Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Storm]

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

Hoo boy.

You just said that knowledge CAN'T save. So, how do you "Know the Truth" without knowledge?

See? Critical thinking is your friend. Really, it won't hurt you.

 

[icehorse]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the "Truth" you mention comes from the bible? If so, how do you decide which bits of "truth" to use and which bits to ignore?

 

[morphesium]

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

Still there can't be a standardization level for moderation. =
what's moderate for one might be extreme for others. There can't be a standardization for this.

Would you consider extremist in a particular religion anti-religious?
To put an example for this; (if this is asked to muslims) would the muslims consider those ISIS terrorists (extremists) as muslims? A few days ago, I have read an article in wikipedia which states that around 2.5 percent of the zakat money is spent for fueling terrorism around the world.

consider extremist people following your religion - do you think they are extremists because of your religion?

Now, most of the religion says one should keep his/her religious beliefs moderated; so do you think those people who are following your religion and who are extremists - to be (actually) following your religion?

 

[Storm]

Still there can't be a standardization level for moderation. =
what's moderate for one might be extreme for others. There can't be a standardization for this.

But of course there can: I gave it. Whether or not it's centrist/ mainstream for that religion. Simple.

As I said, centrism doesn't tell us whether the belief itself good or bad, but it does tell us if it's moderate.

Would you consider extremist in a particular religion anti-religious?

Such questions must be much more carefully defined if one wishes to avoid No True Scotsman. For instance, I don't consider pop fundamentalists to be faithful, but they are very much religious. But take Ted Cruz and his Tea Party ilk. They openly defy every teaching of Christ in the name of Christian piety. So are they faithful Christians? Well, they obviously have no regard for Christ, let alone faith, so clearly not. But a relgion of that sort - the institutions stretching backthousands of years - themselves have much more to do with maintaining themselves than spreading Christ's teaching, so it's silly to say that such people are not Christian.

It's just not a question that can be honestly answered with a simple yes or no.

consider extremist people following your religion - do you think they are extremists because of your religion?

This is actually really funny. Years ago, I was arguing in an RF thread that the notion that moderates empower extremists was wrong in every way, mostly on the premise that I myself am a moderate. My very dear friend Smoke (an atheist) started laughing at me for that and said (of Unitarian Universalists) 'stop making it about you. Nobody's talking about you hippies, you're not moderatres. You're total extremists, you're just the nice extremists!"

So, I really don't know how to answer this one, cause he's right. At least if you look at American religion, I am in fact, a particularly extreme extremist. But as a pagan/ UU, I'm fairly typical. At least wrt ethics and such, my theology's pretty out there.

Now, most of the religion says one should keep his/her religious beliefs moderated

Not in the sense of moderate beliefs they don't. I think you may be conflating the adjective and verb meanings of the word.

 

[johnpeter1970]

Hoo boy.

You just said that knowledge CAN'T save. So, how do you "Know the Truth" without knowledge?

See? Critical thinking is your friend. Really, it won't hurt you.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1Cor 13:2)

 

[joshua3886]

That is right on the money for everything I believe in. If only the term Scientology wasn't taken by some kooks, that would be the name of my religion. Science is the answer to life's problems: hunger, famine, disease, sadness and prejudice. Religion is the opposite of science, like oil and water. Religion involves the process of coming up with a conclusion, searching for evidence to support it and tossing out anything that might possibly contradict their theory. Science involves gathering all the evidence available, then coming to a rational conclusion based on that evidence. And if new evidence arises that contradicts the old theory, science is more than happy to change the theory. You can't bring science into a church anymore than you can bring religion into a scientific setting.
"God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion" -Superintendent Chalmers on prayer in a public school

 

[Storm]

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1Cor 13:2)

That's nice, dear. Now crack a dictionary and look up "knowledge."

 

[Storm]

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1Cor 13:2)

That is right on the money for everything I believe in. If only the term Scientology wasn't taken by some kooks, that would be the name of my religion. Science is the answer to life's problems: hunger, famine, disease, sadness and prejudice. Religion is the opposite of science, like oil and water. Religion involves the process of coming up with a conclusion, searching for evidence to support it and tossing out anything that might possibly contradict their theory. Science involves gathering all the evidence available, then coming to a rational conclusion based on that evidence. And if new evidence arises that contradicts the old theory, science is more than happy to change the theory. You can't bring science into a church anymore than you can bring religion into a scientific setting.
"God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion" -Superintendent Chalmers on prayer in a public school

*sigh*

Does anyone else remember whenmost folks on this site knew something of religion beyond rabid, mindless piety? When conversations were interesting and we learned from each other?

