Rediscovering Our Intellectual Curiosity and Critical Thinking Skills
Lonnie Hendrix
One of the great ironies of having once been a part of Armstrongism is the loss and/or distortion of two of the things that allowed us to entertain Herbert Armstrong’s teachings in the first place. I am, of course, speaking of our intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills.
In an article for Psychology Today, Dr Michael Austin defined intellectual curiosity as “a deep and persistent desire to know.” He went on to say that an intellectually curious person pursues the “why” questions. Remember how those old Worldwide Church of God booklets with questions as titles first grabbed your attention and instilled a desire to want to know the answers to the questions they posed?
Likewise, it was the employment of some of our critical thinking skills which first allowed us to entertain the answers that Mr. Armstrong was selling. In Coursera’s article What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?, C.T. is defined as “the ability to interpret, evaluate, and analyze facts and information that are available, to form a judgment or decide if something is right or wrong.” In his writings, Herbert Armstrong invited us to employ some of our critical thinking skills. He asked us to identify the biases and prejudices of traditional Christianity. He invited us to research the topic from the pages of our own Bibles. He encouraged us to be open to God’s “truth.” Mr. Armstrong also encouraged us to meditate on what he (or the Bible) was teaching us about some subject (analysis and problem-solving).
The problem was that Mr. Armstrong offered us a destination – a place to park our intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills. After all, once we had discovered “THE TRUTH,” there was no longer any reason to be curious or use those critical thinking skills! Indeed, according to Herbert Armstrong, if we continued to explore and employ those skills, we might lose the truth which we had discovered. In fact, after we were hooked, Mr. Armstrong encouraged us to become binary thinkers!
According to LifeHack’s Clay Drinker, binary thinking “is thinking there are two sides, and you can only pick one. Also known as dichotomous thinking, this way of thinking becomes simple for us to process complex ideas and situations. The gray area in the middle of these complex issues is often ignored or goes unnoticed.” This is also sometimes referred to as black and white thinking. With Mr. Armstrong, everything was either or. He was the master of the false dilemma. Things were either Holy or Pagan, clean or unclean, good or evil, true or false! When we think about it, the problems inherent with this kind of thinking become readily apparent. Once again, Drinker informs us that “The problem with binary thinking is its inaccuracy. Gray areas do exist and are prominent in every issue. It may make us feel better to think about this or that, them or us, him or her, but it’s not how the world works.”
So, how do we recover what was lost? How do we recover our intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills? My guess is that, like most of us who contribute to this blog, Mr. Armstrong never completely succeeded in suppressing your curiosity or eradicating your critical thinking skills. In other words, they’re probably still there – bruised and buried in your subconscious. Hence, you only need to reawaken them – start exercising those dormant muscles – and allow yourself to begin once again exploring Scripture and the world around you! You have to give yourself permission to listen to other people and their ideas. You have to allow yourself to explore writings outside of the books and booklets promulgated by Armstrong and his disciples.
Also, you have to work on the biases/prejudices which Herbert Armstrong instilled within you concerning science, history, and education. In other words, it’s not just about beginning to research topics again – you must also learn that some sources of information are superior to others. In short, you must learn again to recognize that other folks also have their biases and prejudices which they bring to the table for discussion. And, most importantly of all, you need to acknowledge that you may be wrong about some things – that you may not have all of the answers to all of the questions!
Likewise, on the spiritual side of your journey, you will need to acknowledge that we currently see through a glass darkly – that God’s Holy Spirit doesn’t make you (or anyone else) infallible in matters of faith. Allow yourself to entertain the ideas of the folks who have devoted their lives to the study of Scripture. Biblical criticism is NOT a bad thing! It can be an extremely helpful tool in better understanding the Bible. Allow yourself to explore the textual, philological, and literary criticisms of the scholars. You don’t have to swallow everything they write hook, line, and sinker (indeed, you shouldn’t), but you should recognize that it is possible that they have something to contribute to your understanding of Scripture. And, finally, we must all remember that we should continue to grow in grace and knowledge for as long as we are breathing and cognitively able to do so! Best wishes and blessings on your journey!
