Comments on: Are the Religious More Logical Than I Think?

By: chrishillman

chrishillman — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:49:00 +0000

Wow, so the real barometer of how dangerous a society is would be how positively evolution is regarded by the members. Now I know, thank you. This "American Ignorance" argument is old (you'd think we'd evolved beyond it by now). Evolution does not come into play in ANYONE'S daily life. Getting misty about Darwin and Dawkins is just as silly as getting misty about baby Jesus or Batman. Evolution will not help conjure up the stolen data tapes. It will not get these TPS reports done. Not even an solid understanding of the big bang itself will help get these snakes off this m--therf--king plane! Since evolution does not effect me on a daily basis, it is just like the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage -- faith, something to bring comfort in this random world.

From an evolutionary perspective, faith is an important adaptation. We are curious animals, if we were not curious then we would not work so hard to achieve so much in our short lifespans. This curiosity and our advanced brains prevent us from sleeping at night unless we have a way to explain things. We all use faith to comfort ourselves. When times are bad an Atheist might say "Because of the fossil record, life existed before me and it will continue after me." and feel comforted. A Christian feels comfort in the stores of the Bible. A Treckie might find the same comfort in Spock's pointed ears or the shine on their Command Badge.

Acceptance of evolution and shunning all religion will not end faith or hate! There is equal hate in some Atheists as there are Christians, Muslims, Vegans, Civil War Reenact-ors, Postmen and Java developers. Dawkins would have you think that religion and silly closed-minded people are to blame for all the world's ills. Genocide can have a religious source or scientific (Eugenics anyone?), if we can agree that Genocide is bad then it is just as likely directed by a Pope as a guy in a white lab coat who knows all about black holes.

The fact remains I have a personal faith that when I die Osiris will direct Anubus to weigh my heart and if I am found worthy I can enter the golden field of reeds, but if I am fed to the giant fishes then I can find comfort that I lead the best life I could. What matters is, do you feel the same? The universal truth of faith is that it should lead us to comfort and compel us to help others. Hate disguised as faith helps no one, and that goes for followers Dawkins and Pat Robertson equally.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:03:00 +0000

your whole argument is illogical, to accept an unproven theory as fact simply because it suits you has no basis in logic or reason, that works for evolution and for creation. You rightly say that beliefs lead to actions. Stalin was an athiest, he was a an affirmed evolutionist look where his belifs lead. Christian belief is that life is sacred, we are told to love one another and even to treat our enemies with love compassion and kindness, belife leads to actions. Christians have for hundreds of years founded hospitals, schools, orphanages, hospices. Athiests have founded abortion clinics. belief leads to actions. you suggest carl changes his position because in your opinion it is dangerous to not accept evolution. why is it dangerous ? you seem to think it is a given, but since when did become a law of nature ? Evolution is unscientific unproven and reduces man to an animal. If man is an animal that by ramdom change has evolved into the highest predator how can we rely upon our logic and reason, after all not even the most rabid evolutionist would say we were finished evolving would they ? so is it not logical to assume our cognative abilities would increase and who knows that future man willlook back and laugh at our ability to postulate theories of how we got here ? If man is simply the highest evoloved predator we have no more intrinsic value than a mouse or a warthog, on what basis then should we make laws and moral choices ? if we have evolved and are evolving and therefore there are no absolutes we can have no absolute moral choices, what is wrong todday can be ok tomorrow. there was a time when peadophilia for instance was the norm on what basis do we say it is wrong now ? majority opinion ? if that is the case by your own figures evolution is wrong as the majority of americand dissagree with it ………..so what happens logic ? …..it all seems rather facile.

By: cooperati

cooperati — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:43:25 +0000

I tip my hat to you, sir.

(It can be a fun debate.)

-=T=-

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:09:15 +0000

The from of religion in the USA – that is seen most publicly – is not moderate. Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not moderate. In New Zealand – where I write from – religion is not on the agenda in political discussions and nor should it be.

By: cooperati

cooperati — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:43:25 +0000

I tip my hat to you, sir.

(It can be a fun debate.)

