In the end, we are islands unto ourselves and all alone, what does it matter what others think or say. To me the notion of critical thinking - which is a truly excellent one and is not valued enough - is mostly valuable when it assumes the presence of communication within a social network. That is, it only really matters if we’re reviewing others thoughts or holding up our own to be reviewed.
A reliance on personal experience, as I understand it within a particularly Buddhist context, involves deeply personal critical reflection, contemplation and review. I’m hesitant to use the word “thinking” here as I feel this word refers to the use of mental words or mental verbalisations, and while I feel these can be useful up to a point, I know for me, they eventually reach a dead end. Whereas other approaches have provided a richer, more useful pool of data to be personally reflected upon.
I’ve not taken courses on Critical Thinking per se, but it was certainly an important aspect of many of the courses I did undertake and was explicitly acknowledged and valued.
Ajahn Brahm said the BSWA is an example of disorganised religion. They seem to be getting better at the organisation thing as the years go by - at least it looks that way from the outside looking in. I guess there is different kinds of organisation. There is the top-down stuff you mentioned and there are also self-organising systems - as in ecological systems. The latter approach - in the four-fold sangha - may be better as it involves cooperation on a level playing field. Everybody is equally valued and has a valuable part to play. The Vajrayana LAMA-thing seems to be a top-down approach but the Buddha seemed to prefer democracy and consensus in the decision-making of monastics within their communities. Monasteries are meant to have a lot of autonomy. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the idea of being an island unto yourself? There is a context where self-reliance is important and there is a context where cooperation is important.
We also need to remember that we have mittas who are at different stages in the development of the three-fold training. We value the assistance we receive from those who have gone before - those who have put in the hard-yards. They may be able to help us to understand the many ways we can get stuck in our practice - the places we stumble and fall or, just remain in limbo! They know this through making the same mistakes and they have had the time to learn from them.
It would be complete foolishness to imagine we have all the important answers in a developmental process that can take years of serious hands-on inquiry to understand and realise. We may believe we are thinking critically when in fact we are not! Some of us just have strong opinions about things that contradict what the Buddha had to teach. We value our opinions more than the Buddha’s teachings. We may then claim to be thinking critically when in fact we are just criticising the Buddha. This confusion seems to be commonplace - and on the increase. Particularly, among non-traditional Buddhists.
Having done college-level courses on critical thinking is no guarantee that a Dhamma practitioner will be good at it anymore than years of Sutta study is a guarantee of a practitioners realisation of the liberating Dhamma. A critical thinker would instantly pick-up on this distinction. Whereas, somebody with poor critical skills would falsely believe a college-level course on the subject may mean something more than imbibing a theory.
§ 17. {Iti 1.17; Iti 10}
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: “With regard to external factors, I don’t envision any other single factor like admirable friendship[1] as doing so much for a monk in training, who has not attained the heart’s goal but remains intent on the unsurpassed safety from bondage. A monk who is a friend with admirable people abandons what is unskillful and develops what is skillful.”
.
Note
In SN 45.2 the Buddha says, “Admirable friendship… is actually the whole of the holy life… It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth… aging… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.” As AN 8.54 points out, admirable friendship means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.
Without criticial thinking, it is impossible to become a buddhist in the first place. One become a buddhist because of seeing christianity and materialism refuted and searching for something not refuted.
If Buddhist would be one of the refuted doctrines, such as materialism or etc. - the critical thinking would only serve to make people abandon it. But since this is not the case, Buddha always invited people to come and check for themselves if the dhamma is true or not. He said "the dhamma is clear, well expounded, inviting one to come and see" It is only through critical thinking that one can find the truth, whatever that truth may be.
And yet, not all people come to the truth through critical thinking and investigation. Some come through all kind of mental conditioning and different clingings. For example if a person has done many bad deeds all his life, he will tend to be an atheist since that is a view that makes all he ever did correct. It would be strange for a person to hold a view that says all he ever did was stupid. If a person has done a lot of good deeds, then he will either be a christian, buddhist, etc. - or, in case he is an atheist, he will be a religious humanist, a totally irrational position based exclusively on this clinging caused by his good deeds.
