Critical Thinking HW Help - Need Today!

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1 Cou rse Learning Outcomes for Unit III Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 1. Recognize the traits of the fair -minded thinker. 2. Explain the concept of intellectual standards for thinking 4. Apply analytical reasoning to a variety of disciplines. Reading Assignment Chapter 4: The Parts of Thinking Chapter 5: Standards for Thinking Kreis, S. (2012). Plato: The allegory of the cave. Retrieved from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html Unit Lesson Dog ma tic Absolutism It is often though t tha t the re is no be tter way to en d a friend ship or relation ship with othe rs tha n to discuss po litics or religion . In orde r to be come a well-rounde d cr itical thinker, you must ana lyze his or he r relation ships to all three of the se integ ral aspe cts of human existen ce. Some studen ts wh o take this cou rse are threa tene d by the way tha t the textboo k talks abou t religion . The au tho rs of the textboo k ind icate tha t the re is no place in the r eal m of critical though t for wha t the y call dog matic ab solutism, or “the bel ief tha t the truth is acqu ired no t throug h r ea son ing an d inqu iry bu t, rathe r, throug h some prede term ined , no nintellectua l faith” (P aul & Elde r, 2012 , p. 35 ). Tho se who be lieve in God or ascribe to a r eligiou s faith (r emembe r tha t some r eligiou s faiths do no t have a God-con cep t) m igh t imm ed iately expe rien ce this statemen t with a sen se of disgu st or a stron g emotiona l respon se ( pe rha ps of ange r or snide r esen tmen t). You c an imag ine a r eligiou s pe rson thinking , “W ell, I hop e P aul an d Elde r kno w tha t it is go ing to be p retty ho t whe re the y are headed .” Ho wever, it is impo rtan t to no tice ho w much more mean ing the human mind is capab le of inserting into a situa tion . Let’s attempt to examine a few thing s abou t Pau l an d Elde r’s statemen t. 1. Pau l an d Elde r do no t say tha t all religiou s be lief is shortsigh ted or igno ran t. 2. W e kno w no thing c on cerning Pau l’s or Elde r’s be liefs abou t an afterlife or a God being . 3. Pau l an d Elde r are no t attacking individu als. The y are attacking a mod e of bel ief in which man y peop le engage . W e have loo ked at wha t Pau l an d Elde r are NOT saying . Ho wever, an y goo d ana lysis must no t on ly tell wha t something is no t, bu t it must tell wha t something is. For example, if I ask a pe rson wha t a do g is an d he or she tells me tha t a do g is no t a c at, the n he or she ha s said no thing of wha t a dog is. Nega tive de finition s can be useful, bu t we must also presen t po sitive explana tion s. Le t’s loo k at exactly wha t Pau l an d Elde r are saying in this statemen t abou t do gmatic ab solutism. First, Pau l an d Elde r (2012 ) say tha t do gmatic ab solutism is ba sed aroun d the ide a tha t truth is no t acqu ired throug h r ea soning an d inq uiry. W he n someon e is a dog matic ab solutist, he or she sticks to his or he r gun s no matter wha t. This pe rson tend s to ho ld on to a belief even in the face of a preponde ran ce of eviden ce to the c on trary. Most peopl e think abou t the de cision s the y make an d UNIT III STUDY GUIDE Thinking Elements and Standards PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title try to come to the be st po ssible po sition on an issue given the facts an d circumstan ces surrou nding the issue. Critical thinkers see k ou t eviden ce from numerou s sou rces and are qu ick to withho ld jud gmen t whe n the y do no t kno w an ything abou t the sou rces tha t are providing the information . The dog matic ab solutist thinks that he or she alread y ha s everything figu red ou t an d tha t the sea rch for truth throug h using his or he r mind is futile no w tha t the an swer is in hand . In add ition to a mistrust of rea son ing an d intellectua l question ing , Paul an d Elde r (2012 ) claim tha t the dog matic ab solutist thinks that truth is foun d in a prede term ined , non intellectual faith. The ope rative words he re are “ prede term ined ” an d “ non intellectual.” If someon e ha s prede term ine d idea s abou t thing s in life, this often lead s to inadequa te thinking . Pr ede termine d idea s are extremely dange rou s an d lea d to stereo typical thinking . Ho we ver, you c anno t totally blame the pe rson for this occ urren ce. It is a na tural tenden cy of the hu man mind to de termine ou tcomes ba sed on the expe rien ces tha t it ha s had . This is an extremely useful tenden cy of the mind . You have bee n told tha t the r ed ligh t means tha t you nee d to stop an d the n y ou will have a prede term ine d form of kno wledg e abou t wha t you nee d to do whe n y ou see a r ed ligh t while you are driving . This po wer of the mind makes human lives much more rea sonab le an d r eliable. Imag ine wha t the world wou ld be like if human s ha d to be told at every stopl igh t wha t the y were r equ ired to do . Driving wou ld be extremely dange rou s if no t do wnrigh t impo ssible. The prob lem with prede term ine d idea s is tha t the y ten d to redu ce y ou r possibilities for kno wledg e when tha t pe rson is expo sed to ne w idea s. In r elation to ou r stopl igh t example, let’s imagine a c ountry in which r ed ligh ts mea n go , gree n ligh ts mea n yield, an d y ellow ligh ts mean stop . If you were driving in this coun try for the first time an d you app roa ched a red ligh t you wou ld slow down an d stop . The peop le beh ind y ou wou ld be come frustrated at you r “erratic” driving and , depend ing on the pa tien ce of tho se beh ind y ou , wou ld eithe r start hon king or pe rhap s take even more drastic mea sures to let you k no w tha t you were no t ab iding by the r ules of the r oad . A person ’s prede termine d idea s would no t ho ld in this society an d wou ld c au se this pe rson to be come a nu isan ce to tho se on the r oad . No w, upo n lea rning the rules of the r oad , we c an imag ine ho w this pe rson wou ld r espond . It is pretty eviden t tha t this pe rson wou ld fee l a c ertain sen se of guilt tha t wou ld be tempe red by the ack no wledge men t tha t he or she ha d no c lue abou t the rules of the r oa d in this land . It is ha rd to imagine someon e who wou ld be so obtuse an d stub born tha t he or she wou ld c on tinu e to ab ide by the r ules estab lishe d in his or he r own lan d an d r efuse to beg in driving by the laws of this ne w land . In this case, it is evide nt wha t everyon e wou ld start to do , an d tha t wou ld be to chang e his or he r prede term ine d k no wledg e an d be more recep tive to the way tha t thing s are don e in this society. Anyon e who was unwilling to chang e his or he r driving ba sed on prede term ine d idea s abou t his or he r way be ing the best way wou ld gene rally be ag ree d to be eithe r totally selfish or hope lessly recalcitran t. 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 ha s in grounding human life. When someone tells you that your ideas about stoplights are wrong, you are not very interested 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 a ttention 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. W hen 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 strongl y 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 i deas in relation to the meaning and purpose of human life cannot be underestimated. PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title 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 in intellect. It does not trust the laws of reason. It finds answers in simplistic inter pretations 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 fo r 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 h old 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 others have told them throughout his life. He has rarely consulted the holy texts of his religion, an d 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 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 pe rson. You expected any number of the 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 que stion no w arises: “Is the re an unde termined , intellectua l form of faith? ” Y ou migh t be happ y to kno w tha t the re is an d tha t philosop hers an d theo log ian s of most religion s have bee n argu ing for this faith for literally thou sand s of yea rs. This wou ld be the oppo site of the “ do gmatic ab solutism” tha t Pau l an d E lde r (2012 ) critiqu e in the ir work. Le t’s call this form no n-do gmatic ab solutism. W ha t wou ld be the attribu tes of the no n- do gmatic ab solutist? Using P au l an d Elde r’s de finition of do gmatic ab solutism, you c an formulate a de finition of no n-do gmatic ab solutism. No n-dog matic ab solu tism is the belief that the truth is acqu ired throug h r ea son ing an d inqu iry by the guidan ce of unde term ine d intellectua l faith. So wha t kind of life wou ld the no n-dog matic ab solutist lead ? First, this pe rson wou ld c on tinual ly think an d ask que stion s abou t the founda tion s of real ity an d the truth in relation to tho se founda tion s. This pe rson wou ld no t merely listen to the idea s of his or he r pee rs, bu t wou ld c on sult the historical ho ly texts of variou s r eligion s in orde r to unde rstan d the fund amen tal do ctrines of tho se r eligion s. If his or he r religion involved a God con cep t, he or she wou ld scou r the r elevant ph ilosoph ical an d theo logical argumen ts for an d aga inst the existen ce of God . He or she would r ecogn ize tha t in orde r to unde rstan d his or he r own argu men ts for the existen ce of God , he or she wou ld nee d to k no w the stronge st argu men ts aga inst his or he r po sition . In a similar man ner, the no n-dog matic ab solutist wou ld r eject childish an d no n-intellectua l discou rse in relation to his or he r own religion . He or she wou ld see k to unde rstan d the motives of the c urren t leade rs of his or he r religion an d he or she wou ld disassociate with tho se who were using the r eligion for the ir own pe rsona l an d social goal s. PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 4 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title The non -dog matic ab solutist wou ld r ecogn ize tha t othe rs have an swe red the same que stion s tha t led him or he r to his or he r religion in ways tha t were qu ite differen t from his or her own. This wou ld no t threa ten him or he r. W he n he or she interacted with the se peop le in society, he or she wou ld no t pity them, threa ten them, or feel ange r towards the m. Instead , be cau se of his or he r k no wledg e of the funda mental tene ts of the ir religions, he or she wou ld unde rstan d how those peop le c ame to different con clusion s abou t the same que stion s. W he n someon e expressed be liefs tha t were no n-religiou s an d were pe rha ps even diametrically oppo sed , he or she wou ld no t feel attacked , bu t wou ld listen to the expression s of the othe r an d attempt to unde rstan d why