Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Shad]

From my point of view a single religion or religion in general would not impair such skills. It is when one embraces an ideology that they feel is infallible. The source could be cultural, religious, political, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering some theists appreciate the challenge of a good debate (such as a theology professor teaching Feuerbach), the answer to the OP is not inherently. Of course some religions and denominations do, but I would wager within Western society the way the average person is exposed to media, via algorithms that filter out stuff you don't like and present you with information you're more likely to like and agree with, is far more damaging to social and political discourse than religion.

 

[Storm]

Considering some theists appreciate the challenge of a good debate (such as a theology professor teaching Feuerbach), the answer to the OP is not inherently. Of course some religions and denominations do, but I would wager within Western society the way the average person is exposed to media, via algorithms that filter out stuff you don't like and present you with information you're more likely to like and agree with, is far more damaging to social and political discourse than religion.

That's a great point. I do my best to guard against letting Facebook become an echo chamber, but it really shouldn't take so much effort.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What I think the world needs now is for people to be better educated and have better critical thinking skills.

Okay, no problem so far.

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.

Not necessarily. We do have atom b-mbs. Critical thinking does have to come from intelligence does it not, and also education, and it is those two that make weapons that disstructive in the first place. But I will take your broad sweeping statement as said.

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.

That would depend on the person rather than they are just religious per se. Francis Collins is a top scientist, I don't think his religion impairs his cognitive processes. Hey, but what do I know..... perhaps he's nuts.

Perhaps religion does have some benefits (I'm not convinced),

Really? You have never heard of ''Outreach'' (charity). You must have. Perhaps you should do a thread on how much they do. I am surprised myself sometimes when I start to hear of it....even the Quakers go places that never get mentioned, as the JW's helped out in Haiti which never got on UK news that I saw.

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.

The word ''supernatural'' is not helpful as the prefix ''super'' merely means something above and beyond the normal, and therefore could be an atom. You would be better considering that everything is conscious-energy. This is also in line with science theory even if not science fact..... but all therioes have to start somewhere.
As for the ''honest view'' of the world, so what? Again there are many scientists who believe and still know that the world is not flat. They are not dragging their knuckles you know. Perhaps you think of a certain group of people. In the UK, religion is usually portrayed through the Middle Eastern wars. Anything good they do you have to find yourself.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm trying to work out exactly what "critical thinking" is. Does anyone have a succinct definition?

I had a look here, but it seems to be defined in a number of different ways: Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I quite liked the second definition:
"disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"

And to a believer that would be God,..... as there is plenty of evidence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Here's a strawman proposal (not a strawman argument!) for critical thinking:

Critical thinkers value:

- logic and reason
- evidence
- parsimony (Occam's razor)
- knowledge and discovery

There is no reason why holding these values should diminish empathy or compassion, in fact we could argue that they should increase these traits.

And yet for all the mentioning of the 'razor' science then introduces the multiverse, and atheists jump at it to try and answer the absurd odds of life in the first place etc etc

 

[Robert.Evans]

There have always been evil, greedy people, and technology has allowed them to have a broader reach. The way to fight this is not through ignorance - it's to get the population educated and not so easily fleeced.

Woodrow - I think in the US your perspective is probably pretty accurate. But across the Muslim world, I think your perspective is rarely true. Many of the world's Muslims are illiterate and/or impoverished, and/or oppressed. BTW, this thread isn't singling out Islam, it's about all religion.

Well if it is about ''all religion'' then you have problems as there are many wise people who believe.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why not? All woo beliefs, by their very existence, oppose critical thinking. Anyone who believes something, religious or otherwise, without good, objective reasons to do so is acting uncritically and irrationally. Just because people say "I can believe what I want!" is just childish.