Many people in the west are atheist and yet they are religious humanist because most people from a given population tend to be good intended. Despite being a good thing to be, this is a totally irrational position based exclusively on clinging and mental conditioning caused by their good deeds and good mental traits. This is why Norway or other 80-90% atheist countries are just normal countries, with such countries having many times lower crime rates than in more religious ones. They might be atheist, but they are religious humanist cause of these good traits found relatively equally distributed among humans worldwide.
In my opinion, no organised religion supports critical thinking per se. Of course, they pay lip service to it, but never embrace it.
That’s quite a broad and baseless claim. What is it about being part of an “organized” religious group that makes someone automatically stop thinking critically?
It is ironical that most people who think they posses strong critical thinking are actually believers in materialism, a philosophy totally refuted by science. If you stop to think about it, it’s “more refuted” than Christianity or even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because you can’t really refute these things head-on like materialism was refuted through science. You can’t disprove the spaghette monster as clear as materialism has been disproved by science.
Worse than this, many such atheist are religious humanist, believing in doing good deeds and helping other people, ecology and stuff like that despite being atheist, being probably the most irrational people in the world when it comes to views. Religious humanism is probably the most irrational stuff one can believe in.
This religious humanism that has replaced Christianity in the west, if you stop to think about it, is much more irational and empty of any kind of logic than Christianity.
In the teachings on rebirth we have the idea of accumulating merit and the benefit of practice over many life times. If this is the case, then, someone may be a very simple and beautiful practitioner in this life but may have been a genius and a protege in a past life.The simple monk who woke up - and children can have awakenings - may be explained by past life practice? According to the teachings, someone can be born a once-returner - perhaps without having met the Dhamma in this life, this may change later on?
Critical thinking can be employed in various contexts. Criticism of the Buddha and his teachings can be mistaken for a critical assessment of the Buddha’s teachings in the light of modern findings. As Buddhists we have a core interest in ‘liberating truth’ - the hearts sure release. If, critical thinking assists us in relieving our suffering and the suffering of others then it is compatible with Buddhist teachings. Even then, we would need to determine how efficacious our thinking is? It may not be of much use unless it is put to work - translated into action - for the benefit of sentient beings.
It is sometimes better to not think about things to much - to avoid over-thinking. This can produce beneficial results i.e. there is a time and place for thinking about things and at others, it is best to just relax and let-go of discursive activity. This serves to ‘highlight’ the limitations of any kind of thinking when it comes to the goals of the contemplative life. Some of our solutions to suffering are like ‘triage’ and others may involve a deeper form of applied practice.
A traditional Buddhist can apply critical thinking with regard to the teachings of the Buddha - but it is unlikely that they would openly criticise the Buddha and his teachings. There are far more useful and skilful ways to negotiate difference. We have many traditional Buddhists on this site who question their tradition vigorously. If we have a fixed-position that traditionalists are not good at critical thinking and only modernists are, then that would be an uncritical perspective to adopt. A competent critical thinker would be able to question their underlying assumptions? This should be encouraged, especially if we ‘believe’ that it is only secularists, atheists, agnostics or, alternatively, traditional Buddhists that make good use of it.
This would be a complete misunderstanding of the nature of critical thinking?
In direct response to the questions: To what extent is critical thinking an essential component of contemplative practice? What, if anything, is as important - or even more important - than critical thinking with respect to examining contemplative claims & practices? 1) critical thinking is an ‘important’ component of contemplative practice - in conjunction with other components. The reason why it is not a stand-alone factor in contemplative practice is easily answered - we can think critically and still be seriously mistaken. What determines its usefulness as a tool is whether it is used for open-inquiry - or not? It has no place - or use - as a false-justification for pre-existing beliefs and conclusions that have been adopted for ideological reasons - speculative opinions and mere conjecture. 2) As Buddhists, we try to go to the root of the problem - for this we need the eightfold path - which includes samma-samadhi.
