I don't understand the faith people put in religious texts

[Puppyclaws]

Yes, you have only mentioned a few areas of physical sciences. Social sciences are consistently contested and often have hot debates.

But even in the physical sciences there are not insignificant opposing groups like the Amish, Mennonites and Christian Scientists.

1. Frankly, social sciences face challenges all the time everywhere from everybody. Doctors are rather opposed to many of the significant findings in medical sociology. It doesn't mean that doctors are unscientific douchenozzles. It just means that, like anyone else, they have their biases and don't like having their toes stepped on.

2. None of the above religious groups "oppose" scientific progress in any meaningful way. Choosing not to participate in society (or parts of society) is entirely different from opposing it.

[Zcorp]

1. Frankly, social sciences face challenges all the time everywhere from everybody. Doctors are rather opposed to many of the significant findings in medical sociology. It doesn't mean that doctors are unscientific douchenozzles. It just means that, like anyone else, they have their biases and don't like having their toes stepped on.

And your point is that because most people aren't adept at critical thinking nor well versed in various fields of scientific knowledge it is totally cool that Religion fights against both of these thing as well?

2. None of the above religious groups "oppose" scientific progress in any meaningful way. Choosing not to participate in society (or parts of society) is entirely different from opposing it.

By meaningful way you mean they don't have enough power to do anything on a large societal level. They certainly oppose scientific progress. Choosing to impede your kid or community from using and understanding medicine, technology, ourselves or the world isn't insignificant at all if you are in the community or grew up in it.

Is your argument that because Christian Science is a small sect it is totally cool when they choose to not vaccinate their kids?

[The Great Hippo]

But even in the physical sciences there are not insignificant opposing groups like the Amish, Mennonites and Christian Scientists.

The Amish? Seriously?

Granted I work in education and my area of study is social science, and more specifically psychology, but pretty much everything ends up being a fight with Religion from that experience. Not just religion mind you, the establishment of our educational group think is as, if not more, impeding than the religious but it is a consistent impediment to progress within my field.

I'm not sure I grasp that last sentence. 'Educational group think'? Do you mean blindly accepting authority based on consensus?

Critical Thinking and Faith are diametrically opposed. Which generally leads to very different values, even different amounts of knowledge we can expect individuals to understand. The significant fight between religion and science isn't one over if things fall down, or if we should make computers but one over culture. What we should be teaching people, how to access that information, how to treat people, how to punish, how to think about yourself, the world and what responsibilities you have to society and it has to you.

I agree that faith and critical thinking are diametrically opposed; I think that's a different statement than 'religion and science are diametrically opposed', and I think that this distinction is important.

[Jave D]

1. Frankly, social sciences face challenges all the time everywhere from everybody. Doctors are rather opposed to many of the significant findings in medical sociology. It doesn't mean that doctors are unscientific douchenozzles. It just means that, like anyone else, they have their biases and don't like having their toes stepped on.

And your point is that because most people aren't adept at critical thinking nor well versed in various fields of scientific knowledge it is totally cool that Religion fights against both of these thing as well?

2. None of the above religious groups "oppose" scientific progress in any meaningful way. Choosing not to participate in society (or parts of society) is entirely different from opposing it.

By meaningful way you mean they don't have enough power to do anything on a large societal level. They certainly oppose scientific progress. Choosing to impede your kid or community from using and understanding medicine, technology, ourselves or the world isn't insignificant at all if you are in the community or grew up in it.

Is your argument that because Christian Science is a small sect it is totally cool when they choose to not vaccinate their kids?

I don't think Puppyclaws argued any type of behavior was "totally cool," and rather suspect your emotive accusation along that line is an attempt to provoke a similarly emotional personal defense rather than to discuss the matter actually at hand. Of course I may be right; perhaps you really are trying to defend the use of critical thinking - however, I'm obliged to observe that you aren't exactly demonstrating such use with these questions.

My primary example of that is how easily you conflate small, limited sects with "Religion," and use the former as an example to tar the latter. What Puppyclaws appears to be getting at in point 1 is that, just as those doctors who do oppose significant changes in medical sociology doesn't mean doctors are 'unscientific douchenozzles,' nor does those religious sects who oppose scientific changes mean that religion (or Religion, if you prefer) is unscientific as a whole.

And while "scientific progress" may be something you are opposed to the opposition of (with good reason), an attitude of opposition to spiritual progress is something many people are also opposed to (and with good reason). Personally, I am of the belief, and it's a bit radical but hear me out, that religion, spirituality, and faith are not inherently in opposition to science, technology and reason. But when I see arguments - especially vehement, emotional ones - along the lines that they are (that one is evil, or totally uncool, i.e.) I have to sigh sadly and agree with Puppyclaws when he said, "like anyone else, they have their biases and don't like having their toes stepped on."

I apologize in advance for stepping on any toes and offending you, if I have. (I'm a recovering douchebag, and sometimes I relapse. )

[iop]

Critical Thinking and Faith are diametrically opposed.

You're saying this as if a person who is religious is committing such a sin toward critical thinking that they are forever beyond salvation and cannot ever have a rational thought anymore (ok, Dawkins says that). You also make it sound like critical thinking will guarantee the best possible outcome for everybody. Are you so certain of that?

I do agree that western religion is responsible for a lot of corrosive ideology; my problem with this line of thinking is that we often overemphasize just how opposed religion is to science. Religion, like any system, doesn't like to be challenged. When science does challenge it, it fights back. On the all, this usually doesn't happen--the spheres they govern are so distant that intersections between the two are actually pretty rare. Things like evolution and sexual education represent aberrations--for every piece of science religion opposes, there's probably ten more it doesn't.

Even science organization, the supposed bastions of critical thinking, don't usually enjoy being challenged, since they're staffed by humans. Similarly, Religion is not a monolithic entity, but rather a bunch of people and organizations. Religion doesn't fight evolution. Certain, mostly US-based, congregations do. Also, fighting science is not exclusive to Religion. Environmentalists' resistance to genetically modified organisms is one example that, at least in Europe, seriously hampers research (destroying experiments, anyone?), resistance to global warming for example from Republicans b/c Al Gore made it a Democrats' issue is another one.

[Lucrece]

Yes, you have only mentioned a few areas of physical sciences. Social sciences are consistently contested and often have hot debates.

But even in the physical sciences there are not insignificant opposing groups like the Amish, Mennonites and Christian Scientists.

1. Frankly, social sciences face challenges all the time everywhere from everybody. Doctors are rather opposed to many of the significant findings in medical sociology. It doesn't mean that doctors are unscientific douchenozzles. It just means that, like anyone else, they have their biases and don't like having their toes stepped on.

Social sciences face challenge all the time because their methodology and establishments have been shown time and again to be shitty. It's called a reputation. Psychiatry has been ever more exposed as fraudulent and slowly supplanted by the field of neuroscience. Psychiatry's treatment of the intersexed/transgendered has been anything but scientific, for example.

Everybody would like to think they're right, but what's aggravating to a professional is when someone clearly perceived as out of their depth in the subject tries to invoke some jargon and more sophistry to place a challenge. This happens all the time when the subject of evolution is broached, and you get fundamentalists like Concerned Women of America claiming that "there is no evidence" when clearly evidence is ample -- it's just that they're not willing to accept it because they deem themselves fit to judge what's evidence despite not having earned/shown credentials that they've mastered the skillset/knowledge base to discuss the topic and terminology.

[iop]

Social sciences face challenge all the time because their methodology and establishments have been shown time and again to be shitty.

So very true. Same thing goes for nutritional "science", btw.

Oh, and regarding the OP

Anyway, I don't understand why people believe, to the degree they will quote word for word, various religious texts, which are often hundreds, if not thousands of years old and have been translated and printed a number of times since their initial creation.

I speculate that this is in part because people want to rationalize their faith. They believe, which is fine, but now they need to create for themselves a reason, a proof, if you want. Thus, they come up with variations on what Thomas Aquinas has said much better, or they consider the holy text as direct message from God, which consequently has to be all true.

