Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Quintessence]

Quint,

I'm with you on the whole thought police thing. It's when someone says "I'm sure God exists, and he doesn't want your kids to learn science.", that I get concerned.

So do I. Thankfully, such people are a solid minority.

And then there's the other solid minority like me, who, because my gods are things like sun, sea, and sky, encourage study of the sciences because they represent a way of studying the gods.

I'm interested in your comments about worshipping. I wonder if the act of worshipping puts a person into a more devout level? For example, when I was a kid I was sometimes made to "go to church". I never once felt I was "worshipping" anything. I'm in awe of and appreciate the cosmos, but the idea of "worship" doesn't click for me.

If we were to do a poll, I wonder how many people "go to church", and maybe they "go to church" for a sense of community, but who would agree that they don't "worship". And most likely "worship" is another one of those ineffable words.

I would consider appreciation to be a form of worship. In the basic sense, worship is worth-ship; a thing is deemed worthy, appreciated, and given thanks or gratitude because of something about its nature (i.e., it inspires a sense of awe, mystery, or greatness). Worship doesn't have to be highly ritualistic, nor formal. In principle, the act of going to church is to invoke worship, or a gratitude, thankfulness, and celebration for the thing being worshiped. If it's not doing that, I'd consider that's a sign the person is following the wrong religion for them and that they probably don't believe in that particular god-concept. As I said, people don't worship things they don't actually grant worth-ship to (which kind of requires accepting its existence first); there's no emotional resonance there and it feels hollow. Hollow and boring is pretty much what church felt like to me as a kid too.

But yeah, "worship" is a tricksy word. I know several folks in my own religious demographic who refuse to use it because they associate it with subjugating oneself to a deity instead if simple thankfulness and gratitude.

As far as "supernatural" goes, well it could go lots of ways. In this case I took you to mean that a supernatural god couldn't provide evidence of their existence, and that didn't (and still doesn't), make and sense to me?

That's not what I was intending to mean, but this is also an issue, and part of why I don't get supernaturalistic god-concepts. One of the major problems I see with supernaturalistic god-concepts is it creates a problem of interaction. Two things must have something in common in order to interact. If everything humans can be aware of is nature, and the supernatural is categorically not-nature, how is it possible for a supernatural entity to do anything to nature at all? I don't really get that. Maybe that's the point, but it has never sat well with me.

I also wonder if "the supernatural" is receding as science advances? The modern 21st century is filled with technology that would absolutely appear to be supernatural to an indigenous tribe that's never been exposed to the outside world.

Probably. Supernaturalistic explanations decline in cultures for the same reason magical ones do. Even though the phenomena we're observing is the same, the moment we categorize it with the sciences, we are no longer allowed to use those labels. Or it could also be partly because there's people like me who hate the word supernatural and prefer more precise terminology. Inexplicable. Preternatural. Otherworldly. Sublime. And so on. Some word that doesn't stupidly imply there's something that is not-nature, as to me, everything is nature, whether labeled "supernatural" or not.

 

[icehorse]

Quint,

I understand and agree with most everything you said here. It strikes me that the English language just isn't keeping up with the need. So many words with tricky meanings, so many words with many meanings. The problem I see with this is that it makes discussion and reform so tricky.

So here's a whack at a distinction: Awe and appreciation of the cosmos (starting with the redwood trees in my back yard), seem closer to universal, than believing in any particular set of scripture. I tend to use the word "spiritual" for that A&A.

On the other hand, when someone declares that his magic book is the perfect operating manual for human beings (as opposed to his neighbor's different magic book), I use the word "religion".

== as an aside
You said "they are a solid minority", but as we've discussed, they are adversely affecting the world (biology class, corporal punishment and so on).
==

I know that lots of people (including lots on RF), will disagree with those definitions, and I know there are many variations of the two worldviews I just described. I also see how endless the semantic debates are, argh.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But what these two (DD and literature), have in common is that they are both, ultimately, the study of fiction.

