Tell me, what makes this wrong.

[Rizen]

Religion is the antithesis of critical thought.

Does this statement apply to all religious people of all time everywhere? Or are you thinking of some specific subset. 

Because obviously there have been many brilliant religious people who have written critically and well, about ideas within their own religion, as well as about materialist consumerist society.

For example, Kitaro Nishida believed in God, and wrote perceptive, deeply learned books about how the concepts of Zen Buddhism illuminate certain concepts from Heidegger's work. Do you feel that Nishida's religion made him unable to practice critical thought?

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said all religious people are incapable of critical thought but the entire premise of strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge is the antithesis of critical thought. Science, on the other hand, is ever changing based on the constant stream of discoveries and data. Sailors used to think that St. Elmo's fire (a blue glow on the masts of ships during a thunderstorm) was a sign of salvation by the saint because it occurred near the end of the storm but now with science we know it's a corona discharge that occurs when there is a significant imbalance of electrical charge causing molecules to tear apart. 

Furthermore, Trumpism politics are very much a culture of anti-science and dangerous. Not accepting science leads to beliefs like the antivaccine movement and not accepting global warming.

[The Grand Nudger]

Consider the set of possible beliefs about how the world ought to be. These beliefs are almost uniformly untrue as a matter of circumstantial fact, and their very existence makes little sense in any other context. More often, they are aspirational goals - and just as often, those who hold them believe they can be the product of critical thought.

Unless they're all wrong about everything all the time....then we have to allow that religious thought, and this is one of the defining categories of religious ideation, could be rational - could be the product of a critical examination. If or when it isn't, that's not because it's religious but because a particular religion has put in the extra work to be extra silly. Most of the time, when we talk about religion in the context of critical thought, we're actually discussing superstition.

I'll use the politics of climate change as an example of a related dynamic. There are people who are very much against climate change regulations - despite being very well aware of and very concerned by the impacts of climate change. They believe that no -effective- climate change laws could be crafted without baking in authoritarian tyranny, cruelty, and human misery. Insomuch as they believe the world should not be that way, that we should not empower governments to make it so - they may be wrong..and I say may here genuinely......but it's not an explicitly irrational belief or a belief that is antithetical to critical thought.

[Belacqua]

Does this statement apply to all religious people of all time everywhere? Or are you thinking of some specific subset. 

Because obviously there have been many brilliant religious people who have written critically and well, about ideas within their own religion, as well as about materialist consumerist society.

For example, Kitaro Nishida believed in God, and wrote perceptive, deeply learned books about how the concepts of Zen Buddhism illuminate certain concepts from Heidegger's work. Do you feel that Nishida's religion made him unable to practice critical thought?

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said all religious people are incapable of critical thought but the entire premise of strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge is the antithesis of critical thought. Science, on the other hand, is ever changing based on the constant stream of discoveries and data. Sailors used to think that St. Elmo's fire (a blue glow on the masts of ships during a thunderstorm) was a sign of salvation by the saint because it occurred near the end of the storm but now with science we know it's a corona discharge that occurs when there is a significant imbalance of electrical charge causing molecules to tear apart. 

Furthermore, Trumpism politics are very much a culture of anti-science and dangerous. Not accepting science leads to beliefs like the antivaccine movement and not accepting global warming.

OK, I see what you mean.

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. 

What you mean, if I'm reading you right, is that "strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge" is bad. This of course I agree with.

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."

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.)

[Fake Messiah]

Sigh. This topic (first post) is obviously opened by a troll for the purpose of trolling. His several posts were already deleted for trolling.

Here he proposed that religion be banned. Atheists are not trying to ban religion, but it's rather how theists are trying to portray atheists, as another way to avoid any serious discussion about religion. And you can see how some other asshole on this forum is trying to egg discussion in that way.

Banning religion is not even in the spirit of today's humanist democracies, just like banning astrology, chiromancy, or some other nonsense.

[Rizen]

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said all religious people are incapable of critical thought but the entire premise of strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge is the antithesis of critical thought. Science, on the other hand, is ever changing based on the constant stream of discoveries and data. Sailors used to think that St. Elmo's fire (a blue glow on the masts of ships during a thunderstorm) was a sign of salvation by the saint because it occurred near the end of the storm but now with science we know it's a corona discharge that occurs when there is a significant imbalance of electrical charge causing molecules to tear apart. 

Furthermore, Trumpism politics are very much a culture of anti-science and dangerous. Not accepting science leads to beliefs like the antivaccine movement and not accepting global warming.

OK, I see what you mean.

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. 

What you mean, if I'm reading you right, is that "strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge" is bad. This of course I agree with.

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."

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.)

I agree science shouldn't be held as the absolute truth but it is by far the best system of decerning truth we have. At least science goes through a rigorous process of testing and peer reviews.

[Paleophyte]

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.

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?

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?

[Belacqua]

OK, I see what you mean.

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. 

What you mean, if I'm reading you right, is that "strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge" is bad. This of course I agree with.

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."

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.)

I agree science shouldn't be held as the absolute truth but it is by far the best system of decerning truth we have. At least science goes through a rigorous process of testing and peer reviews.

Discerning certain kinds of truth, yes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree science shouldn't be held as the absolute truth [...]

Every bit of science is tentative. When Einstein rolled out Special Relativity in 1905 or so, he corrected such a limelight as Newton. Wegener overturned the view of Earth's geology, albeit in a much longer timescale; but the point remains that science is, and more importantly must be, tentative. The essence of the scientific method is that it may turn up a better explanation.

Religion, on the other hand, generally eschews any questioning at all, and frowns upon it as it occurs. The best explanation has already been written down in holy books that are immune to questioning. Which might find truth faster?

I'm gonna go with questions. That's why I trust science more than faith.

[Alan V]

Every bit of science is tentative. When Einstein rolled out Special Relativity in 1905 or so, he corrected such a limelight as Newton. Wegener overturned the view of Earth's geology, albeit in a much longer timescale; but the point remains that science is, and more importantly must be, tentative. The essence of the scientific method is that it may turn up a better explanation.

Religion, on the other hand, generally eschews any questioning at all, and frowns upon it as it occurs. The best explanation has already been written down in holy books that are immune to questioning. Which might find truth faster?

I'm gonna go with questions. That's why I trust science more than faith.

Religious epistemology has been shown to be incorrect by science, specifically by psychologists.  Human perceptions and intuitions are too partial, biased, subject to conditioning, and therefore inaccurate unaided.

And scientists have demonstrated that we can't depend on "revelations" to be correct. Galileo and Darwin especially.

This is why scientists are tentative.  They know they need to be cautious to avoid the same mistakes. But they become more confident as they run more tests with positive results.

[Belacqua]

Religious epistemology has been shown to be incorrect by science, specifically by psychologists.

There is a religion called "Buddhism." 

There are roughly 500 million Buddhists. 

Buddhist epistemology has not been shown to be incorrect by science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_l...istemology