Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[Eudaimonia]

---

I understand critical analysis as a process that includes objectivity and reliance upon evidence .... Otherwise.. I understand non critical analysis as literary analysis where objectivity is not required and one’s subjective opinion is warranted ....

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

---

No, Faith doesn't necessitate analysis, nor does knowledge, belief, thousands of other things. You're biased that all theist analysis is circular, unreliable and unjustified by nature. Critical analysis is simply by definition is an appraisal based on reasoning or acting from a perception of the parts and interrelations of a subject that necessarily follow, precluded by experience.
Judging deductive reasoning as connotatively better than inductive reasoning isn't helping anyone. Just because it would be impossible to completely justify inductive reasoning, does not negate the useful practical application of it. It's a far cry from proving inductive reasoning illogical, circular or unreliable as you're half atempting.

They don't use such big words, because that would seem pompous, but we do ask why people belived, how they believed and how it applies to today. I'm not saying there are presuppositions, there are. Seperating wishful thinking and real experience is very prevelant in the congregations I've been in though. As is justification for belief and salvation. As is, also the historicity of the Bible. Apologetics, while something I cre deeply about, is actually focused on less in the general assemblies, but it does play a part in my classes respectively.

Tack..

My point was not that inductive reasoning is illogical or circular.. However, my apologies re. inserting deduction and inductive analysis.. because I see that the terms can be misconstrued here.. I'm used to dealing with deductive investigations of proven premises.. and inductive investigation to teach... However, when dealing with a religious person, I have to keep in mind that the premises themselves are often unproven and the religious mind is apt to utilize red herrings as to not deal with this so I do not wish to throw the conversation into a debate on the validity of the approaches as you and I come from vastly different environments and their use is interpreted differently..

My point however was stated multiple times.. If you would like to continue exploring it.. that would be cool.. otherwise.. if you keep ignoring it I'm not sure why it would be necessary to respond to me.. as that is what I'm concerned with..

Analyzing beliefs with the conscious/subconscious goal to justify the beliefs.. How "faith" inherently does not allow one to challenge one's beliefs but so far because of the aforementioned.. and how the process of investigation itself becomes confused with rigorous analysis..

BTW: How do you hide extensive posts?