|
Author
|
Topic: Is religion good for us?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Alsace-Lorraine decisions = religious bonbons?
dronester writes: But if you still want to offer evidence that Alsace-Lorraine and the world wars that followed it are products (about 50 million killed. More civilians died than soldiers. Horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc.) of critical thinking, I'd be most interested.
Let's start with the definition that you provided:
quote:
"Critical thinking, in its broadest sense has been described as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."
Are you suggesting that the governments of Germany, the U.K., Russia, the U.S.A, Japan, etc. didn't do that? And more pertinent to the topic, are you suggesting that religion rather than critical thinking was responsible for those deaths?
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by dronestar, posted 09-01-2010 4:32 PM | | dronestar has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Religion = Bonbons
Dogmafood writes: While applied critical thinking may produce different results for different participants considering the same question you cant blame the thought process for the undesirable outcome. Any given problem may not have a 'good' resolution but there will always be a 'best possible' resolution.
A "best possible" solution may well be a bad solution. It may well result in one participant killing the other one, like in the examples given in the OP.
Dogmafood writes: Do you like strawberries? If so you will probably like strawberry ice cream. As the personal variables come into play everyones result of applied critical thinking becomes personalized but the model remains the same.
It doesn't matter whether the model remains the same. We're talking about the consequences. What If I decide (critically) that I deserve your ice cream and I won't take "no" for an answer?
Dogmafood writes: Do you have any other examples where critical thinking falls short when compared to a non critical thinking approach. The short list in the OP are a few examples of where the poisonous leachate of non critical thinking has cost us dearly.
I don't think it has been established that the examples in the OP represent non-critical thinking. Others have pointed out that they don't necessarily represent religious thinking.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Dogmafood, posted 09-01-2010 5:34 PM | | Dogmafood has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 111 of 181 (578554)
09-01-2010 11:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by Dogmafood
09-01-2010 8:55 PM
|
|
Re: Religion = Bonbons
Dogmafood writes: The OP examples were examples of non critical thinking. If you were to apply critical thinking to the Pakistan/India conflict you would see that there is no gain in killing people over some frozen mountains.
You're looking at it the wrong way. You're using your critical thinking to analyze their thinking. But it was their thinking that caused the conflict and you're a long way from showing that their thinking is religious and not political. It's the frozen mountains they're fighting over, isn't it?
Dogmafood writes: If you fail to weigh the consequences of demanding my ice cream then you have failed at critical thinking.
I have weighed the consequences and my considered opinion is that taking your ice cream is the most beneficial course of action for me. You're sorta making my point for me. Two parties, like India and Pakistan, will each weigh the consequences of their actions and make a decision based on that weight. One party or the other (or both) may be wrong in their assessment but that doesn't mean that their thinking wasn't critical.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Dogmafood, posted 09-01-2010 8:55 PM | | Dogmafood has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Alsace-Lorraine decisions = religious bonbons?
dronester writes: ringo writes: Are you suggesting that the governments of Germany, the U.K., Russia, the U.S.A, Japan, etc. didn't do that?
I think you know I can't provide negative evidence.
I'm not asking you for negative evidence of anything. I'm asking you what you think the nations involved in World War Two based their actions on. If you think it was something other than critical thinking, I'd like positive evidence of that.
dronester writes: It's your claim/argument that critical thinking ("purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do") caused 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc.
No. My argument is that critical thinking is not a magic wand that produces the same sunshine-and-lollipops answers for everybody. My argument is that conflicting conclusions, all based on critical thinking, can produce horrible deaths, etc. The topic is about whether or not religion is good for us. Somebody suggested that if critical thinking displaced religious thinking, the world would be a better place. I'm asking for evidence for that positive claim.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by dronestar, posted 09-02-2010 4:13 PM | | dronestar has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Alsace-Lorraine decisions = religious bonbons?
Dogmafood writes: ringo writes: Somebody suggested that if critical thinking displaced religious thinking, the world would be a better place. I'm asking for evidence for that positive claim.
See the murder by prayer thread.
We're talking about a net improvement here. The OP asks, "Is organized religion in the world today a greater force for good or evil?" A few incidents one way or the other don't address that question. I asked you before how you plan to quantify good and evil to decide which is greater.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Dogmafood, posted 09-02-2010 7:54 PM | | Dogmafood has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 117 of 181 (578870)
09-02-2010 10:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Dogmafood
09-02-2010 8:25 PM
|
|
Re: Alsace-Lorraine decisions = religious bonbons?
Dogmafood writes: Any big peace break throughs brought about by religious negotiations?
Archbishop Desmond Tutu played a significant role in bringing a relatively peaceful end to apartheid.
Dogmafood writes: Any big Catholic church funded scientific research?
The Catholic Church sponsors (adult) stem cell research.
Dogmafood writes: How are the Muslims doing with helping out in Pakistan?