The focus on the literal truth of the bible appeared in this form only in the 19th/early 20th century, mainly in the US, and was partly in response to textual analysis of the bible, in which theologians and historians tried to analyze which authors were responsible for which parts of the texts, and which parts of the texts may have been much later additions. As protestantism does away with e.g. tradition as a source of information about the faith, and claims the bible as the only source of information, textual analysis may have seemed threatening to some - and one reaction was to put even stronger emphasis on the bible, and elevate it to "intouchable" status. Thus, at least part of the reason people put so much faith in religious texts is that faith in the religious texts is one of the main tenets of their religion.

In my opinion, it is the attempt to rationalize faith that is problematic. If you need a proof for God's existence, or for the veracity of your belief, you will almost inevitably end up conflicting with science, with no good results. As Jesus said: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe".

[Fedechiar]

Oh, and regarding the OP

Anyway, I don't understand why people believe, to the degree they will quote word for word, various religious texts, which are often hundreds, if not thousands of years old and have been translated and printed a number of times since their initial creation.

I speculate that this is in part because people want to rationalize their faith. They believe, which is fine, but now they need to create for themselves a reason, a proof, if you want. Thus, they come up with variations on what Thomas Aquinas has said much better, or they consider the holy text as direct message from God, which consequently has to be all true.

The focus on the literal truth of the bible appeared in this form only in the 19th/early 20th century, mainly in the US, and was partly in response to textual analysis of the bible, in which theologians and historians tried to analyze which authors were responsible for which parts of the texts, and which parts of the texts may have been much later additions. As protestantism does away with e.g. tradition as a source of information about the faith, and claims the bible as the only source of information, textual analysis may have seemed threatening to some - and one reaction was to put even stronger emphasis on the bible, and elevate it to "intouchable" status. Thus, at least part of the reason people put so much faith in religious texts is that faith in the religious texts is one of the main tenets of their religion.

In my opinion, it is the attempt to rationalize faith that is problematic. If you need a proof for God's existence, or for the veracity of your belief, you will almost inevitably end up conflicting with science, with no good results. As Jesus said: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe".

I totally agree here - the problems begin when religious people stop regarding their belief as a matter of faith and start looking at scientific fact to "certify" their worldview, resulting in some really entertaining flame wars (maybe our current understanding of the universe is compatible with a deity, but it's hard to make that deity fit with their own personal idea of God.) Of course, there are levels - a master theologian will obviously present a much better argument than the average internet flamer - but ultimately the problem is always rationalization and the definition of God - it's hard to define anything in the real world without falling into contradictions somewhere, and even more so when the definition has to stay within the boundaries of a religious tradition that didn't have to deal with modern science

[Zcorp]

I'm not sure I grasp that last sentence. 'Educational group think'? Do you mean blindly accepting authority based on consensus?

No, I mean Groupthink that is prevalent withing educational institutions. Things have been done certain ways for as long as these many or most of these people can remember and getting them to search for alternative ways or even thinking about if their ways are achieving their goals and how well is quite difficult. Not to mention getting them to reevaluate their goals.

I agree that faith and critical thinking are diametrically opposed; I think that's a different statement than 'religion and science are diametrically opposed', and I think that this distinction is important.

Sure, but part of that is entirely because religion and science are significantly more ambiguous words than faith and critical thinking. Faith is an ideal of a good theist and critical thinking is an ideal of a good scientist. And that most people are distinct enough in their language, often because they don't know how to be more distinct, and the associate with science and critical thinking is strong as is the association of faith and religion.

-----

You're saying this as if a person who is religious is committing such a sin toward critical thinking that they are forever beyond salvation and cannot ever have a rational thought anymore (ok, Dawkins says that). You also make it sound like critical thinking will guarantee the best possible outcome for everybody. Are you so certain of that?

No, that is how you are choosing to read it.

---

Social sciences face challenge all the time because their methodology and establishments have been shown time and again to be shitty. It's called a reputation. Psychiatry has been ever more exposed as fraudulent and slowly supplanted by the field of neuroscience. Psychiatry's treatment of the intersexed/transgendered has been anything but scientific, for example.

While there is fraud, the field of Psychiatry is not a fraudulent one. Psychiatry doesn't treat anyone in anyway, it is a field of study that has led into other more specific fields of studies. Just like we have seen with just about every other field, and it generally leads into other fields because it is not deep or accurate enough.

While true that they have a negative reputation with many people, largely because of the methodology at the beginning of these fields, that is not true of how they generally function now. Unfortunately much of the information related to the laymen in these fields is through populate culture, bad journalists or individuals believing they understand the concepts in question when they do not.

[The Great Hippo]

Sure, but part of that is entirely because religion and science are significantly more ambiguous words than faith and critical thinking.

Their ambiguity allows them to convey a broader range of concepts, concepts which don't necessarily intersect--I can be a faithful scientist. I can be a critically-thinking member of the laity. However, I am not applying critical judgment to an assumption if I am merely 'having faith' in its intuitive trueness.

After talking about this with someone else (in meatspace), it's occurred to me that my prior use of the word 'real' in this thread has been unforgivably vague. There are two types of 'real' that interest me; 'real' in the scientifically verifiable, critical-thinking sense, and 'real' in the personal experience, anecdotal, 'I-can't-prove-this-to-you-but-I-know-it-to-be-true' sense. I'll refer to them as real¹ and real², respectively.

My contention is that it's possible to believe that scripture is not real¹, but entirely real², and that understanding that distinction can be a defensive mechanism the religious use to protect themselves from corrosive values. In short, it's a way to have their cake and eat it too.

One of the problems with faith is that it leaves us vulnerable to exploitation. If I have faith in scripture, that scripture can sell me anything--including corrosive values--because I'm not thinking about it critically. If I thought about scripture critically, I could find ways to throw out the corrosive values, but then the next reasonable step is to throw out the scripture (because as a whole, it doesn't stand up to critical analysis).

But what if believing in that scripture is of immense importance to me? I have three choices: Give something of immense importance to me up, accept (perhaps reluctantly) corrosive values into my life, or find a way to remove the corrosive values while keeping the scripture. Apply critical thinking selectively, allowing me to believe what I want to believe but simultaneously not allowing that belief to sell me dangerous bullshit.

Suddenly, you have scientists who believe that God is real²--but also think that homosexuality is not a sin, that we should teach evolution in the classroom, that sex education is a good thing, etc.

There are some religious people who are bending over backwards trying to keep their belief but still not allow that belief to corrode their values. Rather than telling them to give up something important to them, I think we should help them reconcile their beliefs. When I defend religion, I'm usually defending it on behalf of them--people who believe, who want to believe, but who also still apply critical thinking in every place where it's actually important. Because there are places where applying critical thinking doesn't necessary result in a net gain.

What reasons are there to convince someone to give up God--or give up scripture--when they can demonstrate that neither interfere with their ability to critically answer questions like "How should we treat sex in our schools?" or "Should our children be vaccinated?"? As long as you're being a scientist in the places that actually matter, I don't care what you're being elsewhere.

While there is fraud, the field of Psychiatry is not a fraudulent one. Psychiatry doesn't treat anyone in anyway, it is a field of study that has led into other more specific fields of studies. Just like we have seen with just about every other field, and it generally leads into other fields because it is not deep or accurate enough.

While true that they have a negative reputation with many people, largely because of the methodology at the beginning of these fields, that is not true of how they generally function now. Unfortunately much of the information related to the laymen in these fields is through populate culture, bad journalists or individuals believing they understand the concepts in question when they do not.

I'm going to refrain from going off on too deep of a tangent, but I'll just say that this is something that has done deep, irrepairable damage to people very close to me. I realize there's an enormous volume of good, positive, indispensible work in it, but there's also a not-insignificant amount of quackery and charlatanism.

Psychiatry deserves a lot of skepticism because it's dealing with so much inescapable ambiguity--and that ambiguity happens to be in very close proximity to the lives and minds of human beings.

