Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The thing is, though, you can't have religion without spirituality, because religion is a spiritual endeavor.

I'm with you so far.

The flip side of that is that you can't engage in spirituality without religion, because all spiritual practices are religious practices.

I don't see that this is necessarily true. Or rather, I can think of ways in which a distinction that I know is reflected in the language of some (i.e., there are a lot of people who use the words to refer to different things, and the meaning of words comes almost entirely from usage). For example, I might consider someone who believes her or his love for another is some unbreakable, spiritual bond and while you may say that this is therefore religious I don't see why it need be or even should be. A term for those who do not believe in doctrine, deities, or perhaps really any general property, notion, or entity generally associated with religion yet possessing a particular, non-generalized, and vague sense that involves perhaps a connection to a place (a certain garden, an ancient ruins, the ocean at night) or perhaps an activity (painting, sculpting, archery) can all be described as spiritual in ways that I would think useful and would also find useful as distinguished from religion. By "non-generalized", perhaps a key component, I mean not only that the spiritual experience/connection is subjective and wholly personal (i.e., although all believing Catholics will necessarily differ in both their conceptions of the trinity and their experience(s) of the trinity, they consider it an entity not only objective but accessible by potentially anyone), but also not generally experienced even personally. A sense of "the numinous" that involves no belief, is in its subjectively experienced way connected to some particular not even necessarily always connected to that particular (the way that one might be at sea for many days and nights and then for a short period of time experience something "spiritual").

You need not agree, of course. But I confess I have some trouble understanding how the two terms are necessarily and always connected such that with one there is always the other.

 

[icehorse]

The thing is, though, you can't have religion without spirituality, because religion is a spiritual endeavor. So, when one is engaging in religion, one is, by definition, engaging in spirituality. The flip side of that is that you can't engage in spirituality without religion, because all spiritual practices are religious practices. Perhaps you don't need the politico-social framework, the doctrinal clarification, or particular mythic constructions, but prayer, meditation, contemplation, reflection, worship, are all religious acts. Because spirituality engages the imagination and intuition, because it seeks to expand awareness, some aspect of the mythic is engaged, be it metaphoric avatars, or other imagery.

I suspect we're just debating semantics here. When I refer to *religion*, I'm talking about - once again - the most common implementations: clergy, places of worship, dogma, scripture, and so on. I understand that there are many definitions... feel free to tell me what language you prefer when distinguishing between the sort of religion I just mentioned, and whatever sort you're referring to...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I suspect we're just debating semantics here. When I refer to *religion*, I'm talking about - once again - the most common implementations: clergy, places of worship, dogma, scripture, and so on.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, nothing more nor less."

 

[Storm]

First off your post is littered with strawman arguments with a few ad hominems sprinkled in - those approaches undermine your cre.

Oh, look up your fallacies. The fact that you don't like your own arguments without the sugar coating doesn't make a strawman or an ad hom.

Now, for the sake of discussion I'll grant your claim that you're "educated in the field".

Oh no. Please, don't do me any favors; let's compare.

Process theology is the simplest and most common of my main principles, ever heard of it? How about this one: I reject both free will and determinism. Care to explain the third option? Here's a hint: it's pretty obvious when you combine process theology and panentheism. How about Euthyphro's Dilemma, why isn't it a dilemma at all? Ditto Problem of Evil.

And that's just my own theology. Can you explain the foundational insight of non-theistic neopaganism? Why isn't Discordianism a mere parody like Pastafarianism? What is the connection between the Eastern religions' concept of chi and the Western neopagan concept of magic?

Hell, let's go back to the very basics! What is mysticism, and don't forget to explain the difference between ecstatic and transcendental. Explain the basic premise of perennial philosophy. Negative theology. Define the term "Mystery tradition." FFS, do you even know what the Greek concepts of logos and mythos even meant?

