with, we can hone those faculties so that our minds can really separate truth from error; so that we can see through lies, half-truths, propaganda. We can see what is mere "hype" and what is more "real" behind it. That doesn't just apply to Way dogma, as George puts it, but to all aspects of life.
We will always have filters, premises, prejudices, a wealth of background that we take for granted. Critical thinking will help us understand some of those and how they come into play when accepting or rejecting any information. It's giving your mind a "tune up."
A car engine works better if tuned occasionally - may even require the replacement of some parts if they are worn beyond serviceable limits. Maybe the last time we had the car serviced, manufacturer's original parts weren't used and the substitutes weren't quite of the right quality? They wore out and the engine could not perform so well. So if we replace them with parts of the correct quality, we will find a better-performance engine.
A mind works better if it's exercised (used). If used, then it needs to be serviced occasionally, and if some ideas are found to be worn out or defective substitutes have been brought in, then they need to be replaced with parts fit for purpose. ("Take a check up from the neck up!")
But that's just an analogy - don't take it too far...!
T-Bone's post is very good and succinct.
In a nutshell, this isn't about how to get out of The Way, but how to get Waybrain (uncritical thinking) out of us. How to learn to examine our thoughts and how to examine all kinds of information that comes to us.
Neither is this thread a debate on the existence or otherwise of God.
This is from Robert T. Carroll's site "The Skeptic's Dictionary":
"appeal to authority:
The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. E.g., to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that God exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief"
I really don't have the heart for getting into a ....ing match currently. Though I often have in the past. I just thought it was a tad incongruous to have a thread titled "Critical Thinking" and be talking about something as UNcritical and illogical(IMNSHO) as religious beliefs. YMMV...
George,
It might surprise you to learn that discussion with genuine respect is not a . . p. . . ing match. . . . . you may not have great respect for the believer, but the believer respects the skeptic. . . . .often the skeptic. . . . . when motivated to really start and examine the existence of God. . . . becomes the biggest believer.
A belief in the existence of a God is not UNcritical. Not if the evidence leads one to that conclusion.
A frustrated agnostic astronomer. . . . . Dr. Robert Jastrow, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers. . . . "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
He actually reviewed some of the evidence presented by our friend Frank Turek. . . . Who appeals to Einstein's authority, along with others. . . . to build a case for the existence of God. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Expanding Universe, the Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion, the Great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. SURGE.
Read the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. . . who answers some of the tough questions concerning Christianity. . . . he started out a skeptic.
Nothing comes from nothing. . . the material world has a cause. . . . you and I have a cause. . . . we are rational creatures. . . . that rationality did not spontaneously mutate from an irrational process. . . . that is illogical. There is a billion bits of information coded into your DNA. . . . information comes from intelligence. . . .
Consider the questions. . . . .where did we come from? How are we made? Then tell me how taking one of the options completely off the table because you don't like it. . . . is thinking critically.
We have a book which claims within it to be inspired by God. . . . .to answer these questions. . . . we just ignore it because we don't like the conclusion?
How do you frame the questions? What rules do you apply to the evidence?
An appeal to authority would be short sighted. . . . . looking at cause and effect a must. . . . . but thinking critically should at the least . . . . include the options :)
Critical thinking skills are not some abstract concept . . . . right thinking has actual rules. Argumentum ad verecundiam or "appeal to respect or authority" is an actual term used in argument or discussion. Within the frame work of logic. Which is the basis for critical thinking. It is an art form of sorts.
George was actually giving you a really great example of critical thinking. . . .logical fallacy. . . . I just pointed out it didn't fit.
I am sorry if you thought I was debating God's existence, but I meant to show that you can use critical thinking skills concerning issues of faith. . . . . which I assume is part of our recovery from the cult.
Absolutely, Geisha. It's especially vital to "use critical thinking skills concerning issues of faith." If we'd done that in the first place, maybe we wouldn't have suffered so under TWI's reign of stultification.
Whether or not we have a belief in God, we should be willing to change that belief if the evidence that we acquire points to a different conclusion. If we do believe, we should be willing to change our ideas about who or what God is, too. If we don't believe, we should be willing to consider the questions you pose in your post - even if the conclusion is "I still don't have enough information."
But: what helps with the critical thinking skills? What techniques?
Recognising underlying beliefs, other "baselines" is a start. What comes after that? How do you sort the chaff from the wheat?
I'm hopeful that this thread may assist people leaving or who have recently left TWI in their own quest for better ways of thinking.
