Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Cephus]

Oh, bull.

Humans are messy, subjective creatures, and the vast majority of being one doesn't fit in a lab. If people DIDN'T believe anything "without good, objective reasons to do so," we never would have developed language. There's no rational basis whatsoever that some random combination of mouth sounds means anything at all.

Good thing we're not purely rational, yeah? Well, maybe not for the planet....

What you're really arguing is that people ought to be a certain way because traditionally they have been a certain way. That's not the case. If we're concerned about humanity improving, becoming more intelligent, becoming more rational and becoming simply better, then simply throwing up our hands and saying "they've always done it this way, therefore they always will" is absurd.

 

[Thana]

Not religion in general .. but I understand about 40% of people in USA are Y.E.C's .. a high proportion.

So I would say that 'fundamentalism was to blame. eg. extreme literal interpretation

In the UK, there are more people who believe in Almighty God AND acknowledge basic evolutionary theory to be true. This is not hypocritical unless you believe the Bible to be totally literally correct .. and even then, you either need to be a top language scholar or trust some church leader etc.

Actually only 30% interpret the bible literally since 2011, And while they believe God created the earth, sun, animals etc in these past 10,000 years only 18% actually believe the earth itself is less than 10,000 years old.

And no one disagrees on the harms of fundamentalism.

 

[Storm]

What you're really arguing is that people ought to be a certain way because traditionally they have been a certain way.

Incorrect. If you're going to respond to me at all, please respond what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said.

 

[Ultimatum]

I don't presume to speak for George, but when I say it, I mean thoughtful, open to new information, and willing to admit when things don't add up. IOW, a believer who applies critical thought.


*sigh*

No. Most don't.

Yes. Of course most do.
Christians: 1.6bn+ people
Muslims: 1.2bn people
Hinduism: 1bn people

Certainly the most common, therefore the most referred to.

 

[DayRaven]

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.

It's commonly held that one man can persuade three hundred men easier than he can one man on his own. Our modern age has made information easier to access but it has also made the masses easier to reach and, thus, manipulate. Logic is restricted by the information available to make a judgement and most of what you know is based on authority not experience. "Public opinion" (the views of those who control information) is the issue here.

Of course logic itself is based upon an assumption that the world is organised in way conducive to human understanding: an article of faith if you like. There is no way of knowing this is so.

Better educated people will make better choices in regards to being good stewards of the planet.

Really?

I would imagine the CEO's of those corporations which, say, log the rainforest are not stupid. Intelligence doesn't equal wisdom nor does it equal morality.

 

[thau]

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.

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.

“Honesty” is the contested word, imo.

You start with the premise that critical thinking leads one away from the supernatural. Which assumes even further that the supernatural is fake. Well I submit that is where your ideas fail. Because once it can be demonstrated that the supernatural (read: God) is real, then critical thinking is on the side of those probing God and not overemphasis on some material existence of a few years.

And the evidence for God is found in so many ways and reasons. The very reasons many great minds became believers and not just inventors or naturalists.

 

[George-ananda]

I need to be careful with my words here, but what do you mean by being intelligent? That your general knowledge is good? That you are good at your job?
In my book, it means having a good understanding (on whatever subject is being discussed). And I personally think that we should all be taught in school how evolution works and what many stages organisms had to go through until we come to the Hominids: this would be having a good understanding on our origins.
To be brainwashed by a book which implies any Intelligent Design (because most religious people believe in an Intelligent Design) and accept that as that, is not intelligent. It is not critical thinking.
It is a brainwash, and a lazy way at looking at things.

Intelligence includes using vital critical thinking skills. I believe in evolution as most intelligent religionists and spiritual believers do today. And beliefs beyond that should not be part of a science textbook; what would that even look like? I do believe there are things beyond science's reach; science at this time is restricted to the physical and that is fine with me.

 

[icehorse]

Thana,

Let's ALL acknowledge our biases, shall we?

So, for example, it is your bias that tells you that skin cells are less important than a blastocyst. Next, when large percentages of populations behave irrationally and self-consistently (e.g. anti-evolutionists), it's more than an anecdote. If you don't think so, please tell me what criteria are necessary for a reliable behavior to elevate itself out of the dreaded "anecdote" category.

Thana, are you familiar with the Zeigarnik effect? In a nutshell, the brain uses cognitive resources to maintain unresolved inconsistencies. Supporting a lie is a common example.

So the religious person who uses critical thinking at work has to run all new ideas through an extra filter - the filter of his dogma, before he can use his normal critical thinking skills. His dogma is a perpetual unresolved inconsistency in his world, one that creates an ongoing cognitive drain.

