Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III

Transcription

1 UNIT III STUDY GUIDE Thinking Elements and Standards Reading Assignment Chapter 4: The Parts of Thinking Chapter 5: Standards for Thinking Are We Living in a Cave? Plato Go to the Opposing Viewpoints in Context database within the CSU Online Library. Search for the article titled Are We Living in a Cave? by Plato. This is considered required reading for this unit. Learning Activities (Non-Graded) See information below. Key Terms 1. Activated ignorance 2. Activated knowledge 3. Breadth 4. Clarity 5. Coming to conclusions (inferences) 6. Depth 7. Fairness 8. Intellectual relativity 9. Logic 10. Parts of thinking (fundamental structures of thought) 11. Point of view 12. Reasoning based on assumptions Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 1. Apply the elements of thought to a concrete example. 2. Define reasoning purposes, questions, points of view, information, inferences, concepts, implications, assumptions, "thinking to some purpose," inert information, activated ignorance, and activated knowledge. 3. Distinguish between inferences and assumptions. 4. Identify possible inferences based on information and identify underlying assumptions of those inferences. 5. Express ideas in several different ways until nonlinear relationships become intuitive. 6. Distinguish between inert information, activated ignorance, and activated knowledge. 7. Recognize and apply the criteria for standards - clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and significance. Unit Lesson Dogmatic Absolutism It is often thought that there is no better way to end a friendship or relationship with others than to discuss politics or religion. In order to become a well-rounded critical thinker, you must analyze his or her relationships to all three of these integral aspects of human existence. Some students who take this course are threatened by the way that the textbook talks about religion. The authors of the textbook indicate that there is no place in the realm of critical thought for what they call dogmatic absolutism, or the belief that the truth is acquired not through reasoning and inquiry but, rather, through some predetermined, nonintellectual faith (Paul & Elder, 2012, p. 35). Those who believe in God or ascribe to a religious faith (remember that some religious faiths do not have a God-concept) might immediately experience this statement with a sense of disgust or a strong emotional response (perhaps of anger or snide resentment). You can imagine a religious person thinking, Well, I hope Paul and Elder know that it is going to be pretty hot where they are headed. However, it is important to notice how much more meaning the human mind is capable of inserting into a situation. Let s attempt to examine a few things about Paul and Elder s statement. 1. Paul and Elder do not say that all religious belief is shortsighted or ignorant. 2. We know nothing concerning Paul s or Elder s beliefs about an afterlife or a God being. 3. Paul and Elder are not attacking individuals. They are attacking a mode of belief in which many people engage. We have looked at what Paul and Elder are NOT saying. However, any good analysis must not only tell what something is not, but it must tell what something PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1

2 13. Reasoning having a purpose 14. Reasoning within a point of view 15. Relevance is. For example, if I ask a person what a dog is and he or she tells me that a dog is not a cat, then he or she has said nothing of what a dog is. Negative definitions can be useful, but we must also present positive explanations. Let s look at exactly what Paul and Elder are saying in this statement about dogmatic absolutism. First, Paul and Elder (2012) say that dogmatic absolutism is based around the idea that truth is not acquired through reasoning and inquiry. When someone is a dogmatic absolutist, he or she sticks to his or her guns no matter what. This person tends to hold on to a belief even in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Most people think about the decisions they make and try to come to the best possible position on an issue given the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue. Critical thinkers seek out evidence from numerous sources and are quick to withhold judgment when they do not know anything about the sources that are providing the information. The dogmatic absolutist thinks that he or she already has everything figured out and that the search for truth through using his or her mind is futile now that the answer is in hand. In addition to a mistrust of reasoning and intellectual questioning, Paul and Elder (2012) claim that the dogmatic absolutist thinks that truth is found in a predetermined, nonintellectual faith. The operative words here are predetermined and nonintellectual. If someone has predetermined ideas about things in life, this often leads to inadequate thinking. Predetermined ideas are extremely dangerous and lead to stereotypical thinking. However, you cannot totally blame the person for this occurrence. It is a natural tendency of the human mind to determine outcomes based on the experiences that it has had. This is an extremely useful tendency of the mind. You have been told that the red light means that you need to stop and then you will have a predetermined form of knowledge about what you need to do when you see a red light while you are driving. This power of the mind makes human lives much more reasonable and reliable. Imagine what the world would be like if humans had to be told at every stoplight what they were required to do. Driving would be extremely dangerous if not downright impossible. The problem with predetermined ideas is that they tend to reduce your possibilities for knowledge when that person is exposed to new ideas. In relation to our stoplight example, let s imagine a country in which red lights mean go, green lights mean yield, and yellow lights mean stop. If you were driving in this country for the first time and you approached a red light you would slow down and stop. The people behind you would become frustrated at your erratic driving and, depending on the patience of those behind you, would either start honking or perhaps take even more drastic measures to let you know that you were not abiding by the rules of the road. A person s predetermined ideas would not hold in this society and would cause this person to become a nuisance to those on the road. Now, upon learning the rules of the road, we can imagine how this person would respond. It is pretty evident that this person would feel a certain sense of guilt that would be tempered by the acknowledgement that he or she had no clue about the rules of the road in this land. It is hard to imagine someone who would be so obtuse and stubborn that he or she would continue to abide by the rules established in his or her own land and refuse to begin driving by the laws of this new land. In this case, it is evident what everyone would start to do, and that would be to change his or her predetermined knowledge and be more receptive to the way that things are done in this society. Anyone who was unwilling to change his or her driving based on predetermined ideas about his or her way being the best way would generally be agreed to be either totally selfish or hopelessly recalcitrant. PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 2