-=T=-

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:09:15 +0000

By: icepyro

icepyro — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:12:21 +0000

I have spent all day carefully considering how to respond to this debate. It has made me think some and justify my beliefs. I was raised Independent Baptist and the very first belief is that the Bible is the authority in religious belief. Having studied the Bible fairly well, and to take every passage in absolute literal truth, even at its furthest stretch and a little hyperbole on top, then by my calculations, Armageddon has already happened and we are a couple years into a millennium of peace. Ironically, one can look at the Bible again for an explanation of why that is not entirely the case.
My point is that I believe we are at another crossroads of belief. Just as the same Bible has accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I believe it can still remain true and accept at least most of the theory of evolution. I say most to be safe because I have not independently researched it thoroughly. What I have read makes sense to me and can be and has been incorporated into my beliefs -- all while still maintaining that the Bibles account of creation can exist.
As a result of this crossroads, there is much bias and therefore hyperbole on both sides of the issue. To act on pure reaction quickly leads to breakdowns in relations and eventually a breakdown in society if left unchecked. However, the very fact that you debate this, the very fact that there are many people out there who know about this, proves that it will not go that far easily. Did the Inquisition or Holocaust or Crusades end civilization? No. And those are worst case scenarios. Even with the means, they will not return to that proportion. As I said on twitter once, "My conspiracy theory is that anyone involved in conspiracy theories is therefore set upon to not fulfill the theoretical future." History is doomed to repeat itself only if the story is never heard.
I have much longer I could write about this, (I almost did) but much of the rest has been covered by someone here I think or goes off on a tangent of these premises.

By: Earl Grey

Earl Grey — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:04:23 +0000

If you believe in a literal translation of the bible, you are crazy. Having an imaginary friend is not crazy, but listening to and doing what they say is crazy. Belief in miracle resurrection: Crazy. But if you don't follow the bible literally, just using it as a moral guide, you are not really religious. The bible can't be used as moral guide if you're just picking the morals you want to follow from its contents. That disregard for specific content means you still have the ability to think for yourself, something religion does not allow for, hence the guide. Crazy is calling yourself a Nazi, but then saying you don't believe in all the bad parts of Naziism, just that as a general guide, it's what you follow and people shouldn't take it so literally. And then try and convert others.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:09:14 +0000

Bingo. (And an improved world economy.)

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:58:06 +0000

Ah, the solution... :)

Here we agree. It's education.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:57:26 +0000

"I follow a large number of sites that do nothing but study data, and they give nothing but correlation statistics, and it's very clear that they're not making CAUSATION claims."

But YOU have been claiming cause and effect. So YOU have been making causation claims. If all you are claiming is correlation then I have no argument with you. (From your next statement, I deduce that this is all you are claiming.)

"What I'm saying is that we've already crossed that line into causation with respect to religion and revolution and creationism. I understand the difference, but the threshold has been reached."

Daniel, It's not a threshold. As you said: "It's a whole separate type of statement." PLEASE read the Wikipedia page. I really don't think you fully understand that correlation (even at VERY high levels) DOES NOT imply causation.

.... anyway, I'm letting this drop for now (though I'll continue to point out logical errors when you make them). Let's get to your solution to the problem of nutcases who desire to destroy civilization.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:21:07 +0000

Look, I understand the correlation trap, really. I follow a large number of sites that do nothing but study data, and they give nothing but correlation statistics, and it's very clear that they're not making CAUSATION claims.

It's a whole separate type of statement.

What I'm saying is that we've already crossed that line into causation with respect to religion and revolution and creationism. That's all.

I understand the difference, but the threshold has been reached.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:04:50 +0000

In response to my admonition that Correlation does not imply Causation, you replied:

"I'm very familiar with the concept, and I accept it fully. I will not, however, allow it to prevent me from using common sense."

Then you neither understand it nor accept it fully.

"Go find someone who doesn't want evolution taught. Ask them why. When they tell you it's because it's against God, what's your answer?"

In this situation, you're probing causation. You ask them why and they give you a reason.

"I see a pattern here. Yes, that's just correlation, but it's correlation to the point of obviousness."

