Are you for or against the separation of church and state?

[Ryantology]

I do love the double standard you've got going on here, though: I point out that violent and dark christian cultures exist and you immediately leap to tell me it wasn't because of christianity, but evil men. You then quickly turn around and blame nonbelief for anything bad done in secular societies. So systems of belief aren't responsible for evil actions, but only if it's the one you subscribe to? Is that really where you're going here?

It's not even a good double-standard. Religions can, and very frequently do, inspire people to do terrible things. A nation which is heavily influenced by a religion has a significant chance of having its policies influenced in negative ways by that religion. One need only look at the United States to find countless examples of discriminatory and persecutory legislation which comes from Christian influence. This does not necessarily mean a religious nation will definitely adopt harsh and arbitrarily punitive laws based upon whatever myths it believes, but it often is the case.

Contrast that with strict secularism. Even if we count regimes such as Nazi Germany, the early USSR and the DRPK, those nations all had the equivalent of state religions in which one worships a single masculine figurehead which is murderous, capricious and probably insane. Other than the rituals, and the fictional nature of God, what is the practical difference between those nations and a theocracy? It is barely accurate to call them secular, but let's assume they are for the sake of argument.

Do we compare body counts? It's true that the 'secular' totalitarian nations killed a lot of people, but really, does anyone think, for a second, that the Catholic Church, or the Christian kingdoms and empires would not have seeded Christendom with Auschwitzes and gulags for its first 12 centuries after Constantine if they had the means and technology to do so? It is not as if the Church can really condemn Hitler's "let's kill all the Jews" idea, unless it's because he was more successful in 12 years than they were in 1,200. Hitler and Stalin were no more evil or bloodthirsty than some Popes or other church figures, they were just a lot better equipped, that's all. A person who murders with a baseball bat is just as awful as a person who murders with a machine gun, the number of victims doesn't change that.

A state which is truly secular, in that it has no real or de facto state religion and no real equivalent like totalitarian leader cults and ideological dogma, how many such examples can you find which are guilty of mass atrocities? If you look at such nations today, few of them as there are, how many of them are poor, crime-ridden, starving or backwards?

[Godscreated]

@ smax, Any of those people in the atrocities I mentioned were not religious people nor was religion a part of their governments. Many can hide behind the word religion, but that in no way means that any particular religion was responsible. FtR could kill 100 people in the name of smax, does that mean you had anything to do with giving him a reason to kill those people, he could of said smax the god of smaxism has given a decree these should die because they were unworthy of smax. Blame ie. guilt goes to the individuals, not their claims.

---

I list several in a post to smax, just above.

No, you listed several secular societies that were bad. This is not the same thing as societies that were bad because they were secular.

I do love the double standard you've got going on here, though: I point out that violent and dark christian cultures exist and you immediately leap to tell me it wasn't because of christianity, but evil men. You then quickly turn around and blame nonbelief for anything bad done in secular societies. So systems of belief aren't responsible for evil actions, but only if it's the one you subscribe to? Is that really where you're going here?

Secular societies that were bad = societies that were bad because they were secular
if
Religious societies that are bad = religious societies that were bad because they were religious

[The Grand Nudger]

In both cases it is the content of their religious or secular identity, not that they were religious or secular, respectively. This should be plainly obvious, and not require mention. It shouldn't surprise anyone when any particular society completely loses their shit- it's entirely comprised of human beings. Whether the man swinging the axe claims to speak for the state or for a god - it is still just human beings doing human things. Amusingly, even the shenanigans pulled ostensibly at the behest of religious values aren't special or impressive, no more so than the religion itself.

[Esquilax]

Secular societies that were bad = societies that were bad because they were secular
if
Religious societies that are bad = religious societies that were bad because they were religious

It's much more complicated than simple equations like that, is my point. Multiple issues working in concert, rather than "oh, this state is secular, it's no wonder they failed without good christian morals," or "oh, this state is christian, no wonder they failed, belonging as they do to an ancient death cult that brooks no opposition."

