Religious people have a learning disability, discuss.

[Typicallucas]

Voluntarily moved to the religion section.

[Typicallucas]

Religious faith exists only by ignoring contrary evidence and/or re-shaping evidence to fit an existing belief.

It prevents people from objectively judging the quality of scientific knowledge. Also it discourages people from pursuing more scientific knowledge.

The authority that faith and religion have over people makes the competition between religious and scientific ideas unfair and irrational.

Faith either creates cognitive dissonance or it gets in the way of learning, understanding, and developing new ideas.

[Rodibidably]

Too broad a conclusion to be supported by the evidence...

[Moochie]

I agree with Rodibidably re: the OP title, although some of what follows is perhaps applicable. But not all "religious" people are closed-minded, and all kinds of folks may have a "learning disability," which may have nothing whatever to do with religion.


M.

[Twiler]

I think that there is too much difference between the two sets of states to consider one to be a subset of the other. With faith you have the assumption of absolute truths which can get in the way of reality, and with learning disabilities you have a certain difficulty in grasping particular skills and/or facts. The first is at least partly voluntary, while the second isn't.

You could certainly argue that there's a similarity though.

[I Ratant]

Religious people don't have a "learning disability" if for one, they've never been exposed to other views, and two, if exposed, find reasons satisfactory to them to reject those views.
Any "disability" might be a hard-headed rejection of obvious fact and embracing fantasy, but the arguments against any viewpoint must be valid and capable of withstanding reasonable doubt.

[paximperium]

A simple explanation is plain old apathy, intellectual laziness and just lack of exposure to differing ideas.

[Typicallucas]

I modified my original post a little. I took out the "bottom line" with my embarrassing pronouncement and I re-worded the title and the first sentence.

I don't think that faith is an actual disorder like dyslexia, ADHD, or asperger's. But I do think that religious faith negatively affects learning. Plus I like the way it sounds "faith is a learning disability..." it makes me feel better in a playground-name-calling sort of way.

[Typicallucas]

Religious people don't have a "learning disability" if for one, they've never been exposed to other views, and two, if exposed, find reasons satisfactory to them to reject those views.
Any "disability" might be a hard-headed rejection of obvious fact and embracing fantasy, but the arguments against any viewpoint must be valid and capable of withstanding reasonable doubt.

True, true. This makes me think of the school children in Texas. I see that declaring them all to be mentally deficient seems mean. Regardless, what I'm saying is directed to many of them. Many people who have religious faith today were taught to have them by their parents and other care-givers.

The trouble with new ideas "withstanding reasonable doubt" is that people with religious faith rarely use this method to evaluate scientific information that contradicts with their existing beliefs. When the "reasons satisfactory to them to reject those (new) views" are riddled with logical fallacies and are not based on any standard of evidence this seems to me to be a breakdown in mental reasoning.

[applecorped]

Religious faith exists only by ignoring contrary evidence and/or re-shaping evidence to fit an existing belief.

It prevents people from objectively judging the quality of scientific knowledge. Also it discourages people from pursuing more scientific knowledge.

The authority that faith and religion have over people makes the competition between religious and scientific ideas unfair and irrational.

Faith either creates cognitive dissonance or it gets in the way of learning, understanding, and developing new ideas.


Horse hockey.

[paximperium]

Horse hockey.
Isn't that polo?

[The Atheist]

What's to discuss?

The statement is absurd.

Need any more?

[westprog]

it makes me feel better


which is what it's all about, eh?

[Mr Clingford]

I was going to write an intelligent, well-ordered reply, but then remembered that as I am a believer I can't.

[Crowlogic]

Learning disabilities are not only confined to religious people.

[slingblade]

True, true. This makes me think of the school children in Texas. I see that declaring them all to be mentally deficient seems mean. Regardless, what I'm saying is directed to many of them. Many people who have religious faith today were taught to have them by their parents and other care-givers.

Yes, they were. Look at that a bit more closely; it's important.

Many people are taught about religion while still children, too young to yet have the cognition to deal with those very complex ideas. Their brains simply can't process the information beyond a simple level, until they're older and better developed.

More, Christianity in particular has an aspect of punishment inherent. Children tend to respond to punishment, or even the threat thereof. So, not only do you not really know how to weigh the information as a child, you're also threatened with punishment if you reject it. And not just a spanking: God will burn you up for all eternity if you don't believe in him.

At 4 years old, this can seem rather...compelling.

The trouble with new ideas "withstanding reasonable doubt" is that people with religious faith rarely use this method to evaluate scientific information that contradicts with their existing beliefs. When the "reasons satisfactory to them to reject those (new) views" are riddled with logical fallacies and are not based on any standard of evidence this seems to me to be a breakdown in mental reasoning.

As we see here on a regular basis, there is no such thing as a standard "person with religious faith." For instance, I was raised as a fundmentalist evangelical Pentecost. Religion hadn't made a whole lot of sense to me since childhood; I had always had questions, always had doubts.

But I also had fear. See, my particular religious peer group taught that doubt in God came from the devil, and that we really couldn't trust our own thinking on the subject. It might surprise some folks to realize just how powerful and insidious that can be. If you've been taught since your earliest days that magic is real, that devils and demons and witches really exist and can take over your mind, you are set up to always doubt your own cognition is really your own.

Is that a mental defect? I suppose you could label it as such. But it must be recognized how difficult magical thinking can be for at least some people to overcome. It took me until my 30s to reject Christianity, and until my 40s to reject magical thinking altogether. In fact, it wasn't until I began college at 42 and was at last exposed to formal critical thinking and logic that I was able to manage it.

And it was during this time that I realized that it is extremely difficult to teach critical thinking in American schools. It starts a snowball effect, you see. If you develop the skills to evaluate information critically, you will eventually get to religion, and will eventually realize most religions are based firmly on magical, wishful thinking. You will eventually get to a point where you will find it harder to believe in God than to reject the whole idea, regardless of denomination, type, or form of belief.

I don't think it's a "mental defect," really. I think it's simple fear, in many cases. I think many adults realize, at least on some level, that they ought to be thinking more critically about many things, but that to do so will in essence rob them of many cherished beliefs. Not just religion, but all kinds of woo. What you know, and what you believe, make up huge chunks of your identity. To ask people to give these things up is essentially asking them to give up parts of themselves. That's scary, and the rewards aren't always obvious or immediate.

No, I don't think I'd label that a mental defect. Not with the baggage the term "defect" carries. It's just a normal human trait: fear.

[six7s]

Religious faith exists only by ignoring contrary evidence and/or re-shaping evidence to fit an existing belief.Almost... that suggest to me actively ignoring 'contrary evidence'

If/when people have never been exposed to the evidence, they are merely unwittingly ignorant


It prevents people from objectively judging the quality of scientific knowledge. Also it discourages people from pursuing more scientific knowledge.If you had used the term 'discourages' twice, I'd be more inclined to agree

For example:
zi8FfMBYCkk

www.scottklarr.com/ History and evidence for human evolution
(http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/452/history-and-evidence-for-human-evolution/)Those of you who have not kept up with how much we know about the genome should pay attention to this because you'll be amazed at how precisely we can look at things. The precise fusion site has been located base number 114,455,823-114,455,838 so in other words within 15 bases. You'll notice in multiple subtelomeric duplications; the subtelomeres that don't belong and low and behold, the cetromere that is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromosome number 13.

Its there, its testable, it confirms the prediction of evolution. How would intelligent design explain this? Only one way, by shrugging and saying thats the way the designer made it. No reason, no rhyme; presumably there is a designer who designed human chromosome number 2 to make it look "as if" it were formed by the fusion of a primate ancestor. I'm a roman catholic, I'm a theist in the broadest sense. I would say I believe in a designer but you know I don't believe in a deceptive one. I don't believe in one who would do this to try and fool us, and therefore I think this is authentic and it tells us something about our ancestors.

