The Nagging Question! Will I Cease to Believe?
In the last 50 years, the speed of change has progressed exponentially. We have seen technology change, and we’ve seen world view changes—both in rapid progression. I’ve heard it said that my generation is the only generation who has seen and lived through the major technological advances of all time. However, technology is not the only change that my generation has seen, we have moved from a time when to question authority was a punishable offense, to a moment where we question everything. Researchers continue to study whether it was the speed of change or the change itself that cause the questioning. Whatever the cause, we find ourselves daily searching for the“truth” that seems often cloaked mystery and shrouded in intrigue. The consensus is that critical thinking helps us remove the shroud and break the code.
The fact is, we need critical thinking to survive in today’s world, and we need it to study and learn. It is imperative that we learn and practice the skills of critical thinking and Paul and Elder help with that. There is no need to rehash the content of the mini guide—it is, however, amazing at how much valuable material they pack into a few pages. Underneath the whole discussion of critical thinking methodology, there is a nagging question. At what point does critical thinking lead to unbelief? At what point does critical thinking fall short of grasping the spiritual “Truth” of God’s salvation plan for humankind? At what point in our search for the truth could critical thinking lead us from the truth?
I return to Rowntree for an interesting quote. I believe it was Stu that mentioned it in his post last week. Rowntree says: “Never lose sight of the fact that someone (the authors or speakers) is trying to sell you something.” Even Paul and Elder elude to the selling component when they speak of the implications/consequences of our reasoning. In this light, they ask the question, “If someone accepted my position, what would be the implications? What am I implying?” (P. 6) In other words, “what am I trying to sell?”
I sometimes watch television commercials with the volume completely turned off. When there is no voice or music, it often becomes evident what the ad is trying to sell. It’s usually not a product, but a lifestyle. We are barraged with these influences and influencers; therefore, we need to be critical thinkers to survive the onslaught. However, critical thinking without boundaries can produce negative results. It can lead away from the truth for which we are so desperately seeking and lead others to act on our stated and flawed position. Take for example the recent study that concluded that religious kids were meaner than non-religious kids. The results were immediately published and picked up and disseminated via the standard media outlets. However, upon further questioning, it was determined that the researchers failed to take into account the cultural differences among the children who were a part of the study and ended up miscoding the data. Paul and Eldar would call this a classic “sociocentric thinking” error. After the data had been recoded to include the cultural differences, the researchers found no difference in the “meanness factor” between religious and non-religious children. 1
To the nagging question, I think that Paul and Elder make a point where others may not. Their point: critical thinking is not done in a vacuum. Furthermore, they admit that higher level critical thinking can often be “inconsistent in quality. It can be fair or unfair.” Therefore, “To think at the highest level of quality, we need not only intellectual skills, but intellectual traits as well.” (P. 7) Paul and Elder provide some insights into the nature of critical thinking. For example, the tendency to go too far, the tendency to think that we have “it” when we don’t. The tendency to rely too much on our intellectual pursuits and forget to “consider the rights and needs of others.” Or, when we refuse to acknowledge that our culture and society has prejudiced us to find other cultures, systems, and beliefs as somehow inferior to our own. (P. 21, 22) Because of this, the thinker needs “intellectual traits” that guide the critical thinking process. Though there is no indication that Paul and Elder operate from a biblical worldview, these traits, as Paul and Elder present them, are quite biblical in nature—humility, courage, empathy, autonomy, integrity, perseverance, confidence, and fair-mindedness. (P. 14, 15) These traits form boundary lines for an otherwise boundless pursue of questioning everything via critical thinking methodology. And so, the inclusion of the eight intellectual traits by Paul and Elder make their critical thinking methodology, for me as a Christian, a healthy mix and brings some welcome relief to the nagging question.
- Melinda Lundquist Denton, “Are Religious Kids Meaner or Nicer?,” CT Women, October 2016, , accessed October 18, 2016, http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/october/are-religious-kids-meaner-or-nicer.html.