That has been my position from the very beginning.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to re-enter where I left off.

Are all public officials (including student class presidents) that are influenced by religion violating the separation of church and state admendment? Is it correct to say that religion influence are: christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, taoism, shinto, sikhism. Animal worship, devil worshop,fire worship, nature worship, sun worship, taboo, voodoo, witchcraft, mormons, druces, gnostic, animism, ancestor worship... isn't that just about an inclusive list of everyone? How do you tell when a person is influenced by religion and who is not? I forgot JW, masons,seven day adventist.

No, an officical can be influenced by whatever they like, again, this is a hard line -when it becomes "fairy said so" is a gross violation. This is why "pro-life" movements, for example, prefer to make their case at the point in which life "begins" rather than simply saying "it has a soul".

It would be pretty easy to see when someone is casting a fairies vote - we can already tell that through layers of obfuscation, but I don't actually require that they not be casting a fairies vote, remember? I'm content with being lied to, so long as it's a competent lie. If said official can come up with something other than "fairy said so" it's a notion that can be entertained (and do you know why?...because if you can stump for it - for any other reason- "fairy said so" was not required, not even by the person trying to screen "fairy said so" - as usual, religion and faith are irrelevant and utterly useless). So long as religion isn't overtly deciding policy, so long as we have some other argument, then we're at least trying. Maybe I think that some policy decisions are transparent examples of "fairy said so", but it's up to me to make that case. I would expect, if that case could be made, to see that policy rendered null unless better grounds could be offered.

At the heart of it, it;s very simple, it doesn't matter what faith were invoking. People are free to believe and exercise their faiths in private and even in public (some provisions apply). They -are not- free to exercise their faith with the power and authority of the state.

---

Can you please give me the definition of "rational". And how do I know that a. "Persons" rational decision for gay marriage (in the context of happy, or sexual orintation) wasn't influence by say the religion of christianity, or ancestory worship, or nature worship, or confucianism?

To add to and address this as well. The justification offered can be batshit crazy (and far from rational), so long as "fairy wills it", or "my religious faith demands that I vote this way" isn't the batshit crazy proposition on offer. If someone says "I think intervention in this genocide is a good/bad idea because a black cat walked in front of me on the way to casting my vote" I'll still call them a nutball - suggest they're unfit (even if I agree with their vote)......but it doesn't really violate the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state is not a separation of the rational from the irrational. It may sometimes be the case that this is it's practical effect, but other irrational shit is -unfortunately- not prohibited by this. Clearly, we can't be expected to pre-empt every vacuous thought that might ever enter into the space between some officials ears......but we can very easily (and for easily demonstrable reasons) pre-empt any malfunctions of the brain that might lead a person to think that granting religion the power of the state is an acceptable way to write law.

You may never know, for sure, whether or not someone is lying through their teeth - but so long as the argument focuses on whatever they offered to avoid saying "god wills it" - that's a-ok.

To use the pro-life example
Politician thinks "because soul and god wills it"
Politician says "life begins at conception"
-legislation is passed because "life begins at conception"

-God or souls didn't win that argument, and they were required. Life and how we define it, when we confer rights won. God and souls were superfluous (like always), and that's a-ok (even if I disagree- and I do, as a matter of policy).

however- if politician actually says "god wills it" or the reasons offered are plainly shown to be a screen for casting a gods vote, and legislation is passed.....that's an example of a religious faith being exercised with the full power of the state behind it...which is not kosher.

Clear anything up?

[Whateverist]

Not to derail... er, something. But I've yet to see good evidence that "teaching critical thinking" works. I can't say that I've looked incredibly hard, but I've yet to see strong evidence for the proposition.

Could be right. But somehow we manage to pass on lots of things to the next generation. When the transmission is of something like a knack for composition or an ear for music or a steady hand for throwing pottery or the ability to analyze a claim or the evidence offered to support it .. there probably isn't any cut and dry methodology for achieving the transmission. Nonetheless it happens. I think these sorts of knowledge require modeling and a sequence of perspicuous examples and useful feedback. All these things can be taught but not by everyone and certainly not by any explicit steps. An interchange between the giver and taker is required that can't be spelled out in any syllabus.

