A Crash Course in Critical Thinking
5 comments | Permalink
Good words here from Greg Koukl:
The primary purpose of reason is to help us discover what is true. The primary tool of reason is argument. An argument is a specific kind of thing. Think of it like a simple house, a roof supported by walls. The roof is the conclusion, and the walls are the supporting ideas. If the walls are solid, the conclusion rests securely on its supporting structure. If the walls collapse, the roof comes down, and the argument is defeated.Read the whole thing as Koukl applies critical thinking skills to the claims and arguments of the New Atheists.
The task of critical thinking is to weed out distracting or irrelevant details so you have an unobstructed view of the structure of the core argument and can assess its strength. This involves a simple, four-step plan.
First ask, “What is the claim?” This may seem like an obvious initial step, but you’ll be surprised how often we charge ahead without having a clear fix on a target. Take a moment to isolate the precise point being made. Write it down in unambiguous terms if you need to. . . .
Second ask, “What are the reasons given to support the claim?” The person making the point is trying to persuade you to believe him. How is he doing that? Sometimes the rationale is obvious, but not always. The more troublesome appeals are implicit, hidden in the rhetoric. Pay close attention and note what you discover.
Third ask, “Which appeals are irrelevant?” This is the “weeding” step and it’s the most difficult because you have to know what counts as a relevant reason and what does not. Appeals are frequently unrelated to the claim. These include any attack on a person’s character, psychology, circumstances, or culture. . . .
Finally ask, “Does the conclusion follow from the evidence?” Once you isolate the structure of the argument, it’s time to test the walls (the reasons) to see if they are strong enough to keep the roof (the claim or point of view) from tumbling down. Are the factual claims accurate? Do the reasons give adequate support for the claim?



5 Comments:
This view of "reason" (and its purpose) seems to add to the divide between doctrine and practice, information and formation, etc. I get tired of evangelicals being accused of being primarily concerned with propositions or divorcing doctrine and practice, but when I read things like this, I begin to see why such accusations exist. I'm not denying what Koukl is saying. I'm just saying that we can't stop there. Is this really reasons "primary purpose"? I hope not. On the other hand, I hope I've simply misunderstood Koukl.
I was about to respond to Jordan, before realizing that the comment was intended as a wry irony on why Koukl would have to print something like this anyway. Clever humor, Jordan.
So... actions speak louder than blog comments? :) I agree with you.
I also agree that "we can't stop there" - and I'm positive that Koukl would agree. He does a great job teaching us how to think - and how we think is where we "start" and not where we "stop."
I would very much like to read the article to which you link however in going to the linked pdf file I receive a message that the file is damaged and can't be repaired. Might there be another way I can access this document? Thanks for your time. I very much appreciate your blog.
Excellent article, so simple yet eo solid and profound.
We'd all do well to accept that we can only demonstrate the reasonableness of believing in God, not the certainty. And preach the gospel and allow God himself to create the certainty in an individual.
Jordan,
Greg wasn't saying that reason is everything, only that it has a specific purpose and can and must be used rightly. Greg never said "reason is enough, don't bother living in a God-honouring way"...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home