In fact, a pristine form of critical thinking and reflection would be impossible for anyone without experience of samma-samadhi. Why? Because without it, our clarity is obscured by various taints that perverts our ability to perceive without prejudice - fear or favour. Therefore, if we have a vital interest in critical thinking we need to make discoveries with regard to - and in the light of - Jhana. The period directly after Jhana provides an important opportunity for greater clarity and insight to arise.
The rational thing to do for a person believing in the theory of materialism is to care only about his personal pleasure and not lose time or effort for the benefit of others. For example he should steal as much as possible. He should manipulate others into gaining whatever he can on the back o them.
As for ecology and stuff like that, why in the would should he be concerned about that since after he dies, nothing will matter anyway ? What in the world would be the point o losing time and effort for that instead of using it for imediate personal gratification ?
Any such actions done by a person believing in materialism would be pure stupidity and irrationality. They would be the exact opposite of critical thinking.
Explain me why he should not steal when given the chance ?
Yes, I was speaking about materialism as a philosophy popular in the west that is slowly replacing christianity. The fact that so many materialist are religious humanist shows a lack of critical thinking on 2 levels. First, there is the fact that materialism was refuted by science. Believing in it is like believing the world is flat. Second, being a religious humanist, as a materialist, is totally nonsensical. All in all, such people show a brutal lack of logic and yet, they are the ones who usually consider themselves champions of critical thinking.
Of course not. That only way I ever used the world “materialist” throughout this topic was in the philosophical sense of the word.
There is no rationality behind a person who believes in materialism (as a philosophy) ever restraining himself from stealing when given the chance for example. Doing that shows a profound lack of logic.
And yet, many do behave like good people despite believing in materialism, showing a total lack of critical thinking.
Why not let the stupid ones take care of the enlightened self-interest part trying to prevent the tragedy of the commons from happening, while you are one of those few that profit from their stupidity ?
The fact that profiting indeeds helps an individual person is the thing that causes the tragedy of the commons to begin with.
If this would not be the case, the tragedy of the commons would not happen to begin with.
As previously requested by the OP of this topic, if your post is not related to the original topic please create a new thread in which to discuss new issues.
If this is not done, the moderators will take action and move off-topic posts from this thread shortly.
I would say that it is of paramount importance. Otherwise one’s mind would just slip into a dull stupor, looking at all that happens with apathetic disinterest.
To me, it’s self-honesty and a willingness to admit that one could have been wrong about almost everything since birth.
Thag 16.1
I’ve seen lives seen to be ungratifying, Like one who has drunk poison, then vomited it out.
Thag 16.2
This body is full of pus and blood, As well as many carcasses; But cunning people decorate it Like a lovely painted casket.
You don’t understand that The gratification of sweetness turns out bitter, And attachments to those we love are suffering, Like a razor smeared all over with honey.
Some have argued that belief in God is intuitive, a natural (by-)product of the human mind given its cognitive structure and social context. If this is true, the extent to which one believes in God may be influenced by one’s more general tendency to rely on intuition versus reflection.
Three studies support this hypothesis, linking intuitive cognitive style to belief in God. Study 1 showed that individual differences in cognitive style predict belief in God. Participants completed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005), which employs math problems that, although easily solvable, have intuitively compelling incorrect answers. Participants who gave more intuitive answers on the CRT reported stronger belief in God. This effect was not mediated by education level, income, political orientation, or other demographic variables.
Study 2 showed that the correlation between CRT scores and belief in God also holds when cognitive ability (IQ) and aspects of personality were controlled. Moreover, both studies demonstrated that intuitive CRT responses predicted the degree to which individuals reported having strengthened their belief in God since childhood, but not their familial religiosity during childhood, suggesting a causal relationship between cognitive style and change in belief over time.
Study 3 revealed such a causal relationship over the short term: Experimentally inducing a mindset that favors intuition over reflection increases self-reported belief in God.
Researchers in thinking and reasoning have proposed recently that there are two distinct cognitive systems underlying reasoning. System 1 is old in evolutionary terms and shared with other animals: it comprises a set of autonomous subsystems that include both innate input modules and domain-specific knowledge acquired by a domain-general learning mechanism.