Oh, but I forgot - pop fundamentalism is the be-all end all of religion in your narrow little world. Fine, we'll stick to debunking pop fundie Christianity, shall we? Provide the first Biblical[ renuciation of Literalism (and Creationism by any name alongwithit), and tell us which of the Ten Commandments is violated by that pseudo-theology, and why. Nobody in the current anti-queer threads could (or would, who knows?) name the sins that the Bible itself says Sodom was destroyed for can you? The foundational doctine of the modern pro-life movement, that the soul is imbued at nebulously-defined conception, is actually newer than Happy Meals. What was the doctirne before that, what was its primary Scriptural foundation, and which supporting Hebrew law is suspiciously absent from newer conservative editions of the Bible? What is the Scriptural foundation for sola scriptura?

You're awfully invested in the neural glucose consumption of belief, as if that could possibly be consistent. Still, we can presume that you're at least up on the neurology of beilief, yes? What are the primary neurological distinctions between mystical trance and hallucination? Who discovered them, and what did they name their fledgling field? Please summarize Guthrie's spandrel hypothesis, which though untested, neatly explains the predominance of theism among the believing population.


No Googling. Actually, scratch that - the vast majority of my questions require actual study, so Google your little fingers off. It won't do you much good, but maybe you'll actually learn something.

I've only been studying obsessively since I was 12. You, you can hardly bear to admit that liberal theology exists. How on earth can people believein God AND be critical thinkers? Oh, it must be a fluke!

Let me put this into perspective: I'm the biologist, and you've got a lot of practice to do before you're even Kirk Cameron. I tried to be kind. I tried to be patient. But I am sick of hearing you bleating about your stupid banana.

That doesn't make your strawman arguments any more accurate.

The fact that you're opining from abject ignorance doesn't make the educated rejection of mere prejudice a strawman.

As far as whether it's likely that you know how I feel, you might think you do, but again, your strawmans hurt your credibility.

Uh huh.

I'm totally interested in learning.

Then why do you refuse to listen when educated people attempt to share their knowledge?

And I've had many, many conversations with religious folks, and there are only so many ways that a person can defend pretending to know what they don't know.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'

I don't think religious people are stupid - yet another strawman from Storm!

No, just incapable of critical thinking due to the massive drain on neural glucose caused by the cognitive dissonance we all must be devoted to maintaining because you can't be bothered to figurre out wtf you're talking about.

Pull the other one, it plays Ave Maria.

In what way do you think I think I have all the answers?

LMAO.

Oh, I really, REALLY don't.

The only claims I'm making here are

Debunked. Repeatedly. By me.

- believing in the supernatural often shuts down conversations, because defenses of those beliefs are unfalsifiable.

False. That would be your ignorant pontificating with nothing to back it up but selection bias.

- most of the world's most popular religions are divisive.

At this point, your refusal to distingush between religions and self-proclaimed religious adherents can only be called deliberate dishonesty, especially given that only certain sects of only 2 religions are actually divisive.

Step away from the banana.[/quote]

 

[Storm]

A placebo effect is not actually true and you know it.

Actually, we know it is. That's why all medical studies have to account for it.

You mean the people who define the terms and have to be careful not to cast their net too wide or it will cost them customers?

Oh, so science is only valid when it tells you what you want to hear?

I'm not interested in emotions, I'm interested in factual truth.

Only when it furthers your agenda.

 

[Storm]

Yours is all one big false dilemma argument. Not being religious doesn't preclude any of the things you just mentioned. In other words, spiritual, non-religious people have as much imagination, intuition, creativity and broad view as anyone else, and my intuition is that they have more than most.

Actually, seeing as you're the one who insists that being religious does preclude all things spiritual, you're the one presenting the false dilemma. Sojourner didn't say they were exclusive to religion. You're the one who declared that there's no overlap.

 

[Storm]

Hey sojourner, Of course I acknowledge that many people put religion and spirituality together. But you don't need religion to be spiritual. So when religious people use spirituality as a defense of religion it doesn't fly.

Except that you did, and even went so far as to say it was offensive, echoed in your little jibe there about "spirituality as a defense."

