Critical thinking is not about judging other people for their ideas or beliefs.
Instead, critical thinking is the practice of impartiality — attempting to suspend opinion, subjectivity, or outrage — while practicing logical, open-ended questioning and sometimes dialectical reasoning.
The dictionary definition of critical thinking is, “The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.”
We need to be mindful in the practice of critical thinking to focus on the “critical” aspect of the thinking process toward a clear, objective, and decisive analysis or evaluation of a situation. We must also think of “judgment” as the “ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions” and not an overly subjective judgment, polarizing opinion, or moral pronouncement.
Learning how to be less judgemental is something I used to struggle with.
In my very early 30s, I used to think that because I went to university, that made me smarter than other people who hadn’t.
Yet, I barely graduated from high school and had to wait several years before I was admitted to a university because of those low grades. I had an inferiority complex about not being smart enough. When I performed impressively at university — maintaining an A-minus average throughout my entire tenure, receiving financial awards and bursaries, as well as being on the Dean’s List every single year, well, it went to my head for a while. Thankfully, I got over myself!
The more education one has, especially of the type that challenges how you think, the easier it is to practice critical thinking.
Something I have learned in my readings and contemplations of multiple translations of the Tao Te Ching is that impartiality and compassion must be requisites for critical thinking.
The simple reason is that the values of impartiality and compassion, and the conscious practice of those values, support understanding and universal connection.
Impartiality and compassion should be requisites for critical thinking.
Thank you for reading Untenable by Darren Stehle. This post is public so feel free to share it.
The willingness and openness to understand another person — without prejudice — is a form of humility.
This is how we support each other in open dialogue to get clarity — to understand — what each person is trying to communicate via their ideas, statements, or beliefs.
This doesn’t mean either of you has to agree. Instead, you seek to understand each other and how your ideas or beliefs impact what each of you perceives to be true for the common good.
Think of the common good as free-flowing, unimpeded communication.
The root meaning of communication is to commune, which means to share your intimate thoughts or feelings with someone else.
Open and honest communication requires vulnerability which moves towards trust, which is a form of acceptance and connection. The more we trust another person, the closer the connection. The deeper your connection with another person, the more you will accept and be willing to understand that person.
Unfortunately, what we more often see, especially online, is a total absence of communication.
Instead, we see talking over, talking at, shouting, ignoring, cancelling, and so on. None of those forms of communication are skillful. Since they start from prejudice, they do not support dialogue or constructive debate. They act as a metaphorical wall instead of a bridge to connection.
Perhaps the most significant challenge with critical thinking is the intersection and potential conflict of one’s beliefs.
If you don’t know why you believe what you believe, you do not have critically held beliefs.
The more dogmatic, unquestioned, ideological, and fundamentalist your belief systems, the greater your prejudice, judgement, and unwillingness to practice critical thinking. This is blatantly manifest in the United States with what religious freedom zealots inappropriately term, “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the feeling expressed by this sentiment is sincere in a thoughtful, compassionate, or impartial sense.
“Sincerely held religious beliefs” are nothing more than a form of self-defence for prejudicial beliefs and choices that fly in the face of universal human dignity.
If you don’t believe that every single person is a priori deserving of human dignity — irrespective of issues of equality — you place yourself in a category of “superior” that substantiates crimes against humanity.
Sincerity is not a valid justification for religious beliefs.
For example, in one of the most glaring examples of inhumanity, religious-freedom laws in the United States have been used to grant the right to refuse life-saving health care to someone who identifies as LGBTQ.
This “right” has been granted to the medical professional who is a ‘god-fearing Christian’ who doesn’t support the LGBTQ ‘lifestyle.’ In other words, this law is one degree of separation from the death penalty and allows a religiously-identified individual to decide if another human being lives or dies.
That is completely fucked!
There is no critical thinking present in “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
These are beliefs based on faith without reason or logic.
Such beliefs are based on a book called the Bible, a book that is inconsistent at best. Historically, it has been re-written, badly translated, falsely translated, or interpreted for personal gain, and entire sections have been omitted while others have been supported. One might as well believe that “Alice in Wonderland” actually happened.
A ‘sincere conclusion.’
There are laws on the books — not just in the United States — that allow a select group of people to act inhumanely because of their hatred and fear and hold sway over other people’s mortality.
We cannot reason from a place of hatred, threat, or fear. This is why those who fight for their “sincerely held religious beliefs” are — defacto — fighting. We can only make logical decisions that are based on critical thinking when we have a calm heart and open mind, i.e., when we don’t feel under threat or stress. The latter is the state of flight, flight, or freeze.
To add a personal observation, if you live your life based on the belief that you need to follow a set of (questionable) moral rules to be “saved,” you have surrendered your ability to think rationally and for yourself. You live in fear of a never-witnessed (fictional) higher power who grants salvation at HIS will. Talk about a patriarchal, top-down hierarchy!
I am convinced that religious fundamentalists and radicalized individuals cannot think critically and that their ability to reason has limits, after which they will go into defensive mode. At that point, they cannot reason with calm impartiality and are thus a threat to any individual or group they deem a sinner, unworthy, or less-than-human.
At the extreme, religious fundamentalists and radicalized individuals are a threat to the universal common good.
Darren is a certified MindMap Mastery Coach, specializing in the areas of behavioural and change science relating to lifestyle and transformational coaching. Darren empowers LGBTQ+ change-makers to become more skillful at making a difference in the world.
Got a coaching question? Let me know in one of my weekly Coach’s Corner threads.