What makes you think they do not have good objective eivdence to pull from... because you haven't?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Considering some theists appreciate the challenge of a good debate (such as a theology professor teaching Feuerbach), the answer to the OP is not inherently. Of course some religions and denominations do, but I would wager within Western society the way the average person is exposed to media, via algorithms that filter out stuff you don't like and present you with information you're more likely to like and agree with, is far more damaging to social and political discourse than religion.

But it's all about controlling the populace isn't it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I just explained it, maybe you missed it. Religious beliefs, in and of themselves, are the results of impaired critical thinking skills.

I think the word I'm looking for there is 'nonsense'.

If one didn't have impaired critical thinking skills, if they didn't believe things without good objective reasons, then they wouldn't be religious in the first place. Just because other people do the same thing outside of religion doesn't make it okay.

The proof is within, and God given. Just because one does not have such, does not make the other wrong. There is outwardly plenty of evidence that God would be a good answer to someone who was sufficienty open and 'critical' in thinking. But if someone is a materialist, then their mind's would be closed, would they not, hence no critical thinking.

Personally, I have never read, studied, or questioned so much in my life, and disagreed with many people. Following like some sheep I do not do, but that could be labelled at anyone who thinks that their view is right, even atheists.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well we have empirical evidence.



Right (on biases), but we can acknowledge that such biases exist and we can do our best to be as unbiased as possible. Scientific inquiry and peer review minimize such biases. If they didn't we wouldn't be capable of any advanced technologies.

You have empirical evidence of what? The universe? So what? Even when talking about the multiverse, which science does, they cannot prove it. Do they not have critical open thinking skills? If they did not they would not be questioned something like that in the first place. And anyway, who is the ''we''.
And to compare science which is fundamentally materialistic with the nature of God which is metaphysical is impossible anyway. Only when we see the plausibilty of consciousness being everything do we see that all things are God.... the very thing you reject.

 

[icehorse]

You have empirical evidence of what? The universe? So what? Even when talking about the multiverse, which science does, they cannot prove it. Do they not have critical open thinking skills? If they did not they would not be questioned something like that in the first place. And anyway, who is the ''we''.
And to compare science which is fundamentally materialistic with the nature of God which is metaphysical is impossible anyway. Only when we see the plausibilty of consciousness being everything do we see that all things are God.... the very thing you reject.

Perhaps we have a semantic issue here - how do you define god and religion?

The reason I ask is because your posts lead me to believe you have a more deistic or spiritual orientation than a religious orientation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Perhaps we have a semantic issue here - how do you define god and religion?
The reason I ask is because your posts lead me to believe you have a more deistic or spiritual orientation than a religious orientation.

I was not expecting such a placid response. I take your comments as a rare compliment, even if not meant as such. (not that I mean anything by that.)
''Religion'' is a word I only use for ease of understanding, it is not one I use myself, nor do I consider myself religious, but I believe in God, so people would call it me that I guess. Religion to me (though not as per definition) is more to do with an organised group. (the 2nd def in the encarta dic:.
God to me is everything, though reflecting in many forms. There is nothing else.

 

[icehorse]

I was not expecting such a placid response. I take your comments as a rare compliment, even if not meant as such. (not that I mean anything by that.)
''Religion'' is a word I only use for ease of understanding, it is not one I use myself, nor do I consider myself religious, but I believe in God, so people would call it me that I guess. Religion to me (though not as per definition) is more to do with an organised group. (the 2nd def in the encarta dic:.
God to me is everything, though reflecting in many forms. There is nothing else.

It seems to me that here on RF it's fair to try to make distinctions between, and be precise about, words and ideas like:

- religion
- god
- spirituality

I mostly agree with your definitions, except I think the way you define God is bound to cause confusion. I think it's a perfectly valid definition (many people hold it), but on PR my sense is that most people will misunderstand you.

The OP is specifically concerned with religion - which I'm convinced is man made. My original intention with this thread was to be agnostic concerning questions of god.