[Zamfir]

But what if believing in that scripture is of immense importance to me? I have three choices: Give something of immense importance to me up, accept (perhaps reluctantly) corrosive values into my life, or find a way to remove the corrosive values while keeping the scripture. Apply critical thinking selectively, allowing me to believe what I want to believe but simultaneously not allowing that belief to sell me dangerous bullshit.

Suddenly, you have scientists who believe that God is real2--but also think that homosexuality is not a sin, that we should teach evolution in the classroom, that sex education is a good thing, etc.

There are some religious people who are bending over backwards trying to keep their belief but still not allow that belief to corrode their values. Rather than telling them to give up something important to them, I think we should help them reconcile their beliefs. When I defend religion, I'm usually defending it on behalf of them--people who believe, who want to believe, but who also still apply critical thinking in every place where it's actually important. Because there are places where applying critical thinking doesn't necessary result in a net gain.

Still, there are also many smart, knowledgeable, critically-thinking people who are very sure that god is as real as the chair I am sitting on, that homosexuality is a heavy sin, and that sex education should take the form of thunder speeches about abstinence and hell. It's simply (and perhaps sadly) not the case that well-thinking people will reach the same conclusions on many issues, and it's dangerous to assume that people who disagree always do so out of some failure of thought.

I am less sure about evolution: at least in my personal experience, young earth creationists really tend to either not very knowledgeable on the relevant issues, or stubborn in a not very recommendable way. Though I still know YECs who are respectable thinkers in other fields, even fields of science. Intelligent design is more malleable around the evidence, that's in my (surely limited) experience where the die-hard protestants end up who really gave the issue a deep and open look.

[Zcorp]

After talking about this with someone else (in meatspace), it's occurred to me that my prior use of the word 'real' in this thread has been unforgivably vague. There are two types of 'real' that interest me; 'real' in the scientifically verifiable, critical-thinking sense, and 'real' in the personal experience, anecdotal, 'I-can't-prove-this-to-you-but-I-know-it-to-be-true' sense. I'll refer to them as real¹ and real², respectively.

One of is those a belief, and the other is knowledge. Knowledge being a special kind of belief that is verifiable and true.

My contention is that it's possible to believe that scripture is not real¹, but entirely real², and that understanding that distinction can be a defensive mechanism the religious use to protect themselves from corrosive values. In short, it's a way to have their cake and eat it too.

True, but I've frequently mentioned positive psychology and the utility of delusional belief for an individual. People can have great emotional connections to schemata that they have been trained in. A connection with the word God can result in emotional reactions and desire for someone that no longer believes in the concept or uses it to describe something that is clearly not meant by the word normally.

But what if believing in that scripture is of immense importance to me? I have three choices: Give something of immense importance to me up, accept (perhaps reluctantly) corrosive values into my life, or find a way to remove the corrosive values while keeping the scripture. Apply critical thinking selectively, allowing me to believe what I want to believe but simultaneously not allowing that belief to sell me dangerous bullshit.

Suddenly, you have scientists who believe that God is real²--but also think that homosexuality is not a sin, that we should teach evolution in the classroom, that sex education is a good thing, etc.

Sure, and in accordance with skill we would call that person a poor, not adept or bad at critical thinking. Skill relates to the frequency and severity in which people make mistakes. If you are selectively applying critical thinking, a skill defined applying reason to ones own beliefs, and choosing not to apply it to your ideology you would be making a pretty severe mistake with great frequency. You would not be very skilled in critical thinking.

I can selectively apply a hammer when driving in nails and instead sometimes use a wrench, but i'm then not a very skilled carpenter.

There are some religious people who are bending over backwards trying to keep their belief but still not allow that belief to corrode their values. Rather than telling them to give up something important to them, I think we should help them reconcile their beliefs. When I defend religion, I'm usually defending it on behalf of them--people who believe, who want to believe, but who also still apply critical thinking in every place where it's actually important. Because there are places where applying critical thinking doesn't necessary result in a net gain.

I think politics, education, values and social influence are important. You can't mean to say that there isn't a net gain in applying critical thinking to those areas.

I do not have, and have stated it frequently, a desire to change people who use religion as a tool to improve their well-being. I have a desire to influence next generation to have healthier means of coping with reality and develop more advanced schemata to allow them to participate with reality, including social systems, in a more meaningful and realistic way. Of course the problem with this relates to adults believing their methods and values are just as good. That building faith based schemata is just as good as ones based in reason. This is a large fight, a fight over culture and over values. The people who 'value critical thinking' but have faith in God and teach their children to have faith in God are training them to use a wrench to drive in nails.

What reasons are there to convince someone to give up God--or give up scripture--when they can demonstrate that neither interfere with their ability to critically answer questions like "How should we treat sex in our schools?" or "Should our children be vaccinated?"? As long as you're being a scientist in the places that actually matter, I don't care what you're being elsewhere.

The reasons are almost entirely social and civil. That while they may have distorted the belief of a religion in such a way that they can rationalize their faith with reason; teaching others to do so, using religions schemata is incredibly imprecise and highly prone to failure.

And again I don't have interest in getting people to give up God. If that delusion is increasing your well-being then you have found a tool that works for you. You've mangled your wrench or the nails enough to make it work well enough for you. I have interest in getting people to not teach or influence others to use those mangled tools when we have developed superior ones. Part of this is the responsibility of those with knowledge of the hammer to make it accessible to those who are still using a wrench, and we are trying refer back to the war over culture and values.

I'm going to refrain from going off on too deep of a tangent, but I'll just say that this is something that has done deep, irrepairable damage to people very close to me. I realize there's an enormous volume of good, positive, indispensible work in it, but there's also a not-insignificant amount of quackery and charlatanism.

Psychiatry deserves a lot of skepticism because it's dealing with so much inescapable ambiguity--and that ambiguity happens to be in very close proximity to the lives and minds of human beings.

I generally disagree with the entire approach of Psychiatry, but to be clear the field is not what caused harm shitty practitioners did and a abused of a position of authority from those practitioners.

Still, there are also many smart, knowledgeable, critically-thinking people who are very sure that god is as real as the chair I am sitting on, that homosexuality is a heavy sin, and that sex education should take the form of thunder speeches about abstinence and hell. It's simply (and perhaps sadly) not the case that well-thinking people will reach the same conclusions on many issues, and it's dangerous to assume that people who disagree always do so out of some failure of thought.

Then you do not mean, what I mean, when I use the term critical thinking.

I am less sure about evolution: at least in my personal experience, young earth creationists really tend to either not very knowledgeable on the relevant issues, or stubborn in a not very recommendable way. Though I still know YECs who are respectable thinkers in other fields, even fields of science. Intelligent design is more malleable around the evidence, that's in my (surely limited) experience where the die-hard protestants end up who really gave the issue a deep and open look.

Being trained to conduct science and do math as well as being trained to think creatively != what I, psychology or wikipedia mean when we use the term critical thinking. It is a specific application of reason (the process of differentiating truth for falsehood and shades of truth) to ones know beliefs and behaviors. Because someone can conduct the scientific method in a field does not mean they are an adept critical thinker.

[Jave D]

That while they may have distorted the belief of a religion in such a way that they can rationalize their faith with reason; teaching others to do so, using religions schemata is incredibly imprecise and highly prone to failure.

Who are you to say that faith "rationalized" with reason is a "distorted" belief of any religion?

And how are you quantifying failure - failure in what, exactly?

Who are you to even say that using faith and reason is a "rationalization?"

I'm sorry, but none of what you're saying seems very precise, scientific, or realistic. It seems like you simply see this as a war between faith and reason, with reason being your preferred mode and hence you support it. How is this different from those who take the opposite "side" in this "war" that for some reason some people enjoy fighting?

[Zcorp]

Who are you to say that faith "rationalized" with reason is a "distorted" belief of any religion?

