Critical Thinking and Christianity

September 01, 2015

Critical Thinking and Christianity

James Pietsch^[1]

Militant atheist and philosopher Peter Boghossian was recently in Sydney to give a seminar based on his book A Manual for Creating Atheists. Boghossian’s aim is to mobilise a force of ‘street epistemologists’ to seek out religious believers and engage them in critical thinking. Adamant that reason and religious faith are mutually exclusive, Boghossian is confident that once critical thinking has a foot in the door, the light of reason will flood in and faith evaporate.

With critical thinking now taught in schools, Christian teachers are in a potentially awkward position: should they encourage students to think critically about Christianity or not?

School teachers are currently being encouraged to teach ‘21^st century skills’ – a phrase which seems about fifteen years too late, but has nonetheless received a lot of attention from educational leaders who wish to see dramatic changes in classroom activity. While there are various definitions of what constitute 21^st century skills, there is general agreement that students need to become better learners rather than simply being better informed about the narrow curriculum of yesteryear. As Eric Hoffer suggests ‘in times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists’.^[2]

Students in schools today will face great change, but this in itself is nothing new. There are so many examples of technological disruptions impacting different industries that it would be naïve to assume that the workplace of 2064 will look like the workplace of 2014. Change is here to stay. In response to this rapid change educators have sought to find ways to assist students become better learners. In doing so, they have sought to describe the skills that will assist students to deal with change, to be flexible, agile and open-minded. Some have suggested that the 3 Rs are no longer enough and that we also need to teach students about the 4 Cs –collaboration, creativity, critical thinking and communication.^[3]

Of the four Cs, it is the concept of critical thinking that I wish to concentrate on. The Christian community tends to value collaboration and communication. There may be some who are suspicious of creative types (equating creativity with subversiveness), but at least they write songs which we can sing. When it comes to critical thinking, however, where do we stand? No problem with the ‘thinking’ part—we value the work of theologians such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin—but how do we feel about the more recent ‘critical’ work of theologians such as Schleiermacher and Schweitzer? Does the word ‘critical’ have positive or negative connotations for Christians?

From an educational perspective, critical thinking refers to the tendency to consider questions about existing ways of knowing, to think rationally without bias or prejudice, weighing up different opinions using evidence and reflecting on the implications of different conclusions.^[4] It may sound like this is simply a definition of ‘good’ thinking. But the purpose of such definitions is to raise questions about our thought processes so that not only are we thinking critically about certain statements or opinions, but we are also able to reflect on our own thinking in a critical manner.

Definitions of “critical” thinking, therefore, challenge us to be aware of potential biases and personal preferences that can distort our reasoning. So far, so good. But the definition provided above also encourages asking questions about what we think we know. Rather than accepting as authoritative what we find written in textbooks or on a particular website, we are encouraged to question these statements of ‘fact’ and determine how reliable different statements are. From a Christian perspective, we might hope that students do question the worldviews that might inform their history texts or English novels. But do we also want students to be critical readers of the Bible, questioning their understanding and interpretations to see if they are shaped by similar biases and prejudices? Should students question the authority of the Bible? These are questions which this article will begin to address.

Let us begin with the relationship between critical thinking and religious belief more broadly. Consider any article written online about matters of religion and faith and look carefully at the comments it receives. Inevitably, one of the people commenting will suggest that any religious belief is by definition irrational (especially Christian belief). According to such a view, religious people are incapable of thinking critically about their faith since the inevitable conclusion of such a critical analysis would be the rejection of all theism and miracles such as the resurrection or the virgin birth.

A study by Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan reported in the journal Science in 2012 seems to support this perspective.^[5] It set out to identify whether or not analytical thinking reduced a person’s religiosity. They found that when they encouraged analytical thinking in people (sometimes simply by using a picture of Rodin’s The Thinker) their level of reported religiosity was lower. Their analysis suggests that religious thinking is more often associated with intuitive thinking rather than critical thinking and that by moving people from intuitive to critical ways of thinking, it is possible to challenge people to question their religious beliefs.

Gervais and Norenzayan used a dual-process theory of human thinking^[6] to distinguish between intuitive thinking (System 1) and analytic thinking (System 2). According to Gervais and Norenzayan, System 1 thinking has a long evolutionary history and is dominated by general heuristics which can be used to make sense of the world. It takes little energy, can be described as intuitive or even subconscious, and most of the time we engage in it automatically. In the terminology of Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking: fast and slow, the ‘fast’ thinking is System 1 thinking.^[7] This is in contrast to System 2 thinking which is described as ‘deliberative, analytical thinking’ by Gervais and Norenzayan.^[8] While our general inclination is to adopt System 1 thinking, it is possible to encourage System 2 thinking by using a range of stimuli or asking people to perform analytic tasks. In Gervais and Norenzayan’s study people who were encouraged to adopt System 2 thinking described themselves as less religious than a control group. The paper concluded that analytic thinking overrides the intuitive System 1 thinking leading to a reduction in people’s religiosity.