Ken Miller is one clever man - a world leading evolutionary biologist AND a theist

The authority that faith and religion have over people makes the competition between religious and scientific ideas unfair and irrational.
Maybe...

I can't imagine how Ken Miller reconciles his knowledge with his beliefs... but he does...

Faith either creates cognitive dissonance or it gets in the way of learning, understanding, and developing new ideas.Often? Probably

Always? Hmmmmm... I dunno

[The Atheist]

Learning disabilities are not only confined to religious people.

That's true as well!

Note to the OP - I see you re-posted this in R&P. Ask a mod to close/shift this one.

[Typicallucas]

But I also had fear. See, my particular religious peer group taught that doubt in God came from the devil, and that we really couldn't trust our own thinking on the subject. It might surprise some folks to realize just how powerful and insidious that can be. If you've been taught since your earliest days that magic is real, that devils and demons and witches really exist and can take over your mind, you are set up to always doubt your own cognition is really your own.
It upsets me to think about children being manipulated in this way.

No, I don't think I'd label that a mental defect. Not with the baggage the term "defect" carries. It's just a normal human trait: fear.
I wouldn't label is as a mental defect either (Edit: I see that I did call kids from Texas "mentally deficient." I'm sorry, Texas kids! I should have used more accurate language, like "they will be mentally handicapped" :) ). I think that most people, if so inclined, can learn how to shed beliefs that contradict good science.

I think it a learning disability in the technical sense: Something which makes learning, understanding, or remembering new concepts, information, or ideas difficult or impossible.

[Typicallucas]

Almost... that suggest to me actively ignoring 'contrary evidence'

If/when people have never been exposed to the evidence, they are merely unwittingly ignorant

Sure, unwittingly ignorant isn't the same as actively ignorant. But I'm talking about how religious faith can serve as an obstacle to accepting science based knowledge.

For example a person who has a deep religious faith and believes that the Earth is under 10,000 years old, or that god created man "as-is", or that the bible is the inerrant word of god probably won't change their mind very easily when the proper evidence is presented. In the absence of these specific religious beliefs the age of the Earth, evolution, and the logical errors in the bible are easier to grasp.

Maybe it is the same with any contradictory belief, but it seems like there is more to it. Many kinds of contradictory beliefs (like alternate scientific theories, assumptions, fantasies) don't have aspects that discourage disproval. I can think of one kind of contradictory belief that does discourage disproval... when you are told by some sort of dictator that you are to believe in something and anyone who questions will suffer some consequence.

Wittingly or unwittingly religious faith still poses as a threat to rational thought.


If you had used the term 'discourages' twice, I'd be more inclined to agree

Thank you, I still consider myself an amateur skeptic and a mere fan of science. As an amateur I have a lot of learning to do. As a fan of science I hope to further my understanding of science and help spread understanding to others.

Religion discourages disproval. Which inhibits learning.

Imagine if in the place of science we subscribed to Unscience which said that you would be tortured with hot pokers forever if you disagreed with any Unscience discovery? The advancement of our knowledge would grind to a halt.


Ken Miller is one clever man - a world leading evolutionary biologist AND a theist

Maybe...

I can't imagine how Ken Miller reconciles his knowledge with his beliefs... but he does...

Maybe a person can reconcile the two beliefs if he has an undeniable feeling that a god exists but refuses to believe in the tall tales that are often associated with gods.

It seems like this singular belief wouldn't inhibit critical thinking, but as far as I know (lacking any data except the people I know well) this person is the exception. Belief is a god or higher powers are usually packaged with a suite of fantastic stories.


Often? Probably

Always? Hmmmmm... I dunno
Thank you for pointing this out. Often not always.

[plumjam]

im religous and i dont have a learning dissability nor do my cousins and they all have degreas

[Skeptical Greg]

Religious people have a learning disability

Quite the contrary. They have learned what they have been taught, very well ..

[schlitt]

I find it odd that so many people adopt an attitude towards logic capacity/reasoning which is similar to post modernist relativism.

I think the idea that everyone is equally capable in areas of thought and they just require education, to be sorely lacking in plausibility.

Where is the boundary for brain configuration and concept? E.g everyone accepts variation in thought capacity between great physicists like Stephen Hawking, Einstein and between those with a disability such as Downs Syndrome.

Why?
They clearly have different physcial makeup within the relevant areas.

However, there is massive variance between every person, even without an outwardly obvious genetic difference such as Downs.

Why should physical variation be a clear obstruction to things like psychics, but every single person have the exact same ability to use reason and logic in all the areas relating to theology? (which in the larger picture encompasses almost every discourse)

It doesn't make sense.

Some people just don't get certain things. But not only do they not get it, they don't get that they don't get it. It is a capacity thing.

I would not go along entirely with the premise in the OP, but I do think Atheism is beyond the capacity for some.

[MattusMaximus]

First off, I am an atheist. I am also a skeptic.

However, I will be the first to admit that I know many religious people who are damn good skeptics and have no "learning disabilities". They have biases, as do we all, but I don't see how that translates so much into a learning disability, at least what I understand a learning disability to be.

Many religious people are good skeptics, and many atheists have their heads in woo-ville. You'll find plenty of examples of both if you explore this Forum for some time.

[Typicallucas]

Not all biases are created equal. A bias for well founded, thoroughly studied science is not the same as a bias for one's own religious beliefs. Bias against science on behalf of religion is a bad thing. When research on important medical procedures is restricted because of a religious moral conflict, we all suffer.

A bias against scientific knowledge inhibits a person's understanding of the world and their ability to learn new things.

I don't think atheism by itself means a person is significantly smarter or significantly less likely to believe in woo. But I would bet that there is a difference in the levels of intelligence and woo-thinking between the religious and the atheist, tending to favor the atheist. A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences.

For some people the Christian beliefs are ingrained so deeply that they will never develop a working understanding of science. This disadvantage is what I am calling a learning disability.

Regarding your religious friends. I'm curious to know how skeptical they are of the teachings of their religions. I'd also like to know how their religious beliefs fit into the current state of scientific knowledge and how they handle any discrepancies.

[MG1962]

I don't think atheism by itself means a person is significantly smarter or significantly less likely to believe in woo. But I would bet that there is a difference in the levels of intelligence and woo-thinking between the religious and the atheist, tending to favor the atheist. A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences.

Ohh really - then you should have no trouble explaining this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Kinda busts your little pigeon hole old chum. For a supposed skeptic your ignorance of the Catholic Church (Largest single Christian denomination) is breathe taking

Athiests are equally capable of being wrong and misguided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

[The Atheist]

For some people the Christian beliefs are ingrained so deeply that they will never develop a working understanding of science. This disadvantage is what I am calling a learning disability.

What?

Are there no christian scientists?

[Typicallucas]

Ohh really - then you should have no trouble explaining this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Kinda busts your little pigeon hole old chum. For a supposed skeptic your ignorance of the Catholic Church (Largest single Christian denomination) is breathe taking

Athiests are equally capable of being wrong and misguided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
I fail to see where you are leading me. What do two exceptional cases have to do with what I have said?

Please elaborate on what I said about the Catholic Church that would make you gasp.

Would you argue that Christians who believe any combination of: the Earth is young, statues can bleed, the bible is inerrant, demonic possession, contraception is a sin, the virgin birth, man is a special creation, all manner of miracles, rapture, purgatory, heaven, hell, resurrection, healing prayer, etc, is better able to understand and learn the natural sciences than someone who doesn't?

Or do you think that we are on an level field? That religious tales of myth and miracle have little or no bearing on a person's ability to think critically?

Would you argue somewhere in between? Something else entirely?

[Typicallucas]

.... For a supposed skeptic ....

And please don't try to elevate me to the level of a skeptic. At best I hope to be an amateur skeptic. I lack the skill set and knowledge to properly present a skeptical argument.

In this thread I don't feel like I am voicing a kind of skepticism, I think I am describing a real problem and poking fun at religious people.