Kepha, Apologists are always quick to protect religion and throw "the misguided religious literalists" under the bus. The problem is that the religions themselves are often the only constant element across many cultures and many generations. If a particular dogma (e.g. Christianity or Islam), reliably helps to create bad behavior, at some point the dogma must come under some critical scrutiny.

Kepha, I'm sorry, in many cases contraception has absolutely been shown to slow the spread of disease.

Kepha, In 2014, with over 7 billion people on the planet, and with the negative impacts of an exploding human population all too obvious, I absolutely hold religion accountable for the role it plays in promoting procreation and resisting contraception.

ShivaFan, The historically recent fascists you mention were NOT spreading critical thinking, they were in effect attempting to create their own new dogma with which to control and oppress. I'll paraphrase Christopher Hitchens again and say to you: "Show me a society that was based on Spinoza or the enlightenment, that's run amok, and then you'll have my attention."

DayRaven, I think you made my point for me. Those immoral CEOs you mention will have a much harder time pillaging a well informed population.

thau, Yes indeed, once it can be reliably demonstrated that god is real, scientists will have to do a lot of rethinking. But guess what, that's what science is all about. Scientists are ALWAYS challenging each other.

==

This thread has wandered around (as they do). But back to the OP, I think the Zeigarnik effect puts us back on topic.

 

[George-ananda]

No, in fact, they can't. An irrational belief cannot be based on reason because reason requires one to maintain rationality and a commitment to evidence.

Intelligent spiritual believers hold no irrational beliefs. Unlike your position, in addition to physical science we also intelligently consider (not blindly accept) experiences of humans that can not really be studied by the scientific method.

 

[Thana]

Thana,

Let's ALL acknowledge our biases, shall we?

So, for example, it is your bias that tells you that skin cells are less important than a blastocyst. Next, when large percentages of populations behave irrationally and self-consistently (e.g. anti-evolutionists), it's more than an anecdote. If you don't think so, please tell me what criteria are necessary for a reliable behavior to elevate itself out of the dreaded "anecdote" category.

Thana, are you familiar with the Zeigarnik effect? In a nutshell, the brain uses cognitive resources to maintain unresolved inconsistencies. Supporting a lie is a common example.

So the religious person who uses critical thinking at work has to run all new ideas through an extra filter - the filter of his dogma, before he can use his normal critical thinking skills. His dogma is a perpetual unresolved inconsistency in his world, one that creates an ongoing cognitive drain.

No, it's your bias that assumes I'm against Stem Cell research. I'm not. I just empathise with those that are against it and I understand their argument and I feel it has merit, Even if I disagree in the end.

What about Atheists? If God is real and we're right then you're the ones who are irrational, You're the ones who can't think critically but no one says that do they? Why? Because we're not so up ourselves as to think life, our perception or our understanding is as simple as that.

I can tell you right now that God is not a lie, And you'd dismiss me as irrational, delusional, lying to myself because that's the only way you can reconcile my beliefs.
But I don't dismiss Atheism and I don't need to pretend that there's something wrong with you just to keep my beliefs. I understand the world is much, much bigger than that.

So who really is the irrational one? Who really is the one with the critical thinking problem, The one who speaks in absolutes and makes baseless claims? Because I'll tell you right now, It's not me. Not in this thread.

 

[icehorse]

Thana,

I'm sorry, yet again you've started with a misunderstanding of atheism followed by a misunderstanding of the word "irrational". Atheists simply await reliable, repeatable evidence. (Well I'd guess very few of us spend much time waiting by the phone ). It's not at all irrational to await evidence.

As for your belief in god, once again your assumptions about my responses are wrong. You really ought to stop telling me what I think, your success rate so far is zero.

Ok, you accuse me of baseless claims. I disagree. Can you point one out?

 

[Thana]

Thana,

I'm sorry, yet again you've started with a misunderstanding of atheism followed by a misunderstanding of the word "irrational". Atheists simply await reliable, repeatable evidence. (Well I'd guess very few of us spend much time waiting by the phone ). It's not at all irrational to await evidence.

As for your belief in god, once again your assumptions about my responses are wrong. You really ought to stop telling me what I think, your success rate so far is zero.

Ok, you accuse me of baseless claims. I disagree. Can you point one out?

I don't think I misunderstand Atheism or the word irrational at all, Atheists are not Theists and Irrationality is being unreasonable.

Looks like you've completely jumped over my main points so I'll just say that sure, It is not irrational to wait for evidence of Theism, And I never suggested otherwise. Merely pointed out the irony of Theists potentially being right.

As to your baseless claims, How about your first one, That religion causes a decline in critical thinking. There is no scientific evidence for that whatsoever.

