I was at a free thinkers meeting some time back and the biggest question I heard them ask was “why can’t people Critically think for themselves?”

It was an ordeal tale of a mind-boggling collision of philosophies, ideologies and values that were clad in the bright light of the intelligent and logical thinkers.

Their biggest contention was of cause, the little or no thinking done in the religious circles.  It is a well-known fact among these oh-so-bright scholars that faith and belief in an intangible power greater and more potent than can be imagined is simply superstitious. And in their books, superstition is the very enemy of critical thinking.

So faith and belief pose a threat to the mind and retard it from progressive and ideal rational.

Free thinkers pride themselves in their literary prowess on all matters scientific, logical and attainable. They reckon everything else that can’t be explained by these tools is either non-existent or a hoax.

On further study of what was referred to as critical thinking, one cannot fail to see the utter lack of commitment to the moral implication of one that does or doesn’t think critically.  Because you see, Critical thinking, to them has no moralistic boundary to it. It just is. If one adds a moral notion to it, it will almost always quickly degenerate into a feud between religion and “logic”.
So I ask, who determines what Critical thinking entails? And God help you if your response is as base as “ the thinker” .
I would then ask why it is wrong for the thinker in a faith/ religious setting to believe with all he has got that what he has done or is doing is out of the best way he could have critically thought.

I ask again, on whose standards do we measure Critical thinking… If it is indeed without a moral point of view!
For if it is indeed outside the boundaries of an ethical concept, then no one can say there is a wrong way to think. We can only go as far as different.
There is no right or wrong way to determine actions by what one thinks.
It is said, “as a man thinketh, so is he. “ It goes without saying that if there is no moral code to check that statement, everyman is ok being that way. There is no right or Wrong. He just is.

I think not. I think it is borderline barbarism to even entertain and elevate ideas like those. Coz Lets face it, this is a pretty messed up world.

To this effect, I submit the following: There has got to be right thinking and wrong thinking. And if the standards of integrities are set in stone this way, I will argue that there must be a logical way to arrive at an illogical conclusion.

It is logically wrong for one to murder, yes? Well from the murder’s point of view, Why? Who said? Is it a fellow Human? Well, If it is, then he is one of them and he says it is OK? Right?

I submit  that it may be a general consensus that there are some things embedded in the Human DNA that witness to the wrongness or rightness of an action. It is beyond reason and logic, to understand the intricacies of why an action out of pure chemical reaction or imbalances in the brain can be deemed right or wrong.

I submit the God-element!