Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Thana]

Thana, I'm trying to make a subtle point and it seems to me you're trying to make something simpler than it is. For example, I know full well that many good scientists are religious. But it turns out that only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Science are "believers".

This is an interesting article: Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is simple. You're biased and your argument is anecdotal.

Here's better statistics from the National centre for Science education

GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS
Question Scientists
1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5%
2. Evolution, God Guided 40%
3. Evolution, God had no part 55%

"The Gallup questions, which deal with views of God's role in evolution, rather than general belief or disbelief in God, are far less ambiguous. When these questions were used (Larson and Witham 1997), the answers showed that a large proportion (40%) of prominent scientists believe in a God that is sufficiently personal or interactive with humankind that human evolution is guided or planned."

 

[icehorse]

I haven't caught up, but I doubt it.

You're painting with an overly broad brush. [ETA: Actually, no. It's not overly broad, it's the wrong brush altogether.] All this is true of what I call pop fundamentalism. That said, the fact of the matter is that while such beliefs are depressingly common among believers, when you compare actual beliefs (your chosen category), pop fundamentalism isn't just the exception, it's an aberration.

As I said in my initial post, religion doesn't impair critical thinking, certain religious sects do.

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but stop and consider. Religion is a category of practices founded upon a category of ideas without a single universal concept - not even the existence of a God of any concept. You say you have respect for spirituality, and I take you at your word. But religion is simply communal expression of spirituality - until it's twisted by leader(s) to enforce conformity.

Which is tragically common, I'll grant you. But it's not the fault of religion or faith.

I've got a whole rant ready regarding point 3 that I think might offer you a new perspective, but I'll wait for your thoughts on this.

Storm - Right. As you can imagine I've been down this road before. It's never the fault of religion or faith. Apologists claim the victories and dodge the downsides. So, I'm happy to hear you say that the examples I cited are "depressingly common", and leave it at that.

I will however leave you with this question (as an example): When criticizing Islam, I'm told over and over that certain pernicious beliefs can't be blamed on the faith - that it's about economy or culture or whatever... so here's the question, Muslims from Western Africa to North Eastern Africa to the ME, to SW Asia and through to SE Asia, across many, many cultures, hold the same beliefs. What's the common thread if not the religion?

 

[icehorse]

It is simple. You're biased and your argument is anecdotal.

Here's better statistics from the National centre for Science education

GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS
Question Scientists
1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5%
2. Evolution, God Guided 40%
3. Evolution, God had no part 55%

I'll sleep well tonight sticking with the National Academy of Sciences - even though they're notoriously biased

 

[Thana]

I'll sleep well tonight sticking with the National Academy of Sciences - even though they're notoriously biased

"The National Academy of Sciences represents a small number of scientists. The Academy itself comprises only about 2,000 members, while there are more than 2 million scientists employed in the United States as a whole. This means that the NAS only represents about one-tenth of one percent of all scientists in the nation.

A more accurate description comes from the Pew Research Center, which reported in 2009 that 51 percent of scientists believe that God or some higher power exists, while 41 percent of scientists reject both of those concepts."

But hey, Stick with what you know right?
Except that wouldn't be thinking critically, now would it?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd assume critical thinking to be ethically neutral.

Why? Critical thinking is a prerequisite of morality.

 

[Storm]

Storm - Right. As you can imagine I've been down this road before. It's never the fault of religion or faith. Apologists claim the victories and dodge the downsides. So, I'm happy to hear you say that the examples I cited are "depressingly common", and leave it at that.

I will however leave you with this question (as an example): When criticizing Islam, I'm told over and over that certain pernicious beliefs can't be blamed on the faith - that it's about economy or culture or whatever... so here's the question, Muslims from Western Africa to North Eastern Africa to the ME, to SW Asia and through to SE Asia, across many, many cultures, hold the same beliefs. What's the common thread if not the religion?

Well, I can't speak to your previous experiences, but you don't seem to quite understand what I'm saying, so let me back up a bit.

Religion is not a single thing. It's a wildly diverse category of things. Actually, it's a category of dynamic between 2 things: belief and communal behavior.

I'm not trying to say that A religion can't be blamed for xyz within its own bounds, I'm saying that "religion" can't be blamed for say, the rampant, misogynistic abuse of the Quiverfull movement. It's like saying that music encourages murder because Cop Killer is music. The problem is, there's a lot more music that... just doesn't.

What I'm trying to get at is that you're only wrong because you're denying diversity. I even made the point that if you changed the category from beliefs to adherents, you'd at least be right that the beliefs you find detrimental are in the majority (in America at least. I don't pretend to know the worldwide stats).

The fact of the matter is that, if you were simply to limit your opposition to the people who actually do and believe what you oppose, I would agree with you. And I would be glad to work with you, in service to my faith, because such practices absolutely are detrimental.

