(July 21, 2025 at 5:10 pm)Belacqua Wrote: When you say that "religion is the antithesis of critical thought," you don't mean religion per se. Because obviously there are and have been many many religious people who are capable of critical thought.
Religion, as a whole, is incapable of critical thought, not on every possible topic, but on the topic of religion at a minimum. Lack of compartmentalization can lead to diminished critical faculties in general in some depressingly common cases. It's a defensive mechanism to prevent the adherents of religion from properly examining their beliefs, no matter how outrageous they are or how systemic and institutionalized the child buggery becomes. If you're in any way offended by that statement, it's simply that some part of you knows that any other institution that had committed the crimes that the church has gotten away with would have long since been given over to international criminal investigation.
Quote:All of us should keep in mind that we may be wrong, all of us should be most critical of our own beliefs, because, as the man said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Yes, wouldn't that be nice? Do you practice these lines while looking in a mirror?
Quote:Actually I'm not sure you should say that about "don't hold up to current scientific knowledge." Because after all current scientific knowledge may well change. History shows that science progresses through changing and improving its conclusions. So being critical of current scientific knowledge is an important part of critical thought in our era. (This is not to say that science is bad, only that one must not accept it uncritically.)
Yes, and don't you just wish that religious "knowledge" had any of those attributes?