About the Author
Jim Sabella
19 responses to “The Nagging Question! Will I Cease to Believe?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good post Jim. I like the term “reasonable enthusiast” which was coined by John Wesley I think. We need sound belief that stands up to critical thinking and examination, and we need also to dismantle and counter poor thinking that decries and diminishes our faith. I don’t think faith has anything to fear from critical thinking – I think we can be reasonable enthusiasts!
We should have no fear that faith can’t stand up to critical thinking. That’s a great word Geoff. Thank you.
“We are barraged with these influences and influencers; therefore, we need to be critical thinkers to survive the onslaught.”
On the flight home from London, I watched a documentary on Generation X (my generation). It brought up the combination of latchkey kids and the abundance of commercials targeted directly toward Gen X children and teens. The documentary proposed that this, combined with disillusionment of the 70s (The Vietnam War and Watergate) created a generation of skeptics.
It proposed that my generation was so pounded with commercials that we became immune to them. It then connected the popularity of bands beginning with the Sex Pistols all the way to Nirvana.
I think there is some truth to that. The generation of “The Breakfast Club” and “Reality Bites” views the media and political leaders with a good deal of criticism.
Stu, an interesting point that generations can become so used to commercialism that they are immune to its effects. I can see that happening. I notice it myself when I see old commercials and realize how silly they look. On that I would agree with the documentarian(s). However, that may be why commercialism has to continually change and morph its practices while keeping the message the same—the only way to true happiness is to buy something. Critical thinking cuts through the outer wrapping to what is inside the package. It seems that the content is still the same though the package looks quite different. Thanks Stu.
This post sounds like you’ve already started reading next week’s text! Great connection.
Jim wow what a thoughtful post. It is so true how the media shapes our culture. What is our culture really selling us? What are we choosing to buy? A “Good” media ad tries to invoke all of our senses as a means to draw us into 60 second narrative. It is amazing how we can see something on tv for 60 seconds and it has an immediate impact on our lives. Elder said one the problems with Sociocentric thinking is “the failure to realize that mass media in every culture shapes the news from the point of view of that culture” (Kindle, 275).
Thanks Christal. I am amazed at how well a commercial can implant a narrative in just 60 seconds or less. It’s a very powerful medium and as Stu mentioned we can become immune to its effects. Maybe that is the most dangerous place to be. It’s like the proverbial frog in a pot of water on the stove—doesn’t know it’s boiling until it’s too late.
“Though there is no indication that Paul and Elder operate from a biblical worldview, these traits, as Paul and Elder present them, are quite biblical in nature—humility, courage, empathy, autonomy, integrity, perseverance, confidence, and fair-mindedness.”
I agree with you, Jim. Paul and Elder believe that “Humans have the capacity to be rational and fair.” (p. 23) Actually, that only goes so far. They do not have a Biblical perspective and seemingly are forgetting much of history. People have deceitful, wicked hearts (Jer. 17:9) much of the time and without Christ and the Holy Spirit they usually only seek to satisfy themselves. I wish with all of my heart that people would learn to think critically with integrity and honesty, but it is an uphill battle without the Lord. You have such good insights!
Thanks Mary. I too wish that people who be able to think more critically and fairly. I agree too that we have extremely short memories about the impact of our decisions. God help us to “think critically with integrity and honesty.”
I like your point on how the media influences our thinking. The example of the religious and nonreligious kids personality was a good point. There are many elements that affect data especially dealing with human behavior.
Should we critically think on media presentations?
Thanks Lynda. You ask an interesting question. “Should we critically think on media presentations?” I would say yes, and I would add that we should critically consider most types of presentations. There is always a message. Once we know the actual message, we can act accordingly and with some degree of confidence. In matters of faith, the Holy Spirit is our ever-present helper.
So true- “Because of this, the thinker needs “intellectual traits” that guide the critical thinking process.” Without the intellectual traits, one could be robotic or extreme in allowing the critical thinking to dominate their decision-making process. Spock from Star Trek comes to mind. Fair and critical thinker but lacking in human emotion and connection.
I hear you asking, “what about faith?” Or the “hope of things unseen”. Critical skills cannot replace faith or we lose the bedrock of our Christian beliefs. We need both, and neither are exclusive without the other. Thought-provoking post.