As for your question, how am I supposed to answer at all when you don't specify the teachings? They don't all have the same source, after all.

ETA: heads up... I'm really weird, especially in my faith. As a rule, it's a very bad idea to just assume I'm spouting the same lines you've heard a million times.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Wow! I can cook up a cynical argument that would agree with this idea, but I'm struggling to come up with an argument that would support this idea AND be supportive of religion... help!

With what idea?

The first half of the post is pretty much saying religion doesn't impair freethinking, in fact religion comes from critical thinking philosophers or prophets.

The second half is saying the only time religion impairs freethinking is when the organization ages to a point where the fact that it's still around means it has very good documentation, and that may mean the tenets are more descriptive that there are no more loopholes, because the followers hold these tenets sacred.

 

[icehorse]

Ok Thana,

Let's go with your 51%, take a bow. (Although that figure is still well below the general population.)

Let's take the teaching of biology in US high schools. Something like 1/3 of teachers have decided to avoid teaching evolution at all. Not because they disagree, but because it's not worth the hassle of dealing with religious parents. I live in the US, I'd like us to stay strong as a nation. If we have to warp the teaching of science to the will of the religious we've got a huge problem.

We've strayed a bit from the OP, but maybe not too far. In the case of teaching evolution, we see large numbers of adults turning off their critical thinking skills - refusing mountains of evidence - because scripture tells them that the earth is 6000 years old - or whatever. What other explanation is there for this phenomenon?

How about stem cell research. It's severely limited in the US because of religious pressure. This research stands to alleviate endless suffering, but it's restricted, again, not because of evidence or critical thinking, but because of some scriptural interpretation.

There are many more similar examples...

 

[icehorse]

Well, I can't speak to your previous experiences, but you don't seem to quite understand what I'm saying, so let me back up a bit.

Religion is not a single thing. It's a wildly diverse category of things. Actually, it's a category of dynamic between 2 things: belief and communal behavior.

I'm not trying to say that A religion can't be blamed for xyz within its own bounds, I'm saying that "religion" can't be blamed for say, the rampant, misogynistic abuse of the Quiverfull movement. It's like saying that music encourages murder because Cop Killer is music. The problem is, there's a lot more music that... just doesn't.

What I'm trying to get at is that you're only wrong because you're denying diversity. I even made the point that if you changed the category from beliefs to adherents, you'd at least be right that the beliefs you find detrimental are in the majority (in America at least. I don't pretend to know the worldwide stats).

The fact of the matter is that, if you were simply to limit your opposition to the people who actually do and believe what you oppose, I would agree with you. And I would be glad to work with you, in service to my faith, because such practices absolutely are detrimental.

As for your question, how am I supposed to answer at all when you don't specify the teachings? They don't all have the same source, after all.

ETA: heads up... I'm really weird, especially in my faith. As a rule, it's a very bad idea to just assume I'm spouting the same lines you've heard a million times.

Good points here and I did make an assumption - I apologize. Ok, some responses:

- I acknowledge diversity in religion - I thought I had amended the initial OP to describe common tendencies, no?
- As far as the specific teachings, let's go with apostasy and blasphemy being crimes - just as a start.
- Of course I understand that religion isn't easy to pin down, but I was going with a common definition that religion "usually" includes belief in the supernatural. Is that a fair generalization?

 

[Storm]

Good points here and I did make an assumption - I apologize. Ok, some responses:

- I acknowledge diversity in religion - I thought I had amended the initial OP to describe common tendencies, no?

Oh, for the love of Bob!

Um... did I mention that I haven't been here in a year, and am therefore totally confused by the system overhaul? Way-ull, I THOUGHT, I'd read the op... I didn't. I'm really not sure what happened there.
/sheepish

If you'll be so kind as to stand by while I respond to that, I say we start over.

- As far as the specific teachings, let's go with apostasy and blasphemy being crimes - just as a start.

re:Islamic apostasy/ blasphemy: I regret that I'm insufficiently educated to try to answer those. I'm a lay theologian and religion nerd, but not an Islamic scholar, and I'm not going to spout a bunch of crap when the fact is that I don't know. I'm betting you can appreciate that principle (though you may find it ironic - future conversations, ho!).

- Of course I understand that religion isn't easy to pin down, but I was going with a common definition that religion "usually" includes belief in the supernatural. Is that a fair generalization?

Ermmm. Difficult to say, actually, if you still mean among beliefs. Beyond Abrahamism, there's not really a shared understanding of what 'supernatural' actually means once you dig in. And it would actually include your understanding of the word as well.

People seem to have trouble articulating that, though, so here's mine for comparison:
Unrestricted by or in defiance of natural law

In many beliefs, such as Taoism, many Buddhist sects, most indigenous traditions, and my own weird little rabbit hole, that's a ridiculous notion. However, many within that group believe in phenomena that are considered supernatural from the Abrahamic perspective.

