Thoughts on Critical Thinking
1 December 2005 by Rockstar RyanTheists are constantly trying to prove the existance of their god/gods by either argument from ignorance (We can’t prove how it happened, therefore Throm the Merciless did it) or argument from incredulity (That is so amazing! It couldn’t have happened naturally, therefore Gorlock the Mighty did it).
Here’s the problem with that: in science, one can never know all the answers. Science has no absolutes (only math and logic do). Since we can never know all the answers, we can never rule out a natural cause, and thereby never need to invoke the supernatural.
Conclusion: There is no God. Get over it.remortgages loan companystudent loans compare privateabout complaints loan mutual american companyloan calculators amortization computersproject loan math conclusion businessauto loan condorprincilple loan conforming pay downconsern loan Mapfree ringtones download mp3phone ringtones free cell downloadssounds ringtones free f1 engine7 free fantasy final ringtonesg50 panasonic ringtone freefree school ringtones 2 high musicalringtone iphone creator freefree kat deluna ringtones Map
1 December 2005, on 10:06 am
Oh but Ryan - there’s this book written by no one knows who full of mythologies clearly cannabilized from older civilizations that contradicts itself, is full of logical fallacies and outright absurdities that says it’s the word of god!!
How can you deny that!
1 December 2005, on 10:58 am
“Both Barnum and H.L. Mencken are said to have made the depressing observation that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. The remark has worldwide application. But the lack is not in intelligence, which is in plentiful supply; rather, the scarce commodity is systematic training in critical thinking.” Sagan
1 December 2005, on 11:04 am
It is now something of a cliche to point out that our schools give students almost no critical thinking instructions whatever. They teach our students sometimes quite effectively, what to think about but, they rarely bother to advise them how to think well or wisely. In this environment you get students who think they are masters of the universe,(those who make the honor-roll) and children who think they are failures,(those who didn’t make the honor-roll or were unable to get a passing grade.) They’re both wrong. And neither is well served by that misconception.
The honor-roll students and the students getting the best grades on exams are usually those who have an uncanny, automaton-like ability to memorize rote information, but may not have learned or know how to think well or wisely at all.
1 December 2005, on 11:47 am
Nice observation, Tony. Speaking as someone from the university system, I never get bored of the looks on the faces of my students when I merely point out the basic shit we discuss here. (This also goes back to Ron’s question from a while back: “Why do all the theodicies given by believers just suck so badly?”) And, as a further comment on your observations: elementary schools aren’t there to make critical thinkers. They’re there to make “good citizens.” Wipe your nose, stand up straight, stand in line, and don’t call me on any of my shit. Blech. What utter bullshit.
1 December 2005, on 11:59 am
Bob Carroll has some excellent critical thinking at The Skeptic’s Dictionary. And his entry on “atheism” contains some of the most ridicuous arguments for the existence of god/gods I’ve ever heard. It really makes one ponder - people really fuckin’ think that way?!
1 December 2005, on 12:01 pm
That should read “excellent critical thinking lessons“.
1 December 2005, on 12:10 pm
Another question:
If Almighty God has a plan, he knows what’s going to happen, right?
But she gives us free will.
Does she still know what we’re going to do?
If so, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
If not, she isn’t omnipotent.
Every day I see more reasons to believe there is no god…
1 December 2005, on 12:47 pm
“Speaking as someone from the university system, I never get bored of the looks on the faces of my students when I merely point out the basic shit we discuss here.”
I agree- I had many hours of frustration teaching freshmen who were unable to shed their public education experiences. I also agree that the AP students performed as badly as the common students- they simply thought they were better because they “tested” well.
1 December 2005, on 12:49 pm
“Here’s the problem with that: in science, one can never know all the answers. Science has no absolutes (only math and logic do). Since we can never know all the answers, we can never rule out a natural cause, and thereby never need to invoke the supernatural.”
Conclusion: would it not be using logic or critical thinking to NOT rule out God, since we know that science “can never know all the answers” !?!
1 December 2005, on 12:52 pm
Sable - no. Just no. God is supernatural. Science concerns itself with observable natural phenomena, not fairies.
And yes, I’d be willing to say my beliefs are false if they are falsified. Yes it’s possible there is a god/gods. It’s also possible there’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If God is a natural occurence, please tell us how to test your hypothesis.