It was a long time ago, but damn.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What I think the world needs now is for people to be better educated and have better critical thinking skills.

Couldn’t agree more.

Populations that can think critically are harder to manipulate and control by oppressive leaders.

Not as true. Consider groupthink, Kuhnian paradigm shifts (which, while largely non-existent in their most popular formulization do characterize how a majority or at least a large minority of experts in a scientific field can reject most or all of the theoretical framework within which they work for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Two examples that spring to mind are:

1) the almost complete abandonment of what was considered the “science” of eugenics, defeated not by scientific inquiry nor empirical findings but due to the horror induced by the holocaust.

&

2) The adoption of the biomedical model in psychiatry with the concurrent and causally linked publication of the DSM III.

Actually, perhaps the best example is Gödel. Almost certainly the greatest logician of all time, and he died of starvation surrounded by food in part because of his analytic prowess. His premise was that people were trying to poison him and he could only trust his wife to prepare meals, so when health required that she be hospitalized for an extended period he didn’t eat. He reasoned that, given others were trying to poison him and his wife wasn’t around, he couldn’t trust anybody (and was unable himself) to prepare meals, so he could either risk death by waiting for his wife’s return or ensure it by eating meals. He logically chose the former, and died.

Populations that can think critically are harder for big business and corrupt politicians* to hoodwink.

True (well, technically only if they do not if they can but that’s rather trivial).

Better educated people will make better choices in regards to being good stewards of the planet. And so on.

It is a mistake to equate education with critical thinking skills. Certainly, there is a correlation with higher education and tests/experiments intended to test critical thinking. However, there is also a stronger correlation between SAT scores and GRE scores, despite the fact that the tests do not differ qualitatively.

Cognitive scientists have learned that all cognitive activity uses the same supply of glucose.

No we haven’t. We have demonstrated that this isn’t true, and pretty fundamentally untrue, as so basic a divide as intra- vs. inter-neuronal glucose levels is required to model action potentials.

Everything you do with your brain, drains the same "fuel tank".

It doesn’t. A simple counter-example would be neurotransmitters, which are essential to cognitive functions (though I believe I get what you are saying; you’re using the same “fuel” metaphor we find with “calories” and the body). The entirety of fMRI studies rely on using (de)oxygenation as a proxy for neural activity, the mechanisms which govern neuronal spike trains are intra- vs. extracellular charges, and glucose isn’t the only “fuel” source.

Even something as simple as exercising willpower uses brain glucose.

I’ve been a researcher in neuroscience for a relatively short time (less than a decade), but the fact that I’ve never come across any study even referencing some study in which this is true (along with the fact that we don’t actually use notions like “willpower”) makes me wonder whence comes this claim.

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.

Not critical thinking, but perhaps cognitive “load”


"the data show that while believers strengthened their beliefs, non-believers wavered from their disbelief. This pattern is more consistent with a “distinct cognitive inclination” account of supernatural belief (Norenzayan & Hansen, 2006, p. 183), in which human beings are naturally and uniquely attracted to belief in supernatural agents."

Jong, J., Halberstadt, J., & Bluemke, M. (2012). Foxhole atheism, revisited: The effects of mortality salience on explicit and implicit religious belief. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 983-989.

"Cognitive and evolutionary theories of religious belief highlight the evolved cognitive biases that predispose people towards religion. Although there is considerable and lively scientific debate, one widely discussed view holds that disbelief, when it arises, results from significant cognitive effort against these powerful biases. According to this view, if the mind-perceiving and purpose-seeking brains of human beings effortlessly infer the existence of invisible agents with intentions, beliefs, and wishes, then disbelief lacks intuitive support. Therefore, atheism is possible, but requires some hard cognitive work to reject or override the intuitions that nourish religious beliefs"

Norenzayan, A., & Gervais, W. M. (2012). The origins of religious disbelief. Trends in cognitive sciences.