Just seeing "the other side" of the story as set out in all the threads in ATW will help a lot there; it will give another PoV to consider that place and its teachings.
Getting sharper in our thinking abilities should assist us in all aspects of life, not just in the area of belief, but in considering personal relationships, instructions received in work environments, and in sports and hobby activities too.
All thinking, critical or otherwise, is predicated by a set of assumptions. These assumptions serve as the basis for comparative testing of any new thoughts. The critical part of thinking is first the testing of ideas against those assumptions, and finally testing the assumptions. For me that meant no more self-imposed limits on where I was willing to go mentally. This is not without peril.
It seems highly unlikely to me that any former Wayfer that learns to think for themselves would end up in as bad a place as we were led to by TWI.
You are right, critical thinking is not without peril, but I believe our inner sense of accountability concerning our mistakes is a lot easier to live with in the long run than living with ourselves when we give up our inner accountability to those who lie, abuse, and never allow themselves to be held accountable.
In the latter case I believe that instead of closure all we will likely have is an open wound that will not heal....mentally speaking.
Am I making sense? This can be a hard topic to keep clear and concise.
But: what helps with the critical thinking skills? What techniques?
Recognising underlying beliefs, other "baselines" is a start. What comes after that? How do you sort the chaff from the wheat?
Well, what would be the point of critical thinking? The ability to reason right? When presented with a position or editorial what do you normally do?
You listen or read with discernment. . not always taking things at first glance value. . . . you consider the position, how the ideas relate to each
other, the development of the argument. . . .the evidence and the opposing position. . . . You look for identifying statements. . . . logical fallacy,
self-defeating statements. . . . contradiction. . . . bias. . . . excluded middle. . . . and you evaluate according to logical
consistency. Is it a deductive argument? You can also think outside the issue. . . . look at cause and effect, but be careful not to confuse cause
and effect(that is a common logical fallacy). . . . and it is always important to look at an issue in historical context. How has a particular issue
developed. Even. . . what is the cultural context?
What is the reality? You look for the ought component. . . . A & B ought to equal. . . . C. (actually they don't ) If they don't. . . why not?
It is what you do normally when you are really interested in something. . . . . when you really really understand an issue. . . .
You can actually tell a great deal about a persons influence by how they frame a question. . . . . how they present evidence. Sometimes
questions can be illogical because they are based on assumptions. . . . not the reality. You learn how to recognize this. . . . yes?
But, it is important to withhold conclusion until you have the evidence you need and understand enough to actually draw a conclusion. . . . as
you have already stated.
Sounds like a great deal of bother. . . . but not really. . . . isn't it rather intuitive? Maybe for we ex-cultists there is a bit of retraining. . . . but, we are bright people. . . . :) the average cult member usually has an above average intelligence. . . . . did you know that?
I'll broaden this outside of the cult mentality if you will. We do not teach critical thinking to children - we teach them how to "do" something - wash the dishes, mow the lawn, etc. But they cannot wake up if we don't teach them critical and independent thinking. They must not be afraid of asking about anything - but we inject our "Robert's Rules of Order" into the class room and shut them down. Now I am in no way blaming every teacher - heck I'm a university researcher - I am simply saying that in order to make children "proper" little things we take away critical thinking and instead we instill fear of critical thinking - I mean really - how many people tell their kids that's it's OK to ask if Dad or Mom are wrong about something?..and we do it in the name of protecting them. My $0.02 and worth at least a nickel.
-----------------------
I'm with you on this RumRunner... I never was able to buy into the whole line, "A child's job is to obey without question." My kid was one of those who did not respond well to having orders barked at him. Even when he was a toddler it would just get him upset and make things worse. However, if you took a moment to explain the thinking behind the command, and answered his questions, he was as good as gold. This was true from the moment he could understand words, and that's how I went about teaching him how to behave. I wish I had a nickel for every time I was told to just use the spoon! That I was over-explaining things, spoiling him, allowing him to be disobedient, yada-yada-yada... Now I'm very proud of the thoughtful and insightful young man I see before me. Raspberries to you,twi!!
You are right, critical thinking is not without peril, but I believe our inner sense of accountability concerning our mistakes is a lot easier to live with in the long run than living with ourselves when we give up our inner accountability to those who lie, abuse, and never allow themselves to be held accountable.
The "peril" is in finding out your assumptions were wrong.
Yeah, it seems that way sometimes to everyone I bet.
But I think that for the really important issues that it is in truth more perilous to stay wrong than to learn something and find out our assumptions were wrong.
In that case, in the long run as I said, we get to live with having been wrong once.