[The Atheist]

Would you argue that Christians who believe any combination of: the Earth is young, statues can bleed, the bible is inerrant, demonic possession, contraception is a sin, the virgin birth, man is a special creation, all manner of miracles, rapture, purgatory, heaven, hell, resurrection, healing prayer, etc, is better able to understand and learn the natural sciences than someone who doesn't?

At least 15,000 degree-qualified health professionals in the USA (http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About)alone would strongly disagree with you.

[dafydd]

im religous and i dont have a learning dissability nor do my cousins and they all have degreas

If you had no problems then you would be able to spell religious,disability and degrees. Become an atheist and get smart!

[MG1962]

I fail to see where you are leading me. What do two exceptional cases have to do with what I have said?

Please elaborate on what I said about the Catholic Church that would make you gasp.

Would you argue that Christians who believe any combination of: the Earth is young, statues can bleed, the bible is inerrant, demonic possession, contraception is a sin, the virgin birth, man is a special creation, all manner of miracles, rapture, purgatory, heaven, hell, resurrection, healing prayer, etc, is better able to understand and learn the natural sciences than someone who doesn't?

Or do you think that we are on an level field? That religious tales of myth and miracle have little or no bearing on a person's ability to think critically?

Would you argue somewhere in between? Something else entirely?

I am refering to this specifically

A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences.


The Catholic Church is the largest single group of Christians. Use the word Christianity, you automatically included them. And I dont hold Catholcs up in any special light, it just happens to be the faith I know the most about.

The reality is, most Christians dont have any trouble with the sciences.In fact it is only a very small (sadly noisy) element of Christianity that has this problem.

So to claim that there is any difference at all between athiests and anyone else to grasp the sciences you listed is inherently wrong.

[Typicallucas]

I get that you don't agree, but please back up your ideas. I want to know more, and you telling me I'm wrong and I'm wrong leaves me wanting more.

1) What do two exceptional cases have to do with what I said?
2) Please elaborate on what I said about the Catholic Church that would make you gasp.
3) What is your reasoning for "most Christians dont have any trouble with the sciences" and to be clear my assertion is that religious beliefs that include believing in myth and miracles inhibits critical thinking about science.

[Moochie]

I modified my original post a little. I took out the "bottom line" with my embarrassing pronouncement and I re-worded the title and the first sentence.

I don't think that faith is an actual disorder like dyslexia, ADHD, or asperger's. But I do think that religious faith negatively affects learning. Plus I like the way it sounds "faith is a learning disability..." it makes me feel better in a playground-name-calling sort of way.

I think "faith" appeals because many people desire certainty in an uncertain world. Fundamentalism, in particular, and religion in general, make the (false) promise of offering such certainty. It's not possible, so these practitioners are liars at best, or willful deceivers at worst.


M.

[RandFan]

My list in no particular order: I'm not sure how religious they all were though. An appeal to authority I suppose but I wish my learning disorder was on par with anyone on this list. I could only dream.

Newton
Boole
Pascale
Laplace
Kant
Copernicus
Bacon
Kepler
Galileo
Descartes
Boyle
Faraday
Mendel
Kelvin

[MG1962]

1) What do two exceptional cases have to do with what I said?



Well the priest worked here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

And developed the first mathematical models of the Big Bang. I am sure you would agree that was a major event in the evolution of cosmology.

Fred Hoyle was brlliant astronomer and his work on the chemica structures of stars have earned him a place in history. As a cosmologist he was defective, he also rejected evolution, and claimed so of the worlds most famous fossils were fake. He was also a athiest.

In two examples I have shown that having religious beliefs does not have to be barrier to critical thnking, and that being an athiest is not an automatic pass to being able to think in such ways



2) Please elaborate on what I said about the Catholic Church that would make you gasp.



What part of the quote I added from your earlier post dont you understand?



3) What is your reasoning for "most Christians dont have any trouble with the sciences" and to be clear my assertion is that religious beliefs that include believing in myth and miracles inhibits critical thinking about science.

Catholics are the largest sect in Christianity. They make up more Christians than the rest put together. Given other Christian sects such as Anglicans and Lutherans (Undoubtely others) have no issue with science, the reality of the statement shrinks considerably. As I said in my last post, some Christians have these issues, and I dont dispute that. But to make the assertion you have made is wrong both as a historical fact and a statistcal calculation.

[Moochie]

Perhaps there is some confusion between fundamentalism and more "sophisticated" forms of faith here?


M.

[Typicallucas]

At least 15,000 degree-qualified health professionals in the USA (http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About)alone would strongly disagree with you.

You are making quite a number of assumptions that aren't borne out by the link you provided.

Doctors and dentists are not necessarily scientists. Not all doctors use science-based medicine.

An understanding of science is not required to be a doctor.

The 15,000 members include doctors, dentists, students, spouses of doctors, Ph. D.'s in theology, accountants, writers, audio technicians, and individuals that are not doctors or dentists. Literally anybody can be a member for $52.00.

In their bylaws there is no requirement to be a doctor, a dentist, have a degree, have taken a science class, or have a passing interest in science.


There may very well be 15,000 doctors or more in the US that believe in god. But that doesn't address my assertion about the effect of mythical beliefs on the understanding of science.

--
Sidenote: In the CMDA bylaws one of the responsibilities of all Members is to provide financial support with "Donations and planned giving as God directs." How can anyone be a critical thinker if they think that god is directing them to donate to the CMDA?

[Typicallucas]

Perhaps there is some confusion between fundamentalism and more "sophisticated" forms of faith here?


M.

I don't think there needs to be a clear distinction. I think it is a matter of degree, the higher the degree of fundamentalism and belief in myth and magic the greater the obstacle to critical thinking.

[Mister Agenda]

Well the priest worked here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

And developed the first mathematical models of the Big Bang. I am sure you would agree that was a major event in the evolution of cosmology.

Fred Hoyle was brlliant astronomer and his work on the chemica structures of stars have earned him a place in history. As a cosmologist he was defective, he also rejected evolution, and claimed so of the worlds most famous fossils were fake. He was also a athiest.

In two examples I have shown that having religious beliefs does not have to be barrier to critical thnking, and that being an athiest is not an automatic pass to being able to think in such ways



What part of the quote I added from your earlier post dont you understand?



Catholics are the largest sect in Christianity. They make up more Christians than the rest put together. Given other Christian sects such as Anglicans and Lutherans (Undoubtely others) have no issue with science, the reality of the statement shrinks considerably. As I said in my last post, some Christians have these issues, and I dont dispute that. But to make the assertion you have made is wrong both as a historical fact and a statistcal calculation.

I think to counter a claim that religous belief is a handicap to a person in understanding science, you want statistics, not exceptions. It's a very general observation stated in an absolute way, but it could be validly rephrased as 'persons with religious beliefs are more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous'. Counter-evidence might be obtained by comparing the percentage of theists who become scientists versus the percentage of nontheists who do, or showing that theist scientists achieve as much (in proportion to their numbers) as nontheists (counting Nobels, maybe), or showing theist college students score as highly (or higher) in science than nontheist students. The claim isn't really that there's no such thing as a theist with a good grasp of science, although it was written so it was easy to take it that way.

[The Atheist]

There may very well be 15,000 doctors or more in the US that believe in god. But that doesn't address my assertion about the effect of mythical beliefs on the understanding of science.

There are actually quite a lot more than 15,000. The last data I saw showed that over 50% of medical doctors - that is those with an MD - are christian.

Randfan has also included a list of a few reasonably prominent scientists who believe in a god.

Seems to me that your delusion is at least as bad as any christian - you know very well that scientists and doctors are christian, yet you still persist in spouting nonsense.

[Mister Agenda]

There are actually quite a lot more than 15,000. The last data I saw showed that over 50% of medical doctors - that is those with an MD - are christian.

Randfan has also included a list of a few reasonably prominent scientists who believe in a god.

