Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[idea]

In America, it's not "God save the King", it was "God is our King" that led to a gov by the people... Who holds power? secular governments? religious organizations? or is everyone's highest loyalties centered on their own personal relationship to God? Loyalties to family and personal beliefs above secular governments and other organisation is what breeds freedom - freedom of press - freedom of ideas...

...

People without religious beliefs are easy to control...

In the Korean war, Chinese Communists screened out prisoners with leadership abilities and those with overt religious faith – traits found in about 5% of the population. Frightening trends were observed in the remaining 95% of the prisoners. Left without leaders, there was not one permanent escape from the Korean prison camps even when there was only an average of 6 armed guards to every 500 to 600 Americans, no guard dos, no machine gun towers, no electric fences or searchlights. More alarming, 38% of the prisoners died – not of starvation or epidemics or from any mass executions. Rather, most of the men died of a psychological disease, unnamed by the medical Corps, but dubbed “give-up-itis” by the soldiers themselves. The conclusion of the army’s study was that these boys were ignorant about who they were and what they were fighting for, and so had few inner resources that could give them the courage to rise above their obstacles. (from speech made by Major William Meyer, Army Medical corps, in San Francisco in 1958. This material has now been declassified by the Department of Defense.)

Religious beliefs - knowing who you are, what you stand for, what you believe in ... this is power, this is freedom.

 

[icehorse]

Let's focus on this point for a moment.

On a cultural scale, religion is universal. It can be argued that that's beginning to change, but only in the last century or so, out of the whole of human history. There has never been, and has yet to be an atheist civilization.

In that light, do you think it's reasonable to call religion a common factor? Because by that standard, language and buildings are common factors, are they not?

Surely you're aware that correlation is not causation. So why point to religion, our of all the universal components of human society, as a causal force in the woes of specific societies. It is, after all a common factor with all the societies not experiencing those problems.

Well you cut my post short. The next thing I said was that we can learn a lot just by looking at those situations in which the religious acted explicitly "in the name of" their religion.

More recently Pew Research polled Muslims from something like 38 countries. Ranging from Western Africa with many stops in between and all the way to SE Asia, Muslims held beliefs (such as blasphemy and apostasy being crimes) in common. And notice that this geographical span is also a span of many cultures.

 

[icehorse]

I have tried this approach many times and never achieved anything near a satisfactory outcome. Do you have some special mojo?

American I presume? Christianity is in a terrible state here, I'm afraid. Most churches actively discourage independent study, making 'believing the pastor' into a new dogma. It's quite tragic.

For the most part, though, it doesn't take special mojo. You just have to get a feel for people/ congregations before you start in. It's not difficult to tell the ones who are taught to "Cherish Your Doubt" from those whose faith is being twisted to the church instead of God.

In "real life" I don't really find many folks from the "cherish your doubt" camp. Places like RF seem to be where a person can (sometimes), get into a real discussion.

 

[icehorse]

In America, it's not "God save the King", it was "God is our King" that led to a gov by the people... Who holds power? secular governments? religious organizations? or is everyone's highest loyalties centered on their own personal relationship to God? Loyalties to family and personal beliefs above secular governments and other organisation is what breeds freedom - freedom of press - freedom of ideas...

People without religious beliefs are easy to control...

Religious beliefs - knowing who you are, what you stand for, what you believe in ... this is power, this is freedom.

This is a claim I've never heard before. It doesn't seem intuitive to me, and your one example seemed inconclusive. Do you have more evidence to back up this idea? It would seem to me that you'd need to demonstrate that the other common loyalties you mentioned were somehow isolated and not a factor...

 

[Storm]

It seems to me that here on RF it's fair to try to make distinctions between, and be precise about, words and ideas like:

- religion
- god
- spirituality

Fair, yes, but not necessarily practicable due to the nature of the topic. Still, I'm happy to try. Reordered for logical progression:

- God, unless I'm explicitly referring to my own beliefs, is any genuinely held concept of a divine being. There are other conceptions of divinity which I would call theologies, such as animism or the Tao, but are inappropriate to describe as entities.