.. .It is what you do normally when you are really interested in something. . . . . when you really really understand an issue. . . .
You can actually tell a great deal about a persons influence by how they frame a question. . . . . how they present evidence. Sometimes
questions can be illogical because they are based on assumptions. . . . not the reality. You learn how to recognize this. . . . yes?
But, it is important to withhold conclusion until you have the evidence you need and understand enough to actually draw a conclusion. . . . as
you have already stated.
Sounds like a great deal of bother. . . . but not really. . . . isn't it rather intuitive? Maybe for we ex-cultists there is a bit of retraining. . . . but, we are bright people. . . . :) the average cult member usually has an above average intelligence. . . . . did you know that?
Yeah – maybe we should get a bumper sticker made:
"It doesn't take a mental deficiency to join TWI, but it's a great place to get one."
Yeah, it seems that way sometimes to everyone I bet.
But I think that for the really important issues that it is in truth more perilous to stay wrong than to learn something and find out our assumptions were wrong.
In that case, in the long run as I said, we get to live with having been wrong once.
There's something about making a big mistake that often puts such a fire under your butt to never do that again. It seems like critical thinking skills come back with a vengeance for many ex-TWI folks.
Critical thinking involves a lot of work. And maybe an important part of it is keeping a transparent thought process. Meaning that as much as possible keep an eye on the "machinery" as we analyze something. Each gear, linkage, trigger, etc. of mental machinery represents some assumption, fact, inference, logic, idea, etc. in the thought process. In an intricate system, a defective part can easily gum up the works.
An interesting part in the whole process is assumptions. They're great for an efficient operation but will sabotage the process if they're faulty. Like automation, assumptions can speed up a process. For example, if I do a simple topical study of forgiveness – I will assume a translation like NIV, KJV, NASB, or ESV will do just fine. I don't think it's necessary to delve into every critical Greek text or Masoretic text to verify translators didn't royally screw up every passage.
As a Christian I assumed the Bible was true. One of my big mistakes while in TWI, was in assuming vp was both competent and honest in handling the Scriptures. Both assumptions I held are very obvious to me now – but of the two, the latter one [the vp assumption] was the treacherous saboteur.
I have tuned my bs antennae to check whether someone has a "dog in the race." Anytime someone attempts to censor what I should be reading, doing, etc., my radar goes up.
I thought this topic was on Critial Thinking Skills and how to get OUT of THE WAY
(hamster wheel life and be free)
I supppose for each person it IS differant depending on your desire. The first step
is the most important and that is to recognize TWI is NOT it.
Maybe in the beginning it was or seemed like a good thing to know the bible,but I did\
not sign up for what it really was in the longrun.
I still had the desire to KNOW God. Even after I went thru the I don't believe in "anything anymore" thing.
I now call myself a Humanitarian that believes in God.
Great info Cheranne! I think that cults and truth are natural enemies, and our mind will always remind us we are on the wrong track. People in a cult just need to "forget" what the cult people are telling them and get the heck outa there! I am reminded of that old Paul Simon song..."50 Ways to leave your Lover"....we can change it to "50 Ways to leave a Cult"
((clears throat and begins to sing)).....slip out the back jack....make a new plan Stan...no need to be coy Roy, just listen to me....step off the bus Gus, dont need to discuss much, drop off the key Lee , and get yourself free!"
I think a part of good critical thinking skills is developing a keen awareness of details, especially in issues where you have to make comparisons and/or distinctions.
I played bass guitar in a number of bands [a long, long time ago in a galaxy far away] and admit to always having a wooden ear. The lower register of frequencies are somewhat indistinguishable to the average ear anyway, so I could get lost in the sauce and most people wouldn't notice. I'm self-taught and would either craft a bass line using a scale or "hear" it in my head, hum that to the guitarist in the band and he would help me figure it out. Can't carry a tune either – so that was always a long and drawn out process; I'm one of those guys who always motivated the band leader to issue a decree "do not, I repeat do NOT give that man a microphone!" I probably should register as a music-offender – I know they have websites about people like me – so one can check out who in their neighborhood is preying on the sweet harmony of good tunes. :(
Anywho.. .it wasn't until I was playing in a band in the Family Corps that I learned the secret of tuning up. Steve H was trying to get me to tune my bass guitar to the piano he was playing. I just couldn't do it. He kept at it – we were both getting frustrated – until he pointed out a little detail. He got me to notice the wavering tone in the blend of notes from the bass & piano. Kinda like the "uh, uh, uh, uh" sound effect when the 6 million dollar man engaged his bionic strength. Wow – I actually could hear a distinction now and would tighten or loosen the bass string until the fluttering frequency disappeared. It was a simple exercise for critical thinking to observe details, make comparisons & distinctions.
