Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Storm]

it's been argued that the placebo effect is something other than biological healing

Only in your strawman.

and that simply isn't true.

That's why you're so desperate to pretend that we're making the claim. Yes, we know.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

This is nothing more than restating in non-technical and more vaguely the term “placebo effect”. You have no idea what is triggered, you can’t define mental state in terms of neurobiology or some neurophysiological configuration/state, and you can’t connect these with physiological changes in the body in general.

“…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)…”

I was hoping you’d do that. I demonstrated that you were completely wrong and that the DSM does in fact define religious delusions, and you illustrated quite kindly that the authoritative text doesn’t consider religious beliefs in general to be delusional. I was going to quote the DSM IV-TR and DSM V to indicate both points, but held back just in case. And you so nicely provided the nails to your own coffin. Because the authors of the DSM do not “specifically exclude religion”, the include it. However, they also note that religious beliefs aren’t necessarily delusional. Just as I hoped, after I showed that you were wrong about the exclusion, you completed my argument by demonstrating that religious beliefs aren’t necessarily delusional, thus making you wrong on both counts according to the entire mental health field.

Yes, so far as we have any evidence for, all healing is biological in nature.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. If one has some biological condition, disease, etc., then any healing is necessarily biological because the problem is biological. Theoretically, one could use spells from Atlantis combined with spells found in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the healing would still be biological.

Yup, totally unimpressed.

As you’re description is completely incorrect, it’s safe to assume this is more of you stating that which you know not of.



[/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

And I have debated such people over and over and become so frustrated I’ve lashed out in ways I regret and spent long periods of time without ever returning due to such frustrations where any and all arguments are meant with some sort of religious, mystical nonsense. However, I recognize that some who are religious and/or subscribe to mystic traditions are quite the opposite, while there are more than a few who dismiss any and all claims related to religion or mysticism or spirituality without evidence and using invalid arguments. I am concerned with truth (to the extent I can find it), and so far I share your beliefs about the nature of the world, but I do not share the your reasoning nor am I so dismissive of evidence I know not of (well, perhaps I am in some cases, but I would hope but a few).

They haven't gone out and verified anything for themselves

There are multiple journals dedicated to such verification. And many if not most such studies do not rest upon confirmation biases. The problems that invalidate such studies are much more nuanced.

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.

How many peer-reviewed articles of such demonstrations have you read? If the anser is none, it’s because you are again speaking of things you know not of. If you can name them and the journals they tend to appear in, then you please point out how such studies fall short of the rigorous scientific standards generally used.

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.

Which is antithetical to the scientific method. Consider a person who is capable is shown only the back of a randomly arranged deck of cards. It is highly unlikely that such a person would correctly identify but a small sample of cards. However, it is possible for an individual to correctly identify the card without seeing anything but the back based merely on the fact that improbable events are by definition possible. Hence real scientists don’t rely on pop culture notions of “controlled conditions” or “experiments” supplied by James Randi any more than they do frauds like Deepak Chopra.

I'm just not seeing the rigorous work on objectively verifying these things actually exist.

I’d argue that there is no rigorous work that has demonstrated these things exist. However, I’d also argue that you have no idea what attempts of such demonstrations in the literature amount to, and such intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy I find rather repugnant.

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.

Very true.

 

[Cephus]

I was hoping you’d do that. I demonstrated that you were completely wrong and that the DSM does in fact define religious delusions, and you illustrated quite kindly that the authoritative text doesn’t consider religious beliefs in general to be delusional. I was going to quote the DSM IV-TR and DSM V to indicate both points, but held back just in case. And you so nicely provided the nails to your own coffin. Because the authors of the DSM do not “specifically exclude religion”, the include it. However, they also note that religious beliefs aren’t necessarily delusional. Just as I hoped, after I showed that you were wrong about the exclusion, you completed my argument by demonstrating that religious beliefs aren’t necessarily delusional, thus making you wrong on both counts according to the entire mental health field.