Seems to me that your delusion is at least as bad as any christian - you know very well that scientists and doctors are christian, yet you still persist in spouting nonsense.

But if the country is around 70% Christian (which is what I hear about the USA) and only 50% of MDs are Christians, that doesn't support the contention that belief in Christianity is not a handicap in science. I think there are alternative explanations for this, such as Christians are more likely to be low-income and can't afford to send their kids to medical school, or that for some reason beside comprehension level they prefer other professions, but what it doesn't mean is that Christians are just as likely as nontheists to be doctors.

[Typicallucas]

There are actually quite a lot more than 15,000. The last data I saw showed that over 50% of medical doctors - that is those with an MD - are christian.

Randfan has also included a list of a few reasonably prominent scientists who believe in a god.

Seems to me that your delusion is at least as bad as any christian - you know very well that scientists and doctors are christian, yet you still persist in spouting nonsense.Since you brought up data, I'd like to see your source. Citing the CMDA was a red-herring.

76% of American adults identified themselves as Christian in 2008. (http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/)

I don't think I'm delusional, I am making an observation about an apparent link between religious faith and critical thinking. You on the other hand are responding to something I didn't say. I never said that christians aren't doctors or scientists.

Please stop misquoting me. You did it here too:


What?

Are there no christian scientists?

[six7s]

I don't think there needs to be a clear distinction. I think it is a matter of degree, the higher the degree of fundamentalism and belief in myth and magic the greater the obstacle to critical thinking.I reckon you might be on to something here...

Also, I reckon that is a logical fallacy to consider the popularity of the The Christian Medical & Dental Associations and, therefore, arguing over their scientificnessness is a tangential, red herring-flavoured irrelevancy

The existence of just one (true, McScottish) scientific christian falsifies the notion that faith precludes learning
Francis Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)#Religious_views)

Does faith hinder learning? Maybe

Can faith hinder learning? Yes

[MG1962]

I think to counter a claim that religous belief is a handicap to a person in understanding science, you want statistics, not exceptions. It's a very general observation stated in an absolute way, but it could be validly rephrased as 'persons with religious beliefs are more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous'. Counter-evidence might be obtained by comparing the percentage of theists who become scientists versus the percentage of nontheists who do, or showing that theist scientists achieve as much (in proportion to their numbers) as nontheists (counting Nobels, maybe), or showing theist college students score as highly (or higher) in science than nontheist students. The claim isn't really that there's no such thing as a theist with a good grasp of science, although it was written so it was easy to take it that way.

I dont disgaree with anything you say. My counter was against the blanket statement, and I happily conceed some people do allow their religion to be a barrier for the sort of scientific thinking needed in these. fields.

[Mister Agenda]

I dont disgaree with anything you say. My counter was against the blanket statement, and I happily conceed some people do allow their religion to be a barrier for the sort of scientific thinking needed in these. fields.

That's the problem with blanket statements: they cover too much. ;)

[Typicallucas]

In two examples I have shown that having religious beliefs does not have to be barrier to critical thnking,

OK, religious beliefs do not have to be a barrier to critical thinking, as long as those beliefs are not contrary to scientific knowledge (the product of critical thinking) When they are, they are by definition barriers to critical thinking, unless a person can suspend a particular religious belief long enough to think critically. Or he just doesn't believe very strongly.

The singular belief in god isn't a soluble question (as far as I can tell) and may not be in conflict with any science. The age of the Earth, for instance, IS soluble. Rejecting scientific knowledge because it conflicts with religion is a barrier to critical thinking.

and that being an athiest is not an automatic pass to being able to think in such ways

I never said that. Please don't misquote me.


Catholics are the largest sect in Christianity. They make up more Christians than the rest put together. Given other Christian sects such as Anglicans and Lutherans (Undoubtely others) have no issue with science, the reality of the statement shrinks considerably. As I said in my last post, some Christians have these issues, and I dont dispute that. But to make the assertion you have made is wrong both as a historical fact and a statistcal calculation.

Really, well just saying that Catholics have "no issue with science" doesn't make it true. To accuse me of being "breath takingly ignorant" about the Catholic Church because I doubt their follower's ability to think critically is breath takingly condescending. I don't think my statements have revealed any significant ignorance about churches or their followers.

If a Catholic believes in transubstantiation, statues can bleed, the bible is inerrant, the pope is infallible, condoms spread HIV, demonic possession, contraception is a sin, the virgin birth, man is a special creation, all manner of miracles, rapture, purgatory, heaven, hell, resurrection, and healing prayer, you mean to tell me they have no issue with science?

If you are going to tell me that "historical fact" and "statiscal calculation" are on your side, cite your sources.

[Typicallucas]

But if the country is around 70% Christian (which is what I hear about the USA) and only 50% of MDs are Christians, that doesn't support the contention that belief in Christianity is not a handicap in science. I think there are alternative explanations for this, such as Christians are more likely to be low-income and can't afford to send their kids to medical school, or that for some reason beside comprehension level they prefer other professions, but what it doesn't mean is that Christians are just as likely as nontheists to be doctors.I dont disgaree with anything you say. My counter was against the blanket statement, and I happily

conceed some people do allow their religion to be a barrier for the sort of scientific thinking needed in these.

fields.

MG1962, unless you were being disingenuous you "dont disagree" that 'persons with religious beliefs are more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous.' You also dont disagree with Mister Agenda's idea for finding Counter-evidence. Here is what Richard Dawkins has to say about religiosity among Nobel Laureates and other scientists.


"The efforts of apologists to find genuinely distinguished modern
scientists who are religious have an air of desperation, generating
the unmistakably hollow sound of bottoms of barrels being
scraped. The only website I could find that claimed to list 'Nobel
Prize-winning Scientific Christians' came up with six, out of a total
of several hundred scientific Nobelists. Of these six, it turned out
that four were not Nobel Prize-winners at all; and at least one, to
my certain knowledge, is a non-believer who attends church for
purely social reasons. A more systematic study by Benjamin Beit-
Hallahmi 'found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences,
as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of
irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from'.
52
A study in the leading journal Nature by Larson and Witham in
1998 showed that of those American scientists considered eminent
enough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academy
of Sciences (equivalent to being a Fellow of the Royal Society in
Britain) only about 7 per cent believe in a personal God.
53
This overwhelming preponderance of atheists is almost the exact
opposite of the profile of the American population at large, of
whom more than 90 per cent are believers in some sort of super-
natural being. The figure for less eminent scientists, not elected to
the National Academy, is intermediate. As with the more
distinguished sample, religious believers are in a minority, but a less
dramatic minority of about 40 per cent. It is completely as I would
expect that American scientists are less religious than the American
public generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are the
least religious of all. What is remarkable is the polar opposition
between the religiosity of the American public at large and the
atheism of the intellectual elite."

[The Atheist]

But if the country is around 70% Christian (which is what I hear about the USA) and only 50% of MDs are Christians, that doesn't support the contention that belief in Christianity is not a handicap in science.

Note that I said "over 50%". I don't recall the exact figures and can't find the link now, but I can guarantee it was over half, because I was surprised, Christian doctors here are as rare as rocking-horse faeces.

I don't think my statements have revealed any significant ignorance about churches or their followers.

:dl:

[Steel Rat]

I can't imagine how Ken Miller reconciles his knowledge with his beliefs... but he does...

I'd say self-delusion. Kinda like the extremely brilliant man who thinks a combover is a neat idea. He believes there is a designer, in spite of the evidence.

[Steel Rat]

Christian doctors here are as rare as rocking-horse faeces.


I had to clean up some of that in my garage after some woodworking projects. Don't know how those buggers snuck in, but there it was, all over the floor!

[Typicallucas]

TA, while I wouldn't be surprised to find that more than 50% of American physicians are religious why don't you try to find some data on the religiosity of doctors instead of giving it your personal guarantee.

And why don't you expose my supposed ignorance instead of using cute animations?