1 December 2005, on 1:48 pm
Are you sitting on a chair right now? Yes…If you can logically see, the chair you are sitting on was been designed. So it logically follows that everything has a designer. Creation/Creator.
1 December 2005, on 2:01 pm
“Are you sitting on a chair right now? Yes…If you can logically see, the chair you are sitting on was been designed. So it logically follows that everything has a designer. Creation/Creator.”
Let me get this straight: because Ryan is sitting on a chair, which someone designed, it “logically follows” that everything has a designer? Wow. Just wow. You’re obviously a student of formal logic. You’ve grapsed the logical precept that Ryan’s chair is simply a microcosm for the entire universe. If someone designed Ryan’s chair, than the entire universe must have been created by God. That’s because the universe is the same as a chair. The methodology described by scientists for the coming into existence of the universe can best be understood as an Ikea designer making a chair. The instructions for putting it together is the bible. I get it now. It all makes sense.
1 December 2005, on 2:14 pm
Ha, K.R. Nailed it.
I like this factoid from the Skeptic’s Dictionary:
How widespread is atheism? A worldwide survey in 2000 by the Gallup polling agency found that 8% do not think there is any spirit, personal God, or life force. Another 17% are not sure. However, more than half the world’s population, and more than 90% of the world’s scientists, do not believe in a personal God, and hence would be considered atheists by many Christians.
So the more you know about how the universe is actually constructed (that giant Ikea chair we all know as Creation), the less likely you are to believe in an individual creator.
1 December 2005, on 2:49 pm
Sable, Regarding your designed chair, Dawkins says it best.
“Organized complexity and Cumulative Selection. Untamed chance, pure, naked chance means ordered design springing into existence from nothing, in a single leap. It would be untamed chance if once there was no eye and than suddenly in the twinkle of a generation, an eye appeared full fashioned, perfect and whole. This is possible , but the odds against it will keep us busy writing noughts till the end of time. The same applies to the odds against spontaneous existence of any fully fashioned, perfect and whole being, including - I see no way of avoiding the conclusion - deities.” Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker)
1 December 2005, on 2:51 pm
Are you sitting on a chair right now? Yes…If you can logically see, the chair you are sitting on was been designed. So it logically follows that everything has a designer. Creation/Creator.
Been visiting Creationist websites again? I warned you about that.
My chair has a purpose. I sit in it, I need it, someone made it.
The world has no purpose. Life has no purpose. So you made up religion to give it one.
That was horrible logic. Appeal to ignorance. Try again.
Science ignores the supernatural. Try to follow this:
If there was a God, she would produce observable effects, and therefore it would be possible to scientifically prove God. Since there is no God, there are no observable effects. Isn’t it neat how science works whether you believe in it or not?
1 December 2005, on 3:21 pm
Are you sitting on a chair right now? Yes…If you can logically see, the chair you are sitting on was been designed. So it logically follows that everything has a designer. Creation/Creator.
His chair was designed by some guy in an office. If you can prove that the molecules which make both the man who makes the chair and the chair itself are “designed” by some higher power (as you seem to be claiming yet leave out minor details so you can say that you never said it was designed by a higher power per se, but a designer, who in fact can be human), you have an argument. Otherwise, that was weak.
1 December 2005, on 4:16 pm
“So it logically follows that everything has a designer. Creation/Creator. ”
No Sable, it logicall follows that you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
1 December 2005, on 8:39 pm
Richard Dawkins says,
“It would be untamed chance if once there was no eye and than suddenly in the twinkle of a generation, an eye appeared full fashioned, perfect and whole. This is possible” ….Ok, if I am understanding this quote correctly, it would be unlikely for an eye to just happen into existance. But, can’t we take from this that the opposite is just as unlikely. The eye in its most earliest stages of evolution development would be worthless, and with out purpose or plan, yet it still slowly developed into something that has purpose and is fully functional…out of random chance! So, we do understand that the eye does exsist, even though we don’t know how it came into existance.
Although Ryan has made the statement that…”The world has no purpose. Life has no purpose. So you made up religion to give it one.” …we do know that the eye has a purpose….to help us find the things that we need to stay alive. What about lungs, legs, trees, animals, water….etc. Would the world not serve the purpose of keeping us alive?