"Despite these uncertainties (or perhaps because of them), the one apparent consensus among the commentators is that atheists are best accounted for by Hypothesis 2 (Natural Variation): atheists are simply one end of a continuum of belief. On the face of it, this is unsurprising, even an anti-climax. Like numerous other traits in nature, beliefs vary - so what? However, if this is true, then there are in fact several striking implications. First, it implies that the mean of the distribution is some positive level of religious belief (that is, there is a consensus that natural selection has favored cognitive mechanisms underlying belief, and/or religion itself). Second, it implies that atheism is (or was) a suboptimal strategy for human beings. Third, it implies that atheists - given their status at the tail end of the distribution - are (or were) selected against."

Johnson, D. (2012). What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 2(1), 48-70.

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.

All the evidence indicates non- or disbelief is “cognitively draining.” Meanwhile, the sciences are largely the product of religious inquiry (the university system was, after all, a product of the church).

 

[Prophet]

Unwavering attachment to fundamental principles has impaired critical thinking skills in far more areas than just religion. I wonder at how anyone can think atheism/anti-theism immune.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Some spiritual activities charge the batteries in ways that non-spiritual activities don't.

 

[icehorse]

Legion -

I made some simplifications of the cognitive science for practical, layman discussions. So I won't at all argue if you disagree with some of the finer points - but from a layman's perspective I think the summaries I offered are close enough for a layman's perspective...

Thoughts?

Some spiritual activities charge the batteries in ways that non-spiritual activities don't.

sojourner - I agree, and I make a BIG distinction between religious and spiritual. Religion usually demands belief in unfalsifiable dogma, spirituality typically does not...

 

[Cephus]

Some spiritual activities charge the batteries in ways that non-spiritual activities don't.

I entirely disagree with that. I don't think those "batteries" are actually real, they are simply imagined by people with unrealistic expectations and faulty views of the world, people who instead of dealing with reality as it actually is, would much rather invent a comforting fantasy so they don't have to face the facts.

 

[sojourner]

I entirely disagree with that. I don't think those "batteries" are actually real, they are simply imagined by people with unrealistic expectations and faulty views of the world, people who instead of dealing with reality as it actually is, would much rather invent a comforting fantasy so they don't have to face the facts.

Sooo... you don't think people build up/store/expend energy??? And that there's a way for the human body to store energy???

Your loss.

No one's suggesting that anyone's living in a fantasy world, or not facing facts. Except for you. I am suggesting that the mythic is a tool for meaning and understanding. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting that the mythic is literally factual.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner - I agree, and I make a BIG distinction between religious and spiritual. Religion usually demands belief in unfalsifiable dogma, spirituality typically does not...

"Usually" =/= "always." It's always a mistake to generalize.

 

[Cephus]

Sooo... you don't think people build up/store/expend energy??? And that there's a way for the human body to store energy???

Your loss.

No one's suggesting that anyone's living in a fantasy world, or not facing facts. Except for you. I am suggesting that the mythic is a tool for meaning and understanding. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting that the mythic is literally factual.

Not in any way that "spirituality" would be superior to another means, no. And yes, there are plenty of people living in a fantasy world because it's more emotionally comforting than just dealing with reality. There's a recent story out of Canada where a woman let her husband's dead body rot in a room in the house for six months because she was convinced he would be resurrected. Of course, he was a crazy person too, he refused to seek medical treatment for an easily treatable ailment because he was convinced God would heal him. That's one of a million stories and while it is an extreme example to be sure, it is a valid example nonetheless.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Religion is a fundamental crutch for so many people. Take for example the Muslims whose countries are the most religious next to the de facto Christian nations of Africa.

Both types of these countries rank amongst the lowest educated and worst of all nations in the world. Even countries like India which have strong religiosity suffers but is thankfully becoming more secular because of religious pluralism.
On the other hand Islamic and Christian nations( non-European) are feeling the stench of religious tyranny and dogmatic thinking. Religion is by the far the worst institute in the modern world next to totalitarian governments that are theocratic, dictatorial, or authoritarian. Ironically any such government treats its political system like a religion.
Religion is outdated and no longer needed and has been around for so long because it offers so much hope. Attacks on religion are attacking people hope but hope is no different than faith and is just wishful thinking. Any person who builds their lives around wishful thinking will sadly never be that intelligent and ignorant of the world This especially applies to Biblical Christians, Shia Muslims (and various Sunni Madhabb), Dharmic cultists, and spiritualists. Although new strains of Dharmicism, paganism and LHPism is for the most part exempt from this they can easily become deluded with enough pressure.