[smax]

@ smax, Any of those people in the atrocities I mentioned were not religious people nor was religion a part of their governments. Many can hide behind the word religion, but that in no way means that any particular religion was responsible. FtR could kill 100 people in the name of smax, does that mean you had anything to do with giving him a reason to kill those people, he could of said smax the god of smaxism has given a decree these should die because they were unworthy of smax. Blame ie. guilt goes to the individuals, not their claims.

If I created a religion called smaxism, then your damn right I carry some responsibility for the actions of my followers.

And if someone else tried to create a religion based on me or my views, I would not only discourage such action, I would take action to stop it.

It's one thing to recognize good logical reason and leadership, but it's an entirely different, and far more dangerous thing, to worship those things or anything for that matter.

Religion is bad. Human beings, in general, are barely sane as it is. Giving them a good reason to take the plunge into insanity is a terribly bad idea, and the world's history is filled with proof.

Two rules, relating to this subject, that are very important to follow:

#1. Human beings should critically challenge any supernatural claims.

#2. Human beings should recognize the fact that all human beings are flawed and, therefore, require sound logic and reason to accompany leadership.

Ignoring either (and especially both) of these rules invites danger.

[Angrboda]

Not to derail... er, something. But I've yet to see good evidence that "teaching critical thinking" works. I can't say that I've looked incredibly hard, but I've yet to see strong evidence for the proposition.

Could be right. But somehow we manage to pass on lots of things to the next generation. When the transmission is of something like a knack for composition or an ear for music or a steady hand for throwing pottery or the ability to analyze a claim or the evidence offered to support it .. there probably isn't any cut and dry methodology for achieving the transmission. Nonetheless it happens. I think these sorts of knowledge require modeling and a sequence of perspicuous examples and useful feedback. All these things can be taught but not by everyone and certainly not by any explicit steps. An interchange between the giver and taker is required that can't be spelled out in any syllabus.

The question though, to me, is whether the skills and abilities identified as critical thinking can be taught, or improved, by education focused narrowly toward achieving that goal, say, by requiring college students to earn so many credits in critical thinking classes for each year they are in college. I'm not sure to what extent general, liberal arts education or education within a specific discipline improve a person's critical thinking skills, but even if they do, we're already using this approach, and, more importantly, there's no way to produce the same effect using minimal resources in terms of time and teaching to achieve that effect. If two plus years of college education along a sciences track is necessary to equip a person to think critically about scientific issues, then that's not a remedy which we can apply across the board to all students in all disciplines to raise the level of critical thinking in the population as a whole (and does absolutely nothing for high school or younger individuals, who are a much larger class of people). If critical thinking can't be effectively and efficiently taught, resulting in an increase in practical skill level, then I think all this focus on critical thinking is both wasteful and pretty much a breed of pseudoscience. For example, I belong to a critical thinking club that hosts three presentations a month in which a speaker presents a topic and the discussion and such is structured in order to encourage critical thinking. Does attending such discussions improve these people's ability to think critically? I rather doubt it. Even if you increased the frequency and optimized the structure, I rather suspect the poor to average thinkers in these groups would be little improved after a year or two of attendance. I have a friend who teaches business at a local university, and in addition, he teaches courses in critical thinking at the university. He has in the past year been hosting a ten part series in which he gives a two hour lecture each month, basically covering the same ground as that in his university course. Is this likely to improve these people's ability to think clearly and productively? Is it helping his university students? I don't know. Moreover, even in talking to him, I'm pretty certain that he doesn't know either. And I'm rather skeptical of the whole idea, given my reading on the effects of cognitive bias, bounded rationality, and so forth. Some of the ways in which people fail to apply critical thinking to questions and issues are a result of either general intelligence, or because the human mind comes pre-loaded with cognitive strategies which can be relied upon to fail in specific ways related to critical thinking. Education, generally, plays a role as well, but as I've been making observations in recent years, I suspect that general education is weak tea in attempting to address these issues, and neither of these other two factors can be solved by "teaching critical thinking skills."