(Actually, I consider atheism a theology, just a very easy one - divinity is nonexistent. Done, let's eat. LOL)

Otoh, Pastafarianism is not a theology, simply because it's not sincerely held, being a parody and whatnot.

- Spirituality is what an individual draws from their theology, wrt navigating relationship with one's self, community, world, and divinity (as applicable).

- Religion is tricky. I would say that a religion is a tradition which provides communal spirituality by preserving cherished theology, mythology, ethics, and ritual (as applicable).

Hmm. Does that shed light on my earlier statements?

The OP is specifically concerned with religion - which I'm convinced is man made.

Well, yeah.

Critical thinking does not require intelligence, and it most certainly does not require an education. It requires nothing more than curiosity and self-honesty, asking questions, and learning the answers.
Isn't that intelligence?

Some are like that. Multiverse theories are not universally accepted, and many scientists do approach them with great skepticism. Atheism has nothing to do with it.


It is about controlling the masses. If religion is the opium of the masses, social media and web-based marketing algorithms are the amitriptyline of the masses.

You know, I heard an excellent argument some time ago that in Marx' day, everyone knew that opium, though easily abused with horrible results, was primarily a painkiller. I'm not sure I agree that that was his intent, but it is an interesting perspective.

Well you cut my post short

Yes, because what followed was addressed to someone else and not what I wished to discuss. Later, perhaps, but I think you and I would be better served by learning about one another's overarching views before debating specifics.

That's fair, yeah? Context is always important, and in a conversation such as this, it's crucial.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In America, it's not "God save the King", it was "God is our King" that led to a gov by the people

What founding documents establish the view of "God is our King" that lead to this government?
And just incase you just to "All are..endowed by their Creator..." define Creator. Whose Creator? What Creator?

People without religious beliefs are easy to control...

People in general are easy to control. It doesn't matter you religious beliefs, or lack of, strong willed people are few and far between. Even then, they are still greatly controlled by their society at large to a great extent. The Crusades, ISIS, FOX News, MSNBC, advertisements, state and ideological repressive apparatuses, it really isn't that hard to control people. People with religion have one more thing controlling their lives than nonreligious people do.

Religious beliefs - knowing who you are, what you stand for, what you believe in ... this is power, this is freedom.

I have those, and I have not a single care in regards to religion. Because I'm human, I'll never know if there is a true religion, if there is a true god, if there even is a god or not. I'm alright with that. I'm not alright with making myself stressed about it and anxious that I might go to eternal punishment if I don't live my life right correctly.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Well you cut my post short. The next thing I said was that we can learn a lot just by looking at those situations in which the religious acted explicitly "in the name of" their religion.

More recently Pew Research polled Muslims from something like 38 countries. Ranging from Western Africa with many stops in between and all the way to SE Asia, Muslims held beliefs (such as blasphemy and apostasy being crimes) in common. And notice that this geographical span is also a span of many cultures.

As to many Muslims crime and sin are synonymous. That does not mean they believe they should be punished by humans and if so under what conditions. While most Muslims believe both are Crimes (sins) many probably most of us do not believe they can be punished by Man..

 

[Storm]

In "real life" I don't really find many folks from the "cherish your doubt" camp. Places like RF seem to be where a person can (sometimes), get into a real discussion.

I know. It's thoroughly tragic.

But we do exist. Cherish Your Doubt is a favorite choir number at my beloved Portland church, and that is NOT a small congregation. There are 2.5 Sunday morning services (they had to start using the historic chapel for second service overflow) which combined average over a thousand weekly attendees during the church year. Religious Education (UU Sunday school) not only teaches critical thinking skills and world religion, but has offered comprehensive k-12 sex ed because we got pissed that schools didn't way back in the 70s.

Like I said, America has a problem with churches twisting faith away from God and towards the church. But it's not a universal thing.