And like I said in an earlier post – critical thinking skills are like a muscle; either use it or lose it. I've got an electronic tuner now – with a bunch of LEDs and graph that visually enables me to get the bass guitar in perfect tune. Which is such a relief to old wooden ears here.. . But relating this to the issues brought up in this thread – I think the deadening of our critical thinking skills in TWI was due to folks using PFAL like that electronic tuner – no thought was required on my part – I just looked to see what PFAL had to say about the issue at hand.. .hmmm, could also get into a whole other thing about why we accepted PFAL as THE standard by which to judge anything.
And as a side note - now I drive Tonto crazy when I'm jamming with a favorite CD. I'll hear her shout some comment from the kitchen to let me know how close I am to mimicking the recorded bass line, "uhm – that's not it!"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
11
8
15
Popular Days
Sep 29
17
Oct 12
11
Oct 11
9
Oct 6
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Tzaia 7 posts
Twinky 11 posts
geisha779 8 posts
cheranne 15 posts
Popular Days
Sep 29 2009
17 posts
Oct 12 2009
11 posts
Oct 11 2009
9 posts
Oct 6 2009
7 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
Loss or dulling of critical thinking skills is a recurrent theme in a number of threads. And in reading post-cult self-help type of material, it’s apparently widespread among cult survivors. The cul
Bishop
I don't think God being good and him prohibiting us from fully utilizing the mind that he gave us is compatible.
leafytwiglet
Hmm good question Twinky. well for me it took a long time and it was a step by step process... I guess if I had actually known I needed to wowrk on it it would have been faster.. but a couple things
Ham
might because when I was a young ham, I wallowed in a patch of poison ivy. Then came the (practically) endless regimen of shots of various steroids and such.. and that was back in the days they really weren't so good finding a good vein to put said re-used dull needle into.. (yes, they actually reused them. They put them in some kind of sterilizer..)
probably kept me away from heroin in the "old days"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
An appeal to authority. . . . is what we did in TWI. . . . The bible says it. . . that settles it. . . .I believe it. . . . and that is what many Christians do concerning faith.
Examining a cause and effect with relating evidence to draw a conclusion is not the same thing. The bible speaks of the cause. . . . but, before you can appeal to it's authority you have to examine if and why you believe it.
It is illogical to say you come from a position of believer if your scope of understanding is limited to an aberrant form of the system of belief you are denying.
Seems your perspective might be skewed. . . and with good reason. If you consider that experience a proper understanding of the faith. . . . you would have no reason to revisit it. . . . and who would blame you.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and I think that is IT.
I can live with my "skewed" perspective. Weird stuff..
but I don't have to agree even with myself..
maybe "seriously troubled" isn't that so far off the mark..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Re: Appeal to authority
This is from Robert T. Carroll's site "The Skeptic's Dictionary":
"appeal to authority:
The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. E.g., to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that God exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief"
I really don't have the heart for getting into a ....ing match currently. Though I often have in the past. I just thought it was a tad incongruous to have a thread titled "Critical Thinking" and be talking about something as UNcritical and illogical(IMNSHO) as religious beliefs. YMMV...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I have to disagree with you regarding your idea of real critical thinking. I'm certainly no expert on critical thinking and definitely consider myself damaged goods as far as what I think of my personal faith after my TWI experience – but I'm of the opinion that a person could develop competent critical thinking skills regardless of their belief system.
I also feel that if I focus critical thinking skills on my own belief system – it tends to be a good reality check on my point of view. I know what you mean about input being filtered – but just being honest I feel we all do that to some degree, after all that is how we interpret and navigate through the world around us– but I do agree that if one is prone to "force" all input through this filter they're not thinking critically and may very well be deluded.
Please keep in my mind I'm not representative of a typical Christian, ideal Christian or just plain Christian. I said I was damaged goods so I'm probably a screwed-up Christian. About the only belief that makes me feel comfortable is feeling that the God of the Bible is for real. But that could be wishful thinking. And actually - whatever has gone before us - and whatever is going on around us in real time - one has to make a few assumptions one way or the other regarding the big picture. Some things cannot be verified so I guess we each address the big questions differently hoping we're on the right path, or maybe just move on and forget about it or I dunno.. . see what episode of Boston Legal is on tonight.