No. You're starting to get at somewhat more than correlation. If you ask them what causes them to want Evolution not to be taught and they tell you it is their religious beliefs that do so. Then you are beginning to probe causation.

"I'm showing you concrete data about the link between strong religious beliefs and one's willingness to abandon logic, and you're ranting on about correlation."

You're showing me correlations. You're asserting that IF you asked the question you mention then you would get the answer you claim.

Of course you neglect to mention the people who are NOT religious and deny evolution. Could it be that this sort of person is more likely to become religious? (I don't know the answer to that.)

You've also not shown that these people who deny evolution are illogical in other respects.

"If everyone were to be so cautious as you'd like them to be about forming conclusions then there'd be pretty much no reason to do research."

This is absurd. It's the REASON to do research rather than thought experiments and correlation gathering. READ the link I included to the wikipedia page on Correlation/Causation.

"But at some point it's time to start forming conclusions and actual plans to fix the problem, and we have plenty to go on to start doing that."

(1) READ the wikipedia page.

(2) How do you propose "fixing" the problem?

---

This is incomplete, but is all I have time for now.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:51:42 +0000

I will reply at the top level. Writing in 2 inches of width is silly.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:45:23 +0000

I'm very familiar with the concept, and I accept it fully. I will not, however, allow it to prevent me from using common sense.

Go find someone who doesn't want evolution taught. Ask them why. When they tell you it's because it's against God, what's your answer?

Now multiply that times all the people I've ever met that didn't want evolution taught. What were their reasons? God. The Bible.

I see a pattern here. Yes, that's just correlation, but it's correlation to the point of obviousness.

I'm showing you concrete data about the link between strong religious beliefs and one's willingness to abandon logic, and you're ranting on about correlation.

If everyone were to be so cautious as you'd like them to be about forming conclusions then there'd be pretty much no reason to do research.

So, yes, religion is correlated to education, so the lack of logic is also correlated to education--I get that. But at some point it's time to start forming conclusions and actual plans to fix the problem, and we have plenty to go on to start doing that.

By: brooksgarrett

brooksgarrett — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:07:05 +0000

Big disagreement here Daniel.

It is still Christianity. It is not Baptist, Pentecostal, etc... Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the chosen prophet of the One true God. All the rest of the details of how, when, and in what way worship is performed is left to the many denominations.

I believe you'll find many people (myself included) who have adjusted their religious beliefs and rules to fit their world view. I started Baptist and wound up somewhere over here.

To your previous argument I would ask you to judge me. Am I irrational, illogical, or prone to flights of fantasy due to my belief in a God? Be honest, I can take criticism.

To sum it all up: Cooperati, CarlM, and yourself have had a stellar debate that I have thouroughly enjoyed reading. Yet what I am taking from this is not that Religion is inherently bad (though one could argue I'm a bit biased).

Rather the problem is fundamentalist, non-critical thinking. People who accept inputs without sanitizing the data are just as dangerous as a Database that does the same thing. The data gets all corrupted in other parts of the system. The question is not "How do we stop religion?"; the question is "How do we build a generation of critical thinkers who take the best parts of inputs and apply them while disregarding the garbage?"

To me, a person who fundamentally believes everything they hear is much more dangerous listening to Bill O'Reilly than their local preacher. YMMV.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:04:17 +0000

"You're referring to actual DATA, right?"

No, Daniel. I'm referring to the fact that you are confusing correlation with causation.

When A and B are correlated, it is POSSIBLE that A causes B. On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that B causes A. But it is ALSO possible that some OTHER thing (C) causes both A and B. Or it is possible that C causes D which causes A and C causes E which causes F which causes B, and so on.

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

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

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:48:07 +0000

> The LOGIC there is that kids who try pot are that much more likely to try harder and more harmful drugs. Therefore, pot shouldn't be legalized. But though this makes sense, it's not clear that it is actually TRUE.

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. You're referring to actual DATA, right? Well, that's what I'm using too. The numbers of people who want to teach creationism and do not believe in evolution are SIGNIFICANTLY higher among common church goers.