 

[icehorse]

Fair, yes, but not necessarily practicable due to the nature of the topic. Still, I'm happy to try. Reordered for logical progression:

- God, unless I'm explicitly referring to my own beliefs, is any genuinely held concept of a divine being. There are other conceptions of divinity which I would call theologies, such as animism or the Tao, but are inappropriate to describe as entities.

(Actually, I consider atheism a theology, just a very easy one - divinity is nonexistent. Done, let's eat. LOL)

Otoh, Pastafarianism is not a theology, simply because it's not sincerely held, being a parody and whatnot.

I'm okay with your broad definition of god. (Discussion of the Tao and atheism-as-theology, maybe another time unless you think it's critical now?)

- Spirituality is what an individual draws from their theology, wrt navigating relationship with one's self, community, world, and divinity (as applicable).

This shows how important definitions are! I think that spirituality and theology are often linked together, but I see no reason why there needs to be any connection. There isn't for me.

- Religion is tricky. I would say that a religion is a tradition which provides communal spirituality by preserving cherished theology, mythology, ethics, and ritual (as applicable).

Given my earlier pushback on spirituality, this is bound to be tricky

While I know there are exceptions, I think that religion "tends" also to include:

- interpretive middlemen (clergy)
- a set of dogma (usually codified in scripture), which is - importantly - unfalsifiable
- an "us vs. them" worldview

 

[Storm]

I'm okay with your broad definition of god.

Seeing as we're clarifying semantics, bear in mind that my own theology is much more specific.

Discussion of the Tao and atheism-as-theology, maybe another time unless you think it's critical now?)
Eh... In the same spirit, let me define theology as one's accepted concept of the 'divine.' I just don't know a better catchall term. Make more sense?

(This shows how important definitions are! I think that spirituality and theology are often linked together, but I see no reason why there needs to be any connection. There isn't for me.)

Even bearing in mind my (perhaps overly) broad definition of theology? It is a progression, after all.

While I know there are exceptions, I think that religion "tends" also to include:

- interpretive middlemen (clergy)
- a set of dogma (usually codified in scripture), which is - importantly - unfalsifiable
- an "us vs. them" worldview

I would replace 'dogma' with 'tenets,' since the latter is just the former sans the inherent taboo that doubt is intolerable.

Us/ Them is fairly rare as a tenets outside Abrahamism, so I can't agree. I do acknowledge the sad fact that it's common in religious adherents, though. Fair?

 

[icehorse]

Hi Storm,

Well your church sounds fantastic. Using my terms it seems more spiritual than religious. But we need to find terms for our ideas. For our purposes I don't need to call "dibs" on a particular term. But each of these ideas deserves a unique name.

BTW, maybe I missed it, but I didn't find your definition of theology.

Back to our terms, in your church "tenets" might be just the right word. But we need to recognize that unfalsifiable dogma is a major force in the world. So what name would you like to give for those organizations and/or individuals that peddle such dogma?

Same with "us vs. them". Again, it sounds like your church is a breath of fresh air, maybe even a beacon - hooray. But I'm sure you've guessed that churches like yours aren't the ones the OP is about...

 

[icehorse]

As to many Muslims crime and sin are synonymous. That does not mean they believe they should be punished by humans and if so under what conditions. While most Muslims believe both are Crimes (sins) many probably most of us do not believe they can be punished by Man..

Hey Woodrow, That's an interesting point. Have you ever seen any stats on that?

Also, even if not strictly punishable by men, isn't coercion still prevalent?

 

[Storm]

I'm okay with your broad definition of god. (Discussion of the Tao and atheism-as-theology, maybe another time unless you think it's critical now?)



This shows how important definitions are! I think that spirituality and theology are often linked together, but I see no reason why there needs to be any connection. There isn't for me.



Given my earlier pushback on spirituality, this is bound to be tricky

While I know there are exceptions, I think that religion "tends" also to include:

- interpretive middlemen (clergy)
- a set of dogma (usually codified in scripture), which is - importantly - unfalsifiable
- an "us vs. them" worldview

I screwed up the formatting for that post. Please see the fixed ending and reply as appropriate.

