Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Storm]

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.

Uh huh. You really ought to go look up the technical definition of delusion, since you like to bandy it about so much.

 

[gnostic]

Unfortunately for great many, religion or religious belief, it does hamper critical thinking.

But it really depends on the individual's level of education and their religious fervour.

 

[icehorse]

Hi sojourner,

No, I think about spiritual experiences. And sometimes I discuss spirituality. I would say that much of my behavior has a spiritual component. I've even been on spiritual retreats, imagine that!

None of that leads me to pretend to know what I don't know.

Hawkins,

I know many people who place a high value on critical thinking, and not a single one of them is under the illusion that "everything should be evidenced and falsifiable".

On the other hand, some things (like science), are based on those principles. And of course, you are correct, individually we don't have to reinvent all of science to use it and benefit from it. You're using the internet to participate in this forum. I'd guess that you haven't personally done scientific experiments to confirm for yourself all of the technology necessary for the internet to work. But I would never contend that you"re "swallowing" this science. You've come to trust the fruits of science because they ARE reliable.

Storm... hmmm... I can't possibly track down all the misstatements you've made, but I'll respond to a few:

First, when you declare victory for yourself, who do you think you're fooling?

Second, no matter how much you know about Theology, you haven't explained how it isn't ultimately the study of how far people will go to support themselves in pretending to know what they don't know. You remind me a bit of William Lane Craig. (Although his debating skills are world class.) He has constructed complex and intricate explanations and perspectives to apologize for and defend religion. But in the end, it's all just debate tricks, because at the core, when anyone defends religion, they're attempting to add gravitas to the act of pretending.

For now I'll end with your response to the stats. concerning widespread belief in apostasy and blasphemy laws. On this point, you surprised me... Really, you're okay with ideologies that are in opposition with basic human rights?

 

[sojourner]

You remind me a bit of William Lane Craig. (Although his debating skills are world class.) He has constructed complex and intricate explanations and perspectives to apologize for and defend religion.

That's not theology -- it's apologetics. There's a big difference.

you haven't explained how it isn't ultimately the study of how far people will go to support themselves in pretending to know what they don't know.

Theology has nothing to do with apologetics (supporting themselves).

I think about spiritual experiences. And sometimes I discuss spirituality. I would say that much of my behavior has a spiritual component. I've even been on spiritual retreats, imagine that!

None of that leads me to pretend to know what I don't know.

What do you suppose others claim to "know" that you feel is dishonest or delusional?

 

[Storm]

Storm... hmmm... I can't possibly track down all the misstatements you've made, but I'll respond to a few:

You might want to try again with things I actually said.

First, when you declare victory for yourself, who do you think you're fooling?

When did I declare victory? Your failure to present a single argument that's more than loftily phrased prejudice is no victory for me. If I could get you to set aside that prejudice and learn, so that you can then hold your own in an honest and worthwhile discussion on religion, that would be a victory... but that's clearly not going to happen. Still, I'm not so desperate for superiority that I regard your dishonesty or willful ignorance as some sort of personal triumph.

So really, who do you think you're fooling? Certainly nobody engaging in the critical thought you claim to prize so highly.

Second, no matter how much you know about Theology, you haven't explained how it isn't ultimately the study of how far people will go to support themselves in pretending to know what they don't know.

Of course I haven't. I would never pretend such a question was worthy of serious consideration, no matter what field of inquiry it was aimed at.

You remind me a bit of William Lane Craig. (Although his debating skills are world class.) He has constructed complex and intricate explanations and perspectives to apologize for and defend religion. But in the end, it's all just debate tricks, because at the core, when anyone defends religion, they're attempting to add gravitas to the act of pretending.

Yes, yes... these are exceedingly easy claims for the totally ignorant to make, seeing as they require (and reveal) zero comprehension of the subject. Just like when Young Earth Creationists make near identical claims about evolution.

For now I'll end with your response to the stats. concerning widespread belief in apostasy and blasphemy laws.

You have presented no statistics, that was my point. "Tens of millions of people" sounds like an awfully lot, but (1) it's out of roughly 7 billion, so really not, and (2) I'm pretty sure you made it up, given the absence of even a conveniently vague reference to "studies," as well as the problematic nature of actually gathering accurate information.

