(July 21, 2025 at 8:53 pm)Rizen Wrote:(July 21, 2025 at 5:10 pm)Belacqua Wrote: OK, I see what you mean.
When you say that "religion is the antithesis of critical thought," you don't mean religion per se. Because obviously there are and have been many many religious people who are capable of critical thought.
What you mean, if I'm reading you right, is that "strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge" is bad. This of course I agree with.
All of us should keep in mind that we may be wrong, all of us should be most critical of our own beliefs, because, as the man said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Actually I'm not sure you should say that about "don't hold up to current scientific knowledge." Because after all current scientific knowledge may well change. History shows that science progresses through changing and improving its conclusions. So being critical of current scientific knowledge is an important part of critical thought in our era. (This is not to say that science is bad, only that one must not accept it uncritically.)
I agree science shouldn't be held as the absolute truth but it is by far the best system of decerning truth we have. At least science goes through a rigorous process of testing and peer reviews.
Discerning certain kinds of truth, yes.
