|
Author
|
Topic: Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 5 of 159 (386129)
02-19-2007 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
02-19-2007 4:12 PM
|
|
Taz's response was excellent, but I do have a comment. What is wrong with "unchecked skepticism"? IOW, why should skepticism ever be "checked"? In my mind, the world would be a much, much MUCH better place if skepticism was far more prevalent, and credulousness was rare.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Phat, posted 02-19-2007 4:12 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by Phat, posted 02-19-2007 8:54 PM | | nator has replied | | | Message 7 by Taz, posted 02-19-2007 9:33 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 11 of 159 (386152)
02-19-2007 9:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
02-19-2007 8:54 PM
|
|
quote:
Speaking of behalf of the fundamentalist camp, I feel that one of the reasons why we cling so adamantly to our religious beliefs (and fear questioning them) is because we need to have a bedrock in which to sink our anchor.
And I think that you have taught that you need religion, but you don't really. What people need is their basic needs met, and a good moral code. Religion is not needed for either of these things. Currently, there are several very secular societies in the world who's citizens are productive and moral. Religious belief in those cultures is rare, and fundamentalism is practically nonexistent. Those societies have some of the least violent, most egalitarian, best educated, and highest standards of living on the planet.
quote:
The idea that God exists and that Jesus Christ is Gods character who lives today and who is an unshakeable source of comfort, encouragement and wisdom is very comforting to my soul.
OK. That idea is utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of Swedes, though, and they seem to get along great without it. Why do you think that is?
quote:
Perhaps in a larger context, a fundamental and unshakeable faith is the reason why people cling to ancient beliefs. If you call our belief a myth, we take offense. If you call our belief irrational, we take offense. If you challenge our right to indoctorinate our kids in order to give them a bedrock assumption, we take offense. Critical thinking by definition does challenge assumptions, however.
I'm sure you do take offense. The thing is, am I wrong? If you can't show that I'm wrong, then what does that make me? Nowhere is it written that just becasue some nonsense is named "religion" that it suddenly isn't nonsense anymore. All religion is nonsensical and irrational, by definition. Don't blame me. I don't believe the stuff.
quote:
This whole idea of taking charge of our own minds is a bit like the "ye shall be as gods" conundrum.
OK. Are you saying that God likes his people to be dull-witted, stupid followers? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Phat, posted 02-19-2007 8:54 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 12 of 159 (386156)
02-19-2007 10:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
02-19-2007 9:46 PM
|
|
what 'skepticism' really is
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them. ”Baruch Spinoza Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas ” no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum ” I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think: Sum Ergo Cogito ” I Am Therefore I Think.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Phat, posted 02-19-2007 9:46 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 26 of 159 (386258)
02-20-2007 3:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by anastasia
02-19-2007 10:30 PM
|
|
Re: what 'skepticism' really is
quote:
If you are sooooo skeptical that it has BAD affects, where you can't find anything meaningful, that would be un-useful. As Spinoza said, no one really adheres to this level of skepticism.
Well, right. We can only wait for Phat to come back and enlighten us all as to what he meant by "unchecked skepticism".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by anastasia, posted 02-19-2007 10:30 PM | | anastasia has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 28 of 159 (386264)
02-20-2007 3:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by BMG
02-19-2007 10:48 PM
|
|
quote:
I don't know Schraf. If Phat and others feel comforted with a belief in an afterlife, a God, etc. then it seems a bit presumptuous to claim that "they don't really need it".
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something controversial. The comfort that people get from religion is often a crutch that keeps them from giving themselves credit for their own strength and allows them to make excuses so that they may avoid dealing with reality. "Not dealing with reality" is what we can easily get from religious people, like the President. He has no problem ignoring reality, and that has some very serious consequences for the entire world.
quote:
It just seems troublesome and difficult to tell people what they do or do not need in terms of emotional and/or spiritual support.
I know what you mean, but it is still my opinion. Look at it this way. When we are little children, we look to our parents when we are frightened or upset or otherwise troubled. We expect them to meet our needs, to protect us, to teach us. As we become older, we are expected to become more and more independent. It would be strange, would it not, to see a 22 year old man run crying to his mother when he stubbed his toe, wouldn't it? To me, religion is like adults inventing invisible surrogate parents to cry to when bad things happen. It is sort of like an arrested development. That's not to say that we can't have adult relationsips with other people that are sources of comfort and wisdom, etc. but all of this stuff about "giving over all control of my life to God" and all of that is just not something that seems healthy for adults to do.
quote:
But if people rely on an organized or "disorganized" religion for a "good moral code" then who are we to tell them "religion is not needed for...these things"?
Sometimes, though, the other stuff that one must believe along with the moral code is nonsensical and irrelevant to morality.
quote:
Please don't get the wrong idea, Schraf, I far too often agree with your posts; including this one, to a certain extent.