When you throw out the majority of something and only keep what you perceive to be valuable from the whole, but still consider it the whole, what would you call it besides distortion? Religion is consistently distorted by reality or science. Or if you prefer many of the beliefs that religion perpetuates or creates continually have to adapt to science.

Training someone in a distorted or adapted version of these beliefs is more likely to result in failure than training them from the perspective based in observations of reality that forced the distortion (or adaptation) of these beliefs.

Pick a word and we can use it to mean this concept if the connotation of distortion bothers you.

And how are you quantifying failure - failure in what, exactly?

Increasing individual and societal well-being.

Who are you to even say that using faith and reason is a "rationalization?"

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I'm sorry, but none of what you're saying seems very precise, scientific, or realistic. It seems like you simply see this as a war between faith and reason, with reason being your preferred mode and hence you support it. How is this different from those who take the opposite "side" in this "war" that for some reason some people enjoy fighting?

In what do you want me to be more precise? And yes I see, and it is, a conflict over values. If you prefer conflict (or any other word) over "war" that is fine we can use that word.

[Zamfir]

Being trained to conduct science and do math as well as being trained to think creatively != what I, psychology or wikipedia mean when we use the term critical thinking. It is a specific application of reason (the process of differentiating truth for falsehood and shades of truth) to ones know beliefs and behaviors. Because someone can conduct the scientific method in a field does not mean they are an adept critical thinker.

Well, sure, I never wanted to imply something else. But you don't really want to claim that everybody who does 'critical thinking' will end up agreeing with you?

[The Great Hippo]

Sure, and in accordance with skill we would call that person a poor, not adept or bad at critical thinking. Skill relates to the frequency and severity in which people make mistakes. If you are selectively applying critical thinking, a skill defined applying reason to ones own beliefs, and choosing not to apply it to your ideology you would be making a pretty severe mistake with great frequency. You would not be very skilled in critical thinking.

This largely seems to be a semantic issue, though. I mean, is this sort of incompetence at critical thinking at all relevant? Is it important? Why do we care if people are using wrenches to hammer in nails, so long as the nails are hammered into place?

If I am a bizarre carpenter who does everything right except hammering in nails with a wrench--and I've learned to do it very well--does that make me a bad carpenter? Or just an eccentric one? If I'm a scientist who does science incredibly well, but still believes in God, does that make me a bad scientist? Or just an eccentric one?

I think politics, education, values and social influence are important. You can't mean to say that there isn't a net gain in applying critical thinking to those areas.

...

And again I don't have interest in getting people to give up God. If that delusion is increasing your well-being then you have found a tool that works for you. You've mangled your wrench or the nails enough to make it work well enough for you. I have interest in getting people to not teach or influence others to use those mangled tools when we have developed superior ones. Part of this is the responsibility of those with knowledge of the hammer to make it accessible to those who are still using a wrench, and we are trying refer back to the war over culture and values.

There isn't always a net gain on an individual scale. I remember when someone close to me was dying; we made clear to him that this was the case very early on, and he accepted it. Later down the line, when he got worse, he 'forgot' that his condition was degenerative and spoke in terms of 'recovering'. Things had gotten so bad for him that we decided not to challenge him when he said this. Why? Because arguing with him every time it came up wouldn't result in a net gain, and it was clear he wanted to believe he could get better. So we let him. This is an extreme example, but I'm sure you see where allowing people to believe in incorrect things can have positive results, and insisting that they apply critical thinking can actually have negative results. The remaining time we had together increased exponentially in value, because it wasn't spent arguing about his condition.

As for teaching people to use mangled tools--again, if it doesn't ripple throughout the rest of their lives, why do you care? If the only illogical thing I want to teach my children is that God is real--on every other front, the values I'll impress upon them will be humanistic ones--why does it make a difference to you? Yes, maybe I'm teaching them to hammer in nails with wrenches, but in every other respect I'm teaching them to be excellent carpenters--just somewhat eccentric ones. So what's the problem?

[Zcorp]

Sure, and in accordance with skill we would call that person a poor, not adept or bad at critical thinking. Skill relates to the frequency and severity in which people make mistakes. If you are selectively applying critical thinking, a skill defined applying reason to ones own beliefs, and choosing not to apply it to your ideology you would be making a pretty severe mistake with great frequency. You would not be very skilled in critical thinking.

This largely seems to be a semantic issue, though. I mean, is this sort of incompetence at critical thinking at all relevant? Is it important? Why do we care if people are using wrenches to hammer in nails, so long as the nails are hammered into place?

If I am a bizarre carpenter who does everything right except hammering in nails with a wrench--and I've learned to do it very well--does that make me a bad carpenter? Or just an eccentric one? If I'm a scientist who does science incredibly well, but still believes in God, does that make me a bad scientist? Or just an eccentric one?

It makes you worse at hammering in nails. And in this instance the behavior of hammering in a nail represents increasing your own and societal well-being. So it is totally cool that you are using that wrench until you using that wrench affects other people or society as a whole. At which point you are creating a greater amount of suffering in other people through your influence than if you were using the more advanced tools. More advanced tools that could increase your own well-being and not decrease from the common well-being. Now this gets a lot more complex when you take into account the effect on well-being when someone is challenged with reason who typically uses faith and the cost of switching tools. But the greater concern is trying to not teach people to use less advanced tools or improper in the first place.

Still, you could choose not to care about the well-being of society, which still leaves us with a conflict in values.

There isn't always a net gain on an individual scale. I remember when someone close to me was dying; we made clear to him that this was the case very early on, and he accepted it. Later down the line, when he got worse, he 'forgot' that his condition was degenerative and spoke in terms of 'recovering'. Things had gotten so bad for him that we decided not to challenge him when he said this. Why? Because arguing with him every time it came up wouldn't result in a net gain, and it was clear he wanted to believe he could get better. So we let him. This is an extreme example, but I'm sure you see where allowing people to believe in incorrect things can have positive results, and insisting that they apply critical thinking can actually have negative results. The remaining time we had together increased exponentially in value, because it wasn't spent arguing about his condition.

Except that would be an application of critical thinking. While maybe not from the part of the soon to be deceased, it was on the part of those near him. I've already stated the value of delusion related to personal efficacy. It is again what the entire area of positive psychology is based on, and their results are significant. The problem comes up in the long run, not the short run and on a scale outside of the individual. In the instance of someone dying there isn't a long run and you are likely decreasing suffering by allowing delusion, and that delusion is very unlikely to cause harm to anyone else.

Accepting that delusion can be useful is critical thinking.

As for teaching people to use mangled tools--again, if it doesn't ripple throughout the rest of their lives, why do you care?

Because it can ripple through the lives of others. But you can't make an argument that faith, or more specifically religious faith, doesn't do that. And the potential for your faith to ripple through others lives increasing the greater level of power or authority you achieve.

If the only illogical thing I want to teach my children is that God is real--on every other front, the values I'll impress upon them will be humanistic ones--why does it make a difference to you? Yes, maybe I'm teaching them to hammer in nails with wrenches, but in every other respect I'm teaching them to be excellent carpenters--just somewhat eccentric ones. So what's the problem?

That God is ambiguous, that God isn't known to be real and that there is a lot, and by a lot and I mean more than just about any other schema, emotional and philosophical associations. That God doesn't exist in a vacuum and to teach someone that God is real and to teach then reason is going to bring up a lot of conflict. How do you teach reason and God without addressing the problem of Evil, do you teach deism? Than if you teach deism where is your evidence that God was the Prime Mover and why should someone trained in reason accept that God is real. Should they worship this God, if so how should they worship? Did this god leave messages for us, if so where can they be found, and how do we know which messages truly from this God? How do we know there is only one God? Does there being a God mean there is an afterlife?

Acceptance of a real God, and you have to define the qualities and actions of that God, is not in accordance with reason based on our evidence today. So either that individual is not thinking critically about the belief of a real God you instilled in them critically or they would reject that acceptance of a real God as we do not currently have evidence to support that concept. Not applying critical thinking to this concept could result in little or no harm, however due to all of the associations with God it is more likely to cause other problems in thinking, while there is no perceivable benefit for the belief. That is except for being part of a social majority.