I think I can guess the reasons why. You don't want to make a point, counter my argument (without misquoting me), and/or contribute to the discussion in at least a tangentially meaningful way.

[Third Eye Open]

I think there is a large difference between 'believing in a god' and 'being religious'.

The OP is stating (I think) that being religious is an impairment to scientific understanding. Not that you can't have one without the other, but that the more you have of one, the less you must have of the other.

Believing in gods does not necessarily make you religious. Especially when god is defined as 'some thing out there somewhere that's bigger than me'.
I would wager that most scientists who believe in god use this vague definition or one like it.

So I would agree that religion (not just believing in gods) is usually a hindrance to scientific understanding.

Most of the time the level of religiosity is inversely proportional to the level of scientific understanding.

[The Atheist]

TA, while I wouldn't be surprised to find that more than 50% of American physicians are religious why don't you try to find some data on the religiosity of doctors instead of giving it your personal guarantee.

I was guaranteeing that I saw the data and noted that I can't find it again. If you don't doubt it, I'm not going to waste further time on it. because as MG has repeatedly tried to show you, a single example negates your idiotic theory.

Let me remind you of your starting post:

Religious faith exists only by ignoring contrary evidence and/or re-shaping evidence to fit an existing belief.

It prevents people from objectively judging the quality of scientific knowledge. Also it discourages people from pursuing more scientific knowledge.

This has conclusively been proven false by the examples you've been given.

Since the OP, you've said:

But I do think that religious faith negatively affects learning.

I think it a learning disability in the technical sense: Something which makes learning, understanding, or remembering new concepts, information, or ideas difficult or impossible.

Clearly, scientists who are also christian blow that kind of crap out the window.

And why don't you expose my supposed ignorance instead of using cute animations?

It's not a cute animation, it's meant to signify that I'm pissing myself laughing at your statement that you haven't revealed ignorance of religion.

You could have even made a valid point, but instead, you decided to descend into generalisations and fallacies, so I'm not going to bother getting too serious in response.

If you had half a clue, you'd be wondering why the most vociferous atheists here are lining up to point your errors out to you.

I think I can guess the reasons why. You don't want to make a point, counter my argument (without misquoting me), and/or contribute to the discussion in at least a tangentially meaningful way.

Your guesses are marginally worse than you logic. Your arguments have already been countered, all that remains is for you to retract and amend your position, then we can move on.

You're clearly getting there with this:

The claim isn't really that there's no such thing as a theist with a good grasp of science, although it was written so it was easy to take it that way.

Why not just be honest? There's a line between taking the piss and evidential argument, but you don't seem to know where it's drawn.

[Typicallucas]

I was guaranteeing that I saw the data and noted that I can't find it again. If you don't doubt it, I'm not going to waste further time on it. because as MG has repeatedly tried to show you, a single example negates your idiotic theory.

Single examples don't disprove my theory. Imagine if I said "Religious people are completely unable to understand science" then OK a single example would refute that, but again, I didn't say that.

And if you could find data that would show that 50% of American physicians are religious I would ask you to explain the 26% difference with the general population of America. The level religiosity goes down as science education increases. I think an obstacle to developing a scientific education among the religious are myths and miracles that contradict scientific knowledge. If you have a different theory, let's hear it.

MG didn't disprove my assertion and that you would say he did, that you misquoted me, and that you continue to exaggerate my claim in order to knock it down either indicate you haven't been reading this thread thoroughly or that you don't care what I write.

My theory is not baseless, I have not descended into fallacies. You haven't bothered to give a serious response from the get-go. It is becoming clearer as you continue to post that you aren't willing to discuss the issue but that you are just looking for a fight.

Clearly, scientists who are also christian blow that kind of crap out the window.

If a scientist has dyslexia but goes on to make an important scientific discovery does he still have a learning disability? Do his successes in science make everyone else with dyslexia not have a disability? Just because there are scientists who are christian doesn't negate my assertion that religious faith is a handicap when learning science. (To be absolutely clear religious faith and dyslexia are only similar in that it makes some kinds of learning more difficult)

It's not a cute animation, it's meant to signify that I'm pissing myself laughing at your statement that you haven't revealed ignorance of religion.

Oh if only somebody would point out my ignorance instead of just stating that it exists! Just spit it out, lay out the ways I am wrong about religion or the Catholic church.

You could have even made a valid point, but instead, you decided to descend into generalisations

What is wrong with generalizations, if something is true in general isn't it worth noting? Is it because my generalization can be hurtful to some people?

and fallacies, so I'm not going to bother getting too serious in response.

Fallacies? Oh come on now. With my limited knowledge of argument theory I can count 6 types of fallacies you have used against me:

Mocking my claim
Strawman
Red Herring (CMDA)
Authority (your crowd of vociferous atheists who are vouching against me)
Composition (if it isn't true for Lemaître it isn't true for anybody)
Genetic Fallacy (you continually misinterpret the OP without taking into account my following statements)

More reasons to doubt that you are willing to be serious at all.


If you had half a clue, you'd be wondering why the most vociferous atheists here are lining up to point your errors out to you.

I have practically begged you to point out my errors. So far the only thing I don't have "half a clue" about is what your position is or what your evidence is.

Your guesses are marginally worse than you logic. Your arguments have already been countered, all that remains is for you to retract and amend your position, then we can move on.

You're clearly getting there with this:

The claim isn't really that there's no such thing as a theist with a good grasp of science, although it was written so it was easy to take it that way.

Why not just be honest? There's a line between taking the piss and evidential argument, but you don't seem to know where it's drawn.

What are you getting at? That was Mister Agenda telling MG1962 that he was misinterpreting my claim, like you are too. Maybe you were trying to quote:

'persons with religious beliefs are more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous'

I rather like the the words he used to rephrase my position. I think my position stands reasonably well at this point despite of your pithy insults.

[MG1962]

If you are going to tell me that "historical fact" and "statiscal calculation" are on your side, cite your sources.

I did, however you chose to igore it for some reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

Please note Stephen Hawkins, who is not even Catholic has been a member of this institution since the mid 1980's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_dei_Lincei


http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/History_p1.html

And the stastical information you asked for

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People

Then we have the Jesuits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Famous_Jesuits

To be ordained a Jesuit you MUST complete at least one Phd, often they will complete a Masters in Sacred Theology as well, giving them two degrees. The particular Jesuit I knew had four

[The Atheist]

You haven't bothered to give a serious response from the get-go.

I don't tend to get serious with spurious hypotheses.

The funny thing is, I agree with some of what you're saying. Now, if you first try to explain the difference between theism rates of mathematicians/physicists vs biologists, you might make some progress.

What you've done is completely anti-sceptical - you've drawn a conclusion from insufficient data, lack of control groups and no falsifiability.

If, in the meantime, you want to stamp your feet and cry about how many logical fallacies I use, go ahead - I left school a very long time ago and logical fallacies don't bother me a bit. In fact, I have to admit to having a special love for ad hominem.

[Typicallucas]

Let's take a poll, choose the option you think is most likely correct:

A) 'persons with religious beliefs are completely unable to understand science'

B) 'persons with religious beliefs are much more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous'

C) 'persons with religious beliefs are slightly more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous'

D) 'persons with religious beliefs are generally have no particular disadvantage when striving to understand science'

E) 'persons with religious beliefs are slightly more likely to find them advantageous when striving to understand science than to find them disadvantageous'

F) 'persons with religious beliefs are much more likely to find them advantageous when striving to understand science than to find them disadvantageous'

G) 'persons with religious beliefs are are uniquely suited understand science'

[six7s]

H) 'persons with religious beliefs are are banned from striving to understand science on Planet X'

;)

[Thanz]

More, Christianity in particular has an aspect of punishment inherent. Children tend to respond to punishment, or even the threat thereof. So, not only do you not really know how to weigh the information as a child, you're also threatened with punishment if you reject it. And not just a spanking: God will burn you up for all eternity if you don't believe in him.