That is only your 'saying with your mouth' ..

You simply wish it to be true .. but it is not! Fairies, Cinderella and religion based on historic events are NOT the same thing at all .. you just 'assume' that the records are lies or inaccurate..

 

[muhammad_isa]

..taking something on faith, demanding that it is true without being able to demonstrate in any objective fashion that it actually is likely to be so, that's not knowledge, sorry.

Obviously not .. that's where one has to make a distinction between faith with reason and substantial evidence, and faith by birth/tribe etc.

I know you will refute this and say that there is no evidence that Almighty God exists, but that is an extremely narrow minded view which states that "Show me God or else" .. you can carry on believing that you are very clever in this stance, but you will still be in error. A court of law has many different types of evidence .. and so does the knowlegable, pious person..

 

[icehorse]

That is only your 'saying with your mouth' ..

You simply wish it to be true .. but it is not! Fairies, Cinderella and religion based on historic events are NOT the same thing at all .. you just 'assume' that the records are lies or inaccurate..

Hi muhammad_isa,

No I don't. There are many explanations for Muhammad "receiving" the Quran that don't need a supernatural explanation. In other words even if the historical records are perfect (and of course even Islamic scholars know that they are not perfect), that doesn't prove that god exists.

 

[Azihayya]

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.

It seems like you have a very strong claim on what 'Religion' is. My personal experience with the Religious of the world has exposed me to some of those most brilliant, honest, and loving sentiments that I've ever encountered in my lifetime. Personally, I don't see the value in pigeon-holing such terms as 'Religion' and 'Theism' into commonly accepted modern molds when there are so many ways that the origins and cultures revolving around such ideas are so full of room for interpretation. To me, it seems to be the exact opposite of pragmatism to think so narrowly about experiences which span so far backwards in time beyond our own lives, then to take their modern definitions at face value. I consider myself a Religious person in every aspect of world-wide Religions- to me this means that I'm an interpreter and a student of the written passages of time and developed cultures that have risen in this world. I consider myself a Theist because I believe that reality can be understood through observation and that the universe is a great mystery. I don't consider myself an atheist because I find myself capable of overlooking propaganda and hyperboles of our civilization and because atheism has nothing else to offer me. Your ideals of education and critical thinking for all I know may claim that miracles aren't real, that praying does nothing, and that wishes don't come true; as far as I am concerned you may as well be advocating indoctrination and a suppression of intuition and personal interpretation, and most certainly an embargo on our shared library of words and definitions. I can't say that I have any enthusiasm about reading anything that you've written.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Azihayya,

I'm first in line for finer-grained terminology, and I completely understand that there are a million variations on religion. The variations on religion that I was addressing are those in which a group of people claim to have a magic book that details exactly how humans are to behave, and that their magic book is the only "correct" magic book. Oh, and you can't just read their book, you need middle men to interpret it for you.

I absolutely allow that there are many variations that aren't like the variations I outlined above. If you have a name for the flavor I mentioned above, a name to make that flavor distinct, I'll be more than happy to use it from now on.

As for the rest of your post, well frankly it seems to be a collection of strawman arguments. So, if your style is to put words in other people's mouths, then I'm certain I'll tire of your posts as well.

On the other hand, feel free to ask for clarifications and perhaps we won't be a far apart as you imagine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hi muhammad_isa,

There are many explanations for Muhammad "receiving" the Quran that don't need a supernatural explanation..

So what? I didn't mention any one particular 'shred of evidence' .. that would be you.
Shall we go through the other 100,000 shreds?

 

[icehorse]

Hi muhammad_isa,

If you can find one or two examples of evidence that requires a supernatural explanation, that would be a great way to continue. But my guess is that any example you give will be easy to explain without the need of the supernatural.