---

Well, sure, I never wanted to imply something else. But you don't really want to claim that everybody who does 'critical thinking' will end up agreeing with you?

End up agreeing that we don't have enough evidence to warrant a reasonable belief in God? Or using tools to help us accept and understand reality will result better gain for society, and thus individuals or even individuals and thus society than delusion? Yes I'm prepared to make both of those claims based on the knowledge we have gained about existence and the progression of society.

Do you not think, even in the case of Hippos near death individual if they had been given tools to help them accept death do you think the last few days/weeks w/e of their life would of been better and they they would of created more well-being in Hippo and other people close to this person?

[The Great Hippo]

It makes you worse at hammering in nails. And in this instance the behavior of hammering in a nail represents increasing your own and societal well-being. So it is totally cool that you are using that wrench until you using that wrench affects other people or society as a whole. At which point you are creating a greater amount of suffering in other people through your influence than if you were using the more advanced tools. More advanced tools that could increase your own well-being and not decrease from the common well-being. Now this gets a lot more complex when you take into account the effect on well-being when someone is challenged with reason who typically uses faith and the cost of switching tools. But the greater concern is trying to not teach people to use less advanced tools or improper in the first place.

These feel like meaningless platitudes to me. How does believing in God, but accepting and espousing humanistic principles, in any way create social suffering? Give me something concrete, because all you're saying here is "It just does, mmkay?".

That God is ambiguous, that God isn't known to be real and that there is a lot, and by a lot and I mean more than just about any other schema, emotional and philosophical associations. That God doesn't exist in a vacuum and to teach someone that God is real and to teach then reason is going to bring up a lot of conflict. How do you teach reason and God without addressing the problem of Evil, do you teach deism? Than if you teach deism where is your evidence that God was the Prime Mover and why should someone trained in reason accept that God is real. Should they worship this God, if so how should they worship? Did this god leave messages for us, if so where can they be found, and how do we know which messages truly from this God? How do we know there is only one God? Does there being a God mean there is an afterlife?

Why can't I just ignore all these questions and just assert "I believe in God, and Jesus, and being excellent to one another, now let's talk about critically evaluating some solutions to all these problems we have"? Better yet, what's stopping me from addressing these questions from the position of a humanist, and bending every answer to these questions until they fit into a humanistic framework? It's operating backwards, sure, but it absolutely gets me to where you want me to go.

Not applying critical thinking to this concept could result in little or no harm, however due to all of the associations with God it is more likely to cause other problems in thinking, while there is no perceivable benefit for the belief. That is except for being part of a social majority.

What about the increased sense of well-being you get from bonding over religion with your Jewish parents? What about the sense of identity and culture you get from defining yourself as a Christian, or a Zorastarian, or a Hindu? Is that purely about 'being part of a social majority'? Even in cases where you're pretty much the only one in your social sphere who actively practices whatever?

And you just said that you recognize the benefits of believing in delusions--did those benefits suddenly evaporate in the space between this paragraph and the previous one?

Do you not think, even in the case of Hippos near death individual if they had been given tools to help them accept death do you think the last few days/weeks w/e of their life would of been better and they they would of created more well-being in Hippo and other people close to this person?

It absolutely does not follow that because I can think critically about something, I therefore accept it and am going to think and express that thing in healthy ways. I can still think critically about something and be completely incapable of coming to terms with it.

[Jave D]

Who are you to say that faith "rationalized" with reason is a "distorted" belief of any religion?

When you throw out the majority of something and only keep what you perceive to be valuable from the whole, but still consider it the whole, what would you call it besides distortion? Religion is consistently distorted by reality or science. Or if you prefer many of the beliefs that religion perpetuates or creates continually have to adapt to science.

Training someone in a distorted or adapted version of these beliefs is more likely to result in failure than training them from the perspective based in observations of reality that forced the distortion (or adaptation) of these beliefs.

Pick a word and we can use it to mean this concept if the connotation of distortion bothers you.

But it's only your assumption that one has to "throw out the majority" of religious belief. This is a rather huge assumption. There are a lot of religions and a lot of beliefs, and I rather doubt you've enumerated them all and determined that a majority cannot be held alongside science or a reasoned view of reality.

What I see in religion that I've studied thus far is not opposed to reason, science, and certainly not to reality itself. I think what you call a distortion is simply your own personal incomprehension and inability to reconcile faith and reason. And this is fine of course since we all have our own personal views, but what irks me is how you attempt to dismiss others' views as being "rationalization" in these lofty sort of Pronouncements.

And how are you quantifying failure - failure in what, exactly?

Increasing individual and societal well-being.

It seems incredibly presumptuous to dismiss all religion as "failing to increase well-being." And how are you quantifying increasing individual well-being? Or societal? There are plenty of ways to measure these things, but not a lot of ways that fit neatly into numerical data.

I know that my own experience with individual well-being is the stark opposite - religious teachings have increased my well-being immeasurably. I lived 30 years as an atheist who enshrined reason and logic and dismissed all religion and religious teachings with off-handed and insulting pseudo-psychological faux-erudite claims that convinced nobody else but myself and those who already agreed with me. I can tell you it never made me happy.

In what do you want me to be more precise? And yes I see, and it is, a conflict over values. If you prefer conflict (or any other word) over "war" that is fine we can use that word.

I don't prefer unnecessary conflict. Do you think that putting your values above those of everyone else, dismissing the values of other people, and setting your values in direct conflict with other people is conducive to anyone's well-being?

[iop]

I can selectively apply a hammer when driving in nails and instead sometimes use a wrench, but i'm then not a very skilled carpenter.

No. You're not very skilled at hammering.

It takes more to be a good carpenter than to drive in nails the one true way, and it takes more to be a good person than to apply critical thinking at all times.

I generally disagree with the entire approach of Psychiatry, but to be clear the field is not what caused harm shitty practitioners did and a abused of a position of authority from those practitioners.

Isn't that the same issue with Religion?

[Zcorp]

Why can't I just ignore all these questions and just assert "I believe in God, and Jesus, and being excellent to one another, now let's talk about critically evaluating some solutions to all these problems we have"? Better yet, what's stopping me from addressing these questions from the position of a humanist, and bending every answer to these questions until they fit into a humanistic framework? It's operating backwards, sure, but it absolutely gets me to where you want me to go.

Which God, what do you believe relating to God, what do you believe relating to Jesus? Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins allowing us to get into Heaven? Do you believe that not worshiping Jesus will lead you to a worse afterlife? You need to tell me what it means when you say you believe in God and Jesus or I'm going to assume that you mean what most people mean. There are, as previously mentioned, incredibly significant associated beliefs or you are being incredibly disingenuous about saying you believe in God and Jesus.

What about the increased sense of well-being you get from bonding over religion with your Jewish parents? What about the sense of identity and culture you get from defining yourself as a Christian, or a Zorastarian, or a Hindu? Is that purely about 'being part of a social majority'? Even in cases where you're pretty much the only one in your social sphere who actively practices whatever?

Removing Groupism is valuable for individual and societal well-being, and yes that is part of what I mean by social majority. It refers to the majority for each of your Ecological systems.

And you just said that you recognize the benefits of believing in delusions--did those benefits suddenly evaporate in the space between this paragraph and the previous one?

Not they are just very specifically applied, and don't result as benefits in the long run nor to other people.

It absolutely does not follow that because I can think critically about something, I therefore accept it and am going to think and express that thing in healthy ways. I can still think critically about something and be completely incapable of coming to terms with it.

I did not make the claim that it did.

I can selectively apply a hammer when driving in nails and instead sometimes use a wrench, but i'm then not a very skilled carpenter.

No. You're not very skilled at hammering.

And you believe that someone can be a skilled carpenter without being able to hammer? One of, if the the, most basic skills required.

It takes more to be a good carpenter than to drive in nails the one true way, and it takes more to be a good person than to apply critical thinking at all times.