I do have my doubts at times and when it comes to a lot of things in the Bible I either don't understand it or sometimes wonder what God wants me to do about the stuff I do understand. And in all honesty, I do tend to over-think stuff and so it all boils down to simple creed of living by the golden rule, loving God & neighbor. I have no desire to evangelize and don't worry about other faiths – and boy, this is gonna sound sacrilegious or something but lately have even thought God may have several programs going on – I'm just trying to figure out the necessary details of the one I'm in.
Critical thinking would have made for a shorter term of involvement with TWI. For instance on just one of their many insidious tenets, I should have seen through their "law of believing" doctrine in my 12 years with them – but did I go by the lack of results my five senses registered? Nope! It took me a few years after leaving TWI of intense Bible study & thoughtful reflection of experiences to realize the ability to magically manipulate reality through the power of my believing is merely a fantasy and huge waste of time & energy!
Just to clarify - I'm not saying that critical thinking can determine if one's particular belief system is true. All I'm saying is that critical thinking when applied to our own belief system may help to refine it in terms of some kind of intellectual integrity and draw up a more realistic map of "reality" - what's going on in my life and the world at large. The realistic map of "reality" I'm referring to is the way my belief system explains what's going on in the real world, how life works, and if it all seems to make sense. Again referring back to TWI's "law of believing" – besides there being no scriptural support for it, I've also found in life, it is an impotent substitute for simple virtues such as hard work, honesty, the golden rule, self reliance and compassion that are in plain sight and easily understood.
Speaking of having some more comfortable a-priori assumptions about life in general – I could be wrong but I think we are drawn to what we feel is most "comfortable" anyway – whatever that means – maybe something that seems to fit in with other parts of our belief system. I also feel it should be grounded in reality – in terms of its basic tenets being compatible with the real world – not some bizarre mindset that has you spinning your wheels and thinking you're going places fast. And in speaking about my own faith – I believe God created us and so faith and reason are compatible and complementary.
[edited after having a serious bout of critical thinking ]
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
No, not really, Cheranne. It's more about learning to think properly and in depth; to analyze what we understand, think; and to be able to make better decisions. To understand our thinking processes, and what we utilize when making decisions.
Many of us, post-TWI, have quite damaged thinking skills. We may have been able to think properly before we got so involved, but our involvement, and the prolonged time spent where any questions we raised were "squashed," has taught us not to question anything. We learned to absorb information without thinking about it much; and if we did have questions or not understand, we either learned to ignore those questions or put them on one side in some dusty corner of our minds to think about later - but never got round to doing that. We may then have regurgitated that informatiion that we absorbed to other people, thus in our own minds promoting acceptance of it.
We learned to accept information just given to us, without thinking about it. That in itself transferred to either (a) not accepting at all what others told us (because they are "unbelievers"); or (b) accepting what others told us, also unthinkingly (because accepting unthinkingly had become a habit). Both are wrong.
If our thinking faculties have become dull or blunted through misuse, or even were never too sharp to begin with, we can hone those faculties so that our minds can really separate truth from error; so that we can see through lies, half-truths, propaganda. We can see what is mere "hype" and what is more "real" behind it. That doesn't just apply to Way dogma, as George puts it, but to all aspects of life.
We will always have filters, premises, prejudices, a wealth of background that we take for granted. Critical thinking will help us understand some of those and how they come into play when accepting or rejecting any information. It's giving your mind a "tune up."
A car engine works better if tuned occasionally - may even require the replacement of some parts if they are worn beyond serviceable limits. Maybe the last time we had the car serviced, manufacturer's original parts weren't used and the substitutes weren't quite of the right quality? They wore out and the engine could not perform so well. So if we replace them with parts of the correct quality, we will find a better-performance engine.
A mind works better if it's exercised (used). If used, then it needs to be serviced occasionally, and if some ideas are found to be worn out or defective substitutes have been brought in, then they need to be replaced with parts fit for purpose. ("Take a check up from the neck up!")
But that's just an analogy - don't take it too far...!
T-Bone's post is very good and succinct.
In a nutshell, this isn't about how to get out of The Way, but how to get Waybrain (uncritical thinking) out of us. How to learn to examine our thoughts and how to examine all kinds of information that comes to us.
Neither is this thread a debate on the existence or otherwise of God.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
George,
It might surprise you to learn that discussion with genuine respect is not a . . p. . . ing match. . . . . you may not have great respect for the believer, but the believer respects the skeptic. . . . .often the skeptic. . . . . when motivated to really start and examine the existence of God. . . . becomes the biggest believer.
