Here in the U.S, when the media wishes to discredit someone, they say that he or she stated such-and-such “without evidence,” as if it were a god that they failed to bow down to. It is a relatively new expression, not more than 10 years old.
In fact, meaningful “evidence” is extremely hard to obtain. Just distinguishing causal from correlated can spur endless studies and be squabbled over without resolution. Then, assuming people successfully obtain “evidence,” they come to polar opposite concussions regarding it, as determined by their preexisting backgrounds, experiences, education, culture, dispositions, etc.
Then, in this country (U.S.), at least half of all people are on some sort of medication, many of which are said to alter mood and overall thinking ability.
It is enough to make one bridle at the expression “critical thinking,” as though humans are capable of it beyond a light seasoning. When applied to theology, it is a major detriment to faith, since it allows for discussion only that which can be scientifically proven. Fundamentals upon which faith depends, such as the resurrection of Christ or his virgin birth cannot be so proven. Therefore, they are off the table, as are most tenets of faith. All that remains for examination is the effects of faith upon a person, which is often in the eye of the beholder.
With the beliefs of faith removed from discussion, critical thinking theology largely demotes religion to a forum for human rights. Everything else is taken off the table. That is all that remains. Nothing against human rights here, other than to point out that our own bodies do not respect them, failing us when we need them the most. But, surely faith in God must be more than such strictly human matters.
Historian Allen Guelzo examines the modern-day emphasis on “critical thinking” in interpreting history. Does it make it better? If anything, he suspects it makes it worse, by “cloaking human bias in a veneer of science.”
When it comes to politics, how are we to account for people aligning themselves in opposite camps, both of which claim critical thinking as their friend? I like to view it as “all human governments drop the ball. Usually it is a bowling ball. As people ponder the vulnerabilities of toes on their right or left feet, such is determined their politics.” The influence of critical thinking is not what seals the deal. It is mostly bias, formed through preexisting experience and training.
The Bible stands in contrast. It doesn’t pretend that critical thinking is any significant component of meeting God’s approval. Jesus “draws” people. The “children” (not known for their critical thinking skills) are more likely than the “wise” (who are known for it) to get the sense of it. “Taste and see that Jehovah is good” says the psalm. Suppose someone thinks that beets taste bad. Will you prove to him through critical thinking that he is wrong?
Covid 19 and worldwide response to it has proved the absolute inadequacy of critical thinking. It is not that the stuff is bad. It is that humans are incapable of it to any degree that would make a significant dent in life.
(To be continued—here)
****** The bookstore
Leave a Reply