I never made a claim in conflict with either of those things.

I generally disagree with the entire approach of Psychiatry, but to be clear the field is not what caused harm shitty practitioners did and a abused of a position of authority from those practitioners.

Isn't that the same issue with Religion?

No, the 'field' or ideology of Religion is exactly the problem with it. It is often the practitioners that are the good part of it.

[The Great Hippo]

Which God, what do you believe relating to God, what do you believe relating to Jesus? Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins allowing us to get into Heaven? Do you believe that not worshiping Jesus will lead you to a worse afterlife? You need to tell me what it means when you say you believe in God and Jesus or I'm going to assume that you mean what most people mean. There are, as previously mentioned, incredibly significant associated beliefs or you are being incredibly disingenuous about saying you believe in God and Jesus.

Assume that I don't hold any beliefs that contradict with a position of humanism, but I otherwise believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and we're all going to Heaven thanks to him. What's the problem?

It absolutely does not follow that because I can think critically about something, I therefore accept it and am going to think and express that thing in healthy ways. I can still think critically about something and be completely incapable of coming to terms with it.

I did not make the claim that it did.

I can't help to find that disengenuous.

Do you not think, even in the case of Hippos near death individual if they had been given tools to help them accept death do you think the last few days/weeks w/e of their life would of been better and they they would of created more well-being in Hippo and other people close to this person?

Emphasis mine. What am I to take away from this beyond the assumption that critical thinking tools are always tools that help us accept death? You seem to believe that if we are all better at critical thinking, we will all think the same way.

The purpose of critical thought is to better understand our choices; it doesn't determine those choices for us. Critical thinkers can still make (apparently) terrible decisions, and believe ridiculous things; they're just better equipped to understand the consequences of doing so.

And you believe that someone can be a skilled carpenter without being able to hammer? One of, if the the, most basic skills required.

We're talking about one place where people are not necessarily applying critical thinking. You're talking about one skill that someone will never apply anywhere.

The question would work better reframed: Can I still be a skilled carpenter if I can't hammer nails on weekends? Can I still be a critical thinker if I don't think critically about God?

I generally disagree with the entire approach of Psychiatry, but to be clear the field is not what caused harm shitty practitioners did and a abused of a position of authority from those practitioners.

Isn't that the same issue with Religion?

No, the 'field' or ideology of Religion is exactly the problem with it. It is often the practitioners that are the good part of it.

Hold up, what? You claimed that you disagree with the entire approach of Psychiatry, but the problem is shitty practitioners. You then claim that the reverse is true for religion. Wouldn't that mean... the approach is right, and the problem is a lot of really positive practitioners? I'm confused.

If you disagree with the entire approach of Psychiatry, how is it not the same problem as religion? Don't you think a shitty approach in Psychiatry has some possible causation with shitty psychiatrists?

[Zcorp]

Assume that I don't hold any beliefs that contradict with a position of humanism, but I otherwise believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and we're all going to Heaven thanks to him. What's the problem?

So everyone gets in to heaven no matter what they do in Life? How about Hindus? Why live? Why would I not kill people who have any level of suffering so that they enter heaven, if you believe you can go to Heaven after killing yourself and you are suffering why not do that?

If our goal is to maximize human well-being and we believe that humans will have infinite perfect well-being in death, why perpetuate life? Are souls created during sex? Should we reproduce as much as possible and as soon as the soul enters the body kill the babies to give nearly no suffering and maximize well-being in the after life?

There are still a lot of things associate with those beliefs, are you honestly trying to argue there isn't?

Emphasis mine. What am I to take away from this beyond the assumption that critical thinking tools are always tools that help us accept death? You seem to believe that if we are all better at critical thinking, we will all think the same way.

Critical Thinking is dependent upon knowledge. Two people with the same base of knowledge will reach the same conclusions. Which seems quite apparent..unless your argument is that there is no objective truth about anything.

Critical thinkers can still make (apparently) terrible decisions, and believe ridiculous things; they're just better equipped to understand the consequences of doing so.

Sure, and someone who is adept at critical thinking (as in someone who we would label a 'critical thinker') would recognize their mistakes and change their belief or behavior, even if they couldn't do it themselves, when they are presented with new knowledge or access to that knowledge. Even if they made a mistake, and because they are presumably skilled their mistakes would be infrequent and less likely to be severe, and be able to tackle easier problems with ease.

We're talking about one place where people are not necessarily applying critical thinking. You're talking about one skill that someone will never apply anywhere.

And I'm still asking you how you can define someone as a 'critical thinker' when they are not applying that skill to many of their core beliefs. When they are not engaging in the defining characteristic of the skill in question.

[The Great Hippo]

So everyone gets in to heaven no matter what they do in Life? How about Hindus? Why live? Why would I not kill people who have any level of suffering so that they enter heaven, if you believe you can go to Heaven after killing yourself and you are suffering why not do that?

If our goal is to maximize human well-being and we believe that humans will have infinite perfect well-being in death, why perpetuate life? Are souls created during sex? Should we reproduce as much as possible and as soon as the soul enters the body kill the babies to give nearly no suffering and maximize well-being in the after life?

There are still a lot of things associate with those beliefs, are you honestly trying to argue there isn't?

Okay, I'll try one more time: Pretend that the answer to all these questions are critically-evaluated humanist values. 'No, it's not right to kill people just to send them to Heaven because blah blah blah humanism. No, it's not right to kill myself to go to Heaven because blah blah blah humanism. No, we shouldn't reproduce as much as possible because blah blah blah humanism. Oh, by the way, I believe God is real."

So what's the problem?

Critical Thinking is dependent upon knowledge. Two people with the same base of knowledge will reach the same conclusions. Which seems quite apparent..unless your argument is that there is no objective truth about anything.

...

Sure, and someone who is adept at critical thinking (as in someone who we would label a 'critical thinker') would recognize their mistakes and change their belief or behavior, even if they couldn't do it themselves, when they are presented with new knowledge or access to that knowledge. Even if they made a mistake, and because they are presumably skilled their mistakes would be infrequent and less likely to be severe, and be able to tackle easier problems with ease.

But critical thinking does not magically produce two people who, armed with the same knowledge, make all the same choices. Critical thinking is a method by which we analyze and understand the choices we are making--it tells us nothing about which choice we should actually pick, only what the nature of those choices are.

And I'm still asking you how you can define someone as a 'critical thinker' when they are not applying that skill to one of many of their core beliefs.

How can you define someone as a 'good carpenter' when they never do any woodwork on Saturdays and Sundays? How can you define someone as a murderer when they're not currently murdering anyone? How can you define someone as a scientist when they're clearly not wearing a labcoat (and I don't even think they own a test-tube)?

If your hangup here is that you don't want to share the label 'critical thinker' with someone who believes in sky wizards, then okay. But I'm not interested in a conversation about who gets to wear the 'Most Critical Thinker EVAR!!11' crown. I'm interested in practical applications of critical thinking in every day life, and how these applications impact society. Explain to me how a quiet belief in magical sky wizards--but doing and believing nothing unreasonable on behalf of them--in any way affects us in our regular lives.

[Zcorp]

Okay, I'll try one more time: Pretend that the answer to all these questions are critically-evaluated humanist values. 'No, it's not right to kill people just to send them to Heaven because blah blah blah humanism. No, it's not right to kill myself to go to Heaven because blah blah blah humanism. No, we shouldn't reproduce as much as possible because blah blah blah humanism. Oh, by the way, I believe God is real."

So what's the problem?

That you belief in God but that means nothing as you mean nothing by saying that you believe and God, and yet for some reason still hold value in that belief.Which confuses everyone you are talking to about it, if anyone, if no one, than nothing. However, as I've said numerous times, there isn't much of a problem with a belief in God for the sake of self-efficacy. The problem is perpetuating that faith in society.

But critical thinking does not magically produce two people who, armed with the same knowledge, make all the same choices. Critical thinking is a method by which we analyze and understand the choices we are making--it tells us nothing about which choice we should actually pick, only what the nature of those choices are.