I don't have time to respond to more than this at the moment, but you're wrong. The DSM-V specifically excludes religion, as a part of cultural beliefs, from it's definition of delusion, even if it otherwise fits the criteria. It only allows it where the beliefs are so extreme that it falls outside of cultural norms (ie. you won't make people mad to find the hyper-extremists crazy).

 

[Cephus]

This is nothing more than restating in non-technical and more vaguely the term “placebo effect”. You have no idea what is triggered, you can’t define mental state in terms of neurobiology or some neurophysiological configuration/state, and you can’t connect these with physiological changes in the body in general.

Oops, wanted to hit this real fast too. We have no evidence that there is anything else other than the biological, hence that is what we accept unless and until evidence for something else comes along. That we don't know exactly how it works is not licence to just make something up that you happen to favor. We don't know for sure, we might not understand the mechanisms entirely but we have no reason to think anything else is actually happening.

Let me know when you have evidence for anything else.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't have time to respond to more than this at the moment, but you're wrong. The DSM-V specifically excludes religion, as a part of cultural beliefs, from it's definition of delusion, even if it otherwise fits the criteria.

I own it. I quoted from it. The fact that the DSM both acknowledges that religious beliefs can be delusional and also have to be interpreted within a cultural context simply lessens (or removes entirely) your argument from both angles, as it is undeniably true the the DSM V specifically states delusions can be religious, yet also undeniably true that it states would-be delusions in general (including religious) have to be interpreted culturally such that in some cases religious beliefs are defined as delusional and in others they are not.

If you wish to criticize psychiatry on the grounds that their diagnoses are largely ad hoc and relatively arbitrary, I sympathize entirely. The biomedical model is mostly bull****. However, the DSM is first and foremost the product of psychiatry, and psychiatrists are but one many clinical specialists in the field of mental health (in fact, most of their training is irrelevant as they learn far less about the brain than the body in general, while e.g, psychologists focus on the brain). Neurologists and neuroscientists understand far more about the brain than your average psychiatrist.

Yet those from such fields and others who are specialists in mental health are even less likely to consider your viewpoint defensible. In fact, a great many sociologists specializing in mental health would argue that we are all deluded (personally, I find that rather fitting, but perhaps it is because I am deluded).

It only allows it where the beliefs are so extreme that it falls outside of cultural norms

Which is basically the definition of delusion. The doctors who described hysteria as the movement of a women's uterus or in a more modern period couched such sexism in somewhat more believable and clinical terms were no less wrong, and the physicists who believed in phlogiston and the ether would today be regarded as delusional. Delusions are necessarily defined relative to a norm, and indeed "abnormal psychology" pretty clearly indicates that the bulk mental disorders are contextual.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oops, wanted to hit this real fast too. We have no evidence that there is anything else other than the biological

I don't recall even implying this. In fact I recall stating something (repeated in my latest post) about all healing being "biological". Of course, when somebody dies because they believe they've been cursed, their biologically dead. Your division between the "physical' or "biological' and "placebo effects" either makes your own argument specious as if it isn't biological than you are asserting non-physical mechanisms whereby a person improves her or his biological condition, or you are arbitrarily dividing biological effects based upon their relation to claims concerning religion. Real scientists and doctors try not to do this (though we often fail).

That we don't know exactly how it works is not licence to just make something up that you happen to favor.

Very true and I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why object to you doing so. You've made up nonsense about placebo effect, delusions, epistemology, ontology, and a few other rather central topics, including criticizing the arguments of others for a lack of evidence despite the fact that you haven't produced much besides flawed arguments and inaccurate evidence.

Even though I may largely agree with your conclusions, hypocrisy is something I find almost as offensive as an (often coinciding) lack of intellectual integrity.

 

[icehorse]

False.
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?

Storm, I'll offer this. I'm not interested in what's become more or less a shouting match. It seems to me that our views are so radically different from each others that we ought to debate one idea at a time.

