Critical Thinking vs. Scientific Thinking
Several weeks ago, a friend asked me whether my belief in God was falsifiable--that is, what would it take (if anything) to convince me that He didn't exist.
Now, this question struck me as a really good question. In my academic research, any claims we make need to be falsifiable. If you make a claim that can't be falsified, it's not really useful for discovering new ideas and proving them.
So that question got me thinking about what, if anything, would convince me that God didn't exist. But here's the thing--I haven't come up with anything (nothing specific, anyhow). If for example, there is a prayer that is not answered, I would assume that means that either the time is not right, or that it is outside of God's will. If there is a piece of theology that I find hard to understand, I assume that it means that God is bigger than my capacity to understand.
Having been trained in a field where all hypotheses must be falsifiable, this began to bother me. But then it hit me. Falsifiability is necessary for scientific reasoning, but it is not necessary for critical thinking. The scientific method involves making hypotheses and then collecting data to test and then revise those hypotheses, with the idea that, on every pass through the cycle you will get a little bit closer to the truth. But if your hypothesis is not falsifiable, then how can you test it? It is a fairly easy mistake to make, coming up with a hypothesis that is not falsifiable, but then your whole methodology is basically a circus act or a charade since, no matter your results, your conclusion will be the same.
But I never claimed that I could prove God exists, and I never claimed that my belief in God came about scientifically. Quite the opposite. (Although, please note, I do think there is plenty of evidence.* Just not proof.) But I have, and do, claim that I approach my faith with a measure of critical thinking.
Crucially, this means that critical thinking is separate from science--that you can think critically even when your methodology is not scientific.
It's easy to conflate critical thinking with science. In our society, science is often considered the standard for rigorous thinking. But science cannot answer all the questions we have. It is not very practical as a tool to tell us who we should marry, or whether I should give money to a particular homeless person on the street, or the best way to play with a baby, or what makes great art, or, indeed, whether I should believe in God. Science can give insight into all of these questions, of course, but if you depend on science alone, you may find you are missing a piece. And even though science has its limitations, that doesn't mean I should throw my brain out the window when I'm not using science to navigate the world. Critical thinking is an asset no matter what methodology you use.
This conflation is partly my fault. When I talk to my science-minded friends about faith, I tend to use scientific language because that is the language of argumentation that I know best.
So what does it mean to use critical thinking with faith?
It means that I fact check. When I listen to a sermon, for example, I look passages that the preacher refers to up in the Bible, possibly even in a different translation.
It means that I look at context when I read the Bible. This means the textual context (What does it say before and after the passage being looked at? What genre is the text?), the historical context (Who was the author? Who was the original intended audience?), and the cultural context (Did any of these ideas have any particular symbolism or significance in the original setting?).
It means that I consider the claims that are being made critically. For example, if an argument is based on the nitty gritty of the wording of a particular passage, I ask, is that a detail that is likely to be language-dependent? And, if not, I ask, what does it say in the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic?
It means that I consider a variety of points of view, and that when a claim or direction bothers me, I pray and think about it until I feel peace about it--even if it takes years. This even includes periods where I have questioned whether God exists, and periods where I have questioned whether He is someone I wish to follow.
You may have noticed an underlying assumption beneath all of this--and that is that the Bible is a reliable source. The Bible is a complicated book. It was written over the course of thousands of years, by multiple different authors, in multiple different genres, in a cultural context that no longer exists, and in ancient languages that are no longer spoken natively. You can make it say nearly anything, if you are willing to cut and paste bits and pieces out of context. Some passages are difficult for me to swallow, some are difficult for me to understand, but on the whole, doing my best to follow it has only made me a better person. And it hasn't done that because of moral teachings or a list of rules that I follow. It has done so by rearranging my priorities, training my conscience, and changing the way I think and feel.
"So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (2 Corinthians 5: 16-17)
*Apologetics is an old discipline, and I don't really have much to add. If you're interested in knowing more, I would recommend:
Now, this question struck me as a really good question. In my academic research, any claims we make need to be falsifiable. If you make a claim that can't be falsified, it's not really useful for discovering new ideas and proving them.