At 4 years old, this can seem rather...compelling.
Wow. I am constantly amazed at the wide gulf of experience and teaching that some have had as Christian and my own Christian experience and education. At my church, kids are taught about God's love for us. NO helffire, brimstone, or eternal suffering to cause nightmares. NO threats. A lot of carrot, no stick as it were.



As we see here on a regular basis, there is no such thing as a standard "person with religious faith." For instance, I was raised as a fundmentalist evangelical Pentecost. Religion hadn't made a whole lot of sense to me since childhood; I had always had questions, always had doubts.

But I also had fear. See, my particular religious peer group taught that doubt in God came from the devil, and that we really couldn't trust our own thinking on the subject. It might surprise some folks to realize just how powerful and insidious that can be. If you've been taught since your earliest days that magic is real, that devils and demons and witches really exist and can take over your mind, you are set up to always doubt your own cognition is really your own.

Again, the contrast is startling. Just this week the Gospel included the story of Doubting Thomas. The priest, during his sermon, talked about how he could understand the problems of Thomas as he had been through 2 bouts of leukemia. He also stated that you cannot really have faith without doubt: the opposite of faith is not doubt, but rather certainty.

It sounds like your former church would have burned him for heresy.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't think atheism by itself means a person is significantly smarter or significantly less likely to believe in woo. But I would bet that there is a difference in the levels of intelligence and woo-thinking between the religious and the atheist, tending to favor the atheist. A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences.

Which intelligence? There may be multiple intelligences with varying degrees of each for each person - only savants appear to have a extreme disproportionate single intelligence according to this theory of intelligence. Read Frames Of Mind: The Theory Of Multiple Intelligences: Howard E. Gardner sometime - it's fascinating. Here's the Wiki article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences

[Freethinker]

the opposite of faith is not doubt, but rather certainty.



By that logic faith means uncertainty, since uncertainty is by definition the opposite of certainty. The opposite of faith is skepticism, doubt or agnosticism. Faith IS certainty, but certainty without foundation.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Religious faith exists only by ignoring contrary evidence and/or re-shaping evidence to fit an existing belief.

It prevents people from objectively judging the quality of scientific knowledge. Also it discourages people from pursuing more scientific knowledge.


I wonder how many people in general ever bother to judge the quality of scientific knowledge of most things. I'd say - as long as it works with out having to understanding how it works, people (at least Americans - can't speak for others) are rather quick to adopt and use technologies and ideas with only understanding the bare minimum - especially if Oprah recommends the technology or idea and it becomes a FAD! :)

By the way - anyone have any statistics of the percentage of populations that are scientists?

[A Christian Sceptic]

To expand further - I think a better measure of scientific acceptance and religion shouldn't be those people who enjoy science, but the overall populations acceptance of it or thoughts on it. My unresearched guess - most people will say "I don't understand it, but whatever - thanks for inventing the Xbox 360 and Light and Penicilin."

When pressed to make a decision on something they don't understand - or don't care to understand they'll probably agree with you unless they perceive the agreement as some sort of moral statement - then they'll probably just fall back on the moral framework / belief system they are practicing.

I remember a while back where someone posted here how he couldn't understand his mom - she believed (Gasp!) in both God and Evolution. When he told her she couldn't believe in both she said "OK - then I don't believe in Evolution." He was dismayed that she chose God over Evolution. But from her perspective most likely she didn't understand more than the general idea of Evolution and the nitty gritty details weren't as relevant to her daily life as a belief in God - so when put in a position to choose she chose the most relevant to her.

[Mister Agenda]

That's a shame, since one demonstrably certainly can believe in both! Isn't it the religous fundamentalists' job to tell people if they believe the theory of evolution is correct, they can't really believe in God?

[bpesta22]

Which intelligence? There may be multiple intelligences with varying degrees of each for each person - only savants appear to have a extreme disproportionate single intelligence according to this theory of intelligence. Read Frames Of Mind: The Theory Of Multiple Intelligences: Howard E. Gardner sometime - it's fascinating. Here's the Wiki article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences

Frames of mind is immensely popular to lay people with zero empirical support for the idea that separate *independent* intelligences exist (or that any specific mental ability predicts over and above general mental ability-- for which IQ score is a proxy). Read this after Mismeasure and you'll know exactly where the science is not today.

It's well established now that a group mean difference on IQ exists favoring non-believers. It's not a large effect, but it seems real.

In every JREF debate about group differences, we get lots of posts illustrating the "person who" fallacy.

If indeed one's interested in whether two groups differ, then pointing out an exception in the opposite of the suspected mean difference is irrelevant, and invalid.

Grandpa smoked 3 packs a day and lived til 90. So, smoking must not be bad for you.

It also sets up a straw man. No one's claiming that all theists are dumb and all atheists are brilliant. Finding dumb atheists and smart theists is trivial. So what. It doesn't speak at all to the issue of whether a group mean difference exists, and it does.

Papers are starting to come out now using aggregate data (cities, states, nations) showing what belief / religiosity correlates with. The associations are embarrassing for one claiming god is needed to be good.

Before the next person posts that some devout christian accomplished something significant, intellectually, ask whether it's really relevant to the issue.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Read this after Mismeasure and you'll know exactly where the science is not today.

Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Gould?

If so, what's your thoughts on it - I haven't read it.

[INRM]

Yeah, but isn't religion learned?

[diegesis]

I think to counter a claim that religous belief is a handicap to a person in understanding science, you want statistics, not exceptions. It's a very general observation stated in an absolute way, but it could be validly rephrased as 'persons with religious beliefs are more likely to find them disadvantageous when striving to understand science than to find them advantageous'. Counter-evidence might be obtained by comparing the percentage of theists who become scientists versus the percentage of nontheists who do, or showing that theist scientists achieve as much (in proportion to their numbers) as nontheists (counting Nobels, maybe), or showing theist college students score as highly (or higher) in science than nontheist students. The claim isn't really that there's no such thing as a theist with a good grasp of science, although it was written so it was easy to take it that way.


Being religious is about taking for a fact so many things that don´t make any sense at all, making it difficult to even understand the process of learning in the first place. It might not be a disability but it doesn´t help a person´s critical thinking at all.

It is well known that if someone believes in one woo theory it is more likely that he will soon believe in another. Or to rephrase, if you show your brain a certain path of thinking, it follows that path no matter what the subject. If you have trained your brain to seek comfort by accepting theories that flatter you, or take the fear away then it is almost impossible that you will be interested in real reality.

You are more likely to take “magic water” to cure your cancer than accept that you are about to die. You are more likely to believe that you´ll end up in Heaven than eaten by worms and nothing after that.

IMHO religion may not be a learning disability but it is certainly not helping a person think, grow up and take responsibility for his life. Or death.

[six7s]

...as long as it works with out having to understanding how it works, people (at least Americans - can't speak for others) are rather quick to adopt and use technologies and ideas with only understanding the bare minimum - especially if Oprah recommends the technology or idea and it becomes a FAD! :)

Technology:Stuff invented since you were

Tools:Stuff invented before you were

Understanding more than the bare minimum is only necessary when we want to mix and match


Can we cut some of the cold air in the fridge and paste it onto an iPod and take it on a picnic?



Can we use Genesis to date fossils?


The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals.
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

[Thanz]

By that logic faith means uncertainty, since uncertainty is by definition the opposite of certainty. The opposite of faith is skepticism, doubt or agnosticism. Faith IS certainty, but certainty without foundation.

No, it isn't. Faith is believing despite having some doubts. If you are certain about something, you don't need faith. If you drop a ball, do you have faith that it will fall or are you certain? If your friend says that they will pick you up at 7:00 to go to dinner, do you have faith that they will do this or are you certain?

Some people treat faith as certainty and doubt as evil, as set out in Slingblades post. It is my position that this is wrong. Faith is what you need when things are uncertain.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Technology:Stuff invented since you were

Tools:Stuff invented before you were

Understanding more than the bare minimum is only necessary when we want to mix and match


Can we cut some of the cold air in the fridge and paste it onto an iPod and take it on a picnic?



