bah, now I'm suspended too

[_Mister Scratch]

It appears that at least Scratch and Vegasrefuge and others are of the same mind, and so I am starting to question the point in me posting here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I really want to be a cooperative as possible---I promise. All I am asking is for you to provide specific examples. I cannot understand why this is so hard for you to do! Please, Wade, I am begging you: provide specific examples.

[_asbestosman]

And no, I didn't post as Sethbag. I'm not going to say what I did post as, but not because I posted things I wouldn't want you guys to know.

You didn't post as Mister Scratch, did you?

Couldn't resist the running gag even though I probably should have.

[_marg]

Previous question to Sethbag: , what country are you from? Were you raised by parents very religous? both Mormon? What influences do you think encouraged you to critically think... mainly from parents, from school, or no one in particular?

Previous response by Why me: Do you consider yourself to be a critical thinker marg? What exactly is a critical thinker? Your post implies that apologists are not critical thinkers. I hope that I am wrong. If I am not wrong, it shows that you are suffering from an extreme form of elitism. And that is not what critical thinking is.

My answer: I consider that critical thinkers are able to be open minded, intellectually honest, objective and can re-evaluate beliefs when new evidence becomes apparent which may oppose those beliefs. I think critical thinkers are more interested in truth as opposed to defending held beliefs. Apologists are not critical thinkers in that regard. Apologist's purpose is solely to defend, not to let the evidence lead the way, not to seek truth as a goal.

I think non critical thinkers in argument and discussion employ fallacies such as ad hominems on a frequent basis. See your post above.

Actually, Marg, I don't see your posts as critical thinking posts. Are you open minded? and intellectually honest? First, these type of descriptions lack substance and are open to interpretation.

You asked me a question, I responded, I pointed out non critical thinkers employ ad hominems frequently. I pointed out subtly your question to me was also ad hominem. And what do you respond with but more ad hominem. That's what I consider non critical thinking.

You attempt a little bit of reasoning by saying these types of descriptions "open minded," and "intellectual honesty" lack substance and are open to interpretation. But it falls flat because you fail to offer any reasoning. These words are concepts which I expect you to understand. It may very well be you don't understand them.

Likewise for re-evaluate beliefs when new evidence becomes apparent. You see, Marg, you assume that apologists are not critical thinkers because they still accept established beliefs even after new 'evidence' is uncovered. That is not critical thinking.

You didn't read my words carefully. "critical thinkers are able to be open minded, intellectually honest, objective and can re-evaluate beliefs when new evidence becomes apparent which may oppose those beliefs.

Why me when an individual does not and/or can not re-evaluate the beliefs in light of new evidence, they are not critical thinkers with regards to those beliefs. It is imperative for good critical thinking to be open to new possibilities. An apologist’s goal is not to critically think, is not to let the evidence lead the way to a conclusion. An apologist has the conclusion and their purpose is to defend it.

Let me give you an example of critical thinking: 'to commit oneself to a journey of self-examination and self transformation'. Also attempting to put the sociological imagination into full practice in order to see different perspectives and insights in order to understand life anew.

Your comment may or may not be correct but nothing you said refutes anything I said with regards to what I view as critical thinking. Your intent seems to be to refute but you fail to do so.

Have you done this marg? I do not get that impression at all. You are very much entrenched into your own view of the lds church and with your own limited view of what or who an apologist is.

Your stated perceptions are both an attempt at ad hominem and have nothing to do with anything I've said. I haven't said anything about my ability to critically think, I inferred that Sethbag was a good critical thinker by the question I asked him.

Critical thinkers seek out a sentence from Aristotle: 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. Critical thinkers are in a constant state of examination through question, analysis, self reflection, and evaluation. But it does not necessarily have to do with conclusions drawn. Take a look at your posts and see your entrenchment. To have a dialogue, is not about proving someone wrong nor is it about debate. It has more to do with a questioning discourse where both sides can learn from the other because the other is sharing information. Now that is critical thinking.

I suggest you take a look at your posts with your above comment in mind. Who here is trying to prove someone wrong? Who here is attempting a fruitful dialogue? Who here is attempting to learn? I may have missed it but it doesn’t appear to me you are doing any of those things which you suggest.

And marg, you will need to define evidence since evidence is arbitrary. Is the evidence established fact based in reliable documentation? Is the evidence, a personal story or experience that one wrote 150 years ago? Can the story be verified? Is the evidence based on hypothetical illustrations? Critical thinkers question evidence and its group type.

I agree evidence needs to be evaluated. Part of that evaluation process requires objectivity and a skeptical approach.

And as Karl Marx wrote: everything should be put under a ruthless critique. But conclusions can still be up to the individual.

But yes, marg, critical thinkers are open minded...lets hope that you are open minded.

A veiled attempt of yet again ad hominem. If I had posted something which indicated I was closed minded..then you could point that out and give your reasons.

[_marg]

Thanks Sethbag for your response. I found your 2 large posts in this thread refreshing. Like you say probably your environment with exposure to lots of people outside Mormonism particularly close friends and as well your interest in science which encourages critical thinking were major factors enabling you to objectively examine evidence and let it lead you to a conclusion contrary to what you were indoctrinated with.

[_why me]

Why me when an individual does not and/or can not re-evaluate the beliefs in light of new evidence, they are not critical thinkers with regards to those beliefs. It is imperative for good critical thinking to be open to new possibilities. An apologist’s goal is not to critically think, is not to let the evidence lead the way to a conclusion. An apologist has the conclusion and their purpose is to defend it.

