Recently, in a conversation with a couple friends (one of which happens to be a religious person) about the concept of critical thinking, my friend Peter said to me, "you seem to be almost assuming that all people of faith have not truly done any critical thinking about their worldview and their belief system". 

First I will paste in some of the conversation that lead up to that comment above. Then I'll offer my thoughts below that. The comments of my friend Peter are in "this color" and mine are in "this color". 

"one impulsive (i.e. unreasoned) reaction to the phrase "critical thinking" is to embrace it in a limited sense only. In other words, I don't feel I have the time to question every little belief that has been passed onto us from our ancestors. I don't have time to delve into the historical records of Britain and decide for myself whether the Spanish Armada was really sunk by the British (silly extreme example, I know, but you get the point)." 

"Ok, so don't spend all of your time doing critical thinking. I'm not trying to pressure you into any such thing. Yes, though we don't have children, we are all pretty busy too. I totally understand. Critical thinking isn't about a belief system though. It's not like there's some list someone has to sign up on and commit to doing something. 

Critical thinking is rather an approach to considering the things that you want to think (in your phraseology) more clearly about, and which you have the time to do so with. The catch here for me though is that I always have time to think (It's what my brain is doing all the time whether I'm intending to or not. It's just always going. So, don't worry, I don't actually expect anyone else to keep up). 

Certainly though, if I recognize the value in doing critical thinking, even though I may get very busy or "overwhelmed" with various tasks or situations in life, I am at least going to try to make sure I continue thinking critically about those things that I claim are the most important to me. 

Also, a quantitative lack of time to devote to thinking critically doesn't have to result in a qualitative lack of critical thinking when I get the chance to do it. 

I'm not even saying that I expect others to devote their free time to thinking critically about the things that are most important to them. I'm just saying that I recommend it. Expecting it and recommending it are two very different things. 

So, you can't spend much time doing it. Ok, fine. I'm not going to look down on you for it. I just think you're missing out if you don't think critically about the things that matter the most to you and which form the basis for your own world view. If we're not exposing our own world view to the light of reason and intellectual integrity, how can we be comfortable being so confident in what we hold to be true?

NOTE: none of that was a blast at you [friend's name], but just a blast at the lazy thinking I see so much in other people of faith these days (and what I see when I look back at me when I was doing the same thing). I let out these kinds of blasts in your direction sometimes because I know that you can take it, and that you actually care (about me and about other people and the quality of their lives before death as well as after it)..." 

"Yes. We do need to analyze our worldview in the light of reason and see if it holds water. And I would agree that we need to continue to do this. My one caution to you is that with your "blast" ... you seem to be almost assuming that all people of faith have not truly done any critical thinking about their worldview and their belief system." 

It is at that point in the conversation that I want to begin my comments for this page on my web site. 

I've never said that I think that no religious person has ever done any critical thinking. Neither do I assume this is the case. It's not even about the people at all, but about the faith (not about what they have faith in either, but about the fact that they have faith in anything at all). The component that I talk about is not the fact that they are people, but that fact that they believe. If it seems like they use their brains primarily for believing instead of thinking critically when it comes to such unknowable things as the suggestion of something supernatural, then they are usually referred to by most people (even by them selves) as "believers". 

Of course this doesn't mean that "believing" is the only thing "people of faith" ever use their brain for. No, they too use it for thinking critically. Sometimes believers do even think critically with regard to some aspects of their own world view, but just not usually about the key, fundamental component of their entire system of beliefs; i.e. about the fact that they are believing in the first place and about the nature of believing. 

It is my opinion that, if they were to do so, and if they were set free enough from shame and from the manipulation and control of others and from their own sentimental connections to their belief system and if they were mature enough to actually be completely open, honest and real about them selves, others around them and the world in which they actually live, we would eventually see a shift in their worldview away from absolute claims about unknowable things and towards acknowledging the gap (that's so obvious to the rest of us) that exists between wanting something to be true and being able to really know for sure. 

Still, this isn't saying that just because "people of faith" avoid critical thinking about a certain portion of their belief system that they avoid it altogether. Even from my own experience while still a believer, I know very well that at least one believer did some critical thinking somewhere along the way. Though I did not acknowledge it as such at the time, clearly it was critical thinking that finally allowed me to break out of my Calvinistic funk (the idea that everything is planned out in advance by God, and in fact carried out by God... complete and absolute fatalistic predestinationism) many years ago, and the "already saved, already purified, already holy" crap a bit after that. 

Those are just two quick examples of the fact that, even while I was still a believer and was fundamentally convinced about one particular thing that I couldn't possibly have known for sure, I was indeed doing a certain amount of critical thinking about other aspects of my belief system of the time. 