Earlier in this thread (and I'm summarizing here):

post 57: I said: An anti-theist is someone who believes that belief in a God is detrimental.
post 58: you said: What's the foundation of this opinion?
post 59 I said:

You can certainly find exceptions to any of the following, but in general:

1 - Religious belief tends to be stagnant. It doesn't keep up with the modern world. We can't go back in time, we have 7 billion people, not many resources, and horrible weapons. Religious doctrines were mostly designed for much different times. It's no longer a good idea for humans to continue pursuing a population explosion - this was a good idea for the survival of the species a couple of thousand years ago - now it's one of the most dangerous ideas going.
2 - Religious beliefs tend to be intolerant of women and minorities.
3 - Religious beliefs tend to establish "us vs. them" mentalities, and again, our weaponry has become for too powerful for us to sustain "us vs. them" thinking moving forward.

Many more reasons, but my guess is your counter will be the same...

==

So Storm, I propose picking up the debate at this point and I propose that we both try to stick to one point at a time. If you don't like this starting point, offer another...

 

[Storm]

Storm, I'll offer this. I'm not interested in what's become more or less a shouting match. It seems to me that our views are so radically different from each others that we ought to debate one idea at a time.

Earlier in this thread (and I'm summarizing here):

post 57: I said: An anti-theist is someone who believes that belief in a God is detrimental.
post 58: you said: What's the foundation of this opinion?
post 59 I said:

You can certainly find exceptions to any of the following, but in general:

1 - Religious belief tends to be stagnant. It doesn't keep up with the modern world. We can't go back in time, we have 7 billion people, not many resources, and horrible weapons. Religious doctrines were mostly designed for much different times. It's no longer a good idea for humans to continue pursuing a population explosion - this was a good idea for the survival of the species a couple of thousand years ago - now it's one of the most dangerous ideas going.
2 - Religious beliefs tend to be intolerant of women and minorities.
3 - Religious beliefs tend to establish "us vs. them" mentalities, and again, our weaponry has become for too powerful for us to sustain "us vs. them" thinking moving forward.

Many more reasons, but my guess is your counter will be the same...

==

So Storm, I propose picking up the debate at this point and I propose that we both try to stick to one point at a time. If you don't like this starting point, offer another...

Here's one for you.

You admit that I know what I'm talking about. So listen to what I tell you that something you say is wrong or oversimplfied instead of changing the subject, and we can have a good discussion. Hell, we can have a good debate, since this isn't a field that requires extensive knowledge for sound critique.

But if you can't respect the fact that I know better, and accept feedback, then it won't get any better, whatever else you do.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance. We're all ignorant of something... most things, these days. The only shame is in refusing to learn when given the chance.

 

[icehorse]

Here's one for you.

You admit that I know what I'm talking about. So listen to what I tell you that something you say is wrong or oversimplfied instead of changing the subject, and we can have a good discussion. Hell, we can have a good debate, since this isn't a field that requires extensive knowledge for sound critique.

But if you can't respect the fact that I know better, and accept feedback, then it won't get any better, whatever else you do.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance. We're all ignorant of something... most things, these days. The only shame is in refusing to learn when given the chance.

Storm, If we end up debating theology, I'll grant you your expertise

 

[Midnight Rain]

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 would argue that certain types of religious thought can promote critical thinking. For example Judaism focuses on study. Strict and constant study of the scriptures and if you are in a very traditional household it means learning to read the Talmund in its original language. There is a reason why Jews have the highest average IQ including Atheists in certain studies. In fact the only two religions to have higher percentages of college graduates are Universal Unitarians and Hindus. Though the Hindu's may be more of a cultural position than a religious one.

But almost unanimously the bible thumping religious movements tend to inhibit critical thinking.

 

[Storm]

Storm, If we end up debating theology, I'll grant you your expertise

I already explained that it's the crucial component, and not the extent of my expertise. If you were qualified to contradict that, you could have spotted other fields in the questions I posed that you still refuse to acknowledge.