I never said it magically produced two people armed with the same knowledge, who did?
It tells us a lot about which choices we should pick (the aspect of reason within the skill more specifically), it just doesn't do it alone.

How can you define someone as a 'good carpenter' when they never do any woodwork on Saturdays and Sundays? How can you define someone as a murderer when they're not currently murdering anyone? How can you define someone as a scientist when they're clearly not wearing a labcoat (and I don't even think they own a test-tube)?

Huh? no strawmen please.

Explain to me how a quiet belief in magical sky wizards--but doing and believing nothing unreasonable on behalf of them--in any way affects us in our regular lives.

It doesn't, as I've stated in numerous occasions, including twice now in this post.

[The Great Hippo]

That you belief in God but that means nothing as you mean nothing by saying that you believe and God, and yet for some reason still hold value in that belief.Which confuses everyone you are talking to about it, if anyone, if no one, than nothing. However, as I've said numerous times, there isn't much of a problem with a belief in God for the sake of self-efficacy. The problem is perpetuating that faith in society.

Why is perpetuating a type faith you admit is harmless somehow a problem? Again, what is the problem?

I never said it magically produced two people armed with the same knowledge, who did?

Wait, who said you said that? I said it doesn't magically produce two people who, being armed with the same knowledge, would then make all the same choices. Do you believe that two people, armed with the same knowledge--both critical thinkers--will make exactly the same decisions? Will both of them be atheist humanists? Why?

Huh? no strawmen please.

I was illustrating the absurdity in being obsessed with terminology over practicality.

It doesn't, as I've stated in numerous occasions, including twice now in this post.

If it has zero effect, then why do you think I shouldn't be teaching my children to believe in completely harmless sky-wizards, too? Particularly when it's socially acceptable to do so? What exactly is the harm, here?

[Zcorp]

Why is perpetuating a type faith you admit is harmless somehow a problem? Again, what is the problem?

That your hypothetical doesn't exist in reality.

If it has zero effect, then why do you think I shouldn't be teaching my children to believe in completely harmless sky-wizards, too? Particularly when it's socially acceptable to do so? What exactly is the harm, here?

Same thing. Religion has an effect. If you define something as having no effect, then it has no effect. So what you lose is teaching something someone who has no effect. In reality teaching beliefs has an effect. The goal of teaching anything is the have an effect. In this fantasy world where beliefs don't have affect anything, why are you bothering to teach your kids what essentially amounts to admittedly largest waste of time ever?

[The Great Hippo]

Why is perpetuating a type faith you admit is harmless somehow a problem? Again, what is the problem?

That your hypothetical doesn't exist in reality.

...

Same thing. Religion has an effect. If you define something as having no effect, then it has no effect. So what you lose is teaching something someone who has no effect. In reality teaching beliefs has an effect.

You already described the effect; social ecological systems--participating in the culture of a given belief. Maybe I value what my parents believe, and want to participate in that. Maybe I value my Jewish community, and want to be part of that.

I can reconcile religious beliefs with humanistic values; I can believe in God without believing that homosexuality is a sin or that sex ed is best performed as abstinence only. Ordinary people do this all the frigging time. When someone comes out to their parents as an atheist, or homosexual, or whatever the current paradigm defines as aberrant--do the parents always act as if their paradigm is right, and their child is wrong? Is the response always "Well, we need to change you, otherwise you're going straight to Hell--because those are the stakes"?

You seem to assign to religion a sort of magical power that extends far beyond any other ideology; an ability to pollute and corrupt everything it touches merely by association. But I'm not quarantining beliefs that are harmless. If someone wants to believe in their God, and wants to make that God fit as closely to humanistic principals as possible, and wants to teach that God to their children--why the hell not?

[Zcorp]

You already described the effect; social ecological systems--participating in the culture of a given belief. Maybe I value what my parents believe, and want to participate in that. Maybe I value my Jewish community, and want to be part of that.

That is one description of many effects that influence behavior and belief.

I can reconcile religious beliefs with humanistic values; I can believe in God without believing that homosexuality is a sin or that sex ed is best performed as abstinence only. Ordinary people do this all the frigging time. When someone comes out to their parents as an atheist, or homosexual, or whatever the current paradigm defines as aberrant--do the parents always act as if their paradigm is right, and their child is wrong? Is the response always "Well, we need to change you, otherwise you're going straight to Hell--because those are the stakes"?

Ordinary people do do this all the time. Ordinarily people, in the united states, also value fighting over if homosexuals should be allowed to get married more than they fight over if we should go to yet another war. They value a potential political candidate going to church more than how well they have treated their past wives. Is your argument that ordinary people, or to use a more appropriate term within social science - the norm, are behaving in a healthy and reasonable way? Ordinary people also kill homosexuals for simply being homosexual or bully them to the point they kill themselves. Can someone hold two conflicting values, sure, but when they conflict they have to choose one. Often faith wins out, that causes problems. On top of which one of those sets of values has shown to create significant tendencies in certain very destructive behaviors and groupthink.

If you are teaching someone God exists, except that you shouldn't actually believe anything that has to do with God, besides that he exists. He will have no utility on your life and he will never do anything that will ever affect you. But you should try and reconcile this irrational and useless belief with all of the other beliefs in God because i'm telling you that you should belief it. How exactly is that useful? How is this helping anyone in anyway? In fact how is this not harming the person you are teaching? Forcing them into a world indoctrinating a belief but not anything else commonly associated with that belief, and proposing that all of those associations that are sometimes more reasonable than the belief I'm forcing upon you are bad but this one,this one is largely unreasonable is so important, and yet useless, but you should belief it cause I do.

You seem to assign to religion a sort of magical power that extends far beyond any other ideology; an ability to pollute and corrupt everything it touches merely by association. But I'm not quarantining beliefs that are harmless. If someone wants to believe in their God, and wants to make that God fit as closely to humanistic principals as possible, and wants to teach that God to their children--why the hell not?

I certainly do not believe it extends far beyond any other ideology, in fact I hope that reason and the purist of knowledge as a core values within an ideology a extends far beyond the reach of any religion.

Again, because there are not beliefs based in faith that are useful in the long run and we have other beliefs based in reason that are useful in both the long and short run. Accepting and working with reality has consistently been the healthiest behavior, in both physical and social sciences. Rain Dancing doesn't directly harm anyone either, but it doesn't help anyone in truth, ones own delusion might allow them to feel better. Perpetuating the belief that rain dancing causes precipitation does however cause harm. Just like praying doesn't help anyone in truth, ones own delusion might allow them to feel better. But perpetuating belief in praying does however cause harm.

[lutzj]

Ordinary people do do this all the time. Ordinarily people, in the united states, also value fighting over if homosexuals should be allowed to get married more than they fight over if we should go to yet another war...

Some people sincerely believe that same-sex marriage is a social ill. It's possible to apply *critical-thinking,* in the complete absence of religious belief, and determine that homosexuality is a net loss for society (because it consumes resources without producing anything/causes gender imbalances/spreads AIDS/they could lower morale in the army/whatever myopic impression you happen to have about homosexuals), and therefore one should go about telling gay people that being gay is bad and they should feel bad.

Now, to really make this interesting, suppose that some religion told one that humans have inherent value ("souls," or "karma") and that I should not persecute others for their sexual preferences, and that I allow this belief, which cannot be directly observed in the natural world, to override my perfectly rational, critically-thought-out cost-benefit analysis.

[Jave D]

Can someone hold two conflicting values, sure, but when they conflict they have to choose one. Often faith wins out, that causes problems.

Yeah, like a faith that one should love one's neighbors as oneself. That causes all kinds of horrors. Apparently?

If you are teaching someone God exists, except that you shouldn't actually believe anything that has to do with God, besides that he exists. He will have no utility on your life and he will never do anything that will ever affect you. But you should try and reconcile this irrational and useless belief with all of the other beliefs in God because i'm telling you that you should belief it. How exactly is that useful?