25 comments:
The anti-intellectualism of the church led to a dumbed-down church that swallowed everything that came from HQ as truth. Look at what that has led to Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry. None of their members have any intellectual curiosity or the desire to look into the junk that they teach. Members sit and swallow it all while bankrupting themselves to the liars.
Loonie Lonnie quotes someone named Clay Drinker, ““The problem with binary thinking is its inaccuracy. Gray areas do exist and are prominent in every issue. It may make us feel better to think about this or that, them or us, him or her, but it’s not how the world works.”
MY COMMENT – That is not true. To believe Loonie Lonnie’s “every issue” quote is to believe there are no absolutes. There is no right or wrong. There are no moral standards. While I left Armstrongism in the 1970s, I am thankful that I was taught certain moral principles by the WCG such as “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”. To steal or not steal – BINARY; To kill or not kill – Also BINARY.
Perhaps Loonie Lonnie would like to test the Law of Gravity. Let’s see Lonnie jump off a bridge and see if that Law of gravity still works – Again BINARY. The Law of gravity either does, or it doesn’t work. No gray area there. Even as I transmit this message through packet switching technology, binary exists as my words get transformed into a multitude of 0s and 1s into packets – again BINARY. Oh, the irony Loonie Lonnie!
I guess Loonie Lonnie has bought into today’s woke culture where there are gray areas in gender – 90+ genders at last count. Perhaps Loonie Lonie believes men can have babies and men have menstrual cycles like women. Yet, despite what Loonie Lonnie thinks, God created Male and Female with penises and vaginas (Binary). No gray areas there. Biologically, women have XX chromosomes and men have X Y chromosomes (BINARY). Yet, we just had a Supreme Court Justices no doubt of Lonnie’s political persuasion appointed to the Court who cannot define what a woman is. I am reminded of Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”.
And more personally, last year Loonie Lonnie labeled myself and I guess 75 million American voters who supported President Trump’s POLICIES as being engulfed in "extremism" – BINARY thinking no gray area there. The word “Hypocrite” immediately came to my mind when I read Loonie Lonnie’s Post this evening.
I have contributed many years in comments to Gavin’s Ambassador Watch and to Gary’s Banned By HWA. I am thankful to both the late Gavin Rumney and to Gary for their selfless dedication. Both have done a tremendous service to the Ex-Armstrong community. However, it seems Loonie Lonnie has somehow hijacked the Banned by HWA website with his constant need to post topics. While I will always defend Loonie Lonnie’s First Amendment rights (I am sure he doesn’t feel the same about mine), I have noticed that since Loonie Lonnie hijacked this website, I have visited the website less and less. I wonder if others have done the same, but I guess I will not know since if they have done the same they won’t be reading this comment (also BINARY i.e. visit the Banned by HWA website or not visit the Banned by HWA website).
Richard
Auto correct was at it again: Clay Drinko Not Clay Drinker
Richard,
I have never understood the very visceral nature of your commentary about my posts. However, your insistence on calling me "Loonie" and finding something to disagree with in every post I write identifies you as obsessive. You are clearly a binary thinker and have made very clear your unyielding animus for me. You have formulated an opinion of me that is NOT based on experience or fact. Nevertheless, you are free to continue to attack the delusion you've created - just as you are free to continue to support the morally bankrupt man whose disastrous presidency you hold in such high esteem.
Your comments are intemperate and illogical. You present here as a right-wing extremist. In my opinion, you have destroyed the credibility that you built here and elsewhere over the course of many years. In years past, while I did not always agree with your commentary, I regarded you as a reliable voice against some of the more egregious heresies of Herbert Armstrong and company. Unfortunately, your fixation on an imagined slight has rendered you unhinged and unable to engage in civil discourse here. You are free to stay or go, comment or not comment; but I will no longer dismiss or overlook your ignorant rants.
Yes, Lonnie did that for whatever reason, and all this time later you're still crying about it.
All religions, ideologies and movements brainwash people. People that leave Armstrongism are almost just as brainwashed on numerous topics. Look at all the fools in Christianity who promote Sunday-keeping and who think Jews are the chosen people. They have not learned a thing.