What do we make of these results which strongly suggest that critical thinking leads to a decline in religiosity? One obvious question about this article is the way that the authors measure ‘religiosity’. Having looked at the items used to measure religiosity, however, the measure appears to have a high level of validity. Some of the positively scored items used were:

My faith involves all of my life

Nothing is as important to me as serving God as best I know how

My religious beliefs are really what lie behind my whole life.

To my mind, these are suitable general statements which could be appropriated by people with a range of religious beliefs. Nor can I find fault with the analysis: I find myself agreeing with the statistics^[9]. However, I am conscious of a desire to challenge the findings of this study. On what basis can I disregard them? How do I demonstrate that the battle between faith and critical thinking is a false one and that this study is fundamentally flawed? Where can I look for some point which undermines the conclusion and supports my own perspective that critical thought and religious belief are not mutually exclusive?

Each and every one of these questions simply add weight to the conclusion this study draws – that religious beliefs are often buttressed by thinking that is not critical or free from bias and prejudice. Religious people in the twenty-first century (such as myself) are troubled by the public discourse that rejects all religious belief as irrational, and we feel compelled to argue each and every point made in support of this view. We feel that we are in some way serving the Kingdom if we can attack such perspectives and find a way to win the argument, even one which is relatively unimportant.

Gervais and Norenzayan’s conclusion about the relationship between critical thinking and religious belief is unimportant. The study proves nothing about the validity or otherwise of holding certain religious beliefs. There are many people who are religious primarily because it fits their intuitions about life: their System 1 thinking which has formed conclusions based on their experience over a long period of time has led them to a position of faith^[10]. For these people, it would not be surprising if analytic thinking led to them question their religious beliefs and reconsider their intuitive understanding. Being challenged to reason and think analytically can initially raise questions about their faith which may take time to resolve. What the study suggests is that within a short period of time, thinking analytically raises questions about our intuitive understanding of the world. These questions may resolve satisfactorily over time, but such a resolution would not be evident in a study of this nature.

My initial response to this article was to be ‘uncritical’ according to my earlier definition. I was not thinking critically without bias or prejudice; I was on the back foot, looking to attack the assumptions of the study and find a way to ignore these unpalatable findings. So the intention of the definition of critical thinking has served me well – it has made me aware of my own biases and prejudices and encouraged me to reflect more critically on this article about critical thinking!

Educators today are calling for students to think critically in a similar manner, without prejudice or bias, to question what they think they know and to use their reasoning skills to form conclusions. We do not need to train people in intuitive thinking because this occurs automatically (though we can train people to be aware of this way of thinking and its capacity to feed biases and prejudices). But critical thinking takes effort and attention – we tend to adopt this way of thinking only when we have to. As a school teacher in a Christian school I value this goal of promoting critical thinking, even though I recognise that for some people thinking critically about matters of faith could lead them initially towards a point of doubt and conflict in their mind. But such doubts and conflicts can be resolved and it is the role of older Christians to support students’ efforts to bring into alignment their intuitions and their analyses. 

So critical thinking skills are good skills to have. But is critical thinking appropriate in Christian studies? In biblical studies? Do we want students to question different biblical interpretations? Or even the authority of the Bible itself? Consider the following section of an article from the American Humanist’s website:

Other historical examples of violent and unjust acts supported by biblical teachings include: the Inquisition; the Crusades; the burning of witches; religious wars; pogroms against Jews; persecution of homosexuals; forceful conversions of heathens; slavery; beatings of children; brutal treatment of the mentally ill; suppression of scientists; and whippings, mutilations, and violent executions of persons convicted of crimes. Those acts were a regular part of the Christian world for centuries. ^[11]

The article goes on to identify alleged contradictions, errors and mythical elements in the Bible. I personally find such articles very difficult to read: at each point I want to challenge the way that the Bible is being (mis)used, (mis)understood and (mis)interpreted. But we can’t shy away from such debates as mature Christians simply because they make us feel uncomfortable. Nor can we remove students from the critical conversations that are going on around them to ensure that they do not ask questions which challenge their faith. What we can do is enter into such conversations with them, demonstrating our capacity to be critical and modelling what is simply ‘good’ thinking.

Critical discourse is all around us, particularly in relation to the Bible. Articles such as the one quoted above are freely available. Young people growing up in churches or being educated in Christian schools today will realise at a much younger age than the previous generation that opinion on the value of the biblical texts is very much divided. Instead of ignoring these opinions or attempting to suppress them we need to consider carefully how to support young people to engage with such opinions in a gradual and age-appropriate manner towards the long-term goal of building critical biblical literacy. Developing a critical perspective on the authenticity and reliability of the biblical texts is important in an educational context in which young people are confronted with multiple opinions and beliefs regarding the Bible.

