First name Last name
Lecturer
Date
Spiritual Life needs Critical Mind
The core postulation of the Buddhist doctrine is the assumption that all is misfortune, our irrelevant souls are at bay forever in a confusion, and the exclusive way to avoid the misfortune is via a specific route to open mindedness, which changes with every communion of Buddhism, which always entails adherence to different attitudes and behaviors (Carrier 1). In correlation, the core postulation of Christian doctrine is the assumption that we completely have imperishable spirits which are barred by the fault of Adam and individually enjoin condemnation not only to suffering and evil in this universe, but to an endless of life in heaven, but the exclusive means to avoid this doom is through accepting that Christ was the offspring of the Almighty and liberated us by His death on the cross (Carrier 1). Besides that, Christian communions alternate with account to the correct entry demands for eternity home but they are all likely to concur that heartfelt and true belief in the aforementioned main thesis not only advance to a liveliness of goodness and happiness in this universe, but to endless life.
According to Carrier (1), to disallow one of the two allegations is to disallow the entire validness of the indicated religions. In fact, even to propose that these allegations are inappropriate or of only secondary significance are to disallow the entire validness of these communions, because everything they enlighten merely creates sense in relation to these conclusive allegations concerning the exact character of human life. To the degree that everything they enlighten does create sense minus the allegations, it is found to be already defended by nonreligious rather than spiritual thought, which variably renders all communions as unnecessary and superfluous. Without using critical thinking to communion there is one subjective-imposed ignorance and self-deception and religious advancement will sink in superstition and illusion (Sagan 71). Lacking merit, these assertions appear to state that the main beliefs of Christianity and Buddhism as granted above are only illusory, superstitious, or otherwise outcomes of ignorance and self-deception. According to Sagan (71), religion requires critical thought not only as a debunking tool, but as a purifying device to uphold clarity and to wipe false views.
Critical verses clever thought. All analytical consideration is by nature opposing (Carrier 3). A positive act belongs rather to creative consideration. While the act of clever thought is to build possibilities and ideas, the purpose of analytical consideration is to disprove established order; it is exclusively by these dual strategies working in union that we reach at truth and knowledge. In the opinion of Sagan (71), Critical consideration can be looked at in much similar means as natural choice: it happens in a manner of building by upholding the strong and excluding the weak. Therefore, critical consideration’s acting as an exposing tool is indispensable and important, and it is obliged to perform a role in all roles of knowing. Although it does not exclude possibilities and ideas till not one are left. Refusal to believe is as illogical as visionless faith, and as subjective restricting as naivety. To some extent, clever thought excludes till all that continue is the logical, the useful, the reliable, the probable, the tenable, that is, knowledge.
According to Reinsmith, clever consideration must not contemplate itself always opposing spiritual practice or religion, to some extent it must value and get to know its place in that domain (20). This cannot hold, because clever thought is always opposing everything, even mundane and ordinary ideas and thoughts, and critical minds not only allow this, but admire the fact. This is in disagreement that we distrust all things, in some extent; it is to assert that any frank critical mind occasionally attacks all things with critical mind; even what critics believe or take for granted to be irrefutable or certain. In the opinion of Carrier, a lot of our believe escapes the attacks of critical mind by advantage of its existence as most likely correct, although we nevertheless seek critical mind upon these hypothesis, and rightly acknowledge it a chastity (4). We never fathom when we may uncover an unwarranted assumption or a mistake, or when fresh information may vary what we currently consider to be logical. But critical minds fathom that this is exclusive means to learn.
The role of analytical mind in religion; critical mind must discover its function in the domain of communion thought. According to Carrier, we must question what, the discipline, of religion absolutely is. Before questioning what function that could be (5). Reinsmith composes a solid effort at performing this, and genuinely concludes that what transforms something abnormally is spiritual experience or human religious, not the organizations of religion (25). This occurs because the best organizations of communion are centered on spiritual experiences, together in the impression of having started alongside them and in impression of being justified or proven by them. In contradiction, those organizations which have no certain and any similar foundations in communion exposures belong properly in the social or cultural dominion, and are termed religious only because they correlate with those conditions which are absolutely religious in origin and nature.
However, communion experience is a thing all will accept is a reality: it undoubtedly exists, whether or not we accept the conclusions drawn from it. Reinsmith gave an example of a communion exposure, in the process and form of mediation (29), but he uses critical mind only to the events, not conclusions public make from it. However, this is ultimately what religion is all about .But, it is located on religious exposure, and only when some conclusions are reached at and performed does a communion exists, only then does analytical mind have what to distrust.