The Red Crescent Society is a major contributor to flood relief in Pakistan. Edited by ringo, : Removed extra redundant line that was not needed.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Dogmafood, posted 09-02-2010 8:25 PM | | Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by frako, posted 09-05-2010 7:01 AM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 120 of 181 (580661)
09-10-2010 2:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 119 by dronestar
09-08-2010 12:43 PM
|
|
Re: Alsace-Lorraine decisions = religious bonbons?
dronester writes: You are asserting that nations (primarily the instigator of WWII, Nazi Germany), did NOT use hateful and IRRATIONAL ideology (a doctrine of racial and cultural superiority) to guide their actions that caused: 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc.. But rather, you now assert that it was the conflicting conclusions, ALL based on critical thinking ("purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do"), that caused nations, primarily Nazi Germany in WWII, to bring about 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc., (and their ultimate self-destruction).
There has been no change in the argument. The Nazis used "hateful and IRRATIONAL ideology" to motivate the German people to follow their program. But the program itself, e.g. the need for lebensraum, was based on critical thinking.
dronester writes: So blinded to their irrational beliefs, the German high command peremptory concluded the ONLY "sensible/logical" next step after rounding up the Polish jews in the ghetto, was their extermination. The war's conclusion (50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc,) was never a goal or mission in the beginning, just an inevitable result of serial irrational thinking, entirely divorced by the process of critical thinking.
That's the exact example that I would use. The decision to exterminate the Jews was arrived at by logic - based on the premise that the Jews were a detriment to German society. The problem was with the premise, not the logic. It's an example of bad data producing bad answers, not of irrational thinking.
dronester writes: "Critical thinking employs not only logic (either formal or, much more often, informal) but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and FAIRNESS."
"Fairness" is a pretty fuzzy concept. Yes, the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease. Yes, slaveowners were being "fair" to their slaves, managing their lives for them since they were (supposedly) incapable of doing it themselves. The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people. The fact that you don't like some other people's answers doesn't make their thinking non-critical.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by dronestar, posted 09-08-2010 12:43 PM | | dronestar has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Religion = Hitler?
dronester writes: ringo writes: The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people.
Errr, while I can agree with this brand new statement, that's not the point that you have been arguing.
There's nothing "new" about that statement. I first made it back in Message 92.
dronester writes: Seemingly, you now write it was lebensraum (additional territory deemed necessary to a nation), BASED ON CRITICAL THINKING, that brought about 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc., AND Germany's ultimate SELF-DESTRUCTION?
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Germany's critical thinking produced the conclusion that they needed a big chunk of Russia for lebensraum. Russia's critical thinking produced a conclusion that they weren't going to give it up.
dronester writes: Ringo, you are arguing that the actions necessary for a nation's SURVIVAL, that contradictorily and directly caused it's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, are based on critical thinking?
Of course. If critical thinking can produce conflicting answers - and I think you've agreed that it can - then clearly both answers can't be equally successful.
dronester writes: Additionally, I noted you are attempting to also re-define "Fairness" as a fuzzy (and apparently wholly SELFISH) concept.
"Fairness" is a fuzzy and largely selfish concept. Real solutions to real problems are seldom "fair" to everybody. If critical thinking could only produce decisions that effected everybody equally, it wouldn't be very useful. I asked you before to explain how the decisions of Germany, Russia, etc. differ from critical thinking. Your only argument so far has been circular, that it couldn't have been critical thinking because it produced bad results. I've made two statements about critical thinking in this thread, which may be causing some of your confusion:
- Some people don't use critical thinking and probably can't be made to.
- People who do use critical thinking aren't guaranteed to be right.
For those reasons, my point is that trying to "replace" religion with critical thinking won't necessarily make the world a better place.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by dronestar, posted 09-14-2010 4:18 PM | | dronestar has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 124 of 181 (581592)
09-16-2010 2:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by dronestar
09-16-2010 12:53 PM
|
|
Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes: The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite".
 Are you going to resort to semantic nitpicking now? If critical thinking can produce different answers for different people, then it can produce conflicting answers. "Fairness" is not a universal concept. Each critically-thought-out answer has it's own basis of fairness. There's no reason why one person's idea of fairness can't conflict with another person's idea of fairness.
dronester writes: Thus, your examples of Alsace-Lorraine and lebensraum do not fit the definitions of critical thinking: Irrational, disingenuous and selfish premises (the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease), Germany failing in its intended lebensraum goal, and the self-destruction of Germany is ample evidence that critical thinking (CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) was NOT applied.
What that shows is that schoolboy definitions of critical thinking don't have much application in the real world. You have not shown, or even attempted to show, how your version of critical thinking would have led Gemany, Russia, etc. to different behaviour. What "should" Germany have done about its lebensraum problem? What "should" Russia have done when confronted by an expansionist Germany? Even if one side or the other had irrational elements in its thinking, how does that make the other side's thinking less critical?
dronester writes: ringo writes: If critical thinking can produce conflicting answers - and I think you've agreed that it can . . .