But here's why I keep harping on your choice of 'beliefs' as the category, as opposed to believers - if you look at people, supernaturalism is nearly universal to the religious, because of Abrahamism's overwhelming dominance.

Stand by for the response to the actual op. *facepalm*

 

[Storm]

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.

With you so far.

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.

Hunh.

That energy isn't really going to supernaturalism, you know. It's going to Literalism, which is a completely different thing. And not at all common between beliefs, not even within faith traditions (ie, Christianity).

We definitely need to start over. Let me know when you've read this.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that in some cases, such as the US conservative Christians, children are educated in a fashion that is directly intended to cripple or at least inhibit their critical thinking abilities. Notions such as 'teaching the controversy', young earth creationism and literalism all depend upon a suspension of critical thinking.

 

[icehorse]

With what idea?

The first half of the post is pretty much saying religion doesn't impair freethinking, in fact religion comes from critical thinking philosophers or prophets.

The second half is saying the only time religion impairs freethinking is when the organization ages to a point where the fact that it's still around means it has very good documentation, and that may mean the tenets are more descriptive that there are no more loopholes, because the followers hold these tenets sacred.

I didn't know that some religions were cooked up by philosophers - can you name one or two?

Ok, I can agree with your "aging religion" argument. But in practice, doesn't that cover most of them? Remember I didn't make any 100% claims. So if most religions are aged the way you say here, it seems that we're mostly agreeing?

 

[icehorse]

That energy isn't really going to supernaturalism, you know. It's going to Literalism, which is a completely different thing. And not at all common between beliefs, not even within faith traditions (ie, Christianity).

We definitely need to start over. Let me know when you've read this.

I've read this, and I'm not getting it yet. I'm talking about the brain power necessary for an individual to try to square supernatural beliefs with critical thinking. The two are like oil and water - hard to mix.

 

[Storm]

I've read this, and I'm not getting it yet. I'm talking about the brain power necessary for an individual to try to square supernatural beliefs with critical thinking. The two are like oil and water - hard to mix.

Not at inherently, no. It's only when people try to force the far removed teaching that 'the supernatural exists' to contradict science that critical thinking must be suspended, as in YEC, for instance. If a believer doesn't do that, and leaves supernaturalism in God's realm, they get along juuuuust fine. See the distinction?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I didn't know that some religions were cooked up by philosophers - can you name one or two?

Ok, I can agree with your "aging religion" argument. But in practice, doesn't that cover most of them? Remember I didn't make any 100% claims. So if most religions are aged the way you say here, it seems that we're mostly agreeing?

It isn't the age factor alone that causes it. It is the sanctity of very detailed tenets. The followers tend to conserve the tenets because tha't's all that's left

 

[Storm]

It isn't the age factor alone that causes it. It is the sanctity of very detailed tenets. The followers tend to conserve the tenets because tha't's all that's left

@icehorse
I think the point Sum's trying to make is that some religions atrophy. When they stop learning from the world around them in whatever sense, they turn inward, rendering themselves obsolete.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Sum.

And this actually dovetails neatly with my point about the real root of the problems you see being Literalism (which is actually a very new, purely reactionary phenomenon, and in the case of Christianity, in direct conflict with the Bible itself).

 

[icehorse]

I can absolutely buy that the more literal the interpretation the worse the problem. But I'm having trouble with your idea that those who embrace the supernatural fall into the "far removed teaching" category. I don't have any stats at hand, but I'd guess that most religious people include some degree of religiously-related, supernatural belief, no?

 

[Ultimatum]

I find Islam to be very open to science. One of the earliest Scientists to propose evolution was a 9th Century Muslim. al-Jahiz See HERE
The sciences and Medicine are probably the 2 most sought careers for Muslims. It is difficult for a Muslim to ignore science as we are required to question and verify all things. that we believe. Yes, we do have our share of "Sheeple" who blindly follow any maniac that can holler loudly and blame non-Muslims for all the world's troubles.

What I believe to be moderation is to avoid excesses, avoid doing things to the extent they harm yourself or others, always question and look at all possibilities, avoid that which exceeds your ability to sustain, keep your mess in your own yard, always be willing to look at other views, do not denounce something as wrong because it differs from your own choices.Stay mindful of being human and not capable of being omnipotent.

It is a shame that many people who practice Islam don't share this view.
But I respect your answer.

 

[Storm]

I can absolutely buy that the more literal the interpretation the worse the problem. But I'm having trouble with your idea that those who embrace the supernatural fall into the "far removed teaching" category. I don't have any stats at hand, but I'd guess that most religious people include some degree of religiously-related, supernatural belief, no?

I didn't mean it as 'those who accept the teaching are a minority," but that the basic premise that the supernatural exists is itself far removed from the natural world science seeks to explain, unless people force them into conflict.