Oh, goodness, one cannot agree with my posts far too often!  Edited by nator, : No reason given.
'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by BMG, posted 02-19-2007 10:48 PM | | BMG has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by BMG, posted 02-22-2007 3:10 AM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Just a Bowling Alley
quote:
I think people have difficulty using critical thinking in relation to their own actions, beliefs, etc. It is easier to anaylse someone elses action than your own.
That is very true, especially if those people currently or used to regularly and easily believe things without any evidence or in the face of contrary evidence, such as is done in religions, certain political and social codes, etc.. Critical thinking skills take practice, study, and knowledge and understanding of all the different flavors of self-delusion we humans are prone to. Most people don't practice them, or even know about them. Like Feynman said and I've included in my sig: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool."
quote:
Is anyone truly capable of that type of critical thinking about themselves?
I'd say yes, although there is a rather steep gradient.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 02-20-2007 6:09 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 56 of 159 (386456)
02-21-2007 9:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
02-21-2007 1:02 PM
|
|
Re: Fundamental Roadblocks
quote:
I would say that we as humanity are involved in a spiritual war and that humanity subconsciously or even consciously tries to dissmiss a personal God because our nature abhors it (or Him)
Again, I would say that this is completely wrong. I think that humans LOVE the idea of God/gods, personal or otherwise. Why else would most of the planet believe in some kind of godlike thing?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by Phat, posted 02-21-2007 1:02 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 66 of 159 (386520)
02-22-2007 9:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by BMG
02-22-2007 3:10 AM
|
|
But what if a worshipper, raised in the climate of their religion and believed in the power of prayer, didn't stub their toe? rather they lost their wife or husband? daughter or son? a family member or friend very dear to them? They are under excessive stress, pain and suffering. Their head throbs and heart aches. They pray to whomever they pray to to relieve some of the pain. Regardless if they believe their prayers are answered or heard, the fact is when they cite what troubles them, they are often using a form of intropection. They come to better understand themselves and how they feel. This may very well calm them and give them some sort of solace; just a moment's peace. Are we to tell them that they should "be more independent"? To "stop making excuses and avoid dealing with reality"? No, we are not to tell them that. However, it seems that there is a strong desire among the devout to protect their belief at such times as this. It is almost seems more important to them than anything else. Religion also seems to sometimes enforce the glorification of ignorance, helplessness and weakness. "It's God's way, and we are not to understand". "God will take care of us". "It's all part of God's plan". Religion, it seems to me, all seems to come down to caveman fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of being at the mercy of random and uncontrollable events, and fear that we are on our own and what me make of our lives is, in part, up to us. Religion is a way to pass the buck on that responsibility and to avoid having to face the reality that bad/good shit happens and it's nobody's fault/plan. IOW, that there is no all-powerful entity "in control" out there. What is a more effective way to think; to believe a comfortable lie or to realize an uncomfortable reality?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by BMG, posted 02-22-2007 3:10 AM | | BMG has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 71 of 159 (386552)
02-22-2007 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by riVeRraT
02-22-2007 9:34 AM
|
|
quote:
What do you think deep down in your heart nator?
Things happen for no reason? Please, give an honest straight up answer.
If you are asking me if I think that everyting that happens is uncaused, then no. For example, the reason a person broke their leg is becasue they took a bad tumble while skiing and the physics of the event resulted in a broken bone. They might also have been lax in maintaining their equipment, or had recently gotten over being ill so were not in the best physical shape, or they might have been on a trail that was too difficult for them, etc. etc. However, if you are asking me if I think that the reason this person broke their leg is so they had to go to the hospital and meet a doctor who would later introduce them to a person who's sibling turned out to be the person they married, and it's all becasue some supernatural entity has willed it to happen that way? Nope. Stuff just happens.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 02-22-2007 9:34 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 91 by riVeRraT, posted 02-22-2007 8:26 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 75 of 159 (386559)
02-22-2007 12:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by anastasia
02-22-2007 11:19 AM
|
|
quote:
We are always at the mercy of random and uncontrollable events!
Not true. Everything that happens in the universe is under God's control, He being Omnipotent and all. Sometimes, though, the Devil or demons control certain things and people. At least, that's what most of the religious people have told me is the case over the years.
quote:
And, most religions tell us that what we make of our lives is up to us, not in part, but in entirity.
Not according to most religious people I've interacted with. Most of them say that how we should live is up to God, not up to us. And it is "big-headed" for humans to rely on our own knowledge and wisdom, and we should give over our lives to Jesus.
Religion is a way to pass the buck on that responsibility and to avoid having to face the reality that bad/good shit happens and it's nobody's fault/plan. IOW, that there is no all-powerful entity "in control" out there quote:
What's the difference?