So that question got me thinking about what, if anything, would convince me that God didn't exist. But here's the thing--I haven't come up with anything (nothing specific, anyhow). If for example, there is a prayer that is not answered, I would assume that means that either the time is not right, or that it is outside of God's will. If there is a piece of theology that I find hard to understand, I assume that it means that God is bigger than my capacity to understand.
Having been trained in a field where all hypotheses must be falsifiable, this began to bother me. But then it hit me. Falsifiability is necessary for scientific reasoning, but it is not necessary for critical thinking. The scientific method involves making hypotheses and then collecting data to test and then revise those hypotheses, with the idea that, on every pass through the cycle you will get a little bit closer to the truth. But if your hypothesis is not falsifiable, then how can you test it? It is a fairly easy mistake to make, coming up with a hypothesis that is not falsifiable, but then your whole methodology is basically a circus act or a charade since, no matter your results, your conclusion will be the same.
But I never claimed that I could prove God exists, and I never claimed that my belief in God came about scientifically. Quite the opposite. (Although, please note, I do think there is plenty of evidence.* Just not proof.) But I have, and do, claim that I approach my faith with a measure of critical thinking.
Crucially, this means that critical thinking is separate from science--that you can think critically even when your methodology is not scientific.
It's easy to conflate critical thinking with science. In our society, science is often considered the standard for rigorous thinking. But science cannot answer all the questions we have. It is not very practical as a tool to tell us who we should marry, or whether I should give money to a particular homeless person on the street, or the best way to play with a baby, or what makes great art, or, indeed, whether I should believe in God. Science can give insight into all of these questions, of course, but if you depend on science alone, you may find you are missing a piece. And even though science has its limitations, that doesn't mean I should throw my brain out the window when I'm not using science to navigate the world. Critical thinking is an asset no matter what methodology you use.
This conflation is partly my fault. When I talk to my science-minded friends about faith, I tend to use scientific language because that is the language of argumentation that I know best.
So what does it mean to use critical thinking with faith?
It means that I fact check. When I listen to a sermon, for example, I look passages that the preacher refers to up in the Bible, possibly even in a different translation.
It means that I look at context when I read the Bible. This means the textual context (What does it say before and after the passage being looked at? What genre is the text?), the historical context (Who was the author? Who was the original intended audience?), and the cultural context (Did any of these ideas have any particular symbolism or significance in the original setting?).
It means that I consider the claims that are being made critically. For example, if an argument is based on the nitty gritty of the wording of a particular passage, I ask, is that a detail that is likely to be language-dependent? And, if not, I ask, what does it say in the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic?
It means that I consider a variety of points of view, and that when a claim or direction bothers me, I pray and think about it until I feel peace about it--even if it takes years. This even includes periods where I have questioned whether God exists, and periods where I have questioned whether He is someone I wish to follow.
You may have noticed an underlying assumption beneath all of this--and that is that the Bible is a reliable source. The Bible is a complicated book. It was written over the course of thousands of years, by multiple different authors, in multiple different genres, in a cultural context that no longer exists, and in ancient languages that are no longer spoken natively. You can make it say nearly anything, if you are willing to cut and paste bits and pieces out of context. Some passages are difficult for me to swallow, some are difficult for me to understand, but on the whole, doing my best to follow it has only made me a better person. And it hasn't done that because of moral teachings or a list of rules that I follow. It has done so by rearranging my priorities, training my conscience, and changing the way I think and feel.
"So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (2 Corinthians 5: 16-17)
*Apologetics is an old discipline, and I don't really have much to add. If you're interested in knowing more, I would recommend:
- For a moral argument based approach: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (I have a copy if you want to borrow it.)
- For a historical evidence based approach: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. This book discusses the reliability of the Bible, as well as evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (There is also a youth edition that you could read in 1-2 hours if you don't want to invest as much time in it, but be warned: it is much less thorough and a lot easier to poke holes in.)
- For a historical evidence using only non-Christian sources: I recently read this blog post, and there are dozens more, if you google it.
- For a more discussion based approach with a free meal: the Alpha course (My church will be running one on Thursday nights starting in September. Again, it is less thorough, though.)
Comments
Post a Comment