Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[Riverwolf]

Anyone who believes something, religious or otherwise, without good, objective reasons to do so is acting uncritically and irrationally.

Thing is, it turns out pretty much everyone I've ever come across does, religious or otherwise.

What good, objective evidence is there, for example, that religion (which, remember, does not require having any kind of theistic or supernatural belief) inherently impairs vital critical thinking skills?

 

[Cephus]

Thing is, it turns out pretty much everyone I've ever come across does, religious or otherwise.

What good, objective evidence is there, for example, that religion (which, remember, does not require having any kind of theistic or supernatural belief) inherently impairs vital critical thinking skills?

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

 

[Riverwolf]

Religious beliefs, in and of themselves, are the results of impaired critical thinking skills. 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.

My experience does not support this notion at all. On the contrary, believing things without good, objective reasons is perfectly normal, and in fact inherent to being human. We literally have nothing but our subjective experiences to support any of our beliefs.

Basically, it's impossible for a human being to have an unbiased, objective opinion.

 

[icehorse]

Riverwolf said:

Critical thinkers aren't necessarily intellectual elitists. I'm a critical thinker, but I'm not an intellectual elitist. I also follow a religion.

I hope to fall into that category as well, although I don't know at what point one becomes an "elitist"

 

[icehorse]

My experience does not support this notion at all. On the contrary, believing things without good, objective reasons is perfectly normal, and in fact inherent to being human. We literally have nothing but our subjective experiences to support any of our beliefs.

Well we have empirical evidence.

Basically, it's impossible for a human being to have an unbiased, objective opinion.

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.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is assuming critical thinking skills to be impaired.
Anyways, yes of course it does.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thing is, it turns out pretty much everyone I've ever come across does, religious or otherwise.

What good, objective evidence is there, for example, that religion (which, remember, does not require having any kind of theistic or supernatural belief) inherently impairs vital critical thinking skills?

Exactly, there isn't. The OP is a strawman.

 

[icehorse]

Thing is, it turns out pretty much everyone I've ever come across does, religious or otherwise.

What good, objective evidence is there, for example, that religion (which, remember, does not require having any kind of theistic or supernatural belief) inherently impairs vital critical thinking skills?

Ok, I could qualify the OP by saying "those religions that require supernatural belief" - but isn't that the lion's share of all religions? In any case - I'm happy to make that qualification, it was the belief in the supernatural that I was claiming adversely affects critical thinking.

 

[Cephus]

My experience does not support this notion at all. On the contrary, believing things without good, objective reasons is perfectly normal, and in fact inherent to being human. We literally have nothing but our subjective experiences to support any of our beliefs.

Basically, it's impossible for a human being to have an unbiased, objective opinion.

We're not talking normal, we're talking rational. It's normal for people to be racist, sexist xenophobes. It's built into our genes. It's taken our brains to overcome that genetic predisposition. Likewise, irrational beliefs are part of our genetic makeup. It takes our brains to overcome that programming. Just because most people do a thing doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

 

[icehorse]

Exactly, there isn't. The OP is a strawman.

And given that almost all religious people's religions require belief in the supernatural, you're making the "fallacy fallacy"

 

[Riverwolf]

Well we have empirical evidence.

You mean subjective experience of that 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.

Any individual cannot do it.

The collective knowledge of humanity, acquired by the peer-review process, is as unbiased as we can get, and is indeed what it's purpose is.

But that collective knowledge is not the same as an individual's beliefs. None of my beliefs inherently contradict any of that knowledge, at least as far as I'm aware, nor are those beliefs intended to fill in any of the gaps of that knowledge.

And we've been able to create advanced technologies without it in the past. One of our inherent traits is tool-usage.

Ok, I could qualify the OP by saying "those religions that require supernatural belief" - but isn't that the lion's share of all religions? In any case - I'm happy to make that qualification, it was the belief in the supernatural that I was claiming adversely affects critical thinking.

That would be better, although I would still disagree that it inherently does so.

And I would also ask, if empirical evidence is so important, what's the empirical evidence that this claim is accurate to reality?