Trump is not an extremist. People who believe he is are totally led by the nose by the extremist mainstream media.
It's a moderated blog Sparky. Gary posted Lonnie's article.
Perhaps Loonie Lonie believes men can have babies and men have menstrual cycles like women.
If you don't think men can have babies you need to watch Arnold's movie "Junior." Modern thinking is based on TV and Hollywood. Get with the times! Go with the flow!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_(1994_film)
6:36 wrote “ Yes, Lonnie did that for whatever reason, and all this time later you're still crying about it”
Yep, Loonie Richard got his feelings hurt and he is still crying about it. Loonie Richard has always come across as a braggart about how enlightened he is for discerning how right he has always been about everything. Sadly the Loonie Richard we witness today is not the same Richard we shared forums with over the years. Sad.
..."but I will no longer dismiss or overlook your ignorant rants."
*********
12:51 - Don't you mean the opposite?
Ah, such brotherly rancor. Ain’t’ it a daisy? Just attack HWA, WCG, GTA, ETAL, but that has gotten old now, so feel free to attack each other. Go for it! And, oh,… Have a nice day!
Bullying is one of the consequences of our time in Armstrongism. Mr. Armstrong was a bully, and he trained his ministry to be bullies. There was bullying at headquarters and in the local congregations. Unfortunately, it is one of the lessons of that experience which has lingered in some quarters. It has also been reinforced by developments within our wider culture over the last couple of decades.
Wherever we find it, there are usually a good many folks who ally themselves with the bully (for a variety of reasons like fear, self-preservation, and some of whom who are even genuinely supportive of the bully). Unfortunately, even the folks who recognize the bullying and do not approve of it (or the bully) often remain quiet observers (most of us try to keep our heads down). The only thing which ever interrupts the phenomenon is when one or more of the folks being bullied finally stands up for him/her/themself(ves) and finally confront(s) the bully. Predictably, some of the bully's allies will blame his target for finally confronting his behavior and will criticize him/her for being divisive or stirring up dissent (this phenomenon should be familiar to everyone who is a refugee from Armstrongism).
Let's examine one of Richard's arguments. Thou shalt not kill. Are there shades of grey, or is it binary?
Of course there are shades of grey, because there are different types of killing recognized and treated by both secular and spiritual law. Murder sits at one of the polar positions, while not killing in any way occupies the other. As you examine the real life details this becomes a scale that we are regarding. In between the poles fall such events such as accidents in which you are involved that result in another's death. Your neighbor's child runs out in front of your car, chasing a ball. You are in the Army defending your country, and on the front lines, you amass a body count. Someone attacks you in a back alley. He wants to kill you and he is much bigger than you, so you punch his larynx, and he dies. You are a physician treating someone for something for which there is no known cure, and you give them an experimental drug and they die. You are the warden at a prison and must execute a prisoner who has committed mass murder. You are suffering horribly from a terminal disease and blow your brains out to be done with the pain. Surely, anyone can appreciate all of the complexities involved in just this one example! The grey areas of "kill" occur due to the many variable circumstances which can be involved.
Nature is full of polarities. One of the facets of the laws of the universe is that these laws can be used in combination with one another to balance or partially cancel one another out. Centrifugal force would cause objects on a rotating planet to fly off the surface. Gravity draws those items to the surface of the planet. Attaching something much lighter than air to the object allows it to float upwards, overcoming the gravitational pull. Controlled and focussed detonation propels objects to the point where they are beyond most of the gravitational pull of the planet and the thickness of the atmosphere, allowing the object to go into orbit around the planet. Being a binary thinker and only seeing the poles also indicates that one does not have spatial intelligence, and cannot fully comprehend the relationships between different components of the universe, and how they work.
So, despite his many excellent contributions, Richard's limitations include not only being a binary thinker, he also lacks spatial intelligence. He calls Lonnie "Loonie Lonnie" because Lonnie was one of our most vocal and effective critics of President Trump. So was I, but what name can you come up with to lay an ad hominem on me? "Asinine Anonymous"? See, he can get more specific with Lonnie. He's made Lonnie his straw man!