 

[Storm]

Yes. Of course most do.
Christians: 1.6bn+ people
Muslims: 1.2bn people
Hinduism: 1bn people

Certainly the most common, therefore the most referred to.

So, you just assume that every individual who believes in God is a proponent of intelligent design? Or just every one who follows any of the top 3 religions? You do realize that Hinduism isn't even a religion, but several hundred that were classed as one by the British? Including atheistic traditions?

You're wrong. Your groundless assumptions say nothing of their beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

Intelligent spiritual believers hold no irrational beliefs. Unlike your position, in addition to physical science we also intelligently consider (not blindly accept) experiences of humans that can not really be studied by the scientific method.

But those experiences are neither tested nor critically examined, they just arbitrarily assign a supposed cause to the experience which they cannot demonstrate. They might as well say Godzilla did it, for all they can prove. Blind belief is not impressive.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think I misunderstand Atheism or the word irrational at all, Atheists are not Theists and Irrationality is being unreasonable.

Looks like you've completely jumped over my main points so I'll just say that sure, It is not irrational to wait for evidence of Theism, And I never suggested otherwise. Merely pointed out the irony of Theists potentially being right.

As to your baseless claims, How about your first one, That religion causes a decline in critical thinking. There is no scientific evidence for that whatsoever.

What main points did I jump over?

And by saying that if proof of god appeared it would be ironic is again to miss the idea of atheism. And let me summarize the OP. My summarized, rephrased, I hope simplified claim from the OP is that:

"Supporting a belief in the supernatural is cognitively draining."

Now, I think that applying the Zeigarnik effect to this question, I am proposing a very clean, scientific proposition.

 

[Woodrow LI]

What main points did I jump over?

And by saying that if proof of god appeared it would be ironic is again to miss the idea of atheism. And let me summarize the OP. My summarized, rephrased, I hope simplified claim from the OP is that:

"Supporting a belief in the supernatural is cognitively draining."

Now, I think that applying the Zeigarnik effect to this question, I am proposing a very clean, scientific proposition.

But isn't having belief in the validity of the Zeigarnik effect going to produce a Zeigarnik effect ?

 

[JustWondering]

What about Atheists? If God is real and we're right then you're the ones who are irrational

Which god is it that you claim is real? It is my guess that your view/beliefs on god are highly influenced by what you were taught/exposed to growing up. Most people's beliefs come from what they were taught/exposed to while growing up. Where is the critical/analytical thinking in that exactly? If people around the world who didn't know each other spontaneously adopted the same religion, one that didn't exist before I would give their claims more credence. However, religion is something that is taught and has no physical evidence to support it.

You're (Atheists) the ones who can't think critically...

How did you come to this conclusion?

I can tell you right now that God is not a lie, And you'd dismiss me as irrational, delusional, lying to myself because that's the only way you can reconcile my beliefs.

You missed a possibility, you could also be an unbeliever and lying about it. Without evidence am I to simply except EVERY theists claims as being equally reasonable and probable. Since there are many religions, all without evidence to support them, it is more rational to me to suspend belief in all of them then to except one and believe all the others are based on irrationality, delusions, and people lying to themselves/others.

 

[JustWondering]

As to your baseless claims, How about your first one, That religion causes a decline in critical thinking. There is no scientific evidence for that whatsoever.

There are studies that show critical thinking increases religious disbelief. So, if critical thinking is detrimental to maintaining religious beliefs it is not much of a stretch to claim that religious people lack critical thinking skills to some degree when compared to unbelievers.

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Science-2012-Gervais-493-6.pdf
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

 

[icehorse]

But isn't having belief in the validity of the Zeigarnik effect going to produce a Zeigarnik effect ?

Hi Woodrow, For the sake of being able to discuss these ideas it seems to me that we should agree on a couple of definitions. So feel free to push back, but would you agree:

- faith is belief without good evidence
- good evidence is repeatable

If so, then the Zeigarnik effect isn't a question of faith, there is good evidence to support the theory.

So why would you think that believing in the Zeigarnik effect (as cognitive scientists might), would increase cognitive drain?

 

[Cephus]

What about Atheists? If God is real and we're right then you're the ones who are irrational, You're the ones who can't think critically but no one says that do they? Why? Because we're not so up ourselves as to think life, our perception or our understanding is as simple as that.

Complete nonsense. If there turns out to be a god of any kind, then atheists might be wrong, that doesn't make them irrational. By and large, atheists use logic, reason and critical thinking to evaluate the evidence for such claims and find them wanting. Rationality is a mechanism, not a conclusion. Theists do not rely on rationality to come to their beliefs.