3 When it comes to religious beliefs it seems that you are traversing into a qualitatively different reality when compared to the example of the stoplight. The reason for the difference in strength is attributable to the manifold ways in which religion permeates human existence and the strength that it has in grounding human life. When someone tells you that your ideas about stoplights are wrong, you are not very invested in the idea that red must always mean stop. You only interact with stoplights when you are driving and you do not pay much conscious attention to them outside of that context. However, when it comes to religion, it seems that the situation is reversed. For people who believe strongly in a specific religion, it seems that the ideas of religion permeate almost every aspect of existence and relate to the way in which the person perceives life, politics, social interactions, standards of morality, and how you use your resources. For many people, religious ideas are integrated in most of the day, and there are only a few minutes or hours where these ideas do not play a part. When someone holds ideas that are contrary to your predetermined ideas about the nature of reality and spirituality this immediately becomes a threat to your entire existence. This is the reason that people react so strongly to those who have divergent religious opinions. If you have a pre-determined idea of the Truth, then this person will defend that idea at all costs, even going so far as to give his or her life in violent ways for the sake of that belief. As Albert Camus (1942) said: I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. (p. 397) Camus (1942) points out that religious ideas give many people not only a reason for living, but also a reason for dying. The powerful influence of these ideas in relation to the meaning and purpose of human life cannot be underestimated. Now let s look at the last part of the statement made by Paul and Elder (2012) about dogmatic absolutism. In the last portion of the statement, Paul and Elder (2012) claim that dogmatic absolutism is characterized by non-intellectual faith. This seems to be the sticking point for many students because many of them think that Paul and Elder (2012) are claiming that faith in any religion is not applicable to critical thinking. However, this is not what Paul and Elder are saying; what Paul and Elder (2012) critique is non-intellectual faith. This form of faith is one that does not believe the intellect. It does not trust the laws of reason. It finds answers in simplistic interpretations or explanations from inadequate sources. For example, many people merely believe what their pastor, priest, cleric, or monk tells them without thinking about the truth of what the person is saying. The person giving the information appears to be a mouthpiece for God, and it seems that many humans readily submit to the person s authority based on the position of the person. Non-intellectual faith is one that is unfamiliar with the doctrines of its own religion. It does not examine the arguments for or against the religion. It does not put in the time or effort necessary to examine the history of its religion or the history of other religions to see how they interact, as well as contradict one another. Non-intellectual faith is afraid of those who hold different beliefs. It feels threatened when it is confronted with other beliefs or when its own beliefs are tested. Finally, non-intellectual faith finds solace in the most general and simplistic answers to life s most pressing and severe questions. Let s look at another example. Suppose that there is a person who believes that God exists, but only does so because of his environment and the things that PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 3

4 others have told him throughout his life. He has rarely consulted the holy texts of his religion, and even fewer times has he interacted with the great theologians and philosophers that have struggled with the truths of religion. He has no idea WHY he believes that God exists. He readily allows technology and science to penetrate his existence throughout the course of the day, but he refuses to admit that science has anything relevant to say in relation to the foundations of the universe. This man meets another man at work and they strike up a conversation. The topic of religion emerges and the first man finds out that his co-worker is an atheist. This comes as quite a surprise to him, as most people he works with or comes into contact with share his religious beliefs. How might the person of non-intellectual faith respond? He might feel angry that this person cannot understand the Truth. He might feel threatened and sense an immediate distrust of this person. He might think that he needs to pray for this person so that the other person sees the Truth. He might immediately respond by saying that the other person s ideas are ridiculous, or he might go on the offensive, trying to target and destroy the person s beliefs. He might feel sadness for the other person and begin to pity him. He might respond in ridicule or perhaps poison other people against this person. You expect any number of uncritical responses that emerge from the perspective of non-intellectual faith. This is the form of faith that is the bastion of the dogmatic absolutist. The question now arises: Is there an undetermined, intellectual form of faith? You might be happy to know that there is and that philosophers and theologians of most religions have been arguing for this faith for literally thousands of years. This would be the opposite of the dogmatic absolutism that Paul and Elder (2012) critique in their work. Let s call this form non-dogmatic absolutism. What would be the attributes of the non-dogmatic absolutist? Using Paul and Elder s definition of dogmatic absolutism, you can formulate a definition of non-dogmatic absolutism. Non-dogmatic absolutism is the belief that the truth is acquired through reasoning and inquiry by the guidance of undetermined intellectual faith. So what kind of life would the non-dogmatic absolutist lead? First, this person would continually think and ask questions about the foundations of reality and the truth in relation to those foundations. This person would not merely listen to the ideas of his or her peers, but would consult the historical holy texts of various religions in order to understand the fundamental doctrines of those religions. If his or her religion involved a God concept, he or she would scour the relevant philosophical and theological arguments for and against the existence of God. He or she would recognize that in order to understand his or her own arguments for the existence of God, he or she would need to know the strongest arguments against his or her position. In a similar manner, the non-dogmatic absolutist would reject childish and non-intellectual discourse in relation to his or her own religion. He or she would seek to understand the motives of the current leaders of his or her religion and he or she would disassociate with those who were using the religion for their own personal and social goals. PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 4

