Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Robert.Evans]

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.

So your real beef is against Muslims, which kinda makes sense now

 

[Woodrow LI]

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?

Yes, there is social pressure. Just as there is in all societies about things people the populace feel should not be said or done in public. Social more often have a stronger incentive than written laws.

 

[icehorse]

So your real beef is against Muslims, which kinda makes sense now

Let me balance things out a bit (I'm an equal opportunity offender). How about the idea that in 2014, with 7+ billion folks on the planet, the RC church is still claiming that while AIDs is bad, condoms are worse. How about the fact that in the US, in 2014, a big chunk (30% ?), of high school biology teachers have given up trying to teach evolution because of pressure from YEC types.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Let me balance things out a bit (I'm an equal opportunity offender). How about the idea that in 2014, with 7+ billion folks on the planet, the RC church is still claiming that while AIDs is bad, condoms are worse.

But their point is that you are then saying be immoral and sleep about if you use such things. What the Church is saying is don't sleep about and don't sleep man with man and then Aids would not spread. It is still the most common way of spreading it. Though clearly, with the best intentions in the world (which perhaps you miss) it is not very realistic, nor pratical.

How about the fact that in the US, in 2014, a big chunk (30% ?), of high school biology teachers have given up trying to teach evolution because of pressure from YEC types.

Shame..... can't comment though, in UK. Don't have that problem here as far as I know. Here's the thing, how about all the atheists that promote evolution get together and try and make some middle ground, instead of being offensive to believers, and then they might embrace it. Rather they wind them up, so then they just take scripture literally and we have this stupid position that we are now in...... no need for it. Dawkins for one is said to have increased the flow of people to Creationsim, which if true is very sad, and somewhat shortsighted and damaging on his part

 

[icehorse]

But their point is that you are then saying be immoral and sleep about if you use such things. What the Church is saying is don't sleep about and don't sleep man with man and then Aids would not spread. It is still the most common way of spreading it. Though clearly, with the best intentions in the world (which perhaps you miss) it is not very realistic, nor pratical.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The way I see this is that the church is mired in ideas that made sense 2000 years ago, but no longer do. And that's one of the biggest problems with dogma - it restricts actual thinking.

Shame..... can't comment though, in UK. Don't have that problem here as far as I know. Here's the thing, how about all the atheists that promote evolution get together and try and make some middle ground, instead of being offensive to believers, and then they might embrace it. Rather they wind them up, so then they just take scripture literally and we have this stupid position that we are now in...... no need for it. Dawkins for one is said to have increased the flow of people to Creationsim, which if true is very sad, and somewhat shortsighted and damaging on his part

Religion does NOT belong in science classes - full stop. If you blame Dawkins, remember that he's simply reacting to the church's attempts to infiltrate science.

 

[Cephus]

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.

No, you have an inner assumption. You assume that God exists for personal, emotional reasons. You have nothing that draws a direct, demonstrable causal link between a real God and anything else, you simply assume that God is real. This is an unjustified assumption. You believe because it feels good, not because you have any rational reason to think that what you believe is actually true.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The way I see this is that the church is mired in ideas that made sense 2000 years ago, but no longer do. And that's one of the biggest problems with dogma - it restricts actual thinking.

But that does not negate my point, nor the Church's point.

Religion does NOT belong in science classes - full stop.

Agreed.

If you blame Dawkins, remember that he's simply reacting to the church's attempts to infiltrate science.

He is part of the problem without a doubt, but I do not agree that he is reacting to the church. He follows his own religion of science with his saviour Darwin. He is pruned out and ultimately that is why he preaches as he does...... but his anger is because certain people will not follow his dogma. Where you get that idea from I don't know

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, you have an inner assumption. You assume that God exists for personal, emotional reasons. You have nothing that draws a direct, demonstrable causal link between a real God and anything else, you simply assume that God is real. This is an unjustified assumption. You believe because it feels good, not because you have any rational reason to think that what you believe is actually true.

It is not an inner ''assumption'' that is your assumption because you do not have such. It is a mistake or gigantic proportions to think that people are wrong just because you do not agree with them, or just because something invisible is not visible.
And it has nothing to do with ''feels good''. I have had plenty of rational objective reasons to think that God exists, besides the fact that I have the inner witness. This is something you will never understand. Material minds will always look for physical things to prove something metaphysical, which is doomed to failure from the off.

 

[icehorse]

But that does not negate my point, nor the Church's point.

Agreed.