A belief in the existence of a God is not UNcritical. Not if the evidence leads one to that conclusion.
A frustrated agnostic astronomer. . . . . Dr. Robert Jastrow, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers. . . . "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
He actually reviewed some of the evidence presented by our friend Frank Turek. . . . Who appeals to Einstein's authority, along with others. . . . to build a case for the existence of God. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Expanding Universe, the Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion, the Great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. SURGE.
Read the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. . . who answers some of the tough questions concerning Christianity. . . . he started out a skeptic.
Nothing comes from nothing. . . the material world has a cause. . . . you and I have a cause. . . . we are rational creatures. . . . that rationality did not spontaneously mutate from an irrational process. . . . that is illogical. There is a billion bits of information coded into your DNA. . . . information comes from intelligence. . . .
Consider the questions. . . . .where did we come from? How are we made? Then tell me how taking one of the options completely off the table because you don't like it. . . . is thinking critically.
We have a book which claims within it to be inspired by God. . . . .to answer these questions. . . . we just ignore it because we don't like the conclusion?
How do you frame the questions? What rules do you apply to the evidence?
An appeal to authority would be short sighted. . . . . looking at cause and effect a must. . . . . but thinking critically should at the least . . . . include the options :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
If Geisha and George want to debate the existence or otherwise of God, may I politely request that that debate continue in Doctrinal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Twinky, :)
Critical thinking skills are not some abstract concept . . . . right thinking has actual rules. Argumentum ad verecundiam or "appeal to respect or authority" is an actual term used in argument or discussion. Within the frame work of logic. Which is the basis for critical thinking. It is an art form of sorts.
George was actually giving you a really great example of critical thinking. . . .logical fallacy. . . . I just pointed out it didn't fit.
I am sorry if you thought I was debating God's existence, but I meant to show that you can use critical thinking skills concerning issues of faith. . . . . which I assume is part of our recovery from the cult.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Absolutely, Geisha. It's especially vital to "use critical thinking skills concerning issues of faith." If we'd done that in the first place, maybe we wouldn't have suffered so under TWI's reign of stultification.
Whether or not we have a belief in God, we should be willing to change that belief if the evidence that we acquire points to a different conclusion. If we do believe, we should be willing to change our ideas about who or what God is, too. If we don't believe, we should be willing to consider the questions you pose in your post - even if the conclusion is "I still don't have enough information."
But: what helps with the critical thinking skills? What techniques?
Recognising underlying beliefs, other "baselines" is a start. What comes after that? How do you sort the chaff from the wheat?
I'm hopeful that this thread may assist people leaving or who have recently left TWI in their own quest for better ways of thinking.
Just seeing "the other side" of the story as set out in all the threads in ATW will help a lot there; it will give another PoV to consider that place and its teachings.
Getting sharper in our thinking abilities should assist us in all aspects of life, not just in the area of belief, but in considering personal relationships, instructions received in work environments, and in sports and hobby activities too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
All thinking, critical or otherwise, is predicated by a set of assumptions. These assumptions serve as the basis for comparative testing of any new thoughts. The critical part of thinking is first the testing of ideas against those assumptions, and finally testing the assumptions. For me that meant no more self-imposed limits on where I was willing to go mentally. This is not without peril.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Tzaia,
It seems highly unlikely to me that any former Wayfer that learns to think for themselves would end up in as bad a place as we were led to by TWI.
You are right, critical thinking is not without peril, but I believe our inner sense of accountability concerning our mistakes is a lot easier to live with in the long run than living with ourselves when we give up our inner accountability to those who lie, abuse, and never allow themselves to be held accountable.
In the latter case I believe that instead of closure all we will likely have is an open wound that will not heal....mentally speaking.
Am I making sense? This can be a hard topic to keep clear and concise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The "peril" is in finding out your assumptions were wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, what would be the point of critical thinking? The ability to reason right? When presented with a position or editorial what do you normally do?
You listen or read with discernment. . not always taking things at first glance value. . . . you consider the position, how the ideas relate to each
other, the development of the argument. . . .the evidence and the opposing position. . . . You look for identifying statements. . . . logical fallacy,
self-defeating statements. . . . contradiction. . . . bias. . . . excluded middle. . . . and you evaluate according to logical
consistency. Is it a deductive argument? You can also think outside the issue. . . . look at cause and effect, but be careful not to confuse cause
and effect(that is a common logical fallacy). . . . and it is always important to look at an issue in historical context. How has a particular issue
developed. Even. . . what is the cultural context?
