Since I see a lot of theists in this forum, I thought it would be useful to share some information that I found helpful in answering the questions that I had during my apostasy. I think this post could be sub-categorized in the Science section but I put it in the religion section for a reason. I want people to gain critical thinking skills. I have found that many lay-people, myself included, lack the basic, foundational information useful in deciding whether claims are true or not.
Growing up we tend to believe almost anything that people tell us; especially if those people are our parents, grandparents, other family members, church goers, the internet or any major authority figure in our life. Information is flying at us at the speed of light and it's important to be able to tell a difference between what is right and wrong.
We believe ideas because of the way our brains are hard-wired to find patterns that hold meaning for us. Some of these patterns are real and it's good that we learn what these patterns are. However, many patterns aren't real, they hold basis in superstitious thinking.
Science is the way we use critical thinking to separate the BS from what's most likely real. It's important that we use this in our critical thinking. Below are a series of questions that were developed (Not by me of course) to help aid in this:
1.) How reliable is the source of the claim? - Errors are always expected, somewhat, in the source of the claim but they should be random. If the errors start slanting in one direction towards a certain belief, then this should be a red flag that something else could be going on underneath.
2.) Does the source make other claims that are similar? - Rather than following data to see if an idea is right or wrong, people will believe the entire gamut. The ideal situation is to be open enough to accept new or radical ideas but not so open that you believe it all under one swoop.
3.) Has someone else verified the claims? - When a claim is made, however striking it may be, it needs to be testable...and the results need to be upheld when replicated. If this isn't the case then something else must be going on. (Insert any number of logical fallacies...special pleading, etc.)
4.) Does the claim fit with the way the world works? - Under the laws of physics we see and expect certain responses over a given number of tests. If the claims work outside of what we know and can reasonably expect then we need to hold them suspect.
5.) Has an attempt been made to disprove the claim? - It's easy to gather evidence and propose a theory that is supported by that evidence but what arguments have been made to counter the claims? What else could possibly be explaining the theory? Have you thought about it from every angle? One must think about the questions critics will ask to disprove the theory.
6.) Where does the majority of all the evidence point? - Does it point to the theory being proposed or is there more evidence in support of a different theory? The evidence should be looked it like a detective would when solving a crime. Evidence available is pieced together and generally points to one direction. There are always other ideas but what is the idea that most of the evidence supports?
7.) Does the claim play by the rules of science? - Does the claim use reason, logic and evidence or is it non-substantiated?
8.) Is the claim supported by positive evidence? - In other words, is the claimant providing positive evidence for their theory or just denying evidence for a different theory. It's one thing to compile evidence against another theory but not gather evidence for your own.
9.) Does the claim account for as many phenomena as the claim it's superceding? - One little idea can explain a single item but can it explain all the other theories of the preceding claim it is replacing?... either at the same level or better.
10.) Are personal beliefs driving the claim? - Science is done by people and we have biases to look for evidence that we already believe and disregard new evidence that doesn't support what we believe. At some point all of that needs to be removed and one must look strictly at the data.
These questions help us think about claims in different ways. There are a plethora of claims out there and what we generally see is that they vary in range of being completely nonsensical and easily dismissed to something else that must be examined down to the slightest nuance. This method of critical thinking i.e. science has been the best tool ever designed to make sense of the world; from eradicating diseases (medicine) to flying in planes (engineering and math) to thoroughly reviewing religions and the probability of the claims they make.
Growing up we tend to believe almost anything that people tell us; especially if those people are our parents, grandparents, other family members, church goers, the internet or any major authority figure in our life. Information is flying at us at the speed of light and it's important to be able to tell a difference between what is right and wrong.
We believe ideas because of the way our brains are hard-wired to find patterns that hold meaning for us. Some of these patterns are real and it's good that we learn what these patterns are. However, many patterns aren't real, they hold basis in superstitious thinking.
Science is the way we use critical thinking to separate the BS from what's most likely real. It's important that we use this in our critical thinking. Below are a series of questions that were developed (Not by me of course) to help aid in this:
1.) How reliable is the source of the claim? - Errors are always expected, somewhat, in the source of the claim but they should be random. If the errors start slanting in one direction towards a certain belief, then this should be a red flag that something else could be going on underneath.
2.) Does the source make other claims that are similar? - Rather than following data to see if an idea is right or wrong, people will believe the entire gamut. The ideal situation is to be open enough to accept new or radical ideas but not so open that you believe it all under one swoop.
3.) Has someone else verified the claims? - When a claim is made, however striking it may be, it needs to be testable...and the results need to be upheld when replicated. If this isn't the case then something else must be going on. (Insert any number of logical fallacies...special pleading, etc.)
4.) Does the claim fit with the way the world works? - Under the laws of physics we see and expect certain responses over a given number of tests. If the claims work outside of what we know and can reasonably expect then we need to hold them suspect.
5.) Has an attempt been made to disprove the claim? - It's easy to gather evidence and propose a theory that is supported by that evidence but what arguments have been made to counter the claims? What else could possibly be explaining the theory? Have you thought about it from every angle? One must think about the questions critics will ask to disprove the theory.
6.) Where does the majority of all the evidence point? - Does it point to the theory being proposed or is there more evidence in support of a different theory? The evidence should be looked it like a detective would when solving a crime. Evidence available is pieced together and generally points to one direction. There are always other ideas but what is the idea that most of the evidence supports?
7.) Does the claim play by the rules of science? - Does the claim use reason, logic and evidence or is it non-substantiated?
8.) Is the claim supported by positive evidence? - In other words, is the claimant providing positive evidence for their theory or just denying evidence for a different theory. It's one thing to compile evidence against another theory but not gather evidence for your own.
9.) Does the claim account for as many phenomena as the claim it's superceding? - One little idea can explain a single item but can it explain all the other theories of the preceding claim it is replacing?... either at the same level or better.
10.) Are personal beliefs driving the claim? - Science is done by people and we have biases to look for evidence that we already believe and disregard new evidence that doesn't support what we believe. At some point all of that needs to be removed and one must look strictly at the data.
These questions help us think about claims in different ways. There are a plethora of claims out there and what we generally see is that they vary in range of being completely nonsensical and easily dismissed to something else that must be examined down to the slightest nuance. This method of critical thinking i.e. science has been the best tool ever designed to make sense of the world; from eradicating diseases (medicine) to flying in planes (engineering and math) to thoroughly reviewing religions and the probability of the claims they make.
**Crickets** -- God
![[Image: 450570504_h3zbv-x3.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.sanmiguelgringo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2F450570504_h3zbv-x3.jpg)
![[Image: db6b6adceb6bf0735b98431d175674f5.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fdb%2F6b%2F6a%2Fdb6b6adceb6bf0735b98431d175674f5.jpg)