He is part of the problem without a doubt, but I do not agree that he is reacting to the church. He follows his own religion of science with his saviour Darwin. He is pruned out and ultimately that is why he preaches as he does...... but his anger is because certain people will not follow his dogma. Where you get that idea from I don't know

What do you think Dawkins's dogma is?

I ask because I think Dawkins values things like logic, reason and evidence, all of which tend to fly in the face of dogma.

 

[psychoslice]

I feel that most religions will not let you think for yourself, they say that to do so is the devils work, it all sounds so wonderful, but its nothing but manipulation, I'm a free thinker and this is why I left my church.

 

[Storm]

What .

Hiya, love.

I have a proper keyboard again. Shall westart from scratch? (I kinda lost my train of thought over what... 3 days? Shocking!

 

[morphesium]

Excess in all things including religion will impair critical thinking. which is probably one reason Islam stresses moderation in all things including religion.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise (i.e., no one enters paradise only through his good deeds)." The Prophet's companions asked: "Not even you?" The Prophet replied: "Not even myself, unless God bestows His favor and mercy on me. So be moderate in your religious deeds and do what is within your ability. None of you should wish for death, for if he is a doer of good, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to God." - Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Hadith 577

So how do we know one keeps a "moderate" religious belief? Ones "moderate" belief many not be "moderate" to others. So, what is the criteria for this?

 

[Woodrow LI]

So how do we know one keeps a "moderate" religious belief? Ones "moderate" belief many not be "moderate" to others. So, what is the criteria for this?

Moderation is a very subjective thing one persons moderate can be extreme to another. But a general concept, in my opinion, would be:
Not doing things beyond what you can sustain without infringing on the rights of others or taxing your own well being.
An example in eating would be:
Finish eating when your stomach contains 1/3 food,1/3 water and is 1/3 empty. I paraphrased from a hadith, I can't remember the exact hadith.

In regard to religion that would mean to not use you religious beliefs to harm others and do not let your religion interfere with the necessary aspects of life.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I ask because I think Dawkins values things like logic, reason and evidence, all of which tend to fly in the face of dogma.

He's dogmatically un-dogmatic.

 

[Storm]

So how do we know one keeps a "moderate" religious belief? Ones "moderate" belief many not be "moderate" to others. So, what is the criteria for this?

It's not all that complicated. Moderate in religion means the same as moderate in politics - centrist, not far afield in any direction.

It's not about validity or lack thereof, it's just whether or not it's mainstream.

 

[icehorse]

He's dogmatically un-dogmatic.

You laugh, but I've heard that very argument.

 

[morphesium]

Moderation is a very subjective thing one persons moderate can be extreme to another.

I agree with this.

In regard to religion that would mean to not use you religious beliefs to harm others

Religion in books is calm and peaceful but when it comes to the practical world, it has caused unnecessary blood sheds and sufferings. Has kept (or keeping) the society from progressing, performing stupid rituals, impair proper thinking and keep oneself low morally.

and do not let your religion interfere with the necessary aspects of life.

The only way not to let your religion interfere with the necessary aspects of life is to quit religion itself. Otherwise it is never possible.

 

[morphesium]

It's not all that complicated. Moderate in religion means the same as moderate in politics - centrist, not far afield in any direction.

It's not about validity or lack thereof, it's just whether or not it's mainstream.

Still there can't be a standardization level for moderation. Would you consider extremist in a particular religion anti-religious?

 

[Storm]

Still there can't be a standardization level for moderation. Would you consider extremist in a particular religion anti-religious?

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say. Rephrase please?

 

[johnpeter1970]

What I think the world needs now is for people to be better educated and have better critical thinking skills. Populations that can think critically are harder to manipulate and control by oppressive leaders. Populations that can think critically are harder for big business and corrupt politicians* to hoodwink. Better educated people will make better choices in regards to being good stewards of the planet. And so on.

Cognitive scientists have learned that all cognitive activity uses the same supply of glucose. Everything you do with your brain, drains the same "fuel tank". Even something as simple as exercising willpower uses brain glucose.

As an anti-theist, I see the mental energy the "faithful" put into keeping their religion plausible. I have to think that religion overall (even moderate religion), works in opposition to increasing critical thinking.

Perhaps religion does have some benefits (I'm not convinced), but whatever benefits religion might claim, it strikes me that these benefits could be provided without the need for cognitively draining, supernatural explanations that fly in the face of an otherwise honest view of the world.

The answer is no! Knowledge cannot save. Thinking cannot save. Worrying cannot save. Knowing the Truth will set us Free.