 

[Kai'a]

I think the OP's question doesn't have a clear cut, applicable for everyone, or even most people, answer.
It really depends greatly who is one as a person, what is their community like, the relationship of that community to other communities, the specifics of the religion in question and how do those individuals apply it practically. It depends on personal and underlying factors, too varied to be summed into 'yes it does damage thinking', 'no it doesn't'.

For some people, religion may compound already existing personality & lifestyle issues. Others are greatly helped by religion of some sort and become better people than they'd be without.

 

[icehorse]

Considering some theists appreciate the challenge of a good debate (such as a theology professor teaching Feuerbach), the answer to the OP is not inherently. Of course some religions and denominations do, but I would wager within Western society the way the average person is exposed to media, via algorithms that filter out stuff you don't like and present you with information you're more likely to like and agree with, is far more damaging to social and political discourse than religion.

I'd agree that this is another factor!

 

[Cephus]

What makes you think they do not have good objective eivdence to pull from... because you haven't?

If they did, they could present it. That no theist has EVER presented any is a pretty good indication that it doesn't exist. Of course, they can prove me wrong by making that evidence public and available for examination. Let me know when they do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not necessarily. We do have atom b-mbs. Critical thinking does have to come from intelligence does it not, and also education, and it is those two that make weapons that disstructive in the first place. But I will take your broad sweeping statement as said.

Critical thinking does not require intelligence, and it most certainly does not require an education. It requires nothing more than curiosity and self-honesty, asking questions, and learning the answers.

And yet for all the mentioning of the 'razor' science then introduces the multiverse, and atheists jump at it to try and answer the absurd odds of life in the first place etc etc

Some are like that. Multiverse theories are not universally accepted, and many scientists do approach them with great skepticism. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

But it's all about controlling the populace isn't it?

It is about controlling the masses. If religion is the opium of the masses, social media and web-based marketing algorithms are the amitriptyline of the masses.

 

[idea]

Wh...Populations that can think critically are harder to manipulate and control by oppressive leaders. ...

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....

Let's consider some of the most oppressive leaders and regimes then, and look at the religious beliefs of the people who allowed that type of a leader to come into control...

Than Shwe - aithist... no free press, highest rate of child soldiers in the world, forced labor camps...

Kim Jong Il - atheist ... killedf four million + of his fellow Koreans. ... public execution for those trying to escape the country, crumbling economy.... “re-education camps”.

Benito Mussolini- atheist... Fascist dictatoror World War II known for war crimes... restricted freedom of speech, supported Hitler, used poison gas in Ethiopia - bombed Red Cross hospitals and concentration camps to kill civilians and destroy “inferior” cultures. He ordered the execution of prisoners without trial and the shooting of “witch-doctors”..... deeply anti-Semitic.

Mao Zedong - atheist - killed between 20 and 67 million of his “comrades”. ...cultural vandalism ...exacted revenge on all those, mainly intellectuals and professionals, who had disgraced Mao in his earlier career. He also targeted anyone with links to the Chinese Nationalist Party as well as anyone who posed a threat to him. Five million were executed in death camps. 36 million were persecuted and tortured. There were even instances of cannibalism.


Pol Pot - atheist - ... forced labour projects, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions killed around 2 million Cambodians (approximately one third of the population). His regime achieved special notoriety by singling out all intellectuals, and other “bourgeois enemies”, for murder. The Khmer Rouge committed mass executions in sites known as the Killing Fields, and the executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. His attempts to “cleanse” the country resulted in the deaths of 1.7 to 2.5 million people. He also had an intense dislike of anyone with the semblance of being intelligent, such as those who wore glasses or who spoke another language.


Joseph Stalin...



History has shown that atheist populations follow the worst dictators...

 

[icehorse]

Hi idea,

Wow, this argument comes up often! Two responses:

1 - These guys were trying to create their own new dogmas, they saw themselves as deities of a sort.
2 - Paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens: "Show me a society built on the principles of Spinoza or the enlightenment that's run amok, and then you'll have my attention."