The characteristic of the religious as concerning the mind; Reinsmith provides lucid, an excellent and enlightening reasoning of a certain practice which is always regarded as communion, but could exclusively without disagreement be grouped as concerning the mind(32). This is the domain analytical mind must start: We must accept that exposures which we group as religious or spiritual exist as a section of normal psychological exposures, and not different and separate from them. This is not for reasons we are bound to take for granted that there is no special or nothing supernatural which coincides with spiritual experiences. But, it results before we may propose any of such conclusions; however, we are bound to ensure that by no means there is inherent means to categorize ordinary psychological happenings from spiritual happenings. Since they start in similar domain, the chances always maintains that they are only unlike aspects of similar thing, and hence may not relate to anything exterior, personal ideological being. In particular, religious experiences may symbolize glimpses of us greater than anything beyond ourselves or similar to the rest, and this with other likelihoods must be excluded before we can accept it is the opposite.
Application of critical mind to religion; religious assertion derived from religious experience in the statements of Walpola Rahula (qtd. in Sagan, 73), where the numerous things that intercession can complete are outlined as purifying the thought of disturbances and impurities of different kinds. In a critical logical impression, the assertion referred to only outline the purpose of intercession and hence may be valid by interpretation. For instance, the goal of intercession is to fold. Reinsmith indicate to us how analytical mind can be used in the steps of achieving these aims of mediation (30). A similar example by Carrier (5), is elaborating how analytical mind can be applied to trace lasting realities in biblical testament, while excluding the important inquiry as to either what an individual obtains via this strategy is absolutely valid, or whether the Holy book is the appropriate location of searching for such facts.
Walpola Rahula (qtd. in Sagan 71), is mentioned as first asserting that intercession can clarify the thought of hatred, lustful desires, worries, ill will and restlessness. This is a forthright empirical assertion, free to scientific analysis. Indeed, it is conceived that this assertion is adequately backed by evidence and hence most probably logical. The knowledge of religious exposure as a concern of phenomenon, if viewing the future of issues as they seem is only viewing the characteristics of our ideas as they occur, where ideas includes memories, thoughts and emotions, concerning both things and us (Carrier 7), then this creates a testable assertion, and would involve no alteration to group this as absolutely concerning mind phenomenon. Similarly, if viewing the final truth, factor nothing than viewing the logic about our personal ideas, then this, also, appears less magical in occurrence and can carefully be contained within apprehension of psychology. If, still, there is something more figured in each of these assertions, they are essentially construed in such a manner that they may be proven before we can consider them as valid or invalid.
A description of religious experience; religious assertions always occur to be relied on more for their subjective value in revealing what Reinsmith outlines as our requirement for a final purpose to life than for their empirical merit or logical (33). While most trials to describe religious exposure rely on complication outlining the features of the exposures themselves, it is doubtful that such lists are able to function as arrangement for religious experience. Because any telltale symbol of a religious exposure may also be contained in other mundane phenomena and hallucinations, they are insignificant by themselves for revealing whether an exposure can absolutely be termed religious. This problem may be a main source of deception in the argument amidst those who attempt to group all religious exposures as delusions and those who try to refute the logic of such a grouping. But, the only things which come forth as a religious exposure is regardless of it understood or be understood in such a manner to be proper in some impression to a final understanding to life. This implies that the prove for a valid religious idea is whether it achieves the aim of satisfying our concern for meaning, and how properly it does, and this is more important than whether that idea is proven, consistent, or true.
This explains Reinsmith’s view that holders of strong religious ideas do not only oppose trials at assessment, they are always resistant to them (Sagan 66). This way of act, which seems strangely irrational, is found to be absolutely understandable when we identify that the spiritually devout are always concerned with things more essential than the reality, such as a final purpose to life. Because the individual, emotional gains provided by religious ideas do not rely on those ideas being valid, their validity becomes irrelevant. Hence, while Christianity and Buddhism singly gives a supernatural clarification for our evils, and an equivalent supernatural answer, in all this lies an absolutely practical idea arrangement which not only gives a final purpose to life, but tries to provide a greater balance of happiness and peace by producing both a reason and a moral standard that live it. Although all these gains are gained only by the assertions being relied on, not their really being valid, which is completely unlike technological interventions or scientific assertions, where gains are always attained only when we rely on hypothesis which are valid, and exact hazards are always produced by relying on false ones. It is not argued in this discourse that all spiritual assertions are invalid. Everything asserted so far would be applicable to all communions regardless of either assertions of any communion were valid or invalid.