While I may disagree with how the American Humanists use the Bible to justify their criticisms, what the article makes very clear is that biblical texts have been misused over the millennia. People have argued for the adoption of certain views on the basis of biblical authority—views which Christians today would deny any biblical imprimatur. The authoritative nature of the biblical texts gave these interpretations great power for influencing and even manipulating people. But is a critical approach consistent with an acceptance of the Bible’s authority as the word of God? Well, yes – and no.

Yes... a critical approach to reading the Bible can be consistent with a belief in biblical authority. While we may hold firmly to the Bible’s authority, this does not mean that we simply accept the first (or any) interpretation of the Bible we come across as true.  The key is to recognise that God’s authority does not automatically attach to any particular interpretation. Our reason, experience and intuition, our interactions with other Christian views – all of these together with our reading of the texts themselves inform our interpretations and subsequent beliefs. In questioning interpretations, we are not thereby questioning the authority of God or the Bible. An appeal to biblical authority, in isolation, is not a short-cut to the truth of any given interpretation of the Bible. The appeal will only carry weight when the work of establishing the likelihood of that interpretation of the text has been done – and that work is and should be subject to critical evaluation.

And no… For Christians, there are, at least in theory, limits to what can be questioned and disputed: God is God, and what he says we must accept as true and right, even if it appears inconsistent with our other beliefs or experiences. In practice, however, Christians are human, and human understanding is fallible. We therefore need to be critical, careful in our judgments and interpretations of the Bible, humbly asking questions about what we believe and seeking to understand God’s will. Once we have resolved such tensions and have reached the point of identifying what we believe God is saying, the path ahead of us is clear. We cannot ignore God or try to re-interpret the Bible to make it more palatable. Christians are called to be people of the Kingdom of God rather than of this world and this new way of living should be evident in everything that we do.

There may be circumstances where different, equally plausible—potentially even contradictory—conclusions can be drawn from different sources of information or ways of thinking. We should strive to resolve such conflicts: the more they can be resolved, the more robust will our beliefs be. Leaving conflict unresolved will undermine our confidence, and hamper our attempts to engage in critical discussions on matters of faith. Sometimes we may need to accept that our understanding will remain incomplete in this lifetime and that some things defy our attempts at rationalisation. At such points, we should adopt a position of intellectual humility in discussion with people from different perspectives.

However for the most part, Christians can be confident in the historicity of the Bible and how it is to be understood. There has been a broad consensus between the majority of Christians across history and geography about the central tenets of Christianity as found in the Bible: that God is just, merciful and faithful; that Jesus died and rose again; that his death is sufficient for our salvation and his resurrection gives us hope of a life to come; and that our lives should be characterised by love for God and our neighbours.

We are therefore in a position as Christian educators whereby we want to encourage our students to know what constitutes authentic Christianity, while at the same time developing a critical mind for reflecting on matters of faith, biblical interpretation and, in particular, the secular voices that will continue to speak loudly to this and future generations. Where possible, we provide students with opportunities to learn about the Christian faith. But across the curriculum, all teachers can be engaged in promoting thinking and learning dispositions which assist young people to be critical thinkers. Critical thinking should not be viewed as a separate aspect of the curriculum. Rather, it should be embedded across the curriculum alongside other learning dispositions and habits of mind that enable young people to flourish. Developing the capacity to ask good questions, to formulate arguments, imagine new possibilities, collaborate with others, plan, revise and distil key ideas: each of these dispositions should receive attention in every class as teachers encourage students to become better learners and thinkers as well as better mathematicians, English scholars, scientists and historians.

Critical thinking has been identified by educators as a core 21^st century skill alongside collaboration, communication and creativity. Simply describing the process of thinking critically challenges us to examine our own thinking in an honest and humble way. Why do we think what we do about different parts of the Bible, or our own understanding of Christianity? Are we ready to listen to alternative perspectives and assess them in a critical way, adjusting our own position where necessary? This is a valuable activity for students. However, it is also an activity undertaken by people we might label ‘lifelong learners’. Irrespective of age, ‘learners’ are those who remain open to new ideas, reflect on their own understanding and are willing to engage in learning conversations. Christian educators should strive to provide young people with an holistic ‘epistemic apprenticeship’^[12] which promotes ways of understanding the world that are useful for exploring both the sacred and secular. Christian leaders and teachers should support young people’s engagement in the wider conversations in our society about the Bible and Christian belief, modelling critical thinking that is open but rigorous in its assessment of different perspectives. By introducing students to critical thinking skills we strengthen their capacity to reflect on what they believe. While for some, beliefs about Christianity or any other religion may be primarily intuitive (as suggested by Gervais and Norenzayan), faith and the capacity to engage with others are strengthened when we face challenges, address conflicts, and integrate our intuition, reason, understanding of the Bible and experience.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

---

Also in CASE Online Library