 

[Phil A. Seaou]

I would imagine that, if someone has impaired thinking skills, it has less to do with religion (which is just a body of dogmatic information) and more to do with that individual's brain.

 

[icehorse]

I would imagine that, if someone has impaired thinking skills, it has less to do with religion (which is just a body of dogmatic information) and more to do with that individual's brain.

Hey Phil, We're talking about critical thinking skills which are learned skills, not like an IQ sort of thing. In summary, critical thinking requires logic and evidence and dogma does not.

 

[Cephus]

Obviously not .. that's where one has to make a distinction between faith with reason and substantial evidence, and faith by birth/tribe etc.

I've yet to see faith with reason and substantial evidence. I've seen lots of faith with logical fallacy but that's about it. If you have reason and substantial evidence (and I mean objective, demonstrable evidence, not subjective "I feel something" nonsense), why do you need faith at all? Some people are more sophisticated in their faith, I won't say anyone is remotely reasonable in it, I simply haven't seen evidence of that.

I know you will refute this and say that there is no evidence that Almighty God exists, but that is an extremely narrow minded view which states that "Show me God or else" .. you can carry on believing that you are very clever in this stance, but you will still be in error. A court of law has many different types of evidence .. and so does the knowlegable, pious person..

That's what evidence is. They don't let people into the courtroom to testify in a case that they "had a vision" or "just know" that a defendant is guilty. You actually have to demonstrate you actually have any way of knowing the things that you report on from the witness stand. So far, the only thing that I've seen from theists is logical fallacy and "I just know it's true" without being able to show how they know. Those things would get you thrown out of a courtroom and your testimony declared invalid. It does the same thing here too.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hi muhammad_isa,

..my guess is that any example you give will be easy to explain without the need of the supernatural.

I'm certainly NOT going to produce reams of evidence just for you to systematically refute
I'm not in the business of trying to prove anything .. "truth is distinct from falsehood"

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've yet to see faith with reason and substantial evidence.

Naturally .. you can't "see" the truth

So far, the only thing that I've seen from theists is logical fallacy and "I just know it's true" without being able to show how they know.

Again, you only "see" what you want to see .. you have reasons for your disbelief, and others have reason for believing. It's rather smug to think that your reasons are valid and yet other people's are not! Believe it or not, other people have intelligence the same as you..

 

[Cephus]

Naturally .. you can't "see" the truth

And neither can you, can only claim you can. You cannot demonstrate that you can.

Again, you only "see" what you want to see .. you have reasons for your disbelief, and others have reason for believing. It's rather smug to think that your reasons are valid and yet other people's are not! Believe it or not, other people have intelligence the same as you..

And that goes for you as well. You see what you want to see. You believe what makes you feel good to believe. However, I can rationally explain why I disbelieve, people cannot rationally explain why they believe. This isn't about intelligence, it's about using that intelligence to reach rationally defensible explanations that are based on critical thinking and objective evidence. How technically intelligent someone is has no bearing on how they use that intelligence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..You believe what makes you feel good to believe.

No, that's not it .. I believe what I believe through hardship and soul-searching

However, I can rationally explain why I disbelieve, people cannot rationally explain why they believe.

Again .. not true. You just turn away from their explanations, claiming they have no validity. Do believers have a 100% confidence interval for their conclusions? No! Yet mine are most surely over 50% ..

This isn't about intelligence, it's about using that intelligence to reach rationally defensible explanations that are based on critical thinking and objective evidence. How technically intelligent someone is has no bearing on how they use that intelligence.

Yes, we should use our intelligence wisely .. I can assure you that I am totally rational in my reasons for belief .. it is not a 'crutch' .. I don't always find my beliefs easy to deal with/apply .. particularly socially. Yes, I fear the consequences of losing my faith, because I know through experience how valuable it is!

 

[Cephus]

No, that's not it .. I believe what I believe through hardship and soul-searching :/

There actually are a lot of believers whose self-loathing leads them to worship a deity that makes them feel bad about themselves, like they're inherently sinners and deserve eternal damnation.

