Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[sojourner]

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...

So... you just sit around and don't think about or do anything with your spiritual experience. Right?

 

[sojourner]

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...

You're right about that. Religion isn't the provenance of spirituality. It's the other way 'round.

 

[Cephus]

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.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The body has limits. In general, it cannot regrow limbs (fingertips being the exception). However, even accepting that the placebo effect does have limited usefulness, it's still a wholly natural effect. The healing is biological, there's no demonstrated supernatural or spiritual component to it. It seems odd that you're trying to defend any theological concept by using the placebo effect.

 

[icehorse]

But Storm, this thread isn't really about Theology, you've attempted a bit of a gentle hijack. If you want to crank up a thread on Theology, I'll jump in. And BTW, based on your posts in this thread, it's clear to me that you know a lot about Theology.

We have thousands of years of evidence of religion's various impacts on the world. That's what this thread is about. It's not about theoretical definitions, it's about what we see happening in the world. A common pattern I see in these debates is that religious folks like to tout what they see as the *benefits* of religion, but at the same time they're usually loathe for religion to take any responsibility for the downsides.

 

[icehorse]

You're right about that. Religion isn't the provenance of spirituality. It's the other way 'round.

I think I can agree to that!

 

[sojourner]

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".

Blind skepticism is just as meaningless as blind faith. In fact, I do know what happened, so the rational thing is to admit that I know. In all the cases I've mentioned, the "patients" had no knowledge of what was happening. In fact, the practitioners never informed the "patients" of what they were doing, nor touched them. There were no drugs or other medicines/cures involved. Therefore, it couldn't even be attributed to the placebo effect (which, BTW, you just dismissed -- now you're using it to bolster your argument -- how convenient!).

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.

Operative term here: "what I can see." Obviously, reality depends upon what you, yourself are capable of perceiving. Now that's delusional thinking.

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.

That's because there's a fundamental difference between religious belief and delusion that you're conveniently omitting. Then, you attempt to poison the well by calling the professionals' motivation into question.

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.

Somebody had to come up with the idea that artichokes are edible. Daimler had to come up with the idea for the horseless carriage. We get paid in ideas all the time. A check is nothing more than a piece of paper with writing on it that represents an idea of some currency. An electronic deposit is even more idea-driven. Action or no, an Idea is still real.

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

But you're trying to deny the reality of ideas because it benefits your position.

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.

No, I'm saying that spiritual/religious thinking and activity is not best measured by rational criteria, because that type of activity is more intuitive/creative. How does one measure beauty in inches or pounds? One doesn't, and it's absurd to try. But that doesn't mean that beauty doesn't exist. Beauty does exist and can be enjoyed and can uplift the senses and the emotions, if not the spirit. Even though it can't sit on a shelf, or be manipulated with a control panel.

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.

Hmm... spirituality comes from within too... interesting that you should make that distinction...

I care about reality as reality actually is.

No, you only care about reality as you perceive it.

 

[Storm]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The body has limits. In general, it cannot regrow limbs (fingertips being the exception). However, even accepting that the placebo effect does have limited usefulness, it's still a wholly natural effect. The healing is biological, there's no demonstrated supernatural or spiritual component to it. It seems odd that you're trying to defend any theological concept by using the placebo effect.

I wasn't. I was simply amused by your attempts to say it wasn't true. Nobody said it was supernatural.

 

[sojourner]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The body has limits. In general, it cannot regrow limbs (fingertips being the exception). However, even accepting that the placebo effect does have limited usefulness, it's still a wholly natural effect. The healing is biological, there's no demonstrated supernatural or spiritual component to it. It seems odd that you're trying to defend any theological concept by using the placebo effect.

The point was that spiritual thinking can trigger the placebo effect just as fake medications can trigger it, and that that effect is, at least, a benefit of spiritual thinking, just as the effect is a benefit of the fake medication. But you won't agree to it, because your agreement hurts your position.

 

[Cephus]

I wasn't. I was simply amused by your attempts to say it wasn't true. Nobody said it was supernatural.

Either it's natural or supernatural, by definition. If it's natural, it doesn't help your case. You haven't demonstrated that it's supernatural. Therefore, your amusement is really irrelevant.

 

[Hawkins]

Today's people are educated to be with a twisted world view to think that everything should be evidenced and falsifiable. In reality however, the opposite is true. People don't have the critical thinking to figure this out.

Most truths are conveyed by human witnessing which doesn't rely on evidence nor on a falsifiable basis. Even in the case of science, you don't actually examine the truth of the existence of black holes, or atoms or electrons. You don't even bother to examine whether planet earth is actually revolving around the sun. You swallow what have been said by other humans.

Another typical example is human history. Human history as a whole can hardly be evidenced (the more distant history is, the more it is so). Most history (=his story) are not falsifiable.