 

[icehorse]

Actually, seeing as you're the one who insists that being religious does preclude all things spiritual, you're the one presenting the false dilemma. Sojourner didn't say they were exclusive to religion. You're the one who declared that there's no overlap.

when did I do that?

 

[Storm]

when did I do that?

If you're having trouble keeping track of the conversation, review it yourself.

But first, how about you get on with demonstrating your knowledge of theology? After all, if you don't know what you're talking about, then all your claims are entirely without foundation.

 

[icehorse]

Except that you did, and even went so far as to say it was offensive, echoed in your little jibe there about "spirituality as a defense."

We all share spirituality, religious folk and secular folk alike. But religion simply isn't the source of spirituality as the religious often claim it is. It's very similar to religious folks claiming that religion is the source of morality. As we see over and over again here on RF, the religious often attempt to lay claim to spirituality and morality, to prop up their religions, and to do so is indeed offensive.

Now, I hope the pineapple express doesn't knock out our power...

 

[Storm]

As we see over and over again here on RF, the religious often attempt to lay claim to spirituality and morality, to prop up their religions, and to do so is indeed offensive.

But it's ok for you to do the same for anti-religion?

 

[icehorse]

But it's ok for you to do the same for anti-religion?

Storm, All of theology is based on studying people who pretend to know what they don't know.

Second, I'm not doing the same for anti-religion. I'm giving each idea it's own independent validity. If you read my last post, you'll see that I started by saying that we ALL have access to the spiritual. My claim is that religion has no legitimate claim to be necessary or inseparable from spirituality. Of course I understand that many religious people - in practice - merge the two, but it's not necessary to do so.

Next, you ARE indeed, creating classic strawmen. You're not simply reframing what I said, you're putting spin on your responses that fundamentally misrepresent what I said.

Finally, it might be interesting to discuss some of these ideas with you, but you have to stop putting words in my mouth.

Legion, I'm about 95% sure that your Humpty Dumpty reference was meant as a slam. If so, you're welcome to your games of linguistic whack-a-mole.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

I think it depends on what you are talking about specifically in religion. Fundamentalism can reduce critical thinking skills and cause a lapse in what one would see as common sense.

I myself am religious, and I also consider myself a critical thinker.

The issue comes from religious zealots who want it to be their way/religion or the highway. And the same goes for anti-theists who claim all religions are evil and must be eradicated. Both of those are stances reduce critical thinking to a low level.

Being intellectually smart does not necessarily mean one has critical thinking skills. Some of the smartest people I know, lack critical thinking skills.

 

[icehorse]

Hammer,

I mostly agree except it's not just the zealots who cause trouble. In the world today hundreds of millions of people believe that apostasy and blasphemy should be crimes. Tens of millions of people believe it makes sense for teachers to beat children with sticks, and that religion should inform how science is taught. These are not a few fringe zealots.

 

[Cephus]

I have personally experienced getting better through spiritual means, and I've witnessed spiritual healing in others. there are plenty of cases where people are made better through spiritual means. There are also plenty of cases where cancer patients don't respond to treatment and die anyway. That doesn't mean that treatment isn't "real."

And how do you know that? What tests did you put your experience to that proved it was a spiritual healing and not another sort? Lots of people make such claims, none of them do the legwork to demonstrate that their claims are actually so. And just for your information, placebos and the like work naturally by engaging the body's natural healing system. I'd like to know how you determined that the healing was "spiritual" instead of doing the rational thing and saying "I don't know what happened".

You mean besides the expansion of awareness and holistic development of self and relationships?

None of which requires anything spiritual from what I can see, unless you're using the word in such an absurdly broad sense that it loses all real meaning.

None of them has ever classified religious faith as "delusion." The reason why is because they don't equate religious faith with belief in the existence of nonexistent entities. Like you do. Which is a straw man argument, because that's simply not what faith is.

Actually, if you look in the DSM-V, they discuss delusion and specifically exclude religion even though it shares all of the same characteristics as other forms of delusion. Why? They don't want to shoot themselves in the leg and scare away the majority of their customers.

Of course there is. But they'e both real.