Where/when did I specifically agree to that? ("different" isn't necessarily "conflicting")
I said " can". Allow me to rephrase: I hope you're sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers. If you agree, I'd like you to explain why you think conflicting answers can't produce conflict.
dronester writes: Dogma of any kind should be discouraged and critical thinking should be encouraged. We can at least agree on this general statement, yes?
I'm the one who said it, so yes, I can agree with it. But you're losing track of the topic. The question is whether or not religion is good for us. I'm saying that religion is not necessarily a source of conflict and religion is not the only source of conflict. World War Two was fought for mostly non-religious reasons. While critical thinking is better than dogmatic thinking in general, it is not a panacea. You have yet to show that it reliably produces an improvement in human behaviour. Edited by ringo, : Added quotation marks.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by dronestar, posted 09-16-2010 12:53 PM | | dronestar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 125 by frako, posted 09-16-2010 3:13 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 126 by dronestar, posted 09-17-2010 12:24 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 127 of 181 (581789)
09-17-2010 2:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by dronestar
09-17-2010 12:24 PM
|
|
Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes: ringo writes: If critical thinking can produce different answers for different people, then it can produce conflicting answers.
You are repeating yourself, you already used the following ridiculous example:
ringo writes: You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.
Please point out how it's ridiculous instead of wasting my time with empty accusations.
dronester writes: I have already stated that Germany's lebensraum was an irrational premise to begin with.
You may have stated that but you haven't explained why. Instead of just touting critical thinking, why don't you use some? I already asked you what solution you would propose to Germany's problems that would have been "fair" to all parties. You haven't answered at all.
dronester writes: ringo writes: While critical thinking is better than dogmatic thinking in general . . .
"In general"? Are you saying there ARE exceptions when DOGMA is BETTER than critical thinking? Really?
Of course. I've already given examples of critical thinking producing bad results. You haven't even tried to refute them. And ideas such as "loving thy neighbour" can produce good results whether they're internalized or just followed dogmatically. So yes, clearly dogma can produce better results than critical thinking in some cases.
dronester writes: Since you have already given your general approval FOR critical thinking (below), I don't know what more you are asking from me.
I've been asking you for a while to address the topic: "Is religion good for us?" Some of the points I have been trying to make include: - Critical thinking doesn't always produce "good" results.
- Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results.
- You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking.
You haven't addressed any of those points. Stop shouting, think before you post and answer the damn questions.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by dronestar, posted 09-17-2010 12:24 PM | | dronestar has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 129 of 181 (582811)
09-23-2010 3:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by dronestar
09-23-2010 12:12 PM
|
|
Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes: I have repeatedly addressed this by linking the CRITERIA (including PRINCIPLES and DISPOSITIONS) for Critical Thinking ( Critical thinking - Wikipedia), and then additionally addressed this by rejecting your failed examples below . . .
Rejecting my examples doesn't do anything to show that they fail. Why don't you do that instead of repeating your bare link over and over again?
dronester writes: Again, your following Nazi atrocity is not an example of Critical Thinking because it is disingenuous, and it does not use "fairness*" as a criteria. Also, Critical Thinking includes the identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.
If you don't like the lebensraum example, go back to the earlier Alsace-Lorraine example. Using critical thinking, what "should" have been done about Alsace-Lorraine? In all "fairness", who does it belong to?
dronester writes: So, in essence you are saying, IF people CAN use critical thinking, THEN it would be a magical solution to most problems.
Not at all. I'm saying that even if people use critical thinking, it isn't necessarily a solution to problems.
dronester writes: ringo writes: I already asked you what solution you would propose to Germany's problems that would have been "fair" to all parties.
Alas, I can not use critical thinking to produce a four-sided triangle or to obtain Hitler's goals.
So you agree that there are problems that critical thinking can't solve. That's what I've been saying all along.
dronester writes: ringo writes: You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking.
I clarified that older and fully indoctrinated people like Buzz probably could not "replace" religious dogma with critical thinking way back in my Message 85.
So you agree that "replacing" religion with critical thinking is not a viable plan. That's what I've been saying all along.
dronester writes: ringo writes: Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results.
I conceded "not always" way back in Message 67 and in Message 88, and went on to expand/clarify my position in subsequent messages.
So you agree that critical thinking has little or no bearing on whether or not religion is good for us. That's what I've been saying all along. Edited by ringo, : Added a question mark to a question.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by dronestar, posted 09-23-2010 12:12 PM | | dronestar has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 163 of 181 (759166)
06-09-2015 12:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by mikechell
06-09-2015 10:59 AM
|
|
Re: Wow! talk about off topic !!!
mikechell writes: evidence over faith ... observation over theory
I think your concept of "theory" is skewed.  (We can disagree with just about anything on this forum.  Don't let the sabre-rattling scare you off.) Nice fish.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 10:59 AM | | mikechell has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 165 by mikechell, posted 06-09-2015 5:24 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2