Can we use Genesis to date fossils?


Or if you want to fix something yourself I suppose. But if you can find someone else to do it without them having to explain what they are doing to fix it then maybe you can still stick with knowing the bare minimum.

[MG1962]

Being religious is about taking for a fact so many things that don´t make any sense at all, making it difficult to even understand the process of learning in the first place. It might not be a disability but it doesn´t help a person´s critical thinking at all.

It is well known that if someone believes in one woo theory it is more likely that he will soon believe in another. Or to rephrase, if you show your brain a certain path of thinking, it follows that path no matter what the subject. If you have trained your brain to seek comfort by accepting theories that flatter you, or take the fear away then it is almost impossible that you will be interested in real reality.



This is hilarious. In the first paragraph you speak of being religious cant help crtical thinking processes

Then proceed to the second paragraph and say. It is well known that if someone believes in one woo theory it is more likely that he will soon believe in another.

[six7s]

:confused:

Why is that hilarious?

[slingblade]

:confused:

Why is that hilarious?

Because MG1962 is trying to make a point in a thread about religion and learning, yet can't manage to articulate it clearly enough to be understood.

I find that side-splitting, don't you? :p

[six7s]

I reckon its funny in a weird sort of way

:(

[godless dave]

Religious faith exists only by ignoring contrary evidence and/or re-shaping evidence to fit an existing belief.


I don't think that's true. A lot of people aquire religious faith by believing what other believers tell them, without even considering evidence.

I think that's a tendency of human brains, not a learning disability.

[Darth Rotor]

Religious people have a learning disability, discuss.
Hi

I am a religious person.

I don't have a learning disability.

You are wrong.

Oh, also, you are cordially invited to get bent, bigot.

DR

[Freethinker]

No, it isn't. Faith is believing despite having some doubts. If you are certain about something, you don't need faith.

Meriam Webster defines faith with regard to religion as:

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


No word about doubts there. I think the two bolded uses are most appropriate to the discussion. "Firm Belief", "Complete Trust". Doubt isn't even implied.

Roget's gives:

Synonyms: acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
Antonyms: disbelief, distrust, doubt, misgiving, skepticism, suspicion

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you had no problems then you would be able to spell religious,disability and degrees. Become an atheist and get smart!

Adjust the settings on your sarcasmometer.

I'd say self-delusion. Kinda like the extremely brilliant man who thinks a combover is a neat idea. He believes there is a designer, in spite of the evidence.

Armchair psychology. Nice. Do you have any suggestions for who the Lions should pick in the NFL draft too?

It is well known that if someone believes in one woo theory it is more likely that he will soon believe in another.{snip}

Just the other night I heard on a Christian talkradio show that people who lose their faith are more likely to embrace al sorts of nonsense like astrology and paganism. I called shennanigans. If one loses faith and seeks to replace it with other faith, then I can see that happening, but if one loses faith and is O.K. with it one tends to be a little more skeptical of the paranormal and supernatural.

Conversely, I see an attraction by some Christians towards pseudoscientific woo like Alt-Med, climate denial and Creationism.

[diegesis]

This is hilarious. In the first paragraph you speak of being religious cant help crtical thinking processes

Then proceed to the second paragraph and say. It is well known that if someone believes in one woo theory it is more likely that he will soon believe in another.

I guess my english is not very good. I tried to use the fact about woo believers to explain why, treating your brain in a certain way can prevent it from learning.
If it´s still not clear I can always write it in Greek. :D

[diegesis]

Because MG1962 is trying to make a point in a thread about religion and learning, yet can't manage to articulate it clearly enough to be understood.

I find that side-splitting, don't you? :p

You´re telling me I managed to make a difficult joke in English? Me proud! :)

[MG1962]

I guess my english is not very good. I tried to use the fact about woo believers to explain why, treating your brain in a certain way can prevent it from learning.
If it´s still not clear I can always write it in Greek. :D

Please accept my apology then. It is not my intention to make fun of people over poor English usage.

Saying something is 'well known' does not qualify the information as being correct. Example it is well known the Druids built Stonehenge. The problem is, the Druids didn't, but so many people believe it to be true, they will state as fact

[diegesis]

Please accept my apology then. It is not my intention to make fun of people over poor English usage.

Saying something is 'well known' does not qualify the information as being correct. Example it is well known the Druids built Stonehenge. The problem is, the Druids didn't, but so many people believe it to be true, they will state as fact

Please don't apologise, how could you know?

About my "well known" fact, I thought it was something obvious to you too. I will tell you why I have formed this conclusion. I have never met anyone who believes only in one woo theory. This way of thinking can't prevent people from accepting more and more unproven stuff.
So, i tried to make a connection with religion because for me, religious belief works the same way. I live in a very religious country and I haven't met till now one single family without at least one member believing in god that goes with various woo beliefs. My point is that for example, you can't believe a virgin gave birth to a god after an angel came to her and even try to be skeptic about ufos; considering that there are also many photos of the latter. :)
I would really like to hear your opinion on that because trully it is the first time someone tells me that this is not a fact.
I hope you understand all this, I don't have time to check it twice.

[slingblade]

You´re telling me I managed to make a difficult joke in English? Me proud! :)

Heh, no, I'm trying to tell MG to spell, space, and punctuate properly if he wants to be clearly understood. I still don't know what his point was in that post.

And your English is fine!

[Typicallucas]

Which intelligence? There may be multiple intelligences with varying degrees of each for each person...
Intelligence theory may be an interesting topic, start a separate thread about it. That spelling of skeptic makes me think of septic.
Heh, no, I'm trying to tell MG to spell, space, and punctuate properly if he wants to be clearly understood. I still don't know what his point was in that post.

My emphasis. I'm glad it's not just me. I have had trouble understanding MG throughout this whole thread.

...He also stated that you cannot really have faith without doubt: the opposite of faith is not doubt, but rather certainty.
...Faith is believing despite having some doubts. If you are certain about something, you don't need faith...

Some people treat faith as certainty and doubt as evil, as set out in Slingblades post. It is my position that this is wrong. Faith is what you need when things are uncertain.
This seems like a lot of word-play to make faith seem way more awesome than it is.
Hi

I am a religious person.

I don't have a learning disability.

You are wrong.

Oh, also, you are cordially invited to get bent, bigot.

DR
I'm sorry I hurt you.

[MG1962]

Please don't apologise, how could you know?

About my "well known" fact, I thought it was something obvious to you too. I will tell you why I have formed this conclusion. I have never met anyone who believes only in one woo theory. This way of thinking can't prevent people from accepting more and more unproven stuff.
So, i tried to make a connection with religion because for me, religious belief works the same way. I live in a very religious country and I haven't met till now one single family without at least one member believing in god that goes with various woo beliefs. My point is that for example, you can't believe a virgin gave birth to a god after an angel came to her and even try to be skeptic about ufos; considering that there are also many photos of the latter. :)
I would really like to hear your opinion on that because trully it is the first time someone tells me that this is not a fact.
I hope you understand all this, I don't have time to check it twice.

Well I think the first thing to consider is that lack of evidence is not evidence within itself. Example God or UFOs, I am yet to to see anything that proves conclusively that neither could possibly exist. On the other hand many of the reported objects are miss identification of something else, and a huge proportion of the photos offered are known to be fake


Other forms of woo are testable. Example there is a very big bucket of money care of this site for anyone who can read minds. It is pretty easy to test, someone can either do it or they can't. The fact no one has won the money indicates that mind reading isn't real.

[Typicallucas]

Well I think the first thing to consider is that lack of evidence is not evidence within itself. Example God or UFOs, I am yet to to see anything that proves conclusively that neither could possibly exist. On the other hand many of the reported objects are miss identification of something else, and a huge proportion of the photos offered are known to be fake


Other forms of woo are testable. Example there is a very big bucket of money care of this site for anyone who can read minds. It is pretty easy to test, someone can either do it or they can't. The fact no one has won the money indicates that mind reading isn't real.
Jesus Christ, MG. diegesis asked for your opinion about his argument:

To paraphrase, if someone believes in god it is more likely that he will soon believe in other woo.