And it is here that one can see your judgementalism and lack of critical thinking since you put all apologists into one box and this is where you fallacy lies marg. You don't engage in dialogue marg; rather you lecture. And lecturing is not critical thinking...it never was. You posts toward those you disagree with are filled with aggression, by using words that would close off all dialogue. Your words are too electrically charged to enlist dialogue. But that is your fallacy. And as you can see, you posting style which rotates between aggression and passive/aggression is not contructive to dialogue. As Dr. Phil would say: Is it working for ya? And for you marg it isn't working. And since you are not a critical thinker, you may just find it difficult to see it in others. Just an observation.

[_marg]

And it is here that one can see your judgementalism and lack of critical thinking since you put all apologists into one box and this is where you fallacy lies marg. You don't engage in dialogue marg; rather you lecture. And lecturing is not critical thinking...it never was. You posts toward those you disagree with are filled with aggression, by using words that would close off all dialogue. Your words are too electrically charged to enlist dialogue. But that is your fallacy. And as you can see, you posting style which rotates between aggression and passive/aggression is not contructive to dialogue. As Dr. Phil would say: Is it working for ya? And for you marg it isn't working. And since you are not a critical thinker, you may just find it difficult to see it in others. Just an observation.

It's gotten to the point that I find your posts funny now. You simply can't stop personal attacks.

[_harmony]

And it is here that one can see your judgementalism and lack of critical thinking since you put all apologists into one box and this is where you fallacy lies marg. You don't engage in dialogue marg; rather you lecture. And lecturing is not critical thinking...it never was. You posts toward those you disagree with are filled with aggression, by using words that would close off all dialogue. Your words are too electrically charged to enlist dialogue. But that is your fallacy. And as you can see, you posting style which rotates between aggression and passive/aggression is not contructive to dialogue. As Dr. Phil would say: Is it working for ya? And for you marg it isn't working. And since you are not a critical thinker, you may just find it difficult to see it in others. Just an observation.

It's gotten to the point that I find your posts funny now. You simply can't stop personal attacks.

what part of why Me's post is a personal attack?

[_marg]

what part of why Me's post is a personal attack?

Which part isn't? And please explain why it isn't.

And just in case anyone is mistaken..that is a request, not a demand.

[_marg]

Why me offers me advice on what is critical thinking and says: "You see, Marg, you assume that apologists are not critical thinkers because they still accept established beliefs even after new 'evidence' is uncovered. That is not critical thinking."

This was in response to my explanation why I don't consider apologists critical thinkers. I said to why me when he questioned me: An apologist’s goal is not to critically think, is not to let the evidence lead the way to a conclusion. An apologist has the conclusion and their purpose is to defend it.

So let's take a look at the words of a well known apologist who no doubt Why me respects.

DCP writes in his article on the web here http://www.fairlds.org/Humor/Apologetic ... mbers.html

" We who write such things engage in apologetics because we believe that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, and that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored. And, what is more, we believe that defending these and related claims against attack, misunderstanding, and distortion--very often from writers who offer a great deal more in the way of evidence and reasoned analysis (it would be difficult to offer less) than anything Alvin, Beaver, Caleb, Doogie, and Eeyore have provided thus far--is a worthwhile thing to do, and something that we're obligated to do."

His reasoning for engaging in apologetics is to protect church claims he accepts as true. It has nothing to do with seeking truth based on evidence..and letting the evidence lead the way.

He says: we believe

1) that God lives
2) Jesus is the Christ
3) two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820
4 that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas
5) that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored

This is not an explanation for a process which seeks evidence and lets it lead the way in order to reason to a conclusion supported by that evidence. This is an explanation of having beliefs based on faith which have no basis in a reality which can be objectively evaluated and verified. These beliefs are accepted as true. The reality is they are church made assertions which are absent evidence.

This is the antithesis of good critical thinking. DCP is correct, he's up front about it...his interest or his job is defence. He doesn't say he's interested in defending truths based on evidence. He knows his position lacks verifiable evidence. Had anything he listed been something which could be verified with evidence, that would be the only necessary defence. But DCP is working from an accepted conclusion, with the goal being to defend that position from critics. What DCP describes as his interest or job as an apologist has nothing to do with critical thinking...it is the opposite.

[_why me]

Marg,

I can show you where you have logical fallacies about what critical thinking is. You assume that apologists did not arrive at their set conclusion by critical thinking. And it is here that your logic fails you. Apologists can be critical thinkers and still arrive at the same conclusions that they have about god and the lds church. Likewise for catholic apologists. To assume that apologists are not critical thinkers, is a illogical leap in the wrong direction.

What daniel wrote is his own rationale for belief in god. He could have arrived at that conclusion through reflection and questioning and by also having a dialogue of engagement with the texts that he came across. And he reached a conclusion. You Marg have also reached conclusions. What makes your thinking more critical than an apologist? The act is not in the conclusion but in how that conclusion was drawn.

An example: as you know I give uncle dale a hard time with his evidence by stressing the sources that he gives and the hypotheticals. His evidence at this moment is not convincing after some reflection and questioning on my part of his knowledge. Likewise for dan vogel. However, you arrived at a different conclusion. And yet, perhaps all three of us used critical thinking to reach our different conclusions. Can we say who was the more critical thinker? No. Critical thinking is a process and not a conclusion. Critical thinking is an action, and not passive. That is the key to critical thinking. Conclusions are meant to be discussed and dialogued with through the creation of each participant and her or his viewpoint as the subject of the discussion.