5 The non-dogmatic absolutist would recognize that others have answered the same questions that led him or her to his or her religion in ways that were quite different from his or her own. This would not threaten him or her. When he or she interacted with these people in society, he or she would not pity them, threaten them, or feel anger towards them. Instead, because of his or her knowledge of the fundamental tenets of their religions, he or she would understand how those people came to different conclusions about the same questions. When someone expressed beliefs that were non-religious and were perhaps even diametrically opposed, he or she would not feel attacked, but would listen to the expressions of the other and attempt to understand why the person holds such different views. The non-dogmatic absolutist recognizes that all times are different, and that all people need various responses. In the realm of teaching, the second worst teachers are those who act as if all students are exactly the same. The dogmatic absolutist acts as if all people are the same and uses the same techniques and responses to all those around him or her who do not share his or her beliefs. The non-dogmatic absolutist recognizes that each human is unique, a being that has had his or her own experiences, pains, violations, joys, and regrets. The nondogmatic absolutist recognizes situations in which it is appropriate for him or her to voice his or her religious ideals and he or she refrains when common decency and compassion should prevent him or her from offending or causing resentment in another human. Most importantly, the non-dogmatic absolutist has intellectual humility, and this humility always reminds him or her that his or her religious position could be wrong. The fact that God has not physically manifested itself to humanity in such a way that all people can see the truth about its existence, as well as its ideas about the ultimately good life means that humans have made their decisions based on the position that they find to be strongest. However, the non-dogmatic absolutist recognizes that your social environment and life experiences play a key role in how you perceives your world and responds to that world. He or she recognizes that his or her own personal religious experiences that have strengthened his or her faith are similar to those of people who ascribe to different faiths. He or she is not intellectually arrogant enough to believe that no you of other religions actually have these experiences, or that all the experiences come from some false power. Instead, he or she recognizes that his or her own religion holds numerous positions that are misinterpretations or insufficient positions on God s ultimate view of the good life. If he or she has taken a non-religious stance in life, he or she does not snidely berate those who do believe in religion, but recognizes the arguments and ideas that support their position and consistently engages people in conversations that recognize why they believe what they believe. In conclusion, when a person hears critiques of absolutes based on faith, he or she is often quick to respond in a negative fashion. However, it is important in the case of Paul and Elder s critique of dogmatic absolutism that the critical thinker responds critically, not violently, or with resentment. Paul and Elder critique a certain form of faith that rejects intellectual inquiry and provides simple answers to life s most puzzling questions, as if you had direct access to an absolute source of knowledge while also believing in your own interpretive skills in relation to the source. Rather than finding solace in simple answers and pop-religion, the absolutist (whether theist, agnostic, or atheist) is one who refuses simple answers and continually uses his or her mind to explore ideas about religion, God, and existence. This person understands multiple religious perspectives and does not belittle those who believe in other things. She PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 5

6 recognizes that her position might be inadequate and she hopes that through the use of her critical thinking powers, she will be able to make the most informed choice in relation to this critically important human experience. There is a nondogmatic form of faith that is rationally justified. As critical thinkers, we can obtain this faith. However, just like in all aspects of life, it is much easier to rely on simple answers rather than putting in the work necessary to establish a justified position on these issues. The critical absolutist recognizes that you can only live a single life, and that the world is often better served by the perfection of the virtues of that life, rather than by the attempting to force other people to believe as she does. When the proper opportunities arise for her to present her beliefs, she is ready for the task. However, when those opportunities do not arise, she attempts to perfect her life according to the fundamental ideas she has about the good life, and to live those ideals in order to make the world around her a more safe and just place. References Camus, A. (1942) The myth of Sisyphus. In S. M. Cahn & P. Markie (Eds.), Ethics: History, theory, and contemporary practice. (4th ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Learning Activities (Non-Graded) Click here to access a PDF of the Unit III Presentation. Non-Graded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to submit them. If you have questions contact your instructor for further guidance and information. PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 6