On this point, you surprised me...

Wish I could say the same, but you're depressingly consistent.

Really, you're okay with ideologies that are in opposition with basic human rights?

No. Never said I was, and you didn't ask. You're just trying to put me on the moral defensive to cover your lack of substance.

 

[Storm]

That's not theology -- it's apologetics. There's a big difference.

Theology has nothing to do with apologetics (supporting themselves).

What do you suppose others claim to "know" that you feel is dishonest or delusional?

The distinction between theology and apologetics is far too advanced for someone who can't even admit there's a difference between "religions" and self-proclaimed religious believers, don't you think?

 

[icehorse]

Hi sojourner,

Well most of that was in response to Storm. What the religious (for the most part) claim to know, is that there is a deity and an afterlife. While I agree that the idea of an afterlife is comforting, there is no evidence for it. Further, they claim to have the "correct" set of morals, often in opposition to the morals of competing religions. Heck, we can't even agree on basic human rights because the Quran has a few verses that are in opposition to them.

 

[icehorse]

Storm,

I tell you what. Pick one thing I've said in this thread and let's discuss it. But just stick with the one, because like WLC, you also practice the Gish gallop.

 

[Storm]

No, I think about spiritual experiences. And sometimes I discuss spirituality. I would say that much of my behavior has a spiritual component. I've even been on spiritual retreats, imagine that!

None of that leads me to pretend to know what I don't know.

This wasn't addressed to me, but it should be addressed.

Of course spirituality doesn't lead you to "pretend to know what [you] don't know." No reason it would.

Your blind, ignorant contempt for religion is obviously quite another matter, since you've done precisely that several times.

 

[sojourner]

The distinction between theology and apologetics is far too advanced for someone who can't even admit there's a difference between "religions" and self-proclaimed religious believers, don't you think?

Well... One always hopes for the best...

 

[Storm]

What the religious (for the most part) claim to know, is that there is a deity and an afterlife.

False.

Further, they claim to have the "correct" set of morals, often in opposition to the morals of competing religions.

False.

For one thing, religions do not claim to know such things. Some religionsencourage people to believe them, but even that much is far from universal.

Storm,

I tell you what. Pick one thing I've said in this thread and let's discuss it. But just stick with the one, because like WLC, you also practice the Gish gallop.

They're your claims, dude. You pick one. Of course, then you'll have to actually defend it, instead of moving the goalposts, changing the subject, or studiously pretending that a response doesn't exist. Are you really sure you want to commit to that?

 

[sojourner]

Hi sojourner,

Well most of that was in response to Storm. What the religious (for the most part) claim to know, is that there is a deity and an afterlife. While I agree that the idea of an afterlife is comforting, there is no evidence for it. Further, they claim to have the "correct" set of morals, often in opposition to the morals of competing religions. Heck, we can't even agree on basic human rights because the Quran has a few verses that are in opposition to them.

I can't argue with that. Many people don't put the amount of thought into their religious endeavors to distinguish between hope, faith, and evidence. Because religion is part of culture, there's also the issue of proper objectivity. But I think that's an unfair accusation on some level, because when trying to make meaning out of something, whether it be the world, your own life, or whatever, you have to start with some assumptions about the unknown. Those assumptions are more properly ... well ... assumptions and not statements of fact. IOW, they're tools -- best guesses -- that are utilized in order to orient oneself.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, we really need to begin with some universally agreed upon definitions.

If only. I'm hardly innocent of writing post after post after post concerning why a word doesn't (or at least shouldn't) be defined in a particular way, but I came to neuroscience & physics through my secondary major in ancient Greek & Latin (I know I didn't have to include my current field, but I just find it amusing that not only was it not my seemingly more relevant major nor the minor I added that led me to my current work, but a major in dead languages I added simply because I hate reading translations).