Not in the same sense. You can't eat an idea. You can't drive an idea. You don't want to get paid in ideas. In the sense that a particular electro-chemical state in the brain is real, an idea is real, but it has no real-world application until put into action.

Yeah? Duh!

But you're trying to blur the line because it benefits your position.

I have ideas. Creative things arise from those ideas. Some ideas are shared between individuals and lead to group efforts. Therefore, the ideas exist. The only line that's being crossed is the one where you assert that only the material has existence. Which is a narrow and pedestrian way to view the human experience.

Please quote where I said that. You're really arguing quite dishonestly. You're essentially saying that because you have a concept of the spiritual, that makes the concept real. That's about as silly as saying because you have a concept of the perfect car, that means it's in your garage and you can go drive it. You can come up with all kinds of weird concepts in your head that has absolutely no application in the real world. You don't seem to understand that.

 

[Cephus]

...one is often called a "Platonist" or "realist", although modern Platonists like Sir Roger Penrose aren't typically as radical as Plato seems to be, but they do assert the "real existence" of abstract, non-physical things like numbers.

Really only by altering what most people understand as "real". When you're fluid with your definitions, you can make anything be anything.

 

[Cephus]

Actually, we know it is. That's why all medical studies have to account for it.

It's not true in the same sense that medicine is. Strong belief triggers a healing response in the body. It comes from within, not from without.

Oh, so science is only valid when it tells you what you want to hear?

No, only when it produces demonstrable and testable results.

Only when it furthers your agenda.

Nope, all the time. I care about reality as reality actually is. Why don't you?

 

[Storm]

Storm, All of theology is based

You really need to stop trying to school me on theology. Desperately ignoring the challenge to demonstrate that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about only proves that you don't.

I do. If you're too contemptuous to learn, that's your loss. But stop presuming to instruct.

 

[Storm]

It's not true in the same sense that medicine is. Strong belief triggers a healing response in the body. It comes from within, not from without.

And has the same effect. The only reason you're trying to say it's not true is because it doesn't further your agenda.

No, only when it produces demonstrable and testable results.

Like the placebo effect.

Nope, all the time. I care about reality as reality actually is.

Sorry, but you've already demonstrated the falsehood of that statement. So much for your claims to rationality.

Why don't you?

I'm not the one pretending that science isn't science when it doesn't confirm my beliefs. You are.

 

[sojourner]

I'm with you so far.

I don't see that this is necessarily true. Or rather, I can think of ways in which a distinction that I know is reflected in the language of some (i.e., there are a lot of people who use the words to refer to different things, and the meaning of words comes almost entirely from usage). For example, I might consider someone who believes her or his love for another is some unbreakable, spiritual bond and while you may say that this is therefore religious I don't see why it need be or even should be. A term for those who do not believe in doctrine, deities, or perhaps really any general property, notion, or entity generally associated with religion yet possessing a particular, non-generalized, and vague sense that involves perhaps a connection to a place (a certain garden, an ancient ruins, the ocean at night) or perhaps an activity (painting, sculpting, archery) can all be described as spiritual in ways that I would think useful and would also find useful as distinguished from religion. By "non-generalized", perhaps a key component, I mean not only that the spiritual experience/connection is subjective and wholly personal (i.e., although all believing Catholics will necessarily differ in both their conceptions of the trinity and their experience(s) of the trinity, they consider it an entity not only objective but accessible by potentially anyone), but also not generally experienced even personally. A sense of "the numinous" that involves no belief, is in its subjectively experienced way connected to some particular not even necessarily always connected to that particular (the way that one might be at sea for many days and nights and then for a short period of time experience something "spiritual").

You need not agree, of course. But I confess I have some trouble understanding how the two terms are necessarily and always connected such that with one there is always the other.

Well, we really need to begin with some universally agreed upon definitions. I say that however a person tends to organize her or his spiritual awareness/experiences and give expression to them constitutes religion. A person can't just sit around and "be spiritual." There is always some sort of belief, expression, action, or thought that accompanies spiritual awareness.