[Whateverist]

The question though, to me, is whether the skills and abilities identified as critical thinking can be taught, or improved, by education focused narrowly toward achieving that goal, say, by requiring college students to earn so many credits in critical thinking classes for each year they are in college. I'm not sure to what extent general, liberal arts education or education within a specific discipline improve a person's critical thinking skills, but even if they do, we're already using this approach, and, more importantly, there's no way to produce the same effect using minimal resources in terms of time and teaching to achieve that effect. If two plus years of college education along a sciences track is necessary to equip a person to think critically about scientific issues, then that's not a remedy which we can apply across the board to all students in all disciplines to raise the level of critical thinking in the population as a whole (and does absolutely nothing for high school or younger individuals, who are a much larger class of people). If critical thinking can't be effectively and efficiently taught, resulting in an increase in practical skill level, then I think all this focus on critical thinking is both wasteful and pretty much a breed of pseudoscience. For example, I belong to a critical thinking club that hosts three presentations a month in which a speaker presents a topic and the discussion and such is structured in order to encourage critical thinking. Does attending such discussions improve these people's ability to think critically? I rather doubt it. Even if you increased the frequency and optimized the structure, I rather suspect the poor to average thinkers in these groups would be little improved after a year or two of attendance. I have a friend who teaches business at a local university, and in addition, he teaches courses in critical thinking at the university. He has in the past year been hosting a ten part series in which he gives a two hour lecture each month, basically covering the same ground as that in his university course. Is this likely to improve these people's ability to think clearly and productively? Is it helping his university students? I don't know. Moreover, even in talking to him, I'm pretty certain that he doesn't know either. And I'm rather skeptical of the whole idea, given my reading on the effects of cognitive bias, bounded rationality, and so forth. Some of the ways in which people fail to apply critical thinking to questions and issues are a result of either general intelligence, or because the human mind comes pre-loaded with cognitive strategies which can be relied upon to fail in specific ways related to critical thinking. Education, generally, plays a role as well, but as I've been making observations in recent years, I suspect that general education is weak tea in attempting to address these issues, and neither of these other two factors can be solved by "teaching critical thinking skills."

Yeah, certainly I'd be skeptical of ever extracting a process independent of a qualified practitioner and a motivated and apt student. There is probably no way to stupid-proof an instructional strategy on either side. It may come down to maximizing an individual's achievement of their potential rather than injecting x amount of critical thinking capacity into everyone.

With the arts I often think that what talent a person may have is independent of their access to it which may wax and wane. Not to say everyone has equal talent but whatever their allotment may be, they may or may not be able access it as a result of attitudes, assumptions and fears. It might be that in any discipline you might want to pass on, all we can ever do is assist people in accessing what they've got. Some balance between self acceptance and a positive attitude toward the possibility of success is probably necessary.

[thesummerqueen]

Well, here's the problem as I see it, Apo:

It's not about making someone take classes JUST in critical thinking, although I have heard of some skeptic podcasters setting up such classes for colleges - one semester deals in which they learn how people get conned and such.

You mentioned "basic study skills". In my experience, and what a number of people here in the south seem to be experiencing as well, is that schools are leaving the teaching format in which you learn to process information from a study book, or learn what is good information, and instead you're made to regurgitate 'facts' in order to pass the tests the government is making schools give out in order to obtain funding. I'm sure you've seen the articles about schools found to have cheated on said tests.

There were incredible differences year to year in my schooling. Some teachers insisted on leaving 'test' elements till a month before we had to take them, saying we had other things to work on. Some teachers only concentrated on the tests. That's because the years behind mine were required to pass those tests. My year was the last that was 'experimented' on. There weren't any "study" skills discussed.