Spoiler: Ancient Greek, Words, and Language

By the time studying languages became more studying linguistics, I had taken enough Greek to wonder how modern linguistics (basically from Chomsky's work in the 50s onwards) had ever thought that there was a "lexicon" completely dived from "grammar" such that one could generate grammatical sentences using rules and the lexical "entries" for each word. Correct me if I am wrong, but have you not studied Koine/Hellenistic Greek (and if I am not mistaken most courses in seminary and the like on Greek eventually also cover some classical Greek)? I imagine you've probably seen entries in the BDAG or the Perseus Project's out-of-print version of the LSJ for words like λύω. Despite the fact that it's most central meanings are untie/loose, by metaphorical extension we get everything from "destroy" to "atone" (and a lot of meanings are specific to constructions, such as paying wages) Yet even though one can't usually predict what kinds of metaphorical extensions a given word in Greek like this would consist of, once you know the "extended meanings" it's pretty easy to see the metaphorical relationship.

English tends invent new words, modify existing words, or borrow from other languages rather than extend meanings metaphorically, and no other language has as many different dictionaries (not to mention editions) as does English. Part of this is because English dictionaries have been around so long, being as the first real dictionaries were in English (as opposed to technical dictionaries, glosses, etc., Johnson set out to give definitions for the entire English language, and since then most dictionaries in English have tried to do the same). Partly it is because most languages didn't/don't have a writing system. But it is also in part because for many languages like too many words are formed on the spot (I can't tell you how many times I used to look up a German word in my gargantuan WAHRIG Deutsches Wörterbuch only to find it not there, which is particularly frustrating because I bought it thinking that as it was in German it would have all those words not found in a German-English dictionary). For others, like Batsi or Navajo, it's hard to tell what is or isn't a word. Even in Greek, I'm sure you've noticed how many entries in a lexicon are actually verbal adjectives or nouns of other words (or even tenses of another word). But we have been so molded by dictionaries that, as I'm sure you've seen, many a person will support an argument about what a very complex/involved term like "theory" or "philosophy" means by using an online dictionary. I'm not equating your argument with this by any means, I simply rarely get to address certain aspects of language with someone who has studied a language like Greek, where so much concentration is on grammar and the nature of the language.

Although most of the time the fact that words are incredibly polysemous is a good thing, there are times like these where it would be useful to really be able to nail down distinctions (or the lack thereof) and meanings. I those cases I first check to see if a definition I find way off is reflected in usage, and then determine whether or not a particular meaning, distinction, etc., makes sense or is useful. I can't recall any time that's actually resolved a debate, but it seems to me that unless we're dealing with a technical term or a common term in a technical context, there's little else to do but to simply disagree.

I say that however a person tends to organize her or his spiritual awareness/experiences and give expression to them constitutes religion.

I can certainly appreciate that, and in many ways I'd agree.

A person can't just sit around and "be spiritual."

Perhaps not. But the examples I gave, while limited and by no means encapsulating what anybody means by "spiritual", were deliberately constructed to illustrate an important distinction that you capture with the copula "be". I gave examples in which someone could feel a spiritual connection or experience a sense of the numinous, and thus this:

There is always some sort of belief, expression, action, or thought that accompanies spiritual awareness.

need not be true, with the limited exception of awareness: one can hardly experience a sense of anything or feel a connection with/to anything and not be aware of it, but such experiences can be not only vague but defined in part by aspects of the connections or experiences that cause them.

 

[icehorse]

Legion! Hooray! Where the heck is the RF glossary?!

 

[icehorse]

Storm,

Ok, you said I could pick the topic: I'll claim that major religions make competing moral claims.

In 1948 the UN put forth a declaration on human rights. Decades later the OIC put forth a counter to the UN's declaration, the Cairo declaration. In it, the OIC modified the UN's declaration when it was in opposition to the Quran.

 

[Storm]

Storm,

Ok, you said I could pick the topic: I'll claim that major religions make competing moral claims.

In 1948 the UN put forth a declaration on human rights. Decades later the OIC put forth a counter to the UN's declaration, the Cairo declaration. In it, the OIC modified the UN's declaration when it was in opposition to the Quran.

The UN is not a religion. It's declarations are not religious.

Also, the OIC advocates theocracy, which is not really religion, but the ultimate conclusion of what I already called a mutually toxic hybridization of religious and political authority.

So I'm afraid your example is no example at all. It is, however, yet another excellent demonstration of your ignorance.

That said, many adherents of the two most popular religions do disagree on the details of moral behavior. However, their basic moral principles are the same (as are the internal debates on proper behavior).

