Writing Logically, Thinking Critically by Sheila Cooper and Rosemary Patton
In the book Writing Logically, Thinking Critically, Sheila Cooper and Rosemary Patton state that ideas do not emanate from individuals’ inherent logic. Instead, the authors believe that views are socially constructed. They affirm that opinions are social and are produced by groups and not individuals. Ideas are shaped depending on time, place, and circumstances and are not absolutes. In one of the passages, the authors assert that “Ideas do not develop according to some inner logic of their own, but are entirely dependent, like germs, on their human carriers and the environment (pp. 3).” Therefore, people can be assumed to be having the inborn tendency to reject information that does not reinforce their beliefs but easily accept and support those that match our worldviews.
Any facts that do not build up the people’s worldviews are quickly dismissed. The authors believe that accommodating other people’s views and attentively listening to them is being open-minded. However, they also note that having an open mind is not an easy task since an individual’s fair judgments are often hampered and clouded by prejudices they have about groups. “Many of these attitudes grow from the contexts of our lives that we take for granted-the opinion of parents and friends, our ethnic and religious backgrounds (pp 3).” These prejudices are brought through attitudes created by people’s cultures and environments.
The writers highlight the work of Isaiah Berlin titled Hedgehogs and Foxes to emphasize his contribution to the worldviews. From the two categories of people in terms of viewing the world, Cooper and Patton establish that those in the group of Foxes are openly pragmatic, a bit flexible in their views, and are wary of complexity and minute distinctions (pp. 4). The Foxes form their opinions based on a variety of experiences. On the other hand, the hedgehogs have very rigid perspectives, such as only focusing on dominant ideas. They operate alongside strong convictions on their views and cannot easily change their attitudes on certain things (pp. 4). Cooper and Patton agree that one of the most challenging tasks in growing as a critical thinker is the need to question our worldviews.
Personal World View
Born and raised in a Christian family, my perspective on marriage was and remained founded on the assertions of the Biblical principles of marriage. My father hailed from a background of Roman Catholic doctrines while my mother’s parents were respected spiritual leaders in a Baptist church. As we grew up, going to church on Sundays was a mandatory practice, and biblical practices were reinforced in us both at home and in church. From the society I grew up in, I learned something about marriage that has shaped my worldviews in the ongoing discourses surrounding marriage and divorce. The whole community exercised the Christian faith, and the community ethics were based on the Biblical doctrines. We were prohibited from carrying out practices that the Bible condemned and only engaged in activities that were universally acceptable to society. The various perspectives that I have about life, in general, were formed and shaped by the principles.
I do not fully agree with the contemporary trend of divorce and remarriages that are currently being witnessed across the globe. The globally growing culture of individuals divorcing more than once, then eventually marrying and even conducting weddings in churches, is something I do not support (Liefbroer and Arieke 366). My view, just as my parents held, is that marriage is permanent. I believe if those intending to get married follow the Biblical principles before and after marriage, there would be no cause for divorce. Just as the Bible stipulates, those who have divorced must not be allowed to marry again. It looks normal that once two people have agreed to divorce and have settled on the ownership and care of children, federal laws low them to proceed and marry. This is a perspective that I do not support. Marriage is a sacred institution and a gift given to human beings by God. Therefore, this means that the rules set by governments are to regulate the institution. The will and design of God must be followed by those intending to marry.
I also hold the view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. As a Christian, I believe marriage between a man and another man, as well as between two women is illegal. Same-sex marriage is biblically referred to as sinful, perversion, an evil of the mind, and a significant disregard of God’s law. It is, therefore, not allowed among the children of God (Liefbroer and Arieke 369). Several states and countries have legalized same-sex marriage, thus, making it become a regular practice in the world. Some churches have also gone ahead to conduct same-sex weddings, approving what God prohibits. The Biblical purpose of marriage is first for happiness between the two people getting married and secondly to give birth and bring up children. This second purpose cannot be accomplished through unnatural forms of marriages that are currently witnessed in the world today. My take is that when governments command what God forbids and forbids what God commands as far as marriage is concerned, I choose to obey God. My political perspective follows the grounded principles of the Bible. I support ideologies that affirm what the Bible teaches. The urge to hang on my view no matter the changing trends is what the authors refer to as brain lock. This idea is consistent with my religious perspective, particularly on same-sex marriage and divorce. I have held on that belief because it is congruent with other theories that I hold about Christianity.
Conclusion
Critical thinking is greatly influenced by an individual’s perspective of the world. Many people are not able to think critically on issues because they are greatly affected by prejudices they harbor towards the problems. Understanding a concept fully, as well as looking at all sides of a scenario in an argument, are essential components of critical thinking that are affected most by bias created by worldviews. As Jon Carrol observes, “we are all afraid of being wrong, and we will tend to cling on our opinions in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary (pp.5).” This makes it very difficult to argue concretely on issues that seem to attack our world views. However, growing as a critical thinker implies questioning an individual’s perspectives so that they do not hamper the truth of the argument. Being able to examine an issue from all angles and to make a reasonable judgment without bias influenced by our beliefs is the hallmark of growth in critical thinking. Discarding the underlying propaganda to establish the truth is a significant step in balancing our world views with correct discernment.
Works Cited
Cooper, Sheila, and Rosemary Patton. Writing Logically, Thinking Critically. Pearson, 2015.
Liefbroer, Aart C, and Arieke, Rijken. “The association between Christianity and Marriage Attitudes in Europe. Does Religious Context Matter?” European Sociological Review. Vol. 35, no. 3, 2019, pp.363-379., doi:10.1093/esr/jcz014