 

[Storm]

I just spent about half an hour typing a reply on my phone, and 2 words from completion, I somehow reloaded the page and lost it ALL.

*sniffle*

I'm going to wait for proper keyboard access. :'(

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see how religious faith is compatible with critical thinking.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It seems to me that here on RF it's fair to try to make distinctions between, and be precise about, words and ideas like:

- religion
- god
- spirituality

I mostly agree with your definitions, except I think the way you define God is bound to cause confusion. I think it's a perfectly valid definition (many people hold it), but on PR my sense is that most people will misunderstand you.

The OP is specifically concerned with religion - which I'm convinced is man made. My original intention with this thread was to be agnostic concerning questions of god.

But what is above is below, and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. So the God of this aeon is to do with religion, as it reflects that above, though not perfectly. Either way, Ii think you would have to be clearer on ''who'' religion is. Francis Collins is a top scientist and believes in God... i do not think his thinking skills are lessoned. Perhaps if you stop and think about it, you mean a certain group of people you know or you have seen in the media. You see, religion is too inclusive.... it is like saying the 'human race', it does not narrow it down enough to answer your OP question, hence my response

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think the OP's question doesn't have a clear cut, applicable for everyone, or even most people, answer.
It really depends greatly who is one as a person, what is their community like, the relationship of that community to other communities, the specifics of the religion in question and how do those individuals apply it practically. It depends on personal and underlying factors, too varied to be summed into 'yes it does damage thinking', 'no it doesn't'.

For some people, religion may compound already existing personality & lifestyle issues. Others are greatly helped by religion of some sort and become better people than they'd be without.

That is my point. The word ''religion'' is too inclusive. There are all sorts who believe in God

 

[Robert.Evans]

If they did, they could present it. That no theist has EVER presented any is a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist. Of course, they can prove me wrong by making that evidence public and available for examination. Let me know when they do.

Objective is based on facts. For a fact I know I have the inner witness of God, whereas you don't. Your assumption is that because you don't, know one else does. This is a false assumption. You also try to make it into something that is visible, which is another atheistic trick, which also fails.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Let's consider some of the most oppressive leaders and regimes then, and look at the religious beliefs of the people who allowed that type of a leader to come into control...

Than Shwe - aithist... no free press, highest rate of child soldiers in the world, forced labor camps...

Kim Jong Il - atheist ... killedf four million + of his fellow Koreans. ... public execution for those trying to escape the country, crumbling economy.... “re-education camps”.

Benito Mussolini- atheist... Fascist dictatoror World War II known for war crimes... restricted freedom of speech, supported Hitler, used poison gas in Ethiopia - bombed Red Cross hospitals and concentration camps to kill civilians and destroy “inferior” cultures. He ordered the execution of prisoners without trial and the shooting of “witch-doctors”..... deeply anti-Semitic.

Mao Zedong - atheist - killed between 20 and 67 million of his “comrades”. ...cultural vandalism ...exacted revenge on all those, mainly intellectuals and professionals, who had disgraced Mao in his earlier career. He also targeted anyone with links to the Chinese Nationalist Party as well as anyone who posed a threat to him. Five million were executed in death camps. 36 million were persecuted and tortured. There were even instances of cannibalism.


Pol Pot - atheist - ... forced labour projects, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions killed around 2 million Cambodians (approximately one third of the population). His regime achieved special notoriety by singling out all intellectuals, and other “bourgeois enemies”, for murder. The Khmer Rouge committed mass executions in sites known as the Killing Fields, and the executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. His attempts to “cleanse” the country resulted in the deaths of 1.7 to 2.5 million people. He also had an intense dislike of anyone with the semblance of being intelligent, such as those who wore glasses or who spoke another language.


Joseph Stalin...



History has shown that atheist populations follow the worst dictators...

Exactly.....

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't see how religious faith is compatible with critical thinking.

It sounds as though you are not open minded enough or critically thinking to work it out. May be you need to do some more critical thinking... haha