So what? That has nothing to do with the capacity for critical thinking.

 

[Storm]

Storm,

Ok, you said I could pick the topic: I'll claim that major religions make competing moral claims.

By the way, I did not fail to notice that you still cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge that you might be wrong. Pretending I didn't say anything still isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Hi sojourner,

Well most of that was in response to Storm. What the religious (for the most part) claim to know, is that there is a deity and an afterlife. While I agree that the idea of an afterlife is comforting, there is no evidence for it. Further, they claim to have the "correct" set of morals, often in opposition to the morals of competing religions. Heck, we can't even agree on basic human rights because the Quran has a few verses that are in opposition to them.

Shalom, I highlighted by bolding the sentence i contest ....

Some years ago in a motor vehicle accident i was taken to hospital and declared brain DEAD.,though kept on life support in order that my organs may be useful for transplant.

During the 3 days it took for my parents to refuse using me for transplants, i had what is commonly referred to as a nDE ,,, i went to that afterlife, experienced a life review, and was returned with both a prophesy that proved true, and a task to perform ( i am still a
little annoyed that i had to come back from what i saw as "home at last" )...

So guess i am a witness of an afterlife, though likely you will refute my evidence ....

Shalom .... Eliab ..
PS. I am a scientist if a qualified Biomedical Engineer is considered as one

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It comes from within, not from without.

Kind of like antibodies. Except with the placebo effect something from outside the body goes into it.

Actually, if you look in the DSM-V, they discuss delusion and specifically exclude religion

“Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).”

(DSM V, p. 87; emphasis added).

The healing is biological

All healing is biological (well, at least all healing of the type you’ve been referring to). Most medication works in tandem with the body’s natural defense systems, including “the placebo effect” and similar phenomena, like phantom pain or one interesting case in which an individual was brought from a rural area in a country where that’s saying something into the city and to a hospital for treatment. The doctors learned that there was absolutely nothing wrong with him other than the fact that he believed he’d been cursed by (if memory serves) a local “shaman.” As this wasn’t medical (and they couldn't convince the man that there was nothing wrong) the best they could do was ensure he was given fluids and nutrients and monitored. He died. The “placebo effect” can cause medicines to fail to work just as it can cause placebos to work, and although cases like the one I mentioned in which a belief is so powerful it results in death are rare, either you think the man was actually cursed or the placebo-like effects are very much biological.

What tests did you put your experience to that proved it was a spiritual healing and not another sort?

Have you looked into evidence from places like Lourdes?

Lots of people make such claims, none of them do the legwork to demonstrate that their claims are actually so.

If only that were true. I’ve consulted on studies that have tried to show (one I believe thought they had) phenomena generally categorized as “parapsychology” in the literature and by those of us who don’t think much of that research called in conversation “pseudoscience.” However, as a good half of studies in certain fields are junk too one can hardly say that those who have tried to provide evidence of things like mind-to-mind (psychic) connections or mind-body dualism via research on that very active area of research known as NDEs (near-death experiences), and so forth. There are even popular books explaining such research by qualified (albeit in my view wrong) scientists such as:

Beauregard, M., & O'Leary, D. (2007). The spiritual brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul. HarperCollins.


If one wants to be able to counter the “findings” of studies that purport to support the existence of things one doesn’t believe in, one has to actually be aware of what the evidence consists of. And, in some cases, differential geometry, calculus, and particle physics (worse still, the counter-arguments to monographs like Amoroso & Rauscher's The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series in Knots & Everything Vol. 43). World Scientific. or The Cosmological Anthropic Principle by Barrow & Tipler and so on are at least as complicated; worth the effort though, IMO).


Of course, it’s not wrong to say that if one isn’t familiar with such evidence one is somehow not entitled to claim that the evidence is flawed or even more so that one’s belief about materialism or physicalism are still correct. It’s more the assertion that nobody’s willing to “do the legwork” rather than just make claims that is simply wrong.

And just for your information, placebos and the like work naturally by engaging the body's natural healing system.

We have little to know idea whatsoever how placebos work. Same with similar phenomena.

None of which requires anything spiritual from what I can see

I agree.

You don't want to get paid in ideas.