Tell me, did you even read them?

And have you noticed that every attempt to placate me fails? I am not moved by such hollow gestures. I've told you plain what I require. If you are unwilling to set aside your willful ignorance, then that's on you. But I will not humor it further. So do you want to learn, or go looking for someone gullible enough to be impressed by your bull****?

 

[Storm]

I would argue that certain types of religious thought can promote critical thinking. For example Judaism focuses on study. Strict and constant study of the scriptures and if you are in a very traditional household it means learning to read the Talmund in its original language. There is a reason why Jews have the highest average IQ including Atheists in certain studies. In fact the only two religions to have higher percentages of college graduates are Universal Unitarians and Hindus. Though the Hindu's may be more of a cultural position than a religious one.

But almost unanimously the bible thumping religious movements tend to inhibit critical thinking.

We're called Unitarian Universalists.

 

[icehorse]

I already explained that it's the crucial component, and not the extent of my expertise. If you were qualified to contradict that, you could have spotted other fields in the questions I posed that you still refuse to acknowledge.

Tell me, did you even read them?

And have you noticed that every attempt to placate me fails? I am not moved by such hollow gestures. I've told you plain what I require. If you are unwilling to set aside your willful ignorance, then that's on you. But I will not humor it further. So do you want to learn, or go looking for someone gullible enough to be impressed by your bull****?

Wow, wow, wow! Oh no I couldn't honestly, I'm sure you have a long, long queue of students hanging on your every word

 

[Storm]

Wow, wow, wow! Oh no I couldn't honestly, I'm sure you have a long, long queue of students hanging on your every word

Yeah, sure. I'm the egotistical one because I won't pander to your ignorance or stroke your ego by pretending that your bloviating is anything but that. Just keep telling yourself that while you go looking for validation.

 

[icehorse]

And... back to the OP...

One way we could look at the difference between people of faith and secularists is by comparing core values. As a rough starting point we might say:

- The faithful value adherence to faith very highly.
- The secular value critical thinking very highly.

So when there is no conflict, the faithful can embrace critical thinking. But when push comes to shove, valuing faith highly will force the faithful to abandon critical thought.

 

[Storm]

And... back to the OP...

One way we could look at the difference between people of faith and secularists is by comparing core values. As a rough starting point we might say:

- The faithful value adherence to faith very highly.
- The secular value critical thinking very highly.

So when there is no conflict, the faithful can embrace critical thinking. But when push comes to shove, valuing faith highly will force the faithful to abandon critical thought.

You mean, let's pretend that your misrepresentation is accurate. No.

 

[icehorse]

You mean, let's pretend that your misrepresentation is accurate. No.

Storm,

How is this a misrepresentation?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And... back to the OP...
..So when there is no conflict, the faithful can embrace critical thinking. But when push comes to shove, valuing faith highly will force the faithful to abandon critical thought.

That depends .. it depends on what your faith is based on ie. the knowledge you hold

..but then critical thinking depends on knowledge, so faith doesn't really come into it .. it's knowledge that is the key!

 

[Storm]

Storm,

How is this a misrepresentation?

I've explained that repeatedly. Pity you're too invested in Dunning-Krueger effect to listen. At any rate, watering down the phrasing doesn't make an invalid premise any better.

 

[icehorse]

Storm,

It might appear to an outsider that your goal over the last set posts has been to obfuscate. If you don't want to answer, how about not cluttering up the thread? And as always, I welcome you telling me how I made a misrepresentation.

muhammad_isa - It's true that the word "faith" has different definitions. In this case I meant religious faith which *usually* (not always, but usually), means a belief in the supernatural.

To put the earlier post a slightly different way:

For hundreds of millions of faithful people in the world, if your faith requires a belief in the supernatural, then when push comes to shove, valuing your faith will be in conflict with valuing critical thinking.