 

[sojourner]

Either it's natural or supernatural, by definition. If it's natural, it doesn't help your case. You haven't demonstrated that it's supernatural. Therefore, your amusement is really irrelevant.

Why not? Spirituality is natural.

 

[Storm]

But Storm, this thread isn't really about Theology, you've attempted a bit of a gentle hijack.

Nonsense. Theology is every bit as crucial a component of religion as spirituality, morality, or ritual. Furthermore, it's the component that not only utilizes but requires the very critical thinking that you're "asking" if religion impairs. If that question has a shred of honesty to it, then the answer lies wholly within theology.

And BTW, based on your posts in this thread, it's clear to me that you know a lot about Theology.

Good. Please don't try to tell me what it is anymore.

And for the record? I know a lot about religion. As I just said, theology is only one component.

We have thousands of years of evidence of religion's various impacts on the world. That's what this thread is about.

Really? Because that's not what it's been about. It was about religion impairing critical thinking, right up until I rendered your ignorance on the topic indefensible. Suddenly it's all about historical impact?

No matter, I can do that too. Shall we begin with examinging the thousands of years of automatic religious tolerance that was destroyed when the Roman Empire twisted the Christian religion into a weapon of conquest, or skip to the part where religious and political authority proved unavoidably toxic to one another, necessitating the rise of secular governance?

It's not about theoretical definitions, it's about what we see happening in the world.

"What's happening in the world" is a huge topic with a plethora of crucial influences other than religion. Centuries of Western Imperialism, economic inequality among and within nations, international espionage in the Cold War, the disastrously haphazard creation of Israel as a bizarre apology for the popularity of anti-Semitism after the Holocaust showed people where such things lead, the equally haphazard creation of Middle Eastern nations such as Iraq as the European empires collapsed, on and on and on. Honestly, religion didn't have half the impact people credit it with until the last few decades, as Islamicc extremism rose to power in defiance of Western exploitation. And even that arguably has less to do with religion itself than revolution.

A common pattern I see in these debates is that religious folks like to tout what they see as the *benefits* of religion, but at the same time they're usually loathe for religion to take any responsibility for the downsides.

Could that possibly be because you're framing your questions in a ridiculously misleading way, such as asking if religion impairs critical thought then trying to say you want to discuss its influence in current events?

I'm being sardonic, of course. Critical thinking doesn't really leave you a snowball's chance in hell of persuading me that that's anything other than moving the goalposts upon finally realizing that you are entirely out of your depth.

 

[Storm]

Either it's natural or supernatural, by definition. If it's natural, it doesn't help your case. You haven't demonstrated that it's supernatural. Therefore, your amusement is really irrelevant.

My amusement is the only reason I'm wasting time talking to you. I have no case to be helped. I wasn't even involved in t he placebo tangent until you got so hilarious trying to say that it may be kinda true, but it isn't really really true true because it doesn't help your case.

 

[Storm]

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.

No, that's zealotry. Specifically, that's destructive zealotry. Zealotry is zeal put into practice, nothing more, and there's no rational way to deny the zealotry of thinking it should be a crim to disagree with you.

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.

Tens of millions out of how many?

 

[Storm]

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.

True, but I can't agree that all spiritual practice is religious. Consider the etymology, the Latin religio means to come together in community. I would stipulate that religion is best defined as communities based in shared spirituality.

 

[sojourner]

True, but I can't agree that all spiritual practice is religious. Consider the etymology, the Latin religio means to come together in community. I would stipulate that religion is best defined as communities based in shared spirituality.

Unless all spiritual practice is aimed at creating community with others or with the Divine. I could concede that not all of it is, but I believe most of it is.

 

[Cephus]

Why not? Spirituality is natural.

Only if you're using a particularly odd definition of the word. According to pretty much everyone else, spirituality is supernatural. Maybe you ought to pick a unique word if you're not using the accepted definition.

 

[Cephus]

My amusement is the only reason I'm wasting time talking to you.

Funny, the same can be said here, you make me chuckle with your absurdity which is the only reason I've bothered responding to your irrational nonsense.

 

[sojourner]

Only if you're using a particularly odd definition of the word. According to pretty much everyone else, spirituality is supernatural. Maybe you ought to pick a unique word if you're not using the accepted definition.

Spirituality concerns the whole human being -- which is natural. It has mythic elements, but human beings experience the mythic, as well, so, still natural.

 

[Storm]

Only if you're using a particularly odd definition of the word. According to pretty much everyone else, spirituality is supernatural. Maybe you ought to pick a unique word if you're not using the accepted definition.

No, once again, that would be you. I've never heard anyone else even try to claim that spirituality itself is supernatural. Not once in countless conversations with countless believers AND non-believers.

You want to make up your own definition, and stick to it no matter how incoherent it makes you, that's your prerogative. Trying to say that yours is the "accepted definition" is decidedly not.