The difference is in actions taken. Religious people who believe that God heals people through prayer have let their child die instead of allowing them to have life saving medical help. Instead of working hard to preserve the environment, some religious people (in high places) justify raping and laying waste to nature because they believe that the End is Near. I could go on, but I think you get my gist.
quote:
Bad/good shit always happens, and we have to deal with it whether we think there is a 'plan' or not.
But HOW we deal with that shit is important, and too often religion allows people to not have to deal with reality. They tend to muck it up for the rest of us who DO live in reality.
quote:
Seriously, if my car dies on a lonely stretch of raod, do you think I am going to blame the devil, or console myself that this is part of God's plan? Even if I did, so what? I still have to get out and find a phone and a tow truck. I am not sure how much more 'real' I can act in that situation.
Sure, that's one example that isn't too different in how we might imagine the two mindsets to act. But, as I stated above, the religious mindset has influenced our president to "stay the course" in Iraq becasue he can very easily simply deny reality.
What is a more effective way to think; to believe a comfortable lie or to realize an uncomfortable reality? quote:
You need to prove that something is a lie, of course.
No I don't. You folks with faith are the one making the claim that the supernatural exists and that it has effects in the natural world.
quote:
and then, you need to prove that the 'lie' is comfortable. Do you think life would not be a tiny bit more comfortable for me if I believed that I didn't have to fast, or go to church, or explain my beliefs to others?
Do you think that your life would be a "teeny" bit less comfortable to you if you gave up the belief that God loves you or that heaven exists and that when you and your loved ones die, that you don't go anywhere at all? You just die, and that's the end?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by anastasia, posted 02-22-2007 11:19 AM | | anastasia has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 79 by anastasia, posted 02-22-2007 1:28 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 76 of 159 (386562)
02-22-2007 12:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
02-22-2007 12:07 PM
|
|
nator writes: What is a more effective way to think; to believe a comfortable lie or to realize an uncomfortable reality? quote:
This goes both ways. Nobody has conclusively proved that any major belief on this planet is a lie. They never will.
So, which one is right? They can't ALL be correct, because they each conflict in dogma with the others. Each of them have exactly the same quality of checkable evidence, too. None.
quote:
Reality is at best agnosticism, Schraff. You cannot prove anything else.
That's why I'm an agnostic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Phat, posted 02-22-2007 12:07 PM | | Phat has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by jar, posted 02-22-2007 12:45 PM | | nator has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 78 of 159 (386577)
02-22-2007 1:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
02-22-2007 12:45 PM
|
|
quote:
A religion may well get most things right, some things wrong. That does not make the religion false, anymore than one wrong answer on a test means all of the answers were wrong.
True. But I doubt there are many people here on these boards who will tell you that it doesn't matter which beliefs are correct.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by jar, posted 02-22-2007 12:45 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 82 by anastasia, posted 02-22-2007 1:43 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 104 of 159 (386819)
02-23-2007 8:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by Stile
02-23-2007 11:22 AM
|
|
Re: Was this a rhetorical question?
quote:
From reading your post, it seems to me that you think the answer to the question would be to 'realize an uncomfortable reality'. For myself, I would agree. But, I do not understand why this should be for everyone. Or, maybe you don't even intend for it to be for everyone?
I think that it can be for everyone, and should be promoted and encouraged much more than it is. Currently, the opposite seems to be encouraged in most of the world. Like I said, the world would be a MUCH better place if we had MORE rational thought, not LESS.
quote:
As far as I can tell, "believing a comfortable lie" may very well be a more effective way to think for someone. Like, say, someone who has never been able to depend on anyone, someone who has been abused for much of their life, someone who is constantly scared and worried. Believing a comfortable lie may give someone like this some sort of comfort, at least something to build on. Whereas one more uncomfortable turth may very well push them over the edge and cause them to go insane, perhaps even hurting themselves or others.
Perhaps. On the other hand, how many religious people who were perfectly sane have perpetrated acts that have hurt others and themselves? Now include the crazy religious people. I really don't think we need to worry much about people going crazy from a lack of religion and an excess of rationality. I am much more concerned with the sane religious people.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by Stile, posted 02-23-2007 11:22 AM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 112 of 159 (386913)
02-24-2007 5:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by anastasia
02-24-2007 12:39 PM
|
|
Re: The positive truth claim
quote:
To say religion is a man made concept seems critical, but it is 100% belief.
No, it isn't. We know, without needing to take anything at all on faith, that humans create religions. Ever heard of cargo cults? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by anastasia, posted 02-24-2007 12:39 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: The positive truth claim
quote:
Proof that humans have created SOME religions is not proof that we have created ALL religions.
True. How do you tell the human-created ones from the ?-created ones?
quote:
Proof that we have created ALL religions is likewise not proof that we have created the concept of 'religion'.
Er, you lost me there. If without humans there would be no religion, then by definition, humans created the concept of religion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by anastasia, posted 02-24-2007 6:17 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2