Religious Discrimination

[Creed of Heresy]

I stated that without knowing what their religions are, they seem equally likely to perform well (in this example). It is entirely up to the reader to decide what to think and do upon becoming aware of the religion (or lack thereof).

Of course, you and I probably differ in that respect. I think a person can not be religious without failing to critically think in the context of religion, and it therefore more likely to do it in another context. Obviously, this is not absolute and there are bright Christians. Also, it would nothing to do with a correlation between atheism and academic education; it has everything to do with critical thinking and logic.

Well, even if you think that every religious person has necessarily committed an error in reasoning, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're more prone to reasoning errors than irreligious people.

First, an error in one context doesn't necessarily translate to other contexts. A person might have a 'soft spot' for their parents' religion. A man who is unfaithful to his wife might be very loyal to his bank, or very trustworthy with his clients' money. So a theist who reasons poorly in religious matters might reason well in other contexts.

Second, a lack of error in one context doesn't necessarily translate to a lack of error in other contexts. A person who is meticulous in his reasoning with regard to investments might have terrible reasoning with regard to chess strategy. So an atheist who reasons well in religious contexts might reason poorly in other contexts.

Third, an error on one matter doesn't necessarily indicate a systemic flaw in reasoning. Suppose A and B reason just as well as each other. A and B both experience some event E; A correctly believes that he has experienced E, whereas B mistakenly believes he has experienced some other event F. A and B might come to different conclusions, but not due to a difference in reasoning.

So if you know they're going to be reasoning in some particular context--finance, law, whathaveyou--you'd probably want to crosscheck their backgrounds against that context.

Woo! Took way too much away from my little ol' post, there.

No but seriously, I expect everyone to fuck up when it comes to rationality and logical discourse. I'd be far more distrusting of the one who claims certainty than the one who admits his logical shortcomings.

Of course, I suspect you're just guilty of assuming that the people you disagree with are dumb, and the people you agree with are smart. It's the easiest way to look at the world. It's a lot harder to be humble about your own understanding. But then again, I might be completely wrong.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, not COMPLETELY wrong, I do have an occasional bias on certain subject matters, but for the most part I prefer to be proven wrong rather than right; you can't learn from being right but you can learn from being wrong.