There are a lot of ideas I’d love to get paid in. Mostly those that involve low-cost start-ups that will make me millions in a year.


I might go over other problems in your arguments but I’ve come too late to the thread to go that far back. It wouldn’t be very fair.

 

[Cephus]

Kind of like antibodies. Except with the placebo effect something from outside the body goes into it.

It affects mental state which in turn triggers various factors involved in healing or other bodily change.

“Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).”

(DSM V, p. 87; emphasis added).

“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion)” (DSM-V, p. 765; emphasis added)

All healing is biological (well, at least all healing of the type you’ve been referring to). Most medication works in tandem with the body’s natural defense systems, including “the placebo effect” and similar phenomena, like phantom pain or one interesting case in which an individual was brought from a rural area in a country where that’s saying something into the city and to a hospital for treatment. The doctors learned that there was absolutely nothing wrong with him other than the fact that he believed he’d been cursed by (if memory serves) a local “shaman.” As this wasn’t medical (and they couldn't convince the man that there was nothing wrong) the best they could do was ensure he was given fluids and nutrients and monitored. He died. The “placebo effect” can cause medicines to fail to work just as it can cause placebos to work, and although cases like the one I mentioned in which a belief is so powerful it results in death are rare, either you think the man was actually cursed or the placebo-like effects are very much biological.

Yes, so far as we have any evidence for, all healing is biological in nature. Some people claim that healing can be something else, that's what I've tried to get them to demonstrate and in this case, it's been argued that the placebo effect is something other than biological healing and that simply isn't true. It's something other than artificial medicine but no one ever claimed otherwise. We know the mind has a powerful influence on the body, especially at a subconscious level, and that mental states can seriously affect how the body operates. Even beyond the religious, if someone just gives up on living, they are very likely to stop doing so. But of course, this has nothing to do with religion or religious claims about the supernatural, it's just a recognition of how human biology operates. Now if you want to argue that religion makes use of existing human mental and biological foibles, I'll agree with you. However, it remains an issue of the mental and biological system, not of any miraculous, supernatural entity.

Have you looked into evidence from places like Lourdes?

Yup, totally unimpressed. Again, it's well known that people in the grips of religious zealotry can experience spontaneous healing, at least temporarily. We've seen it with faith healing shysters in the past, people who get up and walk, then are quickly hustled off-stage before the adrenaline wears off and they fall again. Let me know when religious belief starts regrowing limbs or something demonstrable.

If only that were true. I’ve consulted on studies that have tried to show (one I believe thought they had) phenomena generally categorized as “parapsychology” in the literature and by those of us who don’t think much of that research called in conversation “pseudoscience.” However, as a good half of studies in certain fields are junk too one can hardly say that those who have tried to provide evidence of things like mind-to-mind (psychic) connections or mind-body dualism via research on that very active area of research known as NDEs (near-death experiences), and so forth. There are even popular books explaining such research by qualified (albeit in my view wrong) scientists such as:

Beauregard, M., & O'Leary, D. (2007). The spiritual brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul. HarperCollins.

We're still talking primarily about people in forums like this who make lots of religious claims but haven't done anything but read stories by apologists making the same claim. They haven't gone out and verified anything for themselves, they've simply engaged in confirmation bias. And while there are certainly people who have made claims about supernatural events, none of them can be verified or validated by a rigorous examination by science. James Randi still has a million dollars on the line for the first person who can prove they can actually perform psychic phenomena under controlled conditions. NDEs are not impressive, they can be artificially replicated in the lab. I'm just not seeing the rigorous work on objectively verifying these things actually exist.

If one wants to be able to counter the “findings” of studies that purport to support the existence of things one doesn’t believe in, one has to actually be aware of what the evidence consists of. And, in some cases, differential geometry, calculus, and particle physics (worse still, the counter-arguments to monographs like Amoroso & Rauscher's The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series in Knots & Everything Vol. 43). World Scientific. or The Cosmological Anthropic Principle by Barrow & Tipler and so on are at least as complicated; worth the effort though, IMO).

But likewise, works that objectively examine the claims and often debunk them are necessary. You have to study both sides of the claim and most people only read the side that supports their preconceived notions and don't go check out if their "experts" actually know what the heck they're talking about in the first place.