What is the reality? You look for the ought component. . . . A & B ought to equal. . . . C. (actually they don't ) If they don't. . . why not?
It is what you do normally when you are really interested in something. . . . . when you really really understand an issue. . . .
You can actually tell a great deal about a persons influence by how they frame a question. . . . . how they present evidence. Sometimes
questions can be illogical because they are based on assumptions. . . . not the reality. You learn how to recognize this. . . . yes?
But, it is important to withhold conclusion until you have the evidence you need and understand enough to actually draw a conclusion. . . . as
you have already stated.
Sounds like a great deal of bother. . . . but not really. . . . isn't it rather intuitive? Maybe for we ex-cultists there is a bit of retraining. . . . but, we are bright people. . . . :) the average cult member usually has an above average intelligence. . . . . did you know that?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
RumRunner, on 08 October 2009 - 10:01 PM, said:
I'll broaden this outside of the cult mentality if you will. We do not teach critical thinking to children - we teach them how to "do" something - wash the dishes, mow the lawn, etc. But they cannot wake up if we don't teach them critical and independent thinking. They must not be afraid of asking about anything - but we inject our "Robert's Rules of Order" into the class room and shut them down. Now I am in no way blaming every teacher - heck I'm a university researcher - I am simply saying that in order to make children "proper" little things we take away critical thinking and instead we instill fear of critical thinking - I mean really - how many people tell their kids that's it's OK to ask if Dad or Mom are wrong about something?..and we do it in the name of protecting them. My $0.02 and worth at least a nickel.
-----------------------
I'm with you on this RumRunner... I never was able to buy into the whole line, "A child's job is to obey without question." My kid was one of those who did not respond well to having orders barked at him. Even when he was a toddler it would just get him upset and make things worse. However, if you took a moment to explain the thinking behind the command, and answered his questions, he was as good as gold. This was true from the moment he could understand words, and that's how I went about teaching him how to behave. I wish I had a nickel for every time I was told to just use the spoon! That I was over-explaining things, spoiling him, allowing him to be disobedient, yada-yada-yada... Now I'm very proud of the thoughtful and insightful young man I see before me. Raspberries to you,twi!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Yeah, it seems that way sometimes to everyone I bet.
But I think that for the really important issues that it is in truth more perilous to stay wrong than to learn something and find out our assumptions were wrong.
In that case, in the long run as I said, we get to live with having been wrong once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Here's my Critical Thinking Skills!
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="
Here's My Critical Thinking Skillzzzzzzzzzzz
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah – maybe we should get a bumper sticker made:
"It doesn't take a mental deficiency to join TWI, but it's a great place to get one."
There's something about making a big mistake that often puts such a fire under your butt to never do that again. It seems like critical thinking skills come back with a vengeance for many ex-TWI folks.
Critical thinking involves a lot of work. And maybe an important part of it is keeping a transparent thought process. Meaning that as much as possible keep an eye on the "machinery" as we analyze something. Each gear, linkage, trigger, etc. of mental machinery represents some assumption, fact, inference, logic, idea, etc. in the thought process. In an intricate system, a defective part can easily gum up the works.
An interesting part in the whole process is assumptions. They're great for an efficient operation but will sabotage the process if they're faulty. Like automation, assumptions can speed up a process. For example, if I do a simple topical study of forgiveness – I will assume a translation like NIV, KJV, NASB, or ESV will do just fine. I don't think it's necessary to delve into every critical Greek text or Masoretic text to verify translators didn't royally screw up every passage.