In conclusion, Reinsmith questioned whether spiritual life needs analytical mind (20); he made a careful argument that a single factor of spiritual life, intercession, is absolutely appropriate. According to Reinsmith communion appears based on a desire for a final understanding to life (20). Reinsmith suggests that this is a similar issue as a desire for linking with a transcendent doctrine, but no valid conclusion can be drawn from this. Neither does it means that it would be appropriate to assert that this is another justification point for communion, because it seems to be given only as a method to the terminus of finding final message, and it is logically troublesome and inherently ambiguous. Just to start with, it is unclear what a transcendent doctrine means or how someone can be linked with it, if indeed it is valid transcendent. Identifying this, it come to be more understandable how the public come to be so emotionally linked to their communion, and why analyzing their communion can so fast be considered as a blasphemous or personal attack, or abandoned altogether.
This must influence us on the desire to keep in mind the appropriate goal of analytical mind: not to only dispute, but to dispute with consideration of exposing the important probable, tenable, consistent, useful, or reliable. Its function is to sieve, but to sieve ambiguity and falsehood so as to reach the truth. Hence, in the dominion of communion, the aim of analytical mind is not at all to damage all understanding, but to determine correct understanding by screening out nonsense and falsehood. It can be luring to believe that, because having some understanding to life seems more essential regardless its validity, we should not care using analytical mind to this pursuit. However, this is stupid. Not only can having an incorrect source of understanding lead to unhappiness life and conflicts, but may otherwise leave us at peace and happy while causing unhappiness and conflict to others, for example, conservative Christian healing of homosexuals or Islamic self-murder bombers. Even more significant, however, it is dangerous to be in the culture of not absolutely bothering whether we are incorrect.
Thus, communion life requires analytical mind, since it is stupid to resolve our doubts with incorrect ideas even when there seems no direct damage in so doing. Finding whether the mystical assertions of the different communions are correct is similar to finding whether a scientific hypothesis is correct, except may be in the impossibility or difficulty of proving them; here communion is applied to constitute atheistic idea systems like objectivism, Secular Humanism, or Marxism. However, because these assertions are considered as necessary since they give understanding to life, hardly any will even consider them as hypotheses capable of disproof. But, once we identify that understanding can be obtained without such assertions, we can analyze them with open critical mind.
Another conclusion can be drawn from Reinsmith declaration that religious experience also known as mystical states, are completely authoritative but no authority emerges from them which makes it a responsibility for those not involved to agree to their revelations unanalyzed (32). This abandons the real aspect of mystical states which is always misunderstood or underplayed: because the explanation of autonomous truth is that, which to some extent, is principle provable by all viewers involved, spiritual experiences give no information of autonomous truth since their views are not autonomously provable. Therefore, even if they contain autonomous realities, no method exists to determine which features of these actualities, if any, really do have objective truths. Hence, they are enormously useless as a method of obtaining knowledge concerning the universe all viewers share unvaried. Even those features of mystical states which can be found unvaried with all viewers do not essentially entail special apprehension of autonomous truths, because they may be availed by factors common in human bodies and minds, and hence still be completely internal. Similarly, although hypothesis about autonomous reality can emerge from spiritual mystical states, this is correct of all conditions of apprehension, and such hypotheses are identical to the rest: they must continue to be provable empirically and logically before they may be attributed any knowledge worth. This should initially warn us against applying phrases such as genuinely authoritative which can direct us to believe we may disallow issues like availability of the dog over the street or our personal mortality, grounded on mystical states alone. But it should draw our attention to the worth of mystical states as a screener of ourselves. If we are misled with unjustified numerous ideas concerning the autonomous realities of our valued subjective actualities, we may completely disregard their worth in understanding and examining ourselves and ideas of the universe. In addition, spiritual life requires analytical mind to reveal to us what we can reasonably consider as autonomous understanding of shared universe: spiritual life needs analytical mind to give us a unique and direct method of analyzing ourselves and ideas of the universe.

Works Cited
Carrier, Richard R. Thinking Across the Disciplines. Montclair State University: Institute for Critical Thinking , 2012.Print.
Reinsmith, William M. "Religious Life and Critical Thought: Do They Need Each Other?" Thinking Across the Disciplines 14.4 (2010): 20-32.
Sagan, Carl S. "Does Truth Matter? Science, Pseudoscience, and Civilization." Skeptical Inquirer 20.6 (2008): 66-73.