I like to treat religious people nice.

[The Valkyrie]

I dislike people from the moment I meet them.

I find it saves time.

[shadow]

I disagree. It's not that I 'emotionally' like the truth... I don't emotionally like the idea, for example, that my dead loved ones are just plain dead, and not in some afterlife. I simply embrace science because it is true, whether I emotionally like it or not.

Sure, we may not be totally objective, but that doesn't mean there isn't a spectrum of how objectively correct people's beliefs can be. It's not an emotional bias to favor the scientific method at all: it's a detachment from emotional decision making.

I agree that we shouldn't be mean to religious people: there's no point. But that doesn't make them somehow right, or their views worth respecting. I'll tolerate religious views, but respect of an belief doesn't come that cheap.

The way I look at this is that science progresses in spite of human bias rather than in the absence of it. For instance any major paradigm shift in scientific thinking often takes a while for everyone to get on board... some people more than others cling more strongly to the old ideas... for instance with quantum physics. But the transparency of the scientific process to criticism from outside parties, some of which with different biases... means that it is self-correcting in the long run; eventually the weight of evidence is overwhelming enough to overcome all bias against it and thus the paradigm shift is complete.

I don't think any self-respecting scientist, who values objectivity, would willfully introduce bias into their experiments... and would do as much as they could to eliminate it... and likewise be open to outside criticism with the same aim... but nonetheless, where emotion goes, bias often follows, so wherever there is emotional investment in something... in this case with scientists in their theories... bias can seep in. Not necessarily into the experiments themselves, but into the directions research follows... which can be a good or bad thing... and in how readily, or not, alternative ideas are accepted.

So at the end of the day, my view is that bias is not something to ignore as irrelevant to science... because it is relevant; science is conducted by individual humans, and humans are inherently emotional as well as logical... but rather just something to aim to be aware of and constantly vigilant against.

Sure, but religion is literally 100% bias and emotion. 'Faith.' If you base your decisions on rationality, even if it isn't pure science, it still will lead to a better outcome than a faith-based decision. For example, when people pray for the victims of mass shootings. That's nice, but what would really help would be reforming gun control or some other form of concrete action. It doesn't need to be contrasted by pure science for religious views to be wrong and detrimental compared to utilizing the best available information.

[emjay]

The way I look at this is that science progresses in spite of human bias rather than in the absence of it. For instance any major paradigm shift in scientific thinking often takes a while for everyone to get on board... some people more than others cling more strongly to the old ideas... for instance with quantum physics. But the transparency of the scientific process to criticism from outside parties, some of which with different biases... means that it is self-correcting in the long run; eventually the weight of evidence is overwhelming enough to overcome all bias against it and thus the paradigm shift is complete.

I don't think any self-respecting scientist, who values objectivity, would willfully introduce bias into their experiments... and would do as much as they could to eliminate it... and likewise be open to outside criticism with the same aim... but nonetheless, where emotion goes, bias often follows, so wherever there is emotional investment in something... in this case with scientists in their theories... bias can seep in. Not necessarily into the experiments themselves, but into the directions research follows... which can be a good or bad thing... and in how readily, or not, alternative ideas are accepted.

So at the end of the day, my view is that bias is not something to ignore as irrelevant to science... because it is relevant; science is conducted by individual humans, and humans are inherently emotional as well as logical... but rather just something to aim to be aware of and constantly vigilant against.

Sure, but religion is literally 100% bias and emotion. 'Faith.' If you base your decisions on rationality, even if it isn't pure science, it still will lead to a better outcome than a faith-based decision. For example, when people pray for the victims of mass shootings. That's nice, but what would really help would be reforming gun control or some other form of concrete action. It doesn't need to be contrasted by pure science for religious views to be wrong and detrimental compared to utilizing the best available information.

That's the problem; bias distorts/influences personal perception... such as seeing Jesus on a cat's arse , so if, as with religion, the only or primary source of evidence for belief is personal perception... 'personal experience'... then left unchecked it is doomed from the outset to snowball into a sense of unreliable personal certainty. And then, in tandem with that, where faith, prayer, and prophesy are concerned, if there are no failure standards whatsoever... where questions/prophesies are open ended and/or vague and always with 'god works in mysterious ways' to fall back on... and only personal perception of events is relied upon for evidence and always attributed to god, then that too can only serve to confirm the bias.

So you're pretty much preaching to the choir here, but the problem IMO is lack of awareness and/or care about the distorting effects of bias on perception by the religious...a failure or unwillingness to accept that relying on perception alone is an unreliable source of evidence. So effectively you've got 'a-psychology', 'apa-psychology' and 'anti-psychology' among the religious But I doubt that's likely to ever change on a large scale because naturally it goes against the grain to be skeptical of our own perception, even if we have good reason to be, so it's even less likely if there is a lack of education or interest in psychology. So basically, in my ideal world, psychology textbooks would be handed out alongside Bibles in church

[Jeezypete]

Whenever a religious debate begins to happen (something I fervently try to avoid) I tend to act with empathy and compassion. I ask them to explain how god (or gods) have helped them. What void they fill or what obstacle they help them overcome. I never ask for them to defend themselves or debate logic. It’s always been my view that religion has never been about a debate of logic, but a debate of survival. People have religion often because it helps them get by either it be work or relationships. Using logic to debate with a religious person often doesn’t work because their arguments are not based on it, but rather a primal need to get by. When cornered about why I generally don’t subcribe to a religion (it happens from time to time) I simply say that “it’s ok to not know, and it’s ok to be afraid.” I then proceed to tell them this is what I tell myself when faced with the infinite black that stares back at all of us from time to time and it helps me get by. I try to be honest, friendly, and forgiving. I don’t succeed all time but it’s made my voyage through life a whole lot better.

That might work, except that the religious will not extend that very courtesy to you or anyone else. My god is a god of unconditional lurve, they say. But they also want you dead.

The entire point of the musing was that it does work with ordinary every day blue collar religious people. The post is literally my real life experience. Nobody who’s remotely sane wants death. Only the insane, which do exist but they would most likely be unhinged without religion anyway. My postulation is that religion doesn’t make you mean, fear does. If you tame the fear you tame the fervor.

[vorlon13]

I dislike people from the moment I meet them.

I find it saves time.

Some people are pretty delicious though . . . .

Hard not to like them.

[Sal]

From day to day considerations and behavior, religious talk rarely surfaces, it is as if there's no god pulling the strings.

[Silver]

The only place I ever encounter religious people is online now. In real life, everyone seems to keep their beliefs to themselves, which is how it should be. At least that is my experience in small part of the world I inhabit. Online, I find myself continually losing more and more patience for religious people in general.

[Abaddon_ire]

The only place I ever encounter religious people is online now.  In real life, everyone seems to keep their beliefs to themselves, which is how it should be.  At least that is my experience in small part of the world I inhabit.  Online, I find myself continually losing more and more patience for religious people in general.

Weekend before last I had occasion to wander into an anglican church on the spur of the moment. It's a city center church that I must have walked past countless times. Anyhoo, me and my eldest (both flat out atheists) were at a loose end for an hour, so we just wandered in and had a marvelous conversation with a pair of vicars about the history of that particular church, which dates to 1707. All very polite and civilised and interesting. 

It seems to me that it takes the internet to get the christians to take off the social brakes in many cases.