As a Christian I assumed the Bible was true. One of my big mistakes while in TWI, was in assuming vp was both competent and honest in handling the Scriptures. Both assumptions I held are very obvious to me now – but of the two, the latter one [the vp assumption] was the treacherous saboteur.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
<div><embed src="http://widget-27.slide.com/widgets/slideticker.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" scale="noscale" salign="l" wmode="transparent" flashvars="cy=lt&il=1&channel=1801439850973226023&site=widget-27.slide.com" style="width:426px;height:320px" name="flashticker" align="middle"></embed><div style="width:426px;text-align:left;"><a href="http://www.slide.com/pivot?cy=lt&at=ms&id=1801439850973226023&map=1" target="_blank"><img src="http://widget-27.slide.com/p1/1801439850973226023/lt_t043_v000_s0ms_f00/images/xslide1.gif" border="0" ismap="ismap" /></a> <a href="http://www.slide.com/pivot?cy=lt&at=ms&id=1801439850973226023&map=2" target="_blank"><img src="http://widget-27.slide.com/p2/1801439850973226023/lt_t043_v000_s0ms_f00/images/xslide2.gif" border="0" ismap="ismap" /></a> <a href="http://www.slide.com/pivot?cy=lt&at=ms&id=1801439850973226023&map=F" target="_blank"><img src="http://widget-27.slide.com/p4/1801439850973226023/lt_t043_v000_s0ms_f00/images/xslide42.gif" border="0" ismap="ismap" /></a></div></div>
<div><embed src="http://widget-27.slide.com/widgets/slideticker.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" scale="noscale" salign="l" wmode="transparent" flashvars="cy=lt&il=1&channel=1801439850973226023&site=widget-27.slide.com" style="width:426px;height:320px" name="flashticker" align="middle"></embed><div style="width:426px;text-align:left;"><a href="http://www.slide.com/pivot?cy=lt&at=ms&id=1801439850973226023&map=1" target="_blank"><img src="http://widget-27.slide.com/p1/1801439850973226023/lt_t043_v000_s0ms_f00/images/xslide1.gif" border="0" ismap="ismap" /></a> <a href="http://www.slide.com/pivot?cy=lt&at=ms&id=1801439850973226023&map=2" target="_blank"><img src="http://widget-27.slide.com/p2/1801439850973226023/lt_t043_v000_s0ms_f00/images/xslide2.gif" border="0" ismap="ismap" /></a> <a href="http://www.slide.com/pivot?cy=lt&at=ms&id=1801439850973226023&map=F" target="_blank"><img src="http://widget-27.slide.com/p4/1801439850973226023/lt_t043_v000_s0ms_f00/images/xslide42.gif" border="0" ismap="ismap" /></a></div></div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Like a drug dog!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
Very awesome post Twinky.
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steveo
Great info Cheranne! I think that cults and truth are natural enemies, and our mind will always remind us we are on the wrong track. People in a cult just need to "forget" what the cult people are telling them and get the heck outa there! I am reminded of that old Paul Simon song..."50 Ways to leave your Lover"....we can change it to "50 Ways to leave a Cult"
((clears throat and begins to sing)).....slip out the back jack....make a new plan Stan...no need to be coy Roy, just listen to me....step off the bus Gus, dont need to discuss much, drop off the key Lee , and get yourself free!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think a part of good critical thinking skills is developing a keen awareness of details, especially in issues where you have to make comparisons and/or distinctions.
I played bass guitar in a number of bands [a long, long time ago in a galaxy far away] and admit to always having a wooden ear. The lower register of frequencies are somewhat indistinguishable to the average ear anyway, so I could get lost in the sauce and most people wouldn't notice. I'm self-taught and would either craft a bass line using a scale or "hear" it in my head, hum that to the guitarist in the band and he would help me figure it out. Can't carry a tune either – so that was always a long and drawn out process; I'm one of those guys who always motivated the band leader to issue a decree "do not, I repeat do NOT give that man a microphone!" I probably should register as a music-offender – I know they have websites about people like me – so one can check out who in their neighborhood is preying on the sweet harmony of good tunes. :(
Anywho.. .it wasn't until I was playing in a band in the Family Corps that I learned the secret of tuning up. Steve H was trying to get me to tune my bass guitar to the piano he was playing. I just couldn't do it. He kept at it – we were both getting frustrated – until he pointed out a little detail. He got me to notice the wavering tone in the blend of notes from the bass & piano. Kinda like the "uh, uh, uh, uh" sound effect when the 6 million dollar man engaged his bionic strength. Wow – I actually could hear a distinction now and would tighten or loosen the bass string until the fluttering frequency disappeared. It was a simple exercise for critical thinking to observe details, make comparisons & distinctions.
And like I said in an earlier post – critical thinking skills are like a muscle; either use it or lose it. I've got an electronic tuner now – with a bunch of LEDs and graph that visually enables me to get the bass guitar in perfect tune. Which is such a relief to old wooden ears here.. . But relating this to the issues brought up in this thread – I think the deadening of our critical thinking skills in TWI was due to folks using PFAL like that electronic tuner – no thought was required on my part – I just looked to see what PFAL had to say about the issue at hand.. .hmmm, could also get into a whole other thing about why we accepted PFAL as THE standard by which to judge anything.
And as a side note - now I drive Tonto crazy when I'm jamming with a favorite CD. I'll hear her shout some comment from the kitchen to let me know how close I am to mimicking the recorded bass line, "uhm – that's not it!"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.