the pe rson ho lds such differen t views. The non -dog matic ab solutist recogni zes tha t all times are differen t, an d tha t all peop le nee d variou s respo nses. In the r ealm of tea ching, the secon d worst tea che rs are tho se who act as if all studen ts are exactly the same. The do gmatic ab solutist acts as if all peop le are the same an d uses the same techn ique s an d respo nses to all tho se aroun d him or he r who do no t share his or he r bel iefs. The non -dog matic ab solutist recogn izes tha t ea ch human is un ique , a being tha t ha s ha d his or he r own expe rien ces, pa ins, violation s, joys, an d r eg rets. The no n- dog matic ab solutist recogn izes situa tion s in which it is app rop riate for him or he r to voice his or he r religious idea ls an d he or she r efrains whe n c ommon de cen cy an d c ompa ssion shou ld preven t him or he r from offendin g or cau sing r esen tmen t in ano the r human . Most impo rtan tly, the no n-dog matic ab solutist ha s intellectua l humility, an d this hu mility always remind s him or he r tha t his or he r religiou s position c ould be wrong . The fact tha t God ha s no t ph ysically mani fested itself to humani ty in such a way tha t all peop le can see the truth abou t its existence, as well as its idea s abou t the ultimately goo d life mean s tha t human s have mad e the ir de cision s ba sed on the po sition tha t the y find to be stronge st. Ho wever, the no n-do gmatic ab solutist recogn izes tha t you r social environmen t an d life expe rien ces play a k ey role in ho w you pe rceives you r world an d r espond s to that world. He or she r ecogn izes tha t his or he r own pe rsona l religiou s expe rien ces tha t have streng thene d his or he r faith are similar to tho se of peop le who ascribe to differen t faiths. He or she is no t intellectual ly arrogan t enoug h to be lieve tha t no y ou of othe r religion s actually have the se expe rien ces, or tha t all the expe rien ces come from some false po wer. Instead , he or she r ecogn izes tha t his or he r own r eligion ho lds nu merou s po sition s tha t are misinterpretation s or insufficien t po sition s on God’ s ultimate view of the go od life. If he or she ha s taken a no n-religiou s stan ce in life, he or she doe s no t snide ly be rate tho se who do be lieve in religion , bu t recogn izes the argumen ts an d idea s tha t suppo rt the ir po sition an d c on sisten tly engage s pe ople in conversation s tha t recogn ize why the y bel ieve wha t the y believe. In c on clusion , whe n a pe rson hea rs critique s of ab solutes based on faith, he or she is often quick to r espon d in a nega tive fashion . How ever, it is impo rtan t in the c ase of Pau l an d Elde r’s critiqu e of do gmatic ab solutism tha t the critical thinker respon ds critically, no t violen tly, or with resen tmen t. Paul an d Elde r cr itiqu e a certain form of faith tha t rejects intellectua l inqu iry an d provide s simple an swers to life’s most pu zzling que stions, as if you ha d direct access to an ab solute sou rce of kno wledg e while also bel ieving in your own interpretive skills in relation to the sou rce. Ra the r tha n find ing solace in simple an swe rs an d pop -religion , the ab solutist (whe the r the ist, agno stic, or athe ist) is on e who r efuses simple an swe rs an d c on tinua lly uses his or he r mind to explore idea s abou t religion , God , an d existen ce. This pe rson unde rstand s multiple religiou s pe rspe ctives an d doe s no t be little tho se who be lieve in othe r thing s. She r ecogn izes tha t he r po sition migh t be inadequa te an d she hope s tha t throug h the use of he r critical thinking po wers, she will be ab le to make the most informed c ho ice in relation to this critically impo rtan t human experien ce. The re is a no n- dog matic form of faith tha t is rational ly justified . As critical thinkers, we c an ob tain this faith. Ho wever, just like in all aspe cts of life, it is much ea sier to rely on simple an swers rathe r tha n pu tting in the work ne cessary to estab lish a justified po sition on the se issues. The cr itical ab solutist recogn izes tha t you c an on ly live a sing le life, an d tha t the world is often be tter served by the pe rfection of the virtue s of tha t life, rathe r tha n by the attempting to force othe r peop le to be lieve as she doe s. W he n the prope r oppo rtun ities arise for he r to presen t he r be liefs, she is read y for the task. Ho we ver, whe n tho se oppo rtun ities do no t arise, she attempts to pe rfect he r life acc ording to the funda men tal idea s she ha s abou t the goo d life, an d to live tho se idea ls in order to make the world aroun d he r a more safe an d just place. Re feren ces Ca mus, A. (1942 ) The myth of Sisyphu s. In S. M. Cah n & P. Markie (Eds.), Ethics: History, theo ry, an d con tempo rary practice. (4th ed. ). Ne w York, NY: Oxford University Press. PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 5 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Pau l, R., & Elde r, L. (2012 ). Critical thin king : Tool s for taking c ha rge of you r lea rnin g an d y ou r life (3rd ed. ). Uppe r Sadd le River, NJ: Pren tice Hall. Learning Activities (Non -Graded) To gain further knowledge of the material, including key terms, please view this HTML presentation. This will summarize and reinforce the information from these chapters in your textbook. Click here to access the lesson presentation for Unit III. Non -Grade d 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.