A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

Filed under: Apologetics — Barry Carey at 12:48 am on Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Greg Koukl, in the May/June 2008 issue of Solid Ground offers a crash course in critical thinking:

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.

Looking at some of the arguments of the New Athiests, he shows how to develop a game plan for evaluating any argument. He does so by suggesting we ask 4 basic questions:

1. What is the claim being made?
2. What are the reasons given to support the claim?
3. Which appeals are irrelevant?
4. Does the conclusion follow from the evidence?

I recommend the entire article if you wish to learn to reason more carefully through any argument.

5 Comments »

76800

Comment by Gatsby Blastyn

May 8, 2008 @ 9:47 am

I’m unfamiliar with Greg Koukl. I’ve been a lurker and a little-to moderate engager in these debates.
But I am really impressed with his approach.
He’s very easy to read and understand.
Is he newer to these debates? I’m only asking because I haven’t come across him that much.

76807

Comment by T Lieberman

May 10, 2008 @ 1:48 am

“…if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints…” – Greg Koukl

Of course we know they were caused by shoes, because he just told us they were “shoeprints.”

If, on the other hand, I am in remote wilderness and I see a series of small depressions in the ground, a more reasonable conclusion would be that there is a bear nearby.

Just saying: one shouldn’t assume what one is trying to prove. When considering potential evidence of whether the Earth was designed, one should reference the specific phenomena, and delay categorizing them as evidence of design until that point has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

76818

Pingback by Twenty Items of Interest (v. 17) « Caffeinated Thoughts

May 10, 2008 @ 8:48 pm

[...] HT: Barry Carey [...]

76865

Comment by Gatsby Blastyn

May 12, 2008 @ 4:26 pm

If, on the other hand, I am in remote wilderness and I see a series of small depressions in the ground, a more reasonable conclusion would be that there is a bear nearby.

But the main point is that you don’t need an explanation for an explanation in order for the intial explanation to have any value.

If I walk out to my car in the morning and notice that the gas cap is removed, a hollow tube is running from my tank to the ground and that there is a small spill of gas on the ground directly under the gas cap I can be quite certain that someone just siphoned my gas tank. I don’t know who performed the act, but the explanation stands that an agent performed the deed.

77354

Pingback by Caffeinated Thoughts - » Twenty Items of Interest (v. 17)

June 18, 2008 @ 3:41 am

[...] HT: Barry Carey [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>