Hmm yes, if I assumed that God didn't exist and that belief in God was irrational I'd conclude that it was useless too. But that would only tell about my beliefs.

How is this helping anyone in anyway? In fact how is this not harming the person you are teaching? Forcing them into a world indoctrinating a belief but not anything else commonly associated with that belief, and proposing that all of those associations that are sometimes more reasonable than the belief I'm forcing upon you are bad but this one,this one is largely unreasonable is so important, and yet useless, but you should belief it cause I do.

Who said anything about forcing?

Rain Dancing doesn't directly harm anyone either, but it doesn't help anyone in truth, ones own delusion might allow them to feel better.

If a belief helps someone feel better, how is that not helping them in truth?

Just like praying doesn't help anyone in truth, ones own delusion might allow them to feel better. But perpetuating belief in praying does however cause harm.

Perhaps of course you could cite the DSM where it states that belief in prayer qualifies as delusion, or that prayer is psychologically harmful? No, you can't, because this isn't something supported by the science - it is just your own bias, your own belief. And I can say with certainty that when I held similar beliefs, they did harm me. Of course that's just my experience, an anecdote if you will. It's not an absolute and universal truth and I don't, thankfully, feel the need to pretend it is anymore.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I can reconcile religious beliefs with humanistic values; I can believe in God without believing that homosexuality is a sin or that sex ed is best performed as abstinence only. Ordinary people do this all the frigging time. When someone comes out to their parents as an atheist, or homosexual, or whatever the current paradigm defines as aberrant--do the parents always act as if their paradigm is right, and their child is wrong? Is the response always "Well, we need to change you, otherwise you're going straight to Hell--because those are the stakes"?

Ordinary people do do this all the time. Ordinarily people, in the united states, also value fighting over if homosexuals should be allowed to get married more than they fight over if we should go to yet another war.

This is beside Hippo's point. Sure, there are plenty of people who commit evil because of religion. But there are plenty of people who are religious and who don't commit those evils, which is what Hippo is trying to show.

[Zcorp]

This is beside Hippo's point. Sure, there are plenty of people who commit evil because of religion. But there are plenty of people who are religious and who don't commit those evils, which is what Hippo is trying to show.

Cool, I don't disagree with that.

We still have better tools than religion to gain the benefits that religion provides, with less negatives.

[lutzj]

We still have better tools than religion to gain the benefits that religion provides, with less negatives.

Yet, just about every major civilization ever has featured some sort of religion, to the point that religion is seen as a major step in the development of intelligence of humans as well as a hallmark of advanced societies.

Empirically, religion > no religion. Of course, this isn't necessarily an argument in favor of Christianity/monotheism/theism (although each of those has been very successful historically), just that the unifying and motivating effects of religion outweigh the negative effects of spending so much time and effort on candles and gilded statues.

[The Great Hippo]

We still have better tools than religion to gain the benefits that religion provides, with less negatives.

One of the benefits that religion provides is being part of that religion, which is a benefit that being non-religious can never provide no matter what it does.

You've asserted that if I believe in God, but do so in such a way that allows me to maintain humanistic principles--believe in a God that pushes humanistic principles, in scripture that emphasizes humanistic principles, behave in such a way that besides the belief in God, I am indistinguishable from a humanistic--then my belief is meaningless and has no effect. This is part of what confuses me about your stance, because it implies that humanism can only come from a critical, secular point of view, and any other way of getting there is void.

The other thing that confounds me is that you don't assign much value to parents passing on religiously-ingrained values to their children. Can you distinguish between Jewish culture and Jewish religion? Would you be happy with us passing on traditional, conservative Jewish culture--including the rules--but somehow removing the belief-in-God part? Would you be okay with the Amish rejection of technology if the Amish were doing it not on behalf of God, but just because that was their culture? Or should all of these cultures ideally wither and die?

When I combine these two things--faith and cultural value with no impact on humanistic values are meaningless, and parents shouldn't pass on meaningless values or values contrary to humanism--what I end up with is: "Parents shouldn't pass on meaningless values or values that are in contradiction to humanism to their children. Parents should only pass on humanism to their children. Anything else is bad."

Am I misrepresenting you? If so, could you clarify the above statement to more accurately depict what you think parents should and should not pass on to their children?

[Tomo]

The other thing that confounds me is that you don't assign much value to parents passing on religiously-ingrained values to their children. Can you distinguish between Jewish culture and Jewish religion? Would you be happy with us passing on traditional, conservative Jewish culture--including the rules--but somehow removing the belief-in-God part? Would you be okay with the Amish rejection of technology if the Amish were doing it not on behalf of God, but just because that was their culture? Or should all of these cultures ideally wither and die?

This.. might be an aside for another thread, but ideally shouldn't all cultures wither and die? What purpose do they serve?

[DSenette]

We still have better tools than religion to gain the benefits that religion provides, with less negatives.

One of the benefits that religion provides is being part of that religion, which is a benefit that being non-religious can never provide no matter what it does.

really? there's no other way to be part of a group? than to be part of a religion?
there are humanist groups all over the place if you're looking for a local group to belong to. if you mean "macro" group, there's always being part of humanity.

You've asserted that if I believe in God, but do so in such a way that allows me to maintain humanistic principles--believe in a God that pushes humanistic principles, in scripture that emphasizes humanistic principles, behave in such a way that besides the belief in God, I am indistinguishable from a humanistic--then my belief is meaningless and has no effect. This is part of what confuses me about your stance, because it implies that humanism can only come from a critical, secular point of view, and any other way of getting there is void.

i don't think he's saying that any other method of enacting humanist values is void. it's that to enact humanist values there's no reason for the belief in God. a belief in God that requires you to treat other members of society as "less than" because of some scripture that says you shouldn't like them won't ACTUALLY allow you to enact humanist values.

if you believe in a god that has literally no effect on anything, anywhere, at any time, in any way (even in the after life) then your belief in god is EXACTLY the same as not believing in god. the results are exactly the same. at which point you could conceivably enact humanist values universally, but, then what's the point of the added god bit?

The other thing that confounds me is that you don't assign much value to parents passing on religiously-ingrained values to their children. Can you distinguish between Jewish culture and Jewish religion? Would you be happy with us passing on traditional, conservative Jewish culture--including the rules--but somehow removing the belief-in-God part? Would you be okay with the Amish rejection of technology if the Amish were doing it not on behalf of God, but just because that was their culture? Or should all of these cultures ideally wither and die?

what's the point of them being religiously ingrained values? why can't they just be values? humanist parents instill humanist values in their children every day. without the specter of god and eternal punishment. are these values somehow less valid?

what are the religious values that you're hoping to continue being passed down? is the amish rejection of technology a good thing? what are the advantages of the conservative jewish rules that are being passed down? is it actually to anyone's benefit to eat kosher? i mean, is it really a big deal for me to eat meat with a glass of milk?

what's the point of the rules and parts of religious culture that are only there to be "pleasing unto the lord" being passed down without the subsequent belief and reliance on god?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

We still have better tools than religion to gain the benefits that religion provides, with less negatives.

One of the benefits that religion provides is being part of that religion, which is a benefit that being non-religious can never provide no matter what it does.

really? there's no other way to be part of a group? than to be part of a religion?

Not part of a group. Part of a religion. There is no way to be part of a religion without being part of that religion. There's also no way to be a triangle without having three sides.

[DSenette]

We still have better tools than religion to gain the benefits that religion provides, with less negatives.

One of the benefits that religion provides is being part of that religion, which is a benefit that being non-religious can never provide no matter what it does.

really? there's no other way to be part of a group? than to be part of a religion?

Not part of a group. Part of a religion. There is no way to be part of a religion without being part of that religion. There's also no way to be a triangle without having three sides.

but what's the part of being part of a religion? what advantage does being part of a religion give you over being any other group?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Well, some people like being religious. I feel like this is like asking what the advantages of chocolate ice cream are over vanilla ice cream.