 

[Riverwolf]

We're not talking normal, we're talking rational. It's normal for people to be racist, sexist xenophobes. It's built into our genes. It's taken our brains to overcome that genetic predisposition. Likewise, irrational beliefs are part of our genetic makeup. It takes our brains to overcome that programming. Just because most people do a thing doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

I wasn't claiming that.

The stuff you listed are part of our genetic makeup and can be overcome.

Perhaps, "part of being human" is too specific, which may have led to that confusion. It's not genetic makeup, but the simple limitation that we are flawed, biological organisms.

It's not "most people"; it's everyone. No matter how much someone may try, we as individuals are simply incapable of true objective reasoning, based on my experience and insights into the matter. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise, and every indication that it's the case.

 

[Desert Snake]

And given that almost all religious people's religions require belief in the supernatural, you're making the "fallacy fallacy"

"supernatural" is a subjective term. Everyone employs beliefs, you are just trying to arbitrarily 'separate' the category of belief. I could say that someone who doesn't believe in creationism is employing 'supernatural' belief. It's a type of 'magic' at the least, no? Just 'poof', and everything exists? You think that's "natural"? Is that what you observe in nature, things 'poofing' into existence?

 

[icehorse]

"supernatural" is a subjective term. Everyone employs beliefs, you are just trying to arbitrarily 'separate' the category of belief. I could say that someone who doesn't believe in creationism is employing 'supernatural' belief. It's a type of 'magic' at the least, no? Just 'poof', and everything exists? You think that's "natural"? Is that what you observe in nature, things 'poofing' into existence?

I can't really answer that question until you define what you mean by "creationism" (such a definition would help), but I'll give it a whack:

If by "creationism" you mean the belief that the earth is 6000-10000 years old based on the Bible, then I'd say your argument is a false dilemma. We have a TON of evidence that the universe is 13+ billion years old and that the earth itself is several billion years old. It matters not that we haven't yet learned the origins of the universe to know the two facts I just stated. Some ideas are supported by evidence, some are not.

 

[Desert Snake]

I can't really answer that question until you define what you mean by "creationism" (such a definition would help), but I'll give it a whack:

I just meant creationism in general.

 

[icehorse]

That would be better, although I would still disagree that it inherently does so.

And I would also ask, if empirical evidence is so important, what's the empirical evidence that this claim is accurate to reality?

Let's imagine a research biologist who happens to be a strict Christian (already a stretch for me). Everything he knows about biology would lead him to the conclusion that a three day old human blastocyst (pre-embryo), is no more human than the bit of skin a person scratches off to ease an everyday itch. But his religion instructs him, without any evidence, that somehow that blastocyst has a soul. Holding these two ideas simultaneously is cognitively draining. Heck, studies have shown that keeping a new 7 digit phone number in your head is cognitively draining. Now notice that if a different scientist was a strict Muslim, he would hold a different (equally evidence-free) view that this blastocyst is not human. Now we can add to the load that these two scientists have a crucial disagreement based entirely on different supernatural beliefs.

Think this doesn't matter? Ask ill people who could benefit from stem cell research.

 

[George-ananda]

Not gathering a conclusion from facts and evidence (which is logical) and forming a story from indefensible claims and stating them irrefutable (due to universal negatives) is not critical thinking, indeed!

I agree with everything you say above. But intelligent and critically thinking religious and spiritual believers don't do that.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with everything you say above. But intelligent religious and spiritual believers don't do that.

It's the belief in the supernatural that to me is the critical factor. If someone holds a religion that needs no belief in the supernatural, then the OP doesn't apply to that person. I'd say that strictly speaking, the belief in the supernatural is independent of (I was going to say "orthogonal to", but didn't want to be label an elitist ), but often occurring with, religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

[StormReturns]

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.

No, of course not.

That said, far too many religious organizations make a point of discouraging or at least tightly controlling it.

 

[Cephus]

I agree with everything you say above. But intelligent and critically thinking religious and spiritual believers don't do that.

Sure they do. You're trying to apply a single descriptive term to everything a person does and that's not how it works. A person could be rational, intelligent, critical and logical about 99.9999% of the things in their lives, but when it comes to religion, throw all of that out the window. That doesn't make their religious beliefs rational, intelligent, critical or logical. Blind faith, by definition, can be none of those things.