System 2 is evolutionarily recent and distinctively human: it permits abstract reasoning and hypothetical thinking, but is constrained by working memory capacity and correlated with measures of general intelligence. These theories essentially posit two minds in one brain with a range of experimental psychological evidence showing that the two systems compete for control of our inferences and actions.
IMO the item labeled 1. contains two distinct questions – each with it’s own question mark. So too, item 2. could also be divided into two questions. It that observation a quible or a sign of critical thinking?
I theorize that the ‘mismash’ of responses the OP received is influenced by the imprecision and looseness of critical thinking of the questions posed .
Also the more tightly the OP is written the fewer responses one gets. Assuming we prefer our OPs receive more attention in the form of responses there may be a powerful motivation to avoid using too much critical thinking in the composition of the OP!
critical thinking with respect … to examining contemplative claims & practices?
In what sense do you mean by “examining contemplative claims”?
To what extent is critical thinking an essential component of contemplative practice?
A prior question might be “to what extent is critical thinking a desirable component of writing posts on suttacentral?”
Maybe the smart thing to do is leave some of the thinking to the reader.
On the other hand in the EBT’s the point of a story or analogy is often explicitly pointed to. The Buddha didn’t mind “explaining the joke”.
The form of the EBT’s reflect a lot of critical thinking. So to the extent that contemplative practice involves reading , understanding and reflecting on EBT’s then some degree of critical thinking is required.
As I see it there are many forms of critical thinking. People frequently employ forms of critical thinking without thinking about it. To the point that many might deny (at least at first) that they are using critical thinking – rather it was ‘common sense’, ‘from the heart’, metta, moral reflection, etc.
A huge challenge with critical thinking is knowing when we are using it or not using it.
So it’s also important to have supports and scaffolding in place – ‘spiritual friends’., (Iti 10 - see @Mat 's posts in this thread)
What I hear from accademics and teachers is that teaching critical thinking is challenging and measurable results of such training is weak to lacking.
Often critical thinking and/or science don’t lead to a single or clear conclusion.
I identify with the school of the philosophy of science that says that all science requires a degree of subjective, expert opinion/judgement.
Re: “System 1” and “System 2” thinking. They interpenetrate each other in several ways.
All “system 2” thinking is first “system 1” thinking – all thought is first pre-conscious, we can only rationally think what our sub- or pre-conscious mind allows us to think.
Then, related to the necessity of judgement …
Over the course of the last decade, Cultural Cognition Project (CCP) researchers have focused on the relation between conscious, effortful “System 2” reasoning and public controversy over science.
Many commentators attribute public controversy over science to overreliance on “System 1” reasoning, which consists of experiential and heuristic assessments of information. Contrary to this surmise, we have consistently found that one or another critical reasoning proficiency—from science comprehension to numeracy to cognitive reflection to actively openminded thinking—magnifies rather than dissipates partisan polarization on issues such as climate change …
The better we are at critical thinking, the more informed we are … the better we are at justifying our position. Be it on interpretation of the EBT’s, science, compassionate action, or social justice.
[ Added: One could argue, with good reason, that so-called ‘critical thinking’ used as a way to ‘rationalize’ our positions (the positions we are attached to) might be better described as somewhat _un_critical thinking.!]
Another way examine this question is by familiarising with the Five Faculties and Five Strengths.
Without critical thinking (wisdom) you will fall in to the blind faith.
However wisdom has to be balanced by the faith.
Without faith, the wisdom becomes a useless exercise.
A topic worthy of it’s own thread … but I propose that: Critical thinking tends to right speech.
Thinking pragmatically IMO there are some strong connections between critical thinking, "intellectual integrity " and right speech, harmonious speech. Fix one and you tend to fix the other.
It seems to me that questionable speech is also less persuasive and not of the highest scholarly quality.
I would also entertain the notion that there are more than one type or form of critical thinking.
Not only for right speech … a possible more general connection between sila and critical thinking?
The Buddha didn’t mind “explaining the joke”.
Added: One could argue, with good reason, that so-called ‘critical thinking’ used as a way to ‘rationalize’ our positions (the positions we are attached to) might be better described as somewhat _un_critical thinking.!]