|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is religion good for us? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
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. Let me remind you of your original argument and example, that a world catastrophe can be a product of critical thinking . . .
ringo writes: The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking. ringo writes: There has been no change in the argument. Seems like a change to me, you asserted your position and then said it wasn't. Please review . . .
ringo writes: The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking. . . . has been changed to . . .
ringo writes: No. My argument is that CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS, all based on critical thinking, can produce horrible deaths. . . . and this week it seems you replaced CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS with the term "lebensraum": 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? 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? Such a lopsided FAILURE in broad intellectual criteria (such as CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) can only be LAUGHABLY defined by the term "critical thinking". Additionally, I noted you are attempting to also re-define "Fairness" as a fuzzy (and apparently wholly SELFISH) concept. Wow. From your following example, it seems you want me to believe that the result of 6 million killed, horrible deaths from suffocation, starvation, beatings, shootings, gassings, etc, AND helped bring about Germany's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, can somehow be ACCURATELY and HONESTLY described as being "Fair" . . .
ringo writes: Yes, the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease. It appears you are now using disingenuous arguments (anathema to critical thinking) to support your desperate position.
ringo writes: The problem was with the premise . . . The premise was not a product of critical thinking:Critical thinking - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
There's nothing "new" about that statement. I first made it back in Message 92.
ringo writes:
Errr, while I can agree with this brand new statement, that's not the point that you have been arguing. The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people. dronester writes:
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.
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? dronester writes:
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.
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? dronester writes:
"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. Additionally, I noted you are attempting to also re-define "Fairness" as a fuzzy (and apparently wholly SELFISH) concept. 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:
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Okay Ringo, I am beginning to repeat my points. If you have nothing new to add, I'll let you have the last word.
ringo writes: The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people. ringo writes: There's nothing "new" about that statement. I first made it back in Re: Religion = Bonbons (Message 92). Not quite. The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite". From your Message 92:
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. If you are writing about SELFISH, INDIVIDUALIZED, COMPARTMENTALIZED "thinking" that does NOT use CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS, then, by its very definition (see Critical thinking - Wikipedia), it is NOT "critical thinking". 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.
ringo writes: Your only argument so far has been circular, that it couldn't have been critical thinking because it produced bad results. My ONLY argument? ONLY? Incorrect. See my paragraph above your quote. Also, my posts have REPEATEDLY linked Critical thinking's - Wikipedia broad intellectual criteria (such as CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) that your examples have not comprised. By ignoring the criteria for critical thinking (Critical thinking - Wikipedia), our discussion cannot move forward.
ringo writes: I've made two statements about critical thinking in this thread, . . . No. You made at least THREE statements about critical thinking. The one we are debating is either:
ringo writes: The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking. . . . or this one:
ringo writes: My argument is that conflicting conclusions, all based on critical thinking, can produce horrible deaths, etc. 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")
ringo writes: . . . then clearly both answers can't be equally successful. Err, Germany wasn't successful. They kinda lost the war. Remember all the corpses, damaged buildings, and angry Jews? Why, a person couldn't buy a decent wienerschnitzel in all of Frankfurt.
ringo writes: "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 am at a loss for words. Lastly:
ringo writes: . . . my point is that trying to "replace" religion with critical thinking won't necessarily make the world a better place. Then your point is contradictive because you previously wrote:
ringo writes: Dogma of any kind should be discouraged. Critical thinking should be encouraged. Dogma of any kind should be discouraged and critical thinking should be encouraged. We can at least agree on this general statement, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
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.
The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite". dronester writes:
What that shows is that schoolboy definitions of critical thinking don't have much application in the real world. 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. 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:
I said "can". ringo writes:
Where/when did I specifically agree to that? ("different" isn't necessarily "conflicting") If critical thinking can produce conflicting answers - and I think you've agreed that it 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:
I'm the one who said it, so yes, I can agree with it. Dogma of any kind should be discouraged and critical thinking should be encouraged. We can at least agree on this general statement, yes? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
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. weeding out religion would probably reduce some confilct but not all of it neither would critical thinking, as long as there are humans there will be ware be it for religion greed, pride, nationalety, race ..... to end conflict you would haveto weed out all of that and i dont think that is going to happen anytime soon. and even if you would weed all that out i think the human race would find something else to fight about one human is smart a mass of them is a herd of sheep
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
dronester writes: The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite". ringo writes: Are you going to resort to semantic nitpicking now? It seems a good portion of our argument rests on this point. How curious that you are suddenly trying to minimize its importance by trivializing my discernment.
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. ringo writes: "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. (See * and ** below) You are repeating yourself, you already used the following disingenuous example:
ringo writes: .
the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease. ringo writes: What that shows is that schoolboy definitions of critical thinking don't have much application in the real world. Oh puhlease. Since my message #106, I've repeatedly touted the site Critical thinking - Wikipedia. Sometimes I placed it several times in one message. In response, you fully ignored it . . . till now. After 18 messages, with nowhere left to hide, you suddenly deride it as "schoolboy definitions". Your stale disparagement fully acknowledges a desperate counter-argument.
ringo writes: You have not shown, or even attempted to show, how your version of critical thinking would have led Gemany, Russia, etc. to different behaviour. I have already stated that Germany's lebensraum was an irrational premise to begin with. Yet, you continue to ask me to create a four-sided triangle using critical thinking.
ringo writes: Allow me to rephrase: I hope you're sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers. Apparently, neither the "schoolboy definition" of Critical thinking - Wikipedia NOR I are sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers such as this gem:
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. 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?