Instead of an answer you quote him and tell him "lack of evidence is not evidence within itself."

I have some questions of my own:
What is with you?
Why don't your responses make sense?
Are you a robot?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Lighten up dude...

[six7s]

Shut up, dude...

MG's posts are nonsensical... as is telling Typicallucas to lighten up

[Hokulele]

Shut up, dude...


Telling someone to shut up isn't very skeptical IMHO. If Typicallucas, US, or MG wish to discuss this in public, why not let them?

Who knows, I might even learn something. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Shut up, dude...

{Darat}
No.
{/Darat}

MG's posts are nonsensical... as is telling Typicallucas to lighten up

Wrong. Telling Tl to lighten up when he's tossing around stuff like this
I have some questions of my own:
What is with you?
Why don't your responses make sense?
Are you a robot?
is not nonsensical. It's asking him to lighten up a bit.

[six7s]

Telling Tl to lighten up when he's tossing around stuff like this

is not nonsensical.I disagree

[UnrepentantSinner]

I disagree

Thanks for sharing your opinion then.

[diegesis]

Jesus Christ, MG. diegesis asked for your opinion about his argument:

To paraphrase, if someone believes in god it is more likely that he will soon believe in other woo.

Instead of an answer you quote him and tell him "lack of evidence is not evidence within itself."


Thank you. I thought that I wrote bad english again. That's exactly what I am asking. The stuff about ufos and photos was meant to be a joke. I swear I will not joke again. :D
I know all about randi foundation and I wouldn't be here if I believed in magical thinking.

[MG1962]

Shut up, dude...

MG's posts are nonsensical... as is telling Typicallucas to lighten up


Feel free to elaborate - what exactly do you see as being nonsensical

[UnrepentantSinner]

Feel free to elaborate - what exactly do you see as being nonsensical

I'm guessing that you disagree with him, but you antepodians, even expats like you, are all just buzzes and clicks to me. ;)

[Typicallucas]

Feel free to elaborate - what exactly do you see as being nonsensical

For a supposed skeptic your ignorance of the Catholic Church (Largest single Christian denomination) is breathe taking

Athiests are equally capable of being wrong and misguided.

The reality is, most Christians dont have any trouble with the sciences.In fact it is only a very small (sadly noisy) element of Christianity that has this problem.

I dont disgaree with anything you say. My counter was against the blanket statement, and I happily conceed some people do allow their religion to be a barrier for the sort of scientific thinking needed in these. fields.

And the stastical information you asked for
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...xx.html#People

This is hilarious. In the first paragraph you speak of being religious cant help crtical thinking processes

Example God or UFOs, I am yet to to see anything that proves conclusively that neither could possibly exist

Almost everything you say is complete non sequitur nonsense. For your sake I hope you're a robot.

Merol susruc mutnemele essidnepsu. Ranivlup sullesah tile siud. You're wrong. Rolod god mutnemidnoc alugil sore rutetcesnoc mauqila, sore dnefiele surup silef, sitrobol sitanenev siuq rolod, odommoc allun.

Itnetop essidnepsus woo mauq naenea. A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences. Mine, ue gnicsipida, ta mutnemref, ni reprocmallu, merol anru man. You Hbin tnudicnit ereusop saneceam. Rotcua Catholic atheist teuqila lsin ni assam eativ naenea. Maid, tege missingid, adivarg supmet, susruc taptulov, merol orebil siud. If it´s still not clear I can always write it in Greek.

[MG1962]

I'm guessing that you disagree with him, but you antepodians, even expats like you, are all just buzzes and clicks to me. ;)

lol and 10110111000110 right back at you :p

[The Atheist]

A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences.

And the merry-go-round continues.

Despite having had it explained that there are sufficient examples to disprove your generalisation, you're still making the same erroneous generalisation.

Lovely to see the E in JREF working so well.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/carousel_animated_red.gif

[Ducky]

This whole thread is full of learning disability. Nuke it from orbit.

[six7s]

A person with religious beliefs like Christianity that subscribes to tales told in the bible and at church is at a disadvantage when it comes to earth science, evolution, cosmology, and other sciences.Despite having had it explained that there are sufficient examples to disprove your generalisation, you're still making the same erroneous generalisation.I'm not so sure...

Do we have evidence of any 'True McScottish' scientists who do subscribe to tales told in the bible and at church? (by 'tales', I mean the 'reality-inconsistent' stuff like talking snakes, not the plausible stuff like 'jesus said blessed are the cheese makers')

[Typicallucas]

And the merry-go-round continues.

Despite having had it explained that there are sufficient examples to disprove your generalisation, you're still making the same erroneous generalisation.

Lovely to see the E in JREF working so well.

Yeah uh, the merry-go-round continues as long as you quote me from the first page of this thread. Here, I'll give the merry-go-round a push.


You don't want to make a point, counter my argument (without misquoting me), and/or contribute to the discussion in at least a tangentially meaningful way.

If you are trying to give an education on how to be a complete jerk you're doing a great job by being a sterling example.

[MG1962]

I'm not so sure...

Do we have evidence of any 'True McScottish' scientists who do subscribe to tales told in the bible and at church? (by 'tales', I mean the 'reality-inconsistent' stuff like talking snakes, not the plausible stuff like 'jesus said blessed are the cheese makers')

Then you get into the situation do most Christians believe in the talking snake version of the faith or the blessed are the cheese makers.

The answer to that question decides the validity of the OPs argument

[Moochie]

Learning disabled people have a learning disability.


M.

[six7s]

Then you get into the situation do most Christians believe in the talking snake version of the faith or the blessed are the cheese makers.

The answer to that question decides the validity of the OPs argumentI don't think so... ain't that simply an argument from popularity? (NB I ain't saying there aren't serious logical fallacies in my line of 'thought' here)

Anyhoo...

We know there are at least a few world renowned scientists who profess faith in Jesus...

What else do we know about faith and learning?

[The Atheist]

Yeah uh, the merry-go-round continues as long as you quote me from the first page of this thread.

That would've been an outstanding retort, except the quote came from the post immediately before mine, post #103.

[MG1962]

I don't think so... ain't that simply an argument from popularity? (NB I ain't saying there aren't serious logical fallacies in my line of 'thought' here)

Anyhoo...

We know there are at least a few world renowned scientists who profess faith in Jesus...

What else do we know about faith and learning?

But on what other basis can you judge it other than popularity. Given that membership to a religion is optional (In most cases) and a particular religion promotes scientific learning of the natural world. The fact that religion continues to thrive has to be down to popularity.

[six7s]

At the moment, I'm less concerned with how well/poorly religion is thriving...

Rather, I'm trying to think of a way to falsify the notion that über-faith precludes learning

I'm wondering if there are any ultra-super-duper-clever people who believe in any of the highly implausible 'tales'

[MG1962]

At the moment, I'm less concerned with how well/poorly religion is thriving...

Rather, I'm trying to think of a way to falsify the notion that über-faith precludes learning

I'm wondering if there are any ultra-super-duper-clever people who believe in any of the highly implausible 'tales'

Actually there is - Of all people Steven Jones. Although largely laughed at these days. His early work on cold fusion was considered very good

[six7s]

Actually there is - Of all people Steven Jones. Although largely laughed at these days. His early work on cold fusion was considered very goodThanks... interesting... but... it seems as though his 'respected work' and his wooiness were separated by quite a few years...

[MG1962]

Thanks... interesting... but... it seems as though his 'respected work' and his wooiness were separated by quite a few years...

I believe he was teaching at Brigham Young University since 1985. So I guess it depends on what level of woo you consider the Mormans to be at to decide if he qualifies or not