So yes, it IS a matter of religion turning people against reality and toward fantasy. There is STRONG correlation between the amount of belief one has and their willingness to ignore logic.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gall...

Are you arguing that this isn't dangerous?

By: Maxolasersquad

Maxolasersquad — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:04:20 +0000

I think people in general are not very logical. Most of us have absolutely no understanding or appreciation for critical thinking or logical analysis. This goes for the religious, agnostics and atheists.
I've met many people who are atheist on the grounds that science has eliminated the need for God to explain anything. Yet, these same people will try to talk to me about the benefits of all sorts of "herbal cures" that have absolutely no basis in science. Many of these people are more caught up in junk science than the religious people I know.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:03:11 +0000

Daniel, you have entirely missed my point. Here it is in a nutshell: Correlation does not imply Causation.

Of course I wasn't demanding 100% correlation from your examples. That was not my point at all. I thought you would know what I meant when I used the gateway drug example since it wasn't that long ago that you implied that you thought it didn't make sense that cigarettes and alcohol were legal but pot wasn't. So here is the argument phrased in the words and style YOU used to PROVE cause an effect in your religion example.

We shouldn't legalize pot because once kids try pot ... once that hurdle has been crossed ... it's much easier to accept further nonsense and to embrace more extreme drugs.

The LOGIC there is that kids who try pot are that much more likely to try harder and more harmful drugs. Therefore, pot shouldn't be legalized.

But though this makes sense, it's not clear that it is actually TRUE. It may be that even if pot was eliminated from the planet, roughly the same numbers of people would still turn to hard drugs. Perhaps pot has nothing at all to do with it. The point is that even if an argument for causation makes some sense, it does not SHOW causation.

So, yes. You are using faulty logic and I am pointing this out to you. You're right that we're not talking about scientific theory, but you are trying to claim that religion is a CAUSE of certain attitudes and that these attitudes WILL lead to certain behavior. I am holding you to a certain logical standard in making that argument.

FUN FACT: In grade school children (grades K-5) it is a well known fact that children with larger feet are better readers. (This correlation disappears in later years.) This fact is absolutely true. There is NO dispute about that. But there is NO causation in either direction. Large feet don't improve reading ability and learning to read doesn't cause your feet to grow. There is a lurking variable: AGE. Older children read better than younger children and older children have larger feet. So there is a (pretty strong) correlation between shoe size and reading ability in those years. Before you jump in and tell me that there are exceptions, I'll tell you that this isn't the point. Save your breath.

"I propose that it's the same for my claims about religion and the accompanying willingness to forego this life in exchange for another one based in fantasy." Daniel, I wasn't accusing you of not realizing that there are exceptions to your claims. I was accusing you of something else. Here it is: You have what you believe to be a plausible link between religion and the end of civilization. It seems to go like this: Religion causes nutcases who are willing to kill millions. Religious nutcases can cause the end of civilization. You believe that because this link is plausible that it is therefore true. THIS is faulty logic.

Consider:

(1) It is entirely possible that these nutcases would be willing to kill millions of people even without religion as a motivating factor. There may be some OTHER motivating factor. Perhaps one as simple as "These people aren't the same as us, (therefore) they are inferior." (HOLOCAUST)

=== There is correlation (nutcases who are also religious), but this doesn't SHOW causation (religion caused them to be nutcases or caused them to become more extreme nutcases).

(2) It is entirely possible that it isn't religion, but a cult-like bastardization of religion that is being used to mold the minds of these nutcases. (And it may be that those doing the molding don't believe their own religious arguments but instead are pursuing an entirely political agenda under the guise of religion.)

(3) This is seeming a minor point now, but I believe that using a phrase like "the end of civilization" doesn't strengthen your argument. I understand your desire for dramatic effect, but when you use such drama it weakens your argument. Stick to things that are demonstrably true rather than things that are hypothetically true in some version of the future. (It is not irrelevant that the people you are speaking of do not have the means to destroy civilization. By the way, they could have 10 nukes and they wouldn't have that power. Civilization isn't so easy to destroy.)