Well, if you demonize Trump and therefore also his supporters it's likely that you will tick people off; so don't wonder where the visceral reaction comes from. What goes around comes around.
If you don't like what somebody said it becomes a "rant."
If you don't feel the same way, their feelings are "visceral."
If you don't like their opinion, it is "binary."
If you don't like their political views, it is "extremism."
If you don't agree with their theology, they are just not "spiritual" enough.
Rhetoric.
"Male and female made he them"
Binary.
Leaving Richard and Lonnie aside for a moment, I would like to address the original post. Curiosity has always been a part of my psyche. A million questions- that's me. (My Dad called me, from my youth, a "Philadelphia lawyer." I do not think it was meant as a compliment.) I cannot count the number of times that I ended up in hot water in the COG because I am that way.
Over many years now, I have (sadly) noticed that, in our COG culture, many people's choice of organizational affiliation is related to their desire for others (authorities) to take responsibility for their own personal actions. If this is what God wanted, he could have created yellow pencils... but he didn't.
Something to think about.
A blast from the past- "Blow the dust off your Bible." It has always been good advice.
OK, Rhetoric,
My problem with your comment is, what do you do when people who actually fit the definition of the word "extremism" do exist, and are part of a movement to subvert, take over, or change the conditions which govern your life? If you don't like extremism or extremist, what word or words do you use to describe them and combat their efforts? Or, do you just simply be polite, pretend they are nirmal, and allow them to have their way? Extremists in both of the major political parties are the ones causing all of the havoc. They're the ones trying to commandeer the ship!
What if someone truly does not understand things in enough detail so that they can participate in a meaningful solution? What if they only see two choices regarding every decision, when what is needed is careful compromise so that everyone involved is considered and taken care of in a fair manner? Binary thinking is actually quite a polite phrase to describe dumb bunnies, is it not?
Also, there are those who are calm and measured orators, and there are angry, illogical individuals who seek to incite others who are just like them. The orators appeal, to the higher instincts of human nature and actually get the job done much more effectively than the inciters who go on their visceral rants. Anger is an emotion which is often part of the process, but anger (which is very destructive) is not the emotion that gets the job at hand done!
I'm not going to get into a discussion into the word "spiritual" other than to say that there will always be those who attempt to escalate a purely physical situation into the realm of the spiritual. And that leads to non-uniform and unfair solutions.
Living in the questions is always way more exciting than having some COG leader, minister, or a poorly researched booklet giving me the supposed correct answers.
Perhaps Little Richard could team up with Mark Armstrong and Bill Watson to host a Trump rally right here on this blog!
If someone cannot recognize some issues are binary, that's binary thinking.
Ah, Ronco, that would be reminiscent of Richard's appearance in Cinderella's video supporting their hit "Shelter Me" from the late '80s.
Jim,
Yes, absolutely, there is good and evil. There is truth and falsehood. I don't think anyone here is arguing for relativism (I'm certainly not). However, I think that some of our anonymous commentators have made some excellent points about how truth and good are usually found somewhere between the two extremes. As has been suggested, there is a great deal of distance between methodically planning to murder someone in cold blood and accidentally running over them on a wet, icy, or dark road. Likewise, the extremes of the political right and left and their policies have never offered real world, workable solutions to our problems. The genius of this country has always been found in accommodation and compromise. We exist on this earth between the dead cold of space and the consuming heat of the sun. We humans cannot see the end/outcome of all things, and that distorts our judgement. As our Savior suggested, the standard for our conduct must be love for God and each other.
It occurrs to me that in practical application, we never get to choose between polar good and and polar evil. If you parse out our choices, in most cases we get to choose lesser of two evils. This may never have been stated directly by HWA/WCG, but it was inherent in the metaphor behind the Days of Unleavened Bread. As a WCG pre-teen, I was taught that in asking the blessing on our meals, we should always ask God to remove the effects of any pollutants which may be in the food.
Lesser of two evils is the grey area between good and evil. Pure goodness is like some of the hypothetical isotopes on the periodic table of elements which do not exist in nature. It is most certainly something to strive for, however.
Post a Comment