ringo writes: . . . You have yet to show that it reliably produces an improvement in human behaviour. Since you have already given your general approval FOR critical thinking (below), I don't know what more you are asking from me. I hesitate to offer any MORE mundane examples of buying cereal from a grocery store.
ringo writes: I think it's a good idea to teach critical thinking and hope it takes. ringo writes: Critical thinking should be encouraged. ringo writes: Critical thinking is good for factual matters like evolution . . . ringo writes: . . . the use of critical thinking should be encouraged for those areas where it is applicable. (* Fairness, ethic of reciprocity, or The Golden Rule IS UNIVERSAL: Golden Rule - Wikipedia. This is off-topic)(** Fairness" b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. Fairness - definition of fairness by The Free Dictionary) Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
Please point out how it's ridiculous instead of wasting my time with empty accusations.
ringo writes:
You are repeating yourself, you already used the following ridiculous example:
If critical thinking can produce different answers for different people, then it can produce conflicting answers. 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. dronester writes:
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.
I have already stated that Germany's lebensraum was an irrational premise to begin with. dronester writes:
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.
ringo writes:
"In general"? Are you saying there ARE exceptions when DOGMA is BETTER than critical thinking? Really? While critical thinking is better than dogmatic thinking in general . . . dronester writes:
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: Since you have already given your general approval FOR critical thinking (below), I don't know what more you are asking from me.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
ringo writes: Stop shouting . . . and answer the damn questions" Oh, the irony.
ringo writes: * 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. ringo writes: * Critical thinking doesn't always produce "good" results. 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 . . .
ringo writes: What I've been saying from the start is that critical thinking isn't a magic solution to most problems because the people who cause the problems aren't using critical thinking in the first place. They'd have to be using critical thinking to take your advice and use critical thinking. So, in essence you are saying, IF people CAN use critical thinking, THEN it would be a magical solution to most problems. We are nearly in agreement, but I think it more accurate to amend my earlier generic stance to: people who CAN use the FULL criteria for critical thinking (per Critical Thinking (Critical thinking - Wikipedia) will always produce "good" results.
ringo writes: * Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results. It seems you are incorrect by stating I haven't addressed this. I conceded "not always" way back in Message 67 and in Message 88, and went on to expand/clarify my position in subsequent messages.
ringo writes: * You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking. It seems you are incorrect by stating I haven't addressed this. 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. I also stated that critical thinking should be taught/ingrained as habit into young children in place of (displace) religious dogma, way back in Message 65. 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. (Critical thinking - Wikipedia) that would additionally reject your following example:
ringo writes: the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease. Similarly, your example of Hitler/sociopath's madness of lebensraum is not an example of Critical Thinking because it does not contain accuracy, discern hidden values, judge contextually, review credibility, rationality, sensibility, and FAIRNESS. Also, Critical Thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Critical thinking - Wikipedia) that would additionally reject your following example:
wiki writes: Lebensraum was one of the major political ideas of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler's book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to KILL, deport, or ENSLAVE the Polish, Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be EXTERMINATED by STARVATION, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class. The quest for Lebensraum was more than just an attempt to resolve potential demographic problems: it was a necessary means of defending the German race against stagnation and degeneration. Lebensraum - Wikipedia
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. (* Fairness" b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. Fairness - definition of fairness by The Free Dictionary)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
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?
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 . . . dronester writes:
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?
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. dronester writes:
Not at all. I'm saying that even if people use critical thinking, it isn't necessarily a solution to problems.
So, in essence you are saying, IF people CAN use critical thinking, THEN it would be a magical solution to most problems. dronester writes:
So you agree that there are problems that critical thinking can't solve. That's what I've been saying all along.
ringo writes:
Alas, I can not use critical thinking to produce a four-sided triangle or to obtain Hitler's goals. I already asked you what solution you would propose to Germany's problems that would have been "fair" to all parties. dronester writes:
So you agree that "replacing" religion with critical thinking is not a viable plan. That's what I've been saying all along.
ringo writes:
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. You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking. dronester writes:
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. ringo writes:
I conceded "not always" way back in Message 67 and in Message 88, and went on to expand/clarify my position in subsequent messages. Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results. Edited by ringo, : Added a question mark to a question. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: This reminds me of how I felt yesterday when I was reading about another instance of piracy on the high seas.
A lot of the evil that we see in the world is people pushing back against what they perceive as evil. Is it evil to kill people? Yes, often it is. Is it evil to kill people to prevent them from killing other people? That's when it starts getting gray. Pirates Seize Captain, Engineer From Vessel Off Nigeria For some reason, these sorts of news stories enrage me! I think of ways that we should use drones to pulverize these bastards! Its odd though---what is it about them that makes me sooo angry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Phat writes: Am I evil for the anger I feel against evil? No one is evil for their feelings or thoughts.You would only be evil if you actually did something (or intended to do something) that was evil. If you can control your anger, and make decisions that are not evil even though you are angry... then you're not evil.If you cannot control your anger, and your resulting decisions produce evil... then you're evil. what is it about them that makes me sooo angry? Probably the direct harm to innocent people for personal gain thing. That's pretty infuriating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
No one is evil for their feelings or thoughts. Would it be evil for us---as a society---to send drones after the pirates?
You would only be evil if you actually did something (or intended to do something) that was evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It would certainly be stupid to send drones after the pirates.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Why? Drones have the technology to monitor large areas of ocean and are cheaper than naval vessels. Additionally, the Drones could be instructed not to blow them out of the water until they were confirmed. I see it as a possible solution to these rogues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
How do you confirm they are pirates?
Why not instead build infrastructure, improve health care, create jobs, sanction the oil companies until they work to promote jobs, health care, education and infrastructure on the west coast. That is an investment.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024