I pray that that nobody has to grow up with the burdens of religion and especially the 2 biggest evils against cognition: Christianity (as taught by Jesus) and Islam as taught through Sunnah.

 

[sojourner]

Not in any way that "spirituality" would be superior to another means, no. And yes, there are plenty of people living in a fantasy world because it's more emotionally comforting than just dealing with reality. There's a recent story out of Canada where a woman let her husband's dead body rot in a room in the house for six months because she was convinced he would be resurrected. Of course, he was a crazy person too, he refused to seek medical treatment for an easily treatable ailment because he was convinced God would heal him. That's one of a million stories and while it is an extreme example to be sure, it is a valid example nonetheless.

Well, gee! Let's drag fringe insanity into the mainstream and call it all "crazy!" That's a real good way to deal with "reality."

For some, the expenditure/storing/amassing of energy -- as well as the conditioning of such energy is a spiritual endeavor. Have you ever heard of yoga, or of the chakra system in shamanic work? Or of the meditative work in contemplative Christianity?

I didn't say spirituality was "superior." I merely said it was a tool for fostering meaning and understanding. There are also a million stories about religious people who deal with the real world in a responsible, normal, and non-delusional way. I think it's unfair of you to generalize the way you are, simply because you don't "like," understand, buy into, or "get" spirituality.

 

[sojourner]

Religion is a fundamental crutch for so many people. Take for example the Muslims whose countries are the most religious next to the de facto Christian nations of Africa.

Both types of these countries rank amongst the lowest educated and worst of all nations in the world. Even countries like India which have strong religiosity suffers but is thankfully becoming more secular because of religious pluralism.
On the other hand Islamic and Christian nations( non-European) are feeling the stench of religious tyranny and dogmatic thinking. Religion is by the far the worst institute in the modern world next to totalitarian governments that are theocratic, dictatorial, or authoritarian. Ironically any such government treats its political system like a religion.
Religion is outdated and no longer needed and has been around for so long because it offers so much hope. Attacks on religion are attacking people hope but hope is no different than faith and is just wishful thinking. Any person who builds their lives around wishful thinking will sadly never be that intelligent and ignorant of the world This especially applies to Biblical Christians, Shia Muslims (and various Sunni Madhabb), Dharmic cultists, and spiritualists. Although new strains of Dharmicism, paganism and LHPism is for the most part exempt from this they can easily become deluded with enough pressure.

I pray that that nobody has to grow up with the burdens of religion and especially the 2 biggest evils against cognition: Christianity (as taught by Jesus) and Islam as taught through Sunnah.

That's very nice, dear.

Too bad you don't understand Christianity (as taught by Jesus). Or you wouldn't be singing this tune.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's very nice, dear.

Too bad you don't understand Christianity (as taught by Jesus). Or you wouldn't be singing this tune.

I do understand Christianity as taught by Jesus which is why I find it sickening. I know your Bible better than you and I actually understand it. I am not interested in your opinions or the words of ministers, just the Bible. Preachers serve only 2 purposes, to lie or to destroy; so why would I concerned myself with demented dogma and teachings when I can read the Bible for what it is. There need not be any interpretation required in a book allegedly written by a supreme being.
Considering the Bible for what it is I would have to say it was written by the most ignorant and powerless of beings.

All that you are doing is applying a No True Scotsman fallacy to the Bible assuming that a person cannot understand something obvious. I have 2 claims to make and they are not rooted in superstitions nor dogma while you have thousands of pages of it. Your own coherency on a matter cannot assuredly be the Bible's unless you are telling me you agree with every single opinion in the Bible which JUST SO HAPPENS to match your own.

I hold opinions to facts not to what I want the world yet alone a book to be. I do not want the Bible to be anything, I wanted it to be the way it is now I want it removed from the hearts of innocent children who do not have to grow up listening to teaching that can only be described as anti-human, morally depraved and malicious.

To understand the Bible is to hate the Bible because only a human being would hate the words of something anti-human. Trying creating an interpretation around that and I know good and well you are speaking from your heart not from the Bible yet alone the monster named Jesus.

Timed at 1m and 29s (I time my rants )