Again .. not true. You just turn away from their explanations, claiming they have no validity. Do believers have a 100% confidence interval for their conclusions? No! Yet mine are most surely over 50% ..

Validity has to be proven, particularly when you stand up and make claims publically. It's even more so when you're in a forum specifically dedicated to debate. There's an expectation that you can actually demonstrate that your position is true, or at the very least make a decent showing. There are a lot of people, however, who not only can't make a decent showing, they spend a lot of time arguing that they don't have to even try.

Yes, we should use our intelligence wisely .. I can assure you that I am totally rational in my reasons for belief .. it is not a 'crutch' .. I don't always find my beliefs easy to deal with/apply .. particularly socially. Yes, I fear the consequences of losing my faith, because I know through experience how valuable it is!

Yet I don't think you know what "rational" actually is in this context. Being rational is entirely unemotional. It is following evidence to a conclusion, not picking a comforting conclusion and trying to find evidence to support it. I'm sure you think that's what you've done and not knowing anything about you, I can't say otherwise, but I have yet to meet a single theist who didn't get backed into a corner almost immediately where their faith makes irrational and illogical errors. I don't think you can ever get to belief in a god through wholly rational means. The best you can do is say "I don't know". There's no way to get from "I don't know" to "there is an actual deity". It's a leap of illogic and if someone can point out a path where that isn't the case, I'd love to hear it because I don't think it exists.

Whether or not you find your faith comforting or valuable or worthwhile, those are all emotional values, not rational ones. It's like the guy with the hot girlfriend in Canada. That belief might make them feel good, it might give positive influence on their lives, but at the end of the day, it's just not real and reality, like it or not, matters.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think you can ever get to belief in a god through wholly rational means. The best you can do is say "I don't know". There's no way to get from "I don't know" to "there is an actual deity". It's a leap of illogic and if someone can point out a path where that isn't the case, I'd love to hear it because I don't think it exists.

Of course you can! There is enough evidence from the Bible and Qur'an to suggest more than don't know .. just because you probably claim that they're fairy tales or fiction does not make them so..
There is no point asking me to prove that they are based on truth and not an elaborate fraud. I could just as easily ask you to prove that they are fraudulent .. but I shan't, as I have no interest in proving anything. If you conclude that they are fraud, that's your business..

Whether or not you find your faith comforting or valuable or worthwhile, those are all emotional values, not rational ones.

I totally disagree .. they are rational, based on experience..

 

[Cephus]

Of course you can! There is enough evidence from the Bible and Qur'an to suggest more than don't know .. just because you probably claim that they're fairy tales or fiction does not make them so..
There is no point asking me to prove that they are based on truth and not an elaborate fraud. I could just as easily ask you to prove that they are fraudulent .. but I shan't, as I have no interest in proving anything. If you conclude that they are fraud, that's your business..

Not for me, I need more than primitive fairy tales, I need demonstrable and confirmable stories, based on objective, testable evidence. If you don't, that's fine, I just don't have much respect for that.

I totally disagree .. they are rational, based on experience..

But they're not because most of it is simply assertions based on wishful thinking. People can claim to have experiences with a god, yet they cannot show that they actually have done so, only assert that they have done so.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Not for me, I need more than primitive fairy tales, I need demonstrable and confirmable stories, based on objective, testable evidence. If you don't, that's fine, I just don't have much respect for that.



But they're not because most of it is simply assertions based on wishful thinking. People can claim to have experiences with a god, yet they cannot show that they actually have done so, only assert that they have done so.

I do claim an experience with the afterlife, where i met at least an agent of Hashem (G_d),
went through a life review, met my Grandfather who predicted my Grandmothers death,
and was returned to my brain dead body ....
Evidence: well perhaps my Death Certificate on my wall, or the life insurance refusals on account of already being dead ..

Shalom