It seems pretty easy to tell what is man made (like an Ikea chair) from what is not. (or at least it was before GMO’s) Before the chair was made it had to first have become a thought, or idea in someones head. And know matter how you look at it, this object has a purpose. It might even be the purpose of bringing the designer the pleasure of making it.
I have not studied Richard Dawkins, But in this quote he talks about deities. So the next question is sure to be who made God? Does it really matter? If we accountable to anyone, we would be accountable to the God that made us, not the God that made the God that made the God…
Someone please tell me I’m making some sence here?
1 December 2005, on 9:13 pm
Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history — and the human eye isn’t even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it’s easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an “intelligent designer” doesn’t hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
-Sorry about this long post, but I knew she wouldn’t follow the link. Anyways, there’s your evolution of the eye. It did serve a purpose: to detect light and dark. Even the earliest “eye” is advantageous to those trying to escape from different predators by “lingering in the shadows.”
-The “world” gives us the tools necessary to survive. It does not give us a purpose (or a goal) to keep on living. As far as we can see it, our purpose is to live and die, which is no more purpose than any other thing in the universe.
-The next question is not “who made god?” He did not even mention god in this. He is stating that it’s just as unlikely for a deity to exist as an eye to form. However, deities serve no purpose if you understand the physical processes involved in existence. Eyes serve a purpose. Therefore, God is not necessary and eyes are.
-Are we accountable to anyone? Yes, the law.
-We understand you, but you just don’t think logically. And you seem to have ADD.
1 December 2005, on 9:19 pm
Damn html…the link is: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
1 December 2005, on 11:50 pm
To get back to the original post, one of the most obvious evidences against ‘God’ for me is that ‘God’ is simply redundant. You do not need ‘God’ to survive or to live a happy fulfilled life. As you said Ryan, it becomes more obvious every day.
1 December 2005, on 11:57 pm
“Scientists have come up with Scenarios”
Do I need to say any more? That is a pretty big fish tale. And the proof is there is many different kinds of eyes!
2 December 2005, on 1:13 am
Sable, you seem like a really nice person so I don’t want to be a jerk, but come on already. Instaed of providing us with any sound logic, you make blanket statements and then expect us to respond as if you’re providing a sound, reasoned argument, not just regurgitating what other members of your faith have already stated. By pointing out that there are different types of eyes you make no argument other than that there are different types of eyes. Nowhere do you show any logical necessity that there MUST be some kind of creator just because there is a variety. Furthermore, when you use the term purpose, you are confusing two possible connotations. There is the connotation of purpose that refers to usefulness, such as the idea that the purpose of the lungs is to provide us with oxygen. However, purpose in this sense does not imply the second coonotation, which is a deliberate purpose. Just because something has a function it does not necessitate the need for a deliberate purpose. When RR refers to life having no purpose, he is not claiming that the various components of the universe have no function, he could be said to be stating that possessing a function in no way implies that this function serves as a part of some grand narrative unfolding before and around us. Things simply occur. While it is possible to read meaning into them, the meanings we ascribe are in no way bound to be true. It has been said that what separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom is its tendency to tell stories. I find it much more likely that the stories we tell ourselves about gods and spirituality are made up and just one method to give our selves a sense of bearing in a world that can be confusing. I even find them useful as metaphorical constructs, but I could say the same thing about ancient (pre-monotheistic) myths, as well as novels, comic books, movies, and t.v. shows. All they do is provide us with some narrative framework or mirror with which to look at things. When we take them literally is when we run into trouble.
2 December 2005, on 11:08 am
sable chicken:
I’d like your answer to these questions -
1) Could God create a stone that even he couldn’t move? Yes, I’m setting you up again, but surprise me!
2) Why can’t God be proven scientifically?
2 December 2005, on 11:11 am
Nowhere do you show any logical necessity that there MUST be some kind of creator just because there is a variety.
They can’t show logical necessity in that statement because it’s a logical fallacy: argument from incredulity.
3 December 2005, on 6:11 am
“. The eye in its most earliest stages of evolution development would be worthless, and with out purpose or plan, yet it still slowly developed into something that has purpose and is fully functional…out of random chance! So, we do understand that the eye does exsist, even though we don’t know how it came into existance.”
Wait, I always that being able to detect light, even in a very limited way, would be incredibly useful.