Eventually, with the help of other people (all religious believers who are all doing one degree of critical thinking or another about one aspect of their "faith" or another) like David Johnson, Jeff VanVonderan, Ken Blue, Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock, I was being introduced to critical thinking little by little even though it was not recognized or acknowledged as such. The catch though is that the critical thinking that was taking place was very highly focused on certain aspects of the faith while other aspects were "off limits". 

Don't get me wrong. They weren't "off limits" due to any kind of decree (explicit or implicit). 
These religious teachers I mention were very much far away from the harsh, fundamentalist types most of us are so repulsed by. They in fact are actually part of the only place in Christianity where I actually see a large degree of progressive thought (gender equality, egalitarianism, an awareness and condemnation of and a distancing from patriarchy and misogyny etc), a genuine concern for the health and well-being of people (teachings, classes and seminars on interpersonal communication, healthy relationships, abuse and neglect issues etc) and even a radical push to expose manipulative and controlling ideas, attitudes, persons, traditions and institutions (within the religious realm and beyond). 

When I say that certain aspects of the "faith" were "off limits" when it came to the concept of critical thinking, all I mean is that, since the whole religious enterprise is fundamentally based on being convinced that God is real, God is really there/here/everywhere, it is most likely not an idea that any hard core believer will ever really think about as critically as they do about opposing views of a particular theological issue within the realm of their religious world. 

If they do take even that one idea seriously and start thinking about it critically though...

At some point, I decided to start thinking critically about other things, core concepts of my then-religious world view like even the very existence of God (which I was absolutely convinced of at the time). Eventually, I realized that, if I am going to be completely honest with my self, I can't really say that I know for sure whether or not there even is a god, let alone whether or not any potential god is the way I had conceived of IT for so long. 

I had finally graduated into what seems to me to be the most freeing place I've ever been. It was not easy at first since I had already invested so many years believing in something. However, I decided, it didn't matter how much I had invested in it. If I was not able to know for sure whether or not IT was real, I no longer wanted to claim that IT was. 

So, from this story about part of my journey out of the darkness of an uncritical mind, it should be clear that I acknowledge that believers do sometimes, to varying degrees, think critically, even about parts of their religious belief systems. All I'm saying is that, while they may be doing this at some points along the way, for the most part they're not thinking critically much about one thing in particular.... the idea that they know for sure something which obviously can't be known for sure. 

It's their blind spot I guess (obviously it was mine). Perhaps they are afraid of what they might discover if they were to think critically about it. It seems like they are afraid of the idea that they might have to (Of course I mean "have to" in the sense of personal reasons of intellectual integrity, not "have to" for the sake of anyone or anything else.) radically change their worldview. 

For instance, if their worldview is based on being convinced that they know for sure that there is a god, and they think that everything else they believe somehow depends on that one thing being true, they'll do just about everything else they can find to do with their minds other than using it to think critically about that one thing. Remember, I'm not saying that they're even doing this intentionally. It's a natural consequence of forcing the brain to consider something real for which it has no evidence with which to make such an absolute assertion. 

Some people say to me, "You just think too much" or "That's just too deep. I don't want to have to think about all that. Why can't you just let things be the way they are? I'm fine with my belief system just the way it is." Ok, good, I'm glad you recognize the difficulty I've experienced along my journey thus far of trying to undo the intellectual spaghetti in my brain from decades of religious indoctrination and all the pretending I had to do to keep my self from going insane. 

Remember too though, I don't say this as an unempathetic ass looking in from the outside on something that I can't understand. This is not just about me not being able to understand what religious people know or how they know it. I've been there. I used to be so convinced as they are. I just knew that I knew that I knew that I knew that it was true. There was no one and nothing that could have ever convinced me any differently. However, the strength of one's convictions has nothing to do with and has no power to change whether or not what they're convinced of really is true. 

Also remember, it's not that I'm convinced that there is no god either. It's just obvious to me that we can't know for sure with the means we have available. Out of all people you know [friend's name] that I once thought I knew for sure. So, you can't just say that I don't understand what it is to have faith. I do understand. It's pretending to know for sure something that I don't really know for sure. If it's not pretending to know for sure, then it's taking someone else's word for it and hoping it's true (gambling). If the gambling analogy makes it more palatable for you, then I guess we can use that one.  

Once again, to conclude this page...
To be so convinced that one knows for sure that a God exists (in the absolute absence of any evidence, in the natural realm, for this position what so ever) is, in and of it self, one of the greatest pieces of evidence available to support the only point I've tried to make on this entire page. 

the point? 

No, I don't think that "people of faith" (as my friend put it) never think critically about any part of their belief system. It is obvious that they do think critically about various aspects in various ways at various times... some to a much larger extent than others. I just think that, by necessity, in order to keep their belief system in tact at the most fundamental level, they do not usually think very critically very much about the core, foundational point that characterizes them as a "believer" in the first place; the fact that they're pretending to know for sure about something that obviously can't be known for sure.