Jennifer, I’ve met a couple of Spocks along the way! I agree, as Christians, we need both. Thank Jennifer!
Jim, I love how you ponder and process your own questions: “At what point does critical thinking lead to unbelief? At what point does critical thinking fall short of grasping the spiritual “Truth” of God’s salvation plan for humankind? At what point in our search for the truth could critical thinking lead us from the truth?”
As you are careful to point out, critical thinking is not done in a vacuum. As you (and I) communicate, others respond to it; if we are brave enough and if we ourselves engage in critical thinking, we challenge one another’s assumptions and call out each other’s blind spots. This can especially be the case when we read scripture. It becomes easy for us to develop a hermeneutic that understands scripture from a place we’re comfortable with. Honest communication though, will allow for a reflective hermeneutic that allows for broadening our theology with voices that are different than ours– how does an African woman, third of three wives, read Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman? Probably much differently than you or I. And thus, as you conclude, we must approach our studies, our reading of scripture, and our faith, with humility and courage.
Contextualization of biblical principles is a very difficult thing to do “correctly.” You’ve lived in another culture and so you know the difficulty. You’re right, it takes a lot of humility and courage. Thanks Katy!
I love your thought process here, Jim. It was interesting to me that Rowntree warned us to remember that every writer is trying to sell something, and Paul/Elder remind us that one hallmark of sociocentric thinking is the failure to realize that mass media in every culture shapes the news to the point of view of the culture (22). In other words, mass media knows what we WANT to buy and shape the news to sell us that exact point of view. We try to blame the media, but we forget that we have already proven to them that we will buy what they are selling. In order to change this we have to stop buying it.
Growing up my parents taught me to question everything and find proof before believing what I’m told. I think this was their way of training me for the process of critical thinking. With your comment about doing scripture and to faith in a vacuum, I realize that we in the church should maybe adopt my parents’ approach and remind each other to question and find proof together.
Thanks Kristin! I like the suggestion that we “adopt [your] parents’ approach and remind each other to question and find proof together” because it speaks to the renewing of community in the faith. We have gone it alone for so long, that it seems that we have fooled ourselves into believing that we’re not alone. The desire for community is innate in all of us, even as is the desire to search for God. How much better we would be if we practiced your parents’ approach. Thanks for sharing this.
Jim, I really liked this post and appreciated that you clearly used ‘critical thinking’ to think through and process the presuppositions that you brought into this reading.
The notion that everyone – certainly every author – is trying to sell us something is an important insight that you develop well…….. Often what people are selling is, as you say, not so much a product but a lifestyle – or a point of view.
I know we often assume someone trying to sell us something is bad or something we should be wary of – and healthy skepticism (or one might say critical thinking) is a reasonable disposition. But, I wonder, what is evangelism, really, if not selling a way of being, a truth and a point of view?
Of course, we believe the gospel is more than that and the capital T truth of the gospel is an important consideration, but aren’t we still selling? And shouldn’t we be?
So, my critical thinking leads me to believe that after we have determined what is being sold, it is equally important to determine why it is being sold.
Thanks again, Jim, this post really engaged me and gave me some things to consider.
“I wonder, what is evangelism, really, if not selling a way of being, a truth and a point of view?”
Chip, you make an excellent point and challenging point. I’ve thought about and actually struggled with that very point for many years. I began to see the “selling” aspect when I moved overseas and into another culture. For some reason, in the other culture I could see the western sales techniques use in a type of evangelism the seeks only numbers and not changed lives. They are two very different things.
We can count numbers in a few moments—I shared Christ with 43 people this week, my job’s done! But the bigger question is, did I share my life? Here’s how I see it at this point and I’m still working on it. Counting numbers takes a moment, but counting changed lives takes years of long-term commitment to a community of people who share their lives and in the process their faith—and not the other way around. Once I began to work at living my faith instead of trying to sell it, it changed the way I viewed the world and even my faith.
A very challenging question Chip. One I’m still working on. Thanks for your post.